a_zed_9 OP wrote

Reply to comment by haulonthebowline in Thoughts on AJODA #19? by a_zed_9

Prominent ones would be Jason McQuin I believe his name is, who published AJODA 19 on child sexuality. Hakim Bey is a known member of Nambla and to my knowledge LBC also distributes texts about child sexuality so i would lump Aragon in there.

The other text I believe is called "To be done with the Economy of Love" it is in AJODA issue 20-21 (double issue).


a_zed_9 OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by tabby in Thoughts on AJODA #19? by a_zed_9

Wolfi suggests that there's ways to "share erotic pleasure" with children that don't harm or violate them. This is bullshit. How many adults who were sexually abused as children do you know speak positively about their experiences and weren't traumatized by them?

None of them I know would use the term "Sexual Abuse" to describe their experiences but probably about a dozen including myself.

Edit: this number is just the amount I personally know and does not count texts that recall these sorts of experiences which would increase the number a lot.

Yes, institutions including schools, churches, the nuclear family, etc. repress children, and sexual repression (specifically the repression of age-appropriate sexual behavior, i.e. masturbation) is certainly a part of that repression, but that in no way necessitates or justifies adults sexually abusing children.

How does one dictate what is "age appropriate" without these institutions?

As far as Wolfi's and other individualists/post-leftists/egoists' larger project of rejecting morality: unlike others, I don't think defending child sexual abuse (or rape, murder, assault, etc.) is a bug of individualist/post-leftist/egoist anarchism but a feature and has turned me off of it. I'm all for questioning society's morals and rejecting ones that I know aren't right, but I wouldn't want to live in a community with no guiding morality.

That's definitely understandable. I feel most people would not want to live in a world without morals. Personally I do oppose morals though since it does limit autonomy, and I "value" that more then things like "safety" or "justice" which cam only be attained through morality.


a_zed_9 wrote

Reply to comment by Fool in by !deleted28888

Very interesting, I agree that often these sorts of "concessions" even when "hard fought" often ammmount to little more then "appeasement" (what I would describe as recuperation back into the system) however I don't see exactly what "cost" or perhaps better stated "detriment" this brings the state.

It is clear I think that institutions such as settler colonialism or racism or even labor allow for profit to be extracted by civilization to greater amd greater extents. However profit would still be extracted if certain parts were missing. So even though full recuperate into the system in a manner that meant no profit was extracted from a group (something that doesn't even happen to white people really) would still only slow the profit extracted by civilization, not necessarily harm it.


a_zed_9 wrote

Reply to comment by capitan in by !deleted28888

Ultimately though this amounts to even less then the current reservation system (assuming this land is still part of the U.S. am thus subject to its law). As well even if you were given large swaths of land, ultimately your piece of land would be miniscule compared to that which is being settled. As well if this piece of land had any ability to harm the institution of settler colonialism it could through other mechanisms (such as zoning laws or even fabricated evidence or just outright force) be dismantled/reclaimed.


a_zed_9 wrote

Reply to by !deleted28888

I wouldn't, I've been around a couple land projects and I have no interest in them now. As for personal gains of the land or wealth, I have no interest as I hope to build a lifestyle that isn't sedentary, and that escapes wealth a property as much as possible.

As for "waiting to the revolution". You could say I'm a nohlist in this manner as I'm against the idea of a revolution. But even in such a case my opposition to property and wealth would still exist.

I think with the added stipulation that non-white people have to read the bread book before accepting the land makes it even worse imo.


a_zed_9 wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by capitan in by !deleted28888

States often give settlers free (or extremely cheap) land. This actually still happens in America (I forget where/when but there was some story from maybe a decade ago of some town doing it) and Isreal still does this though it usually jumps through a few hoops first since these settlements go against international law.

Edit: if it's not apparent the gain for the state is to push out indigenous people, "civilize" the land (primarily make it productive), and benefit colonizers as a class/indentity.


a_zed_9 wrote

I don't think that dropping out reproduces these systems but if you want to elaborate on how they do feel free to.

I honestly feel the opposite, in that these reliefs sustain the "status quo" through recuperation and channeling our desires through these civilized values.

To be honest I'm unsure why you use language like "living on that pedestal" or "perfect anarchy". I know my analysis is not perfect, I have already stated this in my discussion about why I share my thoughts in hopes of critiques that can help me build a better analysis. I do not think my analysis is perfect but it is what I have, just as your analysis is what you have, and so I want to take actions that align with thoughts, and both change over time. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I think you are "lesser" or that you should just accept what I say. My only goal here is to just share my own thoughts and to likewise hear your thoughts. If there is something in my phrasing or anything like that, that has given you this impression of "superiority" or whatever for these comments I would appreciate if you shared.

I would also state as I commented with Ziq, blanket statement ls like "white supremacist" or "not anarchist" don't really mean anything to me besides "bad". If you could elaborate why you disagree or how it is these things then I could make sense of it, but obviously you are not obligated.

With regard to the "poor brown people" all I will say, as I believe I have stated this elsewhere in the thread, is I don't view white guilt as an effective tactic. White people feeling bad for me, or for other non-white people, cannot help me attain any of my goals (or attain my autonomy) in my analysis. If you would like me to elaborate I can.


a_zed_9 wrote (edited )

I believe my actions remove me from these institutions i hope to escape. So for example, instead of participating in this tactic you advocate, I am homeless and jobless to escape these institutions.

Edit: I should also add i do not think one should be "ideologically pure before acting. I am just stating that I do not think that your tactic, reparations, can achieve your end, ending settler colonialism. I think this because with these institutions of property, wealth and capital, non-humans and possibly different groups of humans would still be exploited and forced out of their ecosystems.

I personally would never participate in the tactic of an infoshop or renting a space or reparations since I don't think it can achieve any of my goals. That is all I mean to imply with my statements. I think everyone should build their own analysis of what their goals are and how to achieve them. If you think reparations is a goal/tactic you want to achieve I'm not trying to change that just to also state my stance.

In terms of "opposing concrete action that would help elevate oppressed people" I would say for the most part you are right. I think many groups get caught up in reformist measures to make life tolerable that they then become recuperate with the systems that dominated them in the first place. So in a way I am opposed to short term concrete measures to improve marginalized peoples lives (including my own) since this would only be improvement in terms of civilized values and does not address the systems that negate our autonomy.


a_zed_9 OP wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted23972 in Thoughts on AJODA #19? by a_zed_9

Could you elaborate on what you find weak or "problematic" about the position? If you would, I'd also be interested to hear your criticisms of the discussion of race among post-left authors.

If I can attempt to summarize: is it fair to say you agree with them in some respects but not on this topic or when it comes to race? Would you say its also fair to say then that you view these stances as not integral to their larger analysis?

I don't think I agree that this is a time based thing. I believe there are comments from Anews in 2007 recounting a member of AJODA defending Hakim Bey (im unsure if he's ever come out as a pedophile or just an advocate to my knowledge he does work with NAMBLA though writing poetry). As well, while I'm least familiar with Bey's work, he is still around and writing to my knowledge and I haven't seen anything suggesting he's change his stance on this topic.

As well if you are unaware "MAP rights" is a growing movement. And while for the most part this is a liberal movement there are self proclaimed pedophiles in the anarchist and post left milue and while I'm unaware of any authors among them it was this sub group that made me aware of this issue of AJODA. So while it is less public, the discussion of this topic is still ongoing.


a_zed_9 wrote

I beg to differ. You might tell yourself you've shed the left, but you're beating it like a worn out old drum whenever you speak. You're using your supposed ideological aversion to capital and land transfer

I don't see how my opposition to capital and property is ideological. We haven't even discussed why I am opposed to it. To elaborate, I oppose both since they are systems/institutions and as such deny my autonomy and the autonomy of all things. Is this what you mean by ideological? Or could you elaborate if not?

denounce indigenous/black people who ask for relief,

I haven't denounced anyone, unless you take all disagreement as denouncement. hile fully participating in capitalism every day of your life

While fully participating in capitalism every day of your life

I agree most people, and definitely no one you will find here is fully free from capitalism, civilization settler colonialism etc. My point though is that there are extents by which people participate, and there are different institutions which comprise these things as a whole. So I think opposing capital, and opposing wealth and opposing property are things that are effective in escaping these systems. Amd so they are methods I employ and "advocate" or share.

Everyone is beholden to their own words. See, only a diehard commie would refuse to take responsibility for the shit they say and blame it on 'building analysis

I don't understand what you mean by "take responsibility for what you say". I said it, it is plain for all to see, what beyond that do you take as "taking responsibility"? I am simply saying you don't have to, and in fact I will state I think you should not, blindly accept what I say, just as I don't blindly accept what you say, and that is what I mean by beholdent.

Please don't think you need to apologize to me.


You refuse to entertain reparations because you wear your ideology as a shield to excuse your colonialist attachments, the same way you now wear a faux post-leftism as a shield to excuse your true communist attachments.

Slinging words like "faux post-left" "colonialist" "comunist" doesn't really mean anything to me. You could just replace it with bad. It would make more sense to me if you expanded on what has led you to think this. What makes me a colonialist? Is it because I disagree with you? Because that is the only reasoning I currently see.


a_zed_9 OP wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in Anarcho-Lifestyleism by a_zed_9

Yeah I'm guessing I was hoping if you could elaborate on how specifically I've laid out an "ideology". What does that word mean to you? Cause perhaps we are thinking of this word in different ways.


a_zed_9 OP wrote

Reply to comment by ziq in Anarcho-Lifestyleism by a_zed_9

Could you elaborate in what ways you think my conception of lifestylism is creating a prescriptive program/ideology? Because at least in my mind, and what I take away rereading it is this "It's about living your life as best and as anarchically as you can without laboring fruitlessly to control the wider world outside of your immediate habitat."


a_zed_9 wrote

I don't think your analysis is in any way meaningful since you're trying to force communist theory on people who didn't ask for it. Expecting people to wait for a communist revolution that is never going to come before they can live their lives isn't a reasonable request. Furthermore, in the history of communist revolutions, indigenous people were always those who suffered the most when the revolution was inevitably used to give even more power to the state, which quickly worked to force cultural assimilation on them in order to seize and industrialize all their remaining land.

I am not a communist, as well I do not think anyone should be beholdent to any of the texts, or my own thoughts I share, they are simply there to help other build their analysis, and so that others may critique them building my own analysis. If you find what I said unhelpful then I am sorry, but that is still my analysis as of now.

You can't expect me to accept your assertations when you are clearly only concerned with addressing capital and I'm concerned with addressing much more. Capitalism did not create colonization. Communists have never succeeded in abolishing settler states and in fact have greatly strengthened them and widened their reach, increasing the pace of the indigenous genocide project.

I completely agree and apologize that my focus has been solely on concepts related primarily to capitalism, though I do believe that capital relates to civilization as a whole not just capitalism, but I do recognize the term is often used for capitalism. I believe that ones critique must go much further but I think to expand in detail would be beyond the scope of this convo since it seems focused on wealth and property.

Insisting you won't help indigenous people free themselves from the settler state unless they do it on your terms and agree to furthering your ideology just makes you yet another colonizer who paternalizes to people rather than accepting their agency. If people want their land back, who are you to attach a list of ideological conditions they need to meet to gain your approval? Who gives a shit if you approve?

My analysis is not about getting indigenous people to "accept either my terms", I am indifferent to if indigenous people, or anyone else agrees with my analysis. My analysis is for myself, I share it in hopes that others may find it useful, or if not, may offer a critique that is useful to me. I accept the agency if indigenous people, they will do what they will do, and I will do what I will do. What I am concerned with is combating the systems that may limit that "autonomy" and how best, in my own analysis, to combat them. As to the question "who gives a shot if you aprove?" You should not care for my approval, you should see if there is anything I have said that is useful, and if not discard it, and if you feel so compelled, to offer where you disagree.


a_zed_9 wrote

When people rent space to run infoshops, I assume you don't go out of your way to express how they are reinforcing property relations and are actually reformist?

I do hold this opinion.

Do you think that mutual aid proper is reformist? Anarchist reparations are just a form of mutuality.

I am opposed to most mutual aid. The "mutual aid" I do advocate for is purely in the sharing of skills through ones lifestyle.

Why, if as I said the resources were going to people you are in affinity with? If you have two properties, and return a stolen one to people you are in affinity with, how much more property relations are involved?

I don't have "affinity" with anyone. I also don't believe one should return stolen property, as the idea of theft (stolen) reproduces both morality (criminality) and property (ownership).

That's what I'm saying exists.

Do you have any texts you recommend on these forms of reparations outside of the critiques I've put forth?

Regardless, there are ways to do reparations and infoshops without any property relations, through direct expropriation, occupation, and sharing. You are limiting your perception of reparations to this limited way.

To be honest I have not considered sharing or expropriation to be reparations. I still have the same issue with the reproduction of these institutional values (property, wealth) from these tactics but I agree these tactics do not appeal to "the system at large" nor directly reproduce it.

You are coming off as super disingenuous.

If you can elaborate on what you mean I can try my best to avoid the behavior you dislike if it is within my ability, but it is not my intention to come off as such, simply to contribute to the discussion with my own analysis and criticism.


a_zed_9 OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by BarbarousPants in Thoughts on AJODA #19? by a_zed_9

For Wolfi the controversy primarily comes from his piece "Child Molestation vs. Child Love". (Again I'm unsure if links would break the ToS so I'll just state that an annotated version is easily findable but the un-annotated version is also available. If messaging it isn't against the rules I could also do that if there's a messaging feature.) He like many other post-leftists (and even others such as Gilles Duave) supported (unsure if his or anyone else stance has changed) child-adult relationships and in this text, and other texts, he encourages people to "freely share erotic pleasure with children". This magazine issue I have brought up is AJODAs issue on "Child Sexuality" and it contains several essays which make a case for why youth liberation stances should include youths autonomy to sexual exploration as well as how this topic then relates to the adults who may be parts of those relationships (often referred to as pedophiles).

Edit: also I believe wolfis essay "to be done with the economy of love" which appears in the following issue of AJODA (double issue 20/21) advocates not only to share love and erotic pleasure with children but also, plants, animals, and non-living things.

While iirc none of the prominent articles are by any of the "big names" of post-left theory. Several "big names" were associated with the publication at the time, and continued to be after such as iirc, Zerzan and Wolfi both contributing to this issue and I believe Bob Black was also a regular contributer at this time but I do not recall if his work appeared in this issue. The reason I bring up the "big names" is because it is my opinion the work of these individuals (tbh less so zerzan) lends itself to support the arguments made in the magazine issue, and so if people influenced by their work largely disagree with this stance, I am curious as to why.