Some thoughts about terminology

[Boojum]

This is a spinoff out of the PN thread, to explain how I personally differentiate between various positions. I've spun it off because I think it has wider utility then it would see in that thread.

Fascist Pagans/Occultists[/u]

This one is pretty self-explanatory I think. I use it to mean those Pagans and occultists who are expressly influenced by fascism- in their politics and/or their spirtuality. Note that it doesn't necessarily mean that I believe those groups are Nazis- that's a very specific form of fascism and a minority strand among fascists. (For example, I consider the BNP to be a sophisticated modern eurofascist formation in the style of the Front National. They aren't a Nazi party though. There are a handful of Nazis in their ranks, but most of them have already been thrown out in internal purges). I actually consider the sophisticated fascists to be more of a threat. If a fascist party ever achieves real political power in the UK it won't be wearing jackboots and waving a swastika. It'll be wearing a suit and tie and waving a union jack. Apart from that I consider things like the white separatist/white supremacist issue to be largely irrelevant. They're ideological differences within fascism as opposed to a break with it.

I also consider those members of the Pagan/Occultist community who choose to play with fascist imagery and slogans, despite not actually beliving in the ideology, for "shock value" or "effect", to fall into this category. That's as much a practical definition as anything. If a group is using fascist propaganda, whether they believe in it or not doesn't actually make much difference. It's still dangerous. It's easier for this group to move out of this category, but until they do I think it's justifable to treat them as we would the other fascists.

Anti-Fascist Pagans/Occultists[/u]

This is the category this board aims to fall into. It doesn't necessarily suggest militancy or even activism. Merely a willingness to draw a line in the sand and say "This will not be crossed if I am to consider this person one of us". And a willingness to challenge fascists when they raise their heads. Some examples of this position can be found in the resources subforum.

Non-Fascist Pagans/Occultists[/u]

This is the category I use for those Pagans/Occultists who are not fascist themselves. (And mostly not racist either). But neither are they prepared to challenge fascist ideas as the anti-fascists are. Their reasoning for this is varied. Sometimes it's a simple matter of not wanting to risk drawing the attention of fascist Pagans/Occultists to themselves. Sometimes it's a view that Paganism shouldn't be 'political'. Sometimes it's a simple matter of convenience. Sometime's it's a bastardised form of liberalism that treats all opinions as equally valid. It's this group that seems to have caused the most contention, so I'll explain my reasoning. While this group are in no way fascist, and will not discriminate themselves, they provide the conditions where the first group can grow. By not challenging those group's views and often by shutting down attempts by the second group to do so, they do two things. Firstly, they sweep the problem under the carpet. Which means it's still there. But less people are aware of it. More subtly, by refusing to take a firm position against it, they validate it's existence within Paganism/Occultism. In a worst case scenario, this allows fascists to recruit those who are unsure, simply because of the lack of effective counterarguments.

Conclusions[/u]

There are obviously grey areas here. For example, the more 'moderate' Folkists are on the dividing line between the first and the third group for me. But what do people think of it as a set of working definitions?

[rowan]

"But what do people think of it as a set of working definitions?"


I think it explains it very clearly, especially the non-fascist pagan bit.

[illgrace]

I like the definitions, but ( I lied about the batteries in my quibbler), what would constitute a 'grey area'? The reason I ask is that many groups with hidden agendas seem to try and exploit those areas and maybe some , hmm, 'contrast points' would be of use?

Illgrace

[michael]

Just curious...Is it your intent to do battle with non-fascist Pagans/Occultists as vociferously as you intend to the actual Fascists?

[Boojum]

Mostly no.

To go into a bit more detail, largely I don't care. I think that the ability to stay 'neutral' on this particular subject is one of luxury. There wasn't much room for fencesitting in the Spanish Civil War, to give just one example.

But I have better things to do with my time then persuade the non-fascists to become active. Like opposing fascists, as you fairly point out.

It only becomes an issue for me when non-fascists are actually giving succor to fascists, either actively (by shutting down debate when people are actually calling fascists out) or passively (by allowing fascists into otherwise non-racist groups).

Other then that, nah. I'm not actually out to make non-fascists into anti-fascists. Life's too short. It just comes down to this. If people aren't prepared to get involved in this fight, I want them to stay the hell out of my way.

[Martin]

Greetings all.

I think there was quite a good argument for fence sitting in the Spanish Civil War as by the end it was Stalinists fighting Nazis.

This is the sort of problem you get when you start off on a 'if you're not for us you're against us' line. If someone's open to new experiences, judges people on their character not their background and prepared to embrace the whole human race as their brethren, I wouldn't slap a 'non-fascist' label on them.

I think we'd be better off labelling our enemy rather than our friends. I would broadly conjecture we have on the one hand the pagan who happens to a racist, possibly out of ignorance or bad influence, and the racist who fishes around for a path and latches onto paganism.

Convert the former and remove the latter, basically.

[Boojum]

Martin said:

Greetings all.

I think there was quite a good argument for fence sitting in the Spanish Civil War as by the end it was Stalinists fighting Nazis.

It depends what you mean. I think a "plague on both their houses" position (as taken by Orwell) was the correct line on that one- but I don't see that as fence sitting as such. It's also a good demonstration of the danger of fence sitting- one of the reasons the CP got the influence it did was because of the 'neutrality' of the allies. Which actually meant a practical arms embargo, while the fascists were getting their arms from Germany and Italy. Which meant the CP were the only group on the Republican side with real access to weapons from outside. Then there's the whole argument about whether the CP could actually be seen as anti-fascists in the end anyway, what with their attacks on POUM and the anarchists. That's me fighting an old battle though.

This is the sort of problem you get when you start off on a 'if you're not for us you're against us' line. If someone's open to new experiences, judges people on their character not their background and prepared to embrace the whole human race as their brethren, I wouldn't slap a 'non-fascist' label on them.

However, if that viewpoint leads to passivity when people are propagating openly fascist viewpoints, isn't the "non-fascist" label a valid one?

I think we'd be better off labelling our enemy rather than our friends. I would broadly conjecture we have on the one hand the pagan who happens to a racist, possibly out of ignorance or bad influence, and the racist who fishes around for a path and latches onto paganism.

Convert the former and remove the latter, basically.

I'd broadly agree with that- I don't think everyone who is a racist is so far down the line that can't be altered, though I still think direct challenge is the most effective tactic.

There's also a third category though I think. The racist who has launched onto paganism both through general belief but also as a possible recruitment pool. I think those are the most dangerous and should be treated accordingly.