uanon OP wrote (edited )

What? It's a documentary about the town and people destroyed by Russian war, showing what they think about a historical figure associated with this place. It's not an "attempt" to marry anything, the reporter just shows what people say, and doesn't aim to make a movie about anarchism specifically. How do you look at all this destruction and these old people's pity and say something like this? You're disgusting.


uanon wrote

Anarchists should work on influencing the discourse in order to decouple decolonization and independence from occupation, from being linked to the "positive project" such as nation-state building. We should stress that it's not an inevitable conclusion of decolonization and fighting for independence from occupation (which in itself is a negative claim, not a positive proposition entailing some nation-state project). However, we should not expect "perfect victims" or expect them to perfectly align with our visions because we'll almost never find such people. Also it's important to remember that fight for freedom is ongoing and doesn't end just when an occupation, or war, or some other awful thing ends.

I recommend to read what anarchists from Palestine and Israel say about it, tbh. "No state solution" and so on.


uanon wrote (edited )

I'm not from the US but it seems to me that most people there who're talking about "WW3" are definitevely not the government and what is usually described as "the media", but rather contrarians on left and right - Assadists, Putinists, Dengists, nazbols and others. So if there's any "function" to WW3 fearmongering, it certainly depends on who is doing the fearmongering.