At Sundance, an Anarchist Creates Waves

  • Posted on: 10 February 2017
  • By: thecollective

Cody Wilson turned a toothpick over in his mouth and swirled the olive-adorned drink in front of him.

"I don't ask anyone to be sympathetic to my position," he said. "I don't think I'm a very sympathetic character."

The 28-year-old may or may not be on to something when he makes that statement about his personality. He is decidedly on-point when he makes it about his ideas.

Wilson is part of a loose group of techno-anarchists, or crypto-anarchists. Together with such figures as Bitcoin founder Amir Taaki and, somewhat more distantly, the ‎likes of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, he seeks to overthrow established systems by using new forms of digital savvy and aggression. These are, needless to say, far from consensus beliefs..

Wilson's ideology, ascent and travails are followed in Adam Bhala Lough's "The New ‎Radical." The youth-culture filmmaker’s latest documentary, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this week, takes viewers on a sweep through an underground world, offering as much a portrait of a new and subversive way of thinking as of the thinkers themselves.‎ Told slickly if not always explanatorily, "New Radical" follows such initiatives as Defense Distributed, a digital file that allows anyone with a 3-D printer to create their own gun away from government oversight, and Dark Wallet, a kind of Internet market in the shadows where digital currency can move undetected.‎

At the center of it all is Wilson, who founded and created the file for Defense Distributed and is a key cog in Dark Wallet.

As it has played at Sundance several times over the course of the week, "Radical" has landed with all the gentleness of a Molotov cocktail. Despite their ambition, issue-minded movies at this gathering tend to fall into a comfortable set of mainstream center-left positions; someone who occupies both the extreme right and left ends of the spectrum (depending on the issue) will almost inherently be a feather-ruffler.
Power is the threat of violence. — Cody Wilson

In “New Radical,” the archetype alluded to by the title looks to create fundamental political change by pushing for one or more of the following: an eradication of intellectual-property laws, radical free speech, fierce encryption to protect that speech, anonymous money (basically, digital currency not controlled or monitored by any government) and a general disdain for traditional legislative structures.

Wilson has added another element: weapons. The hyper-articulate Arkansas native came into the public eye in 2013 when Defense Distributed released the blueprint for its first gun, called The Liberator. The program essentially allows anyone with access to a 3-D printer to make an end run around gun regulations by printing a plastic weapon at home.

"The project started with guns. It was like, 'If you combine WikiLeaks and guns — guns and the Internet — doesn’t that change the political?’ Power is the threat of violence," he said. The mere possibility that anyone can take up arms will, in Wilson’s view, keep everyone in check — in turn both neutralizing government and taking over its order-maintaining function.

Though the State Department shut him down shortly after he went online, Wilson continues to fight the battle in the courts, and says he is optimistic that he can win in the next few years. “What [judges] have been doing is piece by piece committing themselves to positions I hold. What I’m doing them is beating them slowly, death by a thousand paper cuts.”

Wilson speaks with a kind of intellectual turbocharge, casually using phrases such as "furious mimetic force" and assuming a level of political-philosophy literacy that would tax an advanced grad student. Radiating a no-nonsense confidence, Wilson can be off-putting to some; at the festival, that reaction has sometimes been palpable.
Silicon Valley needs to get its teeth kicked in whenever it can; I’m down for that first and foremost. — Cody Wilson

His ideas, he said, took root in intensive readings of leftist political theory before sprouting into a new kind of hybrid. Indeed, Wilson confounds most traditional positions; figuring out where he stands on issues can be an exercise in checking off boxes from wildly different columns.

Here’s a quick list:

Intellectual-property rights, no; political leaders, really no; progressive politics, really, really no ("Liberalism is the thing we whistle while we assert our domination over people," he says in the film); the tech world, pretty emphatically no ("Silicon Valley needs to get its teeth kicked in whenever it can; I'm down for that first and foremost," he said in the interview).

Easy access to guns, yes; unfettered encryption, yes; radical free speech, yes; a monetary system untethered to any government, really yes; a government that itself withers away, Marx-style, really, really yes.

Wilson does take pains to separate himself from the alt-right. As he began to explain the distinctions, Bhala Lough jumped in to say that the movie was largely completed before that movement gained mainstream currency, then sought to change the subject, implicitly suggesting that such publicity would be radioactive.

The truth is that some of Wilson’s positions, particularly those involving guns, could be conflated with that movement’s. Then again, President Trump's proclamation during the campaign that he was the “law-and-order candidate,” with its intimations of a strong, government-led police and military presence, are hardly the sorts of ideas most anarchists get on board with.

At Sundance screenings, questions directed at Wilson have at times been skeptical, even hostile, and laid bare the divisions at the festival, which takes place in a red libertarian state but is attended heavily by registered Democrats. Wilson, of course, occupies terrain all over the map.

"I love the fact that people will write him off as a gun nut and then [when they hear more] say, ... ‘I'm just conflicted about this guy now,’" Bhala Lough said.

The filmmaker takes few overt positions on his subject in the film. Even in person he is hard to read on the matter, though he certainly has grown close with Wilson. Bhala Lough said that he thinks his movie has some things in common with another piece about a man who fought a crusade with uncomfortable side effects.

“I thought a lot about ‘The People vs. Larry Flynt’ when I was making this movie,” the director said. “Was that a pro-porn film? He was a difficult person to love, but man, did he do some important things.” (Gun-control advocates might note some distinctions, both historical and legal, between the 1st and 2nd Amendments.)

Some of Wilson’s ideas have a seductiveness across the political spectrum. The notion that technology combined with radical speech could enable a toppling of the plutocracy taps into the same currents that elected Trump. Those opposed to the new president, meanwhile, would find in those ideas meaningful tools of resistance.

What the anarchist may not have satisfactorily explained, however, is what happens if his vision pans out as he says it would: What comes after a government crumbles? Could hundreds of millions of people exist, let alone be better off, without government so long as they owned guns and had their own Internet-enabled Swiss bank account? Would that not lead to vigilantism, or demagoguery, or other forms of exploitation?

"I'm not useful as a human. I'm useful as a cherub of the disaster to come," Wilson says in the film, perhaps acknowledging where society will go if it follows his template, though more likely warning what will happen if it doesn’t.

He said in the interview that he was reckoning with what he can or wants to change.

“I'm trying to limit my expectation,” he said. “Maximum potentiality motivates me even as I wake up every day and see the limits of my own power.”

At the same time, he talked grandly about winning the 3-D gun case and then springboarding to other radical libertarian changes — “In order to do other stuff, we need to have the moral authority [on guns] first.” He also alluded mysteriously to soon “deploying a number of technologies I’ve sat on for years.”

So is Wilson the future or just a really good talker? A truth-talking prophet or just one more whippersnapping expression of digital overconfidence?

Is his prediction of a techno-enabled anarchy the stuff of pure prescience — a man who sees the emergent populism of the past American and European year not as a familiar pendulum-swing but the rumblings of something much deeper and longer lasting?

Or are such predictions the delusions of someone less powerful than he imagines, a man who uses theory-speak to make up for what he lacks in actual influence?

“The New Radical” doesn't answer these questions. But at Sundance, perhaps for the first time in mainstream pop culture, they're being asked.



Only through a liberal lens, could a gun-advocate seem "alt-right". The alt-right are the least likely to be strapped of all the reactionary elements, they prefer keyboards.

I think Cody is an interesting fellow, but he not too long ago did an youtube interview with an "anarcho-capatalist" and during it he expressed some level of receptivity towards "ethno-nationalism" that's advocated by so called "alt-righters".

Has a bad case of the political-economic ideological contestation bug. I think his receptivity towards the nationalist populist stuff is entirely down to the fact that it seems to be the only game in town that takes on financial global capital. Certainly I'd like to see a good anarchist libertarian offense against this system, however, the ethno populist nationalist sauce is not the way to go. Now would be a good time to bring back the ole libertarian confederacy models of the pre world war 1 epoch. Secession(as opposed to revolution) should also be a big part of things.

This interview reveals a lot:

"the only game in town that takes on financial global capital."

Basically, and it explains the recent fellings of Arab nation states and the targets of American war & hegemony, generally, for many decades. BRICS nations, N. Korea, the Philippines, many African countries, the Eastern Block, are following similar trends and represent potential threats to the established nepotistic oligarchic parasite class of western global finance capital.

Anarchists should, and likely will, throw weight behind the nationalists in the globalism v nationalism conflict. They already do in cases like indigenous people separatism. But the PC blinders limit their options. Nationalism away from centralized global unification, onward to further subdivision. A withering away of the state via nationalism ala Marx with a dash of Hitler, Zionism & bolo bolo, with Anarchists aiding & abetting. Strange alliances within the horror show, always. Connectedness in an era of billions guarantees us such strangenesses.

The word "fascist" gets thrown around a lot on this site, but this is one case where it's honestly deserved. Even without phrases like "with a dash of Hitler", the plea for nationalism and endorsements of human sewers like Duterte amount to the same. The notion that anarchists could ever work with nationalists, or that nationalists would ever support the withering away of the state, are both laughable. Fuck right off.

Fundamentalism gets you, we, nowhere. It is useful for your enemies to have enemies. It is even more useful to not have enemies. You need Hitler more than you realize. Your boogeymen reflects your need for them, for, where you be without your enemies? Nowhere, with no goals, and no project. We need all of humanity to solve the problems of humanity. Your dreams of pogroms & final solutions against those you hate are not helpful, intelligent, nor anarchic. Your final sentence is interesting. I wonder if you've become used to issuing demands that no one listens to. You slay me, anon.

which way is central station, now?
why should i care?

who is talking pogroms, here?whose final solution?
you obfuscate yours' with double-speak reason but your entitled position is betrayed, obviously.

I love how people are just openly shilling for Hitler's at this point. You guys have done a hell of a job. Maybe you could change the site's motto to "free platform for fascists"?

the collective, Antifa should do their Job and coercively ban the Fascists.
Long Live The Left! no Freedom of Speech for Fascists!

Actually comes from folks like you. Shilling in the negative, is still shilling. This is how the anti-Trump media got Trump elected without Trump having to pay them for the service. Antifa boosted Milo's career. Any press is good press, as they say. Beware the taboos, forbidden fruit & boogeymen you create, or come to rely upon as a foundation of your identity. The "shilling," as you put it, found above, is actually a way of seeing if people can read in good faith, or if they are just hair-trigger reactionaries. The context of the statement was to highlight how people like you actually need Hitlers, require fascists & depend upon boogeymen for your existence. You'd have little to say, write or do without them. Prioritizing critique & offendedness over creativity & consideration leads to this. You shill for your demons in the negative.

I'd still have a lot to do if I wasn't worrying about certain bastards. I would, um, keep existing if they disappeared. My life might stay the same or get better, not sure, but it would not get worse.

As to your hypothesis re: anti-Trump media and Milo-boosting antifa, it's impossible to prove a counterfactual, and you certainly don't prove anything with your "bad press" truism. So, I don't believe your theory and I think you're an idiot. You accuse others of reflexive and stupid thinking and then trot out the conspiracist-level thinking yourself, reducing complex events to a narrative that suits your emotional needs.

SS, I do not mean to offer theories, but hypotheses. What part of the assessment is counterfactual? Trump's campaign recieved free advertising from msm, while discrediting it, while driving people toward newer right wing media outlets. Said another way, he was covered excessively in a bid to discredit him, but the discrediting backfired. He was the focus of 2016 and already people have forgotten about Clinton, so yes, the "bad press" adage has some truth to it. It was also a case of "I'm rubber & you're glue", wherein excess criticism only makes the criticizer look bad. Cynicism & strategy are not exactly conspiracy. Beware to become known as a hater, basically.

especially since, um, I was pretty mean.

By conspiracist-level thinking, I mean the kind of thinking that explains complex events very neatly and patly, and with certainty. By a counterfactual, I mean a world where John Oliver et al. did not make fun of Trump relentlessly and the MSM covered him "normally", whatever that might mean - and the world where antifa et al. did not try to shut down Milo events forcefully. We do not know what the results, butterfly effects, etc. are in such worlds, or what the causal factors are for "the event". Insert emile-style essay here.

So, I don't think the criticizer looks bad for criticizing in excess. Here, we could have a stereotyped convo about tone policing. Basically, I think those already favourably disposed to a certain idea or program will see any criticism of it as "in excess". Those indisposed to the idea will see the criticism of others who are also indisposed, and will have their opinions about it.

Let's talk Milo in Berkeley. I think it's pretty legit to ask, "Is criticism that looks like burning down a campus useful or not?" and then to answer, based on your own critical faculties, "Not." We can argue about whether the answer produced by critical faculties is better or not, if we care to argue at all. But this notion that such action careerboosted Milo is, in my opinion, a little different. It might be beside the point and it might ignore the notion that Milo's career was on the up and up anyway. And it's conspiracist-level in that, like the anti-globalist who shows up to Occupy and gets frustrated that the legitimate protest against banking or whatevs has been disrupted by Soros employees, it is either taking for granted that something else would have "worked" or wilfully ignoring that, really, nothing was going to "work". Like, if the situation is for Milo to not have a career, too late probably. He had a career around Orlando is when I first heard of him. Then his former boss got a boost with Trump. Then Trump won. If Berkeley put him on CNN a little early, big fucking deal.

"The "shilling," as you put it, found above, is actually a way of seeing if people can read in good faith, or if they are just hair-trigger reactionaries. The context of the statement was to highlight how people like you actually need Hitlers, require fascists & depend upon boogeymen for your existence."

Anyone with the ability to scroll up the page can tell that's bullshit. The Hitler-shilling takes place within the context of a plea for anarchists to "throw their weight behind nationalists". As my original reply pointed out, even without that statement, the paragraph still amounts to the same disturbingly nationalistic bullshit. Whatever your motives or not-at-all-cliched views about taboos, this is an essentially fascist proposition. Saying so doesn't make me a "hair-trigger reactionary" (what exactly do you think "reactionary" means?), it just means that I'm politically literate. Sorry if naming your ideology makes it harder to recruit, but some of us would rather not be a part of your reich.

Watch this fool twist logic in to a pretzel for the low, low price of being noticeably dumber by the time you finish reading the post

^This is a reply to the moonbat trying to peddle the theory that antifascism somehow creates or propels fascism. Nevermind the chicken and the egg, in this case, antifascists somehow WILL the chicken AND the egg in to existence for the purposes of an incredibly stupid strawman argument.

Also advocated by Japan, Zimbabwe, Malcolm X, the Panthers, Nazis, the Koreas, Native Americans, First Nations, Aborigines, black South Africans, Ethiopians, Iranians.

Main problem with ethno-nationalism isn't the skin color of its advocates, but scale. Ethnicities don't exist at the scale of nations. Large city-sized groups should be considered the upper size limit. Which would see humanity fractured back into many thousands of ethnically monolithic & generationally stable subgroups. As existed before the eras of nation states.

It would be nice to see that rise up as a proper libertarian anarchist alternative to global vs national. I would definitely prefer it though I would not take it on actively for the simple reason that I prefer to avoid formally taking on elective positions and proposed solutions. The IN but not OF the world approach.

The anarch or anarchists take this path inevitably as political & social minorities where er they find themselves. They'll be existing amongst those who do take elected positions & proposals. The question is then, who to align with, in difference, indifferent to difference. Morpho or bio-regionalism, yes, that is an acceptable goal, but getting there on a wide scale may require passing through a strong-nationalism phase as it seems to be the only game in town (as you said elsewhere in this thread) when it comes to detaching from the global dollar hegemony hydra. Brexit, Russia, Trump, & BRICS illustrate the popularity of this approach.

enough with the games. nations don't exist.

humans aren't the only game in town.

In the form of neural networks in the brain. In the form of binary code on hard drive platters. In the form of paint on a canvas. Ideas in a brain are a physical, real thing. There is a micro structure to it. Ideas in the minds of millions of people is also a real thing, thus, nations do exist. And, the absence of nations also exists.

You would presume to be an ambassador of the non-human. This is appropriative and presumptuous, like pretending to be friends with whomever one deems to be oppressed.

perhaps the idea of friendship or any other characterizing property is always pretentious.
otherwise, why even mention it?

It will be difficult to discuss this without semantic snares. Does a symbol not have a shape upon a page, as well within the mind? When you close your eyes and imagine an image, is not a physical process happening? The storage of an idea in a brain has a shape to it. Upon the surface of the structure, or built into the micro structure itself, what can we say?

the measurements of wind velocities define a storm-cell, but that does not mean a storm-cell is a thing-in-itself. it is an appearance that we assign a name-label to.

nations are intellectual abstractions. we must first assume their existence in order to measure their properties. this is an error in logic (petitio principii) as Poincare points out. the existence of things based on measurement is a 'prejudice' and not an affirmation of a physical reality.

The letter 'j' has a shape upon a piece of paper. The letter 'j' has a shape within, or upon, the substrate of brain matter.

scriptural meaning is rather inherently subject to interactive relationship.
thought is an exercise in a voidance.
a body stays fit by moving along.
the written word is stagnant.

A leaf has a shape. It can be seen, felt, smelled or tasted. A leaf, in the mind, has a shape composed in, or upon, the substrate of brain matter. When a leaf is imagined, a pattern within, or upon, the substrate of brain matter, is referenced. The idea of a leaf, or the imagining of a leaf, are physical processes within, or upon, the substrate of brain matter. In this way, ideas are physical, tangible objects within, or dancing upon, the substrate of brain matter.

The tissue of a brain does not look like the ideas it holds. A hard drive platter does not look like the images it contains code for. DNA does not look like the animal it expresses.

the physically real world is an energy-charged plenum [Bohm] or 'spacetime continuum' [Einstein] wherein epigenetic influence inductively actualizes genetic expression. articulating this requires 'poetic expression' [relational language whose constructs have no dependency on 'being'].

e.g. trees' are 'fountains of the forest' and 'leaves' are fingerings within the fountaining, all of which is inductively actualized by irradiated solar energy converted into matter by photosynthesis facilitated by catalysation by inclusion within a carbonated atmosphere-soup.

a 'leaf' has no physical meaning out of the context of the transforming relational continuum. the word 'leaf' which imputes local 'being' to it is 'pragmatic idealization' (Poincare) that facilitates an intellectual sharing of our respective visual sensing of 'appearances'.

for animals that 'don't do' language-based intellectual dialogue, there is no need to impute 'being' to forms-in-flow-continuum and we do not hear animals conversing or writing about them, since there is no real need to break down a transforming relational continuum into 'parts' and then try to reconstruct the world on the basis of many different parts and the cause-effect actions of the parts.

"Is this belief in the concept of subject and attribute not a great stupidity?" -- Nietzsche 'Will to Power, Book III, aphorism 550

Dontcha generalize -- OK? Thank you and god bless.

that which is "particular" manifests distinctness as associates with a relational form undergoing epigenetic actualizing within a transforming relational continuum [a 'cosmic fetalizing']. This particularity is `relational`.

As William Blake suggested, ”General knowledges are knowledges that Idiots possess while ‘All Sublimity is founded on the minute discrimination’”

“Blake is confounded by the Academics tendency to represent a general concept and to see particulars as disfigurements or blemishes, since he is absolutely certain that “To Generalize is to be an Idiot To Particularize is the Alone Distinction of Merit”. For Blake ‘specific’ things are perceived, not generalities”. The artist does not see and draw 'generalities' and we all have artist's eyes though these may be betrayed by the bewitchment of our understanding by language.

What Blake recognized is what Poincaré also recognized; i.e. logical thinking is rooted in subjective generalization; e.g. the laws and equations of physical behaviour are not the physical experience. Once the approximation (fitting a curve or equations or generalized patterns to a collection of particular experiences) is made, the generalization ‘takes over from’ the data [the particulars of actual experience] so that particular, observed phenomena that do not ‘fit the theory’ are deemed to be ‘flawed’.

The experiment of dropping a cannon ball and a feather from a tower, that fails to affirm the prediction of the universal law of gravity, that both must fall to earth at the same rate [Euclidian space is vacuous], ... would be deemed a ‘flawed experiment’. The scientific mode of understanding is a mode of understanding wherein ‘intellect corrects experience’. It is the popular Western mode of understanding.

The concept ‘leaf’ is a generalization ‘backed in to’ by (a) first ASSUMING THE EXISTENCE OF MILLIONS OF LEAVES, each one a ‘particular’ relational form, particularly, situationally included in a transforming relational continuum, then (b) measuring their properties and then (c), doing a statistical regression on the measurements to distil out a ‘common property based definition’.

Having thus disposed of ‘relational particularity’ by the assuming of a plurality of instances, a new type of ‘particularity’ is created in terms of departures from an unstated common properties based norm. e.g. a ‘black man’ is a man with black skin, crinkly hair and full lips. Are these ‘disfigurements or blemishes’ or are they positive departures from the norm? In some predominantly white communities, the 'disfigured' man (with black skin, crinkly hair and full lips) may have as much chance as Elephant man of being accepted as one of the group, with or without Cher as his biker mom.

I don't actually think that anarchs(at least) or anarchists should be concerned about wide scale. I think that all political noise leads to some kind of synthesis that does not turn out the way you think it will and ends up being different from its intentions. For me nationalism vs globalism is lose-lose either way. You and I should no better then to entertain 'passing withering away' phases. People like Wilson are making the same broad mistakes as ideologues before them.

It would be better to be bottom up and region to region neighbor to neighbor about this and simply present the morpho-bioregional approach as a distinct 3rd option. Overall it helps to be stealthy, subtle and quiet about how you go about doing this if it can even be done at all. The Cascadia protocol has been around before this spike in nationalism and I see no evidence that it will be helped by the enthno nationalists types getting their way away that essentially amounts to recreating the conditions after WW2 but before the 1980s.

i don't think so.
rather; we are nomadic, interactional, free-flowing; one-indivisible, mutual humanity consisting of infinite diverse needs and abilities.
the nation state on the other hand is artificially attempting to impose a (desired?) systemic stablity over wild humanity.
good luck!

How do you think the different breeds, ethnicities & phenotypes of humanity came to be? It was via breeding locally constrained by geography or culture, across multiple generations. Nomadism does not preclude ethnic monoliths, nor xenophobia, nor proclivity toward mixing with adjacent populations. The nation state is a modern phenomenon, yes, and your framing of it isn't at odds with the post you were replying to.

Wild humans, like wild animals, engage in sexual selection & group behavior. Wildness does not disappear the effect of constrained breeding practices producing phenotypes. This is evident both in the wild and within domestication.

you're mad , a genetic scientist-politician.

i sure didn't say that the nation-state is modern.
no, it's been you attempting to posit that as historical fact.
i'm not a biologist actually, logic strikes Me as oxymoronic
and, personally i'm sexually attracted to the more exotic
Let there be no social constraints on my breeding practices!
the group can die and go to hell, please.
we have only each-the-other

I'm not trying to offer you advice nor recommend fetishes. I regret if I'm coming across that way. The nation state is a relatively modern phenomenon, in a deep-time sense but also likely within the history of homo & plantigrade apes, generally. Multiculturalism & exoticism are, by association, just as modern. A reflection of mass society's massive population sizes, as well as modern transportation & communication technology.

Description is not prescription. I mean not to specifically offend you with what I write.

and Fascism is a specific tendency whose effective relevance peaked in the 1930's, in a deep-time sense. am i right?
i believe that you don't mean to offend me specifically, likewise i regret to have betrayed any personal defensive reflex.
however, the context -for me- is about an indescribable ideale.
when i think of exotic i don't mean multicultural. i mean rather, going outside of culture which -incidently- is the essential characteristic of culture, to grow and change in a cosmic vortex. my indescribable, exotic ideale is not a personal identity fetishe any more than ecstasy is a little pill containing MDMA. word?


'only game in town' is a fucking tv phrase. buzzword. circular logic that doesn't mean anything. indicates to me a lense of media amplification as the framing of 'truth,' 'reality.'

the US is already pretty nationalistic (go to new england where flags are drapped across overpasses like they dole out good juju for the integrity of freeway engineering). what has that ever meant for the wellbeing of anyone, or the alienation that is called 'community'? in my 31 years, nothing. the mood after 9/11 had become fearful, paranoid, socially caustic, but all of the flags hoisted up then have largely come down since 2005. in my ohio neighborhood (a state that has produced 8 (?) presidents) not everyone has US flags waving. i don't remember levels of participation and enthusiasm in holiday parades being as high as right around the end of Regan and the start of Gulf War 1.

what i do hear more from people are their interests when it comes to escaping the grind: drinking/bar culture, sports, shopping, netflix/internet. i live in a land of churches (metro population ~600,000), but i don't really hear anyone talking about them with the importance they seemed to when i was growing up. they more or less function as places for social engagement for other later activities, like sports, bars, barbeques, going out to eat, group play dates for pets or kids, craft shows, neighborhood/seasonal/ethnic festivals (which often involve drinking), going to metroparks/work outs/exercise related classes/activies. more or less to get out of the house, car, work to see and be seen and tell stories about what interests them.

i was once in a church that claims to be 'the only game in town.' that game has worked so good that masses of people have been resigning membership in recent years. membership includes charging 10% of your income, and strict guidelines (that i've learned many people FAKE adherence to). what was that game? endlessly maintenance of a CULT. how does that work? 10% of your income, endless tasks, guilt at never living up to the leadership's perceived holiness and standards, and outright lies being sold, facts hidden since all the information you're supposed to consult has to be church approved. obediance gets mentioned more than happiness. 'the church' gets mentioned more than your wellbeing. part of that guilt gets turned into belonging by 'doing the lord's work together' (we're just worldly/lost/fallen without the Church). there's at once a superiority complex (we are the ONLY truth) as well inferiority complex (we're peculiar people and persecuted by everyone else). <----sound familiar to the otherizing of nationalism's narrative (our enemies are inferior, but they're also taking us over!). but here's the thing. it's all founded on lies of a con-man, and mormonism is clearly not the only game in town! so yeah, where have i heard this talking of 'the Only' this or that before? hmm...

because of media hype there's a presumed homogeneity that doesn't exist in this land of ~400,000,000 on this side of invisible lines.

all life is inter-connected. human's have no god's eye view of reality, so they aren't in control. for instance, that dictator's policies in the so-called phillipines will cause unintended consequences in terms of giving rise to relational tensions that will respond like a spring, and push back.

'Only game in town' is an idiom which can be replaced with other idioms or figures of speech which might be less offensive to you. In the context being used in this thread, replace with:

main threat
primary threat

anarchists don't want adversaries or rivals. we don't need to pose a threat.
we can do these things on our own.
we simply need to smoke the real opium of freedom.

Hey felix, I'd say you have no clue and certainly don't speak for the anarchists but nobody cares what you think anyway

well then, why am i even commenting here, huh?

Presumably you're staring in to the void and trying to assign meaning?

meaning is pretty self-evident though, innit?

Being alone in my corner, I kinda stopped caring about supporting any antifa stuff lately. This all appears to me as just a war of clans, and I got no clan. When antifascists in my area are going to show clear signs of willingness to build a friendship, instead of testing me, snitching me, or whatev, then I'll reconsider fighting on their side. Sadly today radicals don't realize how cliqueish they are, and if you wanna build a free world you gotta seriously look into going beyond such tribal relations made of identity-related insecurities.

NO ONE is the same to another. Accept it and grow up. This is what both the racists and the dogmatic Leftists still can't digest.

Well said! I'm also alone creating and enjoying. I avoid pain because pain is ethics badly applied and joy is friendship without rules.

I admire people with Taurette's, hey, its not a disability, its free expression, just love the spontaneity, though the idiot part is incorrect ;)

Nobody owes you anything and if it's true that the people doing antifa stuff in your region are "cliqueish", then that's on them and nothing to do with antifa. It's equally plausible that they don't like you for perfectly valid reasons which again, has nothing to do with the antifa tendency.

...and that's respect. You know... like being treated equally, or not of a lesser value, just because I wasn't christened in their crowd or haven't received the initiation rites. The least respect to expect, coming from people who defend and promote social equalitarian ideals.

But of course I ain't blaming it on "antifa". As usual, it's the weak and insecure (old) teenagers ganging up in the name of, who're insuring that the antifascist struggle will probably be fought for ever, and ever, the very word "antifa" to get sucked of its meaning while being sacralized as some sort of political deity, until the most brilliant of them wake up in the night with the shocking realization they're now working for the cops under an actual fascist regime, like most of their comrades are at some point.

Those with the best careers already are working for the Soft Power already. There's even now plenty of young maoists working for Garda at the liberal university where I go. They've been fully okay with Facebook militancy, and even with undercovers. The next step is an easy guess.

Sure … I have no idea if you were getting basic respect from these people but I can certainly see why your polemical style wouldn't exactly win anyone over. You come across as whiny and entitled. What I meant was, nobody owes you their friendship just because you show up and start demanding in to their circles while throwing accusations around. ;)

I'd much like to afford being polemical in real life again, but without a status in a clique, this means being taken for either (1) an alt-right crazy or (2) a hipster smuglord. These days I'm quite disinterested by it tho. But bitching people actually attracts friends and lovers irl, because people have a propensity to argue politely and give a lot of attention to blowhards. Which is where they always get corrupted...

Have to agree with that last part, it's the only explanation I can see for the proliferation of this particularly weak and self-aggrandizing egoist/nihilist tendency in north america.

we endlessly sabotage and undermine, anyhow influencing the demise of civilization and it's subordinate fascist lackeys, whatever their name. it feels like we are all backed into so many little corners but wild ones can't ever quit the good fight. the call to battle sounds in our laughter as the old world disintegrates.

Crypto-anarchists like Assange & Wilson are libertarian sheep in anarchist wolves clothing. This traces back to Timothy C May, 25 years ago. These characters sometimes talk a good game or commit a useful action, but libertarianism is a form of inverse-Marxism that's rejected by most anarchists.

( See * Critiques of Libertarianism* site for more on this " A resounding clash of ideologies")

I think the net is too important to let fascist-fossil-fools steal our good name to sell their toxic crap with. Your mileage may vary.
Yours in anti-God & anti-state ANARCHISM, Pr

A libertarian sheep in anarchist wolves clothing is a crypto-libertarian. A crypto-anarchist is on the anarchist's side, unless you're reading from a different book......All this binary stuff, I understand, it gets confusing sometimes.

The inverse Marxism of modern libertarianism really reflects the post ww2 structures in which we live where the classical Proudhon/Tucker bear minimum declined. It would be in the interest of greater and more radical anarchism/anarchy to bring back that preww1 bear minimum and turf the Rand-Rothtards for the conservative landlord legacy property fetishists that they are.

This entire comment thread summarizes neatly why online anarchism is so underwhelming, meanwhile another rambling kook from the dark corners of cyberspace gets waved around as a token anarchist at sundance by some yuppie douche.

I don't see where's the surprise with the big media misrepresenting us (remember that shitfest "The East" for starters, also shown at Sundance, received coverage in the posh Hollywood Reporter, which felt like a documentary on US green anarchy directed by Uwe Boll?), then why don't you attack them in the first place?

Fucking riots against Sundance? Fucking up some Hollywood studios? If today's anarchists would care about social enemies beyond the usual low-hanging fruits (basically fascist clowns, or shop windows) and attack the actual power structure, little jerks like Wilson would be too shit-scared to accept being portrayed as anarchist, just like the rest of the privileged liberals. Two hits, one stone.

Still waiting for the North American branch of FAI-CCF...

No, not those Wild Reactionaries.

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.