Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Beating the Fascists: The authorised history of Anti-Fascist Action

Joe Reilly said:
Can we take it then, from that non-denial denial. that there was no menacing behind request to hand over fanzine and we can duly add it the list of your invented campaigns - so far:
1.the non existent viscious campaign against the Purbick family - no evidence provided
2.the threat (s) to stab Dave Hann on the RA forum - no evidence provided
3.the 'hounding and threatning' of Dave Hann by me - no evidence provided
4. AFA demanding with menaces the return of the AFA fanzine Red Attitude to AFA - never happened

All fabrications made up -by you Steve. On here.

Now as the explanation for the rather bizarre invention of my 'bullying Dave by proxy' or even worse by 'remote' (tv?) is not forthcoming despite

you being asked on a number of occassions, would you like to take the opportunity, (given it is something you have oft repeated) to provide an

example or two, (you know the drill) of when I ever 'hid behind gangsters'?
Click to expand...

I think it safe now to assume that the 'gangster' allegation is not going to be substantiated. And as often happens it is the attempted cover-up that over time proves the un-doing of the conspirators.

For behind all the little lies; the character assasinations etc there lies a bigger lie. And what is the bigger lie?

Well, we don't have to travel far to find it. Click on Anti-Fascist Action and it brings you to Wikipedia.

Here we are told: 'Red Action campaigned over a long period after 1995 within the AFA Network for AFA as an organisation to adopt the "Filling the Vacuum" strategy. However, given that AFA contained a number of political groups, with differing political programmes, this contributed to the breakup of much of the AFA network, with much internal recrimination."

Now this counter factual argument may be all too familiar to people on here (Louise Purbick, Ayatollah to name put two) but it is still fairly startling to see it proclaimed so brazenly elsewhere. It is also worth noting the sleight of hand whereby it is not the 'no more marches, meetings, punch-ups' statement of the BNP in 1994, which dosen't rate a mention incidentally, that creates problems for AFA, but the 'FTV' analysis that followed it 12 months later.

You might also have thought that for the blame to be laid at the door of 'FtV' (apart from providing a link to it - not a hope) the accepted the minimum requirement would be to name the other groups involved and possibly take note of their responses.

But no.

Outside of Red Action none are mentioned much less the nature of their criticisms. And why is that do you suppose?

Simple.

With the collapse of the DAM in the mid-1990's no 'other groups with different political programmes' existed within the AFA network, which rather voids the 'united front'
argument.
So much then for the notion that the exchanges in this thread can be dismissed as a 'personal spat'. What we are seeing here is not so much a re-writing of history but the invention of an entirely seperate narrative.
 
Joe Reilly said:
I think it safe now to assume that the 'gangster' allegation is not going to be substantiated. And as often happens it is the attempted cover-up that over time proves the un-doing of the conspirators.

For behind all the little lies; the character assasinations etc there lies a bigger lie. And what is the bigger lie?

Well, we don't have to travel far to find it. Click on Anti-Fascist Action and it brings you to Wikipedia.

Here we are told: 'Red Action campaigned over a long period after 1995 within the AFA Network for AFA as an organisation to adopt the "Filling the Vacuum" strategy. However, given that AFA contained a number of political groups, with differing political programmes, this contributed to the breakup of much of the AFA network, with much internal recrimination."

Now this counter factual argument may be all too familiar to people on here (Louise Purbick, Ayatollah to name put two) but it is still fairly startling to see it proclaimed so brazenly elsewhere. It is also worth noting the sleight of hand whereby it is not the 'no more marches, meetings, punch-ups' statement of the BNP in 1994, which dosen't rate a mention incidentally, that creates problems for AFA, but the 'FTV' analysis that followed it 12 months later.

You might also have thought that for the blame to be laid at the door of 'FtV' (apart from providing a link to it - not a hope) the accepted the minimum requirement would be to name the other groups involved and possibly take note of their responses.

But no.

Outside of Red Action none are mentioned much less the nature of their criticisms. And why is that do you suppose?

Simple.

With the collapse of the DAM in the mid-1990's no 'other groups with different political programmes' existed within the AFA network, which rather voids the 'united front'
argument.
So much then for the notion that the exchanges in this thread can be dismissed as a 'personal spat'. What we are seeing here is not so much a re-writing of history but the invention of an entirely seperate narrative.
Click to expand...


Another cracker from Wikipedia:

"Critics of the IWCA say it has abandoned socialist politics but only replaced it with a confused "localist working class self-help electoral politics , exemplified by the IWCA slogan " working class power in working class areas". Critics from the Left say this is an unachievable illusion in a capitalist society and an opportunist political approach which tacks to the wind of reactionery white working class attitudes to ethnic minorities, crime, and tolerant multiculturalism , for local electoral advantage. Indeed many critics on the Left would deny that the IWCA sits politically on the Left at all ..." etc

Not I grant you the amusing 'full on Strasserite' denunciation of the IWCA, coined by the late an unlamented bignose1, though some might think it more than a little short in the evidence department for the likes of Wikipedia.
 
DotCommunist said:
in fairness, most political entries concerning current parties are riddled with inaccuracy and edit wars
Click to expand...

I just checked the ANL. SWP, and SP and in all of those critics are generally identified and what allegations there are tend to be supported by some form of evidence whether from the group in question or from the groups opponents, which is what i understood to be the accepted standard.
 
joe, what's the 'official version' of AFA being wound down/moving on? was there ever a statement? i dont recall anything in the last FT either. any links etc?
 
Joe Reilly said:
I just checked the ANL. SWP, and SP and in all of those critics are generally identified and what allegations there are tend to be supported by some form of evidence whether from the group in question or from the groups opponents, which is what i understood to be the accepted standard.
Click to expand...


well you are of course free to go and correct wikipedo on these matters, referencing correct info from BtF and your own experience and other sources etc. Be doing them a favour.
 
i think thats a good idea DC. and also an 'official' clarification on how AFA ended for the record and to prevent any confusion or disinformation floating abaht!
 
DotCommunist said:
well you are of course free to go and correct wikipedo on these matters, referencing correct info from BtF and your own experience and other sources etc. Be doing them a favour.
Click to expand...

Asked what he thought of British democracy Gandhi replied that - 'It's a very good idea'.​
​
In other words efforts have been made in that regard, but the reality is that permanent change is nigh on impossible. A reference from BTF was removed in the AFA thread, while the claim that Nicky Crane was 'an alleged fascist' proved impossible to refine - though it seems to have been taken down now. Corrections to the IWCA section were in short order un-corrected.​

In any event the question I posed was whether Wikepedia assumed any responsibility itself for the utter shite it allows to be posted on its own board?
 
Joe Reilly said:
Asked what he thought of British democracy Gandhi replied that - 'It's a very good idea'.​
​
In other words efforts have been made in that regard, but the reality is that permanent change is nigh on impossible. A reference from BTF was removed in the AFA thread, while the claim that Nicky Crane was 'an alleged fascist' proved impossible to refine - though it seems to have been taken down now. Corrections to the IWCA section were in short order un-corrected.​

In any event the question I posed was whether Wikepedia assumed any responsibility itself for the utter shite it allows to be posted on its own board?
Click to expand...

I don't believe it does- its a crowd sourced compendium (wanky phrase I know) and the final arbiters of edit wars seem to be those who have the time to spend engaging in that war of editing. As spanky says, its shit for party politics for just that reason. Even on other subjects it functions best as a link list, a secondary source with links to original references.

Is BtF included in the 'further reading' section of the wikipedia entry- it might be worth getting it in there if not. Thus anyone who cares to do more than just argue on the internets would have recourse to the text.
 
framed said:
The ubiquitous 'Bob From Brockley' is all over that last page presenting himself as an expert on all things AFA & IWCA. I suspect he's the culprit for much of the falsehoods and revisionism. In fact, his name is on most of them.
Click to expand...
Spylab seems to have attracted a fan:

−
This person, most probably, suffers from some kind of mental disorder. The facts are:
−
* made more than 12 000 edits within less than year and half
−
* by spending on his daily 'contributions' in average 6-7 hours
−
* and having often more than 70 edits per day
−
* all 'contributions' of his are formatting, spacing, copyedit, reverting other people's edits, damaging existing texts without any knowledge of the subject or understanding the text he is changing
−
* never admits mistakes and never apologizes to anyone
−
* never enters into serious dicussions for being aware of his limited mental capabilities
−
* 'justifies' nonsense he made by meaninglessly calling upon the Wikipedia rules
−
* extremely aggressive when arguing, lying about others without hesitation and never apologizing even when warned by other people
−
* never commited any piece of human knowledge to Wikipedia nor ever supported his changes of the existing article content by references
−
* he is at a level of being able to manipulate and re-cycle a few phrases he managed to learn, capable of simplifying someone sentence and write something simple not requiring any knowledge
−
−
**General advice to everyone - do not enter into any fight with him. He suffers from irresistible urge to be winner and to have the last word. Fighting him can only aggravate his mental disorder
−
−
'''It will be of great shame and disgrace to Wikipedia if people start noticing publicly and announcing it in public media that even a mentally unaccountable person could be a Wikipedia editor. Even worse - for more than a year and half!!!'''
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Spylab&diff=439322379&oldid=427479633
 
Red Storm said:
There is a short thread on the Bob from Brockley blog on AFA
Click to expand...

I found that an interesting thread, particularly the comments section. An obituary to, Geoff Robinson, in The Guardian included:

I didn't know Geoff had died in 2006, age 58.
As stated previously, I worked with Geoff in the late 70's, with him letting me kip down at his house in Bradford. This is sad to hear.

Taking Sides
The Story of the Workers Aid Convoys
Geoff Robinson, Bob Myres, John Davies (editors)

Kosova The Dirty War
(Geoff, sat in the foreground.)
 
malatesta32 said:
i think thats a good idea DC. and also an 'official' clarification on how AFA ended for the record and to prevent any confusion or disinformation floating abaht!
Click to expand...

I would have thought the chronology was pretty well covered in BTF?

The pivot was of course the 'no more marches, meetings punch ups ' decalaration by Tony Lecomber in March 1994. With the NF,B&H and C18 having to all intents and purposes well and truly mullered in the preceding years the white flag from the BNP indicated we were entering a new era.
From that very moment the life blood began to drain out of physical force anti-fascism. There were still major clashes in 1996 with C18 in Holborn and in January 1997 a large mobilisation in pursuit of the NF in Islington, and a clash at count in Glasgow in the same year, but in truth it was more than a little after the Lord Mayor's show.

That nearly two decades on this key moment is still a matter of faux controversy/or ignored is a tribute to the the unflagging pursuit of falsehood and make believe by groups with whose interests lie in establishing a very different narrative that translates victory on the streets into defeat and condemns the individuals who did more than most to deliver the victory into 'cowards who betrayed the anti-fascist movement'.

Far from fleeing the struggle as myth has it, RA were the last ones left, responsible from producing FT and sometime daily updates of the AFA site, until finally turning off the lights in 2001, long after everyone else had left.
 
framed said:
Yeah, it's shit.
Click to expand...

Bob, I stand behind everything I said about AFA. Had I known you had posted this, I would have replied earlier.
Basically, the background was a political disagreement. The Bradford AFA group, which was hosting the conference, proposed that we change the name from Anti Fascist Action to Anti Racist Anti Fascist Action. This was a highly contested position. Although there were some serious political arguments raised, 1.the position of Red Action was that anti-racism was merely a middle-class affectation, that racism was not an issue for the working class, and that we should not seek to exclude working class whites with dubious racial views from the anti fascist struggle. This argument did not go down well with the local Asian Youth, who had confronted elderly male conservatives in the Asian community, in order to take part in, and at times to lead, the struggle against racism in the city. Eventually, tempers got so heated that some AYM activists were threatened with physical violence from some Red Action members, and the stewards had to be called back.

The upshot was that the proposal was not agreed. We called for a disciplinary inquiry into the actions of Red Action, the AFA leadership refused. So soon after the conference, the Bradford AFA group, together with the Islington and Manchester groups, resigned from AFA altogether.

This is a matter of historical record. You may disagree with my political position at the time, or now; you may question my interpretation of the events; but you cannot question what actually occurred, as will be confirmed by others who were at the conference.

1. If memory serves RA did not say anything much at all. Instead we along with the rest of the audience were subject to long lectures about the importance of finding our 'inner racism'. In fact it was the NMP who has stood with Searchlight the previous year in the suspension of CW who were most vocal in opposition.

2. Love this bit in particular. The stewards had to be 'called back' from as he previously decribed the 'town centre'. What were stewards doing in the town centre in the first place? What if had been fascists that attacked what gone would they have been 'off-site'? In any event this was not a public meeting but and internal conference so even if they had found out about it, the chances of the fash attacking a 200 -300 strong AFA conference, even AFA mark 1, were slight to non - existent. He somehow forgets to mention how the 'attack on the AYM' concluded. Who won?

3. Oh is it, where is this history recorded?
 
Joe Reilly said:
I would have thought the chronology was pretty well covered in BTF?

The pivot was of course the 'no more marches, meetings punch ups ' decalaration by Tony Lecomber in March 1994. With the NF,B&H and C18 having to all intents and purposes well and truly mullered in the preceding years the white flag from the BNP indicated we were entering a new era.
From that very moment the life blood began to drain out of physical force anti-fascism. There were still major clashes in 1996 with C18 in Holborn and in January 1997 a large mobilisation in pursuit of the NF in Islington, and a clash at count in Glasgow in the same year, but in truth it was more than a little after the Lord Mayor's show.

That nearly two decades on this key moment is still a matter of faux controversy/or ignored is a tribute to the the unflagging pursuit of falsehood and make believe by groups with whose interests lie in establishing a very different narrative that translates victory on the streets into defeat and condemns the individuals who did more than most to deliver the victory into 'cowards who betrayed the anti-fascist movement'.

Far from fleeing the struggle as myth has it, RA were the last ones left, responsible from producing FT and sometime daily updates of the AFA site, until finally turning off the lights in 2001, long after everyone else had left.
Click to expand...

thanks for the clarification. i am stringing the post 'no marches' events together some of which are not documented (and there is a bit of gap between late 90s and 2009 in testaments for the usual obvious reasons). i certainly dont believe AFA or RA 'fled' anything but i thought there may be a statement or something as both RA and AFA's documentation was always very good (ive just read all of it!). it is pretty obvious that even if FT or AFA was no longer 'official' that militant antifascists were still active as and when necessary in their own areas. and history is never as convenient as 'on this day it all stopped.' for as we know too well, the fash never really go away as we have seen in the last couple of years.
 
His contentions about Steve Hedley were enough for me. Attacks him for being anti-semetic, which is a lie, then questions whether he ever had any involvement in AFA at all, only to retract it later in the small print below his main article.

I don't remember Bob from Brockley being in the Enkel Arms when it came on top, but Hedley was there.
 
framed said:
I don't remember Bob from Brockley being in the Enkel Arms when it came on top...
Click to expand...

malatesta32 said:
it is pretty obvious that even if FT or AFA was no longer 'official' that militant antifascists were still active as and when necessary in their own areas. and history is never as convenient as 'on this day it all stopped.' for as we know too well, the fash never really go away as we have seen in the last couple of years.
Click to expand...

The point is that the main thrust of the far-right offensive, attacking marches, meetings and so forth did stop in the mid-1990's and has never, despite the wishful thinking of some, ever returned to the anything even fractionally near the same level since. That is an undeniable fact. Strategically the far-right abandoned the fight for the streets, the BNP in turn to electoral politics, the NF,B&h, and C18 because they were whipped.

As most now seem to accept the EDL are an entirely different matter.

And whereas they might be representative of an anti-Islamist/anti-Muslim sentiment they are not a genuine fascist party, in the sense that fascism is understood. In fact they were not really a 'party' at all: concieved and funded not by the membership, but shady string-pullers.

Not only that but while the bussed in/bought and paid for turnouts were impressive, breaking the odd kebab window was about the size of their ambition strategically.

'The biggest street threat since the NF in the 1970's' according to Steve Lowles. How silly does that look now?
 
framed said:
His contentions about Steve Hedley were enough for me. Attacks him for being anti-semetic, which is a lie, then questions whether he ever had any involvement in AFA at all, only to retract it later in the small print below his main article.

I don't remember Bob from Brockley being in the Enkel Arms when it came on top, but Hedley was there.
Click to expand...

I've avoided posting on this thread too much, because obviously the contents of the book were before my time. But when some cunt starts to insult your comrades I think your at least entitled to unleash your opion? Who the fuck is this Bob from Brockley?! Is it possible he was never nearer enough to the front of anything to witness someone like Steve getting stuck in? It says everything that a respected activist, known for his memory for faces (Framed) can't seem to place Bob?

I have done very little compared to some of the posters on here and what I have done maybe considered a waste of time by some of you... but I have never, nor would I ever exaggerate my 'credentials' or use a blog to slag someone such as Hedley? I am not Steve's closet or longest standing comrade but I have worked with him within the union and know him outside of that. I may not agree with his every view or his every decision. I may not agree or understand why Steve has worked with certain people of late, but he has done a lot of good work for my union and he has a lot to say (when the quiet man does speak) that is worth hearing.

Bob on the other hand seems to pride himself on spreading shite from his keyboard.
 
I haven't had the opportunity of congratulating you on your blog, but it is terrific- very very funny and worthwhile. Strikes exactly the right tone and also very informative. Keep up the good work (though the current state of the EDL suggests that there may not be all that much more work to do as far as they are concerned).

I will be interested to have a look at your book, also, when it is finished. Good to see JR still fighting the good fight on here, as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tim
MPs beating people up.
2 3 4 5
Replies
139
Views
5K
Hotel Chocolate
H
Voley
What next for Ed Davey, Action Man?
2 3 4 5
Replies
147
Views
5K
ViolentPanda
ViolentPanda
RevolutionSound
Tory councillor accuses Dawn Butler of anti semitism on LBC
Replies
1
Views
620
GarveyLives
G
HeAthen
BBC accused of antisemitism
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
4K
ska invita
ska invita
TopCat
Anti coronation protests
Replies
4
Views
604
FridgeMagnet
FridgeMagnet
Back
Top Bottom