GREEN CONARTIST: The Disintegration of Paul Rogers' Bollocks by Fabian Tompsett

For sometime now Paul Rogers has been coming out with a whole load of bollocks in a futile attempt to discredit critics who refuse to accept that the politics of Rogers' Green Anarchist are in anyway liberatory. Rogers and his 'cohort' Steve Booth have been exposed as simply using ecological concern and communist and anarchist musings as a rhetorical shield to mask their hard-right agenda. They pretend not to understand that when Booth describes the murder of working class people on the Japanese metro as 'inspiring' he aligns himself with right-wing elitist nutcases. GA want to see themselves as a moral elite who have the right to decide whether or not to murder working-class people Booth has stereotyped as 'Joe and Edna Couch Potato'.

Previously GA have hidden behind calls for the defence of freedom of speech to avoid dealing with their critics. But now that the 'Gandalf' trials are over, that fig-leaf has been removed. Even those like SchNEWS who had previously been prepared to go to court to defend them now describe them as "right-wing idiots". Others like Black Flag, whilst they don't share our analysis of GA as fascist, point out that GA "don't reject fascism , they just deny that it matters whether an organisation is fascist or not" ('Dancing with the Devil' BF #217, Spring 1999 p33). Our difference with BF here is secondary, and probably stems from them being less familiar with the emergence of fascist 'leaderless resistance' in the U.S.A. We share a perspective which condemns GA.

Faced with growing isolation, Rogers has attempted to rally his dwindling gaggle of supporters with macho claims that his critics are cowards and/or pacifists, or in the case of Fabian Tompsett and Stewart Home, he has smeared them with a series of lies. He cannot face the fact that the reason more and more people vehemently reject his political schemes is because they hate his elitism and his anti-working class agenda. Some people will suggest that this leaflet is unneccessary, that Rogers has already completely discredited himself in the eyes of the revolutionary movement, that the bollocks he has been spreading about people has already disintegrated. If we were constrained by the geopolitical entrapment known as the United Kingdom, we would agree. However we are all too conscious that the struggle against capitalism is a worldwide struggle, and hence we deem it useful to confront the GA lie machine as it operates with its allies in North America. This is a response to an interview that Rogers gave to Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed. Apparenly it was published in their magazine, but we have only had access to the webpage version.

When John Filiss interviewed Paul Rogers (aka John Conner) for Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed, he had the opportunity to really explore the sort of politics that Green Anarchist advocates. However rather than quizzing the GA supremo about the notorious article 'The Irrationalists' by Steve Booth, Filiss chose to indulge Rogers fantasies, letting him off any genuine criticism. Whilst Rogers needs to be held responosible for his continuous fountain of lies, Filiss and his chums at AJODA need also to be held to account for printing his muck in such a devastatinglu uncritical fashion. I do not think that it was so much that Rogers was able to hoodwink Filiss and co. as that AJODA positively wanted to be hoodwinked.

In a leading question, Filiss asks about the criticisms made of GA. In his question he suggests that GA "inexplicably came under attack by Stewart Home and Fabian Tompsett in what appeared to be a clear attempt to undermine [their] support". Considering that Filiss has at no stage enquired of either of the named people why they exhibited such hostility to GA, he is hardly in a position to claim that it is inexplicable. For myself I can clearly say that the reason to undermine their support was because of their reactionary politics. But as all this has been elaborated in Green Apocalypse, it hard to see why Filiss should make such a complaint except for its rhetorical effect. But rather than recap on the issues spelled out in Green Apocalypse. I wish to take up certain other matters.

Rogers starts of his smear with the lie that Stewart Home "tried to pretend that Richard Hunt was still editing GA" when what he actually wrote was that the Green Anarchist Network "circulate texts denouncing their founder and ideological architect Richard Hunt who has caused them deep embarassment by defending the former NF leader Patrick Harrington from accusations of Fascism". Rogers then warbles about how Stewart Home has known Tony Wakeford for a number of years. During this period the musician Wakeford has lurched from Trotskyism to Fascism to apoliticism. Home has made clear that he broke all contact with Wakeford when he got involved with the music scene around the National Front and has had only intermittent contact with him since he left the NF , something which Home checked out with Anti-Fascist Action.

Rogers goes on to describe his curiousity about how "according to papers that came to light during the 1997 Gandalf trial, undercover cops from Operation Washington visited the 1995 Bookfair on the word of a 'confidential source' but checked out only two stalls, GA and the Neoists, the latter only to acquire Green Apocalypse..." Why Rogers imagines that this suggests any collaboration between Unpopular Books and Operation Washington is beyond me. If such a suggestion were true they would hardly have to sneak around the Anarchist Bookfair to get their copy.

There will be those who are upset that Rogers has deliberately tried to use this interview to implyy that I am a liar. However a closer reading shows that Rogers actually confirms something I have maintained elsewhere: that he is intellectually inert. This is not to say that he is stupid, for he clearly has a naïve ingenuity. However he seems to be unable to make a cogent response to Anarchism and the Militias, a Luther Blissett essay which appeared in Militias: Rooted in White Supremacy (available from Unpopular Books for 75p/$2) Here groups like Class War and the Anarcho-Communist Federation are criticised for collaborating with a far-right group like Green Anarchist simply because they bear the @logo, Rogers pretends that I am claiming that CW and ACF are fascist! Whilst it may be understandable that Rogers wants to defend GA from suggestions that it is rooted in the far-right, this cannot explain his defense of ley-line spotter Nigel Pennick and the neo-nazi survivalist Kurt Saxon. Rogers pretends that I am claiming that Stuart Christie is a fascist, when I make clear that what I am criticising Christie for is that he "misguidedly included fascist apologetics as well as revolutionary tracts" (Into the Sewer with Green Anarchist) in his Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review. Before considering why Rogers wants to cover up for Pennick and Saxon, let's look at their respective careers.

Pennick's writing career took off with a series of books on ley lines and such topics as 'Runic Astrology' and a turgid history of paganism in Europe. But his career as a 'New Age' writer had hardly kicked in when he wrote and advertised in the CPAR at the end of the seventies. In the undated fourth issue of Albion, which also appeared about this time, Nigel Pennick ran an article sympathetic to the Klu Klux Klan by Rupert Pennick. Rupert whines how "The 'Reconstruction' years brought to the South exploitation, fraud, bitterness an army of occupation, disenfranchisement of the whites, denial of office, control by radicals, carpet-baggers and Negro freedmen; irresponsible government and corruption." He defends states rights, a common theme amongst the American militia men of the far-right. As I have already dealt with Nigel Pennick's review of Kurt Saxon's Wheels of Rage (see Into the Sewer with Green Anarchist), perhaps I need to spell out Kurt Saxon's neo-nazi involvement. In an interview with Primal Chaos (#9, March 1994) he boasts how he graduated from the John Birch Society to join the Minute Men. Through them he came across the American Nazi Party which he promptly joined when he was told that they planned to murder Black people and feed their bodies to their followers when the 'collapse' came. This latter theme came to dominate Kurt Saxon's thinking as he mutated into a survivalist , a theme uncomfortably close to the thimnking of Rogers and his buddy Steve 'Sarin' Booth. Pol O'Cuileabhain describes his position thus "Looking forward to the die-off of most of humanity, Saxon envisages the chastened survivors inaugurating some sort of small-town, free-market, minimal state white protestant utopia. Positing the inevitability of monumental, possibly nuclear destruction, followed by complete social collapse already pre-figured by the rapacity of the bureaucracy and the indiscipline of the working class, Saxon proposes a survival strategy. High tech will wither away, but those with the tool and the know how can recreate the technology and relatively high standard of living of the period immediately preceeding the age of oil, autos and electricity." (Harsh Reality #0, 1994). Whilst it is clear that Kurt Saxon makes no bones about the right-wing basis of his views, do the other similarities with GA's' anarcho-primitivism explain Roger's desire to cover up for him? Roger's failure to deal with Kurt Saxon openly is an example of his naïve ingenuity. But it does him little good in the final analysis.

However there are completely fresh lies that Rogers adds to his repertoire of deceit. He claims that when I attended the February 1998 London Gandalf Supporters Campaign (LGSC) meeting that I "handed a leaflet to Sax Wood's parents, saying [I] hoped the prisoner's 'rot in jail'. At first sight this appears to be an attempt to sow distrust between me and Saxon Wood. At the 1997 Anarchist Bookfair I spoke breifly with Sax, who was expressing concern about both Rogers and Booth. A few days later we met by chance in Housman's Bookshop and discussed GA further. What was becoming apparent to me was that whilst my criticisms were completely justified as regards Booth and Rogers, they did not apply to Wood, Molland, Russell or Webb. Although they felt constrained by the ongoing court-case to maintain the facade of a united front, the others had seen through the manipulations, arrogance and outright idiocy of Booth and Rogers and would be happy never to have to have anything to do with them again. Wood was kind enough to apologise for the smears which had appeared in GA, whilst I told him that I did not want to see him go to jail (which was likely two days later). Following his imprisonment I did not have occasion to attend the LGSC meeting until February. Far from tormenting Sax Wood's parents, I made clear my position, but was asked to leave by those running the meeting. Whilst I was not suprised to discover the LGSC was being run as front for Rogers' political agenda, I felt I owed it to Sax at least to try. I wasn't able to catch up with Sax until the 1998 Anarchist Bookfair when he confirmed that whilst he still believed in anarchism and environmental activism he had no truck with the likes of Booth and Rogers. After his spell in prison he was looking forward to taking a holiday. He was kind enough to give me a 'Gandalf Three' T-shirt as a momento of the whole episode.

It was only later that I got a real understanding of how Rogers had attempted to sabotage the court case that Wood, Booth, Russell and Molland were facing. He had already been separated from the case following a row with his lawyer. Incredibly in late October 1997 he produced a leaflet in the name of the Gandalf Defendants Campaign inviting the public to the burning in effigy of David Selwood, the judge responsible for the court hearing. Even Rogers admits that the leaflet was put out without consulting Molland, although Noel had already expressed his concerns about a similar article which had recently appeared in GA 50/51. In 'Grassy' Noel, Rogers vicious attack on Molland, Rogers even justifies the exclusion of Molland, a defendant, from the decisions of the Defendants' Campaign , that he didn't always do what Rogers told him to do (even though Rogers was no longer a defendant). This pamphlet was so atrocious that even Rogers realised he had gone too far. Despite promising to sell the pamphlet on every anmal rights demo and making it available by mail order, Rogers has not been seen actually selling it. And the pamphlet is embarassing. Rogers describes the show-trial he had arranged for Molland on Monday 11th January 1999. As prosecutor, judge and jury Rogers demanded that Molland sign a bizarre 'Letter of Apology' which included a section saying that Molland had been in contact with me since the trial. Here we see Rogers deductive reasoning at work. I had mentioned that I had been in contact with one of the prisoners (Sax Wood), but because he had fallen out with Noel Molland, Rogers concludes that Molland had been in contact with me. (In fact I only got in contact with Molland after Rogers' kangaroo court.) We see the same flawed logic at work in the AJODA interview. Thus the 'proof' of collaboration by Stewart Home or me is:

A satirical leaflet coincidentally claimed there were only six people involved in GA and that this is the same number as the people arrested.

That Des Thomas (the cop heading operation Washington) and I (in 'Anarchism and the Militias') are the only people to have been "mad enough" to suggest links between (i) GA and the Angry Brigade

I make no such link at all.

(ii) GA and the Oklahoma bombing...

The only link I make is that I quote Steve Booth's Into the 1990's with Green Anarchist where he describes the Oklahoma bombers as inspirational and looks forward to the development of US style militia groups in Britain.

That Stewart Home published personal information about Larry O'Hara that "could only have come from intercepts by security forces".

Obviously Rogers doesn't realise that when people such as Larry and him suffer from domineering personalties those around them frequently put up with what they say for the sake of a quiet life. They then become the subject of amusing annecdotes which can be circulated quite widely. Thus whilst Rogers might moan about workerists peddling their papers at street parties, that is exactly what he was doing at the June 18th riot. I have been informed by fellow activists that his excuse for not engaging in direct anti-capitalist action was that he had to attend the wedding of a family friend the next day. This may or may not be true. I simply offer it as an example of the sort of gossip which circulates around Rogers.

That Stewart Home has "appeared repeatedly in the national media committing credit card fraud in his Decadent Action persona."

In fact Home has never so appeared and is not a Decadent Action activist.

Rogers also claims that Home is responsible for circulating anonymous leaflets undermining the current campaign against genetic engineering. What leaflet? Rogers does not bother to explain why he thinks that Home could be responsible.

Finally Rogers bewails Home's article in The Independent (25/4/94) for trashing the "Anarchy in the U.K. Festival". True Home was critical: "While the festival will thrill rebellious punk squatters, the major British anarchist groups are refusing to participate in what they regard as a desperate attempt to revive the careers of some second-rate bands." It is a trait of the totalitarian that they cannot abide criticism.

When Unpopular Books brought out Green Apocalypse, many groups in the anarchist scene thought it was a bit over the top and pointlessly sectarian. This was largely because they had never bothered to read GA. However that has changed for two reasons. Firstly the publication of Steve Booth's 'The Irrationalists' in GA #51 has confirmed what we have been saying about them. Secondly, during the trial many people only expressed their criticisms in private out of solidarity. With the collapse of the case against them, such groups as diverse as Black Flag and SchNEWS have denounced GA as reactionaries. Another outcome has been that animal rights activists such as Robin Webb want to steer clear of Rogers and his ilk in future.

What I think is clear is that the trial was aimed at implicating Robin Webb with an odious pseudo-radical gang and GA fitted the bill. Perhaps in our denounciation of GA, we were unfair to Saxon Wood and Noel Molland. On the other hand our readiness to expose Rogers little racket has made it easier for them to make their break with him. As I now enjoy cordial relations with both of them, I feel that perhaps my contibution to the Gandalf affair may have helped them cope with a traumatic period of their lives. I certainly feel that our opposition to Rogers and Booth has made it harder for people to agitate for the murder of ordinary members of the public and pass it off as in some way liberating.

Fabian Tompsett

For further information regards our condemnation of Green Anarchist the following is available:

Green Apocalypse £3.50/US$7

This features a collection of articles and leaflets from various sources combined with Stewart Home's 'Anatomy of a Smear' detailing how GA's lie machine works, and 'The Sucking Pit', another emantion from Luther Blissett. (German readers may request a copy of the translation of this article which appeared in Sklaven.)

Militias: Rooted in White Supremacy £0.75/US$2

This features two article from Turning the Tide published by People Against Racist Terror plus 'Anarchism and the Militias', another emanation from Luther Blissett

GA = New World Negationists

Green Anarchist No.57-58 does not just contain 'Sarin' Booth's 'justification' for the murder of workers travelling on the tube. It also contains a rerun of lies claiming that I have attempted to "explain away" alleged support for Robert Faurisson, the French holocaust denier. As I made clear in the newsletter Cultwatch, I have always rejected support for Faurisson, particularly from ultra-leftists. That the author of this piece should lie comes as no suprise. But what is more disturbing is how the other issues I raise are dismissed as "diversion into irrelevance, and repeating the pro-Faurisson arguments [I] put back then." In fact what I did was to raise the issue of the Black Holocaust, specifically referring to Napoleon Bonaparte's plan to wipe out the entire Black population of Haiti. This population, composed of former slaves, had overthrown the slave-owners during the French Revolution. Bonaparte's scheme also included replacing them with new slaves from Africa. I point out how selective French law is by allowing for the prosecution of those who deny the Jewish holocaust of the continental nazi regime, yet stops short of similarly condemning New World Negationism, the denial of the mass murder of Native Americans and Africans in the European New World colonies and slave trade.

Clearly this is not a "pro-Faurisson argument". It is a criticism of how the French state diffuses a better understanding of racism and its historic context. Recent British government proposals to remember the Jewish Holocaust with a public holiday smacks of the same hypocrisy. No doubt the British establishment feels more comfortable contemplating the genocide perpetuated by their rivals than opening up a discussion of how their own power developed from an industrial revolution made possible by New World massacres and the slave trade.

Green Anarchist pretend to have some sort of criticism of industrial society, yet dismiss this issue as a "diversion into irrelevance".

Words fail me . . . Fabian Tompsett

More on Green Anarchist