Extracts from emails I wrote to people who were defending Green Anarchist, which again may read a bit odd taken out of context and with other peoples text which are being replied to removed, or knowing readership I am addressing. And not that polished being written as emails. But I though worth archiving here.

Any feedback, corrections or comments welcome.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rogers effigy burning stunt before judges sentencing etc.
See Grassy Noel by Paul Rogers

Rogers was not in jail and was hostile to Noel (amoungest other things he tried to stop Arkangel publishing Noel's article a copy of which is on my website), so why was he involved in campaign which was supose to be to help free those jailed including Noel.

Do you think ACE should have allowed the GAndALF defendents campaign to use it's premises? Not one single person associated with ACE objected to statement regarding GA put out by ACE to explain it's decsion and a wide consultation was done. And don't believe everything you read in GA: ACE was far from under my thumb then and now.

But do you intend to let GA of the hook in fact defend them from critism? or just not criticise them for being fascist but just hard right or simply just misguided?

I am really genuinely interested weather you feel there are any problems at all with GA, and if their are do they in any way relate to problems with Richard Hunt. Would you use the label fascist for Ricahrd Hunt?

As you may remember I feel Hunt has not change his positions much he has allways been right wing, he would say he has allways been left wing and that his asscoiate have changed there positions (which some of them clearly have but not to the left).

Did at first GA choose to ignore Hunt only calling a boycott when links with those with far right linage became stronger?

I assume you would have defended Hunt from being labeled far right before his resignation from as you defend Rogers, if you believe he moved to the right. How in your view of things did Hunt move to the right other than support our boys which hunt feel was consistant with his previous views but Rogers and I assume you do not. Hunt was writing his Book 'To End Poverty', just before split which is classic GA theory and view of history. Rogers main critism of it was failure to link to current movements and events, this has been theme of Rogers he was responsible for trying to link GA theory to Direct Action movement in UK, from his first letter to GA. Rogers decision to publish Booth articles is part of the links he is trying to make. Some people confronted with directrion GA has moved say Rogers was just under too much strain due to trial, (and like you say about Hunt) he has moved to the right, since you meet him in 1993.

If GA you believe are not right wing then how do you explain this bit published in No54-55 Spring 99:

"New Anti-Euro Party
Malvern businessmean Geoff Siuthall has formed the 'New Democratic Party'

Various other anti-Europe paerties and campaigns are already forming up to run 'NO' campaigns for the referendum, if it is ever held. Southall would would seem to be aiming for similar territory as the late Jommy Goldsmith's Referendum Party or the UKIP. Rather than duplicate their efforts they need to work togeather in a co-odionated way"

This is Rogers version of beyond left and right, what the left - right list is about analysis. Me and other who watch the hard right enjoy its splits. We have quite enjoyed seeing disingration of the UKIP which revolutionaries would surely smile at.

In fact how do you explian the many explains of right wing reactionary idea qouted from GA| that Lutha Blisset, I and others put forward as evidence that GA is a problem? This is not a retorical question I am curious as to you views. Is GA a problem in your eyes, or part of the revolutionary movement? Are the examples given just minor laspes? What makes Rogers publishing decisons laspes and Hunt's not.

What are your views on Larry O'Hara review of White Lies published in GA?
And what are your views on events in Leeds surrounding Leeds AFA?

Whatever your view on weather GA is left or right, what do you think of GA publishing personal details about me? Is this behaviour that is fitting for revolutionaries. GA accuse me of lieing about them but have not given any examples of any thing I have actually said about them. They use the fact I critised their article about Dunblane (see www.stewarthomesociety.org/ga/folly.htm ) to say I said they support Hamilton, I never have said this because I knew they did not. Though it shows what people expect of GA that some on interepted my critisms in this way. I am sure no other mag if I said there article on Dunblane killings was unhelpfull one would have been assumed to have wellcomed them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never called them fascist myself in public because I did not want to get bogged down in what is fascism, and if Booth's 95% solution counts as much as Hunts 75% population reduction need or other critiria. But I concentrate on what GA say and the effect there existance has, which I feel is very damaging.

This is more down to the point, and is very helpfull bit of the reply. Though I am surprise still how you can have such a hard line against Hunt but not Green Anarchist. For a while I though best thing with GA was to argue with them, I wrote to them a few times, I sent them the unibomber manifesto as soon as it came out to show how reactionary and right wing FC were, as GA had been supporting them, but they published it; and now they say this was part of me trying to set them up for critism from Lutha Blisset, even though they stand but manifesto. There failure to react positively to Lutha Blissett critism (see my web site) over their attitude to proposel of GA commune in Africa, was turning point in me moving to harder line against them. I regret that it took attacks on me, for me to issue my leaflet against them. I should have acted earlier.

More on Green Anarchist