DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

AK Press allegations against Michael Schmidt

1024 posts / 0 new
Last post
syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Jan 26 2016 23:07
Flint wrote:
syndicalist wrote:
And your impressions of the document, Flint?

Even if I had read it (which I haven't), I wouldn't be at liberty to discuss it.

Yes of course. Silly to have asked

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Jan 27 2016 02:11

Chew on this while you wait for the inevitable leaked ZACF response. Much of this is being published here first.

Schmidt/Strandwolf's Creed:
http://filepi.com/i/P2OoSTj

Fascist Schmidt posts:
http://filepi.com/i/S5r9NDz

More Fascist Schmidt posts:
http://filepi.com/i/lyj47N9

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Jan 27 2016 18:21

PDF version: http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/01/27/michael-schmidt-strandwolfs-creed/
MarkDown Source: http://pastebin.com/zFsEdJdE

“Strandwolf’s Creed” by Michael Schmidt


The Black Battlefront Manifesto


Introduction


These are ideological blog posts by prominent anarcho-fascist writer Michael Schmidt from 2010 and 2011. These posts were once published at strandwolf.blogspot.com but were taken down by Schmidt in 2015 once his identity as the writer was revealed. Before being outed as a white supremacist, Schmidt was best known for co-authoring the controversial anarchist history Black Flame with longtime friend and collaborator Lucien van der Walt.
“Strandwolf’s Creed” is deeply personal, revealing the author’s political vision as the product of his proud Afrikaner heritage. Schmidt’s outline for Boer progress is steeped in history, providing a racist, elitist, and deterministic view of not only human evolution, but human progress well into the 21st Century. Through his writings as “Strandwolf” (or, early on, “Ardent Vinlander”), Schmidt is building the plan for his movement, a red-brown admixture of anarchism and white power.
Black Battlefront, the militant group fueled by this manifesto, would be the culmination of decades of activism for Schmidt, allowing him to recruit activists into a whites-only organization with aggressive racism at its core (curiously an “anti-racist” concept to the author). Schmidt’s calls for racial segregation closely mirror his recommendations for the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF), revealed in a leaked internal memo.
These writings coincide with posts by Schmidt as “Karelianblue” (in the white supremacist Stormfront forums) and “Françoise Le Sueur” (on Facebook), where Schmidt was actively recruiting for Black Battlefront. For background, see Schmidt’s posts here or here.
“Strandwolf’s Creed” has been reassembled for clarity and legibility, but the original text has not been altered (even misspellings and typos have been kept). There are bound to be other minor formatting errors from the OCR/transcribing process; feel free to download the text as MarkDown or PDF and fix these bugs.
See screenshots of the original posts, complete with white nationalist imagery, here or here.


about me


White African National-Anarchist


The Strandwolf (“beach wolf”) is the brown hyaena found on the lonely Atlantic beaches of the Namib desert: with more powerful jaws and greater stamina than a lion, the hyaena hunt in matriarchal packs and, inverting their clitori, are impossible to rape. They are viewed by the indigenous people as spirit-animals. Strandwolf is the blog of Black Battlefront, an anti-racist revolutionary cadre network of White African politico-social soldiers in Southern Africa who aim at defending our unique culture, under the anarchist black flag! We take our inspiration from militants and cultural warriors of the calibre of Nestor Makhno, Kai Murros, Jim Goad and Troy Southgate. Strandwolf is a ghost in the machine of the African night, a spectral flicker on the shores of the Skeleton Coast, a low-slung hunter on the night-time highway that stretches forever away from the roiling smokes of Johannesburg into the bleach-and-acetate reaches of the platteland where gaunt windpompe scratch stars in the sky.


MY CREED PART I: CONQUEST – by Ardent Vinlander

Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 4:48am

  1. The white (wo)man is in Africa by conquest. This is inescapable; that gunpowder beats spear, wolves rule over sheep. And yet we are human and not animals, thus we mark our territory not with urine but blood.
  2. This right of conquest may not be ethically “right” but it is the forge of history – and the alloy that results, its temper and strength are then set. How we deal with that is both rooted in, and starts, now.
  3. The implication is that primitivism, Africanism or any qualified or absolute return to a pre-colonial “state of grace” is impossible. Also clear is that redress and reparations for past wrongs, grievous though they may be, are impossible. Thus may the Herero seek apology from the Germans for genocide, but not redress.
  4. And so, only those directly guilty of actual crimes can be held responsible; future generations cannot be made to pay for the “sins of their fathers”.
  5. The Xhosa nation was a formidable foe – the Battle of Amatola being the supreme example – and it took nine wars to suppress them. The Zulu nation was a formidable foe – the Battle of Isandlwana being the supreme example – but shortly they too were reduced, as others before them. There is no shame in going down fighting to superior forces.
  6. Our enemies are not those who fight us in the open, hoping to mark their territory with our blood, but those who rot us from within, corrupting the will.
  7. The inescapable lot of the defeated is humility and servitude, but there is no shame in lowly status, for all parts need to function for the good of the whole.
  8. Gunpowder and the lash are not in themselves progress, but they disciplined fractious hordes to a common purpose, for the good of the whole.
  9. That purpose was civilisation, as the white (wo)man brought electric light, roads, canals, plantations, mines, engines, aircraft, automobiles, schooling, faith – both inspiration and aspiration, without which all peoples go to seed.


MY CREED PART II: CULTURE – by Ardent Vinlander

Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 4:51am

  1. Cultural identity is not fixed – and often involves “sub-cultural” norms defined by peer group education and experience, locality, dialect and so forth.
  2. So there are no cultural absolutes, no “pure” culture. The example of the West African origins of rock 'n roll is evidence of this.
  3. And yet cultural identity proves exceptionally strong – determinant of identity, adherence, cleavage, and ultimately of a people’s fate.
  4. In the age of the Internet and mobile communications, one’s “community” is often no longer localised or even restricted to much more than a dialect group or interest group. Thus while some communities are entirely “virtual”, others are very much bound by real-time/space.
  5. In this period of flux, then, cultural currents and sub-cultural undertows pull in various directions – towards fragmentation and specialisation, the niche, and towards consolidation and universalism, the global.
  6. Both are “artificial” to the extent that they are intentionally striven for, yet both are “natural” to the extent that they are instinctually driven.
  7. This may manifest both – and often simultaneously – in autarch-individualism and in mob-mentality herd instinct.
  8. Culture then cannot be assessed as “reactionary” merely because it seeks to conserve, artificially or naturally, a set of values, beliefs, practices and artefacts. In the same light, a culture cannot be assessed as “progressive” merely because it seeks to change, artificially or naturally, a set of values, beliefs, practices and artefacts.
  9. Progress and reaction only have meaning in relation to human rights and ethics, in other words, in relation to the standard of the Golden Rule. But the Golden Rule is rusted by weakness: it allows no place for defensive actions aimed at supporting a culture’s right to life, limb and liberty. In other words, ethics need to come armed.


MY CREED PART III: AGGRESSION – by Ardent Vinlander

Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 6:00am

  1. Aggression is a natural and artificial human capability. In other words, it is both an instinctive fighting mechanism, defending life, limb and liberty – and a conscious defence of higher values, Including territory, beliefs, practices and artefacts.
  2. Aggression is not always expressed as violence although it always contains within it the threat of violence – as it is also expressed as territory, authority, ability and consciousness, all of which are a combination of both artificial and natural prerogatives.
  3. Natural prerogatives are essentially grounded in biological warfare, the defence of the species and of its ability to survive and propagate, its instinctive motor ability to grasp and shape the physical realm; they are the flint-tipped spears by which our ancient ancestors routed bears from the caves which became our shelters.
  4. Artificial prerogatives are essentially grounded in psychological (some would call it spiritual) warfare, the defence of the species’ ability to interpret and predict, its learned diagnostic ability to intuit and give shape to our dreams; they are the ochred cave paintings of Lascaux and other Palaeolithic sites
  5. The origins of these ingrained prerogatives are shrouded in the emergence of consciousness within the fog of pre-history – those unrecorded centuries of our coming into being.
  6. And yet we know that the development of speech, the root of both natural and especially of artificial prerogatives, was driven by the need to communicate defence against the sabre-toothed which stalked our early kind.
  7. Forged in the fires of social defence against our racial enemies, speech gave flight to consciousness. Thus was aggression the foundation on which we were able to later erect the flying buttresses of philosophical thought.
  8. So equipped with social organisation, communication, the tools of biological and psychological warfare, and higher consciousness, we ascended from the status of animals undifferentiated from the natural landscape to the Colossus which stands astride the world.
  9. And yet we retain our binary nature: our feet planted in the soil of our origins, our eyes searching deep into the far reaches of interstellar space, knowing we are not the measure of all things – and yet measuring all things, knowing we conquer by understanding.
  10. Thus social aggression is the foundation of our racial consciousness and our racial consciousness is the tool by which we conquer.


MY CREED PART IV: RACE

Sunday, September 26, 2010, 2:08am

  1. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the sole survivor of discrete, parallel yet seldom contemporaneous and only sometimes competing human strains of development. It is in reference to this sole survivor that we incorrectly speak of the “human race” which outiasted other proto-human races including the Neanderthals, Homo Erectus and Homo Robustus.
  2. And yet the Sapiens Sapiens species is diverse, with its greatest smorgasbord of genes pooled in the great mother-continent of Africa – which by the law of averages should thus have produced its highest levels of cultural diversity, consciousness and civilisation. And yet the brute tribalism that dominates from the Sahara to the Savannah is almost undifferentiated in its suffocating, stultified primitiveness, locked in to ancestor-worship voodoo and unquestioning authoritarianism. Even the physical features of the people have only slightly evolved, producing a narrow range almost entirely represented by the Nilotics and the Bantu.
  3. Only the slender archaic haplogroup F strand of this great gene-pool proved adventurous, trekking further afield to leave Africa and establish a unique root-race in what is today the Middle East. It is from this root-race that the greatest physical-cultural diversity of the world emerged, from the blackest Papuan headhunters, to the reddest Pictish warriors.
  4. These incredibly diverse haplogroup populations were differentiated by hundreds of thousands of years of genetic adaptation, mutation, in a word, evolution. The result was the great racial gene-pools of what would today be recognised as Asiatics, Native Americans, Australasians, South Asians – and our own race, the Europeans, in particular represented by the haplogroups R1a, R1b, and I1.
  5. Each race is uniquely adapted to their environmental conditions, in other words, they have a genetic connection to the landscapes within which they developed. This is expressed in terms of the race’s physique: stocky build, black skin, brown eyes and broad noses for the Aborigines of arid Australasia; tall build, white skin, pale eyes and narrow noses for the Nordics of icy Scandinavia. And it is also expressed in terms of culture: the Aboriginal cave paintings of Ayers Rock have the same function as the Cro Magnon cave paintings of Lascaux, the interpretation of the natural-physical world in spiritual-psycological terms; these expressions tie the race to the landscape, a landscape which very directly gave rise to their racial form; thus each modern race has a natural ancestral homeland.
  6. Neccesity is indeed the mother of invention. The extreme environments into which proto-Europeans wandered demanded the utmost of their ingenuity, skill, cunning and inventiveness. We presume there were proto-Europeans who also tried to sit on their bums drinking maize-beer watching the women work, but that they were wiped out in their first winter. And yet we still find “21st Century Hunter-gatherers” – derived from the same root-race as the Europeans – who have clearly not been pressed by circumstance to evolve over the past 10,000 years; no hoes, no millet, no necessity, no invention.
  7. Some of the tension in forming civilisations arises between sedentaries (those who build settlements, based on agricultural surplus), and nomads (who at the most, drive cattle). But there is a clear distinction between the wandering Vikings who built ships and roamed far and wide for plunder and women – establishing settlements with permanent structures and a written culture along the way in many cases, and the African herdsmen who simply chase the seasons from waterhole to waterhole. In other words, the Viking was never a true nomad.
  8. Africans did build tribal-militarist kingdoms with some elements of civilisation and some attempt at building large-scale settlements: Ashante, Ulundi, Great Zimbabwe etc. But although the Portuguese, on first arriving in West Africa in the 1500s, treated the local king as equal because they had a standing army, a form of “university” and a bureaucracy, the West Africans had fallen from that quasi-Medieval state into savagely warring factions by the time European civilisation penetrated the interior – and never recovered.
  9. So “Medieval” is the closest that blacks have come to civilisation, while some still today languish 10,000 years behind the Europeans who gave Africa its science, industry, infrastructure, education, medicine and large-scale agriculture, most of it fallen into terrible disrepair under black rule since the late 1950s. In order to, if not forestall this decay, at least build the bulwarks of a white redoubt strong enough to stand against this darkling tide, we require organisation.


MY CREED PART V


Editor’s Note: There is no post with this title in known screenshots of strandwolf.blogspot.com. Keeping this placeholder in case the text surfaces.


MY CREED PART VI: NATIONAL-ANARCHISM

Tuesday, November 16, 2010, 9:54am

  1. The form of organisation worst suited to the creation of intelligently-run, ergonomic, environmentally sustainable, progressive, innovative white communities is statist capitalism, capitalism because it is an alien Judeo-Christian system which lives parasitically off the social wealth created by all races, the white foremost among them, and statism because it is the armoured claw of the parasites, the enforcer of the inequality which keeps the majority of our people poor.
  2. Previous forms of organisation aimed at creating a whole society have failed dismally, especially grand apartheid and its British, Dutch, and Afrikaner predecessors. The apartheid state was a corruption of white rule not only because of the abominable, inhuman way in which it treated its black neighbours – but because it lived parasitically off the white working class which it employed as its ultimately disposable enforcers of minority elite privilege. Likewise, white separatism such as the Orania project which are merely this system in miniature, are anathema to us, as is self-defeating white terrorism such as the Wit Wolve, devoid as it is of ethics or strategic thinking.
  3. The form of organisation best suited to the creation of a white society of recognisably human and humane form is revolutionary anarchism, a progressive socio-political form which eschews the reactionary reinforcement of white supremacist state/capitalist oppression and exploitation, and which also avoids the pitfalls of either precipitate, terroristic adventurism or the seductions of a retreat into an unattainable mystical past – a form that boldly attacks privilege and parasitism on all fronts, the sweeping, multidimensional battlespace.
  4. And the form of revolutionary anarchism that best suits the construction of an alternate, autogestive white society is one that draws on an eclectic set of principles derived from various leading-edge traditions. From Jim Goad we take the sensibility of a combative working class mentality that is plainspoken and honest. From Nestor Makhno we take the military-tactical lessons of locating ourselves within the heartlands of our communities, and of being internally of one mind yet externally pluralistic in our alliances. From Troy Southgate we take the metapolitical lessons of our spiritual-psychological ties to the landscape of Africa, land we won by right of conquest.
  5. These ideological wellsprings enable us to ground our battle in an actual physical and mental space. An in order to be truly grounded, we need to be scrupulously egalitarian and what this means in the southern African battlespace is that we are compelled to judicially recognise the right of white anarchists and black anarchists to establish their own separate, culturally-distinct formal organisations and informal networks. For while African revolutionary anarchists, by the rationale of even the Bolshevik-tainted international anarchist movement, it is entirely legitimate to establish separate white anarchist organisations, based on the following three points:
  6. Our status as a demographic / cultural minority (in the US that means blacks, Asians, Hispanics and Native Americans, but here it means whites, Asians, Coloureds and Indigenous). This might refer to a group being a minority in a specific geographic locality but also relates to white cultural hegemony which obviously no longer obtains in terms of primary cultural indicators such as the content of national public broadcasters. Secondary cultural indicators, such as the wearing of Western dress by most blacks, is not, however, evidence of the survival of white hegemony.
  7. Our status as a vulnerable group. Here the driving factors range from the declining white population (about 500,000 white South Africans have emigrated since 1994, while fertility rates also decline), to the economic status, the class, of the white population group. According to a 2009 Unisa study, 1.5-million out of 4 million whites are poor, often unemployed, working class, another 1.8-million are in the better paid skilled section of the working class. Only 423,000 are middle class and only 310,000 are wealthy. This points to the necessity, with 3,3-million whites in the working class or unemployed underclass, of organising primarily among those classes.
  8. Our status as a group suffering judicial or extrajudicial discrimination. Here the factors include the wave of largely unrecognised race-hate crimes against the farming community, especially in Zimbabwe and South Africa, and of course race-discriminatory legislation aimed at curbing the socio-economic mobility of whites, again marked in those two countries in particular.
  9. So, in order to organise as a legitimate social-revolutionary force, grounded in southern African realities, and to fight in an ethically-armed, community-grounded manner against the extinction of the remnants of our hard-won geographic and cultural conquests in Africa, we form a revolutionary “black” (ie: anarchist) organisation, to engage on the multidimensional battlefront: Black Battlefront.


MY CREED PART VII: HEARTLAND

Sunday, April 17, 2011, 6:20am

  1. In order for the Aryan African working class to adequately defend itself against its enemies, it is first necessary to define our territory and to be explicit about who those enemies are. Though the demographic demon of black genetic propagation is our acknowledged primary threat and challenge to our foothold on the continent, black people per se are not our enemies. In fact, in order to adequately argue in the court of international opinion our right to self-determination requires that we fundamentally acknowledge the black’s equal right to those parts of Africa that they in turn won by right of conquest, however defined.
  2. This in turn requires a Swiss-like cantonal policy of armed neutrality, of watchful good-neighbourliness, which will allow black and Aryan Africans to live peaceably according to their own separate traditions, in their agreed territories, and where necessary, naturally to conduct cordial, if not fraternal, bilateral diplomatic and commercial relations in an anti-imperialist fashion.
  3. So then, who are our enemies? They include the propagators of abstraction: Jesus, Mohammed, Freud and other progenitors of the idea of an invisible, voodoo power that knows better than we, the living biological distillation of millions of years of real, hardcore survivalist evolution. This includes post-modernists like Deboard, zero-sum fanatics like Pol Pot and other obfuscators of real life as lived by real people. These enemies obscure clear thought among Aryan people.
  4. The propagators of guilt: Mandela, Fanon, King, Guevara and other debasers of Aryan culture – plus their liberal media and marketing hacks, who push this crippling dogma via their footholds in insecure Western institutions of debased learning and culture. This includes feminists, Maoists and others who deny the right of conquest – and its uplifting, civilising mission. These enemies sap our will by denying our unassailable centuries of cultural, military, scientific and economic achievement.
  5. The propagators of parasitism: Stalin, Rothschild, Oppenheimer, Rupert, Sexwale and other drum-majorettes of the capitalist dysfunction whereby the hard-working, honest majority in the Occident (most often Aryan) is regularly dispossessed by non-productive Oriental elements (sometimes Semitic – both Arab and Jew). This includes investment bankers and all supra-national expressions of parasitic, non-productive greed, usury and outright robbery of the public purse.
  6. And in dispossessing our enemies, what then should our territory be? Our territories can historical be defined in numerous ways, and many resconstructionist projects look towards the old Boer Republics of the Transvall and Orange Free State – but these agrarian cultures have long been lost to British imperialism and their local comprador lackeys, swallowed up by liberal, multicultural industrialisation. Not that we reject industrialisation, but rather its deleterious effects: the compound system of impressed immigrant labour, the deliberate creation of a black underclass to undercut already slender white working class gains.
  7. We can rather lay claim to the western portions of the Old Cape and its hinterland, settled from 1652: from Cape Town as far east as Graaf-Reinet, sweeping northwards to embrace the Karoo and Kalahari and further, across the Orange River into Old German South-West Africa, as far north as the Karas region’s northern boundary and as far west as Lüderitz. Surrendering the gold- and coal-mining, industrial and financial heartland plus the eastern ports, farms and plantations to majority-black South Africa would nevertheless leave us with a coherent territory, predominantly Afrikaans-speaking, with a white and coloured majority, of hardy seafaring and farming folk, whose economic strength rests on the civil port of Cape Town, on wine and fruit growing, on diamond-mining, tourism, clothing mills, fishing, game and sheep farming, with its own university, hospitals and tertiary institutions, navy, air force, press, broadcasters and unique cultural traditions stretching back three and a half centuries.
  8. But it is insufficient to simply lop off this historical Aryan African heartland: its civil, judicial, legislative and military powers must be decentralised to District level, all Districts to be federated horizontally and to be administered by regularly rotated, immediately-recallable delegates narrowly delegated by quarterly plenary District Conventions whereby residents hold all executive decision-making powers. And all Districts shall gather their delegates annually or as often as required to form a Convention of Districts which shall be narrowly mandated to decide on matters of national importance.
  9. On the national question, while all black and Asian residents of the territory shall automatically be deemed without prejudice to be foreigners, most of the blacks presumed to be South African citizens, all Aryan, Coloured and Bushman residents of proven Old Cape / Karras heritage shall automatically be citizens, with preferred residency and citizenship offered to Aryans of any origin, provided that the four historic towns of Stellenbosch (1679), Franschhoek (1687), Swellendam (1743) and Graaf-Reinet (1786) be reserved exclusively for Aryans, and that each District Convention have the right to decide on racial zones of use and exclusion.

Appendix

More strandwolf.blogspot.com posts by Michael Schmidt

  1. Ode to a Dying Race (Saturday, February 13, 2010, 2:25am)

  2. Strandwolf is back in action! (Sunday, September 16, 2007, 3:36am)

    • “mas vale morir de pie que vivir de rodillas! it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!” – praxedis guerrero, mexico, (1882-1910) killed while lighting the fuse on the mexican revolution, aged 28
  3. Platform of the Anarchist Communists of Bulgaria, 1945

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Jan 28 2016 23:58

Thanks for posting that, however it isn't necessary to post that same thing on multiple articles and threads.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Jan 29 2016 01:17

I've slectively read parts (due to time constraaints), this is some crazy ass stuff.

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Jan 29 2016 02:37

my source wanted me to spread it so I did. If you are members on anarchist mailing lists, I would appreciate spreading there as well...people really don't understand the depths of this and need to... Schmidt is still enjoying a fruitful career as a celebrated lefty writer -- https://www.facebook.com/Drinking.with.Ghosts

That goes double for those who can spread this Creed and the screenshots on Zabalaza list(s). They need to know while their statement on MS is still being drafted.

subcomandante_juan
Offline
Joined: 4-12-15
Jan 29 2016 05:29
Juan Conatz wrote:
Thanks for posting that, however it isn't necessary to post that same thing on multiple articles and threads.

Juan, as you know this data dump at Anarkismo has already been beneficial because others, including Wayne Price, have seen and commented about this new content under the Price article. And we can see Price already condemned these Schmidt posts. (Comments section worth reading: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28923)

Schmidt has not only campaigned for a vile racist agenda, but he has incited racist violence and hatred to extremist white supremacist audiences. Nobody knows exactly who reads which site or forum thread, and each audience deserves to be informed.

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Jan 29 2016 11:40

Juan is objecting to my duplicate posts on BF and Schmidt interviews on libcom, all three of which were removed... I'm done here anyway. We all need to raise awareness outside of a single libcom thread. Many other things going on in the world, sure, but Schmidt and his ideology are cancer to our movement and it hasn't been addressed by even the comrades and groups closest to him. Except cowardly defenses of course... mean while Schmidt is a welcome guest at conferences about journalists, integrity, and persecution -- http://pensouthafrica.co.za/sa-cities-of-refuge-project-repaying-south-a...

James MacBryde's picture
James MacBryde
Offline
Joined: 26-10-15
Jan 29 2016 15:18

Thanks for the post, William. It's about the funniest thing I've read. Here's a taster:

Quote:
The white (wo)man is in Africa by conquest. This is inescapable; that gunpowder beats spear, wolves rule over sheep. And yet we are human and not animals, thus we mark our territory not with urine but blood.

This right of conquest may not be ethically “right” but it is the forge of history – and the alloy that results, its temper and strength are then set. How we deal with that is both rooted in, and starts, now.

The implication is that primitivism, Africanism or any qualified or absolute return to a pre-colonial “state of grace” is impossible. Also clear is that redress and reparations for past wrongs, grievous though they may be, are impossible. Thus may the Herero seek apology from the Germans for genocide, but not redress.

Ardent Vinlander

Dannny
Offline
Joined: 17-02-09
Jan 29 2016 18:01

With the best will in the world, I can't really get my head round why people aren't falling over themselves to publicly break from him at this point. Maybe people who were close to him personally are frozen by shock?

lucien_lies_too's picture
lucien_lies_too
Offline
Joined: 28-12-15
Jan 30 2016 17:41

"Considerations of the Anarkismo network about the accusations against Michael Schmidt" http://www.anarkismo.net/article/29047

"The Anarkismo network has already published a statement that it would wait until all parts of the accusations by Reid Ross and Stephens were published, as well as the answers of M. Schmidt, before making any judgements on the case. Now that this has been forthcoming, as well as two more responses by Reid Ross, we are issuing a second statement to make public our intentions regarding the present situation.

It is difficult for us to draw definitive conclusions about this case based on the evidence provided so far by both sides. This is because to do so would require translating all the material, accusations and defence, into numerous languages in order to allow debate in each organisation, with organisations then debating each other through their delegates to the Anarkismo network. This is impossible to carry out with our current capacity – especially for organisations with daily militancy and work of social insertion and/or operating under difficult social contexts – without sacrificing other daily activities. However, the accusations against Schmidt are extremely serious and we take the issue of fighting racism and white supremacy as high priority. Therefore, the Anarkismo network has decided to call for a commission of enquiry to investigate more closely both the accusations and the defence, and to make recommendations to the broader anarchist movement based on their findings. As it is well known that Schmidt was a former militant in one of our member organizations and both helped to found and contributed extensively to the anarkismo.net website, it is our intention that the commission should include members of other tendencies and non-affiliated anarchists in order to avoid partiality.

We have already stated in our previous statement how we feel about the methods of the accusers. Further than the specific case of M. Schmidt, those methods raised an internal debate about how we deal with such situations. The accusations may be true or not: this will be for the commission to settle. We cannot ignore that the methods used by the accusers – especially the lack of a criteria for minimum of justice – could be used one day in an unjustified accusation against any one of us in order to defame a militant, an organisation or a whole movement. As political organizations we have a duty to protect our members. While Schmidt may not be a member of any of our affiliated organisations, the way we deal with the current situation will have consequences for similar situations in the future.

This is why the Anarkismo network, before sending an invitation to members of other tendencies to join the commission of enquiry, will now work internally to figure out the commission's composition, the parameters of what decisions are within its range and on the questions of how we define justice and ethics in a way that does not reproduce the modus operandi of mainstream society. This is in order to propose a methodological and ethical framework for this commission (which, then, will need to be discussed with the tendencies we wish to invite to form the commission). We think this is necessary because, if this commission has no clear criteria, it will end up adopting, as a result of a dynamic of social pressure, those of the movement in general. And unfortunately, we cannot say that the criteria of ethics and justice today in our milieu are the best.

This work will take us a while. Not only because it is a vast discussion, but also because we lack the capacity to deal properly with this case without stopping our daily work.

There will be a further communication when the Anarkismo network is ready to make a formal proposal.

The Anarkismo Network
January 2016"

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Jan 30 2016 18:37
Quote:
It is difficult for us to draw definitive conclusions about this case based on the evidence provided so far by both sides. This is because to do so would require translating all the material, accusations and defence, into numerous languages in order to allow debate in each organisation, with organisations then debating each other through their delegates to the Anarkismo network.

Which brings us to the question-- how does Anarkismo draw definitive conclusions about anything?

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Jan 30 2016 20:56

basically what has been indicated for the past while.

Black Badger
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Jan 31 2016 04:14

By the time this Commission of Enquiry is seated, most of the eyewitnesses will either be long gone from the anarchist milieu and/or dead from old age...

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Jan 31 2016 06:46

Guys, guys haven't you heard, platformist groups operating in a very Leninst manner allows them to respond quickly and decisively to events.

James MacBryde's picture
James MacBryde
Offline
Joined: 26-10-15
Jan 31 2016 10:04

Dannny:

Quote:
I can't really get my head round why people aren't falling over themselves to publicly break from him at this point.

To make such a public rupture would be an admission of being bedfellows in the past.

lucien_lies_too's picture
lucien_lies_too
Offline
Joined: 28-12-15
Feb 1 2016 22:05

Fascists? Or just some blokes worried about the "Menace in Europe"?

http://wire.novaramedia.com/2016/02/post-dover-5-things-antifascists-can...

http://wire.novaramedia.com/2016/02/post-dover-5-reflections-on-antifasc...

https://news.google.com/news/section?q=combat%2018

lucien_lies_too's picture
lucien_lies_too
Offline
Joined: 28-12-15
Feb 11 2016 22:20

Any bets on when the ZACF response will be published? If so, odds that it's just another "we're waiting for a commission to decide" message? How about Lucien?

More important things in the world, yes, but this also shouldn't be that hard unless there's damage control going on.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 11 2016 23:10

I gather this has been punted to some commission

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 11 2016 23:23
Quote:
To make such a public rupture would be an admission of being bedfellows in the past.

I say this comradely, but there is an element of truth to this. I mean, after all, he was respected by many for a long time. Wrote stuff that some thought had elements of lots of merit. I can get how some feel. And why some want to defend what they think are the best parts and reputations
of those who have clean hands, but have been associated with a particular tendency.

The end result of some lame commission doesn't do much (for me at least), as it just seems like punting the ball, but I get where some of the more decent and honorable folks are coming from. Tough spot for some.

Red.Black.Writings
Offline
Joined: 29-08-13
Feb 12 2016 06:01

Hello.
This is Lucien van der Walt. In early December 2015, I posted several times online, under a once-well-known name I used to use, Red.Black.Writings, on the Schmidt issue. I had resolved not to post or debate online at all, but I got emotional.

I apologise sincerely and unreservedly for engaging the issues under the Red.Black.Writings identity without clearly identifying it as mine. I should have done so, from the start. I am sorry if it was misleading. I acted emotionally, and without care. I am truly sorry. I didn’t create the Red.Black.Writings identity to engage on the Schmidt issue (it has been around for years, and is fairly well-known as mine), and I was posting on a board where pretty much no-one uses their real names. But that does not excuse me.

In these posts I argued that Schmidt’s reply was pretty strong, and that his critics were missing some of its key claims, being a bit selective when using evidence (for example, skipping over Schmidt’s anarchist tattoos, highlighting instead a runic tattoo), not always considering other explanations, and so on. This was soon after Schmidt posted his second reply.

There was one positive outcome of this unhappy experience: I found some of the replies to my points difficult to answer. I left the board because I needed to think these through. I haven’t posted there since.

The fact is that I was forced to do some serious reflection by the exchanges, to recognise more problems in Schmidt’s actions and arguments (as my fuller statement, which I will post now, shows, while I continue to have a range of reservations about the Reid-Ross and Stephens arguments and actions, I have a range of reservations about Schmidt’s too).

I don’t particularly like the way many online debates about the Schmidt affair have been conducted, but that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize important points when they are made.

Anyway, I am deeply sorry. I am also sorry it has taken so long to reply, but I have stayed away from online debates on the Schmidt issue since mid-December.

Finally, I will be posting a fuller statement on the Schmidt affair after this message, called “Personal statement on the Michael Schmidt affair: Lucien van der Walt, 11 February 2016."

Apologies, again.

Yours sincerely,
Lucien van der Walt, Makana, South Africa, 11 February 2016

Red.Black.Writings
Offline
Joined: 29-08-13
Feb 12 2016 05:57

Personal statement on the Michael Schmidt affair: Lucien van der Walt, 11 February 2016

Many people have asked me to comment on the Schmidt affair, and to those who wrote to me, I said I would comment after all the articles were out, and after all Michael Schmidt’s replies were out. Those following the affair will know it centres on the claim that Schmidt was, from at least 2002, some sort of racist right-winger or fascist working inside the anarchist movement – a charge Schmidt has denied.

Now that what looks to be the final instalment in the series of seven articles by Alexander Reid-Ross and Joshua Stephens has appeared (24 December 2015), and that it seems Schmidt is not issuing a third reply to them (he did two in 2015), I have tried to put pen to paper to comment.

And I have found it very difficult.

The reasons are quite simple. I have mixed feelings, I am unsure what to think. I want to reach a final position, and have tried to do my best to hear all sides of the story, not just those that fit what I initially thought. My views have shifted over time, they shift daily.

I have problems with the actions and arguments of Reid-Ross and Stephens, but I also have problems with the actions and arguments of Schmidt.

I find it difficult to reconcile the Michael Schmidt I saw, with the statements he has admitted to posting online under fake personas. These include comments on boards, as well as what appears to be a longer manifesto, called the “Strandwolf’s Creed.”

I find those online statements to be deeply abhorrent, shocking – no matter what reason is given to explain them, in their own right they are just awful. I completely distance myself from those statements. They embody racist and fascist positions that I find appalling, and that I have opposed consistently, for decades, to the best of my abilities – and let me stress here that, despite my ethnic background, I reject Afrikaner nationalism, in all its forms, as an essentially reactionary current. The “Strandwolf’s Creed,” posted under one of Schmidt’s online fake personas, had clearly racist and fascist content, I reject it entirely. I also believe some of the online posts by these personas were inflammatory and irresponsible, going beyond, in my view, the ethics of journalism and social research.

I also completely reject a document that Schmidt authored in his own capacity, and circulated in 2008 in the South African anarchist political group, Zabalaza/ ZACF, called “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” I was not part of that organisation at the time. I was not party to the discussions in Zabalaza over it. When I checked later, Zabalaza’s records showed that the organisation rejected the text, and that Schmidt recanted its worst formulations as “bordering on racism,” in 2008. Many years later, when I was informed of this text for the first time, by someone else, I asked Schmidt about it: he stated that he wrote it when disillusioned and burned-out, and that he distanced himself from it. But no matter what his intentions and situation may have been when he wrote it, I think it’s an irredeemable and unacceptable text.

Schmidt’s core defense of the right-wing online statements and the “Creed” that he posted under false personas has been that the statements emphatically did not reflect his real views, but were as fake as the personas he created online. So he says that his online statements (through these personas) were certainly and definitely racist and fascist – but insists that they are inventions, used cynically as part of an undercover investigation into the radical white right, first as a journalist, and then for research towards a book called “Global Fire.” His real views, he insists, are those expressed in a long history of progressive and left-radical political work, and a social life, that locates him firmly in the camp of the country’s black working class.

Reid-Ross and Stephens argue, on the other hand, that Schmidt’s online statements through his various online right-wing personas are far too consistent with elements of his public persona and writings, and far too offensive, to be explained away as simply part of a research project. They also argue against the undercover-journalism defense on the grounds that he has, they insist, produced little in the way of research outputs as a result.

Versions of these claims and counter-claims have been in circulation for some time, at least back into 2011, in some circles. But never as detailed and extensive as now: it is only with Reid-Ross and Stephens’ articles, and the two Schmidt replies, that a fuller picture has started to emerge.

Where does the truth of the matter lie? Does it lie with one or other of the two main narratives that have been put forward? Does it fit uneasily with both?

Right now, I find it difficult to reach definite conclusions.

I was deeply disappointed to read, in Schmidt’s two replies to his accusers, his frank admission that he had not only concealed his claimed undercover journalism from Zabalaza and others for years – and it was even worse, to learn, from those replies, that he had continued to conceal the full scope of his online activities and personas even when he was confronted by Zabalaza and others, including me, from 2011.

I do think that there are important elements of the claims by Reid-Ross and Stephens that have not been clearly addressed by Schmidt’s replies. These are some examples. One is the claim Schmidt has a runic tattoo on one arm, of a symbol associated with the white radical right, and that he got this to signify a radical right position. Another is the allegation that he voted for the Afrikaner nationalist Freedom Front Plus in South Africa’s 2009 general elections. A third is the argument that some of his journalistic articles in the mainstream press show sympathies with the white radical right.

On the other hand, there are important elements of Schmidt’s replies that have not been adequately addressed by Reid-Ross and Stephens, in their responses. These are some examples. One is the claim Reid-Ross and Stephens skip over Schmidt’s tattoos that are clearly anarchist, like an Anarchist Black Cross tattoo, ignoring evidence that does not neatly fit. Another is the allegation that at least one of the major statements they attribute to Schmidt does not actually appear in the text they cite. A third is the argument that, even now, they have not engaged with the bulk of what Schmidt has written, skipping three of five books, various anarchist pamphlets, and most of the many hundreds of articles he’s written, anarchist as well as journalistic. A fourth claim is that they have acted at odds with journalistic ethics, interviewing with Schmidt under false pretenses, not giving him a right-of-reply before publication, displaying overt personal hostility, and making dubious claims to, for instance, treat the fact Schmidt had a black wife and friends as irrelevant, even damning.

Now, let me be clear. I hope that there are simple explanations, from both sides, for all these concerns. I really hope so. I’d like to see all these issues addressed, by both sides. I am not taking sides, because I am not sure what to think.

Well, that’s where I am today, unsure, with reservations about both Schmidt and Reid-Ross and Stephens, in turmoil, not sure how to proceed and hoping for the issues to be resolved.

I have tried to think through the issues, vacillated, changed my mind. Sometimes I have acted emotionally and foolishly – for which I apologize sincerely and unreservedly.

In early December 2015, for example, I posted a several times online, under a once-well-known name I used to use, Red.Black.Writings. I had resolved not to post or debate online at all, but I got emotional. This was soon after Schmidt posted his second reply. In these posts I argued that Schmidt’s reply was pretty strong, and that his critics were missing some of its key claims, being a bit selective when using evidence (for example, skipping over Schmidt’s anarchist tattoos, highlighting instead a runic tattoo), not always considering other explanations, and so on.

I apologise sincerely and unreservedly for engaging the issues under the Red.Black.Writings identity without clearly identifying it as mine. I should have done so, from the start. I am sorry if it was misleading. I acted emotionally, and without care. I am truly sorry. I didn’t create the Red.Black.Writings identity to engage on the Schmidt issue (it has been around for years, and is fairly well-known as mine), and I was posting on a board where pretty much no-one uses their real names. But that does not excuse me.

There was one positive outcome of this unhappy experience: I found some of the replies to my points difficult to answer. I left the board because I needed to think these through. I haven’t posted there since. The fact is that I was forced to do some serious reflection by the exchanges. I was forced to recognise more problems in Schmidt’s arguments. While I continue to have reservations about the Reid-Ross and Stephens arguments, I have, let me state it again, reservations about Schmidt’s arguments.

I don’t particularly like the way many online debates about the Schmidt affair have been conducted, but that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize important points when they are made.

To understand the emotional side of the issues, and my conflicted views, let me say something on a personal level: I have known Michael Schmidt for a long time, since the mid-1990s; I was in radical groups with Schmidt from 1995 until about ten years ago, 2007; and I was in contact with him when he got divorced in 2007, and burned-out, ill and depressed from 2008.

Also around ten years ago, my main written collaboration with Schmidt took place. This was, of course, the book “Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism.” Although “Black Flame” appeared in print in 2009, it was largely written in 2005-2006, the proofs for correction arriving late 2007. I was the primary author.

It was an effort at a global, non-Eurocentric account of mainstream anarchist and syndicalist history and theory – one with flaws, certainly, but one with many strengths too. The book went for peer-review, at my insistence, and no reviewer then, or critic later, made any allusion to right-wing themes in the book. Those who criticized the book tended to take issue with its stress on class-struggle, or its definition of anarchism.

Schmidt’s lengthy (second) reply to Reid-Ross and Stephens reminded me of his track record as an activist-writer, and reflected the person I saw. I saw a long history of non-racial action, and dedication to a black working class-based anarchism, which I find difficult just to forget. The Schmidt I saw dedicated a great part of his life to anarchism and syndicalism, in his writings, militancy and daily life. This is the Schmidt that many people, in South Africa and worldwide saw, not just me, a man involved in unions, protests, agitation, and radical publishing.

And in this long period, Michael Schmidt never expressed to me the sorts of views that Reid-Ross and Stephens insist he has held since at least 2002. I never saw him politically active in ways that suggested a radical right-wing agenda. I never saw, in any draft of what became “Black Flame,” or in the drafts that I saw of its successor “Global Fire” (which have been written by Schmidt), the sorts of views critics claim Schmidt has long held. Even when he was grappling, from 2007, with personal demons, job issues, divorce, and general disappointment, he did not express such views to me.

I also never saw the sort of manipulative, duplicitous and aggressive personality described by the Reid-Ross and Stephens’ articles, or some of the anonymous sources they cited. And again, I am not alone in this.

In the long period I have known Schmidt, we have had many disagreements on many issues, including political ones, but the side of himself he showed to me was always that of a pretty standard class-struggle anarchist.

But I say “showed to me,” very deliberately, because I knew his writing and research and militancy basically through his public anarchist and anarchist-related writings and activities in the 1990s and 2000s.

Our interaction was around left-radical projects. Sometimes I worked with him as a co-author. Sometimes he asked for feedback on drafts, on the understanding that he bore final responsibility for their content. I can’t say I followed his newspaper pieces articles very closely. And of course, he was his own man, and he did not run everything by me, as if I was his editor or commissar. Many of his articles I only saw after they were published – I can recall some I hotly rejected, including one on the late, unlamented Eugene Terre’blanche.

And I say “showed to me,” deliberately, because obviously a person can have different sides, not all visible. While I can say the Schmidt I saw seemed the genuine article, I can’t claim I saw every part of Schmidt, I can’t claim that I saw everything he said or did. But if he had another political persona, it was not shown to me.

And I say “showed to me,” deliberately, because the Reid-Ross and Stephens articles have drawn to my attention to a body of materials of which I was not previously aware, and made some criticisms about Schmidt’s explanation for his online fake personas that do need to be addressed – as I have indicated earlier.

And I also say “showed to me,” deliberately, because Schmidt did not inform me he was creating fake online personas, never shared with me the texts he posted through such personas, nor did he state to me and others in the 2000s that he was undertaking a claimed undercover-journalism / research on the radical white right. It’s not just that I did not see all of Schmidt: this activity, at least, was specifically kept under wraps by Schmidt.

It was in early 2011 that Zabalaza was informed, by other sources, that Schmidt was operating false personas on radical white right sites and showing affinities to the radical right. Schmidt had left Zabalaza a year before. I was not in Zabalaza, so I do not know all the details or the exact dates of this informing. I was soon approached by a member of Zabalaza about the matter, and I replied that Zabalaza needed to deal with the issue firmly, and confront Schmidt.

Zabalaza did confront Schmidt in 2011 – as did I, in my own capacity – and he was confronted about these issues several times subsequently. His reply was always roughly the same as that he still maintains, that the fake personas were for undercover research purposes, and emphatically did not represent his real views. Remember also that he had rejected “Politico-Cultural Dynamics …” in 2008, so this matter was not brought into the discussion.

For my part, I took Schmidt’s explanation at face value, based on the Schmidt I knew, and the record of action, that I saw. And based, I must admit, on the fact I respected, trusted and liked him.

Maybe I am naïve, but I have been guided by a belief in human decency, and a trust in people, based on what I have experienced directly. When I express reservations about the case against Schmidt, it does not come from a stubborn effort to see only one side of the story, or to defend anything and everything that Schmidt may have ever done. It does not come from an effort to cover up. It certainly does not come from any sympathy for noxious views or from any hidden agenda.

Yet I warned Schmidt, on these occasions, that if there was substance to the claims that he had was affiliated to the radical white right he would face ostracism and lose friends, that people who did not like him would also actively try to ruin him.

And if now, after all, there is indeed substance to the claims, I and many other will feel deeply betrayed by him, and how he turned his back on his anarchist writings and militancy.

Where to now?

I understand that there is a non-partisan anarchist and syndicalist commission being called to look into the Schmidt affair.

Maybe that can lead to some resolution. Maybe the commission can help anarchism and syndicalism globally think through how to deal with matters like the Schmidt affair in a more constructive, comradely and movement-building manner.

And maybe, in the process, people can consider just what they want to achieve in affairs like this.

There will probably never be a consensus on this case, and people will need to decide how they deal with difference here, and how to move beyond what has become a very vitriolic debate, including insults, smears, and even hate-mail.

For me, for now, my feelings are mixed, my mind not made up, my emotions in turmoil, and my path unclear. I know some people want me to make a clearer statement, but this is where I am right now. Unsure.

So, for now, I wait. I wait for the commission, I discuss with comrades, colleagues and friends.

And I will take a final position after the commission.

Yours sincerely,
Lucien van der Walt, Makana, South Africa, 11 February 2016

Dannny
Offline
Joined: 17-02-09
Feb 12 2016 11:44

Thanks for these comments, Lucien. I appreciate this must have been a shitty time for you.
On this point:

Quote:
On the other hand, there are important elements of Schmidt’s replies that have not been adequately addressed by Reid-Ross and Stephens, in their responses. These are some examples. One is the claim Reid-Ross and Stephens skip over Schmidt’s tattoos that are clearly anarchist, like an Anarchist Black Cross tattoo, ignoring evidence that does not neatly fit. Another is the allegation that at least one of the major statements they attribute to Schmidt does not actually appear in the text they cite. A third is the argument that, even now, they have not engaged with the bulk of what Schmidt has written, skipping three of five books, various anarchist pamphlets, and most of the many hundreds of articles he’s written, anarchist as well as journalistic.

If Schmidt is a fascist then it seems to me that the anarchist activity, tattoos and writings can be explained by two possible factors: 1) he meant them sincerely at the time but changed his position. 2) the 'national anarchism' he advocates is an attempt to make racism and various other tenets of fascism compatible with anarchism, in which case knowledge of and credibility within anarchism are a plus for him, even if to achieve this he has to behave in contradictory ways and write things contrary to what he believes.

For someone who knows him, those explanations might not convince, but that's how it looks from the outside. And from here it looks like Schmidt is a fascist because what kind of undercover anti-fascist activity could feasibly, in a million years, involve advocating a 'black battlefront' that expicitly attempts to wed 'anarchism' to violent racism? So one of those above explanations must broadly suffice, regardless of the content of that activity and those texts. In that sense, the weaknesses of the investigation seem largely irrelevant at this point.

In any case, I hope that all those who were close to Schmidt get through this experience as best they can, without making any concessions to or excuses for racism and nationalism, and I'm glad and gratified to see that approach in your comments.

lucien_lies_too's picture
lucien_lies_too
Offline
Joined: 28-12-15
Feb 12 2016 13:42

thanks Lucien, my work is done here, so I won't be posting any longer. I know it is difficult to eat crow after those older posts, and the humble response is appreciated. I apologize sincerely for the vitriol and will now spread this response of yours far and wide.

In regard to your analysis so far, I don't think the "my emotions are still blinding me so I wait for the commission decision" response is good enough -- surely an academic of your caliber can dig through all the material? it's really not as complex as you make it sound.

That, and I'm sure you have evidence of your own which would shed some light on the situation... Schmidt's trangressions into "national anarchism" and racist/Boer nationalist outbursts must have creeped into correspondence and other writings -- likely episodes you've seen in person as well. Releasing the rejected Anarkismo articles ("Menace in Europe", "Neither Fish nor Fowl", etc.) as well as any incriminating ZACF memos etc., would not only help make the discussion more open and rational, it would further distance you from a man who has already damaged your career significantly. Even if you think Schmidt is a "sometimes racist", there's no excuse for it, and the fallout has been substantial. You would also do well to distance your colleagues and comrades from him and be proactive about letting them know your position in regard to this; there are still books and articles of Michael's being promoted in SA that contain a more 'politically correct' version of his nationalism/racism.

If your opinion truly does change daily, I hope that you will take the time to look closely at the comments here and what else is out there, and engage thoughtfully with the people here and elsewhere online, before waiting for some drawn-out commission (which is waste of everyone's time and energy). The facts are rather plain when you're at a personal distance from the man himself, even if difficult to fathom. Conclusions from you will likely carry more weight than the response of an entire commission.

I know you've seen most of it, but I'll post again. This is *almost* everything, besides a handful of Stormfront posts that don't add much relevance (though I will make sure they get published in a legible form). I'll leave out Michael's responses, which are obviously linked in the ARR and JS pieces and I'm sure you're quite familiar with.

Primary sources --

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/01/27/michael-schmidt-strandwolfs-creed/

http://filepi.com/i/P2OoSTj

http://filepi.com/i/S5r9NDz

http://filepi.com/i/lyj47N9

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/10/12/schmidt-memo/preview/page/1/

How the story broke --

https://www.facebook.com/AKPress/posts/10156164515845249

The story --

https://medium.com/@rossstephens/about-schmidt-how-a-white-nationalist-s...

https://medium.com/@rossstephens/about-schmidt-how-a-white-nationalist-s...

https://medium.com/@rossstephens/about-schmidt-how-a-white-nationalist-s...

https://medium.com/@rossstephens/about-schmidt-how-a-white-nationalist-s...

https://medium.com/@rossstephens/about-schmidt-how-a-white-nationalist-s...

https://medium.com/@areidross/michael-schmidt-and-the-fascist-creep-7525...

https://medium.com/@areidross/i-fact-checked-michael-schmidt-s-autobiogr...

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Feb 12 2016 14:19

IMO, it all comes down to this:

Quote:
It was in early 2011 that Zabalaza was informed, by other sources, that Schmidt was operating false personas on radical white right sites and showing affinities to the radical right. Schmidt had left Zabalaza a year before. I was not in Zabalaza, so I do not know all the details or the exact dates of this informing. I was soon approached by a member of Zabalaza about the matter, and I replied that Zabalaza needed to deal with the issue firmly, and confront Schmidt.

Zabalaza did confront Schmidt in 2011 – as did I, in my own capacity – and he was confronted about these issues several times subsequently. His reply was always roughly the same as that he still maintains, that the fake personas were for undercover research purposes,

In 2011. And neither ZACF nor LVDW say a word about this until after the Reid-Ross/Stephens articles expose the mess. Four years of silence. Four years of accepting Schmidt's explanations, without further investigation. No requests for a commission of inquiry then. No awaiting the determination of an independent panel, then.

And after the exposure-- no acknowledgement for months that LVDW already knew about these actions by Schmidt.

Nothing but silence on this. Until now. Now LVDW has "problems" with the methods and the exposures made by Reid-Ross/Stephens. Now LVDW awaits the determination of a commission of inquiry.

Now somebody might consider LVDW's statements, his call and wait for an independent panel of inquiry, part of the same stall, the same cover-up that was engaged in then

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Feb 12 2016 17:06

I said I wouldn't be back on here but fuck it. This is not a good enough response from Lucien and I'm sure he knows that.

S. Artesian wrote:
In 2011. And neither ZACF nor LVDW say a word about this until after the Reid-Ross/Stephens articles expose the mess. Four years of silence. Four years of accepting Schmidt's explanations, without further investigation. No requests for a commission of inquiry then. No awaiting the determination of an independent panel, then.

And after the exposure-- no acknowledgement for months that LVDW already knew about these actions by Schmidt.

Nothing but silence on this. Until now. Now LVDW has "problems" with the methods and the exposures made by Reid-Ross/Stephens. Now LVDW awaits the determination of a commission of inquiry.

Now somebody might consider LVDW's statements, his call and wait for an independent panel of inquiry, part of the same stall, the same cover-up that was engaged in then

100% fucking right. This echoes one of the other concise statements on this, from user hm on the first Anarkismo statement in September 2015.

http://anarkismo.net/article/28576

Quote:
...the mess is the consequence of Schmidt's behavior, not anything that AK Press or the authors of the exposé are responsible for. The format of the text they wrote is more self-important than necessary, but we should not be complaining about that--we should be critical of the fact that no one else spoke up about this issue before they did, out of all the people who could have said something. If there is any possible defense of Schmidt's behavior, it is certainly not silence, which is what the people around him opted for across the course of several years.

I agree with the Anarchist Affinity statement, and I will be surprised if Schmidt's next statement, or anything we hear from Anarkismo after their long silence, can be anything but more damning of them both.

Anarchism is critical to the survival of humanity at this historical juncture, and deserves better exponents than we are seeing here.

We who have been working hard to get the information on Schmidt out there have been pleading for strong principled responses, and found few. We certainly don't have any idea how big a potential "cover up" was, or if it was just bad judgment and irrational protection of a friend ("maybe he's not actually racist, he's a good guy" etc.)

It's nice that Lucien is sorry, apologizing for his online conduct, but not apologizing for anything else, like harboring Schmidt. The criticisms keep falling instead on the messengers, the people who are, in many cases, "digging" for info that's already online (really, we're re-packaging it so that it can't be misinterpreted and is very, very clear for Schmidt supporters).

Why did it take so much fucking energy to get this response? Or any response? And we don't need a commission as many have said.

Lucien - if you really care, release everything you know including the articles you rejected via Anarkismo or otherwise. This is an opportunity to turn the corner. You will be badgered for them if you don't, and properly so.

Also, I'm convinced this response is only humble because damage control efforts over the ZACF response were not successful. We know you had a strong hand in the draft of the ZACF response and that it wasn't an indictment of Schmidt like this personal response...all it did was muddy the waters even more, slow down the process even more, proving such a process to be impotent.

Black Badger
Offline
Joined: 21-03-07
Feb 12 2016 21:18

A day late and a dollar short. Lucien's months-long refusal to admit he was RBW when confronted multiple times rings hollow; saying "everyone knows" it was him when he was consistently silent and/or coy is absurd. Waiting for this ridiculous commission of inquiry is equally -- if not more -- ludicrous. Like the ZACF statement, this is wholly inadequate.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Feb 12 2016 21:30
Quote:
the ZACF response

where is this posted

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Feb 12 2016 21:58
Black Badger wrote:
A day late and a dollar short. Lucien's months-long refusal to admit he was RBW when confronted multiple times rings hollow; saying "everyone knows" it was him when he was consistently silent and/or coy is absurd. Waiting for this ridiculous commission of inquiry is equally -- if not more -- ludicrous. Like the ZACF statement, this is wholly inadequate.

Right. Confronted (3 or 4 times on just this thread?) before the lucien_lies account was even created. There are clever omissions in even his apology for RBW posts, and you've hit the nail on the head.

The question is whether his behavior now will be good enough to forgive the past. Some seem to think so, I'm not convinced. To start, let's see the ZACF draft and whether or not he had a hand in it. There's no good reason to accept the "waiting for commission" response from everyone close to this affair, especially if there's no actual transparency, and even then it's a fucking joke..... which will no doubt carry mock-stoic pretenses of "justice" and so on.

And, let's not forget, there are years of protection ("naivety" some would claim) for Schmidt going on here... the Creed was circulated most widely by me, but it was the exact same text available to Lucien and ZACF et al in 2011 at strandwolf.blogspot.com Read it. Does anyone believe it's there to be a cover? Why not just make copypasta NeoNazi crap to lure in fash trash..... instead it's a purposeful marriage of anarchism and Boer white supremacy.

I don't want to hear "because it's long it was hard to really understand" or that "it was unpleasant so I didn't read it all" from Lucien and co... some of us had to type up that garbage from screenshots and copyedit it to make sure it matched, and that was much more abysmal. But it had to be done or we'd all still be clockwatching for what few responses we have gotten now.

Edit: to clarify my questions about the creed and last paragraph were not directed at Black Badger.

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Feb 12 2016 22:11
syndicalist wrote:
Quote:
the ZACF response

where is this posted

We only know it from summaries of those who have read it, sorry to give another impression. I would very much like to see the text...I know many others have it but have either been unwilling to publish it or our paths haven't crossed.

I think the draft response may be even more important than the final version and the discrepancy between the two will reveal a lot about how potential "commissions" are going to work (very badly I hazard to guess). If anyone has it, please post it even after the final ZACF response so we can contrast... it may give lie to some things in Lucien's statement above as well.