Talk:National-anarchism/Archive 2

Collapse
Southgate use to call for an insurrection against the system. He now argues that the system is slowly collapsing therefore national-anarchist simply need to focus on creating National Autonomous Zones. Here is a quote from an interview:

-Loremaster (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the topic of inevitable societal collapse is Southgate's opinion, it must be presented as opinion in this article, not as a neutral fact.Spylab (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree and I approve of your edit. --Loremaster (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute: Cultural diversity claim
The phrase "preserve cultural diversity" at the end of the first paragraph of the Lead section was deleted by User:Spylab because he claims that it was dubious and unsourced.

However, according to self-described anarcho-socialist Keith Preston, the national-anarchist vision is:

Using Preston as a source, I therefore argue that the phrase should be restored, regardless of whether we think it is dubious because of our own POV and biases. That being said, I'm not opposed to it being rephrased to reflect the fact that is is highly subjective, which is what I have done by editing it to say 'as a means to achieve "authentic cultural diversity"'. --LM (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are being disengenuous, Preston is a raving rightwinger! Harrypotter (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting aside the fact that I'm a left-wing progressive who knows Preston is viewed as a "right-anarchist" in left-anarchist circles, Wikipedia guidelines demand that we remain as neutral as possible when presenting claims for or against national-anarchism. I tried to do so as best as I can so I don't see why you are accusing me of being disingenuous. --LM (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you probably know that Proudhon is also a dominant figure on the far-right! Harrypotter (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I do but what's your point? Wikipedia is not supposed to have a left-wing bias. It must remain neutral. --LM (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

About "See also" sections
"See also" are a list, lists are worse then text. Wiki is not paper, we should have room to discuss all related issues, and "See also", which rarely discuss the linked items, give little indication why they are relevant. According to some Wikipedia administrators: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles ideally should not have See also sections even if the vast majority of articles have them. --Loremaster (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

NA and the Red-green-brown alliance
The red-green-brown alliance refers to the supposed alliance of communism's fellow travelers, the populist green movement, and the ultra-nationalists. The term has evolved to refer more broadly to the perceived antisemitic and/or anti-American views shared by disparate groups and movements. Increasingly, the green color refers to Islamist fascism instead of environmentalism.

From the article Rebranding Fascism: National-Anarchists:

So NA is not just in the red-green-brown alliance in theory but consciously advocates for such an alliance. --LM (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The references don't mention red-green-brown alliance, so to add it to the article is original research. --Spylab (talk)


 * No. It isn't. The references don't need to explicitly mention the term “red-green-brown alliance” for it to be appropriate for us to use the term to summarize what the references state. For example, references don't need to explicitly mention the term “crypto-fascism” for it to be appropriate for us to use the term to summarize that the references argue national-anarchists are hiding their true fascists colors. Do you understand? --LM (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The references do not say that national-anarchists are "part of a red-green-brown alliance", so that claim is original research, thus it does not belong in this article. If you can find a reliable reference, than feel free to re-add the statement.Spylab (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right that references do not say national-anarchists are "part of a red-green-brown alliance". However, you seem to have missed the fact that I edited the article to say that national-anarchists stress a red-green-brown alliance to more accurately reflect and summarize what references specifically say which is that national-anarchists are racist socialists (red) who stress an alliance with Islamists (green) and nationalists (brown). So we don't need to find a reliable reference because we already have it. --LM (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Spylab understands, however I doubt they agree! Harrypotter (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Who is they? Do you mean that him and I simply disagree? I don't think Spylab understands because he has an overly strict interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. --LM (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They refers to Spylab!Harrypotter (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The red-green-brown alliance article says the red stands for "communism's fellow travelers" and "an extreme left [which is] anti-globalist, anti-capitalist, anti-American [and] anti-Zionist". The article says nothing about "racist socialists." Since national-anarchists are opposed to "reds", they are neither part of, nor do they stress a red-green-brown alliance.Spylab (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The color red stands for more than just communism. When critics use the expression "red-green-brown alliance" (which has several definitions), it stands for anti-capitalism in general whether it be state socialism or social anarchism (despite the fact that the latter should be represented by the color black). "An extreme left [which is] anti-globalist, anti-capitalist, anti-American [and] anti-Zionist" describes national-anarchists perfectly. Racist socialism is still a form of socialism hence the color red. Furthermore, national-anarchists have actively infiltrated social-anarchist protests against globalization. That being said, the only compromise I would be willing to accept is replacing the expression "red-green-brown alliance" with "black-green-brown alliance". --LM (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Francis Parker Yockey is the inspiration for the national-anarchist call for an alliance similar to the red-brown-green alliance: --LM (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * None of the references mention red-brown-green alliance or black-brown-green alliance, or any other colour type alliances. Adding those, or similar terms to this article is original research.Spylab (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As editors of a Wikipedia article we have some leeway to use uncontroversial terms to summarize what references are saying. For example, we use terms like "crypto-fascism" instead of "hiding their core fascist values" or "neo-völkisch tribalism" instead of "mystical tribalism" or "ethnocentrism" instead of "based on ethnicity" because they are more precise and they are notable enough that they have Wikipedia articles dedicated to them. So the fact that references don't use terms "red-brown-green alliance" or "black-brown-green alliance" is irrelevant as long as they actually discuss an alliance of communists (red), radical environmentalists | Islamists (green), and ultra-nationalists (brown) or, in this particular case, anarchists (black), radical environmentalists | Islamists (green), and ultra-nationalists (brown). Therefore, I am restoring the latter term. So, although I would prefer to avoid it, get ready for an edit war. --LM (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTHESIS.Spylab (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing I said contradicts these Wikipedia guidelines. You seem to be advocating that we simply copy and paste what references say because in your misinterpreation of these guidelines there is no room for summarizing or paraphrasing. --LM (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is there is no room for making things up and pretending that the references support those claims.Spylab (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do sources state that national anarchists stress an alliance of anarchists, radical environmentalists, Islamists, and ultra-nationalists? Yes or no?
 * Isn't it a fact that these four groups are universally represented by colors, specifically isn't it a fact that anarchists are represented by the color black, environmentalists by the color green, Islamists by the color green, and ultra-nationalists by the color brown? Yes or no?
 * If you answered yes to both questions, please explain to us why it would be an example of "original research" to, for example, replace the word "environmentalists" by "greens" in this article or any Wikipedia article for that matter?
 * --LM (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

new world order or alleged New World Order
I was the editor who added the mention that national-anarchists denounce the concept of New World Order found in conspiracy theory: one-world government. However, upon re-reading references, I have realized that national-anarchists denounce the concept of new world order found in politics: Pax Americana. --LM (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The new world order (politics) article says the term has several different meanings. The sentence in this article should be more specific about which meaning is being used.Spylab (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree since national-anarchists denounce all the different meanings of the term found in the new world order (politics) article. Furthermore, we should avoid making sentences in the Lead section too long and complicated to understand. However, I'm glad we seem to agree the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article should not be linked here. --LM (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Distributism or Barterism?
I temporarily replaced the term “economically distributive” with “economically barterist” after re-reading Graham D. Macklin's essay Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction:

--Loremaster (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a better term: “economically secessionist” from economic secession. --LM (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over the use of the term “far right” and the addition of a “See also” section
Other editors have agreed with the description of far-right being apt. u even admit that NA is crypto-fascist. also theres no contradiction with the NA being 'far-right' and 'syncretic' (like fascism) so whats yr problem? Paki.tv (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also please label changes so we can see what you are doing. Cheers Paki.tv (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) To avoid an edit war in which you restore content but simultaneously delete good edits by other contributors, I've restored the disputed content you insist on wanting in this article until this dispute is resolved.
 * 2) The reason why I think it is redundant to describe a syncretic political current as far-right or far-left is because the very definition of a syncretic political current is a political current that synthesizes far-right and far-left ideas otherwise why bother calling it a syncretic political current.
 * 3) Although the third paragraph of the lead section clearly explains that some critics argue that national-anarchism is crypto-fascist, it also points out that other critics argue that it isn't.
 * 4) I deleted the See also section you insist on adding because of reasons I explained in an archived section.
 * --LM (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Repeating wot you've already written doesn't help - and claiming to want to avoid eit warring while going ahead and making the disputed changes anyway doesn't help either. please address the issues raised. also 'see also' sections are standard wikipedia practice they help orient the reade. thanx 82.10.239.52 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't repeat what I said. I simply clarified what I said previously (on your talk page). The recent changes I made were a compromise and an improvement so that's why I made them despite the fact the dispute hasn't been resolved. To avoid an edit war, I'm not going to fight to delete the See also section. That being said, there is no need to add a reference right next to the word "far-right" since the entire sentence is based on the same reference and please stop reverting good edits when you are trying to restore content. --LM (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the far right generally refers to either the economic right (laissez-faire capitalism) or social right (authoritarianism), or both; to resolved this dispute, I propose replacing the term “far right” with “conservative revolutionary” because it is far more precise and our academic sources argue that conservative revolutionary thought is central to national-anarchism and Southgate describes his New Right think tank as “conservative” and “revolutionary”. --LM (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can use the turn of phrase far-right conservative revolutionary thought, allowing both aspects to be reflected?Harrypotter (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would also be redundant since far = revolutionary while right = conservative... --LM (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you seriously want to take that argument forward, then perhaps you should argue for the pages to be merged. However, as there are distinct pages, I am afraid I cannot agree with you on this.Harrypotter (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would make sense since the conservative revolutionary movement in pre-WW2 Germany is one thing and National-anarchism/UK New Right is something else which deserve separate articles. My point is simply that both these movements were conservative revolutionary and that the term “far right” is problematic. --LM (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you accept the wisdom of using conservative revolutionary thought, as this a reflection on an earlier movement. "The ideologies associated with the social far right are Nazism, racial supremacists (especially neo-fascists and neo-Nazis group), religious extremists, and other ultra-nationalist or reactionary ideologies and movements. Ideologies associated with both economic and social far right are fascism. The terms are often used to imply that someone is an extremist." - that seems pretty spot on to me!Harrypotter (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the far right article, "generally speaking, the extreme right can refer to either the economic right (laissez-faire capitalism) or social right (authoritarianism), or both. The ideologies associated with the economic far right are neo libertarianism, and Laissez-faire capitalism. The ideologies associated with the social far right are Nazism, racial supremacists (especially neo-fascists and neo-Nazis group), religious extremists, and other ultra-nationalist or reactionary ideologies and movements." Although national-anarchists are ultra-nationalists, they reject laissez-faire capitalism, authoritarianism, libertarianism, Nazism, racial supremacism, and religious extremism.
 * After 1933 some of the proponents of the conservative revolutionary movement were persecuted by the Nazis. That being said, although they clearly are inspired by the German Conservative Revolutionary movement, national-anarchists are "small-c" conservatives and "small-r" revolutionaries.
 * --LM (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the quote from Graham D. Macklin's essay Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction that convinced that that we should use the term "conservative revolutionary" instead of "far-right":

--LM (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

'''As a compromise, I'm abandoning my suggestion that we use the term “conservative revolutionary” to describe NA. Instead, I've edited the article to state the indisputable fact that National-Anarchism is a syncretic political current “of far-right and far-left views”. Can everyone live with this?''' --Loremaster (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Ownership" of this article
For the last while, one editor has been making many, many edits, not all of them totally factually accurate or supported by the references. There's been too much overinterpretation of references in order to make claims that the references do not specifically support. I've let a lot of them slide, but now it's getting to be too much. In addition, those edits are are done without any edit summaries, and often good edits (such as fixing grammar, punctuation etc.) are reverted without reason.LM, I suggest you read WP:OWNERSHIP, and back off from the article for a bit.Spylab (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting aside that no one can deny that I significantly improved the National-Anarchism article ever since I started editing it on October 29th, 2009, I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years. During this time, I have improved the quality of numerous articles painstakingly making sure that my edits are factually accurate and supported by references as much as possible. The fact that some of these articles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article demonstrates my knowledge and respect for Wikipedia guidelines and standards. And I have been praised for my work by people from both sides of any given issue. However, I have also had to endure every violation of behavioral guidelines one can imagine including insults, personal attacks, threats, and harassement but I'm still here despite all that abuse. Therefore, forgive me I don't take your wikilawyering seriously. --LM (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, although you are right that I have a bad habit of not adding summaries to my edits, you seem to not have noticed that it was User:Paki.tv who reverted your good edits (such as fixing grammar, punctuation etc.) without reason while I've always made a point of respecting and preserving them. --LM (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In order to avoid a never-ending edit war, I've deleted the term "black-green-brown alliance" from the article. In order to resolve this dispute once and for all, please tag and/or list here the edits that are not "totally factually accurate or supported by the references". --LM (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop vandalising this page Paki.tv (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting aside that you seem to have a biased POV against National-Anarchism that prevents you from being neutral, you are the one engaging in vandalism so please stop before I report you to an Wikipedia administrator. --Loremaster (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for reverting edits by Paki.tv
I have reverted edits by Paki.tv because he deleted my contributions which are clearly based on the primary sources of this article. Here are two most important examples:

1. National-anarchism has ideological roots primarily in the theories of intellectuals within [...] primitivism:

From Rebranding Fascism: National-Anarchists by Spencer Sunshine:

From Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction by Graham D. Macklin:

.

2. National-anarchists [...] stress a strategic and ideological alliance of ultra-nationalists worldwide (racial separatists in the Western world, neo-Eurasianists in Russia, Islamists in the Muslim world, autonomist and secessionist movements in the least developed countries) to denounce "globalization as an instrument of Zionism and American imperialism" inevitably leading to global economic collapse and ecological collapse.

From Rebranding Fascism: National-Anarchists by Spencer Sunshine:

From Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction by Graham D. Macklin:

--LM (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is all Original research Paki.tv (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? “Original research” implies that I'm making stuff up out of thin air! All my edits are based on these quotes which are from the primary sources of this article! --LM (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking, I'm writing about how Wikipedia articles are written. Please stop removing other peoples' contributions. Paki.tv (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not making any contributions. You are simply reverting my edits which are all based on content from reliable sources. Futhermore, you refuse to engage in meaningful conversation to resolve this dispute. It's simply your way or no way. --LM (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * not at all - the problem is that your disputing the term 'far-right' as a description of NA is only justified by your original research, in contradiction to all of the other editors of this article. Paki.tv (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting aside the fact that you are one of only two users who insists on describing NA as 'far-right' (which an issue being discussed in a section above), you are not addressing the issues raised in this section which is that, in your attempt to restore the term 'far-right', you are deleting my contributions (about NA being influenced by anarcho-primitivism or NA's call for an ultra-nationalist alliance for example) that have nothing to do with the dispute over the 'far-right' qualifier. So if you insist on restoring the term 'far-right', can you do so WITHOUT erasing the improvements I have made to the article. Is that too much to ask? --LM (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Theres no need to ask me to do anything - just stop deleting other peoples contributions! Paki.tv (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact that Wikipedia guidelines states that "if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly [...], do not submit it"; it's obvious to me now that you are acting in bad faith. I will have to inform a Wikipedia administrator of your disruptiveness. --Loremaster (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do what u will but thats not all of the law. as for faith mine is not bad maybe non-existant but not bad. thanx 4 not deleting my contribution btw Paki.tv (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually restored your contribution until this dispute is resolved once and for all in the section above dedicated to this issue. --LM (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks although nothing lasts 4 ever - and btw your threat to report me above was somewhat disingenious given the fact that you were telling tales a good 5 hours before you posted the comment of 27/01 21:02 ... typical of the bad faith u have shown throughout this 'discussion' - you have still refused to address the issue of 'original research' except with contempt... Paki.tv (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are confused. My request for a block on this page until this dispute is resolves is not the same as my threat to report your disruptiveness to a Wikipedia administrator in order you to be either reprimanded or temporarily banned from editing any Wikipedia article.
 * I have addressed the issue of “original research” in the the section above dedicated to the dispute over the use of the term “far-right”, which in bad faith you have simply ignored. As I explained there, when I argue that NA should be described as “conservative revolutionary”, I am basing my argument on the fact that one of our primary sources for this article (which is Graham D. Macklin, a scholar who is critical of NA) describes conservative revolutionary thought has being central to NA. Ultimately, although I sympathize with your fanaticallly anti-NA biased POV and your agenda to make sure readers of this article are not fooled into thinking that NA are “real anarchists” but instead are revealed for the “far-right scum” you think they are, I don't undertand why you would be opposed to the use of the term “conservative revolutionary” when it means the same thing as “far-right” but is far more precise.
 * In other words, what is your major malfunction? --Loremaster (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried to keep good faith with u but u dont make it easy. u threatened to ¨ïnform a Wikipedia administrator" about my ¨disruptiveness¨ and in your post to an admin you did just that. I am not concerned about ¨real anarchists¨, but rather that ¨Far right¨ is the far more well known, accepted and more widely used description for NA. THe use of ćonservative revolutionary is something that you have used as a description as a result of your original research. in other words stop chatting shit. Paki.tv (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Informing an administrator of your disruptiveness as part of a request to get an article blocked until we are able to resolve our dispute and informing an administrator of your disruptivness as part of a request to get you personally banned is not the same thing. I obviously haven't done the latter... yet.
 * The well-known fact that anarchists (Griffin, Sunshine) and anti-fascists (PRA, SPL) think that NA is far-right comes from a biased POV (which I myself share) but a neutral article on NA cannot be solely based on their point of view. Therefore, a more neutral perspective ideally comes from a third party who has analyzeed what NA say about themselves and what anarchists and anti-fascists say about NA to figure out what is the truth.
 * Putting aside the fact that you obviously don't even understand what “original research” means, you seriously think I came up with the term “conservative revolutionary” out of thin air and that the fact that some of our primary sources for this article state that NA is inspired by conversative revolutionary thought had nothing to do with my use of this term? If you truly believe that, you are violating a fundamental principle of Wikipedia by not assuming good faith.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats novel interpretation of primary sources - why we need secondary and tertiary sources - which will never use con rev but far right. its besides the point that secondary sources tend to be anti fasc or other anarchists, just as its besides the point whether i am either antifa or anarcho - the point is we need more than just your original research...  Paki.tv (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that some sources describe NA as far right. However, how many times to do I have to tell you that Graham D. Macklin - who is the primary source for this article - is the one who argues that conservative revolutionary thought is central to NA? Are you actually arguing that he doesn't?!? I honestly don't understand why you stubbornly insist in making this non-sensical accusation of “original research”. That being said, as a compromise, I'm abandoning my suggestion that we use the term “conservative revolutionary” to describe NA. Instead, I've edited the article to state the indisputable fact that National-Anarchism is a syncretic political current “of far-right and far-left views”. Can we both live with this? --Loremaster (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, theres a big difference between primary and secondary sources in research - also a difference in the use oif 'far right' and 'far left' - far left having pretty much no meaning at all in this context - also why have you deleted references for 'far right'? please stop vandalising!! Paki.tv (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact that 1) Malkin is an independent and reliable third-party source that I described as “primary” only in the sense that he is the source we use the most, 2) syncretic politics involves taking political positions that attempt to reconcile seemingly opposed ideological systems, usually by combining some elements associated with the left or far-left with some associated with the right or far-right, and 3) that I didn't delete the reference to 'far right' but simply moved it to the end of the sentence; I consider it pointless trying to reason with you so I have no choice but to take this dispute to the next level because this edit war has to stop. --Loremaster (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * just respond properly to the problems raised instead of making excuses for forcing your opinion on the other editors of this article. and stop making threats Paki.tv (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objective reader of this discussion will recognize that I have responded to all the “problems” you raised but it is a waste of time trying to reason with you. --Loremaster (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its typical of your method to label your own subjective opinion as objective reason Paki.tv (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * *sigh* --Loremaster (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute: Neo-völkisch
In the Views section of the National-Anarchism article I wrote the following sentence:

In their defensive affirmation of racial, ethnic or national identity against modernity, national-anarchists often reject Judeo-Christianity and embrace various ethnocentric and ecocentric currents of neopaganism, which are influenced by the perennial philosophy of Italian esotericist Julius Evola and the Traditionalist School.

I wikilinked the phrase "defensive affirmation of racial, ethnic or national identity" to the Neo-völkisch movements article.

I did this based on passages from 'National Anarchism' California Racists Claim They're Anarchists By Casey Sanchez:


 * Members of BANA and other likeminded national anarchists cloak their bigotry in the language of radical environmentalism and mystical tribalism, pulling recruits from both the extreme right and the far left.


 * Nevertheless, the doctrines of national anarchism seem to be making inroads into what Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, a longtime researcher of esoteric Aryan racial cults, has called "a folkish or tribal revival among white youth who are beset by an acute sense of disenfranchisement."


 * Like their late hero Julius Evola, an esoteric Italian writer and "spiritual racist" lionized by modern-day fascists, BANA members believe themselves to be in revolt against the modern world.

Content from the Wikipedia article on Neo-völkisch movements itself:


 * Neo-völkisch movements, as defined by the historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, cover a wide variety of mutually influencing groups of a radically ethnocentric character which have emerged, especially in the English-speaking world, since World War II. These loose networks revive or imitate the völkisch movement of 19th and early 20th century Germany in their defensive affirmation of white national identity against modernity, liberalism, immigration and multiculturalism. Some identify as neo-fascist or neo-Nazi; others are politicised around some form of palingenetic ultranationalism, and may show anarchist tendencies. Especially notable is the prevalence of devotional forms and esoteric or neopagan themes, so that neo-völkisch currents often have the character of new religious movements.

And from Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction by Graham D. Macklin:


 * Paganism


 * Southgate, who has a degree in theology and religious studies from Canterbury University, rejected Catholicism and moved towards neo-pagan and heathen groups that are ‘very loyal to the Gods of the Northern Tradition’, including the Odinic Rite, the Tribe of the Wulfings and the A ´ satru´ Alliance, a pagan movement concerned with practising rituals and magic and led by Valguard (Mike) Murray, a former member of the American Nazi Party.91 Further evidence of this transition from Catholicism to paganism emerged in an interview with Wotan, the organ of the Charlemagne Hammer Skins.92 Southgate believed that Wotan’s celebration of the heroes of the Norse pantheon represented ‘the most genuine expression of European spirituality, culture and identity’.93 Another key expression of this ‘identity’ is exhibited by Southgate’s interest in the militaristic cult of Mithras and the ‘pagan spirituality’ of the apostate Roman emperor Julian II.94


 * This rejection of Christianity has an avowedly antisemitic dimension. Through the figure of Christ, Christianity has Judaic roots and is therefore irredeemably tainted; only the ‘weak’ continue to worship a ‘dead Jew’.95 The emphasis on the Judaic roots of Christianity, however, is regarded as of secondary importance to its usurpation of the rituals, sacraments and hierarchy of the ancient pagan solar religion Mithras, which was introduced into Iran and India by marauding Aryan tribes from the Russian steppes between BCE 2000 and 1500 before spreading to the Roman empire. Although it failed to defeat early Christianity in the battle for religious supremacy during the fourth century, Mithras continues to be viewed by esoteric thinkers (including Evola and Jung) as an alternative path the West could have followed. It retains its appeal as an initiatory cult or aristocratic order akin to the Knights Templar or, latterly, Himmler’s SS which, the NRF claims, had its origins in various ‘Anarchist droite ’ circles l e the Black Sun and the Thule Society. While Christianity tried to neuter this vital expression of the ‘Aryan psyche’, the awareness of Europe’s ‘Faustian’ destiny is currently enjoying a renaissance within the occult milieu. These ideas were also absorbed by thinkers like Evola and Rene´ Gue´non who discerned in them the fragments of a ‘hidden albeit distinct and fundamental truth’.96 For Southgate, as for Evola, Tradition is an ‘an underlying current which both permeates and transcends all’.97


 * Southgate’s discovery of Evolian ‘Primordial Tradition’ and his consequent rejection of Catholicism as ‘the sole cosmological truth’ ran in tandem with his immersion in the industrial music scene.98 This ‘cultural vanguard’ is spearheaded by a number of Gothic-Industrial, Dark Ambient, Black and ‘Viking’ Metal bands, including Allerseelen, Blood Axis, Burzum, Current 93, Dark Holler, Death in June, Endura, Mayhem, Ostara, Puissance and Sol Invictus, though it also encompasses more commercial bands like Cradle of Filth.99 Although it would be an exaggeration to say that these groups conform to a defined political agenda, their music serves to diffuse the ideals of Mithraic paganism and Nordic folk myths within this youthful underground subculture far more effectively than any number of meetings and marches could, thus providing the ‘perfect antidote’ to the spiritually enervating, multiracial values of a globalizing ‘system’. Southgate has also noted the potential of the Straight Edge punk movement and its hard core of puritanically intolerant followers, an interesting development given (exaggerated) reports of an emerging ‘anti-anti-establishment’ pro-Bush right-wing punk movement.100 Although Southgate realizes that the groupuscular right cannot control music-orientated youth cultures, he believes a minority can be induced ‘to take a direction basically conducive to our aims’.101 Southgate seeks to do this through his online magazine Synthesis, which features a music section replete with interviews and gig reviews.102


 * This is not simply cynical manipulation. Southgate appears genuinely interested in the counter culture he seeks to target. His fanzine, Tribal Resonance, ‘the voice of the racial avant-garde’, reveals Southgate’s strategy of linking his ideas to ‘the common language and the big ideas of our culture’.103 Through the medium of musical subcultures and the creation of alternatives ‘from without’, Southgate hopes to permeate existing political subcultures transversally, as the Nazis did, through a process of ‘cultural osmosis’ that aims to recode the ‘social symbology’ of the host culture so that its ideas can metastasize throughout the body politic, recalibrating its genetic inheritance. By creating ‘cultural hegemony’ the groupuscular right believes it can forge the ‘political space’ necessary for political and racial hegemony.104


 * The struggle for cultural hegemony is greatly enhanced by the Internet, with the NRF establishing its own website in July 2001. As its name suggests, Synthesis, the online Journal du Cercle de la Rose Noire, seeks a fusion of ‘Anarchy’, ‘Occulture’ and ‘Metapolitics’ with the contemporary concerns of the ecological and global justice movements. It provides a huge, counter-cultural resource*/a junction box for esoteric, third positionism on the web*/including a vast archive of articles, essays, interviews, music and book reviews not to mention providing opportunities for its readership to showcase their art, photography, poetry and fiction. This is accompanied by a profusion of interlocking e-groups acting as a forum for ideological exchange for the more esoterically and intellectually inclined.105


 * Synthesis was originally envisaged as a forum for the NRF, Evolians and members of the defunct White Order of Thule (Michael Lujan, former WOT secretary, is the Synthesis webmaster). However, borrowing the ‘template’ of Action Franc¸aise’s ‘study groups’ Synthesis projects itself far beyond the confines of rigid definitional taxonomy to attract, so it claims, ‘Crowleyites, communists, anarchists, greens, libertarians, fascists and separatists’ who can use its facilities and e-groups to engage in debate and ideological refinement. This online convergence has the benefit of being insulated from the failure of the ‘Beyond Left and Right’ project. With a global reach, it ‘is far more useful than putting a few stickers on lamp posts’.106


 * This extensive Internet presence masks the weakness of the groupuscular right. Obsessed by the importance of its long-term, counter-cultural projects the NRF disengaged from ‘political’ activities and retreated into the realm of ideas.107 Such was Southgate’s alienation from the groupuscule as an organizational form that on 29 January 2003 the NRF was disbanded altogether as Southgate concentrated on reorganizing as a ‘political think tank’ to promote and develop ‘national-anarchism’ as a philosophical concept that he hoped would come to exert a ‘formidable influence’ on the ‘anti-Capitalist struggle’.108

--Loremaster (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In their defensive affirmation of racial, ethnic or national identity against modernity, national-anarchists often reject Judeo-Christianity and embrace various ethnocentric and ecocentric currents of neopaganism, which are influenced by the perennial philosophy of Italian esotericist Julius Evola and the Traditionalist School.
 * This is my response:

The reference doesn't say anything about "defensive affirmation of racial, ethnic or national identity", Judeo-Christianity or "neopaganism", so that reference cannot be used to support that sentence. As for the linking of the term "defensive affirmation of racial, ethnic or national identity", long phrases shouldn't be linked like that unless it cannot be avoided. Second, internal links are supposed to go to the obvious related articles. It is not obvious that the long phrase is equal to "Neo-völkisch movements". You really need to stop adding content to the article and pretending that the references support it. If the reference doesn't actually say it, don't use it.Spylab (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I grant you that you may be absolutely right that long phrases shouldn't be linked like that unless it cannot be avoided. However, when it comes to your other objections, I don't really take them seriously since you are an uptight drone who thinks a Wikipedia article should reproduce word for word what references say rather than cogently summarize them. --Loremaster (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Spylab (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've edited my original sentence in order to make it more clear how it reflect exactly references say. --Loremaster (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

National-Anarchist revolt against the modern world
Thank you Spylab. Your criticisms (which I've archived) inspired me to improve the paragraph on the anti-modernism and paganism of National-Anarchists. I'm quite happy with the result! :) --Loremaster (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolving dispute to end edit war over the term “far-right”
I've been expanding and improving the National-Anarchism article from a neutral point of view since October 2009. On 24 January 2010, User:Paki.tv edited the article to add the political epithet “far-right” to describe National-Anarchism. Neither he nor I nor anyone else have disputed the fact that National-Anarchism is a syncretic political current. Since syncretic politics involves taking political positions that attempt to reconcile seemingly opposed ideological systems, usually by combining some elements associated with the left or far-left with some associated with the right or far-right, I argue that it is redundant to a describe National-Anarchism as a “far-right syncretic political current” and therefore I've deleted the term. Since then, Paki.tv has engaged in an edit war to restore the term while not caring that he is reverting the constructive edits that other contributors and I have made since the first time he tried to add this term. That being said, in order to resolve this dispute, I have edited the article in order to describe National-Anarchism as a “syncretic political current of far-right and far-left views” which is perfectly consistent with both the definition of a syncretic political current and how references describe National-Anarchists. Ultimately, since I find it impossible to reason with Paki.tv on this talk page, I am hoping others could weigh in to this debate in order to resolve this dispute once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see my criticism of this position which LM has now archived. Cheersw Paki.tv (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I encourage people to go to the archive to find out for themselves how non-sensical some of Paki.tv's criticisms are and how blatant is bad faith is... --Loremaster (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Loremaster should reconsider their pseudo symmetrical point of view. Left wing politics attempts to resolve issues by addressing the concrete concerns of the oppressed. However the far-right wants first of all to draw together ideologies from across the spectrum in order to create an amalgam whose left wing elements make the purveyors of the revived ideology more palatable to the oppressed. Bolshevism is perhaps the highest expression of this! Harrypotter (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Harrypotter, keeping in mind that political theorist Roger Griffin argues that 1) the groupuscular right resists water-tight taxonomic description and classification and that 2) National-Anarchism is in fact a complex synthesis of classic fascism, Third Positionism, and neo-anarchism, are you arguing that National-Anarchism is not a syncretic political current? --Loremaster (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I am arguing that syncretic politics arise in the far-right as they try hide their origins by adopting elements of left-wing ideology. In fact this sheds light on why the groupuscular resists water tight taxonomy, but neverthless can be clearly identified as being part of the far right.Harrypotter (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Harrypotter. Syncretic political movements are perhaps as euphemistic as "National Socialism" - they gather believers from around the spectrum under a revolutionary Third Way, while establishing, in practical terms, a militant, authoritarian ideology leaning to the far-right rather than to the center. In that context, the phrase "far-right syncretic movement" is redundant. Regards, UNSC Trooper (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Harrypotter, I don't dispute that some far-right groups do in fact try to hide their origins by adopting elements of left-wing ideology. However, it would be intellectually dishonest to argue that some far-right groups do not sincerely care about some segments of the oppressed or adopt elememts of left-wing ideology. For example, if a self-described “far-leftist” is an Irish nationalist and socialist who hates English people for having been the historical oppressors of the Irish people, would you argue that his socialist views are not socialist because he is a anti-English racist? Would you argue that he doesn't truly care about the oppressed Irish people? I guess my question is: Does socialism necessarily have to based on universalism (and humanism) to be considered true socialism? If so, who says? --Loremaster (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * UNSC Trooper, if you think that the phrase “far-right syncretic movement” is redundant, what would you suggest instead? I would now argue that since the far right generally refers to either the economic right (laissez-faire capitalism) or social right (authoritarianism), or both (and NA is neither); I propose replacing the term “far right” with “New Right” because it is far more precise and Southgate has even called his national-anarchist think tank New Right. --Loremaster (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * i think 'new right' has more problems as a description of NA - its got a totally different use in terms of economics - i'd say NA are more like right wing totalitarians - its the far right aspect of NA that is noteworthy here - maybe we dont need to mention 'syncretic' as that is obvious in the title - 'national' + 'anarchist' Paki.tv (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that term “New Right” has problems but these can be resolved if we specify that NA is an European New Right ideology and movement.
 * Although I agree that NA shares the racism, antisemitism, homophobia and antifeminism of many right-wing totalitarian ideologies/movements, it is simply absurd to say that NA advocates totalitarianism when one understands the definition of this term. As left-wing anarchist Sunshine argues quite well, NA simply advocates “racist communitarianism”.
 * I think it would be far more neutral for the first sentence to say that NA is an European New Right ideology and movement and have critics argue that it is far-right in another paragraph (as we already do). Let's be honest: Would any of us tolerate an article on a left-wing ideology and movement only being defined by its harshest right-wing critics? I think not.
 * So I propose the following first sentence: National-Anarchism (or Tribal Anarchism) is a European New Right ideology and movement that was developed during the 1990s by former Third Positionists to reconcile green anarchism with neo-völkisch tribalism.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * hmmmmmm not bad... although i'm not sure that it is. just cos southgate called his mailing list 'new right' hardly makes NA a nouvelle droite "movement" ... do we have any references for this assertion? Paki.tv (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From Rebranding Fascism: National-Anarchists:
 * Benoist and the European New Right


 * Besides Third Position fascism, the other major ideological influence on the National-Anarchists is the European New Right, especially the thinker Alainde Benoist. National-Anarchists have adopted his ideas about race, political decentralization, and the “right to difference.”


 * Benoist founded the think-tank GRECE, and has spent his life creating an intellectually respectable edifice for a core of fascist ideas. Like Southgate, Benoist loudly proclaims that he is not a fascist, but scholars such as Roger Griffin disagree. Griffin says that the New Right “could by the end of the 1980s be credited with the not inconsiderable achievement of having carried out a ‘makeover’ of classic fascist discourse so successfully that, at least on the surface it was changed beyond recognition.” 32


 * Benoist extended the notion of an alliance of European nations with the Third World against their main enemies: the United States, liberalism, and capitalism. But against the fascists who desired a united Europe under a super-state, Benoist instead calls for radical federalism and the political decentralization of Europe. Roger Griffin describes this vision as:


 * The pluralistic, multicultural society of liberal democracy was to give way, not to a culturally coordinated, charismatic, and, in the case of Nazism, racially pure, national community coterminous with the nation-state, but to an alliance of homogeneous ethnic-cultural communities (ethnies) within the framework of a federalist European “empire.”33


 * Benoist also incorporates many sophisticated left-wing critiques, sometimes sounding like a Frankfurt School Marxist. Today he denounces capitalism, imperialism, liberalism, the consumer society, Christianity, universalism, and egalitarianism; he defends paganism, “organic democracy,” and the Third World. He questions the role of unbridled technology and supports environmentalism and a kind of feminism.34 He also rejects biological determinism and embraces a notion of race that is cultural.35 Southgate follows practically all of these positions, which are not necessarily present in Third Position.


 * Because of these views, the European New Right is very different from the U.S. New Right, whose Christianity and free market views are anathema to the Europeans. The Europeans are closer to the paleoconservative tradition in the United States, and connect with The Rockford Institute, publisher of Chronicles.


 * Benoists’s main intellectual formulation is the “right to difference,” which upholds the cultural homogeneity and separateness of distinct ethnic-cultural groups. In this sense, he extends the anti-imperialist Left’s idea of “national self-determination” to micro-national European groupings (sometimes called “the Europe of a Hundred Flags”). The “right to difference” has influenced the anti-immigrant policies of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front in France, and a number of GRECE members joined this party, even though Benoist himself rejects Le Pen.36


 * Benoist has also influenced U.S. White separatism. Usually based around the demand for a separate White nation in parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming, this became a popular idea in White Nationalist circles starting in the early 1980s.37 This decentralized regional perspective was matched by decentralized organizational schemas which emerged at the same time. Louis Beam advocated “leaderless resistance,” and the “lone wolf” strategy for far-right terrorism 38, while Christian Identity Pastor Bob Miles started referring himself as a “klanarchist.”


 * Inverting language, Benoist claims that he is an antiracist. Racism, he argues, is a function of universalistic ideologies like liberalism and Marxism, which purportedly wipe out regional and ethnic identities. He says “Racism is nothing but the denial of difference.”39 But Taguieff, a keen observer of the European Right, identifies a “phobia of mixing” at the core of this form of racism. It is part of the “softer, new, and euphemistic forms of racism praising difference (heterophilia) and substituting ‘culture’ for ‘race.’”40


 * The influence of these New Right ideas on the National-Anarchists is explicit. In Australia, the National-Anarchist group is for all practical reasons coextensive with “New Right Australia/New Zealand” and at one point they claimed that “New Right is the theory, National-Anarchism the practice.”41 In Britain, Troy Southgate has been involved in New Right meetings since 2005.42 But while Benoist claims that he does not hate immigrants, repudiates antisemitism, and endorses feminism, the National-Anarchists show what New Right ideas look like inpractice: crude racial separatism, open antisemitism, homophobia, and antifeminism. The “right to difference” becomes separate ethnic villages.


 * The New Right also has had a limited influence on elements of the Left intelligentsia. In the United States, the influential journal Telos (known for disseminating Western Marxist texts into English) moved rightward in the 1990s as its editor showed sympathy for Europe’s New Right and published Benoist’s works.43 It continues to publish Benoist, and explores the thought of Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmitt. Many Leftists now consider the once venerable journal anathema.44

In light of this solid reference, I will be bold in immediately editing the lead section to reflect my proposal. --Loremaster (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Harrypotter's edit because he doesn't seem to realize that “New Right” is, for now, only the name of a national-anarchist think tank in the UK (which they could have just as easily called “New Imperium”) and it describes itself as “conservative, european, and revolutionary”. --Loremaster (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
As the New Right (UK) is just a front group, it hardly deserves a separate page! Harrypotter (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to merging the New Right (UK) article with the National-Anarchism article. However, as you can read in the section above, National-Anarchism is clearly a European New Right ideology and movement while the accusation that it is “far-right” only comes from left-wing critics so the article must make that clear in order to be neutral. Therefore, I'm reverting your edits. --Loremaster (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Harrypotter's version was better - NA is far right (again just cos its only left wingers that write about the matter that doesn't discount them as references for verification). Loremaster's reference above doesn't show that NA is a new right ideology - only that the nouvelle droite has had a great effect and influence on the NA ideology - theres a big difference! maybe we need to change the far-right page so that it covers far right totalitarianism better... Paki.tv (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your edits. Nouvelle Droite had a great effect and influence on National-Anarchism until it eventually evolved into a European New Right ideology as proven by the fact that Southgate created a national-anarchist think tank called... New Right. As I explained previously, according to Wikipedia guidelines, it would be far more neutral for the first sentence to say that NA is a European New Right ideology and movement and have critics argue that it is far-right/fascist in another paragraph (as we already do). Let's be honest: Would any of us tolerate an article on a left-wing ideology and movement only being defined by its harshest right-wing critics as “far-left”? I think not. Furthermore, although I agree that NA shares the racism, antisemitism, homophobia and antifeminism of many right-wing totalitarian ideologies/movements, it is simply absurd to say that NA advocates totalitarianism when one understands the definition of this term. That being said, if you or anyone else tries to restore the term “far-right”, can you please do so without deleting the other edits I or someone else has made? It's really easy to do and would decrease the animosity between us. --Loremaster (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I've missed something, but what actually is Loremaster's difficulty in identifying n-A as being Far-right when it clearly is!Harrypotter (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * *sigh* I personally believe that NA is far-fight. However, like the word “extremist”, the term “far-right” is a political epithet only used pejoratively by critics. It is rarely or never used as a self-descriptor by an individual or group. Therefore, according to Wikipedia guidelines, it would be far more neutral for the first sentence to say that NA is a European New Right ideology and have critics argue that it is far-right and/or fascist in another paragraph (as we already do). --Loremaster (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * according to your reference, before being new right, NA is a 3rd position fascist ideology - i think therefore far right sums it up better. your position is just one of original research as stressed earlier in this discussion. Paki.tv (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. My arguments have and are always based on sources. Graham D Macklin argues that NA evolved and abandonned the socialism of Third Position Strasserism: In order to ‘change society completely’ the NRF purloined anarchist thinkers like Proudhon, Kropotkin and Bakunin, using their revolutionary rhetoric to justify the overthrow of liberal social democracy, which coincidentally led Southgate to jettison the ‘socialist trappings’ of Strasserism and ‘reformist’ distributism as incompatible with his Evolian racial vision. That being said, even you proved to me that the term “European New Right” was not appropriate. You still haven't refuted by valid point that is simply not appropriate to describe NA as far right without speficifying that it is the opinion of left-wing critics. By the way, just because a claim is verifiable, it doesn't mean it should be in the first sentence of the article, especially if there are better places for it to be... --Loremaster (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am worried that Loremaster is given to a life of sighs! Please check the Far right wiki page and develop your arguments there, before imposing your somewhat limited appreciation of the term on this page. Far right is more inclusive page that European New Right and is therefore more suitable for the first sentence.Harrypotter (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I've extensively quoted from the Far right article to make my case, I don't see why you think I would need to check it again. As I said in a previous debate, according to this article, "generally speaking, the extreme right can refer to either the economic right (laissez-faire capitalism) or social right (authoritarianism), or both. The ideologies associated with the economic far right are neo libertarianism, and Laissez-faire capitalism. The ideologies associated with the social far right are Nazism, racial supremacists (especially neo-fascists and neo-Nazis group), religious extremists, and other ultra-nationalist or reactionary ideologies and movements." Although national-anarchists are or were ultra-nationalists/reactionaries, they reject laissez-faire capitalism, authoritarianism, libertarianism, Nazism, racial supremacism, and religious extremism.
 * The fact that the term “far right” is more inclusive is irrelevant since the point obviously is that the term “European New Right” is far more precise and informative, and the term “far-right” is pejorative and only used by left-wing critics and therefore not neutral. So it is only appropriate to use the term “far-right” when explaining how NA is viewed by critics.
 * By the way, many commentators have described the Nation of Islam as “far-left” yet investigative reporter Chip Berlet says: “While they are in no position to exert any significant influence over the direction of U.S. politics, it is nonetheless defensible to argue that the Nation of Islam is the only indigenous fascist movement in the U.S. composed of African-Americans.” That's just one of many examples of how terms like “far-right” and “far-left” can be misleading.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

'''I've replaced the DISPUTED terms “far right” and “European New Right” with the uncontroversial term “syncretic political” until this dispute is resolved once and for all. Therefore, please do not revert the National-Anarchism article until this issue is settled otherwise I will request that a Wikipedia administrator puts an editing block on this article.''' --Loremaster (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added the term “far right” to the third paragraph of the Lead section. --Loremaster (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Far-Right
Well we seem to be making some progress. As it is only left wing critics who regard the term as being perjorative, then it would show bias to remove the term on that basis.Harrypotter (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What you just said doesn't make any sense since I have never argued that the term “far-right” should be removed from the article completely! What I have repeatedly argued is that 1) “far-right syncretic political ideology” is a redundant expression, and 2) according to Wikipedia guidelines, it would be far more neutral for the first sentence of the Lead section of the article to state that National-Anarchism is a “European New Right ideology” or simply a “syncretic political ideology” and have critics explain why they think it is “far-right” in another sentence (as we already do in the third paragraph of the Lead). Let's be honest: Would any of us tolerate an article on a left-wing ideology (such as progressivism for example) only being defined by its harshest right-wing critics in the first sentence of the lead section of the article? I think not. --Loremaster (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Far left' may well be derived from 'leftist' or ultra-left, dismissive terms by left wingers whose politics are indeed right wing compared to the subjects of their invective. however, your question on the symetry of the semantic space of bourgeois democracy is besides the point. the point is that according to the references, NA isn't a nouvelle droite ideology - it is influenced by 3rd position fascist and nouvelle droite. it is, therefore, undoubtedly a far right ideology. Paki.tv (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I explained in a section above which you conveniently ignore, you are wrong. Graham D Macklin argues that NA abandonned the socialism of Third Position Strasserism: In order to ‘change society completely’ the NRF purloined anarchist thinkers like Proudhon, Kropotkin and Bakunin, using their revolutionary rhetoric to justify the overthrow of liberal social democracy, which coincidentally led Southgate to jettison the ‘socialist trappings’ of Strasserism and ‘reformist’ distributism as incompatible with his Evolian racial vision. Futhermore, many of these same critics acknowledge that NA is not static/stagnant but is constantly evolving ideologically. Therefore, some references are outdated so it is intellectually dishonest not to take that into account when presenting the arguments against NA by it's critics. That being said, even if you were able to use references to prove to me that the term “European New Right” was not accurate, you still haven't refuted the valid point that NA is a syncretic political ideology (a claim which is supported by all references) and that it is simply not neutral to describe NA as “far right” without speficifying that this is the opinion of (left-wing) critics! By the way, just because a claim is verifiable, it doesn't mean it should be in the first sentence of the article, especially if there are better places for it to be... --Loremaster (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I apologise. I got a bit over-optimistic when I said we were making progress. Reading Editor Loremaster's recent comments, I have been proved wrong. I don't know how useful these comments are, but I hope they stimulate fruitful developments.Harrypotter (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) “far-right syncretic political ideology”: Please in what way is this a redundant expression? Is it being suggested that “far-right" = "syncretic political ideology”? In which case perhaps Editor Loremaster should be arguing for those pages to be merged. If this isn;t what is being suggested, then what is?
 * 2) I am not sure whether the point about progressivism arises from a misplaced sense of humour, as it seems to add nothing to the argument. As the article mentions the centre-right Progressive Democrats, then any description of progressivism being far-left would be incorrect, not non-neutral.
 * 3) Left-wing opponents of National-Anarchism do not describe it as far-right because that is a perjorative term, but rather oppose N-A because they regard it as being far-right. Their negative view arises from their political stance not from a supposed perjorative characteristic of the term far-left. If the likes of Editor Loremaster feel a comparison with far-left or even ultra-left, then I would invite Editor Loremaster to consider that the term may be used in perjorative way by political factions in opposition to such currents, but can often be seen as quite positive by those who endorse those viewpoints. The term Stalinism also illustrates this.
 * 4) I would also invite Editor Loremaster to reread the quote from Macklin that they have provided. Mackin does not suggest that "NA abandoned the socialism of Third Position Strasserism", but rather shed the ‘socialist trappings’ i.e. was an issue of presentation rather than involving a change of political direction. Again the comparison with pond life may be apt, but needs to be thought through. Stagnant water gives rise to all sorts of biological process, and all sorts of slime can evolve in such an environment

Your recent comments have convinced me that you are either of bad faith or obtuse or both. For the record, none of your comments were useful since you obviously don't understand most of my arguments. --Loremaster (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) How many times do I have to explain to you that the term “far-right syncretic political ideology” is redundant because syncretic politics involves taking political positions that attempt to reconcile seemingly opposed ideological systems, usually by combining some elements associated with the left or far-left with some associated with the right or far-right... regardless of whether critics, you or me believe such synthesis is dishonest in the sense of a mere ploy to attract the gullible. Furthermore, political theorist Roger Griffin argues that NA is in fact a complex synthesis of old fascism (far-right) and new anarchism (far-left) so for this article to describe NA as simply far-right is misleading since it would be denying the reality of the far-left ideas it actually promotes. Critics are entitled to their opinions but they must be properly contextualized.
 * 2) I never said that left-wing opponents of NA described it as far-right BECAUSE it is a pejorative term. I said that, like the term “extremist”, the term IS invariably, or almost invariably, used pejoratively. I am fully aware that the term “far left” can been seen positively by those who endorse these perspectives but the point remains that it often used pejoratively and, in this particular case, NA does not see the terms “far right” or “far left” positively.
 * 3) My point about progressivism obviously is that we would consider it unacceptable if the first sentence of the Progressivism article describe it as “a political and social term for far-left ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in an egalitarian direction for economic policies and liberal direction for social policies” and an essay by an American conservative scholar was used as a source for such a description. Do you get it now?
 * 4) Regarding Macklin, you are wrong. He explains quite clearly that Southgate rejects Third Position socialism only because it is incompatible with his Evolian views (and such presentation obviously doesn't help NA attract leftists). Macklin makes that quite clear in the following paragraphs of his essay when he argues that Southgate embraced economic secessionism as an alternative to socialism. But let's say you are right, it would simply mean that describing NA only as a “European New Right ideology” would be inaccurate. It doesn't invalidate my central argument which is that NA is a syncretic political ideology that should not be described as purely “far-right”.


 * I have a question for everyone: If a “far-left syncretic political current” adopts one or two right-wing views you find abhorent, do you still describe it as “far-left”? If not, why the double standard? --Loremaster (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * lol - you mean like national socialism or national bolshevism? like i wrote before, syncretic is obvious is the name - far right is far more informative Paki.tv (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact syncretic is NOT obvious in the name, as I have repeatedly argued in the past, according to this article, "generally speaking, the extreme right can refer to either the economic right (laissez-faire capitalism) or social right (authoritarianism), or both. The ideologies associated with the economic far right are neo libertarianism, and Laissez-faire capitalism. The ideologies associated with the social far right are Nazism, racial supremacists (especially neo-fascists and neo-Nazis group), religious extremists, and other ultra-nationalist or reactionary ideologies and movements." Although national-anarchists are or were ultra-nationalists/reactionaries, they reject laissez-faire capitalism, authoritarianism, libertarianism, Nazism, racial supremacism, and religious extremism. --Loremaster (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to Editor Loremaster, I would like to point out that simply repeating some faulty reasoning does not actually hammer out the inconsistencies. I do not understand why you worry about what a person such as myself may consider "abhorrent" - I certainly don't. perhaps you need to reflect on your own emotional response rather than projecting it on to others. That aside, your question does raise some issues, and if you had considered the matter of Stalinism which I raised before, perhaps the debate could have moved on without you being tempted to abandon the assumption of bad faith. Now it is perhaps tendentious to compare the gnat-like National-Anarchism with a dinosaur like Stalinism, but nevertheless lets respond to this. We know that the East Germany sponsored Francis Parker Yockey, and we know that for a period the Stalinists tried to tuen Czechoslovakia into a racist state. Does this make Stalinism stop being far-left? I don't think so. In this they are quite different from Mussolini or Horst Mahler. It is quite clear that Southgate and co. were and are denizens of the far-right. As regards whether "new anarchism" is far left, that is a very debatable matter. In fact I would say it is hard to categorise "new anarchism" as such because it rejects "class struggle anarchism" in favour of some woolly minded liberalism. As much of this based on personal experience of Andrej Grubacic, who has gone on record as being quite happy to work with fascists, and in fact got caught up with Duginism through the Peoples Global Action. You seem to have confused yourself by suggesting that the term “far-right syncretic political ideology” is redundant, and then suggesting that I am arguing that it should be simply put as being far-right. In fact the argument you make fully justifies using this phrase.Harrypotter (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it laughable that you would accuse me of repeating some faulty reasoning when (until now) you have ignored my arguments by almost never directly engaging and refuting them but simply repeating faulty reasoning of your own to justify your ignorance. That being said, I no longer have the time I once had to debate you or watch over this article so I will let your revert stand until someone other than you and Paki.tv weighs in this debate. --Loremaster (talk)22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed corrections
Loremaster, about a month ago you requested my comments on the rewrite. Well, belatedly, I must say I'm impressed. This article is now considerably more informative and overwhelmingly neutral and you've implemented several changes that I would have done if I'd had the time. Glad to see you have included the full Southgate quote on homosexuality, expanded the range of influences and removed Yockey from that list (though probably something needs to be said about Evola being optional, as Southgate has stated that N-As can take him or leave him). I have a few niggles: (1) NRF is here described as a British Nationalist groupuscule. Not so. Even if the National Front can be so categorised, this doesn't apply to the intervening genealogy. NF begat International Third Position which begat English Nationalist Movement which begat NRF. Even the ITP already advocated English, Scottish etc. nationalisms, which means dissolving the British state into its constituent nations. By the time we reach the NRF, even the concept of an English nation-state is abandoned. Just describe it as a "British groupuscule".

(2) "Ultra-nationalists" is very dubious as a catch-all term for "racial separatists...neo-Eurasianists...Islamists...autonomist and secessionist movements". WP's section on "Ultranationalism" evidently has the ideal of a unitary and homogeneous national state in view. Several of the movements listed, or several of their currents/factions, would, I suspect, not accept such a state as their objective. I would simply list the various movements without attempting an overarching description. Graham Macklin's study denies the "ultranationalist" label to N-A itself on the grounds that it does not acknowledge that the existence and identity of a people requires, or depends upon, organisation as a state. On the other hand, Macklin's study largely predates the disbanding of the NRF and I would question using it as a source for the "neo-Eurasianist" alliance, presumably the now-defunct one with Dugin's Nazbols.

(3) "Southgate disavowed the concept of a clandestine cell system as an insurrectionary anarchist strategy to achieve national rebirth" (where "national rebirth" links to "Palingenetic ultranationalism"): same criticism, really. What does "national rebirth" mean in this context? The "National" part of N-A has always been something of a misnomer or, at least, its interpretation depends on what you understand by the words "nation" and "nationalism" and that's a whole other can of worms. Just end that half of the sentence with "insurrectionary strategy". (Not even "insurrectionary anarchist strategy", since we are talking about a strategy specific to the NRF in this context.)

(4) Even if they're also briefly cited in the References, shouldn't the various academic studies by Griffin, Macklin etc. find their primary place in the Bibliography? At present, the practice of putting third-party academic sources in among the various pro-and anti-NA websites with their respective axes to grind gives the cursory impression that we have a dearth of "proper" sources apart from Southgate's book. I fixed this once before and it appears to have been reverted. Gnostrat (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Gnostrat, thank you for your belated comments. They are very much appreciated. Could you please weigh in the debate about whether or not NA should be described as a “far-right ideology” rather than simply a “syncretic political ideology” in the first sentence of the Lead section of the article? --Loremaster (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I've removed the word "nationalist".
 * 2) I would argue that ultranationalism has the ideal of a unitary and homogeneous nation first and foremost regardless of whether or not it has a state but you may be right that using the term "ultra-nationalists" as an overarching description may be inaccurate so I will remove it. That being said, we don't talk of a "neo-Eurasianist alliance" but of neo-Eurasianists in Russia being part of an international national-anarchist alliance (similar to the red-green-brown alliance).
 * 3) I replaced the phrase "an insurrectionary anarchist strategy to achieve national rebirth" with "an insurrectionary anarchist strategy to achieve his aims" in light of the fact that Maclkin states that NRF described this strategy as anarchist.
 * 4) Good point. I'll restore the complete bibliography section.

Merger proposal
As the New Right (UK) is just a front group, it hardly deserves a separate page! Harrypotter (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The argument that New Right is just a front organization is POV. However, since Southgate does argue that New Right is a national-anarchist think tank, I wouldn't be opposed to merging the New Right (UK) article into the National-Anarchism article. --Loremaster (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite my argument above, I wouldn't support merging New Right (UK) into the N-A article. Maybe in Australia, they come down to the same thing (at least, last time I checked) but in the U.K. they seem to be notionally distinct. ENR has been a major influence on N-A from its very inception but, because there have been other inputs along the way, I couldn't technically call N-A a European New Right ideology. I'd say it's more a case of symbiosis. The New Right idea aspires to wide intellectual/cultural influence and is not the property of any particular political formation. The invite to the (cancelled) official founding meeting stated, "this dynamic and strictly metapolitical group seeks to unite the disparate strands of the British Right and get everybody pulling in the same direction" and that's unlikely to be misrepresentation. Subsequent posts on the Red Action Discussion Forum from 'Arktos-Anarch' (presumably Southgate) claim that the phrase "British Right" was not intended to include the "far right", who weren't invited, and that one purpose of the meeting was to establish common ground between N-A and ENR, which presupposes there are differences to overcome. To that end, continental NR thinkers Robert Steuckers and Tomislav Sunić were invited to speak, neither of whom has ever to my knowledge identified as a National-Anarchist. Why go to this trouble for a private meeting if it was just to set up an N-A front organisation rather than a genuine ideological encounter? Gnostrat (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You've convinced me to oppose a merger. You should post your comments on the Talk:New Right (UK) page. However, if New Right (UK) is judged to be not notable according to the Notability (organizations and companies) guideline page, the article will have to be deleted. --Loremaster (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * pretty convincing argument that far right goes back in. Thanks for that!Harrypotter (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a pretty convincing argument that we shouldn't describe N-A as a European New Right ideology (a proposition I abandoned a long time ago). However, I don't understand why you think it is pretty convincing that the term "far right" should go back in when Gnostrat explained that national-anarchist Southgate didn't invite representatives of the British far-right (neo-fascists and neo-Nazis) to the founding meeting of the British New Right. Regardless, until this dispute is resolved, please respect Wikipedia guidelines by refraining from re-adding this disputed word, especially in light of the fact that there is no consensus for its re-adding. --Loremaster (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Check Tomislav Sunić!Harrypotter (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't. Please make your own argument. And, as I said, until this dispute is resolved, please respect Wikipedia guidelines by refraining from re-adding this disputed word, especially in light of the fact that there is no consensus for its re-adding. Do you understand that or do I need to get a Wikipedia administrator to explain this to you? Lastly, the debate over the use of the term “far right” should be discussed in the section above. This section should focus on discussing whether or not to merge the New Right (UK) with National-Anarchism. --Loremaster (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not?Harrypotter (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I am tired of you not directly engaging my arguments... --Loremaster (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sunić's positions are not N-A and I'm not sure how similar they are even to Benoist's. If I recall correctly, in Against Democracy and Equality Sunić identifies one of the key differences between the ENR and the Anglo-American neocon New Right as being that the ENR is not averse to the strong state. This may or may not be fair to the neocons, but it would certainly be a major discrepancy between ENR and N-A (though perhaps not an insuperable one within an overall panarchist model of the kind which some articles on Rosenoire have explored). Sunić should therefore be a good argument for not merging the articles, but as he isn't a national-anarchist he is also quite irrelevant to how the latter movement is (or isn't) pigeonholed. Gnostrat (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Far-Right
Well, it's a no-brainer and I've already made my view clear here: N-A is a syncretic political movement right from its origins, which cannot be pigeonholed through one line of descent to the exclusion of another, and whose main affiliations right now lie with another syncretic movement, Nouvelle Droite/European New Right, and whose inspiration right now is coming from Benoist's direction. While the New Right name could always hide a multitude of individual and local sins, that's true of any movement and nothing I've ever read of Benoist and his views persuades me that what he is attempting isn't in its essence a sincere political syncretism. If an academic like Chip Berlet can accept there's a legitimate argument against labelling Benoist a (neo-)fascist, that is even more true of the "far right" tag for both the ENR and N-A. Here's what our old friend Spencer Sunshine has to say:

Describing a synthesis like this as "far right" empties the term of any useful meaning. Or rather, it reinforces that it never had any useful meaning to begin with. It should be obvious that a taxonomy which lumps libertarian internationalist capitalists in with authoritarian nationalist socialists has no objective, rational basis and is of no practical use in political discourse at all. Put bluntly, it should not be used by anyone, in any context, ever. But applying it to either ENR or N-A...you'd have to be as cynical as Charles Péguy (himself a nationalist socialist...the irony!) with his maxim "whoever says neither left nor right, says right" and Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality would rule out that kind of substitution here. I support removal of "far-right" from the first sentence, and that means the Far-right category at the foot of the page should go as well. Gnostrat (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree so I'm deleting the term "far right" and the category "far-right politics" from the article. --Loremaster (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * i suggest u look at the fascism page Paki.tv (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've looked at it many times and it actually proves my point:
 * Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system. Scholars generally consider it to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum, although some scholars contend that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right.
 * Notice how the first sentence of the article doesn't describe fascism as a far-right ideology while the following sentence explains that it is the opinion of scholars that it is far-right. It doesn't present this claim as a fact. Also notice that some scholars disagree and argue that it was influenced by both the left and the right. That's what exactly what I've been arguing that the NA article should do all along!
 * Regardless, there is no consensus to keep term "far right" and the category "far-right politics" in the article so I've removed them again and will continue to do so if they are restored. --Loremaster (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * so are u arguing that fascism is not far right ? Paki.tv (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I'm arguing that the Fascism article doesn't describe fascism as a far-right ideology in its first sentence. It is only in a following sentence that it explains that the notion that fascism is far-right is only the opinion of some scholars while other scholars disagree. Therefore, the National-Anarchism article should follow the same example. --Loremaster (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ..so why dont u do that instead of just vandalising he page? Paki.tv (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact that your disingenuous accusation of vandalism is absurd since 1) I am the person most responsible for expanding and improving the National-Anarchism article since October 29th, 2009, and 2) editing out the term "far right" for reasons of neutrality would not be considered an act of vandalism by any rational Wikipedia administrator, the article already follows the example of the Fascism article in its own way! The third paragraph of the lead section of the article fully explains that scholars think National-Anarchism is crypto-fascist or a synthesis of fascism and anarchism, which is obviously more accurate and informative than the vague term "far right", as Gnostrat explained above. So, when you keep restoring the term "far right" despite now reluctantly conceding that my suggestion makes more sense after all, you are the one vandalizing the article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I must concur. Paki.tv, I think what it boils down to is that the article already gives a fairly comprehensive description of this ideology from which anybody can make up their own mind, and the "far right" label doesn't add any useful or meaningful information. It doesn't tell us anything. Simple as that. Gnostrat (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In support for Gnostrat's last point, here is a quote from the Fascism article: "Walter Laqueur says that historical fascism 'did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either', but that it 'was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right'. Payne says 'fascists were unique in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center', noting that they allied with both left and right, but more often the right."
 * --Loremaster (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * how does that support gronstrat? s/he has made the point that rar-right has no meaning at all...? if anything it clarifies why we should have far right in that opening section. Paki.tv (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The quote explains that defining Fascism as simply “far right” isn't illuminating or informative. A “coalition of leftists, centrists and rightists gravitating towards the far right” is not the same thing as being a purely “far right group”. So it is better to describe N-A simply as a syncretic ideology in the first sentence and then have a another sentence or paragraph explain its nebulous position on the political spectrum. Therefore, I've moved the word “far right” to the third paragraph of the Lead section. In light of the fact that the Fascism article does not describe fascism as far-right ideology in its first sentence, can you and HarryPotter accept this logical compromise? --Loremaster (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Their position is not “nebulous” and they are a purely far-right group, despite their generally unsuccessful attempt to recruit from centrist and leftist elements of the anarchist scene.Harrypotter (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not a universally known and accepted fact but an opinion of critics which we report in the third paragraph of the lead section of the article. Why can't we more or less follow the example set by the Fascism article? --Loremaster (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Its more appropriate in the first sentence than the third paragraph Paki.tv (talk)
 * That would be nothing more than your personal opinion while my suggestion is consistent with both the structure of the lead section and the fact that the Fascism article you refered us to doesn't describe fascism as a far-right ideology in its first sentence. It only explains in a following sentence that many scholars think it is far-right while some don't. In other words, it's an opinion not a fact. So it is inappropriate to state matter-of-factly in the first sentence of this article that National-Anarchism is far-right rather than explain in some other sentence or paragraph that some scholars think it is. Your refusal to acknowledge this point comes off as a stubborn need to push a POV on readers rather than a genuine concern over what is and isn't appropriate --Loremaster (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * wrong - most writers agree that NA is far right. thats the point! your comments on the discussion page of 'fascism' show the levels that your chicanery descends to: palingenetic ultranationalism? this is not a place for your original research!!! Paki.tv (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But no one is disputing that most (but not all) writers think it is far right! The point is that it is their opinion but it's not a fact. Furthermore, the third paragraph of the lead section reports their opinion quite clearly. That being said, I'm not sure what your problem is with my comments on the Talk:Fascism page. It isn't my opinion that palingenetic ultranationalism is at the core of fascism. It's the opinion of British academic political theorist Roger Griffin. Even one of the sources for the NA article confirms this: National-Anarchist ideology is centered directly on what scholar Roger Griffin defines as the core of fascism: “palingenetic populist ultranationalism.” “Palingenetic,” he says, is a “generic term for the vision of a radically new beginning which follows a period of destruction or perceived dissolution.” Palingenetic ultranationalism therefore is “one whose mobilizing vision is that of the national community rising phoenix like after a period of encroaching decadence which all but destroyed it.” Although you would be wrong, you can accuse me of giving undue weight to a minority view but to accuse me of original research doesn't make any rational sense since original research consists of unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas! Griffin's greatest contribution to our understanding of the nature of fascism was publishing his theory on palingenetic ultranationalism! Regardless, since it seems this dispute is going to go on forever, you leave me no choice but to request dispute resolution. --132.208.165.75 (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * i don't know what the writers think, but what they write: they write about the far right. and they are right. Paki.tv (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please check Earth, and note that although the Flat Earth Society is mentioned, it is not allowed to detract from the concept of the earth as being a globe. Likewise the fact that one or two people prefer to hide form their eyes (and the eyes of others) that National-Anarchism is a far-right ideology should not disrupt a clear statement at the outset of this article.Harrypotter (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised I didn't bring this up before but none of the sources explicitly describe NA as “far-right”. The only use of the word “far-right” is by Macklin to describe the NRF. Regardless, I prefer to follow the example of the Fascism article which does not state that fascism is a far-right ideology from the outset but prefers to state in a third sentence that some scholars think it is far-right while some don't. That being said, I will replace the word “far-right” with “radical”. --132.208.165.172 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In his article 'National Anarchism' California Racists Claim They're Anarchists, Casey Sanchez reporst that PRA concludes the National-Anarchism movement could become the new face of the radical right but they didn't conclude that it was radical-right. --132.208.197.152 (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Harrypotter's 'compromise' wording "radical right" does indeed seem wholly unsatisfactory to me, and particularly when "radical right" redirects to Far right anyway so the exercise is pointless. If we refer to the Far right article, its definition includes:

(1) Supremacism: inapplicable insofar as N-A follows Benoist in attributing differences to culture rather than to "innate" biology; and inapplicable simply because, regardless of N-A's views about social equality, it doesn't seek to force anybody into living by them. Funny sort of supremacy this, where, even if inequality is acknowledged, it cannot result in domination. (2) Separation: note, the qualifier is "superior from...inferior". Following Nouvelle Droite ideology, N-A doesn't acknowledge that "superior" and "inferior" are meaningful (any more than "equal" is meaningful) in describing differences between groups. (3) Demagoguery is neutralised by the absence of any instruments of state power that could make it efficacious; xenophobia doesn't apply because even if people like Southgate call themselves "racialist", it's a racialism founded on a positive evaluation of differences and diversity; while authoritarianism, sexism, racism and homophobia are reduced to voluntary choices.

With a current that doesn't fit the "far-right" criteria, it's perverse to call it "radical right" instead and then redirect to those criteria anyway. Either "radical right" should mean something different from "far right"...or it's not a relevant category, so they both go out. Harry, it's really quite straightforward. You introduced a change to the text without building up a consensus in favour. Since there isn't that consensus, we revert back to the previous agreed and stable form of words: "N-A...is a syncretic political ideology that was developed", etc. (I've no objection to restoring the word "radical" with a link to Political radicalism.)

While I would agree with Loremaster on most points, I do think it would be wise to leave "palingenetic ultranationalism" out of this dispute. In the first place, PU is not an actual out-there ideology! Nobody is advocating something which they call "palingenetic ultranationalism" to my knowledge. It's an academic hypothesis, an interpretation, which may yet stand or fall depending on its reception by fellow academics. In the second place, we can quibble about what "ultranationalism" means or should be taken to mean, but the fact remains that the "ultranationalist" part is denied to N-A by Macklin's equally academic study which, unlike Griffin, focuses specifically on N-A. Furthermore, Southgate wants to scatter his "Aryans" across the globe in new folk-wandering migrations to form new communities, so they would not even occupy a contiguous territory. Under such conditions, there might be a palingenetic rebirth of sorts but hardly a "national rebirth" since the very process would involve, and depend upon, national splintering (which is the reason why some of them are talking about tribal anarchism). Finally, Griffin is explicit that his full concept unites palingenesis with populist ultranationalism. N-A absolutely does not fulfill the "populist" bit: it's a concept of, and for, small elect groups of the committed rather than for masses.

IMO we should take on board Macklin's qualification and leave this terminology out of the picture. All that we can say without fear of contradiction is that N-A and PU overlap in their shared palingenetic component. Since PU is Griffin's definition of fascism, rejecting this terminology for N-A would mean that the latter is absolutely not fascist in Griffin's sense, but this should not logically affect the dispute about the "far-right" status of N-A either one way or the other. I note however that Harrypotter's and Paki.tv's argument rests upon a stated or implicit assumption that N-A is far-right because it is fascist. This would be fallacious on two counts: (1) scholars do not universally agree that fascism is far-right, and (2) scholars like Griffin and Macklin are not in agreement that N-A fulfills all of the criteria for fascism. Gnostrat (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * fail. my argument does not 'rest upon an assumption that NA is fascist' - rather that it is far-right. it emerged from the far-right and is politically far-right - ie extremely conservative and reactionary.  PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * fail 2. It is quite clear that N-A does not merely come from the right, but indeed the far-right. Whether there should be two seperate pages for the far-right and the radical right is some thing which should be discussed on the relevant talk page. It is quite clear that N-A has its origins in the far-right and that it continues to organise amongst the far-right, including fascists but not limited to fascists.Harrypotter (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.” Two editors have argued that none of the sources used for this article explicity describe National-Anarchism as “far-right”. Since inclusion of this disputed qualifier is the source of an edit war since January 2010 between Loremaster, Paki.tv, Harrypotter and now Gnostrat, a source must be presented which clearly describes National-Anarchism as “far-right” otherwise this qualifier should be removed. --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * how about neo-nazi then? PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The third paragraph of the Lead section of the article already explains that some critics think National-Anarchism is crypto-fascist. The first sentence, however, must remain neutral therefore devoid of such opinion. --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, Pavi.tv, your sources are not reliable. The first one (Stewart Home) doesn't even mention National-Anarchism in the main text and the second one (slackbastard) is an obscure anarchist blog. --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've undone Harrypotter's recent edits because he added the qualifier “radical right” using Alan Sykes's 2005 book The Radical Right in Britain and Casey Sanchez's 2009 essay 'National Anarchism' California Racists Claim They're Anarchists. Unfortunately, we will need a quote from Syke's book to confirm that he describes National-Anarchism as “radical right”. As for Sanchez, it's already been explained above that he “reports that PRA concludes the National-Anarchism movement could become the new face of the radical right but they didn't conclude that it was radical-right”. Furthermore, even if these two reliable sources were accurate, it doesn't change that fact that it has been repeatedly argued that the opinion of critics should not be stated as facts in the first sentence of the article since it undermines the necessity of this article to have a neutral point of view. Ultimately, this dispute must be resolved on this talk page before any new qualifier is added to avoid prolonging this edit war. Can everyone agree to this basic Wikipedian principle? --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * see for example

PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A sidebar of a blog post containing the unpublished opinions of a virulent critic is not a reliable source. Furthermore, it is only the opinion of this critic not a fact. The third paragraph is the best place to report such opinion. By the way, National-Anarchists rejected Strasserite Nazism a long time ago as our most important source explains quite welll. --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * u r being disingeneous. virulence is not a criterion for non-reliability or even POV - and even qualification as your most important source doesn't make for instant alchemy of opinion into fact. all sources here could in fact be qualified as obscure... PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See the discussion below and stop re-adding disputed words until an agreement is reached. --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I describe the critic as virulent, I wasn't arguing that virulence was criterion for non-reliability or even POV. The main problem is that a sidebar of a blog post containing the unpublished opinions of an author is not a reliable source. Furthermore, our most reliable source reports that National-Anarchists rejected Strasserite Nazism a long time ago. But you are right that the reliability of articles from the Southern Poverty Law Centre and Political Research Associates as sources is open to question. That being said, our most reliable sources are two academics (Graham D Macklin, Roger Griffin) who published their opinions in a peer-reviewed journal, specifically  Patterns of Prejudice. Based on these two sources alone and taking into account recents developments, the most accurate description of National-Anarchism would be that it is a “synthesis of fascism and anarchism which promotes a radical anti-capitalist and anti-communist agenda of autonomous rural communities within a decentralized, pan-nationalist framework”. Could everyone live with that? --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Radical Right or Far-right?
I'm sure we can get the exact quote from Sykes. As for Sanchez, the "becoming" relates to the profile required to be "the new face", rather than having to undergo a political realignment. That's pretty clear from the article. I think the key issue here is that a number of people - including an academic - have identified N-A as being Radical-right, but it is not really contentious - except for Loremaster and now Gnostrat. The point about referring to Jonathan Bowden or Tomislav Sunić is that these are the people with whom N-A, through their front group New Right, organise, the people with whom they are embedded. Perhaps the far-right page needs some development, but I would certainly argue that radical right is a more suitable term than far right, which I see as a somewhat broader term.Harrypotter (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As it has been argued many times, even if you can find reliable sources that clearly demonstrate that some critics explicity describe National-Anarchism as “far right” or “radical right”, it doesn't change the fact that it is simply their opinion. The first sentence of the article should be as neutral as possible. The Fascism article describes fascism as “a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy. Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum, although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right”. The National-Anarchism article should follow this example and it already does in its own way. It describe it National-Anarchism as “a radical syncretic political ideology that was developed in Europe during the 1990s by former Third Positionists to reconcile green anarchism with neo-völkisch tribalism”. Most readers can understand that ecoanarchism is far-left while neo-völkischism is far-right. We don't need to say more. --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your point would carry more weight if it were supported by the facts. As regards the fascist article, Mussolini started out as a leftist who then moved to the right. This is not the case as regards National Anarchism, which was developed by people who started out on the far-right. That is why your suggestion that this article should follow the fascist template is inappropriate. Could you clarify your use of the term we above. ThanksHarrypotter (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument doesn't make any sense since the article never suggested that National-Anarchism started out on the far-left and then moved to the far-right nor that it started out on the far-right and the moved to the far-left. The article simply states the fact that National-Anarchism is a radical syncretic political ideology developed by former Third Positionists (people most critics describe as Nazis or “racist socialists”) that synthesizes ideas from the far-left and the far-right. Regarding the suggestion that the Fascism article should be the example to follow, the point was simply that this article states that the notion fascism is far-right is only the opinion of critics so it is therefore not a fact that can be stated neutrally in the first sentence of the article. As for my use of the term “we”, I am referring to past, present and future editors of the National-Anarchism article. --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification of the use of the term we. I am sorry you are having difficulty understanding my argument. What I am saying is that the reason that the article on fascism is acceptable as regards mentioning how fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right is precisely because Mussolini and other fascists started out on the left, and from that drew on both those influences. However the NAs have always been on the far-right, whether or not they have adapted one or two gleanings from the left. Also please note the New Right (UK) article which refers to this as a NA project involving Troy Southgate and BNP pundit Jonathan Bowden, using the same POBox as Folk and Faith. It is hard to understand why such objections are being raised to this point.Harrypotter (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since National-Anarchists started out as Third Positionists (people who critics argue promote a “racist socialism” or “left-wing Nazism”), it is open to debate whether or not we can declare without nuance that they started out from the far-right. However, it is clear that they have evolved and adopted far-left symbols, slogans and stances while synthetizing them with some (but not all) of the far-right stances they previously held. Whether or not such adoption is sincere or deceptive is matter of opinion and debate amongst critics. Ultimately, the first sentence must remain neutral by reporting that National-Anarchism is a radical syncretic political ideology that synthesizes far-left and far-right views. Following sentences or paragraphs can clarify that some or all critics think that they are still far-right or radical-right or crypto-fascist con men who trying to lure the gullible by pretending they are neither left nor right or that they are now “new right”. In light of the fact that none of the sources so far explicity describe National-Anarchism as far-right, it is hard to understand why such a common-sense compromise is hard for you for to accept in order to end this dispute. --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So we agree then they have been consistently far right. Thus it is neutral to say that they are a radical right syncretic political ideology. By the way I notice that you user name is quite new, yet you are very conversant with wikipedia. Have you had a previous user identity on wikipedia? If so and wonder if you would be happy to share what it was? ThanksHarrypotter (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI Ghostinthewiki is a sock of Loremaster. Both currently blocked. --Michael C. Price talk 07:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true that Ghostinthewiki was my sockpuppet. However, I was unblocked today and the sockpuppet was deleted upon my request. Let's get back to the business of this article. --Loremaster (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, no, and no. As I said before, although they started out from the far-right, it is clear that they have evolved and adopted far-left symbols, slogans and stances while synthetizing them with some (but not all) of the far-right stances they previously held. In other words, once these former Third Positionists adandoned state-enforced racist socialism and began to reconcile their neo-völkisch tribalism with green anarchism they ceased to be far-right and became a left-right synthesis so it would not be neutral to say that there are a “radical right syncretic political ideology” and it would also be redundant since a syncretic political ideology is a combination of elements associated with the left with some associated with the right. Furthermore, none of the sources explicitly describe National-Anarchism as such. --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This might sound ironic but, according to Wikipedia guidelines, we should avoid synthesis. In other words, stop adding words to a sentence that already has a source. --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I note you did not reply to my question as regards any other user identity. You seem to have regressed to your former position again. Nevertheless I do believe you are starting to see the why radical right is so much better than far right. When you say it would be redundant to use the term radical right, this means that it is correct to do so, going against your previous objection, that it is not neutral. Sorry I left the refs out, I shall rpelace them when i get the chance.Harrypotter (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I answered no and no to your two questions about my identity. Regardless, you seem to have a tendency to either ignore people's position and continue to argue your point as if they never expressed that position or misrepresent people's position in order to insist that you are right when you are wrong. I don't believe “radical right” is a better (or worse) qualifier for National-Anarchism than “far-right” since I believe these terms are essentially synonyms. When I say it is redundant to use the term “radical-right” (or “far-right”), it simply because a “radical syncretic political ideology” is by definition a combination of elements associated with the radical left with some associated with the radical right. The only reason why using the term “radical-right” would be better than “far-right” in the article is if we have reliable sources that explicity and unambiguously describe National-Anarchism as “radical-right”. But again, such a description would only be appropriate in a sentence/paragraph dedicated to reporting what critics think of National-Anarchism but not the first sentence. --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good old Paki.tv may have come up with just the right answer. National Socialism is the perfect way to capture the " a combination of elements associated with the radical left with some associated with the radical right". Check the link and I'm sure you'll agree we've found the solution. Neo Nazi = "post-World War II social or political movements seeking to revive Nazism or some variant thereof". Good, I am so glad we've prevented this from degenerating into an edit war!Harrypotter (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When the two of you insisted earlier that your argument did not depend on reproducing Harrypotter's previous support for pigeonholing N-A as fascist, I thought I had merely failed to realise he had conceded defeat on this point. I now see that this assumption was premature. The "neo-nazi" description fails on logic because even if (neo-)nazism is an example of radical left/right syncretism, it does not follow that all radical left/right syncretism is (neo-)nazi, nor can that be established in this particular case on the authority of a couple of political blogs. The sources for both reinserted phrases have already been noted to be unreliable or of limited usefulness, along with the fact that neither phrase belongs in a first sentence description. And edit wars are not resolved by obstinate re-adding of disputed material without first securing agreement on this talk page. Gnostrat (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A don't think it's a matter of pigeon holing the NAs, and certainly there are respects in which Nazism and fascism differ. The NAs with their stress on race clearly fit in with Nazi format better than the fascist one.Harrypotter (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.”
 * 2) “All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.”
 * 3) “The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.”
 * 4) “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.”
 * --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * please see my comments above. far-right and neo-nazi are used as descriptors in quoted articles. which sources are these less factual or more obscure or biased than? PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See my comments at the bottomn of the Far-Right section above. --Ghostinthewiki (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New compromise
The main problem with most of the sources Paki.tv wants to use in the first sentence of the article is that a blog post containing the unpublished opinions of a fringe author is not a reliable source. Furthermore, our most reliable source reports that National-Anarchists rejected Strasserite Nazism a long time ago so any information from an old source that claims that National-Anarchists embrace Strasserite Nazism is anachronistic and therefore should be properly contextualized in the History section of the article. But Paki.tv is right that the reliability of essays from the Southern Poverty Law Centre and Political Research Associates as sources is open to question. However, our most reliable sources are two academics (Graham D Macklin, Roger Griffin) who published their opinions in a peer-reviewed journal, specifically  Patterns of Prejudice. Based on these two sources alone and taking into account recent developments, the most accurate description of National-Anarchism would be that it is a “synthesis of fascism and anarchism which promotes a radical anti-capitalist and anti-communist agenda of autonomous ecovillages within a decentralized, pan-nationalist framework”. Could everyone live with that? --Loremaster (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * why base the article on 2 sources alone? most people especially non-experts understand NA as neo-nazi and far-right PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact that most people have never heard of a fringe movement like National-Anarchism, I'm not suggesting that the entire article should be based on 2 sources alone. However, the most definitive statements of this article should be based on the most reliable of sources (mainstream academics and journalists) regardless of whether there are only 2 or even 1 for that matter. The opinion of non-experts, especially if it is not supported by reliable sources, is obviously of secondary importance if not irrelevant. Are you being disingenuous or do I really need to explain basic Wikipedia principles to you? --Loremaster (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.”
 * 2) “All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.”
 * 3) “The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.”
 * 4) “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.”
 * --Loremaster (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * most people have not heard of wikipedia. academics are not NPOV. the first sentence should be concise. neo-nazi or far-right is a concise definiton that most readers will understand. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your claim that most people have not heard of Wikipedia is irrelevant to this discussion. None one has ever argued that academics have a neutral point of view. However, Wikipedia considers the point of view of academics more reliable since they have ideally come to their point of view after engaging in exhaustive research while following a scientific methodology and their conclusions were vetted by the scientific community through peer-reviewed journals. Neutral point of view as a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia only refers to the fact that all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Regardless, I'm all for conciseness and I'm open to improving my suggested first sentence. However, none of the reliable sources for this article describe National-Anarchism as a “neo-nazi, far-right syncretic political ideology”. Furthermore, such a description would be extremely misleading, as Gnostrat as explained quite well in section aboves, so I am opposed to such a description being added to the article. That being said, I don't understand why you are not happy with the new compromise. I would think you of all people would see it as a victory to see the word “fascism” appearing matter-of-factly in the first sentence of the article. Ah stuborness... --Loremaster (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Loremaster. This "new compromise" is quite sensible. -Pollinosisss (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. Does anybody else support this new compromise? --Loremaster (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah Loremaster... i still think “neo-nazi” and “far-right” are more effective, easily understood, established (has more references) and accurate descriptions. however i think your “new compromise” deserves to stand for a while at least. lets see what others make of it. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One issue that jumps out at me is that "neo-Nazi" and "far-right" do not seem to be well-represented (or represented at all) in the body of the article. The lead should be a summary of well-sourced, verifiable information contained in the body, weighted appropriately and proportionally to the extent the information appears in the rest of the article. Some of the sources used also appear to be self-published, so may require examination at the reliable sources noticeboard to ensure that they are appropriate and not being lent undue weight over the other sources.. – xeno talk 13:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Paki.tv, what you or I think doesn't matter when what is more important is following Wikipedia guidelines. None of the most reliable sources for the National-Anarchism article describe National-Anarchism as “neo-nazi” or “far-right”. Most of the non-reliable sources don't either. Furthermore, these terms are often used pejoratively and are almost always exonymic (i.e. applied by others to a group rather than by a group labeling itself) and are therefore invariably not neutral; 2) none of the most reliable sources for the National-Anarchism article explicity describe National-Anarchism itself as “neo-nazi” or “far-right” or “radical-right”; 3) it is not a universally-accepted fact that National-Anarchism is “neo-nazi” or “far-right” or “radical-right” but it is the opinion of critics who are militantly opposed to National-Anarchism so this opinion needs to be properly contextualized in the article; and 4) it doesn't make sense to describe a syncretic political ideology, which by definition synthesizes “far-left” views and “far-right” views, as being purely “far-right”. That being said, I am happy that you think the new compromise deverses to stand long enough for to see if there will be a consensus for or against it builds. Progress! You should post your comments on the Mediation Cabal page linked to below. --Loremaster (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Please see my comments regarding my recent edit. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Can you please acknowledge and challenge the arguments made by Wikipedia adminstrator User:Xeno? --Loremaster (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * o yes sorry - Xeno - the NF and other conservative currents are clearly far-right no? PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. What I do know is that the information you are inserting into the lead is not supported by the body, and is propped up by some rather dubious sourcing. – xeno talk 21:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Paki.tv, remember this: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.” --Loremaster (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources for contentious claims in the National-Anarchism article
I have two questions for Harrypotter: --Loremaster (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Why do you believe Alain de Benoist's essay Between The Gods And The Titans published on a fan site is a reliable source to support the claim that Helmut Franke is a “right-wing” writer?
 * 2) Why do you believe a French article entitled Sur le FN et a droite extrème on a militant anti-fascist/anti-racist amitie-entre-les-peuples.org website (whose server doesn't seem to respond at the moment) is a reliable source to support the claim that Requiem Gothiqueis a “far-right” magazine?

What gives? Why is it "contentious" to suggest that Helmut Franke is right wing. He was in the Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten, given the category. Also see Emanuel Schäfer - "After the war, he participated in far-right Freikorps groups such as the Marinebrigade Ehrhardt and from 1925-28, the Stahlhelm." Just as you are quite brazen about lying to hide the fact that you were using two identities, I am now drawn to question you so-called "left-wing progressive bias", which by the same coin (a false coin nonetheless) could justify lying in pursuit of your agenda of whitewashing National Anarchism. As for Requiem Gothique see also this which has Cany down as a Nazi Satanist. There is nothing contentious about any of this.Harrypotter (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing that Franke is “right-wing”. My point is simply that Wikipedia requires you provide a reliable source that describes him as right-wing AND as a member of Stahlhelm. As for your claims about Requiem Gothique and Cany, you have finally provided what seems to be a reliable source! This is good and that's all I ask because Wikipedia guidelines state: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.” That being said, I am not interested in whitewashing National-Anarchism otherwise I wouldn't have been the one to add a paragraph in the lead section of the article which explains in details why critics think N-A is crypto-fascist nor would I been the one to expand the criticism section to add more criticisms against N-A! Ultimately, my left-wing progressive bias is proven the countless number of edits I have made on Wikipedia and the subject of the articles I have taken an interest in. Anyone who thinks I am right-winger or N-A sympathizer after reviewing my body of work is a certifiable idiot. --Loremaster (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How to approach new sources
After examining this recent edit by Loremaster, I think we may have another problem with sources on our hands. Yes, the section on the ideology's position is getting to be verbose, but we can't start cutting entire paragraphs out because, right now, there are only a handful of editors who are really paying attention to sources. Such bold editing will only encourage more edit warring.

We ought to simply follow the guidelines to NPOV writing and ensure that each position is "summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability". That means comparing each paragraph to the source's conclusion and including as many key points as possible. Once someone has printed out the new academic sources (the Spencer Sunshine article and the Southern Poverty Law Center report) and actually graded them, then we can have a discussion about what points are useful. Ottre 15:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome Ottre! I really appreciate the work you have done standardizing the citations. Regarding my recent edit, I think there is a difference between description and critique so I've moved Sunshine's criticism of National-Anarchism from the Position in the political spectrum section to the Criticism section so nothing has been lost. On the contrary, it has made the latter even better. --Loremaster (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I see what you were doing. That is an improvement. Ottre 06:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Radical Right Reference
Here is the reference as regards National Anarchism being of the Radical Right: "In this respect, the ITP and National Anarchy represent a further evolution in the thinking of the Radical Right rather than an entirely new dimension, a response to the new situation of the late twentieth century in which the apparent triumph of materialist capitalism on a global scale requires a greater assertion of the centrality of anti-materialist nationalism." - The Radical Right in Britain by Alan Sykes, Research Fellow at the University of Adelaide, Palgrave 2005, i.e. a reputable academic source.Harrypotter (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. That's an opinion that should be contextualized somewhere in the article other than in the first sentence in the same manner the Fascism article has chosen to present such opinions.
 * Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.  Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist  perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy.  Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum, although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right.
 * This is one example we could follow, especially considering that some scholars argue that National-Anarchism is a synthesis of old fascism and new anarchism. --Loremaster (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See comments at the mediation page and Lead section. – xeno talk 13:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Xeno's comments on the mediation page. --Loremaster (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * no - all of the academic sources use the descriptions 'extreme right' or 'radical right' as well as 'racist right' when discussing NA PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you care to name the academics sources and provide some quotes or should we simply take your word? --Loremaster (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am getting somewhat irritated with Loremaster?Ghostinthewiki's behaviour. They had to be prompted before they gave any apology for outright lying, an apology which has not yet been accepted and they are no continuing with their old tricks. Academic source shave been given. All this is just a smoekscreen. Where are the academic sour for saying "that some scholars argue that National-Anarchism is a synthesis of old fascism and new anarchism." Harrypotter (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Harrypotter, it should be clear to you by now that I didn't create and use the Ghostinthewiki user account in order to deceive you or anyone else contributing to the National-Anarchism article. I only did this because my Loremaster user account was temporarily blocked because of a misunderstanding over an unrelated article. You are absolutely right that I should have explained myself and apologized to you without being prompted but there is nothing more I can say or do to help you forgive, forget, and move on. That being said, I'm not sure why it is hard for you to understand that the opinion of academics on National-Anarchism's position on the political spectrum (i.e. “far right”, “radical right”, “extreme right”, “groupuscular right”, “racist right”) can and should be contextualized since it is open to debate while the fact that National-Anarchism is at a bare minimum a “syncretic political ideology” isn't. As for the academics who argue that National-Anarchism is a “synthesis of old fascism and new anarchism”, in his essay Co-opting the counter culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction, Graham D Macklin writes: “the synthesis of ‘anarchism’ with Evolian fascism, which is espoused by NRF founder Troy Southgate whose rapidly evolving political odyssey from (comparatively) orthodox British fascism to the radical, anti-capitalist, ‘post-third-position’ ideology of ‘national-anarchism’ represents a highly personalized and idiosyncratic revolt against the modern world.”; while, in his essay From slime mould to rhizome: an introduction to the groupuscular right Roger Griffin writes: “National-Anarchy [...] seems to be evolving towards a complex synthesis between classic fascism, Third Positionism, neo-anarchism and new types of anti-systemic politics born of the anti-globalization movement.” --Loremaster (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the point you fail to realise is that it was transparent that Ghostinthewiki was the identity of someone who was familiar with wikipedia. When asked (twice) whether Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki had another identity, you denied this, deliberately lying. Even just above you seem to find it hard to understand that this is what you did. You need to take this into account when you wonder why you're voice now has a hollow tone.Harrypotter (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Harry, I didn't fail to realize anything since I know what I did and why it was wrong. However, the point I am trying to get you to understand is that the only reason why I lied is obviously because if I had revealed on this talk page that I was in fact Loremaster someone could and probably would have reported me to a Wikipedia administrator for block evasion through sock puppetry. That being said, I don't really care what you think of me since your bad-faith behavior for months now made me lose patience and respect for you a loooooong time ago but it hasn't prevented me from still trying to collaborate with you for the good of this article. So can we please move on? --Loremaster (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki has made quite clear what they think, and in their twisted imagination they hold me responsible for their own bad behaviour. The level of contempt they have exudes from each entry on this page, and the suggestion that they still want to collaborate is merely a piece of flippancy which will convince no-one.Harrypotter (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in convincing you of my good faith since this seems to be a lost cause. However, the only thing that matters to me is that you respect Wikipedia guidelines and whatever consensus is hammered out on the Mediation Cabal page otherwise the National-Anarchism article will be promptly blocked again by a Wikipedia administrator if you choose to simply go back to doing what you were doing before the first block. --Loremaster (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly when asked about previous identities when you were posing as Ghostinthewiki, you could have simply stopped trying to achieve your agenda on this page. As regards being reported for block evasions, as this was transparent, this could have happened anyway. So your pretense of this as your singular reason for lying is also transparent. What seems to be happening is that you have an agenda for this page, which you hope to achieve by any means necessary. This seems to include trying to illustrate a point (see also Biggus Dickus). The point of blocking a user - often a temporary measure - is to give them time to pause and reflect on their behaviour. However, this can be done without blocking. I feel you might find it a useful thing to indulge yourself in.Harrypotter (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I explained in the first section of this talk page, (despite my left-wing progressive bias) my only “agenda” is collaborating with anyone who has created a user account to make the National-Anarchism article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough to meet Wikipedia's featured article criteria. After having invested a lot of time and energy expanding and improving the National-Anarchism article (which you can't honestly deny that I have done), I just can't stand to see the quality of this article (or any of the other article I have taken an interest in) being damaged even for one second. This is why I felt compelled to do something wrong I have never done before in light of an unnecessary block on my Loremaster user account. Although I was clearly overconfident, I sincerely thought that no one would notice my block evasion through sock puppetry so it isn't a pretense when I say that the only reason I lied is because I didn't want to be exposed. I honestly considered telling you on the spot but I concluded that you would take advantage of the situation to report me in order to have the freedom to edit the article without any check and balance from me. That being said, I have never disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Everything I did while using a sock puppet was to ensure that the National-Anarchism was protected from damage and that an understanding could be reached on talk page to end a highly disruptive edit war. If there are two people who have been giant dicks, it is clearly you and Paki.tv by consistently refusing to stop reverting the article to add disputed terms until a consensus is reached on the article's talk page. There would be no need for a Mediation Cabal if the two of you respected this basic Wikipedia principle! Lastly, no Wikipedia administrator denied that the original block on my Loremaster user account was clearly not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to a different article. But, as I paused and reflected, I realized that I was being blocked for engaging in the same behavior you and Pakit.tv did — reverting an article to restore disputed content! The only difference between you, Paki.tv, and me is that I was willing to explore a compromise instead of being intransigent but I was blocked before a discussion of such compromise could be reached. Oh the irony... Regardless, even if you were able to prove that I am the big bad wolf you seem to think I am, it doesn't change the fact when in dispute with me or any other editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution. So can we please settle the issues related to this article on the Mediation Cabal? --Loremaster (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note that 'anarchism' and anarchism are two quite different things.Harrypotter (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * True but Macklin uses anarchism instead of 'anarchism' when describing national-anarchism as “a seemingly incongruous synthesis of fascism and anarchism” while Griffin never 'anarchism'. --Loremaster (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not being a huge politics buff, I'm still pretty unclear on this whole left/right etc. business, but from a layman's read, it appears contradictory to matter-of-factly say that it is "radical right" in the lead sentence when the third paragraph in the lead says "Although its synthesis of left-wing and right-wing politics makes its classification problematic, those scholars who have examined national-anarchism generally consider it to be on the far right of the conventional left–right political spectrum.[8] [6][9]". Simple stating it is radical right also is problematic per aforementioned Lead section concerns. It appears that only two of the references has called it "radical right" and thus simply saying it is radical right is not representing a balanced, neutral point of view. Also, per our article, radical right is loosely synonymous with far right, so it seems also redundant. – xeno talk  19:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Xeno. --Loremaster (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hows that then? PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Paki.tv, both Xeno and I have already explained to you why it would not be appropriate to include words like “far-right” or “radical right” in the first sentence due to the issue of neutrality and undue weight. Furthermore, there will never be a consensus for your suggestion. So I honestly don't understand why you can't let this go, especially in light of the recent changes I have made to the lead section of the article which now ends by emphasizing the position of National-Anarchism on the political spectrum in a very categoric way. --Loremaster (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Paki.tv, I think that Loremaster's compromise is a fair one; he is noting the word "far right" in the lead (but not the lead sentence) - which appears to be loosely synonymous with "radical right". I'm not so sure about these new sources you're identified to support your claim : notwithstanding the fact that new-right.org and publiceye.org seem to be somewhat biased, as far as I can tell at a brief glance they don't out-and-out say that National-Anarchism is "far right"/"radical right" (just so) but that the NRF "repackages" far-right (or something) or that National-Anarchism had it's "origin" in far-right (etc). Even the scholarly essay says that "National anarchism draws its fascism from the right ... " (but goes on to identify other aspects of the philosophy). So, again, I think that the compromise that Loremaster has set out is a good one, and highlights many of these points-of-view without lending undue weight in the belief that NA is "far right/radical right (full stop)". If I've misunderstood things, please let me know: again - polisci is not my area of expertise.
 * I think it is an inappropriate approach to editing to simply keep re-inserting "far right" or "radical right" into the lead sentence by tacking on refs that loosely support this claim. Please develop consensus here before repeating this edit. Further developing the body of the article to demonstrate why "far right" or "radical right" is an accurate descriptor without appropriate context should be a first step. – xeno talk 13:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite the fact that political science is not Xeno's expertise, his judgement is correct. Furthermore, let's not forget that he is a Wikipedia administrator. So if politely suggests to stop editing to simply keep re-inserting disputed words into the article without having the support of a consensus, we should listen to him. --Loremaster (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Xeno - you say you are no expert but believe me if you showed that forst sentence to the presidents and prime ministers of the first world states in which NA exists then they would not have a clue what the hell you were on about. even the editor above should now admit that it makes no sence. thats the problem. if however you told anypone that NA Is far right then theyt would understand perfectly what is going on - most sources, academics, biased and not biased - reliable and not so reliable agree that NA is far right so I really dont see what your problem is here. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting aside the fact that I don't think insulting a Wikipedia administrator while trying to make your point is a wise move, as I've explained to you many times before, the Fascism article (that you pointed us to in a previous discussion to argue that fascism is far-right) doesn't describe fascism as “far-right” in its first sentence but only does so in the third sentence. Is the definition of fascism less understandable because of this choice? Of course not. Furthermore, after summarizing the history and views of National-Anarchism, the lead section ends by explaining that N-A is generally considered far-right based on our most reliable sources. So neither Xeno nor I understand your obsession with having the word “far-right” or “radical right” in the first sentence which is perfectly understandable as is and should remain as neutral as possible, in part, because national-anarchists and their defenders do not think or describe N-A as “far-right” or “radical right”. So move on already. --Loremaster (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Paki.tv, please address the concern I raised rather than using non-sequiturs. Thank you, – xeno talk 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The body clearly demonstrates already why NA is far-right - anyone who is even vaguely aquainted with [politics will be able to tell you that. all the activists and groups and eventual ideas are far-right. on the other point, NA is massively different from Fascism - which is a historical movement that 'everyone' knows about - not so NA an I illustrated in my last comment. as for insulting people that is not nor ever has been my intention. neither am i scared by authority. there is no concensus for the current revision of the article and therefore i am making changes as argued. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remember this is a general-purpose encyclopedia; we cannot assume our readers will be familiar with the political spectrum. – xeno talk 23:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you will find that the liar Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki is the one who is obsessed about removing an important element of the first sentence. Xeno's sympathies with Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki go back before getting involved in this article, in fact to releasing the liar from a temporary ban. Xeno may be an administartor, they may even be the pope and the president of the united states rolled into one, but that does not place them above criticism. We may speculate about why Xeno is backing Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki the liar, but that will not get us anywhere. There might be nothing more sinister than Xeno doesn't want to admit a mistake - even though his actions have exacerbated the problems on this page, and his comments have hardly helped.Harrypotter (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the issues and do not attack your fellow editors. Any issue you have with my actions should be raised at my talk page or WP:AN. – xeno talk 23:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Harrypotter, I started editing the National-Anarchism article on 5 October 2009 and no one, including you, can deny that I've greatly expanded and improved this article since then. Someone will correct me I am mistaken but the words “far-right” or “radical right” were never included in the fist sentence of the lead section of the article until 24 January 2010 when Paki.tv tried to thus triggering the edit war we find ourselves in to this day. Both Paki.tv and you insist on having theses disputed words in the first sentence while both me, Gnostrat and presumably Pollinosisss are opposed having explained quite extensively our position and suggested numerous compromises that you have all rejected. Now, I've significantly improved the Lead section, created a Position in the political spectrum section, and expanded the Criticism section in a way that I honestly thought should and would make both Paki.tv and you happy yet your mind is so clouded with hatred over my recent sins that you are unwilling to acknowledge this fact. That being said, in light of the number of times Xeno has temporarily blocked me or threatened to reinstate my temporary ban or rejected my request that the article should be blocked, the notion that he unfairly sympathizes with me is absurd! The only reason why Xeno seems to have supported my position in this dispute is because it is well-explained, logical, and most consistant with Wikipedia guidelines as well as examples set out by other articles. Thefefore, your attempt to question Xeno's impartiality is outrageous! However, I do hope you keep at it so that a case can be made for you to be banned from Wikipedia sooner rather than later... --Loremaster (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's all try to stick to the issues and not speculate on the emotional mindset of our fellow contributors or openly hope for their banning. I am optimistic that the compromise discussion immediately below is a path to collegial editing. – xeno talk 16:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. --Loremaster (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break - 12 april compromise suggestion
Xeno - this is exactly my point - for a general purpose encyclopaedia, 'far right' is a more accurate, efficient and easily understood description (and one that is covered in both references and body - eg repeatedly in descriptions like conservative revolutionary etc) than "synthesis of neo-völkisch tribalism and green anarchism." PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A fair point. So, as I see it, your main concern is that we are not giving the reader a 10,000 foot overview in the lead sentence identifying the national anarchism movement as far right. I believe that Loremaster is concerned that simply saying national-anarchism is far right (just so, without context) is an oversimplification and at odds with the text that follows specifying that it's a synthesis of left-wing and right-wing politics. Would not a fair compromise to be moving the final sentence of the lead section into the lead sentence paragraph? Something like in the quote box below? – xeno talk 12:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think also, further to your point, we should say what it is, i.e. would it be fair to say it is a political movement? That should also appear in the lead sentence. – xeno talk 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Xeno's description of my legitimate concer is absolutelty correct and, although I prefer the current version of the lead because each paragraph represents and summarizes each section of the article in their vertical order, I would be willing to support his suggestion that we move the last sentence into the lead sentence. However, until there is consensus for it, I've only edited the first sentence to state the following:


 * And I edited the last sentence to state the following:


 * So the question now is whether or not both Paki.tv and Harrypotter can accept Wikipedia administrator Xeno's compromise since there will never be a consensus for what these two really want... --Loremaster (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to propose an alternative. The first sentence of the third paragraph should be moved up and joined to the first sentence of the lead so we get all the summarising of political ingredients right at the beginning. I think this matters because "syncretic political ideology which synthesizes neo-völkisch tribalism and green anarchism" is a good first sentence but it necessarily boils down the complexity of N-A to a suitably short formula. We need to move immediately to a fuller description. The question of political-spectrum positioning seems to fall naturally at the end of the lead, after the synthesis itself has been described. This may not sound very compromising, as it will not get the term "radical right" in there near the beginning of the lead, but the optimum structure for the article should in my view be the primary consideration.


 * Some other issues which I will address here:


 * (1) The way in which the political influences are divided into right-wing and left-wing seems to be modelled on footnote 25 in Griffin 2003. I feel obliged to point out once again that where we read that "national-anarchism draws its fascism from the right [and] from the left", Griffin is quoting from what he introduces as an "extreme, and evidently stubbornly unreconstructed, revolutionary left-wing website". He is providing a glimpse of syncretism, not endorsing the website's classifications! Any anarchist would acknowledge that anarchism has a left/right spectrum within itself, with Stirner and Proudhon towards one end and anarcho-communists and syndicalists at the other, except that it's not possible to say which end is which. ("Left or right according to taste", I believe George Woodcock wrote somewhere...) And that doesn't take account of 'post-left' anarchists like Bob Black, another influence on Southgate. Describing the anarchists in the list as left-wing influences is therefore contentious. No less contentious than describing as right-wing such movements as Nouvelle Droite, an eclectic cultural/intellectual movement which Benoist has said should have been called something other than New Right. Or Traditionalists...a school of comparative religion, for heaven's sake! Third Positionism obviously presents its own classification problems (and I'm not sure yet whether it even deserves to be in the list, but I may come to that on another occasion). I would be willing to speak in general terms of "a synthesis of seemingly opposed right-wing and left-wing ideological systems" in the final sentence of the lead. But I do not believe it is useful to categorise the list of influences in that way.


 * (2) "Ecofascism" is a politically loaded and extremely contentious description that isn't thrown around by a writer like Spencer Sunshine except as a derogative. As I've argued previously, Sunshine is a source we can use for his factual statements (i.e. for the reliable sources on which he depends) but who often needs rephrasing per WP:ASF. Even so, all that he actually says on "ecofascism" is that a journal founded by Richard Hunt "is seen as an 'ecofascist' publication". By whom? I think we all know the obvious suspects and they don't exactly inspire confidence in their supply of scholarly detachment. But Sunshine is vague and evasive. On WP, this would count as weasel words. Since his sole reference to "ecofascism" is some unspecified somebody or other's take on Hunt's green anarchism, which is already covered in the first sentence, I strongly recommend deleting the word.


 * With a couple of other changes for precision and flow, my proposal for the Lead section, therefore, is as follows:


 * Over to you guys. Gnostrat (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I approve your proposal. --Loremaster (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One concern with your suggestion Gnostrat is that doesn't say "far right" (or radical right) in the lead sentence/ paragraph - which appears to be a key component of Harrypotter/Paki.tv's position. – xeno talk 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although Gnostrat and I are willing to support the mention of the word "far right" or "radical right" in the first paragrah, we will never support its mention in the first sentence. --Loremaster (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to prepare a compromise suggestion with it in the first paragraph, then. – xeno talk 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Here goes:


 * Note for Gnostrat and others: The term “mazeway resynthesis” (the elaboration of a world-view and ritual forged from both traditional and newly improvized, "invented" elements capable of supplying the new nomos of the embryonic community—a process of syncretism known to anthropologists as "ludic recombination") comes from Roger Griffin's work Modernity, modernism, and fascism. A "mazeway resynthesis" (and an email conversation a colleague of mine had with Griffin) and it summarizes the following sentence from Macklin's essay Co-opting the Counter Culture: “The concept of the Anarch therefore provides sanction for the amorphous ideological shape-shifting and rampant eclecticism of ‘national-anarchism’, allowing Southgate to claim that he is not ‘fascist’ but that he has transcended the dichotomy of conventional politics to embrace higher political forms that are ‘beyond left and right’.”


 * What do you guys think? --Loremaster (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like a decent compromise that should be acceptable to both sides here, but obviously I don't speak for either. – xeno talk 18:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is no compromise - you know full well that the issue here is the non-sensical opening sentence - as I have repeatedly made clear above!!??? PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence and paragraph makes perfect sense. In light of teh commonly-accepted definition of syncretic politics and following the example set by the Fascism article, it is neutral and carefully explains how scholars position National-Anarchism in the political spectrum. That being said, Wikipedia administrator Xeno had told User:Paki.tv that:
 * it is an inappropriate approach to editing to simply keep re-inserting "far right" or "radical right" into the lead sentence by tacking on refs that loosely support this claim. Please develop consensus here before repeating this edit.
 * In light of Paki.tv's refusal to do this and his recent edits, I argue that it is now clearly impossible to resolve this dispute with this intransigent user, who is closed to any compromise, and that action should be taken to protect the National-Anarchism article from him and anyone who imitates him. --Loremaster (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is unfortunate you are unwilling to entertain a compromise, Paki.tv. – xeno talk 17:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So what do we do now? --Loremaster (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if one side of a mediation is unwilling to compromise, then there's really no point in mediation. Harrypotter has not commented yet on the proposed compromise, but if we assume he shares the unmovable position of Paki.tv, there are potentially two users that want "far right/radical right/right wing" in the lead sentence - no matter what, where there are at least three users (Loremaster, Gnostrat, Pollinosisss) who feel that it should not be as it requires contextualization. That's a bit of a deadlock, and we haven't had much luck attracting other voices into this fairly trivial dispute. – xeno talk  17:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. So how do we protect this article from never-ending reverts? --Loremaster (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure, to be honest. I've initiated a thread at ANI: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I have been very reasonable by only insisting on 'right wing' (moving from far right to radical right). The problem of references exists whatever the claim - whether it be right wing or neo-volkish tribalism or green anarchism simply because NA is an obscure topic so the references are obscure - and in sum theres only one reference for this idea of left/right synthesis against many more for 'right wing' PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The claim that N-A is a right/left synthesis obviously comes from Macklin's essay in which he argues that the synthesis of left and right in groupuscules like the national-anarchist NRF makes their classification suitably problematic. This claim is further supported by Roger Griffin's essay in which he argues that N-A is a synthesis between classic fascism, Third Positionism, neo-anarchism and new types of anti-systemic politics born of the anti-globalization movements (For the record, I am willing to use Griffin's definition for the first sentence if it can finally achieve a consensus). The claim that N-A is a synthesis of green anarchism and neo-volkish tribalism stems, in part, from Spencer Sunshine's essay in which he argues that N-A's claim to anarchism comes from Richard Hunt's green anarchism and, in part, from Casey Sanchez's essay in which he argues national-anarchists spread their views in the language of radical environmentalism and mystical tribalism. Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke defines this mystical tribalism as “neo-volkish movements”.
 * The reason why the current version of the lead section is in fact a compromise is because in the past Gnostrat and I were opposed to ANY description of N-A as “far-right” or “radical-right” ANYWHERE in the article because 1) national-anarchists describe their ideology as “neither left nor right”, 2) N-A is a synthesis of left- and right-wing politics, 3) “far-right” and “radical-right” are not neutral terms and are rarely used by people to describe their position in the political spectrum, 4) none of the sources (we had at the time) explicitly used the term “far-right” or “radical-right” to refer to post-NRF national-anarchism. However, taking all of those facts into account, we now have both a sentence in the lead section as well as a new section in the article that address the claim that N-A is radical-right within a proper context that reflects the nuance found in our most reliable sources. So there is no need to describe N-A as “right-wing” in the first sentence since it is obviously redundant in light of 1) the claim that N-A is a syncretic political and cultural ideology and 2) the second sentence which is crucial to the proper contextualization of the position of N-A in the political spectrum.
 * Ultimately, according to Wikipedia guidelines, we can and must base all our definitive claims, especially on a subject as relatively obscure as N-A, on the opinion of scholars even if there are only one or two.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break - 16 april
(Sigh.) And here I thought we were close to agreement. Very well: let me see if I can move this forward, even slightly, by seeking agreement with Loremaster first on a common proposal that we can put to Harrypotter/Paki.tv.

(1) "Mazeway resynthesis"? I think we are in danger of getting (unnecessarily) just a little bit too clever for a lead section that's already (unavoidably) complex enough for the average visitor. Besides, Macklin is speaking about Southgate's personal odyssey. Southgate is not national-anarchism incarnate and, as I have previously noted, he does not insist on Evola as a sine qua non for all national-anarchists. This terminology also appears like jumping the gun to me. Surely we'd need a reliable source to actually apply the concept to N-A before we could report it, otherwise we're doing a little synthesis of our own and isn't that original research? Please, let's leave this term aside; we have enough controversy as it is.

(2) "Reconciles" in the first sentence is not a good word. As I've noted before, it's non-neutral because it assumes what the synthesis challenges, that these are contrary positions in the first place. If we need to avoid an awkward repetition, how about "combines"?

(3) I'll go along with moving the "radical right" sentence into §1.

(4) The remaining problem is where to put the influences list. The end of §2 is too far from the summary first sentence for my liking. I would prefer to slip it into the middle of §1, for the reasons I've previously stated. Furthermore, (neo-)völkisch thought has always embraced 'left-wing' currents (check out the articles) and is not alien to 'left-wing' anarchism (check out Gustav Landauer). Neo-völkisch tribalism is not so incontrovertibly right-wing, nor green anarchism so incontrovertibly left-wing, that we can move directly to talk of left/right synthesis as if this obviously followed. Sounds wrong, to me at least. More convincing to put the "synthesis" after the full list: the latter is a broad enough spectrum even if we can't place the names precisely on a left-right scale.

(5) I'm not dogmatic, however. In case other editors feel my first version of §1 is a bit top-heavy, let me offer an alternative which puts the list early in §2 and slightly amends the "radical right" sentence so that the synthesis doesn't necessarily refer back to the first sentence. My new proposals for the first two paragraphs:

Version 1:

Version 2:

Take your pick...or not. Possibly my second version reads better. And it keeps "radical right" as close to the first sentence as we can get without throwing nuance and context to the birds.

Furthermore, if Harrypotter/Paki.tv feel that the first-sentence description is not adequately supported, I am prepared to discuss with them any alternative form of words that may be drawn from reliable sources, short of inserting contentious terms that require context. Gnostrat (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Although I agree with you that the term “mazeway resynthesis” may be too clever for the lead, both Macklin and Griffin essentially argue that the evolution of national-anarchism is intertwined with Southgate's intellectual evolution. Furthermore, even if Southgate insists that Evola as a sine qua non for all national-anarchists, it doesn't change the fact that Griffin argues that national-anarchism is a synthesis of Evolian fascism and anarchism, and that Sanchez argues that Evola is a hero to national-anarchists. As for your concern that we may be jumping the gun and possibly indulging in synthesis and original research, I should have perhaps emphasized that this terminology comes from an email conversation a colleague of mine had with Griffin! So I suggest we replace the word "synthesis" in the Griffin sentence of the Position in the political spectrum section with “mazeway resynthesis”.
 * 2) Although I disagree with your judgment of the word "reconciles" (which comes from the syncretic politics article), I won't fight to keep it in since it isn't crucial.
 * 3) Good.
 * 4) I agree.
 * 5) Those are two good proposals. I prefer version 2 and I will edit the lead to incorporate it once the block expires. However, to make the lead more light and neutralize the possibility of dispute, I prefer to replace the name of the anarchist pioneers with “various anarchist schools of thought”.
 * So here is my version:


 * What do you think?--Loremaster (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Your explicit exclusion of both Harrypotter and myself in your diuscussions demonstrates the problem here. Furthermore you are both far too keen to take the NAers word on things, even linking to the New Right site as source - we need secondary sources!! PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We only exclude you because Harrypotter and you have NEVER entered any of these discussions in the spirit of compromise. I can only speak of myself when I say that it's not that I take national-anarchists' word on things but I'm striving to write an article from a neutral point of view that doesn't betray my left-wing-progressive bias against NA. That being said, we are only linking to the new-right.org site because it republished an essay by Macklin that was first published in the scholarly journal Patterns of Prejudice, which is obviously a secondary/tertiary source, so I don't see what the problem is. --Loremaster (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, when my colleague contacted political scientist Roger Griffin for his opinion on the National-Anarchism article, he said the following before answering a number of specific questions:

My colleague thanked him but argued that he was also hoping for a relatively more objective opinion than Southgate's. Griffin replied:

--Loremaster (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps we can keep this article locked until Southgate's new book is published later this year? Ottre 03:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You lot have been arguing about 'far right' being POV - but thats exactly what Southgate is - both far right and POV!!! I think my compromise of 'right wing' is a fair one. PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ottre, I would not support keeping this article locked until Southgate's new book is published because I doubt it would resolve this dispute.


 * Paki.tv, of course Southgate has a POV. However, the point Griffin is making is that when trying to write a Wikipedia article with a neutral point of view both Southgate's POV and his critics' POV should presented fairly. As I said before, it would not be neutral to simply describe N-A as “right-wing” in first sentence and there is no need to do so since it is obviously redundant in light of 1) the fact that N-A is a syncretic political and cultural ideology and 2) the second sentence which explains the position of N-A in the political spectrum. In other words, if we describe N-A as right-wing from the outset, we would have to delete the second sentence. Neither Gnostrat nor I would support this. --Loremaster (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, lets delete the second sentence then - because the fact that NA is syncretic is 1) Just the opinion of some scholars 2) A claim that is not wholly verifiable because NA is in fact far-right (as most scholars and activists agree). PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * *sigh* I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this to you but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Furthermore, Wikipedia considers the opinion of scholars as the most reliable source. That being said, national-anarchists describe their ideology as syncretic and as being neither left nor right. The first sentence takes this fact into account when trying to describe N-A from a neutral point of view. Scholars who have examined N-A acknowledge this fact but argue that N-A is groupuscular right/far-right/extreme-right/radical-right because of XYZ. Their opinion is reported in the second sentence of the article (following the example of the Fascism article). So I don't understand why this isn't satisfactory compromise for you. --Loremaster (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several points I would like to raise:
 * Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki mentions a "colleague" who has been discussing this page with Nick Griffin, not only the leader of the far right British National Party but also a key formulator of the Third Positionist platform, which Southgate was also involved with. This is not the "Nick Griffin" who appropriated the British Fuhrer's name as a pseudonym when contributing to Green Anarchy. This gives further credence to my concerns that far from having a "left-wing-progressive bias against NA" that Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki is being disingenuous by disguising their actual motivation to push a particular agenda. We should also bear in mind that Jonathan Bowden - who has been involved in internal power struggles in the BNP - is now collaborating with Troy Southgate's New Right (UK) as cultural officer of the BNP.
 * For those who take the trouble to read the reference as regards the problematic classification of N-A, they will find that what Macklin says is "While the synthesis of left and right in ‘third position’ groupuscules makes their classification suitably problematic, this article demonstrates that despite a protean capacity for change ‘national-revolutionary’ groupuscules retain, at least to the initiated, the recognizable mark of Cain." i.e. the Macklin article does not support what is said, unless of course, it is placed in teh context of N-A being a Third Positionist Groupuscule, and placing the TP side bar on the page. This is typical of the modus operandi of Loremaster/Ghostinthewiki. Further I would question the value of the syncretic politics page which perhaps should be merged with the ITP page, as it is a conceptualisation which from within the ITP, perhaps with a little help of Christian Bouchet and Nazi Satanism. Having studied the syncretism of voodoo and other pagan cults, it was a simple matter to adapt this to politics, and it involves a methodology not dissimilar to Neuro Linguistic Programming (see here, which was developed by its originators as an arising from the "Structure of Magic".
 * At least Gnostrat has been frank about where their political sympathies lie, even if though they have removed well referenced additions which I have made to this page. i,e Helmut Franke was not just a literary contributor to the Stahlhelm group, he was a former member of the Freikorps . . . and indeed it is to the Freikorps that the ITP looked to when developing their concept of the Political Soldier (for those interested Robert Waite's Vanguard of Nazism has a section in the conclusion on this term). Bearing in mind all of this, I do not think that it is taking matters to far to speculate whether hardened militants emerging from the ITP milieu might not see that manipulating wikipedia articles, and indeed creating pages around concepts quite specific to their activities and ideology, as useful way of pushing their conceptions towards a wider public.Harrypotter (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Harrypotter, you accuse me of getting British far-right politician Nick Griffin involved in the National-Anarchism page when in fact I clearly said that it is British political theorist Roger Griffin who was contacted to get his opinion. I will assume that it was an honest mistake rather than an outright lie but this proves to me that your obsessional resentment of me clouds your judgement and that you need to stop embarrassing yourself, take a break from this dispute, and come back with a spirit of good faith and compromise. By the way, I am not interested in whitewashing or promoting National-Anarchism otherwise I wouldn't have been the one to add a paragraph in the lead section of the article which explains in details why critics think N-A is crypto-fascist nor would I been the one to expand the criticism section to add more criticisms against N-A! Ultimately, my left-wing progressive bias is proven by the countless number of edits I have made on Wikipedia and the subject of the articles I have taken an interest in. Anyone who thinks I am right-winger or N-A sympathizer after reviewing my body of work is a certifiable idiot.
 * Since the lead section explain that scholars like Macklin regard N-A as far-right despite the fact that its left-right synthesis makes it classification problematic, he in fact does support what is said. Furthemore, there is a difference between third position and ‘third position’. Macklin wrote ‘third position’ because of the fact that both NRF and Southgate emerged from Third Position politics but can not longer be accurately described as Third Positionists. That being said, national-anarchism is a synthesis between classic fascism, Third Positionism, neo-anarchism and new types of anti-systemic politics born of the anti-globalization movements. So describing N-A as being a Third Positionist groupuscule, and placing the TP side bar on the page would be intellectual dishonest and typical of Harrypotter's anti-NA agenda and modus operandi. On the other hand, if the first part of the second sentence is going to become a source of dispute, I am willing to change it to focus on how national-anarchists position themselves in the political spectrum.
 * Whether or not the Syncretic politics article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough to meet Wikipedia's standards is completely irrelevant to whether or not we should describe National-Anarchism as a syncretic political ideology. What matters is what our most reliable sources tell us and they do describe N-A as a synthesis of many political ideologies. For the record, I would be opposed to the non-sensical suggestion that the Syncretic politics article be merged with International Third Position article. The only merge that would make sense (if it is necessary) would be with the Syncretism article.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account everything sources tell us as well as all the criticisms that Paki.tv, Harrypotter and even Gnostrat have made against previous versions of this article, I have writing what I think is the ideal lede on the Mediation Cabal page. --Loremaster (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was ready to endorse Loremaster's proposal of 16 April for the lead which seemed IMO to have assumed its optimum shape, bar a couple of last-minute quibbles. However, now that we have Loremaster's ideal lead section on the mediation cabal page, it's kind of back to the drawing board and I shall address the new proposal over there. I think it's still worth commenting here on a couple of remaining non-lead-related matters:


 * (1) Loremaster, I disagree with the way you use Griffin and Sanchez to justify novel terminology in a context where it's never been applied, but if you want to insert "mazeway resynthesis" into the Position section and use Macklin's statement on the Anarch to substantiate that N-A fits that description, I won't contest it. But I still fear that you're leaving yourself open to attack from editors who will delete it as original research, e-mails or no e-mails (and the ones Griffin wrote to your colleague are fascinating). Even though I concede that it's likely Roger Griffin would describe N-A as a "mazeway resynthesis" or "ludic recombination"...if he hasn't actually published on "N-A's mazeway resynthesis", then it's debateable whether you are legitimately paraphrasing Macklin and not combining sources to produce a new argument, and it would be remiss of me not to point that out. Of course, your colleague might persuade Griffin to publish something... (And while he's about it, to give us a new and up-to-date study of where N-A is at?)


 * (2) Harrypotter, I thank you for your compliment on my frankness, but my "political sympathies" tend to shuffle around a bit. I can assure you, however, that I have no inclination to either whitewash or airbrush the Freikorps, which committed a particularly brutal murder of one of my foremost political heroes, the German-Jewish mystical-romantic völkisch anarchist Gustav Landauer...a man of the progressive left and himself a sort of proto-national-anarchist, though that's just my opinion! Regarding Helmut Franke, your source (Alain de Benoist) describes him as a "former commando" (and I nearly wrote that in myself but refrained since it didn't seem particularly relevant to anything). I found no mention of the Freikorps there, nor anything to suggest that his connection with the Stahlhelm went beyond the literary. Still, it's a big article, so maybe you could point out what I missed? My real objection to your edits was this need you evidently felt to insert words like "right-wing", "misogynistic", "antisemitic" etc. at every available opportunity. I remind you that we "[a]ssert...facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves" (WP:ASF). So, unless we want to pad out this article with irrelevant details of who called which ideologue what and why, the place for those generally contentious descriptions is in the linked articles where they can be discussed and contextualised. In the case of the Stahlhelm, emphasising it as right-wing is pointless and redundant when anybody can just click on the link to learn about its politics. It's also a broad brush, and the section already describes Franke as a conservative-revolutionary, which is at once more nuanced and more precise. Gnostrat (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Gnostrat, I actually agree with you that the way I used Griffin and Sanchez to define N-A as a “synthesis of neo-volkish tribalism and green anarchism” left me vulnerable to being accused of synthesis or original research. This is why I have abandonned this improvised definition in my ideal lede in order to go with a definition of N-A that is more consistant with what Macklin says and more simple to understand for the average reader (as Paki.tv demanded). As for my use of the term “mazeway resynthesis”, since it isn't something that necessarily makes Southgate or National-Anarchism look good, I don't see why anyone would want to delete it except perhaps because they find it too obscure or pedantic. In a new section below, I will post the entire content of the two email messages Griffin sent to my colleague. --Loremaster (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Potentially useful sources
I was just reading this article published on the Synthesis website in 2001. I found the conclusion interesting:


 * The rise of the NGO is one of the most significant and helpful signs in recent years of a challenge to the NWO. Also important but what is sorely lacking to date, is the creation of common ‘mysteries’ in the old-fashioned Greek sense of the word.

Is it worth mentioning that some New Right thinkers support Nietzsche's idea of a "New Greece"? Also, the magazine they link to, The Scorpian, appears to discuss early National-Anarchism in back issues #10 and #12. Would anyone be willing to pay £5 for them? Ottre 02:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt this is notable information but let me think about it. --Loremaster (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Goodrick-Clarke, the first issue of the magazine appeared in late 1981. Assuming one issue was published per year, issue #10 would have come out in 1990, five years before the magazine was associated with Troy Southgate through his work with Richard Lawson. Even if it only mentions National-Anarchism in passing, I think this is notable.


 * I've gone ahead and inserted the bit about the new Greece. Ottre 15:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Dominic Hampshire is described as a “key New Right commentator and thinker” but not a national-anarchist. The conclusion you found interesting in his article focus on national-anarchism.
 * 2) The fact that some New Right thinkers support Nietzsche's idea of a "New Greece" may be notable in the New Right article but it isn't in a National-Anarchism article since these are two different ideologies despite their mutual influences.
 * 3) Therefore, until someone finds a reliable source that explicity states that some national-anarchist thinkers support Nietzsche's idea of a "New Greece", I would be opposed to such a claim being included in the article.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Current events that may be notable
Who wants to incorporate http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/05/post-immigration_march_scuffle.php and http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7417829 into the article? --Rjuner (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take care of it today or tomorrow. --Loremaster (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is video of the BANA members attacked by antifa on May 1st 2010: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=7417847#global Andrew Yeoman is seen with a bump on his head and other BANA members are interviewed by the media.  Andrew Yeoman can also be heard chanting "We are not afraid!" when the protest was getting heated.  --Rjuner (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've updated the History section of the article to take into accounts the notable recent events you have made us aware. I will let User:Ottre take care of adding citations. However, a direct link to the video should not and will not incorporated in the article since one of the sources incorporates the video. --Loremaster (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Formatting citations
Citations should look like actual bibliographical citations, not simply bare bones links. I don't really understand how such an assertion on my part can be disputed. Before the evidentiary citations I dug up are again reduced to less helpful, bare bones links (which lack vital information like the name of the article, the article's author, etc.), I would appreciate having the rationale for such an action explained. More information is better than less information, with respect to a bibliographic-style citations. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sir, I have been editing WP for three years and I must say I really don't understand your objection. No information is being excluded, simply moved down to the references section. It is better to have "bare bone links" in the citations because it provides space to quote the relevant text from the source. Eventually -- probably within a decade -- every single citation in Wikipedia will look like citation #19. This is formal practice for collaboratively-edited wikis. Ottre 10:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I support Ottre's edits. --Loremaster (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't, in point of fact, agree, but in the interests of comity, I shall yield on this point. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Yeoman's review
This beginning: "National-Anarchism (or Tribal-Anarchism[2]) is a radical anti-statist, anti-capitalist political and cultural ideology which emphasizes ethnic tribalism.[3] National-anarchists seek to establish a pan-national network of politically meritocratic, economically secessionist, and ecologically sustainable village-communities,[3] which practice racial, ethnic, religious and sexual separatism as a means to achieve "authentic cultural diversity".[4]" Precisely describes my views and the public stance of the Bay Area National Anarchists and I have been promoting the wikipedia NA page again because of it. Job well done to the editors. I am Andrew Yeoman. --Rjuner (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the compliments, Mr. Yeoman. However, please tell all national-anarchists that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to the National-Anarchism article and its talk page discussions. Therefore, all content hosted in Wikipedia cannot be:


 * 1) Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a  neutral point of view. You might wish to start a national-anarchist blog or visit a national-anarchist forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your national-anarchist views.
 * 2) Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics, especially those that advance or hinder the goals of the national-anarchist movement, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles.
 * 3) Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or national-anarchist projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Autobiography, Notability and Conflict of interest.
 * 4) Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an  objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting national-anarchist causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.


 * --Loremaster (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If that is the case Loremaster you are best served reminding the opponents of NA these policies rather than me. Thanks! Rjuner (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As anyone can see from previous discussions on this talk page, I'm doing that as well. --Loremaster (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Tribal Anarchism, notable reference?
Unless you can provide some articles or books discussing "Tribal Anarchism", this reference has got to go. This is precisely the kind of thing that leads people to think that wikipedia sucks. See summary. Maziotis (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I could fight this but I won't since I'm too exhausted from the 4-month-long edit war over the National-Anarchism page. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Andrew Yeoman (me) repeatedly describes National Anarchism and Tribal Anarchism as the same thing and Troy Southgate has concurred with this assessment.Rjuner (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We all know this from reading Greg Johnson's interview of you for the Occidental Quarterly Online but Wikipedia guidelines demands that we use a reliable third-party source that explicitly states that National-Anarchism is also known as “Tribal Anarchism”. Is there one that exists that you could point us to? --Loremaster (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is an additional reference http://www.heathenharvest.com/article.php?story=2010060320194463 Rjuner (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you but that's not a reliable source. I recommend you read the Identifying reliable sources page to help you in your search. --Loremaster (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion to delete the final sentence
I will argue that this sentence should be removed:

"They further argue that national-anarchists want the militant chic of calling themselves anarchists while avoiding the historical and philosophical baggage that accompanies such a claim, such as the link with 19th-century Jewish anarchists who engaged in propaganda of the deed.[11]"

Besides being an atrocious sentence the fact of there being "19th century Jewish anarchists" is not an argument of any "philosophical baggage" of anarchism that National Anarchists are somehow trying to avoid. If this is a direct quote from a third party source it should be quoted as such otherwise it should be considered POV and deleted.Rjuner (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting aside the fact that you don't seem to understand this sentence, I have no problem editing the sentence to rephrase it better but I would be opposed to it being deleted. --Loremaster (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Irregardless of what you think I don't understand of the sentence let's see your revision. Thanks.  Rjuner (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the 2nd sentence
"National-anarchists seek to establish a pan-national network of politically meritocratic, economically secessionist, religiously neopagan, and ecologically sustainable village-communities, which practice racial, ethnic, religious and sexual separatism, as a bulwark against globalization."

This sentence is not accurate, a more accurate description is "National-anarchists seek to establish a pan-national network of politically meritocratic, and ecologically sustainable communities which may practice ethnic, religious, or sexual separatism opposed to globalization."

Rjuner (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Many National Anarchists are not pagan.
 * 2) Not all National Anarchists desire to live in ethnically, religiously, or sexually segregated areas.
 * 3) Some merely endorse the rights of others to live in those types of areas if they so wish. To say that all NA want the same thing is highly misleading.


 * You have a point on the issue of paganism so I've edited out the expression "religiously neopagan" but the expression "economically secessionist" is sourced and important it stays. However, when it comes to the issue of what all NA may or not believe on the issue of separatism/segregation, we can only report what reliable third-party sources tell us, specifically Graham Macklin. Lastly, your rephrasing of the last part of that sentence dealing with globalization doesn't sound good. --Loremaster (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be wondering why I wrote "as a bulwark against the negative effects of globalization" at the end of that sentence. I was inspired to write this based on the following arguments made by Graham D. Macklin  in his essay Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction:


 * --Loremaster (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In everyday English language nobody uses the term "bulwark against something" to describe what they are opposed to. They simply say they are opposed to "something."  Furthermore despite what you think what this sentence "sounds like" it is more concise version that expresses the same content and is therefor a better sentence.  It reduces your 3 hyphens and 7 comma sentence to a easier 2 hyphens and 3 commas.  You're trying to put to much information in a single sentence either simplify the first one as I suggested or break it up into two sentences.  69.42.8.234 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You have a point on the issue of the term "bulwark" so I will replace it with the term "barrier". Regarldess, I still disagree that your suggested rephrasing of that sentence is better but I have deleted the words "racial", "religious" and "sexual" so the sentence is lighter. --Loremaster (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I've decided to make that sentence even lighter and focus more on the issue of race and globalization rather than separatism. --Loremaster (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding first sentence History section
"The term national anarchist dates back as far as the 1920s,"

This should be rewritten to "The term 'national anarchist' predates the contemporary National Anarchist movement in the 1920s by German conservative revolutionary Helmut Franke"

Although the info about a 1920's 'national anarchist' is interesting it should really somehow be described as predating the modern use of NA. I don't know of anyone in the NA movement world wide who counts Helmut Franke as an influence on their political opinions. Rjuner (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * uh, I think everyone understands that in light of what is written in the second paragrah of lead section as well as if they read the first two paragraph of the History section in their entirety. Furthermore, your suggested phrasing doesn't sound good. --Loremaster (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Its irrelevant if a person has to read the entire paragraph to get what you mean. "The term national anarchist dates back as far as the 1920s," is explicitly confusing as it infers that there is a linear connection between Helmut Franke and the modern National Anarchist movement and there is no evidence of this whatsoever.  Please prove me wrong or I am changing it to "The term 'national anarchist' predates the contemporary National Anarchist movement in the 1920s by German conservative revolutionary Helmut Franke".  69.42.8.234 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the current version of the sentence is confusing because it supposedly infers that there is a linear connection between Helmut Franke and the modern National Anarchist movement, I will gadly rephrase it. However, your suggested phrasing is poor but I think I have found something better. --Loremaster (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then lets rephrase it, please. Rjuner (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Please read the first paragraph of the History section. --Loremaster (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Proofread by User:Ottre
In light of a major copyedit (diff) by Loremaster which I imagine will create problems in the long term future, as there was no community consensus for the individual changes he makes, I have decided to proofread this article line by line and establish a stable version of the text. You should vote (support or oppose) beneath each correction I propose. I am working off this version of the article, dated 6 June 2010. Emphasis in italics added.


 * National-Anarchism is a radical, anti-statist, anti-capitalist, right-wing political and cultural ideology which emphasizes ethnic tribalism.


 * First point: The opening paragraph of the "views" section states that national-anarchists "see the artificial hierarchies inherent in government and capitalism as systematically oppressive and environmentally destructive". It seems their raison d'être is to protect society and the natural environment from globalism and capitalism. In the second paragraph, not as a point of contention, it describes their objection to first order problems of the state, including "liberalism, immigration, multiracialism, and multiculturalism". We should reword this sentence to indicate their ideology is primarily anti-capitalist: "National-Anarchism is an anti-capitalist, radically anti-statist, right-wing political and cultural ideology".


 * Oppose. Since the first sentence of the lead is the result of a compromise after a 4-month-long edit war, we should all be careful about the changes we choose to make to it. That being said, I'm not opposed to placing the term "anti-capitalist" before "anti-statist" but I think the term "radical" should remain in front and seperate from the other qualifiers. --Loremaster (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I don't see any reason to keep changing it. Rjuner (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rjuner, have you noticed that Ottre does in fact propose a change? --Loremaster (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Second point: We should be using British English (per WP:ENGVAR) in this article, and change "emphasizes" to "emphasises". Note that early versions of the article employed British spelling: "the N.R.F. has since been dismantled in favour of leaderless resistance cells and community building."


 * Oppose Rjuner (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. According to Wikipedia guidelines, "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. Within the English Wikipedia no variety is considered more correct than another. Editors should understand that the differences between the varieties are largely superficial." --Loremaster (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * National-anarchists seek to establish a pan-national network of economically secessionist, politically meritocratic, and ecologically sustainable village-communities, which practice ethnic separatism, as a bulwark against the negative effects of globalization.


 * First point: The term "economically secessionist" is confusing. It is not in wide use in the context of anarchism; Macklin says that Southgate advocates a "localized counter-economy" but does not give the terminology much thought. A search of Google Scholar for "economic secession" and variants such as "economically secessionist" returns 16 results; "market secession" returns 4 results; and "counter-economy" returns 134 results, but of these only 3 results relate to "anarchism". A search of JSTOR returns 2 results, 1 result and 19 results respectively. I propose we use the term "economically disintegrated" which has a set meaning and link to the economic secession article.


 * Interesting idea but "economically disintegrated" sounds like an "economic collapse" rather than a disassociation with prevailing economies. I am opposed to "economically secessionist" since being politically secessionist is inclusive of that.  Furthermore most National Anarchists tend stress sustainable economics then anything else. Rjuner (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll go with "economically self-sufficient" instead. --Loremaster (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Second point: What evidence is there to suggest that national-anarchists want to provide "a bulwark against the negative effects of globalization"? I believe they want to counteract globalisation, by providing a series of bulwarks against these negative effects.


 * Support Rjuner (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Third point: The distinction that these village-communities practice ethnic separatism is meaningless. We should have a separate sentence stating: "National-anarchists are particularly attached to the concept of the "right to difference" and advocate a model of society in which communities may practice racial, ethnic, religious or sexual separatism".


 * Although there is a "right to difference" I think it is more accurate to use the phrase "right of self-determination." Rjuner (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose.


 * I disagree that the term "economically secessionist" is confusing (What are you confusing it with?) It obviously refers to the concept of economic secession, a term that John T. Kennedy introduced to refer to a libertarian anarchist activist technique, which we are using as a synonym for counter-economics, a term that Samuel Edward Konkin III introduced to refer to the same concept in anarcho-capitalism/market anarchism. Regardless, Macklin actually does explain that Southgate "advocated a localized ‘counter-economy’ based on smallholdings and allotments whose produce and required skills could be bartered through local exchange trading systems (LETS) suffused with a racist imperative to break the ‘dominating stranglehold’ of Asian shop owners." Lastly, the term "economically disintegrated" is far more confusing and isn't notable.
 * Regarding the evidence that suggests that national-anarchists want to provide "a bulwark against the negative effects of globalization", you should read the quotes of Macklin's essay I provided in a section above. Regardless, what you are suggesting sounds more like hairsplitting.
 * I disagree that the distinction that these village-communities practice ethnic separatism is meaningless since all of our reliable sources are almost unanimous in describing national-anarchists as promoting "racial seperatism" and seeking to create ethnically-pure village-communities. Furthermore, the article shouldn't be written in a way that sounds like PR spin for national-anarchists.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On second thought, Rjuner has a point that I may be putting to much information in a single sentence so I will trying to make that sentence far more simple and focus more on the issue of race and globalization rather than separatism. --Loremaster (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The term national anarchism dates back as far as the 1920s but it has been primarily redefined and popularized since the 1990s, by British post-Third-Position ideologue Troy Southgate, to promote a synthesis of ideas from the Conservative Revolutionary movement, Traditionalist School, Third Positionism, and Nouvelle Droite, and from various anarchist schools of thought.


 * This sentence is fine.


 * OpposeNo it isn't, you're cramming at least 4 sentences into 1!!! How many commas is in this beast!? 6!!!  Rjuner (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Ok. I'll work on taming the beast. --Loremaster (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * National-anarchists therefore argue they hold a syncretic political stance that is "beyond left and right" because the conventional left–right political spectrum is obsolete and should be replaced with a centralist-decentralist paradigm.


 * Change "syncretic political stance" to "syncretic stance" as the Traditionalist School applies to religion, not politics. Otherwise this sentence is fine.


 * Support That is hairsplitting but I don't care. Rjuner (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I disagree. This sentence refers specifically to their position in the political spectrum. The fact that religious ideas (from the Traditionalist School) influences their politics is irrelevant. --Loremaster (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Scholars who have examined national-anarchism generally consider it represents a further evolution in the thinking of the radical right rather than an entirely new dimension.


 * Too long. Change it to "Scholars believe the ideology represents a further evolution in the thinking of the radical right rather than an entirely new dimension".


 * Support. I'll work on a shorter but better version of that sentence. --Loremaster (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * National-anarchism has elicited skepticism and outright hostility from both left- and right-wing critics.


 * This fails WP:V. According to Sunshine: "...National-Anarchists, recruited through Southgate’s internet activism, have made the leap from contemplating their idiosyncratic ideas on the internet into making them the basis of really-existing politics, by joining demonstrations in Australia and San Francisco." As far as I'm aware, the only public events dedicated to the ideology as a whole were the community meetings organised by Welf Herfuth in Sydney last year. Change this sentence to "National-anarchist ideas have been met with skepticism and outright hostility from both left- and right-wing critics".


 * You are clearly unaware of the activities of the Bay Area National Anarchists and other groups that have sprung up in recent months. The Sydney group hasn't been active in two years. Rjuner (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It isn't just national-anarchist ideas that have been criticized but also the people who hold these ideas as well as the activities they engage in. National-anarchism therefore emcompasses all of these things. --Loremaster (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The former accuse national-anarchists of appropriating a sophisticated anarchist critique of problems with the modern world only to offer neo-fascism as the solution, while the latter argue they want the militant chic of calling themselves anarchists without the historical and philosophical baggage that accompanies such a claim.


 * Should that be "counter-offer" -- as opposed to the solution offered by left-wing anarchists? Otherwise this sentence is fine.


 * Oppose. We are simply going by what the source actually says. --Loremaster (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ottre 00:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability Not Truth
In light of some comments made on this talk page, I would like remind everyone that “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.” --Loremaster (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are going to edit articles about politics, you should print out a copy of WP:NPOVT. Two main points:


 * 1) The various points of view on a topic must be summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.
 * 2) Impartiality is a form of bias. Wikipedia should report all major points of view, not just the partisan arguments.
 * Ottre 23:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting aside the fact that my reminder about verifiabilty doesn't contradict these points, I'm quite familiar with them since I've incessantly argued these points during my edit war with left-wingers over this article! However, my point remains that this article should not be written in a way that seems like national-anarchist propaganda or spin, as I explained to Andrew Yeoman in a section above. --Loremaster (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Loremaster, I am aware of your painstaking work on the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. Now I think you give slightly too much weight to the Round Table movement and not enough to the United World Federalists and the work of Clarence Streit (perhaps you haven't read his books, they're not in print anymore) in the "gradualism" section, but it's clear to me that you know WP policy and have experience in breaking down controversies. We are above having a debate on this level. I am not willing to discuss "propaganda and spin", and I'm sure Andrew Yeoman isn't going to be much help in this regard either.


 * Do you agree a) the introduction sets the tone of the article, and b) a neutral article would point out wherever possible that national-anarchists are not just a group of right-wing political agitators, many appear to have researched the ideas of the Traditionalist School? Do you agree c) that the fascination they have with Mithraism, demonstrated in the presentation of national-anarchist websites and the range of books put out by Integral Tradition Publishing suggests an interest in civilization? There were two separate Mithraisms, and the Western form had a huge influence on Roman frontier policy and the early traditions of Christianity. Do you agree d) that as more sources become available, we will eventually have a section on their cultural views, and a subsection on their criticism of the New Left intelligentsia, which is already being studied by the likes of Tamir Bar-On? Ottre 19:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ottre, thank you for your suggestions regarding the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article. However, I give due weight to the Round Table movement only because it is the major focus of contemporary conspiracy theorists. That being said, such discussion should be on the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page.


 * Regarding your questions, I agree that the introduction sets the tone of the article which is why I think the last version of the first paragraph of the lead that I edited is far more incisive than what was written in the past, which tended to gloss over what national-anarchism is really about. I only agree a neutral article would point out wherever possible that national-anarchists are not just a group of right-wing political agitators IF reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy report this nuance. The fact that some national-anarchists have researched the ideas of the Traditionalist School or have a fascination with Mithraism or have an interest in civilization doesn't overshadow or condoneor rationalize the (regressive) political and cultural views they primarily promote and are known for. That being said, I agree that national-anarchist views on culture and their criticism of the New Left should be included in the article but only if they are reported in reliable sources such as the work of Tamir Bar-On (as opposed to an obscure blog or a fringe online journal). Ultimately, despite my interest in making sure the National-Anarchism article is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable; I do not share your obvious desire to use this article to make national-anarchists look like sophisticated intellectuals whose novel ideas deserve respect. --Loremaster (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm always mindful of something Spencer Sunshine wrote in his essay Rebranding Fascism: National-Anarchists:
 * The influence of these New Right ideas on the National-Anarchists is explicit. In Australia, the National-Anarchist group is for all practical reasons coextensive with “New Right Australia/New Zealand” and at one point they claimed that “New Right is the theory, National-Anarchism the practice.” In Britain, Troy Southgate has been involved in New Right meetings since 2005. But while Benoist claims that he does not hate immigrants, repudiates antisemitism, and endorses feminism, the National-Anarchists show what New Right ideas look like in practice: crude racial separatism, open antisemitism, homophobia, and antifeminism. The “right to difference” becomes separate ethnic villages.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree the tone of the article will eventually be recast, but in keeping with WP:V this will happen very gradually. I am considering requesting input from Macklin. Ottre 04:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree at all because I consider the current tone to already be neutral and/or reflective of the tone used by reliable, third-party, published sources with a scholarly perspective. I've already considered requesting input from Macklin but I've had a hard time finding his email address. That being said, I seriously doubt that he will help you push your POV into the article. --Loremaster (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Attention Loremaster
Please properly use commas in a sentence. You do not, need to, add a comma, after, every few words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjuner (talk • contribs) 08:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Also can you please insure that monster sentences like this do not get created again?

"In the mid-1990s, Troy Southgate, a former member of the British National Front and International Third Position, began to move away from Stasserite Nazism and Catholic distributism towards new anarchism and the primitivist form of green anarchism articulated in Hunt's 1997 book To End Poverty, but fused it with the radical traditionalism of Italian esotericist Julius Evola and the ethnopluralism and pan-European nationalism of French New Right philosopher Alain de Benoist to create a newer form of national-anarchism.[4]"

Thanks. Rjuner (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Here we have a restrictive relative clause: "In the mid-1990s, Troy Southgate, a former member of the British National Front and International Third Position," and an explanatory sentence: "[a] form of green anarchism articulated in Hunt's 1997 book To End Poverty," which could be simplified or set off from the main sentence element. I suggest the following:


 * In the mid-1990s, a former member of the International Third Position (ITP) group by the name of Troy Southgate began to formulate a new type of national-anarchism. Emerging from the British National Front ideology which underlaid the ITP, it also incorporated ideas from Julius Evola's philosophy, the ethnopluralism and pan-European nationalism of French New Right philosopher Alain de Benoist and primitive or "green" anarchism&mdash;a school of thought which had developed over the course of the twentieth century, but had recently been addressed by Richard Hunt in his 1997 manifesto, To End Poverty.


 * Ottre 09:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I already felt that my original sentence was too heavy, I was planning on simplifying it eventually and I will now in light of Yeoman's comments. However, I don't care much for Ottre's suggestion so I will try to find something better. --Loremaster (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I could not disagree more. You mix tenses and the first and second sentences of the paragraph are not linked. Ottre 17:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a work in progress because I'm doing many things at the same time. Feel free to fix tenses and link sentences but I am not going to tolerate you or anyone else trying to supress important information about Southgate's ideological background and evolution that is sourced. In other words, the term "Stasserite Nazism" stays. --Loremaster (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've restored the link between the first and second sentences of the paragraph. --Loremaster (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I will use as many commas as I think are necessary and appropriate. --Loremaster (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing this
"In his 2002 book Black Sun, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke argued that national-anarchism is a neo-völkisch movement, which is part of the Euro-American radical right, a virtual community of European and American right-wing extremists seeking to establish a new pan-national identity for all people of Indo-European descent based on race and spiritual racism. "

The cited reference has nothing to do with NA AT ALL but it does have something to do with Southgate. It does not belong on this page. Rjuner (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've restored and will continue to restored this sourced sentence. Southgate is and continues to be the principal ideologue of contemporary National-Anarchism. The evolution of his political views are intertwined with the evolution of National-Anarchism as an ideology. Just because a 2002 criticism of National-Anarchism is dated because it doesn't take into account how much the the ideology has changed since then, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be reported in this article. --Loremaster (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not a criticism of NA but a whole different topic. Also, why do you continue to spell National-Anarchism like this in the talk page but National-anarchism on the page?  To do so is verifiably inconsistent and the page has been spelled as National-Anarchism for years previous to you becoming an editor. Rjuner (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference DOES NOT DISCUSS NATIONAL ANARCHISM, in whole or in part. If you would have read the text it mentions Southgate and NRF and does not mention NA AT ALL.  I will be removing it again because the text is MISLEADING since Clarke DOES NOT in ANY PLACE mention A!! I highly suggest you read the material you are quoting.  Rjuner (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You may have a point after all so I'll delete the Goodrick-Clark line. --Loremaster (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, you are not even correct that Troy is the sole ideologist of NA. It has evolved WAY past Troy with my own, Keith Preston, Flavio Goncalves, Welf Herfurth, and others contributions have VASTLY different ideologies than Troy.  If you knew what you were talking about it it would not be possible for you to write that statement.  Rjuner (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I never said he was the sole ideologue. I said he was and still is the principal ideologue, according to the reliable sources that are currently available. --Loremaster (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent Reverts
"Undid revision 367967629 by Loremaster"

Linking to the article about the 1889-1909 Protectionist Party of Australia didn't really seem to make any sense, within the context of an article which originated with the contemporary Australian Protectionist Party. Since there is no article for the latter, I subsequently removed the (dead/"red") link altogether.


 * I didn't realize the article was about the old Protectionist Party rather than new one. So good call. --Loremaster (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have restored the links per WP:REDLINK. The Australian Protectionist Party is a minor party which broke away from the registered Australia First Party two years ago, and satisfies WP:AUP inclusion criteria. I believe the Voice of Reason Radio Network has received coverage in multiple reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. It is reasonable to assume we will have articles on both topics. Ottre 23:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with you restoring the red link to the non-existent article for the Australian Protectionist Party. However, I would like to see proof that the Voice of Reason Radio Network has received coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Undid revision 367974187 by Loremaster"

I reverted the removal of a cited quotation from Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. It was far from evident there was any valid basis for having removed that quote. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Andrew Yeoman correctly pointed out Goodrick-Clarke talks about Troy Southgate's National Revolutionary Front before he embraced National-Anarchism. So the cited quotation is inaccurate and should be deleted. --Loremaster (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I also did a de facto revert, when I changed the link in the opening paragraph from 19th century-style imperialism, back to the seemingly far more relevant cultural imperialism. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Imperialism article talks about 19th century-style imperialism but also the theory of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. It is obviously against the latter that National-Anarchists are stuggling against. That being said, I've rewritten the lead so I've deleted any mention of imperialism or cultural imperialism in order to summarize a paragraph from Macklin's essay Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction in which he states:


 * --Loremaster (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I consider the first paragraph if the 19:52, 14 June 2010 version of the article to be most incisive summary of the goal of the National-Anarchist movement based on information provided by a reliable third-party source. --Loremaster (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the red link to the non-existent article for the Voice of Reason Broadcast Network because it isn't a notable network so it won't deserve a Wikipedia article any time soon. --Loremaster (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How many databases have you searched for mentions of the network? Ottre 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just show me your evidence for the record and this dispute will be over. --Loremaster (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've spent twenty minutes searching and couldn't find any coverage. I agree to removing this redlink. Ottre 06:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Flavio Goncalves
@Andrew Yeoman: could you please give me a brief description of this person's N-A activism? Do you consider him to be a "public figure" of the movement where he operates? Ottre 21:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Flavio is Portuguese and an article of his can be read at http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/na_future.php He is the creator of the so-called New Left current (a left-wing opposition to the New Right). His views and my own are different on most core issues but has been a public figure in the non -English speaking NA world since (I believe) around 2001. He is also a personal friend of Southgate. Rjuner (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If there are no reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that identify Flavio Goncalves as an important figure in the National-Anarchist movement, he shouldn't be mentioned in the article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Anarchism sidebar
I've temporarily removed the huge Template:Anarchism sidebar until we can edit it so that its sections are hidden as default. --Loremaster (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can do that for you - which sections do you want hidden? Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that the Template:Anarchism sidebar has gone back to having its section hidden as default so I guess we can put it back. --Loremaster (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/National-Anarchism
I requested that Wikipedia administrator User:Xeno call for a mediation cabal to resolve this edit war over the first sentence of the lead section once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if users here could also participate in the mediation at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/National-Anarchism, where I'm being forced to imply the views of some parties in this conflict. Mediation creates a more structured environment where comrpomise can be better reached. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI as this is now under the guidance of a mediator, I've unwatched this page and the mediation page. I urge all parties to continue to participate in good-faith discussion. If any administrative action is required, please visit my talk page. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your patience and help, Xeno. --Loremaster (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

'''The Mediation Cabal is closed and both the dispute and edit war is over. :)''' --Loremaster (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Attention Rjuner / Andrew Yeoman
The notice at the top of this talk page indicates that National-Anarchism is a controversial topic which is often in dispute. So please discuss substantial changes here before making them. That being said, as a leader in the National-Anarchist movement, you have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to how this article presents the definition, history, views, political positioning and criticisms of your movement. When I look at your recent edits, the majority of them seem to try to whitewash the racialist dimension of National-Anarchism and suppress some sourced criticisms in order to make your movement more attractive or less controversial. This is simply unacceptable. I therefore suggest you refrain from editing the article and limit yourself to voicing your concerns on this talk page. If you choose to disregard my polite request, I will have to report you to a Wikipedia administrator. --Loremaster (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a conflict of interest with poorly written and inaccurate sources you keep citing as about NA with no proof whatsoever. I will report you for making inaccurate edits to this page. As a "leader" in NA I have a very accurate idea as to what NA is and how it is perceived by others and I am not unable to include relevant, topical, and accurate criticisms of NA by their opponents. Even the part you wrote about the Minute Man "march" in the Mission District in San Francisco is inaccurate, the march was organized by Left wing groups and the Minutemen had a counter-demonstration at City Hall.  I might know why this is because I was there!  Rjuner (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your criticism of my "poor writing" is laughable when your writing is even poorer. Regarding the paragraph dealing the Minute Man march and BANA, I agree that it could and should be improved for the sake of clarity. However, it does report what you just said so your criticism doesn't make sense. Regardless, I would like to remind you that “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.” In other words, even if you could prove to me that what these reliable sources say about National-Anarchism is inaccurate, it doesn't matter unless you are able to provide reliable sources (whose reliability is determined by Wikipedia guidelines) that contradict them. Do you understand? Even if you don't, feel free to talk about what you consider "inaccurate edits" here on this talk page so that I and other users can discuss whether or not your claims have merit. I am simply asking you to refrain from editing the article itself. --Loremaster (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Then by your own citation of wikipedia policy you can show that what you are writing is indeed not verifiable. Rjuner (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Except for one mistake, everything I wrote in the article is verifiable because I am simply paraphrasing what sources tell us. --Loremaster (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I decline your invitation to stop contributing to the article. Thanks.  Rjuner (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are free to do so but rest assured that I will revert all your edits that diminish the quality, neutrality and comprehensiveness of this article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolving the dispute between Ottre and Loremaster
''There currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding uncollaborative editing. The thread is Uncollaborative_editing_on_the_National-Anarchism_article.''

Ottre, National-Anarchism is a controversial topic that is currently under dispute (in part because of Andrew Yeoman's attempt to whitewash this article). So please discuss substantial changes here on the Talk:National-Anarchism page BEFORE making them. That being said, you recently added information albeit sourced without seeking consensus. This article is about National-Anarchism not the National Revolutionary Faction. In a section that focuses on the history of an ideology, I consider details regarding the structure of a short-lived groupuscule that scholars describe as “completely irrelevant as a political force” as superfluous.

Regarding my alleged refusal to listen to your arguments about phrasing, I have listen to them all and improved many sentences because of your arguments. However, it doesn't mean I have to roll over and agree to implement all your demands. Furthermore, I refuse to be an accomplice to your subtle attempt to phrase or rephrase sentences in order to make National-Anarchism look good.

And regarding my archiving of previous conversations, I consider these conservations over since all the issues raised in them have either been resolved through compromise or have simply become irrelevant in light of substantial changes to the article. In other words, there is no point in keeping alive a conversation about how to better phrase a sentence when this sentence has been edited out of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Could each of you attempt to briefly summarize the what the dispute is, in your mind? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Hipocrite. To give you some context, User:Ottre is a National-Anarchist (or a National-Anarchist sympathizer) who wants to edit the article in order to give it a tone that puts National-Anarchism in the best light. In other words, he wants to use Wikipedia to disseminate National-Anarchist propaganda. Unlike User:Rjuner (Andrew Yeoman, leader of the Bay Area National Anarchists) who is blatanly trying to whitewash the article by deleting sourced criticisms, especially when they deal with their controversial views on race; Ottre is far more subtle. That being said, the current dispute is simply over a sentence he wanted to add to the article dealing with the structure of the NRF which I thought was superfluous so I deleted it. Ironically he engaged in what he calls “subjective editing” when he deleted sourced information about the arrest of protesters who beat up some BANA members because he thought it wasn't information that should be in an encyclopedic article... --Loremaster (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please focus on the content, not the contributor. The current dispute is over a sentence regarding the structure of the NRF, which you believe should be excluded but Ottre believe should be included? Is that correct, Ortre? Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes that is correct. As as comprise, I think it would be far more interesting to summarize this passage from Macklin's essay:


 * --Loremaster (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, the dispute is over Loremaster's refusal to compromise on the tone of article. I believe that National-Anarchist cultural theory deserves far more weight in the article, as Graham Macklin gives it a great deal of attention:

I think this is relevant as well:

There are secondary issues which you should keep in mind:
 * The extreme attitude he takes towards this particular sentence, which enhances the group's anarchist credentials and provides the reader with an all-important link to the NRF website.
 * His calculated decision to archive my ongoing line by line proofread of the article, kneejerk edit warring and disregard for the convention that you cite policy when removing sourced content.
 * The abrasiveness he has shown to other editors on this talk page, for instance labeling me as a National-Anarchist (I'm not political) to avoid engaging in proper debate.

I brought these issues up at AN/I not because of any real grievance but to attract some uninvolved editors to this sorely neglected article. Ottre 00:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Can someone please tell Ottre to stop redacting my comments on this talk page? --Loremaster (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The tone and content of the article is not only perfectly neutral but it mirrors the tone and content of reliable scholarly sources on this topic. So I refuse to compromise on the tone of the article if by that Ottre or anyone else means trying to gloss over the controversial cultural, social, and political views National-Anarchists are primarily known for in order to portray them as great cultural thinkers. That being said, I told Ottre in a conversation that is archived that this article would point out wherever possible that national-anarchists are not just a group of right-wing political agitators IF reliable sources report this nuance. I have also said that I agree that national-anarchist views on culture and their criticism of the New Left should be included in the article but only if they are reported in reliable sources (as opposed to an obscure blog or a fringe online journal). However, none of Ottre's edits which I reverted were about this specific kind of information.
 * 2) Quotes from scholars that don't specifically mention Troy Southgate and/or National-Anarchism are interesting but cannot be used to support definitive claims about either.
 * 3) The notion that National-Anarchism is a “sorely neglected article” when I've been the primary contributor for the past 6 months who has greatly improved and expanded it is laughable.
 * 4) There is nothing extreme about my wanting to delete a superflous and badly-phrased sentence that doesn't contribute in any way to a better understanding of National-Anarchism as an ideology. Furthermore, if I'm such an extremist, why did I offer a compromise in order to resolve this dispute? By the way, Ottre seems to not have noticed that I was the editor who added information about the NRF which “enhanced the group's anarchist credentials” over the past few months. By the way, his choice of your words not reveals his true agenda but it betrays his refusal to acknowlegde that scholars, specifically Macklin, do not take seriously the NRF's claim of being an “anarchist” group however radical it might have been during its short existence.
 * 5) Two reverts with rational edit summaries to justify them isn't considered edit warring. By the way, Ottre ignores the fact I didn't revert the other information you added concerning the NRF and the Internet. So much for the accusation I was being kneejerk!
 * 6) I only archived Ottre's line by line proofread because 1) most of the issues he raised were rendered moot in light of substantial changes to the article, and 2) I know from experience that almost none one is interested in editing this article except for a leader of the National-Anarchist movement who is trying to push his POV and leftists who want to portray all National-Anarchists as neo-nazi scum. That being said, Ottre is free to create a new line by line proofread if he wants.
 * 7) I've discussed my substantial changes on this talk page but no one commented on them so I chose to be bold. However, I don't need to discuss my simple rephrasing of sentences that I myself wrote in the past in order to make them more clear and accurate.
 * 8) I'm not going to apologize for being blunt with people trying to turn this article into a piece of propaganda regardless of whether or not they are political in their offline life. Despite my “abrasiveness”, the record shows that I have always directly responded to arguments presented to me.

Proposition
I propose replacing Ottre's sentence with the following:

I also propose editing the paragraph in the Views section of the article, which deals with the influence of Evola, to now state the following:

If Ottre can live with all of that (or some improved version of it), this part of the dispute is resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rjuner's Reply

 * I really wish you learned how to use a period. Try this:

"Influenced by the perennial philosophy of Italian esotericist Julius Evola and the radical Traditionalist School, which calls for a "revolt against the modern world". Many National-Anarchists have a pessimistic vision of Western culture yet optimistically believe that the “decline of the West” will pave the way for its materialism to be expunged and replaced by the idealism of Evolian Tradition."

However the following sentence is clearly false since their are Christian National Anarchists.

"National-Anarchists therefore reject Judeo-Christianity as a slave morality, embrace various ethnocentric currents of neopaganism and occultism as an antidote to the socially alienating effects of Americanized consumer culture, and see völkisch autonomy as the ultimate barrier against the cultural imperialism of globalization."

National Anarchism is inherently a secular ideology and does not require its members to have particular faith. Their are Muslims, pagans, and even Jewish sympathizers to NA. Macklin clearly is not discussing Nationl-Anarchism but something he is inventing. The Sanchez article also does not make the claim that you suggest, either. Rjuner (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

1. If you re-read your version of that paragraph out loud, you will realize that putting a period where you did doesn't make sense. Only a semicolon would be appropriate.

Let me introduce you to the simple predicate http://www.rhlschool.com/eng3n14.htm


 * That predicate doesn't change the fact that putting a period where you did destroyed the sense of that sentence because if it is read in isolation we not longer know WHO is influenced by Evola. --Loremaster (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

2. “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.”


 * I have yet to see you including the verifiable source in your numerous claims regarding the N-A movement. References you do mention such as http://books.google.com/books?id=xaiaM77s6N4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Black+Sun+Goodrick-Clarke&hl=en&ei=bKAUTKq5CYuNnQfy2aSMDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false do NOT mention National-Anarchism AT ALL.


 * You seem to not have noticed that I conceded you were right on this specific issue and I deleted the Goodrick-Clarke line about National-Anarchism. --Loremaster (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

3. So even if is true that there are National-Anarchists who are Christians, Muslims, and even Philo-Semites, you still need to provide us with a reliable source to confirm that this is a fact. In other words, we can only go by what reliable sources tell us. If they tell us that National-Anarchists are neopagans/occultists that's what an encyclopedic article will state even if it is dated information that is no longer true. Get it?


 * No, you need to prove that what you are saying is verifiable, not that what I am saying is true. Get it?


 * I get it. Have you read Macklin's essay? I'm simply paraphrasing what he says. --Loremaster (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

4. No one is disputing that National-Anarchism itself is a secular ideology nor does anyone suggests that National-Anarchists are required to have a particular faith. However, it doesn't change the fact that many National-Anarchists have religious views worth documenting. So you're simply reading insinuations in the article that are simply not there.


 * Then why don't you include that fact before the numerous unverifiable and outlandish statements you make regarding N-A and religion?


 * Because I would need a reliable source that states that National-Anarchism itself is a secular ideology and that National-Anarchists are not required to have a particular faith. In other words, any statements about obvious facts both you and I believe must still be verifiable. --Loremaster (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

5. You are right that Sanchez is no longer a good source for the last sentence but he is for the very first. On the other hand, Macklin is a solid source for the entire paragraph because he is discussing the National-Anarchism advocated by Troy Soutgate at a certain point in time.

6. That being said, I would be willing to modify my proposed paragraph to say this instead:


 * Does that work for you, Oh Great Leader? --Loremaster (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And furthermore, any mention of a philosophical debate about 'slave mortality,' a Nietzschean concept, has exactly NOTHING TO DO with National-Anarchism, whether that is a view of Southgate's or not. The same is true of any personal viewpoint of a National-Anarchist towards Judeo-Christianity which has nothing intrinsically to do with a political ideology (in itself).  Lastly I would contend that Southgate's religious views have no relevance to the National-Anarchist page although it would be relevant to Southgate's wikipedia page.  Since the religion of Engels, Marx, Lenin, or even Hitler is not described in a way as directly influencing the ideology of their respective political movement then neither should this page. Rjuner (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Troy Southgate is the principal ideologue of National-Anarchism and no one can dispute that his views on National-Anarchism were influenced by many cultural, social, political, philosophical AND religious ideas including those of Nietzsche. Furthermore, some of his writings explain why some religions are incompatible with National-Anarchism!
 * In Wayne John Sturgeon's interview of Troy Southgate, he says: In our view, however, Catholicism and the various other offshoots of Judaeo-Christianity are fundamentally at odds with National-Anarchism because they are religions which tend to enslave and thus prevent man from pursuing his natural (some would say Faustian) destiny. Furthermore, from an organisational perspective Catholicism is a centralising bureaucracy which fails to take into account both regional and national identity. Throughout history, Catholicism’s Roman nerve centre has sought to control and manipulate world events by forging alliances with various monarchical and Capitalistic powers. The NRF is committed to fighting globalisation whenever and wherever it raises its ugly head and, therefore, we choose to view Catholicism in the same way as we regard the various other manifestations of globalisation.
 * So it clear that Southgate is suggesting that National-Anarchists besides himself reject Judeo-Christianity for both religious and political reasons because it has something intrinsically to do with the political ideology in itself! This is definitely noteworthy in an article about National-Anarchism. Therefore, your criticisms and suggestions are rejected. --Loremaster (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I will report you to the wikipedia administrators if you continue to mock me and other editors of this page. Rjuner (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do that since I am going to do the same. --Loremaster (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

National-Anarchism and Religion
User:Rjuner argues that National-Anarchism is a secular ideology and that National-Anarchists are not required to have a particular faith. He therefore believes that there should no mention of the religious views of National-Anarchists in this article.

User:Ottre argues that some or many National-Anarchists (not just Troy Southgate) have a fascination with Mithraic Mysteries and the article should mention this fact.

Can the two of you come to some kind of agreement? --Loremaster (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Roger Griffin's review
A colleague of mine contacted political theorist Roger Griffin to ask him his opinion on the 11 February 2010 version of the National-Anarchism article and disputes about whether or not N-A should be described as a “far-right syncretic ideology” or a “syncretic ideology that reconciles far-right and far-left views”. The following is his answer:

"I am flattered to be asked about this. I would defer to the real expert on this topic, Troy Southgate, since he is the pioneer of the term/movement and has a great deal of theoretical insight into its origins and ideological relationship to 'classical fascism'. His email is: Troy Southgate <arktoslondon@yahoo.co.uk> and he will be pleased to give his opinion.

As for my own views (I am NOT an expert in this area):

A) I think the first sentence is the least misleading, but I would make sure the article clarified the relationship to a) the various syntheses of right-wing ideology with elements of the radical left which characterise both classical fascism and neo-fascism in their various permutations); b) its relationship to left wing anarchism; c) its relationship to the conservative revolution, d) its relationship to the European New Right; e) its relationship to the metapoliticization and Europeanization of fascism since World War 2; f) the way the syncretism involved is typical of political ideologies seeking to find a new overarching /nomos /under the impact of a secularising modernity which has created a prevailing nomic crisis (a process I call in my /Modernism and Fascism /' mazeway resynthesis);

B) National Anarchism is a mazeway resynthesis carried out on the right on the basis of right-wing premises about the nature of society and distinct from the left wing anarchist/socialist tradition (in the same way Alain de Benoist talks of a Gramscisme DE DROITE however much he argues that the Nouvelle Droite and it is still Droite) transcends traditional distinctions between right and left);

C) I would stay out of such disputes and just tell the public what National Anarchism is in the context of fascism/anti-liberal/extra-systemic politics in general.

Hope this helps

Roger"

My colleague thanked him but argued that he was also hoping for a relatively more objective opinion than Southgate's. Griffin replied:

"There is little objectivity about National Anarchism: I would consult the founder of movements (or their writings) for such ideas as objectivism, situationism, dark green ecologism, so why not start with how Troy sees it and then critique in."

When pushed on the issue of whether or not the term “far-right” should be in front or after the term “syncretic ideology” when defining N-A, he replied:

"I would see it as a syncretic ideology which has been evolved within the extreme right tradition of the critique of liberal democracy and communism and which has its roots in the left-right syntheses of interwar fascisms carried out by national syndicalists (Panunzio), National Bolsheviks (Niekisch) and nationalism socialism (of which Nazism was one example): Zeev Sternhell would see all fascisms as synthesis of left and right but always carried out from within an extreme right and anti-Bolshevik (Soviet communist) position."

--Loremaster (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about a problem that was resolved on the Mediation Cabal page}}
 * So he says extreme right rather than far-right - so what? PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not the issue. The point is that he doesn't think the qualifier “far-right” or “extreme-right” or “neo-fascist” should be in front of the term “syncretic ideology” when defining N-A. That being said, a summary of Griffin's non-expert opinion on N-A is referenced in the lede and further detailed in the Position in the political spectrum section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Toward Good Article status
I am interested in collaborating with anyone who has created a user account to make the National-Anarchism article well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable enough to meet Wikipedia's good article criteria. --Loremaster (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

After a lot of work, I consider the article to be relatively comprehensive. The thing we should now focus on is adding any missing citations and standardizing all citations according to Citing sources style guidelines. Does anyone have criticisms? If not, we should all focus on this. --Lormeaster (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps by Wikipedia standards but I find the article completely insufficient: it fails to identify pro environmental campaigns conducted by National Anarchists (whereas the Folsom Street Fair Protest is highlighted), Tribal Anarchism a phrase that Troy Southgate has said more accurately reflects his view then National Anarchism and is completely absent, the fact that the Bay Area National Anarchists are the only active street protest NA movement in the world at present, the lack of any quotes or ideas by Andrew Yeoman concerning the definitions BANA uses to describe their ideology, an overabundance of reliance on critics of fascism such as Roger Griffin on fascism when this article is not about fascism, no discussion about NA views of the economy, no discussion of the flourishing of NA groups in California including BANA, SNAC, OCNA, IENA, and Santa Cruz collectives, no discussion of NA views on governance. --Rjuner (talk)


 * Even if what you say were true, do you have reliable sources to support adding your claims in the article? If not, we have no choice but to rely on critics since they may be the only reliable sources we have. If these critics are silent about new developments in National-Anarchism, the article has no choice but to remain silent as well... That being said, I have edited the article to take into account some of your comments. --Loremaster (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the great work User:Ottre, the standardizing of all citations is done. --Loremaster (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Message from a National Anarchist
I am a National Anarchist and we are not left or right wing. We despise, nay, we HATE both ideologies. To call us right wing is as crazy as calling it left wing. To put "Right Wing" on the page is a red herring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint1488 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Classification of political groups is based on reliable sources, not self-identification. TFD (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User:TFD is right. Although National-Anarchists may sincerely believe that they are "neither left nor right", it doesn't change the fact that respected political scientists (such as Roger Griffin) argue that National-Anarchists is a synthesis of left-wing and right-wing views that is carried out on the political right on the basis of right-wing premises about the nature of society. Regardless, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true... --Loremaster (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

links
Some of the links I removed might require explanation:


 * 1) groupuscular right --"Groupuscule" is already linked above, it's basically a dictionary definition, and the format makes readers think "groupuscular right" might be its own article.
 * 2) people of Indo-European descent --Proto-Indo-Europeans is an article about archaeology and linguistics that doesn't have much to do with what "Indo-European" means to the far right.
 * 3) classical American ideals --these aren't synonymous and Wikipedia should be cautious in making assumptions about what Keith Preston thinks "classical American ideals" are.
 * 4) new segment of the fascist right -- I don't get this at all.  "neo-fascism" is just post-WWII fascism, why would this whole phrase be linked to that article?
 * 5) protean --If readers don't know what "protean" means they just need a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. The Greek myth of Proteus isn't relevant.
 * 6) traditionalism --"Traditionalism" in this sentence is supposed to be one of the values that Keith Preston thinks are shared between National-Anarchists and Paleoconservatives.  Maybe National-Anarchists are "traditionalists" in some sense, but their ideology has little in common with Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk, and I doubt Preston was trying to say that it did.

I'm just trying to demonstrate that I'm not removing links randomly or out of spite.Prezbo (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But why are you being so overzealous? --Loremaster (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously I think that I'm not? How can I really answer that?  In my opinion the article has way too many links and some of them seem like they're kind of supposed to be easter eggs which I find extremely irritating.Prezbo (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll justify some of these internal links soon. --Loremaster (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Fine.
 * 2) If you were familiar with the theories and rhetoric of the white supremacist right, you would know that they believe the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language were the "Aryan race" from which all "white people" descended. That being said, mentioning "people they believe belong to the Aryan race" and linking to the Aryan race article would be better.
 * 3) No one is making assumptions since we can actually read Preston's essay to determine what he thinks "classical American ideals" are. However, you are right that linking the expression "classical American ideals" to the Jeffersonian democracy article is problematic so I will edit the sentence to explicitly mention "Jeffersonian democracy".
 * 4) The expression "new segment of the fascist right" was simply a fancy way of saying "neo-fascist" or a "new form of fascism". However, I will replace "segment" with "version", which is the term used by the source.
 * 5) Fine.
 * 6) You are correct. Linking to the Tradition article would be better.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Neo-fascist" and a "new form of fascism" mean totally different things. All of post-WWII fascism is "neo-fascist." Sunshine isn't saying that National Anarchists are neo-fascists, which would be obvious, he's saying that National Anarchists are part of a recent trend of fascists "appropriat[ing] leftist ideas and symbols."Prezbo (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Neo-fascist" and a "new form of fascism" means the same to me and many people. Furthemore, Sunshine is arguing that National Anarchists are neo-fascists AND that they are part of a recent trend of fascists appropriating leftist ideas and symbols. I find it silly that we are even debating this fact. --Loremaster (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can always stop. I think it's totally clear from the paragraph that quote appears in that he's not saying "national anarchists are part of post-WWII fascism," which is a trivial statement and the statement you're making by linking to that article.Prezbo (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a trivial statement. A scholar or journalist describing National-Anarchists as neo-fascists is quite note-worthy. What's funny is that there is a book with "post-WWII fascism" in the title that talks about National-Anarchism. --Loremaster (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems clear to me that they are described as neo-fascists who are rebranding themselves as part of the left. TFD (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong. I also want to point out though that you shouldn't have to click on a link to find out where it leads, and "neo-fascism" is already linked in the intro and two paragraphs below this sentence. Here are some other things:


 * "The former accuse National-Anarchists of misappropriating a sophisticated left-wing anarchist critique of problems..." --none of the cited sources allude to post-anarchism as far as I can see.


 * radical right is linked twice. To me that phrase means the same thing as "far right" and that seems to be the meaning it's given in the sources, but Wikipedia defines it as something distinct and specifically American, so it seems like a misleading link.


 * "to inject core fascist values into..." --Again you shouldn't have to click on a link to see where it leads, this is linked two paragraphs above, and only one of the cited sources mentions it.Prezbo (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also "groupuscules retain recognizable core fascist values, and therefore concludes..." -- Similarly this is an easter egg and linking to the same article twice in two paragraphs.Prezbo (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Good point. Linking to the Left anarchism article would be better.
 * 2) Although some scholars, journalists and laymen use the terms "radical right" and "far right" interchangeably, some scholars argue that they describe two related but different things (see Right wing styles of thought). As far as the link being misleading, I agree that it should be removed because the Radical Right article only reflects the US perspective.
 * 3) Fine. I'll explicity mention "palingenesis" or "palingenetic ultranationalism" in parantheses next to the expression "core fascist values".
 * 4) The article is linked twice but in two seperate sections of the article.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of "manifesto"
I removed an unsourced addition by an IP user which seemed, to me, to be promoting a newly released "manifesto" and magazine. The IP re-added it and it was edited slightly by User:Loremaster, who sourced it to, well, itself. When I again removed it with the edit summary suggesting that it be left out of the article until it receives third-party coverage, my edit was reverted by Loremaster.

While the author of the manifesto may be a prominent member of this group, it seems to me that it is premature to include it at this point, mere days after its release. Even if this document were to be widely adopted by people who count themselves among this group, we would need reliable, third-party sources to confirm this and to confirm its importance. Any objection to my removing that section again? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Without taking sides, I should note that a manifesto is a primary source. While primary sources are reliable for their own contents, per WEIGHT, we need to be certain we are not providing too much weight to this - has this manifesto been discussed widely in published sources? If so, where? Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the N-AM Manifesto has not been discussed widely in published second- or third-party sources only because it was recently published. And, since we are only making one brief mention of the existence of this manifesto at the end of the History section of the article (in order for this section to be comprehensive and up-to-date), we are not giving it undue weight. I am therefore opposed to the mention of this manifesto being deleted from the article. Ultimately, I hope we can avoid an edit war over such a small (yet important) addition to the article. --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nearly a month has elapsed since the start of this discussion, and if nothing has appeared about the "manifesto" in reliable third-party sources, can we remove it as originally discussed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I explained above why I think we should keep the mention of the manifesto in the article. despite the lack of reliable third-party sources. My opinion has not changed and I doubt you will be able to create a consensus for your position. That being said, I don't understand your zeal in wanting to suppress this brief mention of a manifesto written by the most prominent ideologue of National-Anarchism. In other words, let it go. --Loremaster (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Loremaster, I would appreciate it if you did not continue your attempt to cast this as anything other than following normal Wikipedia editing practices and guidelines. I hardly think I am being overzealous, having waited a month for coverage to appear. I would probably have waited longer if you hadn't attempted to close the discussion by prematurely archiving it. Quite simply, if there are no reliable sources covering this, it shouldn't be included here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By “overlzealous”, I am simply suggesting that you seeem to forget that, according to Wikipedia guidelines, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. That being said, there is nothing premature about archiving a discussion that has been dead for almost 2 months. --Loremaster (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Should a "manifesto" written by a prominent member of the National Anarchism movement be included in this article if the only source is the manifesto itself? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion: According to Wikipedia guidelines, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. Case closed. --Loremaster (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * From the first section, " it has been primarily redefined and popularized since the 1990s by British ideologue Troy Southgate". Since he is the mouth of the movement and we can cite to the website itself, why not. And the mention is all of one sentence? Which anarchist newspapers would you think would be rushing to print commentary on this? Some thoughtful exposition will be found online like this from the SPLC (reproduced here), and this from Public Eye. Here's an interview that may help and an article or two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aracnophobe (talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Aracnophobe's point about Southgate's importance. With his name all over the article, it's surely worth mentioning if he released a lengthy piece of work on the subject.  I don't agree with an overemphasis on third-party coverage when we're dealing with a minor fringe movement like this one.  The major media won't cover this, not when there's breaking news about Eva Longoria and Tony Parker.  My only reservation is about the summary of the manifesto.  In one edit, the statement is that the manifesto"included a detailed membership system based around a revolutionary cadre structure."  That's OK if it's something that would be readily apparent to anyone of normal intelligence who took the trouble to wade through the whole tract.  We should not include any detailed interpretation or analysis of the manifesto, but a brief statement like that one is probably acceptable. JamesMLane t c
 * Good point, James. I'll simply remove that part of the statement you are critical of. --Loremaster (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If no one has written about the manifesto, then it lacks notability and should not be mentioned in the article. There should be one link to the organization's website. - if they consider it notable then WP readers can find it there.  While organizations' sites may used as sources, their real value is in hard data, e.g., organizational structure and addresses.  TFD (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Inclusion - "If no one has written about the manifesto, then it lacks notability" - Ditto. NickCT (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion - lacks notablity. TFD (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion - There's zero interpretation here, so secondary sources are not required. Southgate is the leading N-A ideologue and this is an important development in the movement's history. It deserves at least a one-sentence summary which, considering the territory covered in the manifesto, isn't undue weight. Gnostrat (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that Gnostrat's comment was solicited by Loremaster. This seems to me to be canvassing, given Gnostrat's history with both Loremaster and this subject area. Note also that User:Aracnophobe's has at this time made no other edits except to vote in this RfC. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I openly requested Gnostrat's opinion because he is one of the few people I know who has extensive knowledge of National-Anarchism and cares about this article. The history between us indicates that the last time we talked about the National-Anarchism article, we actually disagreed about the inclusion of a word and we haven't talked since so to imply that his opinion should be ignored because we often collaborated with each other is absurd. As for Aracnophobe (whom I do not know), I seriously hope you're not suggesting that he is a sock puppet because it would be evidence that you are violating a fundamental principle of Wikipedia which is to assume good faith. It never even occured to investigate to see if you have some of relationship with NickCT and The Four Deuces perhaps because I assume your good faith (despite not understanding your zealouness) and have better things to do. --Loremaster (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Loremaster, please tone down your aggressive tone - it will not convince anyone that my actions here are anything but ordinary, and it will only make your ownership of this article more apparent. I will leave it to others to judge, but in my opinion you were canvassing for support of your position. I did not mean to imply that Archnophobe was your sockpuppet, simply that they had no other contributions, which tends to make their opinion somewhat suspect. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of the fact that Gnostrat is a quite independent-minded individual, I requested his opinion knowing that it was possible that he may not share my position. Furthermore, I was open to the possibility that he may convince me that your position was the valid one. So I wasn't “canvassing” for support for my position. I simply wanted the opinion of someone's whose judgement I value. That being said, my “aggressivity” is in reaction to your casting of aspersions rather than stemming from a sense of article ownership or as a means to convince anyone of anything. So I make no apologies for watching over this article or the tone I used. Ultimately, I think it is your intransigeance in wanting to suppress obviously valuable content from this article that is suspect since I am sure that someone as smart as you didn't need to formally request comment from other editors to know that Wikipedia guidelines would tolerate a lengthy manifesto written by a prominent member of the National-Anarchist movement to be briefly mentioned in this article even if the only source is the manifesto itself. Dude, why are we wasting so much time and energy over this? --Loremaster (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice that you changed your mind about accusing me of "an anti-NA bias" but I will respond to it to prevent it being raised again later. Your accusation might equally be applied to those editors who have here also opposed the inclusion of the manifesto. It might be said that your position is based on a "pro-NA bias". Such unfounded and unsupported allegations are unhelpful - please don't repeat them. Again I ask you to focus on what is really a very simple issue. Just let the RfC finish. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. I only expressed this negative speculation (as opposed to an outright accusation) so that you would understand how it feels when aspersions are cast on us that are not true. For the record, I don't think your intransigeance is motivated by an anti-N-A bias. I think it simply comes from narrow-mindedness.
 * 2. In light of the fact that the last disputes I have had on this talk page were with a leader of the National-Anarchist movement and a N-A sympathizer who both accused me of having an "anti-NA bias". Any accusation that I have a "pro-NA bias" is obviously ridiculous.
 * 3. Since I deleted this negative speculation to avoid creating more tension between us, your decision to still make an issue out of it smacks of bad faith.
 * 4. I would have only focused on the issue of this thread and let the RfC finished if you hadn't tried to cast aspersions on me, Gnostrat, and Aracnophobe.
 * 5. And, dude, I will use whatever tone that I deem appropriate, focus on whatever things I deem important, and use whatever slang term I like to informally address people regardless of your demands so stop wasting your time making them cause they are falling on deaf ears.
 * --Loremaster (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to be addressed by you as "dude" - I don't think that is asking very much. Now you are aware of that, doing so can only be taken as a deliberate attempt to antagonize me. Perhaps before this gets out of hand, you could take a step back and try to regain your perspective. There is no reason why we cannot disagree civilly and there really is nothing to get upset about: currently the article contains your desired reference to the "manifesto" and will at least until the RfC has concluded. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. Moving on. But when do we know the RfC has concluded? --Loremaster (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Racist?
Lloyd Lacy, Memphis Black National Anarchist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.69.225 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you think this interview (which is not a considered a reliable sources according to Wikipedia standards) proves. Just because one intelligent but lost black guy adheres to his version of National-Anarchism it doesn't change the fact that reliable sources argue that the vast majority of National-Anarchists are white men hold racist views. --Loremaster (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

copyright/plagiarism
The article:

National-Anarchism in the U.S. remains a relatively obscure movement, made up of probably fewer than 200 individuals, led by Andrew Yeoman of the Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA), based in the San Francisco Bay Area, and a couple of other groups in Northern California and Idaho. Organizations based on National-Anarchist ideology have gained a foothold in Russia and sown turmoil in the environmental movement in Germany.[10] There are adherents in England, Spain and Australia,[19] among other nations.[10]

The cited source:

Although national anarchism in the U.S. remains a relatively obscure movement, made up of probably fewer than 200 individuals in BANA and a couple of other groups in northern California and Idaho, organizations based on national anarchist ideology have gained a foothold in Russia and sown turmoil in the environmental movement in Germany. There are enthusiasts in Britain, Spain and Australia, among other overseas nations.

I would call this plagiarism. I just noticed this passage but if the whole article's like this it's a real problem.Prezbo (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Or: "Since then, National-Anarchists have joined other marches in Australia and in the U.S.; in April 2008, they protested on behalf of the Tibetan independence movement against the Chinese government during the Olympic torch relay in both Canberra, Australia, and San Francisco"

"Even if the results are modest, this can disrupt left-wing social movements and their focus on social justice and egalitarianism; and instead spread elitist ideas based on naturalistic fallacy, racism, homophobia, antisemitism and antifeminism amongst grassroots activists."

Vs. the source:

"Since then, the National-Anarchists have joined other marches in Australia and in the United States; in April 2008, they protested on behalf of Tibet against the Chinese government during the Olympic torch relay in both Canberra, Australia, and San Francisco."

"Even if the results are modest, this can disrupt left-wing social movements and their focus on social justice and egalitarianism; and instead spread elitist ideas based on racism, homophobia, antisemitism and antifeminism amongst grassroots activists."

Or:

"Now, National-Anarchists in the U.S. are carefully studying the successes and failures of their more prominent international counterparts as they attempt to similarly win converts from the radical environmentalist and white nationalist movements in the U.S"

Vs. the source:

"Now, national anarchists in the U.S. are carefully studying the successes and failures of their more prominent international counterparts as they attempt to similarly win converts from the radical environmentalist and white nationalist movements in this country."

Prezbo (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll work on correct all of this as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

National anarchist organisations, groups, parties in the world
It would seem useful to have a Section in the article containing a list, along with weblinks and a brief description, of organisations, groups or parties around the world that follow the national anarchist ideology.-The Gnome (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as we respect External links guidelines, I am opened to the idea. However, we should only mention notable and explicitly national-anarchist organizations. Two guys who decided to call themselves the “National-Anarchist Front of Scotland” or whatever and set up a blog to promote their club are obviously not noteworthy and we should not be given free publicity. --Loremaster (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of compliance with other Wiki pages on anarchism
Why does this page not have the Part of The Politics Series on Anarchism bar on the right-hand side? Somebody should go to the trouble of adding this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loyalist Cannons (talk • contribs) 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is often removed by (presumably) by users who don't consider National-Anarchism to be an authentic form of anarchism so we stopped bothering to add it back. --Loremaster (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Offical N-A book" section
User:Arthur Warrington Thomas added the following new section and content:

Offical N-A book In 2012, Black Front Press published 'National-Anarchism: A Reader', edited by Troy Southgate, with the blurb:



''A video, created by Odinist and National-Anarchist Neil G. Hiatt, was also published to promote the release of the book. ''

Putting aside the issue that this sounds like an effort to use this Wikipedia article to promote a book and video, which goes against Wikipedia guidelines (as explained above), we need to establish the notability of this book and video before it can mentionned in the National-Anarchism article. In other words, has this book and video been mentionned in an article by a mainstream journalist and/or scholar? --Loremaster (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing information that could maybe be used?
Troy Southgate is today the main figurehead of National-Anarchism, which sees the artificial hierarchies inherent in government and capitalism as oppressive. They advocate collective action organized along the lines of nationality, identity, and tribes, and advocate for a decentralised social order wherein "like-minded individuals" maintain distinct communities. National-Anarchism echoes most strains of anarchism by expressing a desire to reorganize human relationships, with an emphasis on replacing the hierarchical structures of government and capitalism with local, communal decision-making.

The revolutionary conservative concept of the Anarch is central to National-Anarchism and its supporters view liberalism as a primary cause of the social decline of nations and cultural identity. National-Anarchists also reject fascism and communism as statist and totalitarian, and reject National Socialism as a failed dictatorship of a totalitarian government. However, Southgate's National-Anarchism has been critiqued as an opportunistic appropriation of aspects of leftist counter-culture in the service of a racist, right-wing ideology.

On 19 September 2010, Southgate launched the National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM) and unveiled a 15,000-word manifesto which included a detailed membership system based around a revolutionary cadre structure. The group also launched a magazine called Tribal Resonance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.141.198 (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2012‎ (UTC)


 * I don't see how your suggestions provide missing information. --Loremaster (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ )

Problems with introduction
I also have some minor disagreements with this article. In the start it says N-A is ‘right-wing’ but it clearly isn’t and it defines itself beyond this concept, even beyond Third Position. I don't think it should be removed from the article but this should at least be placed further down in a criticisms section stating that it’s distracters class it as right wing, and in itself doesn't.

I disagree with the 'racial civil war' part. In non of its literature is this the case. The reference given for the 'racial civil war' part actually references the NRF. Now, N-A grew out of NRF maybe but they are difference and NA is a beyond NRF as it is beyond left and right. I agree with the collapse of the capitalist system part but not the 'racial civil war' as it is referencing a different organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.141.198 (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view gets misinterpreted to mean neutral to all sides of an issue. In actuality, we only represent viewpoints published by reliable sources and in proportion to the number of reliable sources that express this view. If the majority of reliable sources on a topic are critically positive or negative, then Wikipedia should accurately reflect this viewpoint. Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.


 * That being said, you are obviously unaware of this history but, from January 2010 to April 2010, the National-Anarchism article was destabilized by an intense dispute over whether or not Nationalism-Anarchism should be described as "right-wing" in the first sentence of the lead section of the article. This dispute led to a mediation cabal, which concluded with the consensus compromise that Nationalism-Anarchism should be described as right-wing because that it how it is described by the scholars who have studied it (not just critics who are antifascist militants). Stability was thus restored.


 * As for the "racial civil war" claim (which is sourced to Graham D. Macklin's September 2005 essay "Co-opting the counter culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction") the problem is that there are no independent reliable sources which explain that post-NRF National-Anarchism is different from NRF National-Anarchism (especially in light of Southgate launching a new National-Anarchist Movement based around a revolutionary cadre structure in 2010) on the issue of whether or not National-Anarchists still yearn for a racial civil war. On the contrary, in his Summer 2009 report "'National Anarchism' California Racists Claim They're Anarchists", Casey Sanchez mentions that the Bay Area National Anarchists envision a future race war leading to neo-tribal, whites-only enclaves to be called "National Autonomous Zones." --Loremaster (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ )


 * The mention of National-Anarchists awaiting a "racial civil war" is slanderous as the information is attributed to someone who has a negative view of the philosophy. Nowhere can this concept of racial civil war be attributed to a National-Anarchist. 216.121.251.107 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you read what I said above? --Loremaster (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've decided to remove the mention of National-Anarchists awaiting a "racial civil war" only because 1) the information is dated and 2) it may not reflect the fact that different factions within the National-Anarchist Movement don't necessarily have the same positions on this issue. I will therefore delete any mention of it in the introductory paragraph of the article only. --Loremaster (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)