insurrectobot

insurrectobot wrote (edited )

I guess there is something to be said about historical context - other names such as Hakim Bey, William Burroughs and Alan Ginsberg spring to mind when it comes to authors from either an anarchist, leftist or subcultural background who have written pro-pedophilia content as do pedophile advocate groups that briefly tried to attach themselves to the left such as PIE (Pedophile Information Exchange) in the UK and the case of the leftist commune in Germany back in the 70s that encouraged pedophilia. There are other examples too unfortunately. These kinds of things were happening in decades gone by, but this historical context does not excuse them nor should it be used as a pretext to shut down critical analysis / critique. It's part of our history whether we want it to be or not so it is important that we should be able to openly criticize these failings of the past regardless of whether it happens to be the failings of a much respected anarchist author.

And whoever it was who stated that when Wolfi abandoned the Feral Faun pseudonym that this instantly negated all of his writings under that moniker - I think this is possibly the weakest take of all regarding this. So I could write a bunch of offensive crap under a pseudonym but if I then changed my name to something else then it wouldn't matter anymore? Hmmm.

If Wolfi really has changed his views since the text was written, then how hard could it be for him to write a short piece saying so to put the whole thing to rest? Saying that he doesn't use the internet or doesn't want to be involved in "drama" is just disingenuous bullshit. Surely it is important for his legacy as an author for there to be an official record so to speak of him stating once and for all that he no longer holds these views?

It's also important insofar as introducing his better work to people who are new to it. Are we meant to say "oh by the way he also wrote an essay in favor of pedophilia but it's okay, he doesn't believe in what he wrote anymore, although there is no record anywhere of him saying this, you'll just have to take our word for it."?

5

insurrectobot wrote

definitely just an anarchist. certain tactics that are associated with various so-called tendencies of anarchism can be useful at different times / for different occasions - IE, in the workplace, at demonstrations, operating in a clandestine manner etc etc but as subrosa stated it's not useful to reduce any of these tactics to any label other than anarchist.

5

insurrectobot wrote

according to google search it had 67K likes. it was a handy page for promoting worldwide solidarity campaigns - well making them visible on FB anyway haha...oh well..RIP. I'm most angry that my page Propaganda of the Meme is gone...I wasted a lot of time on that one creating original animated gifs, memes and whatnot...it was like 95% original content..all gone, I never even bothered saving any of it haha, what a complete waste of time.

5

insurrectobot wrote

Molotov 5.7? It had huge reach as far as FB goes - which at the end of the day is pretty meaningless- lots of 'likes' and 'reactions' lol, wasn't linked to any particular project - we shared content from everywhere, but mostly posted riot porn - although the last few months I'd been posting a lot of AWW stuff on there as I was the most active admin. I never noticed any upsurge of visits to AWW as a result though. It's still indexed on google search if you search for it, so is the AWW FB page.

6

insurrectobot wrote

wasn't just US pages - Anarchists Worldwide FB page which had been left up as an archive was deleted, and all the admins lost their accounts- admins were from Australia and Turkey. this then affected other smaller pages that the admins ran - some were deleted others were left alone but now have no admins so have effectively been neutralized. another big page Molotov 5.7 which had approx. 70K followers and had admins from Turkey, Australia and other parts of the world was deleted too along with admin accounts. the main admin from Turkey also admined several other pages which are all gone.

9

insurrectobot wrote

speaking on behalf of Anarchists Worldwide this is pure lies. also we are not 'red anarchists'. look at all the projects we link on our blog, then go and look at how many other projects beside their own that Anarchist News link - zero. the reasons many anarchist projects from right across the anarchist spectrum refuse to work with Anarchist News are plenty - and they have been written about numerous times elsewhere, not going to go into it here. we have occasionally reposted some of their content only because it was not available elsewhere, but we will not be advertising for them, ever. The projects, blogs and so on that we link to in the links section of our blog are projects that we either cooperate with in some capacity either ongoing or in the past or that we feel a close affinity with. This is not going to change anytime soon. we are not proponents of 'big tent anarchism' or some deranged anarchist version of 'left unity'. Also Anarchist News often repost IGD content, this is more nonsense with no basis in reality - nobody other than corporate sites with a team of lawyers can stop one anarchist project reblogging or reposting another project's content. we would be happy to link raddle...I have asked previously elsewhere on here if there was a raddle anarchism banner or something that we could use as a hyperlink on AWW, but nobody responded.

2

insurrectobot wrote (edited )

I'd argue that there always has been a strong alliance of anarchist websites and media projects - in recent years the problem hasn't been the lack of such an alliance, it's been the stubborn headed insistence of many anarchists (predominantly younger anarchists and / or those new to anarchism) to completely ignore anarchist websites / media and non-corporate platforms in favor of pretty much living 24/7 on corporate social media platforms incessantly sharing / regurgitating corporate news articles and so on.

I think this is a byproduct of the delusional idea that you can use these corporate platforms to radicalize the "masses", despite what we know about the fascist nature of these platforms and their algorithms - IE you just end up in a massive echo chamber with limited reach outside of it.

This has resulted in a situation where the only anarchist online projects that enjoy a reasonable sized reach are those that supplement their projects with a corporate social media presence. However one thing I have found infuriating in the past is studying the stats for the blog I do and realizing that all those anarchists who clicked 'like' or even shared content from the FB page or Twitter account hadn't even gone to the blog and read the content that they were supposedly so into. I'm sure this kind of thing is happening with many other online anarchist projects as well. So do we even need this type of "growth"?

The radical potential of these corporate platforms reached it's use-by date a long time ago...it's not Occupy or the Arab Spring anymore, time to get back to reality and move on.

Also: Another thing about the use of corporate media platforms in the Arab Spring and other uprisings of the past is that it made the work of the security forces very easy - ready made lists of who needed to be rounded up, neutralized, and in some cases tortured and executed...and here we are all these years later and many still have not learned from this.

5

insurrectobot wrote (edited )

I dispute the author's premise that "anarchism isn't a popular idea" - at the moment it seems to be pretty damn popular, I can't remember a time like this when anarchism / anarchist ideas and concepts were being so widely discussed / part of mainstream discourse via way of popular news & entertainment media. Also as another commenter pointed out, most people on the planet practice anarchism in their daily life - they just don't call it anarchism. I think what the author of the article is actually lamenting is the fact that their idea of anarchism isn't a popular one and that we're not all marching in lockstep all decked out in identical red and black neckerchiefs and dinky little red and black hats. And fuck the author's stated goal of us "running a society" too.

6

insurrectobot wrote (edited )

Reply to by socialist_boi

going by past history, fascists generally aren't voted out of power, more drastic action usually has to be taken...just saying.

3

insurrectobot OP wrote

my point is that when it comes to new technological roll-outs on a massive scale - such as the roll-out of 5G, anti-civ anarchists see it as a given that there are going to be adverse health effects and damage to the environment - the author or authors who wrote this text are more interested in focusing on how 5G networks are going to play a major role in things like border control, surveillance of populations as well as police and military operations - and this seems to be the case with all the other anarchist texts I have read so far regarding 5G.

3

insurrectobot OP wrote (edited )

if you read the article there is only a small mention of health effects - but if you want to talk about the health effects there was this piece in the Scientific American a couple of years back: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

there is also this appeal signed by 253 EMF (Electromagnetic Field) scientists from 44 countries: https://emfscientist.org/

Excerpt from the appeal for the TL;DR brigade:

“Wireless communication technologies are rapidly becoming an integral part of every economic sector. But there is a rapidly growing body of scientific evidence of harm to people, plants, animals, and microbes caused by exposure to these technologies.

It is our opinion that adverse health consequences of chronic and involuntary exposure of people to non-ionizing electromagnetic field sources are being ignored by national and international health organizations despite our repeated inquiries as well as inquiries made by many other concerned scientists, medical doctors and advocates.

This constitutes a clear violation of human rights, as defined by the United Nations:

“Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education.”


I'm no scientist so I have no idea when it comes to complicated scientific research and conclusions of said research so I'm not going to comment on that aspect other than present what they are saying - I am not qualified enough to make an informed opinion regarding their concerns.

however, I will comment on what I do know about - I think you are wrong that "many anarchists seem to have bought into the idea that there is some sort of negative health effect"...the main concerns from all of the anarchist texts I have read regarding 5G are the increased surveillance capabilities that will be enabled by 5G networks and the military applications / use of 5G - however, if you read the article you would already know that this is what the main points of it were.

3

insurrectobot wrote

Reply to comment by insurrectobot in by !deleted26641

I think you are way off the mark and a little out of line with this comment - why shouldn't ziq's writings be there? what are these supposed 'hierarchy issues'?

3

insurrectobot wrote

Reply to by !deleted26641

nice work - good, non-sectarian overview of anarchist theory / ideas / etc...so sick of suggested reading lists that are basically just all ancom / syndicalist or platformist stuff.

7