The sad case of Stephen Booth
Sep 9 2005 08:07
At last night's meeting of the SNAFU Principle in Huddersfield the recent attempts of Stephen Booth to pose questions on the General Thread forum were discussed.
It was noted that his question was immediately swamped by sneers, obscenities and vicious personal attacks. While no one present would want to support Steve's latest "Green Anarchist" it was generally agreed that Stephen himself is a courageous and honourable man, one never frightened to put his name to his ideas.
What makes this case all so unpleasant is that all the attacks stem from a group of nameless sources.
Are we to assume that these people carry blameless political form themselves?
Several points were put forward:
The case is an excellent example of "licence" - do want you want and bollocks to the consequences - over "personal responsibility" with its intimate link to freedom and the acceptance of the consequences of one's actions.
The assaults on Stephen were likened to packs of schoolgirl bullies writing anonymous notes. Feeding their own ego on the perceived inadequacies of others.
It was suggested that these people were the products of Thatcherism: In-your-face dialectics, spiritually dead and me-me-me.
The old Stalinist tactics are revealed. Those not towing the party line are subject to misrepresentation and personal assault.
The recent article in the TCA was discussed: The comrades, impatient with the worker's reluctance to man the barricades, turn in on themselves to cleanse their dogma of heretics. And no quarter is given to the effect of the consequences these acts elicit. Solfed's recent expulsion of one of their oldest comrades is a textbook example of this.
The over-riding question in all of this is how a free society would deal with awkward questions, oddballs, and those who may not wish to reduce their thinking to the mediocrity of abstract systems of thought.
The Meeting closed with the old TCA toast: To Braver and Better Times!
Peter Good (TCA).
Sep 9 2005 09:13
#2
Peter Good wrote:
Solfed's recent expulsion of one of their oldest comrades is a textbook example of this.
This lie has been refuted several times. Please stop repeating it there's a good chap.
Sep 9 2005 11:47
#3
steve booth might be a lovely fella but his politics are woeful, as it is lacklustre defense of the Irrationalists.
This TCA lot seem well funny.
Sep 9 2005 12:01
#4
I'm a member, and I never heard of any expulsions? One guy who'd been around a while quit cos he'd decided anarchism had no effective means of combating terrorism but apart from that...
Sep 9 2005 12:07
#5
i've been looking for the irrationalists for the past hour on the net but can't find it. maybe its because of the filters at work stop some sites but its frustrating that i can only read the critiques and not the original article
Sep 9 2005 12:24
#6
nah lucy it's quite hard to get hold of. I read it about 2 years ago at a mates house. Believe me the critiques by the likes of black flag are not lies, it did celebrate the sarin attacks as well as the Oklohoma bombing.
Sep 9 2005 17:59
#7
revol68 wrote:
steve booth might be a lovely fella but his politics are woeful, as it is lacklustre defense of the Irrationalists.This TCA lot seem well funny.
Revol 68 is not telling the truth here. To repeat the post I made on Sunday 4th Sept 2005:
To summarise:
(1) It has been established that you have not read the articles, but condemned them on the basis of the constantly quoted paragraph, and on the basis of hearsay: 'everybody knows' and hysterical prejudiced comments.
(2) I still believe that the state / system is stopping up all the paths to freedom, and that this process is speeding up. It is possible that some people may become 'Irrationalists' and carry out intensely violent acts against the system. Nobody, that I am aware of has effectively refuted this.
(3) I regret that the tone the early 'Irrationalists' articles was expressed in obscured the message. However, I note from your comments that no matter what I say, and no matter how I say it, for political reasons and for guilt by association reasons, there will always be people who are prejudiced against what I say. To some extent Peter Good is right that dialogue is just not possible. Nothing can be done to overcome this.
(4) I would like to repeat two of the quotations from above:
'I personally don't like my theories about the Irrationalists. The issue is not whether you or I like it, but is it true?'
'I am not inciting you all to become Irrationalists. Work at your campaigns against road developments, genetics. Do everything you can to prove me wrong by your actions. Build a strong protest movement.'
Sep 9 2005 18:03
#8
revol68 wrote:
nah lucy it's quite hard to get hold of. I read it about 2 years ago at a mates house. Believe me the critiques by the likes of black flag are not lies, it did celebrate the sarin attacks as well as the Oklohoma bombing.
And yet again I say that if you want to analyze the articles, as opposed to simply repeating the previously expressed, distorted Neoist / Black Flag view of them, you are going to need to engage with, and account for the following seven quotations from the series of 'Irrationalist' articles:
[1] 'On the anniversary of the Waco siege a US government office block was blown to fuck by a truckload of fertilizer explosive. The building was deliberately chosen because it also had children inside. This is what the world is coming to. A terrible, terrible atrocity. So what is the response of the American government to this? More repression, greater secret police powers, Diplock style terrorist courts, fences and concrete blocks round the White House. Tyranny drove the truck to Oklahoma and tyranny has been increased, so more Oklahoma bombings are certain. They have learned nothing...'
[2] 'What use is frightening (terrorising) people who have no input whatsoever into the process?'
[3] 'What gives the Irrationalists the right to say 'This is no good so we are going to take peoples' lives'? Doesn't this make you as bad as the state?'
[4] 'We must watch ourselves, lest we become as empty and without value as the system'.
[5] 'I personally don't like my theories about the Irrationalists. The issue is not whether you or I like it, but is it true?'
[6] 'I am not inciting you all to become Irrationalists. Work at your campaigns against road developments, genetics. Do everything you can to prove me wrong by your actions. Build a strong protest movement.'
[7] 'I am not saying that these events ought to be done, but simply providing examples of things that might happen.'
Stephen Booth
Sep 9 2005 18:13
#9
Here are some difficult questions:
Is violence for political ends ever justified?
If political violence is permitted, who may choose to use it, and under what circumstances, conditions or limits?
Supposing the Spanish Civil War broke out today and anarchists went off to fight for the Republicans, would they be condemned by the rest of the anarchist movement?
If a present day Ravachol or some other 'propganda by deed' practitioner assassinated a prominent modern day statesman, would his action be condemned or condoned by the anarchist movement?
Would your attitude be the same or be different towards it, supposing the 11th September 2001 highjackers had been class struggle anarchists?
If somebody were to carry out an 'Irrationalist' attack, they would have this type of intense and all consuming contempt for the people they were attacking, wouldn't they? This is the whole point of the repetitively quoted paragraph. That the attackers would hold that kind of intense hatred.
Revol 68, perhaps you are so naive as to think that the September 11th attackers did not hold and express hatred and contempt for the people they killed, exactly of the sort expressed in the always quoted paragraph. If you really are arguing against the often quoted paragraph then you must likewise think that the 7th July 2005 underground train bombers did not hold this intense sort of contempt for the commuters.
But to hold such a view, that they did not have that sort of hatred, doesn't make sense, does it?
The question that people like youself mindlessly tapelooping that paragraph on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, which you need to think about, and answer, is how would it be possible to discuss the fact of political violence, or to try to understand it, without acknowledging that hatred?
Stephen Booth
Sep 10 2005 11:51
#10
Quote:
[1] 'On the anniversary of the Waco siege a US government office block was blown to fuck by a truckload of fertilizer explosive. The building was deliberately chosen because it also had children inside. This is what the world is coming to. A terrible, terrible atrocity. So what is the response of the American government to this? More repression, greater secret police powers, Diplock style terrorist courts, fences and concrete blocks round the White House. Tyranny drove the truck to Oklahoma and tyranny has been increased, so more Oklahoma bombings are certain. They have learned nothing...'[2] 'What use is frightening (terrorising) people who have no input whatsoever into the process?'
[3] 'What gives the Irrationalists the right to say 'This is no good so we are going to take peoples' lives'? Doesn't this make you as bad as the state?'
[4] 'We must watch ourselves, lest we become as empty and without value as the system'.
[5] 'I personally don't like my theories about the Irrationalists. The issue is not whether you or I like it, but is it true?'
[6] 'I am not inciting you all to become Irrationalists. Work at your campaigns against road developments, genetics. Do everything you can to prove me wrong by your actions. Build a strong protest movement.'
[7] 'I am not saying that these events ought to be done, but simply providing examples of things that might happen.'
This sounds totally different from a celebration of the planned sarin attacks and the Oklahoma bombing. I'd really like to read the original articles though. I have read the Black Flag critique.
Does anyone have copies of the original irrationalist articles? if so, can you email them to me at simple_things@riseup.net?
Thanks.
Sep 12 2005 16:09
#11
It's history now Saii but almost a year ago Steve (Sol Fed) sent a dismissal letter to Jim Petty (Burnley) telling him to stop paying his contributions through his bank to Sol Fed as the Preston Sol Fed wanted to 'rationalise the (Sol Fed's) membership' list. It seems that they have since claimed that he excluded himself owing to falling behind in his subscriptions by not paying enough: he had been paying £5/month instead of £7/month after the subs had been put up.
The manner of his initial exclusion according to this letter was by email in the first instance. Burnley anarchists didn't at first criticise Preston or Steve, but said they wanted to wait until all the facts were made available. A statement was promised from Sol Fed to clear the air, but none came to my knowledge. Instead a vicious campaign of character assassination followed against Jim, who had been a loyal member of DAM & Sol Fed from the 1980s and once served as National Sec of the DAM.
'Total Liberty' did I believe publish Steve's letter notifing Jim of his exclusion in its last issue. In the same issue there is an article by me on 'conditions for doing degradation ceremonies'.
Sep 12 2005 16:16
#12
Jim Petty certainly hasn't helped his case by his behaviour on here...
Sep 12 2005 16:26
#13
John. wrote:
Jim Petty certainly hasn't helped his case by his behaviour on here...
You had any more dreams lately, indie boy? [gulps] 
Sep 12 2005 17:02
#14
bryan bamford nv wrote:
blah,blah, blah, blah
Sep 12 2005 17:38
#15
i'm really tempted to edit this down to brians first comment:
Quote:
"its history now"
before he unfortunately continued. i won't cause you can fight if you want but bloody hell it sure is tedious.
pinnochio is innoccent. don't drag him into this. he only wants to be a real boy.
Sep 13 2005 13:13
#16
I agree Lucy. The best thing would be for Saii or anyone who's interested in the 'expulsion' of Jim to go & buy that issue of 'Total Liberty' on degradation ceremonies (£2 for 1 issue cheques payable to J.Simcock) from J.Simcock, 47, High St., Belper, Derby DE56 1GF.
Sep 13 2005 16:20
#17
Truth is we just don't like priests 
Nov 5 2005 15:10
#18
How do you like Stalin's lapdog? It seems that there is an even more sad case than poor Stephen and that is the tragic case of poor Ron. Do you think he needs a dose of re-education Sol Fed style?
I have a lot of time for Steve on a personal level.
He has shown the courage of his beliefs, even when sent to prison for merely reporting direct action, and it is good to see others have not forgotten that as well.