Crime and law are wed in an eternal relationship predicated upon the existence of one another. The same is true for Antifascism and Fascism (sic), although, fascism doesn’t need any union with its opposite.
Antifascism is a parasitic cult that feeds off the blood of a fascist to survive. Without it, there is no Antifascism. It is also a popular message to preach. At the core of ‘fascism’ is racism, which is a threat that Antiracism cannot live without. Imagine the Spanish Inquisition without heretics; suppose that the whole concept of demonic possession had been revealed as superstitious hysteria. A few red-hot pokers would never have made it into the fire and false confessions would have not been extracted.
The contemporary inquisition doesn’t believe in God or the Devil but is concerned with the inviolability of identity. Its chief obsession is ‘systemic racism’. This menace, which it stalks fanatically, is vital to a wide program of social rebirth which is, in a strange way, mirroring the underpinning dynamic of fascism in that it pursues a national rebirth. Its methods of attaining the enforced consensus they seek are carried out without the constraints of conscience.
An Antifascist observes no law or is troubled by none of the moral contradictions he faces. He does so by first dehumanising his ideological nemesis. Every possible evil is attributed to him. The enemy is designated so based on beliefs that run contrary to the Antifascist’s partisanship. He is imbued with the evil of bygone fascism and regarded as equally dangerous, while, at the same time, and in contradiction of the veracity of this threat-level, he is ridiculed as a fool. He is both dangerous and hopeless, the latter position invalidating the former.
The fascist is not to be given a platform, yet, the entirety of Antifascism cannot work without the fascist platform, upon which it stands. There is no objectivity in the Antifascist cause, it does not seek to analyse or differentiate, or to evaluate the basis of individual ‘fascist’ grievances. They are ‘fascists’. That, in itself, is one of their methods of ideological cancellation, since this broad menace of ‘the far-right’ does not share an interchangeable topography of characteristics. They are often disparate and in opposition. But not to the Antifascist which lumps them altogether through its implacable prejudices.
The Antifascist now justifies violence. It wouldn’t make any difference whether the ‘fascist’ targeted was in a wheelchair, they would attack with equal vehemence. It wouldn’t dissuade them from their headstrong course whether or not the threat posed by the fascist was exaggerated beyond all recognition, because Antifascism needs fascism. Strip it down, deprive it of its heroic virtues, and it is every bit the cult that neo-Nazism is. It is interdependent upon it, which of all the parties who made submissions to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Extremism only the Victorian Police acknowledged. And that’s rich coming from them since they’ve aided and abetted Antifascists.
Antifascism is a subculture, just as neo-Nazism is. It is an insular group with its tropes, nomenclature, identifying symbols, uniform and ‘enemy’. It is the Mods to the fascist’s Rockers, the Skinhead to the Fascist’s Hells Angel. It is a largely youth-oriented culture with a cadre of aged hangers-on and influencers, such as Professor Rob Sparrow, whose preoccupation with Antifascism is both deviant and errant. It is also treasonous to his primary identity as an Anarchist since his generation infiltrated the Anarchist movement and corrupted its entire basis. But that’s a discussion for another time.
The Antifascist exists on the same subcultural fringe as the neo-Nazi. The clashes between the former Patriots and Antifa in the Reclaim Australia period of 2015-2017 provided entertaining clashes reminiscent of the Mods and Rockers battling on the beaches of Southgate, Brighton and Clacton. Crowds turned up hoping for a rumble and now and then they got one.
That same period was also instructive for the other social phenomena that it spawned, and its inextricable link to social media.
The United Patriots Front had gathered its bravado on the back of a large Facebook following when that was the medium. It was where they organised and proselytised. Out of that social media presence, egos were inflated, and individuals developed a sustaining hubris from the popularity they imagined they enjoyed. Average persons, otherwise voiceless in Australian society, were granted a sub-tier celebrity.
This affected some by creating megalomania. Blair Cottrell’s arrogance is fanned by a social media following, which is naturally partisan. Neil Erikson, who’s well understood now to have been a state agent, was driven loco by the sudden purpose he had acquired through his social media position. Nobodies became somebodies and the message, if ever there was one, was lost to the medium and its sender.
The same is especially true of Antifascists. Out of that obnoxious brume came a character called Tom Tanuki, who you’d be forgiven for mistaking for John Saffran. Only, Tanuki has not acquired Saffran’s talents. This didn’t stop him from using ‘fascism’ as a vehicle to promote himself. However, one of the funniest scenes during his ‘Million Flag Patriots’ grift was the sight of him being mistaken for a ‘fascist’ and being attacked by his people at a rally. Very droll. Since then he started ‘Yelling At Racist Dogs’ apparently to sell T-shirts.
Saffran made a quid out of the Patriot movement by using it as a subject for a book and videos. Tanuki marketed merchandise and shared his commentaries, which didn’t require much in the way of distinction, since, like the Patriots, they were consumed by a friendly audience. Outside of that, they’re useful to a mainstream narrative that has similar goals.
We choose to mention Tanuki at the risk of inflating his sense of self-importance, in which case, we’re too late anyway. He is now a spokesman for this specialist milieu and is well conscious of the fact. It’s his bread and butter. He preaches to the converted and that’s all he has to do. He has stepped inside the insular bubble where he is protected by its skin of fantasy. Unremarkable in every other respect, he has forged a justification for his otherwise mediocre existence by targeting ‘the fash.’ Which, in a sense, is like shooting goldfish in a bowl. He even reflects upon his fixation in his videos without providing any honest answer.
Styling himself as a ‘comic’, his routine has only one subject – racists. Racists, fascists, they’re all the same. He goes where he is not wanted, like a feminist who keeps turning up at male-dominated venues, to parade herself. He is the essence of a streaker, an exhibitionist. The actual message is a petition to look at me!
OK, so we did, and we couldn’t help since somebody sent a link to a video in which he references New Australian Bulletin. Thanks for giving us a platform. So, given he used our content to create his, we will pass a critique on what we witnessed.
Tanuki is not natural, the camera intimidates him. He ums-and-awws and stutters. There is no fluency in his narration, nor is he understanding of his subject. According to Tanuki, there are only two types of nationalist, civic-nationalist and ethno-nationalist. In fact, a nationalist is a nationalist without any other qualification. A civic-nationalist is a civic-patriot.
The best description of a civic-patriot is ‘diversity minus Islam’. A civic believes in ‘assimilation’ but is not opposed to immigration. The catch-all of ‘ethno-nationalist’ as he describes it is wrong too. They believe in race, sure, but not Australia. They see Europeans and not Australians and believe in a pan-universal movement whereas Nationalists are concerned with our place as Australians right here. So Tommy-boy failed that simple test.
Finally, he used a worn-out line from Jim Saleam’s critics that he and Nathan Sykes only “whinge” about other groups. Like Tanuki only “whinges” about us.
A proper examination of their work reveals that to be at the very least an unresearched remark, at the best, propaganda. The body of work by Jim Saleam speaks for itself, and Sykes has been so troubled by the misuse of the word Nationalist that he wrote a book about it. They only criticise other groups in the name of safeguarding Nationalism from being misrepresented, such as it was by the fool Tanuki.
Oh, and he thinks one of them is Barry Spall. Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake, so we’ll let that one go.
Like other Antifascist ‘personas,’ he is a suckfish, a stalker and a grifter. He can only have importance among his kind.
But like Erikson (before his handlers dropped him) he is addicted to his social media audience. He depends on it otherwise he too would find himself anonymous and adrift in the depressing miasma of mediocrity. Without them, he would be just another loser in the crowd. He ought to get down on his wimpy hands and knees every day and thank God for ‘fascism’ since it made him who he is, nobody.
Remember, those who can, do, those who can’t become Antifascist.