Defensive war as an act of popular resistance

From Militant Wire by The WannabeWonk

Exclusive Interview with an Anarchist Fighter of the Territorial Defense Forces of Ukraine

Militant Wire's Tom Lord Speaks with a Member of The Resistance Committee

One of the defining aspects of the current war in Ukraine is the presence of fighting units with distinct animating ideologies. Plenty of attention has been given to the far-right units of both the Territorial Defense Forces (TDF) and the Armed Forces of Ukraine, such as the Azov Regiment and Right Sector. On the Russian side, there has been a mix of ideologies present among its fighters, from neo-Bolshevik/authoritarian communist to neo-Nazi. Nationalist factions exist on each side as well, such as the Kastuś Kalinoŭski Regiment comprised of Belarusian volunteers, and the Georgian National Legion from their namesake country, organized in 2014 and still fighting today, both on the side of Ukraine. The 141st Special Motorized Regiment, or the Kadyrovtsy, a Chechen paramilitary unit, has posted droves of content on social media from their side of the invasion forces, notably during the siege of Mariupol—which since the outset of the war became an adversarial contest between the Kadyrovtsy and the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment. (Azov fighters posted video of themselves greasing rifle rounds in pork lard as an insult to their Muslim enemies on February 27th.)

Exclusive to the Ukrainian side of the war are fighting anarchist formations and those of ideologically aligned units. One of the most prominent anarchist organizations involved in the war is the Resistance Committee (RC), a coordinating body for anarchist, libertarian, and anti-fascist units within the TDF. Many of these smaller units participating in the Resistance Committee are openly anarchist, such as RevDia and Black Flag Ukraine. Others are less ideologically inclined and were organized under different auspices prior to the war, such as the anti-fascist football hooligan firm, Hoods Hoods Klan.

The Resistance Committee and affiliated fighting units have had a consistent presence on social media since the war began, posting videos and photos of their armed fighters in the field on exercise, on the range siting in Maxim machine guns, at aid collection points, declaring their solidarity for jailed comrades in Belarus, patrolling their various areas of operations, and recently of some affiliated fighters at the front, who along with other members of the TDF have been redeployed to defend the east of the country. On May 20th, they published a four-page manifesto outlining who they are, their principles, the current scope of their activities, their organizational aspirations and greater aspirations for Ukrainian society, their view on the war, and some key demands made of both the Ukrainian government and the international community.

The very presence of anarchists within the TDF has raised many questions among those outside of Ukraine. Typical of these questions is to ask how anarchists fighting for Ukraine are organized, and what their approximate force strength is at this time. Even more common are questions of how anarchists could join any state’s military without contradicting their own ideology; similar to this are questions of how “anarchists could fight on the same side as fascists and neo-Nazis”. Ignoring that this last question is a major mischaracterization of the TDF’s force structure, we nonetheless hope to answer all of these questions about the anarchists currently fighting in and defending Ukraine.

Despite the attention that anarchists of the TDF have attracted in recent weeks, there is still much that the outside world does not know about them. Our interview with a participating member of the Resistance Committee and a TDF fighter of the affiliated anti-authoritarian platoon, “Ilya,” should answer many of these questions. Speaking strictly on his own behalf, however, here is what Ilya had to say:

Tom Lord: When was the Resistance Committee (RC) established, and what led to the decision to organize anti-authoritarian forces fighting in Ukraine?

ILYA:
First of all, Resistance Committee was planned as the coordination of anarchists/libertarians willing to join the armed resistance against imperialist aggression of Putin's regime. Now still the Committee as the coordination is more a project. But it has Instagram and Telegram channel to express anarchist participation in fighting as well as guerrilla activities in Russia and Belarus.

This plan was started being developed couple of months before the war, and media accounts were set just few weeks before it actually started. We made preparations for the case of war even though only few of us if anybody was expecting it will really happen.

The antiauthoritarian platoon of TDF is frequently confused with the Resistance Committee. They are not the same even though some people from the platoon (including me) participate in RC initiative.

What was behind the decision to engage in military resistance to the invasion? From my point of view, the main reasons are:
1) Necessity and determination to be together with the society of Ukraine in its fight against neo-totalitarian aggression;
2) Understanding that any political community with ambition to become significant social actor should get organized and actively involved in the events. War as well as the revolution is time of social transformation. Which forms this transformation will take depends also from us and our activity.

TL: Was there an original anarchist formation predating the Russian invasion at the core of the Committee? When you finally came together, how were you able to formally integrate with the Territorial Defense Forces (TDF)? What was that process like?

ILYA:
There were no formation or even exact anarchist organization predating the appearance of RC. There were anarchist community, different groups and individuals willing to get organized under these emergency circumstances.

We had some personal connections within the structure of TDF which gave us opportunity “to land” there as a platoon.

TL: About how many fighters are organized under the RC?

ILYA:
As we say above it makes sense to speak about fighters of antiauthoritarian platoon which are around 50 people.

TL: Does the RC have a degree of autonomy within the TDF?

ILYA:
We have no specific conditions that would differ us from any other subdivision of TDF. However we have pretty free space how to organize our internal life and it is organized in pretty democratic way even though in accordance to demands of having certain military hierarchy.

TL: From your perspective, should we know anything about fighting anarchist formations in Ukraine that are not organized under the Resistance Committee?

ILYA:
Yes, of course. Apart from RC and antiauthoritarian platoon there are a lot of individual comrades and small groups participating in TDF or regular army, including the people fighting on the frontline. Among organized groups we can mention comrades from Ecological Platform who are also integrated in TDF.

However one of the ideas which originally laid behind RC was to set a platform for dialogue and coordination between comrades in different places and subdivisions of armed forces.

TL: What is the RC’s perspective on the war? What is the Resistance Committee fighting for in this war, and what do you hope to achieve?

ILYA:
I think that the perspective which unites all the people related to Resistance Committee is the vision of current defensive war as an act of popular resistance against purely imperialist intervention of Putin's regime. That's why we participate in it and believe that defeat of occupier forces will be definitely good both for local society and potentially for all post-Soviet region.

I would love to see the invasion crashed by popular resistance and at the same time anarchist movement to come out of this story as much more organized, combative and experienced. Having much more political vision and understanding how to achieve social transformations we aspire for and also more resources for it.

TL: Do you see the anarchist fighters of the RC as carrying on the tradition of the Makhnovshchina, or is there very little relationship between today’s Ukrainian anarchists and those of the last century during Nestor Makhno’s time?

ILYA:
It is obvious that Makhnovist movement and Nestor Makhno himself are the great inspirations for the today's anarchists in Ukraine, and particularly those who decided to take up arms. Sure Makhnovshchina still is the big symbol, point of reference and driving example for us. You can see face of Bat'ko Makhno in the stripes of some of our comrades.

It would be maybe too much to speak about any direct relation: so different time and social context and no continuous historical tradition of the anarchist movement because of the repressions under Bolsheviks. However we still study attentively organizational experience and social message of this movement. The basic principles of it are still actual. For many of us this movement plays a central role in historical perspective for this region.

TL: Much has been said outside of Ukraine about the fighting anarchist formation, RevDia. Are there any other anarchist militias that comprise the Resistance Committee whom you would like our readers to know about? It has been said that groups like RevDia were initially reluctant to join the Resistance Committee. Is this True? Care to say any more on that, and how the dispute was resolved, if it existed at all?

ILYA:
Antiauthoritarian platoon is combined with anarchists of different backgrounds, antifascists and football hooligans. It is not a secret that relations between different constituents of this body were not always easy. However people decided to try to cast aside old quarrels for the sake of answering common challenge. I would say that we are still in process of working it out. It doesn't go without problems but there is still the will to stay organized within the military frame.

TL: As an anarchist organization, the RC obviously rejects central/vertical leadership. So, how are decisions made? Who “commands” the RC?

ILYA:
As we say Resistance Committee as a coordination is still, let's say, under construction. Now it is more the space for dialogue between comrades + Media channels.

In antiauthoritarian platoon there is “normal” military hierarchy with section commanders and platoon commander subordinate to a higher military officers. However we have democratic culture of free mutual critique. We also imposed system of elected deputy commanders of the sections who are responsible to transmit critique of fighters to the platoon command. We elected media committee to regulate our media-activities. For some time we practiced teqmil, sessions of critique and self-critique, which we took from experience of revolutionaries in Kurdistan. Now it is on pause cause our unit pass through some period of waiting for new tasks and structuring.

TL: How have other units of the Territorial Defense Forces reacted to the RC, ideologically, strategically, or otherwise?

ILYA:
There were no any specific reaction. Basically we are still normal unit of TDF.

TL: How have Ukrainian civilians reacted to the Resistance Committee? How have you been received by non-combatants in your areas of operations?

ILYA:
We are in close contact mostly with the civilian structures of anarchist movement. It was really amazing how from the very first day of war the network of solidarity started to emerge connecting groups of comrades in different Ukrainian cities and in Europe. They have organized really significant line of logistics helping comrades in military structures, families and participated in so many different ways. Since the very first stages we stay in close collaboration with these civilian libertarian structures.

Of course we also have informal and good relations with the people in the places where we stationed. Mostly people meet us with sympathy and support, at the moment I see no alienation at all, just very pleasant communication. Mutual aid is here as well. Locals help us a lot with food, we helped a little bit with their agricultural works.

TL: Have any of your units seen combat yet? Care to say anything about the fight from an anarchist perspective?

ILYA:
As a unit [antiauthoritarian platoon] we haven't been engaged in direct fighting yet. However at the first stages of war we were patrolling the area of suspected presence of the enemy diversionary groups. Also unit members assisted frontline units with the logistics and intelligence with drones. They successfully detected one of the enemy positions and then it was hit by the artillery. And helped the evacuation of civilians from the fighting zone. During these activities our fellow comrades appeared under mortar fire.

TL: Have you had much success recruiting fellow Ukrainians/Eastern Europeans? Have you had success recruiting foreigners outside of Ukraine/Belarus/Russia?

ILYA:
Majority of our platoon are comrades from Ukraine. However there is also significant presence of Russians and Belarusians as well as some comrades from the West in the unit. It is really international one, but mostly made of Eastern Europeans of course.

TL: There is tremendous fascination outside Ukraine with anarchists “fighting on the same side as fascists” in this war. Acknowledging that this is a major mischaracterization, what is the Resistance Committee’s position on overtly fascist formations within the Territorial Defense Forces and within the regular Armed Forces of Ukraine? Have any of your fighters encountered Ukrainian fascists since the invasion? Do antifascist comrades anticipate clashes with Ukrainian fascists, who are also fighting against the Russian military?

ILYA:
I would start with simple thing that actual powerful fascism is presented in modern Ukraine first of all by Putin's occupiers and their imperialistic social project. It should be the first target for any antifascist force. The presence of far right in Ukrainian military is dramatically over-exaggerated, mostly by Putinist propaganda. It would be unfair, however, to deny presence and visibility of right-wingers both in society and army. We believe that the best way to confront this phenomenon today for us is to develop our own structure – organized and strong.

TL: Wars often lead to vacuums of authority, the breakdown of society, etc., and thus have high potential for revolutionary movements. Do you see a high potential for revolution in this war? If so, what would be the goals of such a revolution?

ILYA:
War can lead to social transformation both in revolutionary or very reactionary trajectory. We hope that Ukrainian society will show solidarity and self-organization enough to democratize society more. Obvious objectives are more control over social and economical life on the grassroots level; to reduce to a minimum dependence from “international financial institutions”; to secure the rights of the workers; to broaden social sphere and the space of responsibility for local communities.

TL: Item #12 on your manifesto demands the ease of access to arms after the war. Do you think the Ukrainian government will try to disarm you after Ukrainian forces demobilize?

ILYA:
First of all it would be very recklessly to speculate about demobilization since the war looks very far from an end. I wouldn't like to go into suspicions about the intentions of any political actors but we believe that free access of the society to the means of self-defense should be assured.

TL: From your perspective, what does the war in Ukraine mean for the international anarchist movement beyond the conflict zone? 

ILYA:
I believe that this war is an important challenge for global anarchist community – it is an exam to develop adequate and combative political position towards the events. It also opens opportunities to get mobilized and organized in the same manner that Kurdish revolution has opened it recently. Of course to a lesser level – because in Kurdistan the revolutionary sense of the conflict is much more obvious for the outsider. However for our region this war is the moment of truth, the major point of bifurcation. This conflict also gives a fuel for the further libertarian analysis of global realities.

TL: Thank you, very much, for your time.

There are 38 Comments

In other words... Yet another gang of supermacho militarists (ahem) who've put an @-inspired badge on their uniforms and decided to call themselves "anarchists".

Because they are anarchists.

Coz you'd better believe they are.

Coz they sure can't be bullshitting about this to potential Westerner recruits and benefactors.

Coz you'd better believe that.

What's macho about it? Do you even know what militarism means? How is it not anarchistic to fight fascists?

Where've you been? There's that tuff macho dude right on the pic in full military gear, and his group is a platoon that is part of the Territorial Defense Forces, who are under the Ukrainian Army's wing, and most likely chain of command too.

So now... What is NOT macho and militarist here?

What is macho about it? Militarism means supporting a strong national military to be used aggressivily, something anarchists do not do. Anarchism is not pacifism.

"Militarism means supporting a strong national military to be used aggressivily, something anarchists do not do."

clear and convenient. brilliant definition of militarism!

do you mean joining ucranian army, or supporting it, is not militarism?

bravo!!

1. The Ukrainian army is not the aggressor. They defend Ukraine from the Russian invasion army.
2. The Ukrainian anarchists do NOT support the state. The many who join the army do so to fight against the Russian invasion.

#2- anarchist groups fighting within state-sanctioned paramilitaries are fighting for Ukraine. There is no beyond binaries unless they are also rebelling against the Ukrainian state and its apitalist interests as well.

But to be just defending civilians doesn't require to be part of these state-related volunteer militias, like the TDF.

Please explain how they fight against the Ukrainian state and at the same time fight the Russian invasion. I think they would like your advice.

yeah ... think you can go ahead and assume you're not talking to somebody with combat experience so ... they just have "opinions" like they have a butthole

"anarcho"-communist flirting with war games. totally macho militarists. scary if they would ever get ahead with their revolutionary project...

"Macho" is a broad psycho-social identity persona with the usual illusional motives and drives giving it a culturally-approved-of purpose in life. A mostly dull and predictable spook best avoided if one hopes to not have their hands bloodied ;)3

again, anarchists are treated to the do-or-die macho militancy of those who choose to fight with arms. anarchists will do what they need to do to resist whatever faces them directly (from war in Ukraine to police repression as well as tankie and fash attacks elsewhere and everywhere), but to reduce all militancy and resistance to picking up arms (in this case supplied by... NATO and the US, those famous pro-anarchists). despite his otherwise well-known idiocy and cravenness, that boob Lavrov is right when he says that the US will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. east european anarchists are caught up in an anti-imperialist struggle in Ukraine that definitely began with a lot of grassroots recruitment of volunteers into irregular and self-organized formations but after a month or so, these paramilitary outfits became fully integrated into the territorial defense forces, which are under the command and control of the Ukrainian military. whatever self-organized aspects they might retain are being temporarily tolerated due to the overriding exigencies of a regular inter-state military conflict (aka, war). as soon as the paramilitaries are no longer needed to fight the Russians, the leftist ones will surely be disbanded and disarmed. aside from some combat experience and temporary access to the weapons of war, what will these anarchists have gained from their participation other than early graves, traumatic injuries, and post-traumatic stress? there are no anarchist counter-institutions to defend (other than efforts akin to food not bombs -- in this case, food AND bombs) with force of arms, there are no autonomous working class projects to defend, there are no self-organized revolutionary experiments to defend in Ukraine. there's just territorial integrity and political sovereignty.

anarchists who decide to fight in this war by subordinating themselves voluntarily to Ukrainian state orders should do so without scolding other anarchists who remain leery of or definitively opposed to war. as is the case with too many anarchists who abandon their alleged principles by voting for representatives, these pro-war anarchists should be ashamed rather than proud. it's understandable for anarchists to abandon anarchist principles when faced with impossible choices (in this case, there's martial law and young Ukrainian men of military age are prohibited from leaving the country), and it's understandable that other anarchists would risk their own lives to stand up for anarchist principles, but it's baffling to me to continue to read pleas from anarchists for other anarchists to abandon their principles in order to risk their lives.

Anon 12:31 accuses the Ukrainian anarchists of "macho militancy"--without giving any evidence of the "macho-ness." I don't see any male chest-thumping in this interview. Nor is there any tendency to "reduce all militancy to picking up arms." Not in this statement. Nor does the interview include any "scolding other anarchists who remain leery of or definitively opposed to war." On the contrary, it is Anon who is scolding those anarchists who are using different tactics from those they recommend.

The question is what Ukrainian anarchists should do. They do not have enough forces from before the invasion to form mass independent guerrilla armies under the black flag. So should they fold their arms and hide in basements? try to sneak over the border? form service groups to distribute food or provide medical aid? (some have done this and I certainly don't criticize it) Or should some of them find some way to participate in the fight to drive out the Russian invaders? This does require some compromise with absolute principles, being associated with the state's official armed forces to a greater or lesser degree. Its advantage is that (a) it gives a way to fight the imperialist invader and (b) it provides a way for *anarchists* to participate in the popular struggle. If they are open about who they are and what they are for it gives them the possibility of raising anarchist ideas.

Flee, before you become a weapons test subject.

The US has no exit strategy. Its only goal is to weaken Russia. A lot of people are going to get hurt in reaching that goal.

What a mess. Settle the border dispute. Maybe that's the only way to end up a total pawn for either outside regime. Neither the US nor Russia seem to care how many Ukrainians get killed. So why be used? Why play along?

*to not end up

"it provides a way for *anarchists* to participate in the popular struggle."
This is true. But in fact joining a militarist formation is not the only option for anarchists who want to participate in a "popular struggle." Also, why do anarchists need to participate in things just because they're popular? Should anarchists have been involved in that reactionary trucker convoy? That was pretty popular. Here in California there was a mass mobilization against same-sex marriage (the proposition passed with a majority); should anarchists have been involved in that campaign because the majority of voters made it popular? This position of bizarre wishful thinking is completely baffling. Talking to a stranger in a cafe provides the possibility of raising anarchist ideas too, but I suppose that's not interesting to Wayne, who seems to want a mass popular armed movement to create his version of an Anarchist Revolution (tm). Some anarchists see such a strategy as horrifying, not because of a naive faith in pacifism (the charge Wayne continually deploys despite a continual refusal of the label by his critics) but because some anarchists are wary of mass movements (which tend to devolve into a lowest-common-demoninator strategy to keep the mass a mass), wary of militarism (which tends to devolve into institutionalized hierarchy with the loudest and "bravest" leading). Some anarchists are more interested in communicating with individuals rather than masses, mainly because we prefer comrades instead of followers. Wayne, in true Marxist fashion, prefers people who don't ask questions.

There is one aspect of the above interview and other reports of Ukrainian anarchists which has not been focused on. While finding ways to participate in th.e war against the Russian invaders, none have made political compromises with the government or the state as such. That is, they have not voted for Zelensky or endorsed his presidency or run in elections at all or formed coalitions with his party or any other party. They have not made the key mistake of the Spanish anarchists in the thirties Spanish civil war of joining a government with capitalist, social-democratic, and Stalinist parties. In short, they have not given any *political* support to the state and have remained *anarchists,* opponents of the state. They take no responsibility for the government's policies. To my mind, this is the key dividing line between revolutionary anarchism and reformism.

Anon 21:03 prefers "talking to a stranger in a cafe" (which I all for!) and accuses me of "want[ing] a mass popular armed movement to create his version of an Anarchist Revolution (tm)." Well, it does not have to be *my version*--I'll take any version of an anarchist revolution. But yes, I admit--oh the sorrow and the shame of it!--to wanting a popular overthrow of capitalism and the state before there is an environmental cataclysm or nuclear war. No accounting for tastes.

For some reason not stated, this Anon also accuses me of "prefer[ing] people who don't ask questions." Why then, pray tell, am I engaging in dialogues with other anarchists on this site?

Just from the bit that I've read, Ukraine seems to have some major cultural, linguistic and ethnic divisions, with a lot of inhabitants, especially in the eastern regions bordering Russia either speaking Russian as their native language, inter-marrying with Russians, or just feeling some cultural or political affinity with Russia. The regime that came into power after the Yanukovich administration was overthown are reportedly hostile to Russian cultural influence, and try to discourage the learning or use of the Russian language.

> I am Makhno

LMFAO. Nice nickname, nerd.

Nice attempt at irony Noob; he's been using that screen name for the past 20 years

> irony

Nice attempt at using a word you obviously don’t know the meaning of, bro.

Imagine posting as “I am Makhno” on anews for 20 years and having learned nothing about Makhno. Imagine defending someone named that on anews. LOL

nations are fictions, the fiction of a single, united nation just doesn't hold up as well in places that have a long history of colonization and groups within it that have stronger identities that supersede it. there is no nation stronger than its ability to insist upon its existence. this is anarchy 101.

like other places around russia ukraine has a long history of colonization by russia, including moving masses of russian-speaking, russian-identifying settlers onto the land. "cultural influence" isn't a passive thing here, the russian government used "russification" including the banning the ukrainian language to enforce its domination. Russia has exploited these long-rooted divisions to further divide people in Ukraine into ethnic groups which can weaken the ukrainian claim to nationhood and incorporate parts of the population into russia, as it is doing now.

All of this could be gained through reading a wikipedia article or being a little less dense, but perhaps this is beyond you

Actually, I've probably been using that pseudonym for closer to thirty years, and I would have it copyrighted on the @News site, if their collective hadn't blocked me from logging in (four times, as I recall). While it is true, in a trivial sense, that nations are "fictions", so are all group identities; the more interesting point is that these group identities have such strong influence on our beliefs and actions, as well as providing a powerful propaganda tool for States and other groups. So what does "Ukraine" signify to someone who was born into a Ukrainian-speaking household that views Russian culture and history with suspicion? Does it mean the same thing as it does to a separatist in Donetsk or Luhansk, fighting forpolitical autonomy and a federated State, with close economic and social ties to Russia?

I see you nestor! one embarrassment to their pseudonym, to another! do you feel seen?

lol "blocked you from logging in 4 times" ... not even close to how that works ... AND you're here saying it?!

so brave makbro

Imagine using anews for thirty years and still not being able to thread your replies LOL. Copyright the Revolution!

I don't know what is meant by saying that "nations are a fiction." Does this mean that nations really don't exist, like God? Or just that nations are socially and historically created by the actions and beliefs of a great many people?

Are "races" a fiction? Surely they are not biological realities. But does that mean that anarchists should not support the struggles of African-Americans for equality and freedom?

Are you new here Wayne? "Races", as a previous deleted poster mentioned, is a construct, a fiction. its a categorizing term used by social engineers (socialists or corporatists) to organize society into managable entities which do not exist in the natural world. For example, a corporate or State run industry might say that all menial work should be performed by illiterate immigrants or Afro-Americans, and a hierarchical division in labor is created with an unequal distribution of wages determined by skills or literacy.
Whether anarchists support the struggles of African-Americans for equality and freedom is a subjective call Wayne. If you don't know what that means, it means its up to the individual themselves, their own circumstances. Like, would an Afro-American risk protesting against a powerful armed racist oppressor and die in the attempt, leaving a defenceless family to struggle on themselves, or would they flee and look for better living conditions, or just love their lot and endure the hardship stoically?
Hope this helps Wayne,
Regards, Johnny

Johnny tells me, in a condescending manner, "Whether anarchists support the struggles of African-Americans for equality and freedom is a subjective call Wayne.... it's up to the individual themselves...."

I was not asking about whether anarchists should get involved in any particular demonstration or action against white supremacy. I was asking whether anarchists should--as a major part of anarchism--oppose racism and support the struggles of African-Americans, in general and overall. I assumed the answer would be, "Of course!" But Johnny trivializes the issue by turning into a question of tactics rather than principle.

"Race" may be a "fiction" to Johnny--and I agree it is not a biological category but a socially created division of people, used to maintain an exploitative society. But once having been created it is "real" in the sense that people base their thinking and actions on it. It cannot be simply ignored, as some other fictions can.

Ask any Black person if they think "race" is a fiction. Or suggest to African-Americans that they " just love their lot and endure the hardship stoically." Wow! I don't know what to say about that.

Doesn't help anti-racist struggles or tendencies. What "matters" will always be subjective, just because you can ignore some aspect of a narrative/story doesn't mean those who you want to show solidarity for will be able to.

I saw Matthew McConaughey saying that the state needs to make the recent shooting matter when it already did matter, there's no central legitimacy/credibility, I'm not saying you are Matthew, just pointing out the problem with attempting to universalize values.

Well, sometimes what "matters" is objective, like the solar object called the Sun, and like, it matters that it rises up in the morning.
Also brah, "Trivialing" = "Trivializing" ;)

Killers, child molesters, nazis, candice Owens, Robin D'Angelos, maoists, suicide bombers, not-so-ideological mass shooters all contradict your insinuation that life has objective value.

Oh, and caves themselves make surviving without the sun entirely possible. You can't have nervous systems without lifeless space.

Damn, stirnerites here seem to carry around authenticity like an albatross on here. Absolute stirnerism contradicts stirner's existentialism and/or praxis. I don't even think stirner can easily be conflated with anarchism either for historical/etymological reasons.

Another poster here, "race" is like "class", you can get around with a race or class consciousness, why not add a cultural identity, but if you carry these spooks you can't be a real anarch !

Understand that humans often filter what they encounter through their ideas of it after the fact, this is why there has been so much interest in John Zerzan and the many other versions of earthy-ness.

Add new comment