Talk:Troy Southgate

Removed misleading templates

I have removed the enormous and overbearing 'Far Right' banner on the article page. This is a POV categorisation because Southgate has stated here that the primary element in his syncretic ideology is the anarchism, not the racial separatism, and because he has repeatedly rejected attempts to box him into left/right labels. He is involved with something called New Right but we're talking about a movement which is intellectual and not political in character, which rejects conventional political categories as obsolete (see this review of its manifesto), and whose ideologues may claim as much entitlement to the name New Left. Given that Southgate has dissociated himself from almost everybody listed on the banner, this political pigeon-holing is not at all representative of the various projects Southgate is involved with now, especially (and heavily) music.

I have also removed the incorrect Third Position template. Southgate is no longer a Third Positionist and hasn't been for a good number of years (explicitly rejecting 3P here, for example). An appropriate and far more relevant replacement might be the National-Anarchist star and I will be looking into the possibility of uploading this. Gnostrat (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Just to state the patently obvious, many far-rightists or fascists these days would not self-identify as such. One example would be the EDL's islamophobic position disingenuously couched in the language of gay rights. There's a scholarly article that discusses Southgate and the new right as fascism. Whether or not one agrees with this, it should be totally clear that it's methodologically invalid to take a public figure's own description of their political identification as the primary source for classifying them politically. The fact that the 'Far Right' banner is enormous and overbearing is similarly irrelevant to the point. Sindinero (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sindinero, many "far-leftists" identify as feminists, or claim they aim for social and economic equality among the sexes, while simultaneously supporting sexual labour (i.e. commodified misogyny) on a platform of "free speech," so what's your point exactly? By your reckoning, one could go around and tag just about every "progressive" and his or her respective organisation with allusions to their complicity to misogyny, et cetera. Contrary to your delusions about political identification, practically every political entity with an entry on Wikipedia is defined and described according to their personal political affiliation or political party, and not according to your personal opinion of them. Further, comparing Troy Southgate, who has thoroughly articulated his convictions regarding the obvious shortcomings of the left-right dichotomoy, to deceitful politiciams who misappropriate certain -isms demonstrates that political science is hardly your forte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.12.128.176 (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

This section desperately needs to removed - it solely consists of a quote from an article that could be mentioned in the politics section, if it really needs to be mentioned at all, and some ridiculous unsourced nonsense about rumours of homosexuality circulating on a mailing list. Belzub 12:41, 08 May 2008 (UTC)

I will just keep adding the Controversy section on this page. Ask for protection if you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.67.42 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(I have moved the above post from my talk page, as I believe it is properly addressed to everybody who is concerned with editing this article in accordance with biographies of living persons policy.) Gnostrat (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been combing through the relevant policy pages and have put together a comprehensive case detailing the policy violations in this section (although my edit summaries[1][2] make a sufficient enough case as things stand). I have also checked into deletion policy and evidently this material should be removed immediately pending discussion. I needn't go into these details now, as Belzub has just done the deletion job for me. Matters may be taken further if it is re-added. Please note the immediately relevant point of policy: "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material. If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first...if the matter becomes disputed it should not be added back without discussion and consensus-seeking" (WP:BLP). So far, "Evola", you have continued to re-add controversial material whilst ignoring an invitation to explain and justify your edits. As long as this section violates policy, therefore, I (or any other editor) will be obliged to remove it as often as necessary. I would much prefer that you would take the opportunity to discuss it. Gnostrat (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the telegraph material - its not foggo its the telegraph which is the source. Paki.tv (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph article is already mentioned elsewhere in the article - the point of contention was not the source itself, it was the undue weight given to the source by arbitrarily mentioning it a second time, and including a lengthy clump of text for no good reason. The section was added in by a persistent vandal, so please do not re-add it. Belzub (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed section

I have removed the following section from the article per WP:BLP. If anyone can find reliable sources which verify this content, it can be restored:

Catholicism and heathenism

Southgate - who, in 1997, graduated in History & Theology at the University of Kent in Canterbury - comes from a non-religious background, although he converted to Catholicism in 1987 and was associated with the Society of St. Pius X, a traditionalist group founded by Archbishop Lefebvre which remains faithful to the Tridentine Mass which was reformed during the establishment of the Second Vatican Council in 1967. Southgate is now a Wodenist and has therefore been criticised by his former Catholic associates for changing his religious beliefs, although he did remain part of the Church for over ten years and it was only in 1997 that he began examining paganism and eventually drifted away from Catholicism altogether. Southgate is now a student of rune magic and a member of the English-based neopagan group, Woden's Folk, for whom he has written and researched a series of esoteric pamphlets. These include A Sussex Swan: The Wodenic Mysteries of a Small English Town', 'The Centre: Its Symbolic and Practical Significance', 'Beachy Head: The Negation of the Solar', 'Runic Sex Postures of the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc' and 'Runic Mysteries of the Suð Seax Wheel'. During an initiation rite on the South Downs he is said to have taken the name 'Fenix', which is the Anglo-Saxon word for phoenix. On July 2, 2007, Southgate was also seen participating in a Woden's Folk demonstration in East Sussex against ITV filming a stunt for Trinny and Susannah's fashion show, Trinny & Susannah Undress, at the Long Man of Wilmington. Southgate and his associates considered this to be a desecration of an ancient English burial ground and the site was slightly damaged as a result. The programme itself was eventually aired on November 20, 2007.

Eh?

"Members performed torchlight ceremonies and distributed small bags of earth."

Is this a joke? I don't get it.Matthau (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP Violations, Few Reliable Sources

Per Wikipedia BLP, contentious and unsourced statements about living persons can be removed immediately without discussion. I have done so, including statements about criminal offences and prison sentences and statements relating to the subjects dealings with other (presumably) living persons. Given the academic sources section, I have to assume that associating the subject which certain political causes is not contentious.

Most of the sources cited for the article are not even close to being Reliable Sources. Any editor working on the article needs to be familiar with that policy. In particular, a website evidently self-published by the subject of the article is not a reliable source, nor are websites of unknown provenance and unsubstantiated editorial standards. I also removed a speculative section which appeared to be designed to promote books the subject of the article might write.KD Tries Again (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The whole page reads like a biased advertised for the man by himself for himself. With references used from Facebook of all places ffs.

This article is basically just an advertisement for this guy. It needs to go. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Southgate and/or his associates have had a big hand in turning this article into an advert for his music and writings, neither of which are especially significant. However, his political involvements are more important and he has played a significant role in extreme right politics within the UK. (And that involvement was directly connected with his criminal record, which should be reinstated.) Deletion is not the right way forward, though removal of the (self-)promotion is not, in my view, contentious. Emeraude (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

File:N-A Flag.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:N-A Flag.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Recommend Deletion of this Article

The subject of this article does not appear to be of encyclopedic significance. The article itself seems to be a 90% self-authored hagiography. The citations don't meet any of the criteria for Wikipedia. The gist of this article is: "I'm important because I say I'm important, and to prove it here is what I have to say about myself."

The article should be entirely deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.32 (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary: Southgate is a significant figure within extreme right wing politics in the UK, having played a leading part in a number of extreme groups over the years as the article details. As such, the article is justified. On the other hand, despite what the article may claim, he is not widely known as an author, editor or musician, and most, if not all, of the material relating to his "cultural" activities could be deleted. Emeraude (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I very much agree with Emeraude that Southgate is a significant figure within the British extreme right. On the other hand, this article is sorely lacking in RS that would establish his notability. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know this person. I don't follow politics in England close enough to have a sense of whether he is or is not a major figure in politics. However, if we accept @Emeraude:'s Statement that he is a significant figure within extreme right wing politics, I'm puzzled at the decision to remove his publications. While the books themselves may be fringe and probably could not justify articles about the books themselves, isn't that the point of this article that he is a significant figure and therefore his views are relevant? I think the book should be restored but I'd like to hear from others first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

How exactly is he not a FASCIST?

Why is the word "fascist" not in the lead, with or without that funny bit "neo-" attached to it? He's among other things openly bragging about emulating Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, an ultra-fascist wacko who was outlawed, along with his movement, even by ultra-nationalist Romanian governments of the 1930s. SA + Christian Orthodox mysticism, Blut und Boden - that's Codreanu's mix, and the shining example for Mr. Southgate. But he's a "national-anarchist", not a full-fledged fascist. Aha. Arminden (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. But there is a problem if finding reliable sources that actually say he's a fascist. He has over time changed his own self-description (e.g "national-anarchist", as you say) but there seems to be nothing to suggest he is not just a fascist with another name. If you have sources..... Emeraude (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

:::Neocleous identified five defining characteristics of Fascism. Accordingly, one has to meet all five criteria to be a Fascist - it is these five qualities in absolute combination that makes one a Fascist:

1. Antipositivism
2. Nationalism
3. Socialism
4. Traditionalism
5. Naturalism

As a national-anarchist, Southgate seems to fail criterion number three. Other popular definitions of Fascism also fall short of completely and accurately encompassing Southgate. This may be why we have an absence of RS declaring Southgate a Fascist (except where "Fascist" is used as a general epithet as opposed to a descriptive political science term). The fact that he's praised Codreanu doesn't really make him a Fascist. I've praised Beyonce, but that doesn't make me a R&B star. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I mean, I can add as someone who's met the man and spoken to him on and off about politics, that he's vehemently against any form of impositional government. I think totalitarianism is an aspect of fascism, is it not? Given that he's an anti-totalitarian, that alone ought suggest he's not a fascist. Surely we can find some media that either he's produced, or that people have produced about him, that display this anti-totalitarian stance?146.200.156.226 (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you say about him from having met him is not acceptable as a reliable source and is clearly original research. Emeraude (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I've struck through the edits of a confirmed sock. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Graham D. Macklin paper

Pending changes reviewer here. I reverted the latest expansion of this article, on the grounds of "undue weight": it seems excessive to base over half the article on the one account, the Macklin paper in Patterns of Prejudice. That article does appear to be a valid source – editorial board, peer reviewed; at the same time as indicated in its title it's a journal with a mission, "exploring the historical roots and contemporary varieties of social exclusion and the demonization or stigmatisation of the Other."[3] The tremendous list of influences on Southgate's thinking, in particular, has the air of speculation – how can we know except from the man himself? A greatly condensed version of this new material could be admissible I think: Noyster (talk), 09:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The previous article makes him sound like a Catholic when he is not (or hasn't been for a long time). In myrecent edit, I removed the list of influences and considerably reduced the weight on the PoP article.Southfff (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Troy Southgate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160326032614/http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/packaging-hate-%E2%80%93-the-new-right-publishing-networks to http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/packaging-hate-%E2%80%93-the-new-right-publishing-networks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Black Front Press, "neo-Nazi works"

A user keeps putting in that Black Front Press is a publisher of neo-Nazi works. It is not. No book they have published is remotely neo-Nazi as anyone can see for themselves. Besides, the citations for this are wrong also as neither of them state this either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Simon Thomas (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes they are. They might not call themselves neo-Nazi (they're not stupid) but "as anyone can see for themselves" that's exactly what they are. Emeraude (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The source cited to back up the claim that Black Front Press publishes "neo-Nazi texts" does not provide any evidence for it. User Emeraude has not backed up their response to this being pointed out by OP above with anything other than their opinion - i.e. an appeal to authority. What the Searchlight article actually states is the following: "The books range from several collections of Southgate’s ramblings to edited collections on a variety of political figures including Nietzsche, the Romanian fascist Corneliu Codreanu, the German “left-wing” Nazi Otto Strasser, the American poet and fascist sympathiser Ezra Pound and Evola. Its latest book is a reader on National Anarchism (see last month’s Searchlight) featuring the likes of Southgate, Keith Preston (from the Attack the System blog), Brett Stevens (from the Amerika blog), Wolf Herfurth (former Nazi now in Australia) and Flavio Gonçalves (from Portugal who runs Finis Mundi Press – see below)." How exactly does this claim stand? It is based solely on 'guilt by association'. Further, Searchlight has been criticised for its unreliability, including on its Wiki page. Integralanarch (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Nazi/Anti-Fascist background not included

I am familiar with some of Troy Southgate's books and struggle to see how he can be described as a 'neo-nazi'. I would like to offer a few points that I believe should be taken into consideration and maybe even used in what is a very jumbled and incomplete submission:

1. Southgate has explained in several online interviews that he came from the left, having voted for the British Labour Party in 1983. His biography surely needs to include this fact.

2. The National Front that Southgate joined in the mid-80s, allegedly for its economic policies (distributism, cooperatives), expelled fascist members and adopted an anti-racist policy. They were also lampooned by a racist splinter group with the same name for being '[N-word]-lovers'.

3. Southgate initially joined Roberto Fiore's ITP group that emerged from the ashes of the NF, but later persuaded most of its activists to join him in forming the English Nationalist Movement because he thought some of the ITP's main figures (Fiore, Holland, Griffin) were promoting fascism. The ENM continued to attack the views of Hitler, Mussolini, Petain and the neo-nazi British National Party.

4. Until becoming a National-Anarchist, Southgate had been a Strasserite from the mid-80s and it was Otto Strasser who wrote a book strongly attacking fascism in 1969. Jews also joined Strasser's 'Black Front' group, which was anti-Hitlerist and persecuted by the Nazi SS in the 1930s. Southgate named his publishing house after the group and one book is titled 'Strasserites Against Hitler'.

5. Southgate has written a lengthy biography of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish army officer who was wrongly accused of spying for the Germans against the French. Although Dreyfus is universally smeared by anti-semites, Southgate actually defends him and claims he was innocent of all charges.

6. Southgate has written an anti-Hitler novel in which the dictator survives the war and comes to a very sticky end. He has also published books on poetry by Jewish musician Richard Levy and written others on the life of black revolutionary Thomas Sankara and Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. He also wrote a favourable book on Jewish mysticism and seems to write a lot of articles on the Jewish religion, none of which express anti-semitism towards the Jews themselves:

https://nowhere.news/index.php/author/troy-southgate/ 2001:818:E6B2:E000:F633:6A48:3809:5593 (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have reverted your addition to the article - please add references if you put it back. Tacyarg (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)