HELL YES I think We Should Dox Nazis! Is That A Serious Question?

  • Posted on: 15 August 2018
  • By: thecollective

From The Conjure House by Dr. Bones

“Maybe one day all the old guys will die off and things will change, ‘cuz it’s officially getting scary over here in America.”

—Hank Williams III

From the moment I started writing I decided that, as long as I had a voice, I would say exactly what I wanted to.

I’ve written about magic, which has pissed off secular radicals. I’ve written about Egoism, which pissed off the Leftists. The largest publisher of Egoist material in turn hates my guts because I don’t think Egoists should waste their time hanging out by themselves and, weirdly enough, should be involved with others in the struggle for liberation.

I’ve also written about violence, my most recent piece going into tactical detail about some of the methods the Taliban has used to confront and defeat the United States military. I‘ve made the case that violent, or at least armed upheaval, is the only thing that puts enough fear into the Powers That Be to effectively get them to back down. I’ve advocated forming bases, getting involved with the community, and above all destroying those that would seek to harm us.

Doxxing Nazis, and other fascists, is absolutely one of the methods available to harm those that harm us. I support this tactic not only because I support whatever avenues for self-defense the people can muster, but also from a purely tactical standpoint it works.

Just How Many Tears Are Shed

By Some Little Word of Anger?

Doxxing has been in vogue on the Right for a long time, and nobody was quite as good as 4chan. 4chan, filled with lonely masturbating men calling each other cucks, had nothing but time on its hands.

Well, that and their dicks.

Channers would often spend all day online, and in doing so we’re able to pull of some astounding feats of intelligence gathering.

Consider Shia Lebouf’s “He Will Not Divide Us” Campaign, where 4channers wanted to remove a flag at an unknown location:

“…viewers used triangulation techniques based on planes seen in the stream to determine the general area. A local then began honking their horn repeatedly while driving in the area, which were picked up by the webcam’s microphone to further narrow the location. Finally, using star maps, 4chan users were able to identify the exact location of the flag on Google Maps…

On August 13th, 2017, the HeWillNotDivide.us stream was relaunched, featuring the flag placed against a white wall at an unknown location. That day, several threads about the livestream were created on 4chan’s /pol/ board, where many users began speculating that the flag was at the Serpentine Gallery in London, England based on an unverified direct message screenshot with Luke Turner.

That day, YouTuber H Drone uploaded a video titled ‘HWNDU Flag: London,’ chronicling how the flag was purportedly discovered at a different location in England by shining a blue light through a window and tracking reflections based on the movement of the sun throughout the day. The video has since been removed. Meanwhile, an image began circulating claiming that a blue light directed through the window of the house was visible on the wall during the livestream…”

This network is just one among many. One nazi in particular, going by the alias Jack “Pale Horse” Corbin, has been especially prolific in doxxing Anti-Racists and Anti-Fascists.

The leaking of this information is usually twofold in purpose: on one hand the hope is that some lone wolf will attack the person, or at least vandalize their property; to force the person’s political alignment into the public spotlight and, in result, create economic and safety issues for said person.

It’s not enough to be painted as Antifa. Most Far Right doxxers will aid false details, claiming the antifascists abuse children or are addicted to drugs. They may print out posters and put it around the person’s workplace in the hopes they get fired. They may call the police and hope the person gets investigated, or possibly even shot.

I know people, personally, who have had the last two happen. And there are plenty of others who have felt the anxiety and fear of having every digital footprint put out in the hopes it results in violence

For now I’ve been lucky, though that’s not to say folks haven’t tried.

The admin of the meme page Everything Is Pretty Bad has gone as far as to try to come up with a fake name to pressure me into revealing my own. He’s also attempted to hound and blackmail people sharing my articles to give up my personal facebook profile.

Hell they’ve even made attempts to derail any bit of organizing or reporting I got into, simply because they don’t like me, regardless of how it might affect people. Here’s his former co-admin from “Misanthropic Egoism:”

So I want to be clear: I know people who have been doxxed, there have been attempts to doxx me. This is a tactic that has harmed people I know and care for.

And I still think it’s an important tool for us to use.

Your Evil Heart Will Be Your Ruin

“‘I’m unplugged from politics,’ Parrott said. ‘I’m done. I’m out. I don’t want to be in The Washington Post anymore. I don’t care to have this humiliating and terrifying ordeal be more public than it already is. . . . There is no more Trad Worker.”

Former member of the Traditionalist Worker’s Party

There is absolutely no question that doxxing nazis, racists, and other foul human slime gets results that other organizing simply doesn’t. There is a reason the Klan wears hoods: vile deeds need darkness to be done. To be well-known is to destroy the ability to work in secret.

The Traditionalist Worker’s Party was one such far-right group absolutely devastated by the release of personal information and addresses. Since the first Unite The Right the entire Alt-Right has been hounded wherever they’re faces could be identified, effectively destroying their ability to organize.

A writer at the alt-right website Right Realist admitted as much in a piece called Why I was Wrong about the Alt-Right:

“Our enemies have seen the opportunity they needed to crush us without looking like the authoritarian monsters they are to the public at large. Nobody in the public is going to step up to defend ‘KKK, Nazi, white supremacists.'”

The Alt-Right depends on a public face and a private face. When those true feelings were exposed they lost all credibility and quickly found themselves the local pariah. Jack “Pale Horse” Corbin has been identified, down to his physical address. Prominent Neo-Nazis on twitter have dropped out of the movement when they merely been threatened with exposure.

Neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin agrees things aren’t looking good. The same asshole who gleefully directed Daily Stormer readers to hang nooses and intimidate a female black student is running scared. He has gone into hiding, and just recently made it clear doxxing by antifascists will “ruin the lives” of anyone treading in the same loathsome, piss-filled ideological pool he himself inhabits:

That’s called results. That’s called victory. A year ago the Charlottesville rally drew hundreds of open neo-nazis, one who felt so emboldened he fucking killed someone. This year it drew twenty. They admit it’s because they don’t feel safe.

They aren’t afraid of being assaulted or thrown in jail. They are afraid of being exposed. By doxxing.

And isn’t that what we want?

Take These Chains From My Heart

and

Set Me Free

Gods and Radicals is a collective, and writers are free to write whatever they wish. We have many diverse opinions and lord knows I’ve given plenty of headaches to the more…pacifistic of my fellow authors. Some have called for me to be fired. Just recently I had a fellow writer call me on the phone, telling me my most recent piece published there made them so uncomfortable they were worried about me.

So it goes.

Folks have written plenty I don’t agree with on Gods and Radicals. We are far, far from some monolithic force.

So let me be crystal clear: anyone who thinks doxxing isn’t working, who thinks this is a tactic the Left should surrender, is living in some alternate world I don’t understand.

The Far-Right isn’t going to stop doxxing us because we put on the kid gloves. You don’t win battles by backing away when your enemy beings to falter and weaken. The cops don’t care who these people are. They hire them!

“In the 2006 bulletin, the FBI detailed the threat of white nationalists and skinheads infiltrating police in order to disrupt investigations against fellow members and recruit other supremacists. The bulletin was released during a period of scandal for many law enforcement agencies throughout the country, including a neo-Nazi gang formed by members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who harassed black and Latino communities. Similar investigations revealed officers and entire agencies with hate group ties in IllinoisOhio and Texas.”

So who exactly is going to bring fascists and their ilk to task if the police, and the courts that are ALWAYS friendly to them, refuse to act?

The goddamn Democrats?

“In a surprise appearance on SNL’s ‘Weekend Update: Summer Edition’ Thursday night, Fey urged Americans not to get into screaming matches with neo-Nazis. Instead, she said, ‘order a cake with the American flag on it … and just eat it.’”

It is often ONLY the tireless work of unnamed antifascists who expose and bring consequences to the monsters among us that brings tangible results.

Remember: the leaked conversations, the interviews, fascists are admitting that doxxing is destroying them. And it isn’t because we’re lying about them. The minute their actual beliefs are exposed, who they really are, the people usually find them repulsive.

Seriously, it’d be one thing if we’re having a conversation about Leftists attacking one another, or even people being misidentified. Fash-jacketing is a real thing, and the mob-mentality so often prevalent in the digital world can ruin people’s lives. We can even talk about the very problematic cheering of tech giants as they remove alt-righters—and then move on to leftist platforms like Telesur. Or how Facebook now requires leftists to register with extremely personal information to run ads in an effort to combat “fake news.”

Hell, I’ll even say we could talk about how some of the working people who voted for Trump are simply ignorant, and need to be reached out to.

Some.

But as for the out-and-out people talking about wiping out every face darker than a jar of mayonnaise?

Who gives a fuck?

Andrew Anglin could have his head removed with a chainsaw, moving from his groin towards his neck, finally culminating in total separation…and I wouldn’t care.

David Duke could be attacked by a pack of rabid dogs and spend the next four hours being slowly torn to pieces…and I wouldn’t shed a tear.

Jason Kessler could be on fire and I wouldn’t PISS on him to put him out. My laughter would mix with his shrill cries for water as his once solid frame melted into a pool of charred bone and liquid fat.

I’d sleep like a goddamn baby.

Let them suffer. Let them be afraid. These people want to kill us. If they had the chance, they would. They admit this and harass us at every opportunity with networks far outstripping our own. Why should we feel bad or even consider their feelings? Why is a tactic so clearly effective something we can’t use?

This isn’t some grand web of karma where the most advanced, peaceful people win by default. This is a rough, ruthless planet where baby animals get ripped open everyday, where innocent children get blown up and turned into smoldering goo.

Doxxing stops actual, real world violence before it starts because the enemy is afraid. Keep him afraid and he becomes paralyzed. Unable to act. Isn’t that what we want?

Are we combating fascism or are we in a conversation with it? If you find a moral issue with doxxing I’d love to hear what forms of combat you’d prefer instead.

And if you say voting I swear to god I will take off my pants and shit in your shoes.

Nobody else is going to stop these people. It is up to us. Doxxing works, doxxing will continue to work, and in an open war regarding personal information…we’d only be hurting ourselves by giving up our strongest weapon.

About Dr. Bones

Dr. Bones is a conjurer, card-reader and egoist-communist who believes “true individuality can only flourish when the means of existence are shared by all.” A Florida native and Hoodoo practitioner, he summons pure vitriol, straight narrative, and sorcerous wisdom into a potent blend of poltergasmic politics and gonzo journalism. He lives with his loving wife, a herd of cats, and a house full of spirits.
He can be reached at Facebook.com/theconjurehouse and TheConjureHouse@protonmail.com

Tags: 
category: 

Comments

that was fine I guess.
nothing wrong wth a bit of recreational doxxing in my book.

This fucking asshat is gaining a massive following and making money of donations, why in the FUCK is @news pushing him??? Do you know how many queer, poc, ANARCHISTS could use this wasted attention? Fuck

Also, problematic and ridiculous as his views are I still think he could be a gateway for better thinkers to come and his writing isn't that bad.

his (and therefore your) views are "gateways" for non-thinkers to not think. his writing (and therefore yours) is indeed "that bad," and is irrelevant to anarchists and the anarcho-curious. certainly you can find better fiction writers to admire?

Is that he is part of exoteric left wing radicalism which gets worse not better. Of course Bones is bad, I'm not arguing that, however do I have to remind you how bad leftism gets even short of full blow marxist vanguard ideology. Think of that Reidtarded leftists who did that Embers interview with his take on Stirner. Believe me it gets worse then Bonsey. Bones is at least reading and quoting the better stuff. Beyond that I think he has likable qualities such as marrying the Hunter S Thompson style with old archaic language. He has a warm blooded writing style which is strong on its own terms. Doesn't mean I like him at the level of substance. I do think that like hardcore punk and anarchism many interesting and talented people that you or I have yet to hear from may get their start with him and the circles that involve him which-flawed as they are-are not as bad as it gets in a world of IDPol and tankies.

Remember I'm the dilettante post-leftist who is against elective struggle. Why do you think I would be a fan of his beyond some accoutremental likes? Also, I'm hardly a gateway, do you even check my twitter streams of consciousness, their on the niche side to say the least involving the radically improbable(abolishing education for instance)

... thecollective mostly dislikes Bones and posts his stuff here as kindling for a troll bonfire.

I mean ... Ziggy likes it. I'll say that again, SirEinzige says he likes this ... Yeah. Drink that in for a second.

Tell those queer and poc ANARCHISTS to submit their writing to @news and include their patreons if they want. Anyone can submit stuff here its a simple process. In the side bar you will see a section titled "navigation" then you click on "add content". Looking forward to reading their stuff.

This is a lack of action on behalf of the queer and POC anarchists, not a publishing decision or bias from the @thecollective.

And, yes there is a queer who submits her stuff here and includes a link to her patreon.

Silly anarchist - don't you know that whenever queer or POC people don't get something they want, it is straight and white people's fault? The onus is on the latter to reach out to, accommodate, and champion the former until we reach an egalitarian society, and then the onus will still be on them for a good, long, indefinite while to make up for all of the time before we reached egalitarianism. That's what justice means.

How dare you leave a comment explaining this before waiting for a poc or queer to do it first. Dont you care about representation?

massive following, really?

Wait, this is the same goofy kid that was on the brilliant last year. I just put that together. Anyway, nothing objectionable here. I realize there are a lot of antifa that are as dumb as a bag of doorknobs, but that doesn't mean I don't hate fascists with a fucking passion.

goofy kid is right. Bones and his twitter following make me feel old. This is gen z anarchy.

Hate to break it to you dr. Bones, but the largest publisher of egoist material hates everyone.

Who is being referred to here? Enemy Combatant? LBC? Someone else? Is this supposed to be a reference to the Wolfi incident (Wolfi isn't a "publisher", per se...)? As an egoist enthusiast, I'm surprised this is supposed to be obvious...

The most pernicious effect of the threat of doxxing is that it flatters and validates strugglismos and locks them further into their antagonistic embrace of fascism.

Because reasons, n such, n such.

I don't follow.

maybe you should just read the bread book.... ( the BREAD book! get it?!?! XD ) #iamsosmart #wikipedialyfe

I went into this article very much pro-doxxing but now I'm less sure. There's a lot of anti-human-rights, anti-egoist, us-and-them drivel in this piece... the standard idpol mentality that we're in a war, and in a war whatever “we” do to “them” is fine (even if we hate it being done back to us), and the only thing that matters is to win the war, no matter what. All of which is contrary to building a better world or living by one's own ethos/principles. It reeks of replacing one bunch of bosses with another. And of course, the enemy against which every atrocity is justified isn't the state or capital, it's a few far-right idiots. And if you looked closely at this constituency, you'd probably find a fair number of angry but harmless keyboard warriors, psychologically vulnerable people, and fellow-travellers with little actual commitment. A lot of them would have been on our side 20 years ago (Andrew Anglin was one of ours originally) and the idpol mentality and complicity of the left with Third Way neoliberal globalisation are major reasons they're not on our side now. A hard truth but one we need to accept before we start setting this situation right again.

We've been doxxing Nazis (and statists, vivisectors etc) and they've been doxxing us for as long as I can remember. It wasn't called doxxing before (roughly) 2011. But, the British Nazis used to run a site called Redwatch where they posted details of anarchists and socialists (a lot of it pictures taken from Indymedia). In return, we ran the full membership list and addresses of BNP members on Indymedia when it was leaked (apparently by a disgruntled ex-member). I also remember European Indymedias getting raided for posting details of cops, a Welsh punk performer getting outed as a UKBA (ICE-equivalent) agent, and animal rights protesters posting home addresses of investors and staff of HLS. Nobody really had a problem with this (besides the pigs), but back then, it wasn't tied-in with moral panics and purges by state bodies. More often, it was a case of hitting back at powerful people. In one case, someone went to jail for stealing a piece of paper with a list of staff names, even though it had no financial value. All of this was a lot harder in the 1990s-2000s because fewer people put their details online, and companies, governments etc didn't start keeping details online until the mid-2000s. Doxxing became a major phenomenon with Anonymous in 2010-11 and was mostly associated with attacks on government bodies and major companies (such as STRATFOR). In this case it was very much a response “from below”. But it stemmed from a broader trend for people to dox as a malicious prank, usually followed by further pranks such as jamming someone's phone with fake texts, ordering pizzas to their home address, or signing them up for free mailing lists. This could be done light-heartedly or very hatefully, and in the most extreme cases, led to death threats and “swatting” (where the troll phones in fake calls to the police to trigger a SWAT raid on the target). The propensity for doxxing within the troll/channer community also became a liability as it was one of the reasons people were caught by the state.

The kind of thing Bones is advocating here, is far more problematic in my view.

First problem: doxxing doesn't just give information to your own side, it gives information to the state. The state is a bigger danger to anarchists than the far-right is. And, strengthening the state to weaken the far-right is thus not really strategically sensible. Now, granted, posting information in the public domain where it's accessible to the state along with everyone else is a bit different from snitching to the pigs. But it worries me whether it's different enough. If we're doxxing Nazis and then sending them pizzas or hate mail or worse, we're still in the realms of direct action. If we're doxxing Nazis so bosses discriminate against them because they (like we) are considered extremists, we're basically acting as unpaid auxiliary police.

Second problem: engaging in doxxing creates a norm of doxxing. Creating a norm of doxxing legitimises doxxing by the other side, and by the state. It makes it harder for us to cry foul when the Nazis dox us and it makes online anonymity harder.

Third problem: doxxing followed by blacklisting as described here, actually relies on the agency of powerful oppressors – bosses, university admissions agents, pigs – and their use of political blacklists and other tools of oppression which have historically been, and still are, primarily used against anarchists, leftists, black nationalists, and targets of moral panics. The general mechanism of moral panics and purging is itself insidious and is part of why fascism is becoming so popular: it's a lynch-mob mentality. The fact that once in a hundred cases it's used against people we don't like doesn't change its basic nature. So if we're doxxing with the intent that the media run a smear campaign, bosses fire someone, or they get blacklisted and can't access basic rights like education and communication, then we're actually feeding fascism. The war is BETWEEN us and the state/bosses, not between us and the Nazis USING the state/bosses.

Fourth problem: deviance amplification is a proven sociological fact. On average, if someone flirts with racism in their youth and never gets criminalised, they carry on a normal life and grow out of it. If someone flirts with racism, gets outed as a Nazi, gets put on blacklists and watchlists, their life is ruined, and their other social connections are cut off, they become more attached to Nazism as an identity and they become more and more extreme. This is the opposite of what we want.

Fifth problem: is it really weakening them? The Washington rally was a flop, but the Nazis outnumbered us in Portland last week. They're pulling thousands in the UK and Germany, and they actually have armed bands in Italy. They're winning in Eastern Europe. What they've learnt from Charlottesville, is cover their faces and tone down their public rhetoric to avoid a media backlash.

Sixth problem: it's the people who are isolated and shunned, who get driven out of work and education and off social media and out of their usual hangouts, who end up doing the really dangerous things such as terror attacks and spree killing. The attack in Canada last week was a good example. Early coverage suggests the perpetrator was extremely isolated and was banned from the local cafe which was his only social connection, for expressing racist views. His life was ruined in exactly the way Bones advocates. How did he respond? He shot up the town. I've seen the same pattern a hundred times, with Muslims and apolitical people as well as racists. Taking everything away, pushing someone to the point where nothing matters any more, makes people desperate and angry, risks activating their “trapdoor”, which may be murder. Some of them are paranoid to begin with, some of them are very emotionally unstable. Tipping them over the edge may well be counterproductive. I've been seeing cases of this kind – the self-fulfilling “terrorist” prophecy – among Muslims since the early 2000s. Someone singled out by the pigs or spooks, and “radicalised” in the process, until they lose access to normal life and finally commit an atrocity. Today it's happening with Nazis too.

Seventh problem: doxxing followed by media/social media/bosses/statists/admissions officials sanctioning someone, reinforces the Nazi narrative in two ways. It reinforces their ability to frame themselves as persecuted underdogs. And it reinforces their ability to frame antifa as a Soros-funded arm of the state.

I'm still broadly in favour of doxxing provided it's done in the old Anonymous way and without appeals to bosses, pigs etc. Though, I'd rather we focus on doxxing pigs, ICE, corporations, and other targets where we can put clear blue water between ourselves and the state.

Dude.... I fell asleep at 2. What is it you were saying?

17:04. If you are incapable of reading 11 paragraphs, maybe you shouldn't be on anews. Go over to youtube and watch cat videos, or go play with shiny objects.

Nah, it's true. That poster drones on. Doxxing is a tool, therefore neutral and separate from paragraph after paragraph of rambling about different opinions on the use of said tool.

Antifa doesn’t even BEGIN to consider these big picture things.

At their worst I consider antifa to be something close to a leftist paramilitary group that umbrellas the worst of leftism and defends the humanist universalist world society project.

It’s fairly obvious how this does not jive with qualitative anarchy. The real question is what do you think is right about it?

Also, while I don’t elect to regionalism what exactly is your problem with a regionalist preference. Are you one of those everything that isn’t universal is a creep towards fascism? Cause if you are there’s really not much point in me getting across anything to you particularly if you are of that Reidtard Ross level leftism as seen in that awful Embers interview on Stirner.

The reason why bio morphoregionalism is preferable to nationalism or internationalist universalism is because there is at least some concrete contextual dialectical diversity that is not loaded with geopolitical reification. That should be obvious enough to anyone not blinded by modern universalism.

"Antifa" isn't even remotely close to a paramilitary group

cowards run at the sight of a fight

14:06 Alt-right shithead spotted. You guys are always complaining about how antifa is a 'terrorist' organization, are 'thugs', are 'violent radicals', don't believe in free speech, and are always 'attacking people'. Then in the next breath you're saying how antifa are 'cowards' and 'run at the sight of a fight'.

Make up your fucking minds.

except I am not Alt-Right...

the idea that anarchists can't be critical of "Antifa" is amusing

Ziggy I think you're right about US antifa. I'd like to clarify that German/Central European antifa is/was a very different creature. I'm sure they had their problems but they overlapped a lot with autonome. They had a good overall analysis connecting fascism to the state, great security culture and street effectiveness. Similarly British AFA in the 80s. They had shitty leftist class-war politics but they were firmly anti-capitalist, anti-pigs, and great in a fight. The current US wave (who seem to have no idea what antifa means or comes from) are giving the label a bad name IMO.

This should be a separate article on here. You could flesh it out or just make it a direct response piece. Doubt Bones would read it, doesn’t seem like a very literate fella. But maybe he listens to the Anews podcast.

15:32. You make some good points overall, and some excellent points in particular. I would like to play devil's advocate about one point. Pushing Nazis to the margins (by doxxing and getting them fired or otherwise more socially and economically isolated) so that they become more dangerous, is actually a tactic that governments use, and it's very effective. When isolated individuals snap and lash out with violence, it makes their ideology that much more odious and demonized by society. It also usually results in arrests or suicide. So it acts like a double whammy compounding effect. It further reduces the physical and social effectiveness of a group. This tactic was used by the FBI against the left for decades, as well as by the CIA against groups like al-qaeda and ISIS in the middle east. (Now of course, the CIA and ISIS are working together).

So maybe it's not such a bad strategy. It does create some short term collateral damage, but in the long run reduces the size of Nazi groups.

What that YKW commenter also has problems understanding is that you can't expect cafés, social centers, community resources and other types of socal centers to be just letting racist creeps stick around and provoke. These fucktards tend to be reckless, self-proud annoyances and there's no way to reason with them, as reason for them is just another game. Then they'll go around provoking people with their creeping voices, always pushing, and pushing, and pushing to dominate, then end up causign a conflict, bringing tense, hellish vibes to the place. Then they bring their little circle-jerking buddies. then in a matter of days, the place becomes intoxicated with these annoyances who bother people as they just come in.

If these creeps want a mudpit where to throw pig shit at each other, well they can just go ahead and find one somewhere in the countryside. But why are they coming to bike workshops or social centers that have got CLEAR principles of being against hate towards minorities or women, or against abuse? Well guess what... turns out that in many cases, these shitbags KNOW about all this, and they ARE DOING IT ON PURPOSE.

But make no mstake... Leftists of course tend to be judgemental in their exclusion practices and use -I had confirmation from a well-respected local anarcho in my town- slander tactics to exclude people out of sheer interpersonal bias, under the guise of throwaway labels like "racist", "sexist", and what else. This tendency is even more problematic than allowing single racists to hang out at some place, because you are using misrepresentation against people, which can help dissolving people's notions of what sexist or racist behavior truly means IRL.

08.58 I think you're talking about a very different situation. It wasn't a radical cafe, it was a mainstream cafe (in a small town where maybe it was the only cafe). As far as we know, the Canadian guy was an individual loner (presumably with mental health problems) who'd been going to the same cafe for decades. He suddenly picked up anti-Syrian views because his town was changing and he didn't like it, and he got banned from the cafe for expressing these views. He wasn't part of a band of skinheads intimidating other people using the cafe, he wasn't singling out radical spaces or spaces where Syrians hang out. There's a huge problem of people with so-called mental health problems being excluded from all kinds of spaces for saying or doing weird things, or self-excluding because of how they're treated. And there's also a huge difference between an oddball with prejudiced views and an organised band of boneheads. This fad for banning people has been out-of-control in mainstream spaces for a long time and it's a very clear kind of structural oppression - behaviorist apartheid basically; instead of no blacks it's no nutters, no oddballs. Except it's disguised as zero tolerance for this, that and the other. And now it's disguised as "inclusive" because they've added racism, abuse etc to the ever-growing list of bannable offences. You seem to recognise this in your last paragraph.

I guess that, for sure, loners are much less an issue than gangs and packs, who're likely to gang up on isolated people. But I also seen several cases of racists committing violence on their own due to social media support. I think of the Quebec City mosque shooting, carried by a history student at one of the most prominent universities in Canada.

Would this guy had become less dangerous if given a golden job at the chair straight away? Most likely, but on the other hand, this would have enabled him to spew a bunch of batshit racist propaganda books, and use his status as academic "luminary" to promote it (read: Matthew Heimbach), while selling more books and doing shitloads of money to finance racist hate groups.

Sooo... which is really better?

Also, Hitler was mentally ill. Evenback when he was shunned by the artist milieus in Berlin. Same for, to a lesser extent, Ezra Pound. And no matter how these artists who shunned them were pricks, these two wingnuts deserved way more exclusion than they got.

Very revealing that the same people who have such huge problems with anything remotely discriminatory on grounds of gender, race or sexuality have such huge issues with the idea that people shouldn't be punished for being "mentally ill". Hell, 30 years ago your average liberal would admit the "insane" are not legally/morally responsible, let alone anarchists who wanted to abolish punishment. How things change when the media give you an appealing folk-devil, suddenly you're reacting just like a Fox News viewer talking about Muslims in 2002. The next holocaust will probably be people considered "psychopaths" or somesuch, initially rounded up as a "risk" and then later gassed. Just imagine if they can tell it from brain scans or social media profiles or something. Or, suppose they decide to round up all the million people on their terror risk watchlist. And anarchists and the left will be right in on it, as long as it doesn't affect them. Just like people in the 30s were all "yeah but we can't have angry Jews going round shooting ambassadors". Some people don't want a world where all worlds fit, and a right to be different, they just want to shift around the categories of who gets to abuse whom.

You go round banning people for things which might be symptoms of so-called mental illness, that's just as bad as banning people for being black or gay or in a wheelchair. You're a bigot. End of story.

Yeah. And also, if there wasn't systematic social exclusion of wide swathes of people in 1920s Germany, do any of you think Hitler would have come to power?

Do any of you seriously think that Breivik would have shot up Norway 30 years ago, when Norway was still a social democracy?

It's ridiculous doublethink. Looking for Hollywood villains instead of social forces. As if more fascism will lead to less fascism.

Well there is the possibility that in the near future a gene will be identified as one which leads to a complete lack of empathy and emotional attachment to other living entities and that they have no value or significance than does a rock or piece of excrement on the ground. Maybe in the future there will be no prisons, but certain types having this antisocial gene will be removed and taken away, much as Marais describes in his book The Soul of the Ape, how babboon society eliminates the antisocial individuals early in their adolescence before they destroy the fabric of the clan and endanger its security to the ever looming predatory lion and leopard enemy, thus causing the clan's extinction. This is the IT argument, and maybe in the future only the aggressive anarchist elements will conduct a more surgical removal of terrorist elements in all of their forms, in whatever occupation.

The repressive pernal/legal system based on fear-mongering is way too lucrative to be replaced by a social order based on proscription. Prisons are the new asylums. It doesn't look like there will be a major shift, but rather a fatigue, that will bring the newer generations to an existentialist ravine unseen for a long time. It all depends for how long the youth is going to remain plugged to the techno grid, or how long actual insurrectos will figure how this is where any sort of "revolution" can only happen, i.e. through our interaction with the grid-machine system. Will some people ever desire freeing themselves from their enslavement in the future, or will they be defeated down to their DNA? Social media's been changing the face of "humanity", by defeating humanity. There's no more talk of any "radicality" or sociocultural "alternative" as far as people are relying on Fedbook for their miltancy, solidarity and meetups. The only underground exists outside of the grid, through eye-to-eye interactions and maybe print material.

Well, people aren't meant to be exposed to the kind of stress they are today. We're designed to deal with the occasional lion or falling out of a tree, maybe a natural disaster once a century. Not zooming round every day in 70mph death machines surrounded by people we don't know or trust, at the mercy of market fluctuations we can't control or predict, being forced to do jobs with unreasonable performance requirements of which there are nowhere near enough for all the people meant to do them, while everyone we know is also subject to the same. And that's before we mention pigs, guns, climate change, global war, or the made-up stuff the media feed us to distract us from the real stuff. Of course everyone's fucked-up.

Have you seen rats or chimps in captivity? Rats will rape, sodomise, murder, infanticide, cannibalise one another - none of this has been observed in wild rats. Chimps pull their hair out, develop tics and bang their heads on the wall, eat their own shit, all kinds of stuff. Factory-farmed salmon become so depressed that they just lie in the water without moving. Sheep have to be kept in fields because they die of stress if they're kept in pens. Chickens peck each other's feathers out, or their own. Lots of animals won't fuck in captivity. Wild nature can be brutal, but most species become totally fucked-up in domesticated conditions.

"Of course everyone's fucked-up."
Thanks for reminding me! So what you gonna do about it besides spoiling my day with your depressing information, can you reverse what you just did and make me feel good again, *moans and holds head in hands* Ooooh I am soooo down now, like after I listen to JZ on the radio! Ooooh you grandiose bully you With your dominant knowledge of the apocalypse!

So basically you're saying that society is a natural shitty practice for humans to have developed in a collectively-induced condition of captivity? This angle kinda makes sense and is interesting to keep in mind, yet I don't think the comparison with other animals is worthy enough to assimilate actual human organized and instituted conduct with "innate" and irrational natural instincts. Nature doesn't care what I think? I guess... but nature is also a spook!

So basically you're saying that society is a natural shitty practice for humans to have developed in a collectively-induced condition of captivity? This angle kinda makes sense and is interesting to keep in mind, yet I don't think the comparison with other animals is worthy enough to assimilate actual human organized and instituted conduct with "innate" and irrational natural instincts. Where these comparisons lead, usually? To some bad social/political theories. But they're also with limitless possibilities...

Like do human females also eat their own babies when endangered (they should!) or do they fuck with each other, no matter the gender and age, just to resolve disputes? All of this doesn't matter, because that's not what humans are. You don't compare a crow to an antelope or a lemurian ape. Naturalist theory is a pointless bag o' shit.

...Assuming of course, like all good bourgeois psychology, that problems lie with bad individuals, and not social structures. And like Jordan Peterson, one can of course find supporting evidence for this dogma from a carefully cherry-picked animal species. Rather than seeing that a pressure-cooker society produces tides of anger, fear, frustration and aggression just like a dam produces a build-up of water, it's a lot easier to look for Hollywood villains.

By the way, the only difference between what you just said and Hitler is that Hitler named the "antisocial individuals" as Jews and Bolsheviks (among others). It's the same hatred, the same mindset - and the same outcome. And that's exactly the problem. The biggest atrocities aren't committed by lone deviants, they're committed by typical ordinary human sheep who decide that someone else is a "threat", that their own safety matters and the other person's doesn't. At that point you have ingroup and outgroup, and on the back of that, spooks are never far behind, followed by genocide, direct or indirect (in your proposal, presumably, starvation since the clans control all the land).

Just because someone else thinks I have no value - why does that mean that I have to decide that *they* have no value - and on the contrary, that all the little sheep who only harm deviants have a value I need to recognise? To me, there is no difference between the deviant deciding the sheep have no value, and the sheep deciding the deviant has no value. In fact, the sheep are worse, because theirs is a spook-ridden sense of value which insults my uniqueness.

A true egoist recognises the egoism of all other beings, and if there isn't going to be a war of all against all, then the same rights apply to everyone. I live by my ethos, I don't exterminate others for not sharing my ethos - the same way I don't exterminate crocodiles because they can't feel compassion or they might eat me. I fight them if they try to eat me and that is all.

Oh fucking great I'll go look for the chapter Stirner wrote about living in harmony with crocodiles you moron!

The trouble with your interpretation of Stirner is that you have attached a personal ethos to your ego-self when in fact the ego should be mindless of itself and its actions, it should not even get to the point of moralizing about its conduct regarding crocodiles, it should just " do it whatever " spontaneously without pondering any consequences. Metaphorically get rid of the crocodile lurching in your backyard or feed it, or put a fence around it and charge people to see it, or massage it, but DO NOT give rights to it, or your ego is lost amongst the flock of sheep.

Yeah, I'd read Stirner in terms of ethos but I think I got this from cross-reading him with Nietzsche, Hakim Bey, Deleuze and Guattari, and bolo'bolo. I'm less clear on the rights thing. Stirner is against rights for *categories*. Because a right of a category is never "my" right, it's the category's right (e.g. human rights are rights of the category/spook "human" and not of the un-man/inhuman monster). However, Stirner is very clear that one may treat another being as an *enemy* (contingently opposing a particular goal/hurting the ego or its projects) but never as a *criminal* (someone belonging to a bad category because they violate some general rule). For this reason, Stirner absolutely rules out punishment and sadistic treatment, as well as ingroup/outgroup binaries. I don't think he believes in any obligation to relate to others at all, but he expects that most people will want to, and if they do, it should always be an "I-thou" relation with the unique being, and not a relation mediated by norms or spooks. It's not far from this, to positing that people and animals have rights not to be treated in such ways, i.e. subjected to spooks and spook-based actions, or that such actions are insults not only to the individual being targeted but to egos/beings in general. Killing a crocodile because it's currently trying to eat you (or maybe, someone you care about) is an "enemy" (permitted) antagonism, killing a crocodile because it poses a threat and it *might* eat you, or because it doesn't have the capacity for compassion, or because it's "just an animal not a human", is a "criminal" (non-permitted, spooked) antagonism. I'm less clear on whether it's a permitted action to kill a crocodile because you want croc-skin shoes. If it's permitted then it's equally permitted to kill a human because you want human-skin shoes - it's absolutely clear that any discrimination among beings based on belonging to categories is spooky. To solve this problem, we'd probably have to get into unconscious origins of desires and whether the desire itself carries an unconscious spook.

Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that Bones's comments about fascism and the previous commenter's comments about psychopaths/"antisocial" people are absolutely spooked. The bad people are "criminals" and not just "enemies". It's also very clear to me that the problem of genocide/massacre is not generally about people who lack empathy, it's about the rationing or selective distribution of empathy - and hence is very closely tied-up with spook-thinking.

WELL, I have been un-spooked Spookbuster by your eloquent reply! I retract my previous comment that you had misinterpreted Stirner, to the contrary, you are a unique individual, and let there be no pity for any creature that attempts to devour thou being.

Doxxing fascists is authoritarian idpol from whatever source duh.

11:26. No it isn't. But thanks for playing.

Yeah...slightly off topic but I remember thinking about this in the late 00s when there started to be a big trend of anarchists and leftists doxing “our own” as part of call-outs. I don’t know what a lot of that was about- some were probably fairly right on and some were definitely bullshit- but I really wondered what people thought would be the positive side of ostracizing “problematic” people, like they were just going to disappear and not be anyone’s “problem” anymore?a more internal, purgative “us vs. them” logic at work then but in a way I see it bearing fruit perhaps in the anglins and other fascist trash that came up through occupy or something. Not to make excuses for them but just to look it at dialectically. I do recall some expressions of militant (so-called) feminism and anti racism that really put off some very sincere people, brought radical scenes crashing to a halt and surely handed plenty of info/ammo to the state. I’m reminded of an essay, I think called “a world without r*pe” that dealt with this issue very powerfully.

Just something to think about moving forward I guess- learn from the past or repeat it but worse.

For some feminists, just having a dick is having the intent to commit rape! Rape is an attitude, not an anatomy.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
Human?
t
r
u
T
f
W
s
Enter the code without spaces.