The Truth versus Lies book that I would be quoting from extensively was copyrighted by Kaczynski, even though it was never printed on mass. I would have liked to put up a perfectly re-typed up version on the anarchist library for free, but Kaczynski never responded to my letter, and his publishers sent me a cease and desist email. The rights to use the Aileen Wuornos prison letters were also the property of the friend she gave them to, and copyrighted in a book that she signed a deal on.

And no, my interest in true crime simply has to do with my interest in psychology and political activism to try and bring about a better society where less unjustified violence occurs.

I’m fascinated by outcasts like Aileen Wuornos and Ted Kaczynski because of their desire to find healing in unorthodox lifestyles, before everything goes wrong for them and others.

The surface level fascination is I’m convinced that profound changes in lifestyle are needed, for instance I live a low-impact vegan lifestyle myself, so unpicking the knot of what went so wrong for them is important for me, in order to understand the way it may have negatively impacted their lives, so as to better advise people to avoid those pitfalls.

The deeper level of fascination is to understand what meaning they were deriving from their life and unpicking that knot of how can any person get so lost. Finally, we all walk around with naive assumptions that people we know well could never act in evil ways, if we're ever forced to come face to face with the fact that they are, we have this realization of the ways we were blind to being able to help those people.

For Ted he romanticized nature as a boy in the library, reading books about neanderthals, and wishing he could escape into that life.

For Aileen she had set off hitchhiking and began living on communes from the age of 15 with the hope of doing some psychological healing away from the circle she was stuck in in Troy, Michigan, where she grew up.

This was also a very romanticized road to take at the time, although I don’t think Aileen bought into all of that, as she was simply homeless from the age of 13, and traveling further afield was a nice break from relying on friends in Troy. But, she loved the hippie music of the era and cherished every commune she stayed at for the people who attempted a new more compassionate way of relating to one another.

So for me, that was activist circles, the way people romanized the activist life on the road, and my participation in it was partly to heal wounds from childhood. So, it left me with the understanding that you don't get a choice in the strange situational reasons that different people will be alienated from society enough to join this or that campaign, but you can make the best of the journey all the same.

The idea of people being commended for being part of nomadic culture today is; if you’re able to plug the gaps in various local campaigns, like helping out with cooking for activist soup kitchens and giving workshops, etc.

I set off at 16 for Malaysia on a month long outdoor expeditions trip and got to live with poor rice farmers, and at 17 for earth first gatherings and climate camps, and then was on the road from 19 for many years, going from protest camp to protest camp.

I was looking at environmental groups from tree sitters in California, to food not bombs groups in Indonesia. And seeing this movement learning from each other internationally, that had different social and moral norms, that I was really wanting to explore and see if I could make that my adoptive community.

The same way some people have the willpower to put up with horrible bosses in order to pursue a passion at work, I was OK with putting up with physical hardships in order to get to explore this more co-operative culture in its grassroots form, still developing, trying to become the mainstream culture and politics.

I wrote cease and desist email, first you give me unasked for BS advice, and then you call me a liar, another amazing convo on raddle.me. If I tried to publish someone else's book with just paragraphs moves around, and adding my own commentary, without permission, I wouldn't be surprised if I got fined in court for it not being deemed fair use, I just don't much like risking that possibility is all.

I wrote that they sent me a "cease and desist email".

Alright fuck it, I'm editing it now to include a bijillion references which will likely take a month to finish working on part-time. If I get fined you have to tell me a place where we can meet so that I can travel to meet you and slap you with a dead fish that I'll find in a dumpster.

I'm not adding a tonne of commentary, that's the concern, that the copyright holder will say readers can pick up my book and have read their book without the content having been substantially transformed, so simply costing them the profit on their book.

I'm just presenting it in a slightly different way, with paragraphs moved around into the timeline of his life, with light commentary, some boring paragraphs missing and some other sources added.

The weakness of religious arguments

The burden on the family and friends of both good and evil revolutionaries

Obviously you can relate to someone as having character vices and virtues without it having any religious component. I'm an existential nihilist, but I wish I had the language of applied ethics to describe subjective ways people desire to act and relate to others earlier on in my life: My Virtue-Existentialist Ethics

The weakness of religious arguments

Obviously you can relate to someone as having character vices and virtues

You people who caricature reasonable anarchist arguments against religion make me ashamed to call myself an anarchist.

Here is an actually coherent egoist anarchist acknowledging the usefulness of applied virtue ethics language:

However, if postanarchism questions this sort of moral foundationalism, can it still maintain a commitment to ethical action? Not according to Benjamin Franks, who argues that postanarchism leads to a radical subjectivism – a moral relativism where the individual, in a solipsistic fashion, determines his or her own moral coordinates – thus, making it unsuitable for developing ethical and political relations with others. This subjectivist position is attributed to Stirner, who, Franks argues, rejects the universal moral and rational discourses embodied in Enlightenment humanism and proposes in their place the supreme individualism and amoralism of the selfcreating egoist:

"However, the alternative [to consequentialist and deontological anarchisms] adopted by some egoist individualists and postanarchists, i.e. radical subjectivism, is inadequate on similar grounds. If subjectivism is right, then it restricts the possibility of meaningful ethical dialogue, recreates hierarchies between the liberated ego and the rest, and cannot adequately account for the creative ego, without recourse to the other social forms it rejects." ...

As an alternative to both Stirnerite ‘subjectivism’ and moral universalism, Franks proposes a situated ethics: an understanding of ethics as situated within, and contingent upon, specific social practices, communities and organisations. Different situations demand different ethical relations and rules, rules which can nevertheless change over time, and are open to dialogue and critical negotiation. I fully agree with this application of ethics, and I see it as a useful way of thinking about ethics in terms of autonomy and pluralism.

- The Politics of Post-Anarchism by Saul Newman

That doesn't say what you said it says.

You people who caricature reasonable anarchist arguments against religion make me ashamed to call myself an anarchist.

You people who make anarchism into Christianity make me ashamed to call myself an anarchist.