Article

How Wrong Can They Be?

Issue 54/55 of Green "Anarchist" carried a laughable attack on us, and thoughwešd rather use our space covering more positive things than getting into aslagging match with 2 or 3 fringe characters, our reply is here.

In "False Flag - An exposé of the Black Flag racket", they suggest we mighthave a little problem with GA. Yes, we do, they persistently printdisinformation. We have corrected their lies on a number of occasions, butthis latest garbage looks like the sort of thing the Economic League used topass off as "information about anarchists". Perhaps itšs because GA rejectrationalism that they justify this. Or perhaps its something more sinister.

They criticise us for publishing articles by Noel Molland, a member of the GAnetwork and who theyšve just published a pamphlet denouncing. So, does thatmean that Noelšs article on MOVE we published was just filler? (Ah, but thenMOVE were a real threat to the state, they did stuff, not just wrote aboutit, and they are progressive - perhaps thatšs why GA think therešs a problemwith them). GA continue that "The emperor wears no clothes". Well, we do, andwe even wash them.

They go on, "Black Flag was resurrected with AK money after anarcho-Leftismdeclined post early-1990s. Both the bogus Black Flag and the SolFedšs DirectAction are AK-funded, both published using the same DTP-programme, bothprinted at the same place, .. and both are distributed by AK." We havecorrected Paul Rogers/John Connor on this several times. Black Flag neverdied, it just changed format and had a particularly long irregular gap duringthe early 90s. Black Flag is not funded by AK, nor is Direct Action. Bothhave the same relationship with AK as such publications on GAšs approvedreading list as Anarchy A Journal of Desire Armed and Larry OšHarašs NotesFrom the Borderland - AK take some, distribute them and eventually pay atrade rate for them. Why Rogers continues to pass this lie around is beyondus. DA and Black Flag are not laid out on the same software, and are not evenprinted in the same country. Still, why let the facts get in the way of agood story. And as for the 1994 Anarchist Bookfair, Albert Meltzer was on theKate Sharpley Library stall, and none of us were on AKs. Apparently in 1996/7we also planned a London Conference to exploit the Class War split - news tous.

There then follows some stuff on Larry OšHara and "Turning Up the Heat" andwhat they call the Paul Bowman Affair and us not covering the Gandalf case.Even a cursory glance through our last 10 issues show this to be bollocks. Wespoke to Albert before he died about his theories on Leo Rosseršs death, andhave communicated that to Larry OšHara. Whether he chooses to believe us isanother matter, but the fact that he never asked us in the first place issloppy.

Nor does publishing a letter from Fabian Tompsett mean we give him our stampof approval, after all wešve published letters from both GAšs editors.

Their penultimate lie is that we donšt support armed struggle - not true. Wejust discriminate between fascist armed struggle and real resistancemovements. Paul Rogers wrote in BF215 that we should condemn the NeoistAlliance, whose arse licking of fascists must disgust genuine anarchists farmore than Aum Shinrikiošs bygone bad behaviour". Itšs an insult to all thosewho have dedicated their lives to struggle, armed or otherwise, to condemn afew arty posers more than a bunch of right wing murdering fanatics.

The final conclusion of this sorry set of lies is that we are now run byAttack, the people who brought you TinTin. There is no connection between usand Attack. Rogers has been corrected on most of this, and anyone with anynouse who knows the scene could probably infer it. It does rather beg thequestion of what GAšs agenda is in publishing it.