Anarchy Radio 03-06-2018

  • Posted on: 6 March 2018
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)


GUNS! DGR at E-Law; Trans hater Jensen at Eugene Public Library. Failed academic and bad writer David Graeber fails with new effort. The usual eco-horrors of the week (e.g. extinction, pollution news). Digitally interact with the dead. UK kids increasingly unable to hold pens + pencils due to tech use. "Will 2018 Be the Year of the Neo-Luddites?" Action news.



DGR is such a shitshow

idk trans people have it pretty bad but so what lets build up identity politics around why we think thats technically not true and why they deserve to be individually harassed by derrick.

Here's a 6 minute clip of Derrick Jensen defining his case:

pretty pathetic. why does he even equate pedophila and queerness?

He is queerphobic and transmisogynist af and most of his talking points can be found more or less verbatim in alt-right discourse. Not surprising considering he never really talks about racism or other forms of systemic human oppression although he has no problem calling trans women a bunch of r*pists. He’s really just another classic all-American ‘radical environmentalist’ wannabe guru in the vein of Dave foreman, ed abbey etc....

You're right about all of this but unfortunately, there totally is a NAMBLA tendency that parasitically attached itself to various radical movements over the years and obviously Jensen is not my choice for unpacking that issue but it's a thing.

sure but i'm sure this isn't what his book is about... the fact that the jensen/hedges duo is supposed to represent some kind of critique of anarchism "from within" shows what explicitly bad faith it's conceived in. like most cult leaders, he's obsessively raging at those he thinks ought to follow his vision, but don't. he's an egomaniac who cannot take a slight or understand that maybe he is just fucking wrong and that's what other people see about him. meanwhile, i wonder what kind of allegations we're going to hear about him once enough people defect from DGR and start talking...

Oh no doubt! DGR reeks of cult-of-personality deference and the whole trajectory of it speaks volumes about how different sorts of people behave in groups. But I've encountered the NAMBLA tendency on this site occasionally (from commenters, not actual content on the site) and when I first realized how anarchism had this baggage, it was obviously a bit of a shock.

Note that I don't thing you can hold political tendencies accountable or anything, just morbidly fascinating to me and obviously something awful to watch out for, trying to create space for itself under the anarchist banner.

*cough* SirEinzige *cough*

Also not being disgusted by something is not the same thing as explicit support. I simply have the logical amoral consistency on this subject that you lack. It doesn't help that many in the milieu are, I suspect, former molestes who let that bad experience color their perspective on this issue. Hell someone like Le Way deserves some credit for looking at that native american female encounter in a non reactive light(providing he's telling the truth about that event).

Nobody said you supported NAMBLA and Le Way isn't "telling the truth" about anything … more importantly, a serious anarchist analysis automatically assumes that any exploitation of anyone is reprehensible and as for why that should be emphasized with children… the only people who don't understand that are exactly the point.

Anyway, keep talking! Watch the creep-o-meter keep rising!

and why exploitation is even a bad thing as such. I'm not taken in by that moralistic marxist buzzword. Children are already exploited in ALL KINDS of ways that are seen as congruent and correct.

Also, my prime analysis is anarch not anarchist.

Some kids do understand the point with having sex. Some kids will grab someone's sexualized organ, or even get cosy with an adult before they're even influenced in any way. After all they've seen/heard their own parents have it, or came across sex scenes in movies/series, or have seen some porn on the net. They yet surely don't have the full awareness of the sexual entrapment. On the other hand so many women don't understand it until they reach their mid-'20s/'30s, after years of having given way too much of themselves to abusive phallocrats. It's kinda like, what is the proper age for voting, if there's one at all?

But this is the whole problem here of "society" (i.e. the legal system) generalizing human behavior and defining age of consent through something as irrelevant and arbitrary as the age difference between 15 and 16... Or anything else depending on the state you're under. It's not up to the personal experience, sensibilities and development, but to completely abstract criterias based on blurry categorizations.

You best stop frontin' with the second-rate psychology and third-rate amorality, binch. Imma shit on your rug. Then what?

I'm so glad you brought that up, I look back at the encounter and my response with pride and a sense of having displayed a just and wise amoral response. Reciprocity, and the intricacies of cultural values and expectations concerning the distribution of power and the exercise of justice are best allowed to have a flexibility outside of strict moral judgements which disregard the nuanced individual relational dynamics of those within a complex social order,.,

Totally happened! You wouldn't just invent scenarios for the purposes of edgelord trolling after all! Perish the thought!

As an unwilling member of the neo-colonialist forces which had raped and pillaged the soul and land of the indigenous, I was graceful and chivalrous in treating the rape of my own body as a reciprocating penalty within the organic economic and judicial model the indigenous folk work within.

PS And I guess there would only be a few posters on this site who could comprehend that my gesture was a variant of the Kula exchange custom. Even Machiavelli's politics were preceded by thousands of years by far more complex indigenous political practices. It is wise for the guest to observe the customs of their host,.,

huh? could someone post a link to where this was described (the le way rape).

regardless, this:

" I was graceful and chivalrous in treating the rape of my own body as a reciprocating penalty"

is pretty fucking horrific if i understand correctly. if you were actually raped (not "raped" the way feminists and their jollywaggers loosely term far too many activities) and you treated it as a "reciprocating penalty" - like, "oh, white people fucked you all over so bad, it's ok if you rape me for payback" - then i would consider you a pathetic, weak, pc ass-kisser. while at the same time feeling horrible that you were raped.

please tell me that is not the case.

Not that I think gender is relevant, but le Way is a male claiming to be raped by a female, just to get that out of the way if you are a newbie here.

Those rapes do happen for obvious reasons of males not yet being at prime strength. There’s an infamous pedophile hunter in the Toronto area whose founding trauma was being sexually assaulted by his mother’s friend. What Le Way is recounting is hardly implausible. The pedo hunter in question took the opposite perspective of Le Way obviously.

what does queer mean these days? it doesn't appear to mean deviating from the norm, nor homosexuality, but something entirely different. :-/

Everything underr Idpol has become normative so now queer can only be used to describe sociopathic megalomaniacs like politicians.

Foucault and other french intellectuals did have an interest in underage sex radicalism and up until the early mid-1980s people like Tom O'Carrol were part of the rainbow movement back when it was actually radical and dangerous. They were kicked out to advance the greater goals of mainstream enfranchisement. I for one would love to go back the edgier sex radical days of the late 60s to late 70s. There are others like Thaddeus Russell who also share my views.

I happen to not be disgusted by pedophiles and pedophilia(see Jonathan Heidt on disgust), this does not mean I have a cart blanch support for the orientation which could have problematic consequences if the social belief/behavior software is not in place but again, I ain't disgusted by it and under the right circumstances it would probably make for a happier healthier species of human monkeys. I would never try to prescribe it back into existence but I would not stop it from earning its place back in history via slow steady commensalistic developments.

Certainly AOC laws(and all or as much laws as possible) need to go if you want any kind of libertarian 'society'. There should also be a return to pubescence and 11+ age associated maturity as the mark of sexual readiness as is the case with 99.9 PERCENT OF HUMAN HISTORY! Stopping short of pedophilia(which is a specific expression of sexual excess) and settling on early double digit age pubescence would be a thorough rejection of the anti-sex anti-carnal puritanical age that we are still constricted by.

literally means "child lover" but in the minds of the general christianity means "child rape" because the instances that people get all indignant over are some sort of coercive relationship like ironically, priesthood. To me, healthy childhood intimacy type things are about an intuitive conception of consent, the nuerotic and rediculous elements of the world we live in aren't about bad guys and patriarchs but people acting stupidly and being insensitive to their own conception of being...i don't see masters i only see slaves

Reading over this discussion, I felt it crucial to share an excerpt from an article about how kids have been treated when they do not cooperate with the prevailing ideology of sex abuse:

"...At the same time that these survivor's movements were arousing great horror with their harrowing experiences, survivors of a different sort were making court testimony about their harassment, threats, and torture at the hands of a different kind of abuser.

Together with parents and upright lawyers, they compiled sworn affidavits of precise and systematic abuse by police detectives, officers, and other law enforcement professionals. These survivors refused, initially, to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in accepting the conclusion that they had been sexually violated.

Among the threats and torture methods used on these survivors by professional "child-protectors" were detainments, solitary confinement, and threats of rape at local juvenile detention centers.

To substantiate this last one, "Michael", 13, states that NYPD detective Robert W. Maginnis

"threatened to beat me, [and] take me to Spoffard [Bronx juvenile jail] where six guys his size would hold me down and fuck me up the ass."

He also implicated two Bronx Assistant DA's in his abuse, stating that one, while repeatedly calling him "queer" and "fag" also threatened to tell people at his school that he was gay. (23)

More well known people leading the protection work include Janet Reno, who, as Florida State Attorney in 1987, worked "fanatically" to brainwash 17-year-old Illeana Fuster into turning against her husband and then "admitting" her own guilt; in court Illeana qualified her guilty plea by adding that she did not feel guilty, she just wanted to get it all over with. (24)

Even the famous Los Angeles Police Department got caught in the act, when one of its employees dangled two boys, ages 12 and 13, over an Oceanside cliff by their ankles. (25)

All these strategies were used to try to get the "needy child" to finally share their "best kept secret." The man who performed this last deed of assured "comfort" was named Detective Lloyd Martin, and he never got punished for this kind of 'professionalism'; in fact he remained with the LAPD's "Sexually Exploited Child Unit" for many years afterwards.

Another member of such "child advocacy" was a lieutenant in New Jersey who actually got quoted in a suburban newspaper. He said that

"the big problem [that police have] is getting under-age boys to testify against their male lovers... The interrogation can be intense."

This man, named William Thorne went still further, remarking that

"We've got to crack the boy and it's not an easy thing to do." (26)

These unusually explicit affidavits of police brutality are probably unique in their detail about how the "Official Guardians of Protection" systematically carry out their important work. And it provides an insight surrounding the abuse of young people at the hands of the real power.

Certainly these accounts could have brought an would interesting twist to the furor that was at the time motivating "conscious" circles to get organized so that they could "meet the challenge" with strong opposition.

Yet the U.S. media were not interested. This material was suppressed entirely, without a word, in the national media, where more than a few "lightheaded and cold-blooded" "advocates for children" sang praise to "pedo squads" and their "rapid response" to the burgeoning social ill facing Conscious Americans everywhere." (...)

Take a read of the entire article ( ), based on Noam Chomsky's best speech ("Media Control" now on youtube!)

The Jimmy Saville's of the world are basically the hen house guardians. There's also this Thaddeus Russell interview with David Feige which talks, among other things, about how the current adult-minor sex panic is a major source of incarceration.

One really can trace the end of authentic queer radicalism at the moment they kicked 'those' queers out of the movement for the sake of enfranchisement into society.

tawana brawley, anyone? Starts at 48.25 and good ol' JZ gets a mention as Jensen states Zerzan doesn't want a law against rape! Have a listen and draw your own conclusions.

I cant tell if you're part of Derrick's church or not, but I'm going with yes. I made my mind up while working in EMS and saw how pigs treat people who experienced domestic and sexual violence. You'd have to be so far removed from things to think that laws or cops are effective ways of addressing those types of harm.

He’s coming for us!

God I thought he was dead already. He’s about to reveal all our secrets

when your grudge runs so deep you write 480 pages about it.

Hmm it doesn’t seem like @s have any problem airing their dirty laundry all over the internet over the past decade. I wouldn’t be surprised if large chunks of this ‘book’ are reprints from this site...

The fact that anarchists engage in critique of other anarchists the way they do really takes the gotcha out of derrick's book.

What gets me is that everytime he publishes a book, he's basically destroying a whole forest. Or does he publish on recycled paper? (But even then, there is a lot of toxic crap in bleaching the wood pulp to become white)

Perhaps he should try printing on HEMP! There is at least one press, now available in the Eugene, OR area.

Intro by Chris hedges omg

Sounds like anarchy alright. Also the issue with constraints is that they are REPRESSIVE(oppression is a spook) and should be relaxed(DuPont) and refused against as much as possible(Landstreicher). Constraints have nothing to do with well thought out boundaries. There is in fact a distinction to be made between boundaries and constraint, you see the former in prosex cultures for instance, what you do not see is the configuration of constraints.

"For more than two thousand years, a war has been waged over the soul and direction of anarchism."

Fuckk... So Jesus was the first anarchist right?

Stirner sees him as one the first or important insurgents;)

hmm Derrick says anarchism is influenced by Christianity. how original and unself aware. Is his point that were worshiping the wrong god?

i just read the description of this book, Jensen is still as much of a bigoted moralist as he's always been. A culture of make believe clarified a lot of my thoughts and reason why i was pissed off at the world, but as i kept reading his other books i couldn't help but hear that douschey activist voice that is so unique to radical politics. "Do something about it NOW or you are a part of the problem! Enjoying your life? Well, you need to stop at the sound of the thunder of my voice!"

"...why anarchism has become a haven for so much behavior that is community-and movement-destroying…"

So anarchists want to destroy trashy, verbally abusive, and repressive political committees. This is the problem with so many people's conception of "creating a new society out of the shell of the old", sometimes the shell itself is pure cancer.

Nonetheless, still is a provocative looking book, too bad that penguin had to publish it and ignite the fire of DJ's smug popularity.

i'm not sure what moralism has to do with it, i mean i guess you're the nihilist... to me it just smacks of cult-leader-y-ness. it's true: anarchism is a haven for a lot of shitty people and behaviors! it's not separate from its 'shell'. one of the main things all cults (in a bad way- not just small religions or w/e) have in common is that everyone who joins must be cut down to nothing so they can be reshaped by the wise, all-knowing leader. really, there is something very fundamental here about human dynamics in a fucked up, traumatized world - jensen is not the first cult leader type to have reflected extensively and thoughtfully on trauma, as he did in culture of make believe. from scientology to aum shin rikyu to the branch davidians to the lyman family, these microcosms showcase the same sort of thing that produces all sorts of hierarchal structures, run by some egomaniac who develops a program to break people down and shape them into his tools, and starts attracting people who are semi-destroyed already, traumatized people who are desperate for real healing. of course, and importantly, it's all about the leader. a moral code is supposed to be timeless, but the leader can change his mind as often as he wants and do whatever he wants. they isolate themselves at a rural headquarters and no one knows what is going on.

learning about all this stuff in the past few years, by the way, since i've parted ways with most of organized (or semi-organized) anarchism, has caused me to reflect on anarchist scenes which in hindsight often seem like cults without leaders. you've got the broken people and the angry, moralizing wannabe-leaders (i don't think moralizing is the same thing as moralistic) and the ritualistic bashing to pieces of personas, the same prevalent moods of anger, venting trauma and needing to judge and tear down relentlessly. it just doesn't cohere into a rigid structure around a single leader; people just leave. you do seem to see micro-cults here and there, usually around some dude who (like most cult leaders!) is fucking everyone he gets near.

i've posted a comment somewhere else here to the effect that i used to be close with someone who went and joined jensen's circle; a little more on that: i stopped hearing from this person entirely once that happened. she was an eco-anarchist type whose behavior fit most of the diagnostic criteria of so-called borderline personality disorder - high emotional lability, proneness to anger, judgment and paranoia; and was definitely living out some past traumas (i met her parents and they were both very, very fucked up; she grew up in the chaos around their addictions...). she loved his books- didn't we all back then? but after she went to crescent city all i heard were a few weird, ecstatically worshipful comments about him. i asked as gently as possible wtf was up with that and she called me a monster and never talked to me again. creepy fucking stuff.

That's a very eloquent description of what goes on with people who get attracted to cults. To me moralism is more of an emotional fear-of-evil than anything else. Not all of verbally abusive talk ( "being cut down to nothing") is moralistic. While DJ is pretty far removed from actual Christianity, his intent on shaming people to me is close or identical to "moralism".

And yes, I agree with DJ's perspective that anarchists are often major buttholes, but what i just wrote is more or less an angry hand-wringing on dignified, leaderly critique more than anything else. I realize that "moralism" by itself is a weak way to critique something, my name as a nihilist more or less comes from a sense of doubt and thinking the anarchist identity is really funny, as a permanent and intractable rebel. At this point anarchism seems to be a religion of criticism.

Reporting in! There might not be any correlation between anarchism and the standard ratio of shitty people in the world SIR!

to want to use the internet for its intended purpose, to talk to other people. I guess you are in the nihilist camp that thinks that every action must have some sort of balanced ratio of meaning and practical purpose, and that all positivity is trash.

"There might not be any correlation between anarchism and the standard ratio of shitty people in the world SIR!"

anarchism is part of the ratio of shitty people in the world. HA!

No mention of JZ at 48:25. Maybe later in the video?


is the always showing jz photos with copyright all over it supposed do be a joke? i'm too dense to figure this out on my own.

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.
Enter the code without spaces.