TOTW - An experiment with comments

  • Posted on: 29 August 2016
  • By: thecollective

Over the years this site has garnered a lot of criticism around the bad opinions of its users. As a platform for anarchist discussion this comes as no surprise. Of course it is disconcerting that some users confuse the opinions of anons with the opinions of the site but that is part of the price of hosting those opinions. During different moments, and with varying consistency, we have attempted to address this conundrum. On the one side the anon is the creator of almost all of the interesting content that has ever run through the comment section. On the other, they are not held to any account for what they write.

This week we are going to have a little experiment. We are going to disable anon comments (and this includes write-in names, which are just a slightly different form of anon). We are going to see how it plays out and discuss the pros and cons of the results in the comments on this thread.

You can create an account for yourself here.

ps We are also returning to varied images and rollovers. The experiment of few images and no editorializing by way of rollover is over.
pps Just to mix things up we have created a user "anonuser" for this page only so anon can still comment. psw is "Wee!y7az". For this week this user will be live. This user's comments will be removed on all other threads.



...and that it's just your opinion. Which in this case, I exactly disagree with.

As a logged-in user, and one not well-loved by the baying hordes of anons, I find infinitely more value in people who actually put a name to their thoughts. Even those users who I find confusing, or mostly in disagreement with me (emile for example), are way more interesting than stuff like this: (direct quote from some months ago)

"are you fucking kidding me you fucking primmie?"

I posit that no-one would make such a worthless contribution to a discussion forum if they had to put their name to it, and this is just one reason why I wholeheartedly support a 'no anon' format. It would end the tendency, which I see as verbal diarrhoea, instantly.

"...and that it's just your opinion. Which in this case, I exactly disagree with." Then why even say it?

You're a pederast. How's that for contributing to the discussion?

"Then why even say it?"

To demonstrate that you were expressing an opinion, not a fact. You phrased the sentence as if it were fact. Think about the difference between "Mozart is better than Beethoven" and "I like Mozart more than Beethoven".

"How's that for contributing to the discussion?"

It isn't, of course. And you know it. And you wilfully don't care. And I'm saying that this type of input is of no value to me, as I was invited to do by the OP.

"Think about the difference between "Mozart is better than Beethoven" and "I like underage boys more than Beethoven"."

Lone Raven's pederasty strikes again!

Can you really not see the enormous difference? This is not pedantry, given that one statement reads as fact and one as opinion.

Nah, that's pedantry. Didn't your teachers ever tell you to never put "I think" before you write an opinion, because the "I think" is implicit? Most of the time the same thing applies in social situations / internet comments, and this is def one of those times.

what you are saying is that "i think" is implicit in everything anybody could ever possibly say/write. and therefore nobody could ever state a "fact" (whatever that might be).

not disagreeing necessarily (i reject objective truth), but that does seem a bit extreme. i still think that how one makes their assertions (as fact vs opinion) can definitely matter. depending on context, of course.

"you are making a value judgment.."

And...? You'll realize that you're making plenty of value judgements in your own life, my son.

Be quiet now.

Beat me to it.

I won't deny that there's some wretched anon comments from time to time but they're pretty rare compated to the constant and consistent river of sewage coming from those with names. When people complain about "the comments" on here, is it the grouchy old ideologues they mention? Or the alt-right trolls who filibuster every single fucking topic with insightful views like "consent is just a bourgeois concept"?

That much should be obvious to any good anarchist analysis.

This is what i was talking about.

It doesn't matter if you crack down on the tone and language as long as this shit is tolerated. If anything it's gotten worse since much of the venom and vitriol which has been taken down served to illustrate how the community felt about such bullshit. Instead all new visitors get to see statements like this come from a registered regular and frequently go unchallenged, as if it's just another totally acceptable opinion to voice in this space - it legitimates them and drives away serious posters, as evidenced by the growing number of pseudonymous whack jobs who post here.

I know a bunch of philosopher-wannabes are gonna scream that im being conceptually authoritarian for saying this, but anarchy can't just mean whatever any whacko who comes along wants it to. Otherwise anarchy means nothing, or worse, becomes an excuse for domination to anyone who can find a way to frame things like rape, pedophilia and murder in anarchist-ey lingo (all of which are now normal here).

and your response, "this" anon, is exactly what *i'm* talking about. instead of arguing against the idea, which is short handed here, but explained in more detail both later in this thread and in other places in the world, you just rant about how it's obviously fucked up. it is NOT obviously fucked up, and by not making an argument, you do a disservice to your point (assuming that you have one other than "people who don't use my language and/or automatically agree with me are fucked up") and convince no one who doesn't already agree with you.
there is an argument to be had here, if not for "consent" as commonly understood these days, then for *something* that addresses the issue of agency and communication, especially among people who don't have much experience and/or don't know each other well. but you abandon that to rant and to discredit everyone else who rants against sireinzige (in this case).

Please ignore the mindless censorial mob: could you please explain what you mean about consent being bourgeois? Could you send a few lines my way? dis possess (all one word) AT riseup DOT net


Should make it pretty obvious. As I've argued many times, consent is largely of governmental born issue. It is predicated on a binary conception of yes and no which is not how nature and sensation works in reality. In the case of sex, sex is driven by receptivity not consent. Consent is another spook not to be found in an anarchy relational reality just like all the others like morality, democracy ect. There are areas where do's and don'ts need to be clearly demarcated(BDSM for instance) However this does not require the logic of consent.

I get what you are saying. If we vote, then consent is not necessary. This isn't a majority rule vote either, more like a special vote that needs 100%. If both partners use a democratic framework then sex can happen. The receptivity occurs when the vote "for" occurs. If not, then there is always Netflix and chill.

Ahhh yes, of course we speak of either/and not neither/nor yin/yang relational subjectivities of you/me or they/we. Obviously.

" If we vote, then consent is not necessary."

pathetic. oh yes, we need democracy for safe sex. and we need to vote union.

please go troll at some syndicalist site. i'll take ziggy any fucking day over this annoying leftist crap.

So that this doesn't take the thread too off-topic, could you just give me a starting point for reading on this point?

Reading on the use of receptive relational engagements applied through a democratic framework? I only have anecdotal evidence as my old punk house voted for dishes all the time, so we decided to vote for sex and then we had an orgy.

No, I was asking Einzige. I wouldn't ask you for the time of day.

The time of day depends on where you are at. You probably are from somewhere I'm not, thankfully. Maximalists that can't figure things out tend to listen to the dictates of other maximalists because meandering is the only way they think decisions are made. The authoritarian aspects of this should be apparent, but I guess its only seen by those that use a democratic framework to get things done.

Look, imbecile. I wasn't asking him to do my thinking for him. Just asking him for a starting point to read up on a perspective that I may or may not have already encountered. I'm not sure until I figure out exactly where he's coming from.

He talked about consent being a contractual notion more then anything sensual or relational. There really is not formal critique that I can think of. It's really not hard to figure out when you look at realty in an anarchic relational non legal or mediated way.

"Nietzsche emphatically rejects consent as a source of legitimacy. To think that state authority is legitimized by a contract is “a romantic illusion.”" ..."Why should we believe that the legitimacy of political power derives from the consent of the governed? Has anyone alive today consented to the authority of the U.S. Constitution? Should persons or groups opposed to a constitutional amendment be considered to consent to the provision if it is adopted despite their opposition?"

noun-and-verb language-and-grammar has a built-in binary/dualist implication ['is' or 'is not'] whereas the physical reality of our actual experience is not binary/dualist but relational/non-dualist. this is a general problem in using this english language we are using in our discussions. e.g. 'consent' is a common word that is used as if we all know what it means and that it is very clear what it means, both of which are false assumptions. there are many similar dualist words in common use that, in seeming to clarify, muddy the waters. as wittgenstein says, this clarity does not come from our inquiries into physical reality, it is an unrealistic requirement that we impose going into the inquiry;

"Die Kristallreinheit der Logik hatte sich nur ja nicht 'ergeben'; sondern sie war eine Forderung" -- Wittgenstein

in other words, 'consent' has nothing to do with physically experienced reality.

the issues that crop up in association with the word 'consent' are just the tip of the iceberg for our Western culture which uses noun-and-verb 'semantic realities' as 'operative realities'. the feeling that one is coming forth with a strong argument derives from the clarity of the words we use to formulate it, however, these words are not clear at all, except within a logical 'true' and 'false' context [such absolutes have no meaning in physical reality]

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein

Whether your dick is in my butthole or not is pretty fucking binary.

if the dick-in-butthole connection completes a circle of dicks-in-buttholes, the local two-body component dick-in-butthole systems fail to to satisfy Ashby's principle of requisite variety; i.e. in this non-binary configuration, the whole is greater than the sum of the holes.

curved space is relational and involves real physical dynamics that go beyond dynamics understood in terms of the actions of independent things. for example, the real-world dynamics of a connected circle imply back-reflected shock-waves that create 'jams' that are not due to bottlenecks and which cannot be explained in terms of a linear combination of individual actions [reciprocal disposition makes space a participant in physical phenomena].

i was only able to get video of the coupling relations of vehicles on a circular track, but you can imagine this non-binary physically real coupling in the setting you chose.

if you reflect on the 'two-body' representation that you depicted with words, it assumed a space [absolute space and absolute time reference frame] that was independent of the two 'independent' inhabitants that were residing, operating and interacting within it. this is not 'physical reality', but 'semantic reality'.

in the physical reality of our actual experience, "the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" -- Mach's principle

Your quote validated the concept of consent by saying that despite the claims of the rulers, they never asked our consent to their rule/government. That shows that neitzixhe or whoever saw validity in the concept of consent.

[as was Einstein's and Wittgenstein's point]

for example, there is no discrete point/boundary discernible in the physical reality of our sensory experience where one moves out of the storm-cell interior [or organism interior] into the non-storm-cell exterior [or non-organism exterior] because there are no dualities' in the physical reality of our actual experience [which is of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum]. we simply impose an absolute [abstract, idealized] measuring/reference frame to measure and subjectively set thresholds that mark the boundary which refers NOT to the limits of the relational feature but to the limits of our own sensory experience.

nevertheless, the validity of a logical 'truth' or 'falsehood', though not 'physically real', is a useful concept or 'pragmatic idealization' within the language game called 'logic'.

as poincaré pointed out, the proposition 'the earth rotates' is nonsense in a physical sense since the universe is a transforming relational continuum and 'earth' is a word that imputes the independent existence of a word-name-labelled 'thing' [bookmark for a relational feature in the flow] called 'earth'. it is an error of grammar to transfer sourcing responsibility for dynamics from the flow-field or relational continuum, to a word-label bookmark stuck into a notional absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame. this is a language game that allows us to arrange our disconnected observations [we can see the relational forms in the flow but not the flow] in a convenient way that furnishes 'economy of thought' [Mach] but this language game and the semantic realities we construct with it, are not to be confused with the physical reality of our actual experience.

" Science itself, … may be regarded as a minimization problem, consisting of the completest possible presenting of facts with the least possible expenditure of thought” … “We … should beware lest the intellectual machinery, employed in the representation of the world on the stage of thought, be regarded as the basis of the real world.” – Ernst Mach

'consent' is a logical concept that has no physically real meaning. it is certainly a convenient concept for 'authorities' who use it in contractual agreements that serve to 'legitimize' their authority. as nietzsche says, consent is bullshit as far as physical reality goes and it is the underpinning of the bullshit system known as 'democracy' [the standard version of democracy where the members of a collective supposedly 'consent' to empowering a central authority to formulate and issue orders/instructions that will be 'lawfully' imposed on everyone].

As far as consent not being a useful or valuable term to anarchy and an overall spook. For all this talk of me emile's point on consent being 'obviously' silly and reprehensible even they never argue this obviousness. They never do because they can't. Consent IS a bourgeois, legalistic, contractual NON ANARCHY based idea. It is simply better to understand things physically and sensually with there being grey area shades of receptivity and non much like the greater animal world.

really you and emile are against words because language based communication necessarily circumscribes and bounds reality into definable concepts so they may be discussed by humans using language. If you don't want to use language, great, then please stop commenting.

if you could [would] read, you would understand [no need to agree with] whorf's, sapir's, nietzsche's and emile's view that noun-and-verb language-and-grammar constructs a particular type of 'reality' ['semantic reality'], a 'mechanical reality' that is far from the relational physical reality of our actual experience. in particular, noun-and-verb language builds semantic realities in terms of notional 'independently-existing material entities that reside, operate and interact in a notional absolute space and absolute time containing frame.

there has never been any statement on my part that 'i am against words' or 'don't want to use language'. what i have been sharing [trying to share] is that the semantic realities constructed with noun-and-verb language are 'pragmatic idealizations' rather than 'realities'. to use noun-and-verb semantic realities as 'operative realities'; i.e. to confuse semantic reality for 'reality', rather than recognizing it as 'pragmatic idealization', is the source of 'incoherence' [Bohm] in the relational social dynamic.

i have also been trying to share the understanding that different language architectures deliver different 'semantic realities', and that in order to construct 'semantic realities' that are in closer agreement with the relational phenomena of modern physics and of our actual experience, we need to 'upgrade' from a 'being-based' noun-and-verb language to a relational [flow-based] language [e.g. as advocated by Bohm], and to acknowledge that verb-based indigenous aboriginal languages are far more competent in capturing relationally complex phenomena.

with respect to 'anarchism', 'indigenous anarchism' evolved within a 'relational reality' that lies beyond the 'purely mechanical semantic realities' of noun-and-verb languages. bohm validated the greater relational competency of indigenous aboriginal language architectures, as also proposed by whorf and sapir;

"David Bohm had not known when he wrote of that concept [the need for a relational or flow-based language] that such a language is not just a physicist’s hypothesis. It actually exists. The language of the Algonquin peoples was developed by the ancestors specifically to deal with subtle matters of reality, society, thought, and spirituality.
A few months before his death, Bohm met with a number of Algonkian speakers and was struck by the perfect bridge between their language and worldview and his own exploratory philosophy. What to Bohm had been major breakthroughs in human thought — quantum theory, relativity, his implicate order and rheomode – were part of the everyday life and speech of the Blackfoot, Mic Maq, Cree and Ojibwaj.” – F. David Peat, ‘Blackfoot Physics’

like i say, evidently, you write but do not read.

the use of the bullshit concept of 'consent' points to a very basic misunderstanding that has been institutionalized in Western society's habitual 'way of understanding'; i.e. the logic-based semantic reduction of 'relational dynamics' to purely 'mechanical dynamics'. in the physical reality of our experience, receptor-effector coupling is a non-dual unity-in-opposition. in reconstructing this using noun-and-verb language we remove the relational 'relativity' and reduce the relational dynamic to pure mechanics wherein the 'effector action' is seen as primary while the 'receptor' is depicted as entirely passive and constrained to a logical 'consent' or 'refusal' to the notionally one-sided effector-action which is notionally one-sidedly driven by the 'will' of the effector [i.e. the inductive influence of the receptor is totally obscured in the dualist semantic reconstruction]. this reduction to purely mechanical dynamics characterizes noun-and-verb Indo-European language-and-grammar architectures;

psychologically, noun-and-verb semantic RECONSTRUCTION has us deny the natural precedence of relational SITUATIONAL influence that channels through the receptor and actualizes effector behaviour, and instead depicts the unnatural precedence of INTENTIONAL will as authoring effects within a purely mechanical effector-action scenario. this is the psychological topsy-turvy turning, 'bewitchment of our understanding' by language. As Nietzsche puts it;

“In its origin language belongs in the age of the most rudimentary form of psychology. We enter a realm of crude fetishism when we summon before consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language, in plain talk, the presuppositions of reason. Everywhere it sees a doer and doing; it believes in will as the cause; it believes in the ego, in the ego as being, in the ego as substance, and it projects this faith in the ego-substance upon all things — only thereby does it first create the concept of “thing.” Everywhere “being” is projected by thought, pushed underneath, as the cause; the concept of being follows, and is a derivative of, the concept of ego. In the beginning there is that great calamity of an error that the will is something which is effective, that will is a faculty. Today we know that it is only a word.” – Nietzsche, ‘Twilight of the Idols’

while noun-and-verb language gets rid of the epigenetic inductive influence [that channels through the receptor] that actualizes, orchestrates and shapes effector behaviour and substitutes 'independent beings driven by inside-outward asserting 'will', ... the physical reality of receptor-effector non-duality [as with storm cells and biological cells] remains.

while noun-and-verb semantic reality reduces relational dynamics to purely mechanical dynamics [what independent things driven by their own internal will driven effector actions 'do'], there is no such thing in the physical reality of our actual experience as 'purely mechanical action'. as Mach puts it;

“Purely mechanical phenomena do not exist. The production of mutual accelerations in masses is, to all appearances, a purely dynamical phenomenon. But with these dynamical results are always associated thermal, magnetic, electrical, and chemical phenomena, and the former are always modified in proportion as the latter are asserted. On the other hand, thermal, magnetic, electrical, and chemical conditions also can produce motions. Purely mechanical phenomena, accordingly, are abstractions, made, either intentionally or from necessity, for facilitating our comprehension of things. The same thing is true of the other classes of physical phenomena." – Ernst Mach, ‘The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development’, Chapter V, ‘The Relations of Mechanics to Other Departments of Knowledge (Physiology)’

the point is that the semantic realities we construct using our noun-and-verb language-and-grammar architecture are reductions from relational physical dynamics to abstract purely mechanical dynamics.

"Purely mechanical phenomena, accordingly, are abstractions, made, either intentionally or from necessity, for facilitating our comprehension of things.

the noun-and-verb semantic imagery of a central authority run community is thus that the citizens consent to their own exploitation by the authorities. ['democracy' involves the agreement that if there is a majority of those 'consenting', this over-rides the minority of those 'refusing'].

this mechanical view of the 'system of community' makes it appear as if the 'authority' is the author of what the collective [workers] are producing; i.e. the effector is put into unnatural precedence over the receptor. that is, the mechanical viewing paradigm hides from consideration the primary animating influence [epigenetic inductive influence] that channels in through the receptor.

consider each community member or worker in Emerson's terms as a vent for channeling influence from the vast and universal to the point on which its genius can act. a group of such cosmic influence collectors inductively actualize the emergence of a would-be 'authority' and orchestrate and shape its behaviour. the authority is thus the SECONDARY 'spook' in the centre, having been inductively actualized by the cosmic collectors aka 'workforce'. as in Ayn Randism, this relational dynamic is recast in semantic reality as a purely mechanical system in which the animating influence is no longer acknowledged to be the inductive influence that is channeling in through the receptors/workers, but is instead credited to the 'will' of the central authority. but if the central authorities are shot and killed and not replaced for a while, the absence of will in the empty throne does not bring the animation to a halt, since the real physical sourcing influence is coming through (channelling through) the receptors from the vast and universal. in other words, the central authorities are 'poseurs' and are supported in this charade by the 'consent' of the citizens/workers (cosmic receptors who are transmitting influences from the vast and universal to the point on which their genius can act) who are, in effect, agreeing to depictions of themselves as passive resources to be utilized by the 'effectors'. this is the same idea as in Darwinism where the organism and its behaviour is seen to be primarily animated by 'genetic expression', when the physical reality is that epigenetic inductive influence is in a natural precedence over genetic expression;

"“As is described by Nijhout, genes are “not self-emergent,” that is genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can’t control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by “environmental signals.” Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!” ... "Receptor IMPs [Integral Membrane Proteins] ”see” or are “aware” of their environment and effector IMPs create physical responses that translate environmental signals into an appropriate biological behavior. The IMP complex controls behavior, and through its affect upon regulatory proteins, these IMPs also control gene expression… The IMP complexes provide the cell with “awareness of the environment through physical sensation,” which by dictionary definition represents perception. Each receptor-effector protein complex collectively constitutes a “unit of perception.” –Bruce Lipton, ‘The New Biology’

in other words, in the physical reality of our actual experience, the inductive influence of receptors is in a natural precedence over the asserting effector actions, but noun-and-verb construction of semantic reality reduces these relational dynamics to one-sided purely mechanical dynamics where effector-actions are put into an unnatural precedence over the receptors that are inductively actualizing them. 'consent' to be used as a simple tool of authority is what keeps this abstract 'purely mechanical' semantic reality 'hanging together' as a logical construction in the mind.

thus, there is every reason to call bullshit when this concept of 'consent' is treated as if it were 'real'. it is merely one of the props that holds up 'semantic realities' that represent the world dynamic in the abstract/impossible terms of pure mechanical action.

sustaining balance and harmony in a social dynamic without resorting to such bullshit abstractions is eminently feasible as demonstrated in pre-literate, relational organizing dynamics.

Again, you are making the mistake of suggesting that 'meaningful' is something free-floating, and not subject to an individual evaluator.

You can decide for yourself how much meaning YOU find in the messages on this site, but personally I HAVE found SOME meaningful comments. Tragically, this number is rather low, and I again assert that the number would be higher if it were not for anonymous trolls and people for whom typing "you fucking primmie" is a worthwhile endeavour.

On the point of crypto-fascism, again this is a matter of some debate.

As I see it, there are the following broad groupings:-

1. Classical anarchists, for whom all of the other groups are 'reactionaries', or 'fascists' or [currently trending slur]. These people are stuck in the mid 19th century in terms of their theory (or more precisely, ideology), their practices, and their aims (the revolution).

2. Updated 'anarchists', variously using the labels and rhetoric of 'PLA'/'anarchs'/[currently trending radical label]. These people realise that it's not fun or smart to be stuck in the 19th century, and have begun to question some parts of the control complex.

3. Similar to (2.) but have rejected the label 'anarchist' altogether and finding more value in critiques that come from outside anarchism than those that have come out of anarchism (including the ideas put out by (2.)

4. Similar to (3.) but find nothing of value in (1.) or (2.) at all, since these people just haven't figured out yet how far behind the curve they are. Many of these put forward very challenging 'relational' ideas that, even if you don't like them, at least make you think about things a bit deeper. Sir Einzige and 'emile' fall into this category.

5. Various elitist-leaning groups, such as 'national anarchists'. Some of them are actually appropriating the A-word, some aren't. They have a similar level of openness to 2. and 3. but remain slave to geists such as 'nation' or 'race'.

6. Non-anarchist individuals who like to take good ideas and use them, and reject bad ideas and critique them. They are visiting A-news for motivations unique to them.

Possibly, some of the people in (5.) might be accurately termed 'fascists', but the biggest problem is that there are still too many people in group (1.), to whom stringent critique is anathema, and the go-to knee-jerk response is simply to label the other person a fascist and not refer to the ideas at all.

As various thinkers have pointed out, this is using the tactic of the 'un-person'.

When people are made to stand alongside their comments by the removal of anonymity (nothing is stopping you from taking a pseudonym), I think this tactic would diminish, and all would benefit (except those wanting just to close down debate and fling their own shit around).

I concede that I may not have presented these broad categories in the best way. I'm not the best at putting points across succinctly and clearly. I tend to write like I speak, and I'm sure that the same brain processes are behind both, so they're really the same thing just in different mediums.

If you agree with WHAT I write but think the HOW could be improved upon, by all means try to paraphrase :)

I found a Jason McQuinn quote that comes close to summarising what I wrote before:-

"...[some people say that] we shouldn’t talk about certain social problems because they’re too complex or it could lead to baiting by authoritarians, or critiques that shouldn’t be made because they’re likely to alienate people with a more narrow idea of what anarchy is. There’s all kinds of things that come into play. I think that if there’s going to be an anarchist milieu worth existing, it has to be open to all kinds of problems and situations and not be afraid of public criticism of the anarchist movement, the criticism that people who are anarchists are criminals, or terrorists, or whatever. I think the movement should be as honest as possible and appeal to non-anarchists who share similar ideas to what we have...” (emphasis added)

Do you want to make a point in support of your assertion?

language gives us a facility by which we can arrange our observations. some languages do not not employ categorization simply because, in the physical reality of our actual experience, the world does not break down into separate groupings [that is pragmatic idealization supported by noun-and-verb language-and-grammar].

for example, the same person may jump from category to category within a single ongoing discussion. the categories you propose do not determine him/her. also, 'meaning' comes from the reader, as you point out [the 'death of the author' principle] so that 'what we get out of this is equal to what we put into it'.

categories do not exist ['have no meaning'] in a relational worldview as derives from actual relational experience and/or from verb- rather than noun-based languages. so your categorization is not 'real' but 'pragmatic idealization'.

having been 'categorized' within your categorization, i would just like to comment that the 'relational worldview' transcends categorization. this is because the 'meaning' of relational forms in a transforming relational continuum cannot be 'solved' or 'given meaning', except 'in toto' [as is the case in 'nonlinear dynamics']. one must understand 'things' aka 'forms' in terms of their 'cosmic fetalization' rather than in terms of the specification of 'common properties' based on local, visible, material properties. the storm-cells with their blossoming 'genetic expression' on this 'side' of the globe are being actualized, orchestrated and shaped by the globally enveloping fluid dynamics in which they share inclusion; i.e. 'genetic expression' is a secondary manifestation of epigenetic relational influence.

one might ask oneself, as psychologists have, whether the behaviours of people in particular relational situations are actualized more by the relational situation or more by constant internal intentions, in spite of the ever-transforming relational situations they find themselves in. that 'situationism' prevails over 'intentionism' is validated by experience [eg. experiments of Milgram, Zimbardo].

so, the category you have put some of us in, is the category of those that do not categorize. non-categorization is what makes relational views different; i.e. relational views do not depend on categorizing. and this is why relational views, as in indigenous anarchism, are still in a tiny minority in Western culture dominated society [as sampled in this forum] since Western culture constructs its worldview on the basis of categorization, treating categories [convenient/pragmatic idealizations used to construct semantic realities] as 'real' and employing the semantic realities constructed from them, as the de facto 'operative reality'.

just to say that the category you have put us in opens up access into a mode of understanding that transcends categorizing.

indigenous anarchism is such a non-categorizing non-category which puts relations into natural precedence over things [based on simply measuring and categorizing relational features in the transforming relational continuum]. non-categorizing relational approaches to understanding tend to be mocked or ignored by the categorizing majority. it is categorizing that leads to the notion that ideas can stand on their own as discrete things-in-themselves rather than as deriving their meaning relationally and thus by indefinite deferral [Derrida].

Obviously categories are not real. I evoked them temporarily to demonstrate some trends in behaviour of users of this site.

And I do TRY to understand what you write, but I've discussed with you in the past the difficulties I face: too long, too vague, too long a reading list. You've never deemed to meet me half way in that regard.

But hey, at least you're a logged in user and in either case, your writing style is inimitable and instantly recognisable.

in poincare's terms, you would be a 'pragmatist idealist' like him [and me] rather than a 'realist'. but Western civilization has institutionalized 'realism' as the orthodoxy, where 'categories' like 'male' and 'female' and 'black' and 'white' are taken to have 'real' meaning-in-themselves.

this deception comes from seeking to understand what relational forms in a relational continuum [inhabitant-habitat non-duality] are, by measuring their 'common properties' relative to an absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame. by measuring wind velocities and pressures relative to a fixed reference frame, we can turn a relational form such as a storm-cell into a local 'thing-in-itself' as defined by its measured common properties. that is, when we 'categorize', we measure and give meaning to a notional local 'thing-in-itself'.

this is then the basis of seemingly 'real' multiplicities. eg. if there is a storm [inhabitant] in the atmosphere [habitat] and two more storms develop, then we will have three storms in the one atmosphere, right? NO, because the storm is to the atmosphere as the inhabitant is to the habitat; i.e. they are in a 'non-dual' relationship. we would have to redefine the existing storms each time a new storm forms since each storm/inhabitant is conditioning/changing the common medium/habitat which is at the same time conditioning/changing the inhabitants [the new storm is reshaping the storms already in the atmosphere and vice versa].

this issue of whether a new member simply adds a numerical one-count to the members that are already in the set without the need for changing the member definition, or whether it redefines all of the members in the set as it makes its entry is a legitimate problem in logic which is where the split between 'realists' and 'pragmatist idealists' comes from.

a similar contention occurs in forum discussions. as a commenter adds new comments in a single thread, he may generate inconsistencies/contradictions with respect to his prior comments since each new comment may implicate his prior comments [giving rise to consistencies or contradictions]. if his comments are in support of a particular way of viewing things [leftism, libertarianism etc.] the revised implications to his prior comments implied by his continuing comments must not generate contradictions. As Einstein puts it in 'Geometry and Experience';

" A geometrical-physical theory as such is incapable of being directly pictured, being merely a system of concepts. But these concepts serve the purpose of bringing a multiplicity of real or imaginary sensory experiences into connection in the mind. To "visualize" a theory therefore means to bring to mind that abundance of sensible experiences for which the theory supplies the schematic arrangement." -- Einstein

the theory that Saddam is building weapons of mass destruction to destroy the Euro-American colonial powers gathers 'credibility' [qualifies as 'reality' or not] by the manner in which a diverse multiplicity of observations are 'arranged' so as to 'point' to and give consistent support to the theory. the 'straight shooting' record of the theory-presenter can weigh into this process [a colin powell comes across better than a dick cheney].

in the presence of 'competing views/realities', ad hoc contributions of support or opposition for a theory add no real substance, yet 'science by concensus' is commonly what happens in Western culture; i.e. the massive support for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is due to the equivalent of 'anonymous' commenters whose 'feet are never held to the fire' with respect to the consistency and non-contradiction of their arranging of the observations. individuals who have carefully reviewed the arranging of the observations and see contradictions in the AGW arrangement are radically outnumbered by the contributions of the 'anonymous' contributors.

it could be that an 'einstein' was sprinkling in comments signed 'anonymous', into the great pool of 'anonymous' comments, however, without being able to separate out his set of comments and in so doing, recognizing the amazing consistency and non-contradiction in his point of view, we would see only the net blur and pollution of mostly ad hoc expressions of opposition or support on a particular thread-issue. in criminal prosecutions, inconsistencies in the arrangement of observations by a single commenter can determine which of two competing views better fits the data/observations without contradiction; e.g. in 'To Kill a Mockingbird', the defense attorney, Atticus Finch, argues that;

"only the right side of Mayella's face is injured, suggesting a left-handed assailant; Tom's [accused of raping Mayella] left arm is mangled and useless, but Bob Ewell is left-handed.". the cross-examination of Mayella exposes contradictions that suggest that Mayella tried to seduce Tom and was then beaten by her father, Bob Ewell, who had seen Mayella's attempt at seduction, rather than by Tom.

how a particular person is 'connecting the dots' [arranging the observations] and whether such arrangement is consistent and without contradiction, could be motivated by the desirability of the result of the acceptance of the theory and/or by the innate consistency of the arrangement;

"To "visualize" a theory therefore means to bring to mind that abundance of sensible experiences for which the theory supplies the schematic arrangement."

of course, in To Kill A Mockingbird, the weight of the anonymous contributions, as in AGW, had more influence than the search for consistency and contradiction in the competing views [Tom was found guilty of raping Mayella].

the 'weight' of anonymous contributors in discussion, whose feet are never held to the fire to show consistency and non-contradiction in their contributions can have the same effect as the weight of pre-judicial comments of the 'rabble' in trying to decide amongst competing theories in 'Maycomb', Alabama. 90 percent of the white folk in Maycomb can't be wrong. likewise, 90 percent of the anonymous contributors in anarchistnews 'can't be wrong'.

when establishing reality by consensus takes over, the art/science of arranging observations in a consistent, non-contradictory manner; i.e. 'theorizing', goes down the tube. this is basically 'democracy in action' since competing theories are accepted or rejected on the basis of the equivalent of 'anonymous' opinions which do not have to be 'informed' opinions but can simply carry into each issue the prejudice of tired old orthodox theory.

the default, as the ratio of anonymous to identifiable participants increases, is that the discussion forum degenerates into a voting mechanism, and loses its learning/researching space quality. the number of anonymous contributors supporting Mayella's position [i.e. supporting the demonizing of Tom Robinson] is no substitute for the careful scrutinizing of Mayella's arranging of the observations in support of the 'Tom raped me' version of 'reality', but we live in a society where one believes in 'the wisdom of the crowd'; e.g. the deniers of AGW must be in cahoots with Big Oil etc. once we have 'categorized' them as such, there is no need to actually listen to what they are saying. in the end, we have this great process called 'democracy' where the anonymous majority selects the winner from 'competing realities'.

the POTENTIAL EXPOSURE for a learning space to degenerate into a voting space is directly proportional to the ratio of anonymous contributors to registered users. one never knows how many 'anonymous' contributors strive for consistency and non-contradiction in their comments, but the exposure is there for the frivolous or infiltrators with a destructive mission, to use the 'anonymous' entrée to bring about the degeneracy that transforms a learning space into a voting machine. a voting machine without the power to do anything is soon abandoned.

'Maycomb', Alabama treated categories as 'real' rather than as 'pragmatic idealizations' and this opened the door for 'anonymous' contributors to dominate in the process for selecting between multiple competing candidate 'realities' ['semantic realities'], by simply supporting or opposing a competing 'realities' on the basis of the 'category' of the presenter, regardless of the respective inconsistencies and contradictions in the arranging of observations used in constructing the 'reality'.

One might say that the United States political scene has, over the past 200 years, degenerated from a learning space to a voting space [consistency and non-contradiction in the construction of competing semantic realities matters less and less]. but in this case, there continues to be high interest since this voting machine has huge powers that will be mobilized and shaped according to which of the competing 'semantic realities' is voted in as the 'operative reality'.

I wrote 2 sentences. You wrote 18 paragraphs, of stuff that, scanning it (I didn't read it all) looks totally irrelevant to the point I was trying to make about anarchist blinkering. I can't respond to that. If you want me to respond in future, please be terse and make clearly identifiable points.

what you seem to be missing, or glossing over, is that terseness is achieved by reducing relational complexity by way of 'commonly accepted definitions' which simply wallpaper over irreducible complexity thanks to simplifying assumptions. if one want's to delve into those complexities, one has to deconstruct the simplifying assumptions that give rise to common 'high level' terms that cap and hide the real world relational complexity.

this point is like Derrida's example of looking up a commonly accepted high level definition/word in a dictionary and finding multiple meanings expressed in a large number of other words, each of which can be looked up for its meaning in terms of a large number of other words that are rooted in the past where they referred to situations that may have since passed etc. the root system of a common high level definition word is an indefinitely deferred matrix of relational associations that disperses in many directions and 'grounds out' in the ongoing relational flow [the transforming relational continuum].

using common high level definitions leads to a tower of babel situation where everyone thinks that they understand what another is saying, while bringing entirely different meaning to the same high level words such as 'indian' or 'black' or 'female' or 'category'.

the encouragement to terse dialogue is a problem. it is an encouragement to misunderstanding. it is clear and concise to say 'DDT kills mosquitoes' but it hides beneath it the complexity of this thing called DDT and its interactions within the habitat and it fails to mention the other organisms that will be injured or killed and how this will propagate and do damage within the full relational complexity of the eco-logical habitat.

in other words, the terseness of logical propositions comes from their inherent subjectivity and incompleteness which delivers a convenient 'economy of thought' that is 'far from the reality of our actual experience'.

"“For the crystalline purity of logic was, of course, not a result of investigation: it was a requirement. … The preconceived idea of crystalline purity can only be removed by turning our whole examination around. (One might say: the axis of reference of our examination must be rotated, but about the fixed point of our real need.)” – Wittgenstein, ‘Philosophical Investigations’, 107-108

i hear you; i.e. i understand that you have a NEED for terseness, which means to me that you prefer NOT to revisit the source of simplicity that gives 'terseness' in our common dialogue, that source lying in the hidden assumptions that underpin our common high-level definitions. but have you ever considered that the reason why disagreement persists and that we can't move ahead together is because everyone is bringing their own different meanings to the same words? how many different meanings are there for 'anarchist'?

terseness is a form of expression where we sweep the relational complexity of physical reality under the rug, the rug of terseness. shall i speak louder so that you get it? ... 'DDT kills mosquitoes!', now can you hear me? such terseness equips us with an 'operative reality' that we can act on, thanks to the 'economy of thought' as associates with the subjectivity and incompleteness of terse propositions.

I don't deny things are more complex than we might suppose (and maybe "queerer than we CAN suppose"), but for me, there is a tension between a comprehensive analsysis and the 'parable of the poisoned arrow'.

Let's imagine that I wanted to find out the reason for reduced happiness in England (where I currently live, for another few weeks). There are an almost infinite number of relational complexities I could choose to consider, but grouping some of them into themes/generalisations/concepts allows me to do something with my analysis before I get too old and frail.

Therefore, monotonous work, poor diet, almost no exercise, TV and smartphone addiction - these overarching themes give me enough of an insight to understand broadly what is happening. I don't need to understand the exact interplay between obese women, lower (hetero) male sex drive, reduced birth rates, higher immigration, poorer standards of medicine, etc., etc,.

So yeah, mine is an operative reality. And I was creating an overview of that reality, in generalised terms, to make the point that anarchists should be more open to dissenting views without yelling 'fascist!' at the top of their lungs in some kind of kneejerk response.

I know it's not etic reality, but I don't have time for that, and neither does anyone else.

what you are describing is 'politics', the art of constructing semantic realities and trying to rally support for adopting them as 'operative realities'. it is a positivist or constructivist approach based on the notion that we can bring about a desired future state of affairs [we succeed in killing mosquitoes with DDT but the list of unanticipated and unaddressed 'externalities' is the greater impact].

that is, semantic realities are inherently subjective and incomplete.

the alternative is to admit that we don't know what is going on and we cannot be in control of it [it is too relationally complex] in which case we [if we are not hopelessly captured by Western culture as you assume] can re-orient to the 'learning circle approach' where the group actually asks its ordinary members to share their experiencing, using the listening in to these experiencings to actualize creative potentials to cultivate and sustain balance and harmony in the relational social dynamic.

this 'intuitive' approach transpires in the continuing 'now', demoting logical models of 'what is going on' [semantic 'operative realities'] to a secondary support role.

you are promoting continuing support for the Western culture 'brain draw' which, as nietzsche points out, puts reason into an unnatural precedence over intuition.

Wow you are so fucking far off base. Your understanding must come from under the dankest of rocks. Numbers 4-6 don't exist outside of the internet.

People that use the internet also exist in a world that is 'offline'. At a minimum, they turn off their computer, and go to sleep. Most likely they have a job to pay for the electricity bills.

Of course, what you mean is that there are not organisational groups of those people, and that's a valid point, but I suspect that many of those would not want to have organisations either.

The final thing to note is that this kind of comment is again resorting to insult AND adopts a "more knowledgeable than thou" arrogance.

I'm quite happy with my understanding, thank you. If you are happy with yours, why do you feel so challenged by differing ideas? ;)

I don't feel challenged, i feel responsible for pointing out in a public setting that other ideas exist because i think yours are crappy. Is that so hard to figure out?

I registered, but I can't log in. When I click on the link, I get this:

Your connection is not secure

The owner of has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website.

it seems this is an error in the ssl. i'm willing to bet you were using https vs http. try just http and hopefully that should work for you.otherwise, via the https sign-in you have to accept the certificate exception via @news as valid, which is only a few clicks and you should be all good when the warning comes up. it does this because it is self-signed. perhaps something thecollective could look into, maybe ? or perhaps an about page that includes some info regarding this issue for the less tech savy fav

Thank you for making this for registered users only. Please consider opening up your site to democratic control. We could make decisions on the polls to help guide the development of the site, shaping it with our shared view, showing the anarchist world that we can use democracy respectfully and tastefully without all the bad baggage the maximalists want to give it. Vote union!

maybe you are a troll. One of the more sophisticated ones? Lol.

the biggest issue with this is that it removes a layer of anonymity and makes cross identification and monitoring activity easier, which can be even more of a concern for for those who take part in clandestine activity.

in communities where 'everyone knows everyone', the experience is that one's fellows have 'memories' that construct persona profiles wherein one's comments and actions induce back-reflecting costs (or credits) that authors must bear, as laurel wreaths and/or albatrosses hung from the neck.

in urban settings, one can be anonymous and thus be free to comment and act arbitrarily [i.e. 'irresponsibly'], with relative impunity. as the advertising thinktank that coined "What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas" observed;

"The emotional bond between Las Vegas and its customers was freedom. Freedom on two levels. Freedom to do things, see things, eat things, wear things, feel things. In short, the freedom to be someone we couldn't be at home. And freedom from whatever we wanted to leave behind in our daily lives. Just thinking about Vegas made the bad stuff go away. At that point the strategy became clear. Speak to that need. Make an indelible connection between Las Vegas and the freedom we all crave."

anarchistnews has been somewhat like Las Vegas, people go there to do/say shit that they don't feel free to say in the social environment they live in. this could be a valuable learning experience allowing the worm to transform into a butterfly, overcoming the heavy bonds of gravitational capture.

but there are two levels to this anonymity; i.e. registered users have a persisting persona within the local INTERNET (virtual) community [anarchistnews] which gives them the freedom to take on a persona which may be impossible to take on, in their physical community [which rejects and punishes such personas]. this participation as a known persona in a virtual community is not only liberating but it comes with the same sort of responsibility that associates with a real physical community; i.e. you don't want to shit in your own bed/venue. On the other hand, as an 'anon' or totally unidentifiable persona in the virtual community, one can pop in and out of venues, dumping shit that the locals with identifiable personas will be obliged to deal with.

The news media in general is like Las Vegas, a place for exciting and outrageous comments/actions from random contributors that furnishes a continuing spectacle that goes nowhere, as far as community evolution or revolution is concerned. News media is a shit-dumping ground; ... a 'spectacle' that offers vicarious escapist interludes from one's everyday walter mitty realities, the cost of which may be as little as a hangover.

as with the analogy of the chicken's and the pig's respective contributions to a bacon and egg breakfast, the pig puts its 'skin in the game', and so it is for registered users, who, like Las Vegas 'locals', are committed to the persisting welfare of their 'desert community' as something much more than a 'dumping ground' and more like a confederacy of 'deserters' from a fucked up relational social structure, who are, unlike their anonymous counterparts, putting their psychological/spiritual 'identity' in the game.

a desert community like Las Vegas manifests as a spectacle that could end up being no more than a toy or clubhouse furnishing anonymous LSD enhanced vacations for those desperate for a therapeutic respite from the monotony of compliant dog-on-a-leash lives, or, ... it could become a breeding ground for a new strain of community that casts aside entrenched prejudices and demonstrates, instead, a social-relational ethic of real worth, ... unlike that of Western civilization that has us bowing to the great founders of the 'culture' in place, that is to say to the suite of prejudices and common associations of a colonizing society and a colonizing epoch."

Awhile back, at least one mod admitted on the forums that they tend to favour people with accounts over anons and failed to provide any reason why that is. It's got to be some kind of lazy logic fallacy around the-devil-you-know because there really isn't any justifiable argument that meets anarchist criteria IMHO. The post is still up, see for yourself. They deleted a lot of the debate presumably because I and other anons were being "too mean" or something. Let me assure everyone I'm much worse in real life but I never misrepresent my position just to fuck with people so I'm technically not a troll.

Of course this is just my opinion, that's what we're all doing here and I'd like to echo the earlier poster when they say that most of the bullshit drama, pedantic spam and general quality-of-discourse derailment tends to come from a handful of users with accounts.

There's no way that anyone who understands statistics could think that anon posters are being more disruptive and shitty. It'd be like comparing an obnoxious crowd of hundreds of drunks after a ball game to the same 3 or 4 creeps who hang out at the bar every night talking about how pedophilia is maligned and misunderstood and the concept of rape is too ambiguous, plus fuck off feminists, amIriteguys?!

… Who's putting more time in being a shit-head or just clearly jerking themselves off with text-walls to nobody? Come on …

Also, seriously shadow..? You just figured that out? Embarrassed for you dude ...

and as i alluded to, the point is that if the post is signed emile, then i know what i'm getting into when i start reading. same with shadowsmoke, le way, sireinzige, etc. it was also in the context of bullshit posts, not every post on the site.
because i agree that anon posts can be jewels, absolutely. and i am pro anonymous posts, also, that is, i think that the site is more interesting and exciting because of the ability to post anonymously. (but there are many things to consider.)

OP here, that's totally reasonable and I accept that you're in a tough position trying to balance various concerns but what I don't get is why we apparently try and protect the tender sensibilities of people who cheerfully offer up plenty of abuse and their perspectives end up being either a) really condescending or b) totally vile and probably grounds for getting your teeth knocked in, were you to espouse similar views in a real-life setting.

I'm not one of these whiners trying to say you should purge the site of things I don't agree with BUT don't ask me to be polite to these shitheads and then give them a longer leash just cause you're acclimated to their particular flavour of bullshit.

but my criteria is that posts have to have something of value in them to stay on the site. and yes, it's my measure of value when i'm making the decision. (that really should go without saying, since even if i were trying to make decisions based on other people's criteria, it would still be my interpretation of those criteria--but i don't want to get into a conversation about egoism here, thanks.) i don't regard that as insisting on politeness, but as insisting on content. for example, i have found few threats to be interesting or funny in ANY way, so if a threat is included with something of value, i have to make some kind of pro/con balancing decision. the named posters--who, i agree, tend to be quite repetitive--do also tend to actually be saying *some* thing (other than, you're dumb, i hate you, i'll beat you up, blah blah blah).
the idea that any of the mods are trying to protect people's sensibilities is funny. thanks for that.

Your judgements are garbage. If someone says some nazi shit and 5,000 posters say "i'm gonna cut your balls off for this nazi comment" i those 5,000 comments are worthwhile to keep up because they show the extent of the opposition and anger others have towards such a comment. How do you not get that???

This is why we need to allow polling to be a feature of the site to guide it in ways so that experiments based on one person's (or a small group's) philosophical meanderings. By using a democratic framework to define how things are done, we win by offering more consistently logical and in line with the spirit and relations of the times. Certainly, it being a project that thecollective runs, it makes sense their autonomy be respected, so the polling aspect could be seen as a union between us, in a democratic framework.

*based on one person's (or a small group's) philosophical meanderings *go awry*.

I agree with polling or up/downvotes on comments so people can express their agreement/disagreement without having to comment

if the comment obviously promotes naziism, and by obvious i have to mean obvious to us, then we will take it down regardless of the comments (in fact, fewer comments makes it much easier to deal with). if the comment is not obvious, but people know that it's nazi-related because of hidden information, than that is helpful for us to know. that has happened a couple times iirc. but most frequently the shouts of "bad" come without any or with only faulty connections, and that of course discredits all the name-calling. there are things that can be interpreted as being racist (sexist, fascist, etc) but can also be interpreted in other ways, and to excise all of those kinds of comments is to make for very poor and nuance-free conversations, among other things.
you can go to other sites for that.

It would be a matter of prevention. Before you get a mob of angry posts pressuring you to act on a judgement you made through philosophical meandering, you could instead set up a poll so that we can all help each other come to a more intelligent decision, one we all could respect, based on discussion, communication, compromise and an attempt to make a winning proposal we all can live with. Think of the lack of trolling we could have with a properly guided site that uses a strong democratic framework, that respects the decentered autonomy of the administration while at that same time establishes the strength of autonomy of the users, where we can talk as bodies of people to each other, making decisions, sharing in individual discussions and collective collaborations. We could start gearing towards creating some sort of Anarchist Anglophone Internet Federation (AAIF).

So what about entrenched, antifeminist, neckbeard-style, misogyny? Maybe your radar has some blind spots. I'm the OP by the way, another couple of anons weighed in but the example about consent being "bourgeois" is pretty self explanatory. You seem to think ziggy should be respectfully engaged in a serious debate on that subject ..?

What the fuck is wrong with you? Never mind simple burden-of-proof type obviousness (obviously we're not required to prove him wrong since he's the one alleging it) but you seriously think that passes for "content"? There's nowhere to go from here debate-wise …I fully understand the problem now…

not any convincing argumentation.
would it matter to you if i outed myself as a woman? if i told you that addressing sexism is one of the topics close to my heart?
sireinzige did, in fact, address the reasoning behind his comment, further on, as i noted, and you have no response to it, or to me, except to say that "no more debate is necessary."
there hasn't BEEN any debate. perhaps you are incapable of it.

Seemslike you are in a bit of a social bind
Might I suggest creating a democratic framework with which to engage these people with? Cooperation can become more central if we share in a horizontal structure and share power.

No it wouldn't matter. I'm a bit too old to waste my time explaining anything to ziggy. I made a rule with myself years ago about never engaging with him for about a dozen obvious reasons. Perhaps that's your problem then? You have a fetish for debate?

I'm not required to seriously engage every shithead who spends hundreds of hours a month, circle-jerking themselves here. He's a complete wall so he gets a wall from me (and many others). Same with talking to emile, these idiots are incapable of an actual back-and-forth, they just hammer away at their talking points like fucking politicians, how can you possibly read their posts all the time and not realize this?

So then you delete the hostile posts directed at them because they lack "content", leaving the impression that they're some of the loudest voices here, rather than pariahs to most of us.

i get your point about the effect of removing stupid name calling posts, as if they're going to convince anyone who might be swayed by the so-compelling rhetoric of the people you despise. i'm not convinced by it, but i get the point. you don't need to keep repeating it.
and your rhetorical tactics--"being required", "every shithead", "my fetish", "a dozen obvious reasons"--are still not saying anything, so i won't waste my time with them.
a. you can't save people who will believe things that you don't agree with, whether they're the blank-page, naive readers who are just going to be filled up by whoever they read on this website, or the people with more experience who still somehow find a way to disagree with you.
b. it's possible that i've missed a few responses on this site over the years (lol), but i pay enough attention that if there has been a well-thought out, articulate response to these people who you think offer nothing, i'm pretty sure i would have read it. so you are, as far as i can tell, ABSOLUTELY in the position of stomping your foot and acting like people should just believe your claims.
c. no conversation online is EVER just for the people directly involved. if you're so invested in protecting and saving these pure, new, baby anarchists from the scary ideas of Others, then surely it's worth putting the energy into refuting the *obviously* messed up arguments of these posters you despise.

As someone who actually does engage with Ziggy far more than I should, I have to echo what Anon is saying. It's a shit choice - either we can ignore him and leave the impression of tacit agreement or at least tolerance, or respond and derail the topic with yet another ugly flame war. No matter how polite, lengthy or well-sourced Zig's response dismisses it all and calls ya a retard (as evidence, I'd cite the recent row over science or older debates over his AIDS-denialism claims). As anon said, he's a wall. How many more times am I supposed to waste hours of my time doing actual research and constructing actual arguments when we all know he'll just make the same broad baseless accusations on a new topic tomorrow and pretend it never happened? How many times do I have to go through this before I'm allowed to be as short and insulting with him as he is with everybody else?

You wish

I rarely if ever see such arguments from you or my other detractors. If there is anyone substantive in making a point it's moi.

And is a far bigger phenomenon than just what Einzige says, but you know, there DO exist widespread misconceptions (sometimes as the result of deliberate conspiracy to mislead) that disappear when you do "actual research".

I wasn't aware that Einzige questioned HIV = AIDS, but as someone who did a bunch of research on this, I'd encourage others to do the same. They might find themselves scratching their head wondering how they could be duped by the lies for so long.

Or, you know, you could stay in a world where you believe that the A-bombs were dropped to provoke a surrender, that Centralised banks have popped up in societies all over the world by accident, that there was no prior warning for Pearl Harbor, 7/7, 9/11, and so on.

What is usually defamed as 'conspiracy theory' obviously contains a lot of very strange claims, but by the same token, a lot of it really does stand up to the "actual research".

I have "done research" on AIDS denial. Ive posted it here and responded repeatedly in great detail to Ziggy's inane claims. Not only is it a totally bunk and very dangerous claim but it has absolutely fucking nothing to do with anarchy.

What's next, flat earthers? Is this a site for anarchists or narcissistic contrarians who embrace any fringe ideas that lets them feel superior then cry foul when people don't automatically agree with them? Because right now we're prioritizing the latter.

There is no such thing as a dangerous claim or idea unless you are preserving some type of truth or power. How is that related to anarchy again? As I've said for HIV and ALL the other mythical Vs(that are actually just toxins and stress manifestations), simply show purified species specific cross referential proteins that fulfill The Perth Group protocol(they have the most empirically satisfying and parsimonious standards) or shut up. NO GENETIC SEQUENCES ALLOWED. Only pure isolates that actually replicate like viruses have been claimed to and have the characteristics. In other words the PG standard request(which Robin Weiss says cannot be met btw)

BTW you also haven't demonstrated the existence of any 'immune system' either. This to go along with microbes being pathogenic on a prevailing level.

I think this is just dumbfounding we're running into here. When people cite Montagnier as the 'discoverer', but ignore his later comments (when he sensed the game would soon be up) that contradicted his initial 'discovery', it shows just how blinkered they can be.

The #1 point that has to be addressed by anyone claiming any kind of proof that HIV causes AIDS is to define what HIV 'is', what AIDS 'is', and then explain how both have changed dozens of times, and how there isn't even a reliable way of detecting either.

Take some college biosciences and then come back to us. You have no credibility.
I believe the 99% of scientists who've spent their lives studying this and their conclusions over yours, thanks though Alex Jones.

Exactly. You believe them because of who they are, not what they're doing. They have completely abandoned the scientific method. They shouldn't therefore even be called scientists. You are so completely bewitched by their argument from authority that you daren't even examine their methods. You're a dupe who, rather than fact check for their self, would rather just throw insults like "Alex Jones" at people. Moron.

Call me a dupe and a moron, good argument. Really convincing.
I am not a microbiologist or viroligist. But there are thousands of peer reviewed papers about hiv/aids out there that i can read and trust more than your comments. But if you can cite some peer reviewed papers yourself to back up your claims, please by all means do so. I would conaider check those out, then look for peer reviewed papers that contradict them and see if there is any merit to your assertions.

None of them demonstrate the existence of an exogenous viral species, NONE. It's all dialectical repetitious drivel based on the non isolations of Luc and Bob. Myself and the non virus believers are burdened with nothing. Again, either show unique species specific purified proteins that replicate like a virus, and do this for ANY purported virus(hasn't been done) or shut up.

Also stop giving currency to peer review. It's a gate kept hierarchy that is the opposite of how anarchic knowledge is done.

You've read "those peer reviewed papers"? All of them? And understood them? You don't believe in germs or science but you're qualified to do such an exhaustive literature review on the subject that you can emphatically state "NONE" in all caps? Sure. As for "species specific purified proteins" there's a bunch and a small mountain of papers on them, straight from the first google result when I plugged in the term. People test for these things all the time and find them, with big colourful pictures you can look at. As for why they would "replicate like a virus" or what that even means, it's hard to know where to start. Proteins don't tend to rewrite DNA to produce copies of themselves like viruses do (and even if some do, why would you expect to find them on HIV?), they're just part of the process viral RNA uses to reproduce itself. These proteins may coat the RNA and help it survive or help it breach cell membranes, etc, but they're only being reproduced by infected cells because the RNA was able to re-write it's DNA. Testing for these involves taking those genes (from the RNA) and inserting them into something like a bacteria to see if it will manufacture the protein, and this sort of thing has been done successfully with HIV. Here's one of many peer-reviewed studies which shows it. Do I still have to shut up? For shits and giggles I'll throw up the first in a series of videos that tears apart Perth Group claims, for those who aren't brilliant microbiologists like Zig here.

Now can I call him names?

Seen it all before anon, there is still nothing in regards to specific purified proteins, and no a google search does not show this. When I see things like HIV1 or p24 I am already looking at fail on arrival. Again I'm not interested in gene sequences or reverse transcriptase. Give me the purified protein particles that Bob and Luc did not or shut up. That silly paper is one of many based on the non isolation of Bob and Luc. Try again.

And no concorduncecap did not tear apart anything, as this link will show he is hardly well read in their critique

Laugh if you like but you aren't addressing any of the questions put your way.

"Seen it all before anon, there is still nothing in regards to specific purified proteins, and no a google search does not show this."

That is simply untrue, the study specifically deals with purified proteins. Why is it not acceptable? What kind of proteins, exactly, are you looking for? Oh, and you never explained what you meant about proteins that reproduce like viruses...

"When I see things like HIV1 or p24 I am already looking at fail on arrival."

Good for you. Why?

"Again I'm not interested in gene sequences or reverse transcriptase."

Why not? Aren't gene sequences exactly the kind of thing one would look for to identify a virus?

"Give me the purified protein particles that Bob and Luc did not or shut up. That silly paper is one of many based on the non isolation of Bob and Luc. Try again."

I will gladly try again if you can explain what in the fuck you're asking for and why it's relevant. So far you're just making assertions and throwing around sciencey words you clearly don't understand.

Oh, and PS, AIDS has totally spread outside the original "risk factor groups". Most people with AIDS nowadays are not gays, drug users or hemophiliacs but young straight women in Africa.

There not purified anon, they have not been sufficiently separated from cell culture. Here is a more meticulous explanation that has never been refuted and-by Robin Weiss's own admission-probably will not be:

HIV1 and p24 are based on the non isolations of Luc n' Bobby. This is akin to reworking a failed exam paper with the same substantial failures rehanding it in to the professor. It's downright laughable when any evidence of HIVs existence involves those two. You quite literally need to give me, the PG and the like NEW breakthrough info that actually demonstrates what they could not and it would likely have a different set of names and codes entirely. Again, anything involving 'HIV1' or p24 is fail on arrival.

"Why not? Aren't gene sequences exactly the kind of thing one would look for to identify a virus?"

No, what you look for is a virus in its pure form IF it actually is said to be a unique exogenous life form. Gene sequences of this sort cannot be ruled as being of endogenous unspecific origins as the PG paper above makes meticulously clear.

Once again if you can actually satisfy the PG step by step standards AND MINE then I might pay attention. Anything derivative of Luc n' Bob is a crumpled paper to be tossed in the trash.

And no AIDS has not spread outside the risk groups as far as the Western epicenters go. Africa is a different story which I would not bring up if I were you simply because the asymmetries of how the disease affects one continent vs the others do NOT help your position. This is before getting into the more reasonable explanations for AIDS in Africa having more to due with historical poverty and affects of imperialism and other things then any wily ol' virus explanation(it's quite pathetic to see a so called radical use an argument that gives these historical events cover actually). There are obvious reasons why a highly stressed continent like africa might have people that light up positive on an unspecific 'HIV' test.

Ok, so you're still not really answering my questions and that was one long ugly fucking word-salad of a "paper" , but I think I can kinda see where you're coming from, so I'll bite.

You and the Perth Group (world-renowned cranks) claim that "Luc and Bobby" (how fucking weird is it that you refer to Montagnier and Gallo this way?) didn't really "isolate" HIV back in the early eighties because your definition of "isolation" is supposedly more stringent than that used by the entire worlds of science and medicine up to and including the Nobel Prize committee. Then you go on to dismiss the decades of work since which has all supported, honed and fleshed out their conclusions because those original works weren't comprehensive enough? How can that standard ever be satisfied? Not even Duesberg goes this far.

Gallo and Montagnier both independently isolated the HIV virus, and whatever mistakes they made have long since been acknowledged and corrected. Rather than deliver individual gift-wrapped virions for you their achievement was a method of testing which proved its existence and was able to distinguish its presence. The precision of such tests has gotten far better over the three decades since and we've found a lot of other ways which test for it with alarming consistency. As for the genetic tests you deride, no, these genes don't need to be found in a "unique exogenous life form" because that's not what viruses are (arguably they aren't even technically "life forms" as they can't independently reproduce). Like computer viruses, they're code, and you can still be infected long after the host file was deleted if it's managed to write itself into your system files (or T-cells). Also, it's worth noting that the genes they test for are genes that manufacture the same kinds of proteins (gag, etc) that they test for, which seems a mighty coincidence. As for the matter of "isolation" and "purification", there's a whole pile of methods by which one can empirically tell if somebody is infected (most which are commonly used are at least 99% and this is re-tested regularly) and just about anything we could ask about the virus (its composition, shape, genes, proteins etc), do we need to see it to know that it's there or that it's real? Well, if you do, they have, here's some fucking pictures.

As for P24 proteins, this has been tested over and over again thanks to it's (repeatedly shown) effectiveness in early diagnosis with western blot antibody test. Contrary to the claims of the Perth Group ("If p24 is an HIV protein then it must be present in all AIDS patients"), it does not have to be present in all AIDS patients to make up part of the process - those same antibodies used to test for the protein actually do their job and it's usually gone ~6-10 weeks after detection.

On a final note, I'll mention that the magazine "Continuum" (an old queer AIDS-denial rag) is no longer in publication because the people behind it all died of AIDS, like so many other prominent figures in the AIDS Denial movement. This shit isn't just bunk, it's dangerous bunk that kills people. When the Mbeki invited a bunch of western deniers to testify that AIDS was all a nasty imperialist plot, an estimated third of a million people died as a result. Fuck this bullshit and everyone who spouts it.

And it's bust and fail for you.

Yes anon the PG standard is the only standard I take seriously.I don't care about elective consensus and Nobel winners. Most forms of the former are wrong and the latter includes a war mongering president. It's amazing to see a supposed anarchist pay lip service to this nonesense. Any quality anarchism is going to lean on the qualitative contrarian side of things.

Yes I will dismiss decades of quantitative info if there is no qualitative empirical core to it. Any info involving 'HIV1' or p24 is a bust from the get go. A crumpled paper, a polished turd you name it. You should also no that I have also rejected ALL viruses at this point as no virus model is able to pass the PG standard. I also reject the existence of an 'immune system'. This to go along with rejecting the germ theory assumption that germs are prevailingly pathogenic. I don't care about scifi consensus. In time they will be more wrong and I will be less wrong.

On a final note regarding the continuum editors that is an issue of whether to take the drugs or not not about the question of virus existence. It's more of a Duesberg issue to not take the drugs. The PG and me don't have an issue with the drugs as their effectiveness(which is broad in regards to antifungal and microbial effects) is separate from the issue of virus existence. Perhaps the editors should have considered the post 96 ARVs among other things. However, as me and the PG argue, this is not indicative of virus existence.

"And it's bust and fail for you"
"PG standard is the only standard I take seriously"
"Most forms of the former are wrong"
"Any info involving 'HIV1' or p24 is a bust from the get go. A crumpled paper, a polished turd you name it."
"I don't care about scifi consensus"

These are not arguments, they are declarations based solely on your own authority. We *know* you believe this crap. Can you provide a single coherent reason to that anyone else should take your word on this?

"I have also rejected ALL viruses at this point as no virus model is able to pass the PG standard."

So...this "standard" is superior (why?) but nothing has ever managed to satisfy it? And you figure this means that viruses don't exist? Rather than the obvious conclusion that the standard is impossible and therefore irrelevant? Well, this is what you get when you listen to someone who doesn't believe in germs. Im curious tho why you didn't open with "viruses aren't real" as it woulda saved a lot of time.

At this point I'm gonna give up wasting time with this quack. I would like to hear, tho, from the mods and other commenters what exactly they think is convincing or valuable about this infowars-level conspiracy bullshit.

even in anarchistnews there is a movement to limit who gets to speak, allowing only those who speak the truth [or so they say], to speak.

as for sireinzige, he can't 'win' the battle of words re whether HIV presence 'correlates with the development of AIDS or 'causes' AIDS unless he can clear up the ambiguity between 'correlation' and 'causation'. Duesberg, with his claim that HIV is a 'passenger virus' (or viral activity rather than a virus-thing] was unable to do this because the 'concensus' on the simple causal view was against him; i.e. his views were 'defeated' by a voting process.

This was the same for Albert Szent-Györgyi's [Nobel prize for vitamin C findings] who, like Antoine Béchamp [who Pasteur, on his deathbed agreed with] claimed that illness was 'imbalance' and the proliferation of viral and bacterial activity [i.e. the notional proliferation of viruses and bacteria as things-in-themselves] was the RESULT of illness-as-imbalance rather than the CAUSE of illness-as-victimization-by-pathogen-attack.

'immune deficiency' (AIDS) is a problem with de fences. when things are in balance de fences are able to keep the cattle and the goats and the pigs out of the tulip patch. if there is a problem of imbalances; i.e. a problem with de fences, we find either the cattle, or goats or pigs, or some combination thereof, consuming the tulips and suffocating tulips with their production of excreta.

as Szent-Györgyi pointed out, there are many [over two hundred] viral and bacterial activities that can proliferate in the tulip field when there is a problem with de fences. streptococcus pneumoniaie is one of the most common. but when de fences are down, there is generally a mix.

AIDS [a problem of imbalance; i.e. a problem with de fences] is just a list of who is found proliferating in the tulip field and to get an AIDS diagnosis, there only needs to be one of the following to get the AIDS diagnosis;

.Candidiasis of the esophagus, bronchi, trachea, or lungs [(but NOT the mouth (thrush)]
Cervical cancer, invasive
Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
Cryptosporidiosis, chronic intestinal (greater than one month's duration)
Cytomegalovirus disease (other than liver, spleen, or nodes)
Cytomegalovirus retinitis (with loss of vision)
Encephalopathy, HIV related
Herpes simplex: chronic ulcer(s) (more than 1 month in duration); or bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis
Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal (more than 1 month in duration)
Kaposi sarcoma
Lymphoma, Burkitt's (or equivalent term)
Lymphoma, immunoblastic (or equivalent term)
Lymphoma, primary, of brain
Mycobacterium avium complex or M kansasii, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Mycobacterium tuberculosis, any site (pulmonary or extrapulmonary)
Mycobacterium, other species or unidentified species, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia
Pneumonia, recurrent
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
Salmonella septicemia, recurrent
Toxoplasmosis of brain
Wasting syndrome due to HIV

Starting from imbalance, or a problem with 'de fences', HIV (activity or thingummy) is an identifiable intruders/encroachers that may proliferates in the tulip field [like a dumb steer grazing rather than a pathogen on the attack]. since Western medical orthodoxy employs the 'allopathic' model, the cattle or goats or pigs that intrude/encroach and proliferate in the tulip field as the result of a problem with de fences, are regarded as 'attacking pathogens. the medical response is to see them as 'causal agents' and to wage a war of elimination against them. sometimes in the chaos of war, de fences are restored and 'winning the war' is credited with 'cured the illness'. this is the same with criminal activity and terrorist [freedom-fighting] activity which is actualized by imbalance in freedoms [within a slave to master or serf to monarchy hierarchy]. when de fences are down, criminals and terrorists proliferate within the gated nations and territories of the hyper-privileged who are suffocating the hypo-privileged.

anyhow, 'super-bugs' who resist all of the anti-pathogen (anti-biotic) attacks arise in some cases like 'c. difficile' which go to show that the origin of 'illness' is imbalance rather than 'the attack of pathogens' as the only way to cure the so-called 'superbug' c. difficile is to restore a balanced digestive tract flora which is easily done by an infusion of healthy, balanced flora. since this does not fit orthodox (anti-pathogen war-waging) medical science, tens of thousands of people continue to die each year in the US alone, as the unbalanced body in which c. difficile are proliferating, is made into a battlefield and pharmaceutical science is invited to use their latest and most experimental and powerful anti-pathogen weaponry to wage war against c. difficile (innocuous in people who have not taken anti-biotics), this so-called by medical science 'increasing virulent and lethal super-bug', ... all of this being a mirage by blinding oneself to the primary role of imbalance as in 'le microbe n'est rien, le terrain est tout' [Béchamp and Pasteur-on-his-deathbed]. the innocent cattle or goats or pigs or combinations thereof, that encroach and proliferate in the tulip field when there is a problem with de fences [imbalance], are like criminals and terrorists, whose encroaching on the tea-parties of masters and kings when de fences are down, are considered the problem, rather than the imbalances that make bigger walls and fences imperative [in other words the problem with de fences is relative to the imbalance.

the arguments as to whether HIV causes AIDS [immune deficiency is a 'problem with de fences'] or whether HIV is a passenger-virus [encroaching and proliferating where it usually does not because of a problem with de fences] as in the case of c.difficile and streptococcus pneumoniaie, ... depends on the modeling paradigm. Western medical science is hung up on the view of illness as 'the attack of pathogens' just as globally dominating Western politics is hung up on the view of social ills as 'the attack of pathogens', and is blinding itself to the primary role of 'imbalance' as the inductive source of 'illness'.

without actually debating which illness paradigm is being employed, sireinzige's views cannot prevail because the allopathic view is 'too small' to even accommodate a view of relational imbalance as the primary cause. just as criminals, terrorists, c. difficile are being convicted as jumpstart causal authors of the violence they are venting that originates from imbalance-based relational tensions, so it is with the case of HIV. imbalances are the source of criminals, rapists, terrorists, authors of mass killings etc. all of which proliferate in the presence of rising imbalances where there is a problem with de fences; i.e. the de fences are not keeping up with de imbalances. just as there are over 200 strains of viral and bacterial activity can give rise to 'pneunomia' in the presence of imbalance [deficiency of vitamin C] and Western allopathic medicine nevertheless insists on depicting the problem as 'the attack of pathogens' and scapegoats one of the several innocent critters that is encroaching and proliferating when de fences are down, so it is in general. all of the high falutin scientific crime scene investigation techniques and technologies are there to prove a causal relation between the alleged 'pathogen' and the alleged normal corpus normativo, while ignoring the primary role of balance/imbalance.

the error lies in the objectifying of 'genetic expression' (pathogenic attack) which is inductively actualized by situational imbalance so as to 'make disappear' the physically real epigenetic inductive sourcing. this is the usual Western reduction of non-dual dynamics to dualist material dynamics.

sireinzige is using the non-dualist relational worldview while most people use the dualist allopathic worldview.

I actually like the distinction between virus and viral activity, the latter does not need the former something consequence for cause mistaken germ theory arelational allopaths do not understand. Jamie Cunliffe-someone who has the definitive critique of immune system theory with his more relational morphostasis hypothesis-makes a similar distinction between pathogen and pathogenic arguing that the distinction did not always exist and should not exist.

If you look this in terms of toxicity/toxicology and stress as regards to imbalanced or perturbed affects then things become a lot more parsimonious. Endo and exotoxins can suffice to explain these pathologies not some exo born virus never shown to exist be it zika, ebola or the other more acute attacks. What is callee 'HIV' or other similar 'viruses' likely represent the more non acute long term stress or toxic continuum. Meth, poppers malnutrition and other cofactors, with hep b it is probably viral activity or unspecific protein markation of drug and alcohol abuse and consequent liver damage. There is ALWAYS a toxicological explanation that simply trumps any would be exogenous viral pathogen.

The question to be asked is what did Monty and Bob find? It's not that I think they found nothing, it just wasn't a virus. An epiphenominal marker maybe, one that can decently predict the onset of morphostatic deficiency and imbalance, but not a FUCKING virus.

Anyway, good post as usual emile and you might want to check out Cunliffe's morphostasis model.

I'm hoping thecollective find a cure for tapeworm infection of the comment section.

It's just Lorini and Ingoli all over again.

Montagnier has since tacitly admitted his fraud. If people can't recognise how that undermines the original claim, then lord help them.

cunliffe's distinction opens the door to both 'dualist' and 'non-dualist' views of the organism and parallel's Emerson's depiction of an 'organism' both as a 'vent' and as a 'doer-of-deeds' [the latter being the lesser 'appearances' based view; i.e. a storm-cell that is healing thermal surplus-deficiency imbalance (restoring balance) can 'appear' to be a pathogen, just as a robin-hood band that is healing rich-poor imbalance can 'appear' to be a pathogen].

the 'two views of the one phenomenon' (vent and doer-of-deeds) corresponds to the [big sagacity] non-dualist and [little sagacity] dualist views;

the dualist view is where we logically/linguistically extract the relational form from the transforming relational flow and depict the cell or band as a doer-of-deed pathogen (by framing the relational form against an absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frame).

the non-dualist view of the relational form [cell or band] acknowledges its balance-restoring role; i.e. the cell or band is seen as a system that is serving the needs of the relational suprasystem it is included in; i.e. it serves to restore balance in the manner of a 'vent' that bleeds off relational tensions associated with rising imbalance.

in mainstream science [unlike the systems sciences], the 'system' is understood as a 'thing-in-itself' [doer-of-deeds] and examined using analytical inquiry that breaks the system down into internal components and processes that it uses to explain the development and behaviour of the system as a thing-in-itself. humans who see themselves in this way as self-interest-driven system-things-in-themselves are not motivated to become robin hood band members [vents or agents of relational transformation].

anyhow, Cunliffe tries to come to grips with the simultaneous options of dualist and non-dualist views of relational forms as follows;

"The term pathogenic bacterium may seem to be more or less the same as a bacterial pathogen. But these is a clear difference in emphasis. In the first it [is] the bacterium that is the principal property; this has the expected properties of a bacterium with the additional property of being able to cause damage. In the second, it is the pathogen that is the principal property; this has the "expected" properties of a pathogen with the additional property of also being a bacterium. To me, it seems that there is far more emphasis on - and scope for - a variety of pathogenic mechanisms [or 'pathogenic activities'] in the first than in the second. So, in addition to advocating a return of pathogen to mean any agent that causes disease or damage, I suggest that we should use pathogenic organism rather than an organismal pathogen (where organism is the generic proxy for bacterium, virus, fungus etc) unless there is a compelling reason to emphasise the second.
The article ends by suggesting that an alternative shorthand might be called for to replace pathogen where we really mean a (potentially) pathogenic (micro-)organism." -- Cunliffe

Cunliffe orients strictly to 'damage-doing' here and fails to acknowledge the 'healing' or 'balance-restoring' role, as in the example of 'storm-cell' and 'robin hood band'.[both of which invoke the understanding that it is the inductive influence of the relational suprasystem that is actualizing, orchestrating and shaping the dynamics of the included system]

in nonlinear dynamics, earthquakes, avalanches, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis all have [as systems within relational suprasystems] a balance-restoring role that bleeds down relational tensions, using the released energy for relational reconfiguring into a less relationally-tensioned configuration. however, seen as as things-in-themselves [thanks to the abstract imposing of absolute space and absolute time measuring/reference frames], such activities appear to be purely pathogenic.

in Nietzsche's terms, Cunliffe is struggling with the ambiguous simultaneous viewing options of (a) the non-dualist view of 'the big sagacity or natural Self' and (b) the dualist view of the little sagacity or ego-[thing-in-it]self.

e.g. as 'robin hoods' we are non-dualist agents of transformation that serve the restoring, cultivating and sustaining of relational balance and harmony in the transforming relational suprasystem [continuum] in which we are included. as doers-of-deeds, we are EITHER dualist 'producers of constructive results' OR 'producers of destructive results'. dualist moral judgement embellishes this further by assigning moral values of 'merit' to producers of constructive results and 'reproach' to producers of destructive results.

Cunliffe 'hedges his bets' on 'pathogens' by opting for "(possibly) pathogenic bacterium" rather than "bacterial pathogen", opening the door to non-dualist as well as dualist views.

Meanwhile, if we compare the architectures of relational (flow-based) and non-relational (noun-and-verb based) languages, it is evident that different language structures allow us to see 'cells' and 'robin hoods' as 'things-in-themselves' and thus simple doers of destructive deeds in the latter and as 'vents' [non-dual systems within relational suprasystems] that are resolving relational tensions [healing imbalances] in the former.

Cunliffe is intuiting a distinguishing nuance, but seems hung up on binary moral values that split relational transformation into the binary dualism of 'destruction' and 'construction' [construction and destruction are a non-duality in the relational understanding of dynamics; e.g. it is impossible to construct a house in the forest without destroying forest].

it is only noun-and-verb language-and-grammar that forces us to split relational transforming into EITHER construction OR destruction and the choice is purely subjective, as Howard Zinn, for example, points out in 'A People's History of the United States', where the colonizers see what they do as 'constructive' while the colonized see what the colonizers do as destructive. those are subjective and contradictory 'semantic realities'. the physical reality of our actual experience is 'relational transformation' as the relational dynamics of colonizer, colonized and common living space interleave with one another. ].

of course there is likely a lot more to morphostasis so will continue to 'explore'

the causal model [which simplifies non-dual relational field-flow-features] depicts relational activities [the venting of imbalance-sourced relational tensions] such as 'viral activity' and 'bacterial' activity [and likewise criminal and terrorist activity], by giving them noun-subject status which imputes 'independent being' and 'subjecthood', as in the nouns 'virus', 'bacterium', 'criminal', 'terrorist'.

in such sprachspiel, one couples these nouns with verbs to make it appear that the noun-subjects are the jumpstart source of their own development and behaviour, depicting them as 'causal agents' fully and solely responsible for their own behaviour [Nietzsche's 'lightning flashes' exemplar]. meanwhile, our intuition is informing us [screaming out to us] that these 'actor-jumpstarted-activities', rather than locally jumpstarting, are nonlocally (relationally) induced by the need to restore balance where imbalance and associated relational tensions are building. i.e. relational imbalance is the primary condition that inductively actualizes criminal activity and terrorist activity and those that are 'in power' whose activities are helping to build and profit by imbalances are meanwhile promoting scenarios that describe balance-restoring activism as 'pathogenic', using the simplistic dualistic 'causal model' that imputes 'independent thing-in-itself being' to the non-dual relational forms, and apply binary good and evil moral judgement to this oversimplified depiction.

in other words, balance-restoring activism is suppressed by (a) using language to notionally reduce relational dynamics to binary/dualist material-causal dynamics jumpstarted by independent material entities/beings, and, (b) applying binary/dualist good-and-evil moral judgement to portray these relational balance restoring actions as 'pathogens' [noxious material agents].

their counterparts, the producers of large imbalances, are morally judged as 'good' in the sense that they are large material 'contributors' or 'benefactors' in the community. this is due to the shortfall in the 'causal model'; i.e. in the orthodox science model of independent beings that consume and produce [local material systems with inputs and outputs], space is a non-participant. in the physical reality of our actual experience, the big producers that are the source of imbalances are 'conditioning the dynamics of the habitat' [e.g. monopolizing arable land] at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants [reducing access to arable land].

the moral judging and commensurate rewarding of large producers as good/merit-worthy community benefactors fails to take into account the associated imbalances that, at the same time, disopportunize, stifle and stunt the development and dynamics of those who then face declining access to essential resources due to their monopolization by large producers. to simply measure the input/consumption and output/production of notional 'independent beings' as if they are separate machines operating in an independent containing space, and comparing and rewarding 'performance' on that basis ignores the participation of space in physical phenomena [Einstein et al] and thus ignores 'reciprocal back-reflection' whereby the massive growth of production by the 'haves' involves a reciprocally complementary suffocation of the many 'have-nots'.

as nietzsche says, the notion that the world dynamic jumpstarts from 'things-in-themselves' is a very simple logical framework based on 'the little sagacity ego-self', a common form of narcissism where one sees oneself as an 'independent being'; a local, visible, material causal agent that is the full and sole author of its own development and behaviour, in which case one must use 'analytical inquiry' to look solely for internal components and processes to explain/understand one's thing-in-oneself' development and behaviour. once one focuses in on the storm-cell and forgets about the animating source being the flow in which the cell gathers, and imputes 'being' and 'jumpstart powers of causal agency' to the an induced relational activity, one is constructing a semantic reality based on spooks [appearances, 'schaumkommen'].

'pathogens' are therefore 'spooks', the product of our sprachspiele, ... 'useful idealizations' for loose and rapid communications ['Katrina is growing larger and stronger'], but in no way capturing the physical reality of our actual experience. that is, 'viral activity' and 'bacterial activity' and, again, 'criminal activity' and 'terrorist activity', are relational as in 'storm-cell activity', ... actualizing from the inductive influence of relational social epigenetic influences. only noun-and-verb language-and-grammar uses the device of endowing a relational form in a transforming relational continuum with 'local independent material being', depicting it as a local 'pathogenic' causal agent.

there are no such things in nature as 'pathogenic causal agents', but there are relational activities inductively actualized, orchestrated and shaped by relational epigenetic influences.

HIV is not a 'pathogen' that 'causes' AIDS. HIV is an 'activity' that often, but not always, arises in association with [correlates with] the set of symptoms described as 'Immune Deficiency', a binary based term implying that the body, rather than being a nexus of influences in balanced/harmonious relation, is a local system-in-itself that survives by maintaining an 'army' of good cells (causal agents) defending against armies of attacking pathogen cells (causal agents).

while there are viral activities, bacterial activities, criminal activities and terrorist activities, and storm-cell activities, all of these are relational in nature and to use noun-and-verb language-and-grammar to depict them as local, material 'causal agents' using the combination of noun-endowing-being, and verb-animating-action, is 'pragmatic idealization' that delivers 'economy of thought' that should not be confused for 'reality'.

'medical science' does confuse it for 'reality' with the result that Western medical science is firstly about 'fighting spooks/pathogens' and only secondly about restoring balance in the complex of relational influence which constitute the relational form known as the 'organism'. thus, the development of poisons to kill pathogens [pharmaceutical 'remedies'] but since pathogens are spooks and the physical reality is in cultivating, restoring and sustaining balance among a complex of confluent relational influences, these poisons are the source of many 'externalities' or 'side-effects' which speak of the far more complex relational phenomenology that actually prevails in spite of the simplified causal model that our sprachspiele superimposes over top of it. sure, the logic used by science can prove that 'DDT kills mosquitoes', but such logic is inherently subjective and incomplete and thus constitutes a radical simplification of what is going on in the complex relational physical reality of our actual experience.

as far as that goes, and being specific about AIDS and posts you say you've made in the past (links? reference to specifics?) you are making the same points that the original anon made, and so my response to them goes for you too.
i will add one thing, which is that you both (and really all anons are the same person) sound like you're letting the poster(s) you dislike control your experience of, or at least communication on, this site.
while the people here can absolutely be aggravating in the limited way they insist on interacting with other posters, there is something perhaps you can learn from their commitment to their own vision. commit to your own vision not by trying to convince people who don't want to hear it (any more than you want to hear what they have to say) but by talking to the people who want to talk about the things you want to talk about, in the way you want to talk about them. have those conversations, instead of getting derailed by what you don't like.
and now i'm done with this thread for a while, since perhaps it is time for me to take my own advice.

Ok, here's link:

Ask yourself: what happens when some dumb kids read this crap and get/spread AIDS around their local scene? That's the thing about this "all opinions are equal" bullshit - they're not and often being wrong about things like this has serious consequences.

If these hypothetical kids are so dumb that they would damage their body through drugs and sex, then that is their problem, but it's not at all an argument not to examine the facts, rather than the establishment propaganda.

There was a post here and it seems to have been taken down. It was one word: "no". There were no threats, no insults, just disagreement. Apparently that violates the rules. It's ok to imply that AIDS victims deserve their fate because they're "dumb" enough to take drugs without any argument, explanation or citation but to disagree with this Reagan-esque bullshit isn't permitted.

What the fuck mods?

He never uses that word, he made a consequential point not a judgemental one. Also, whether you want to admit it or not, toxic drug abuse, specifically meth and poppers, IS/was a cofactor in the story of 'AIDS'. It's not everything(as Duesberg types like to believe) but you cannot talk about the AIDS epoch and homosexuals(male organed) without talking about what spawned from the 70s fast lane lifestyle. There's a reason why this largely non epidemic syndrome has never left the original risk groups. I know some of you leftists lose your shit when someone brings this up but they ARE the facts.

"no" all alone means nothing. given the threading issues, it's not even clear what it's responding to.
and, for what it's worth, i agree with your point. Lone Raven's comment is, at best, extremely badly worded...

Are you a different thecollective or 1.1? Not that it matters, but I'm uncertain if thecollective is attempting to give each one a number or perhaps the new thecollective is like an Ubuntu release and we will see a 1.7 or something in half a year? If this is the case, then regular thecollective would be like the old release? Is there a way to compare the dynamics between the members to gage their opinions on moderation and how a democratic framework might help the experience more? By doing this and adding a polling feature that gages the opinions of registered members, we can work towards a stronger social autonomy that might help generate the Anglophone Anarchist Internet Federation (AAIF).

in any public discussion, those who actively speak are the tip of the iceberg. one cannot engage the listeners who are not ready to actively speak because they do not feel ready and this is fine. but that is not to say that they are not interested in hearing one's response to repeated challenges by the voices of orthodoxy, so to be respectful to the full body of participants, only a minority of which is ready to engage in open dialogue, one must repeat one's 'more complex' relational views that, in being received by orthodox interpreters, go in their one ear and out the other. if that is not done, it appears as if their orthodox challenges have the last word, and to abandon the interests of open minded researchers who are not ready to actively dialogue [in general, the majority in forums such as this] does them a disservice. so, where you say to sireinzige;

"commit to your own vision not by trying to convince people who don't want to hear it (any more than you want to hear what they have to say) but by talking to the people who want to talk about the things you want to talk about, in the way you want to talk about them. have those conversations, instead of getting derailed by what you don't like."

and i am merely speaking for myself since i too have spoken about confused perception in such cases as the purported 'material-causal link' between HIV and AIDS, and argued against material-causal models in general, ... one cannot simply; ... "have those conversations" [it takes two to tango]. the more unorthodox the view that one feels warrants airing, the more courage and confidence is required to throw oneself into the fray since the orthodoxy will descend on you like a flock of vultures. if you have that courage and confidence in a particular non-orthodox view, it is all the more important to respond to the many challenges, even if they are simply mocking attempts at 'put-down', in order to share material with those who are still reflecting on and incubating these ideas, ... to possibly help them get to the point where they feel ready to openly engage.

for my own part, many if not most of my comments are in response to others who i believe are so deeply infused with the orthodox that if there were just myself and them together, i would quickly abandon the dialogue. but i do not abandon it because i know that there are others considering these same non-orthodox views and sometimes they do come out in the open, and sometimes they pursue the safety and comfort of offline communications.

by openly sharing unpopular views, one gives others permission to share their unpopular views.

… I get the sense that we're not talking about the same thing at all. My issue is that you've hinted that you delete replies to people like ziggy and emile if they "lack content" and my point was that many of us stopped trying to engage them years ago because we established through hours of wasted effort, that there's no point.

So now, they get only derision from us, which you delete because it "lacks content". That results in them appearing to dominate discussion where in reality, they would be awkwardly sitting in the corner of the room, being ignored by almost everyone for a host of valid reasons. I don't care if you believe me, I'm suggesting that your criteria is myopic because you assume people SHOULD engage.

Are you going to debate the guy on the street corner insisting that he's the messiah, every single day on your way to work? Or do you just walk by, rolling your eyes?

"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"

I'm saying don't delete any comments, it makes it easier in all regards. Let go of yoyr desires for control. Let the chaos swirl wild and free.

That's crazy maximalist drivel. Clearly he has his head in the clouds. Chaos!? Are you writing a Captain America comic book? Because you just sounded like Captain Anarchy and he's no real anarchist. What we need is a democratic framework that respects the decentered autonomy of the administration and the users. Values need to be developed and shared through a horizontal network of individuals. Perhaps we can organize our own federations through this website? From there we could demonstrate our desires for mutual aid and direct action, developing shared norms with shared power. That would be more demonstrably anarchist than some wild wild west where maximalists dominate discourse with their nay say philosophical meandering.

Shadow takes his times and ponders. You are anon scum forced out of the sludge pond by @news doing some housecleaning, and hopefully realignment so that folks who post are held to a minimal investment in integrity. An investment you seem utterly baffled by. And no, the vast majority of toxicity is spewed by a single user, named anonymous, on whom you are a squirming parasite, and with whom you identify---intimately.

The vote for union grows stronger and we grow stronger the more we stand up to this nonsense. Think of all the anarchists we want to read that refuse to come here! It is ridiculous that we haven't moved to a stronger democratic system sooner to ensure Anarchist News is more reflective of actual anarchists rather than a small fringe of maximalist comic book writers with their heads in the clouds. With the end of the old age of racist insults and dick jokes, we can find an audience that wants to read anarchist comments based on action, experience, knowledge, wisdom and to hear tales of struggle that are often overlooked by other media. Our engagements here could be the foundation for the Anglophone Internet Anarchist Federation (AIAF) which acts as a vehicle to link in others in their local area, be it an anarchist local, a collective, affinity group or individual. We will win! Vote union!

your voteunion trolling the past few months has been really funny.
never stop. <3
spend your entire life writing silly goofy comments on the internet. a life well spent!

Not a troll. Thank you for your compliments. I wasn't aiming for humor, though I am glad we are in agreenent that democracy can be pretty fun :-)

As long as I am writing , I hope to influence others so we can reach Ultimate Anarchist Triumph (UAT) together.

You are just seething because you have been called out royally on here for your shit talking and tough guy posturing. Even if people have to adopt a login handle they will still be anonymous unless the mods are planning to log IP addresses of users which I doubt very much. Also the fact that you are supposedly an anarchist but have a problem with anonymity is somewhat hilarious.

I'm just a regular anarchist who thinks you're a pompous douche, I actually like shadow and that was said affectionately. Got your feelings hurt by the internet, didja ya? Who fucking cares … seriously. Is there some cognitive problem with older folks where they fail to understand that they're talking to hundreds of completely different people? Nothing said here matters … at all. "Integrity" in an online comment section, take your feelings and go drink tea with some other geriatrics.

"On the other hand, they are not held to any account for what they write."

What is this supposed to mean? 'Held to account'? If anon writes a comment others don't like then anon should be 'held to account'? For what, their crimes? Does 'held to account' mean punished in some way? Isn't being 'punished' for saying something others don't like the opposite of freedom of speech? And why would having a registered account make any difference? Any registered account is going to be anonymous too.

By focusing on the messenger, instead of the message, we lose sight of the message and end up judging what others say, based on who they are, rather than what they are saying.

Edit: I just read the collectives' reply to another anon. I see what you mean. By having identifiable names, it makes it easier to know who you are discussing with, and keep track of which anon is who, as well as their posting history, so you know who you are up against. If this is the intention of the registration, then I completely understand.

On one hand the sophisticated trolls are damn annoying, honestly. On the other, if we were like... back in the '80s, these fucked up antisocial types would probably be Ted Bundies or George Bushes. So hey, maybe maybe the Internet's a better evil.

Shouldn't thecollective admins have to identify who they are as individuals then so us commenters know who we are dealing with and in the interest of accountability etc?

Thecollective isn't taking away anonymity with registered user comments, they are allowing users to comment by identity. They can pass judgement and offer consequences much easier to those that choose to go outside the norms they establish with those that participate with the site as a community. We should be trying to build this place up, make it more important, get our friends involved. Have everyone you know register! Encourage them to comment. The only reason the maximalists seem so loud is because we need 10 times the number of comments we have now! This will do it! We will win! Go Anarchist News! Vote union!

i only identify as a dividual


Well played @news admin. Why continue to maintain the myth that the concept of state isn't metaphysically rooted in concepts such as 'good', 'bad', 'judgment', and so on and beat the physical manifestation of the state at its own game!

why maintain the myth that control is not already always built into networked systems, even when they are decentralized and distributed? even without 'good', 'bad', and 'judgement' there is protocol that this technology could not exist without, that has already subjugated you. anonymous/pseudonymous comments don't fix that.


anonymous/pseudonymous comments don't fix that.

Not quite right. They definitely help. If I posted an anonymous comment to this website through Tor, I have a very high level of anonymity. If I have to create an account, that anonymity is compromised in some major ways: email addresses, time, and if I don't register every time, potentially identifying sets of comments.

I don't think this is a good idea from a security perspective. Trolls are a small price to pay, esp. when they can be dealt with in other ways --- like simply removing them according to clear and open guidelines.

we're identifying different issues. the one i am pointing towards is the issue of control being built into network (and related software) protocols ...rules that neither of us write, yet accept as the governing mechanisms of our communications. it doesn't matter "who" the user is in this case, just that they are a user. presumably, protocol would be something we would want in our own hands. yet, this medium uses drupal, which breaks down further and further into various protocols. and the material reality is that the machines implementing the protocols are owned somewhere, by someone(s).

security is another series of issues, each tied up with exploiting different protocols and machines. i wouldn't disagree with the idea that anonymous/pseudonymous commenting improves anonymity. i have my doubts that anyone's personal security practices measure up to the arguments they use to favor anonymous/pseudonymous commenting as a security issue for them. as if they aren't exposing themselves to other insecure systems. maybe they do, but the quality of the comments here lately suggests that someone wouldn't go to such lengths of anonymity/pseudonymity for such ends. again, not a bad argument -- just not the one i think most applies to this situation.

i think that the purpose anonymous/pseudonymous commenting on @news serves for most users is to create space for less-fettered response to articles, including flaming/trolling/etc. this isn't the article submission features we're discussing. towards those ends, the differences between needing an account and using captcha software to prevent obvious spam seem to matter to the extent that they are convenient for mods/admins. and as i pointed out in another comment, having both the feature to create your own name as an anon poster and the account creation make it so someone can create a pseudonym ...earn a banning ...then just use the fill-in-your-name feature to maintain persistent identity ...even then, they could sign their name to something. each step changes the credibility of the identity, but not to the benefit of mods/admins - an un-credible troll is just as annoying as a credible one with a registered account.


The security problem with logins isn't necessarily one that Tor etc, could fix. Nothing we do is gonna hinder the ability of the state or large tech companies to track every single person who visits this site. Anonymous posting does, tho, present a real barrier to individuals looking to fuck with people who post here in ways that pseudonyms just don't. Even with a pseudonym that isn't used anywhere else, it still opens up opportunities for piecing together your identity by combing through multiple posts, as well as the option of tying that all to your real name or other online identities. With all the threats out there - boneheads, private investigators, trolls, algorithms and random obsessed assholes like Greg Renouf, this is a real concern. Consider the regular shitstorms which occur here when a trendy establishment gets smashed and yuppies find the communique posted here - do we really wanna give that kind of ability to people like "pizza shop troll" and "Amicus Curia"?

Can you rephrase this last part about the shitstorm that happens when the poor local businesses or starbucks or whatever get smashed? That shitstorm is one of the main things that I am thinking about, but in the sense that they demonstrate the ultimate consequences of anonymous commenting. One of those consequences is any rando doh doh can swing by, shit on the lawn, and keep stumbling on. Registration changes that. I'm undecided on my feelings concerning lawn shit.


Lawn shit sucks but it's probably unavoidable and at worst an annoyance. Being flamed isn't the end of the world. On the other hand if one of these unstable nutjobs decides to act IRL, things can get pretty ugly. Aside from straight-up physical violence there's also the nightmare that slander campaigns can bring (people like Renouf publish website databases on "local anarchists" and go on right-wing talk shows as "experts" on us, etc). I have friends who can't keep jobs because of what turns up on Google searches of their name, often published by people they've never met half a continent away. People elsewhere, especially feminists, have had their lives totally torn apart by shit like this.

Then there's the huge potential for users to be mis-identified (internet vigilantes are wrong all the time), meaning that some @ from the same town who's never even heard of @news might get targeted because of a few superficial similarities to whatever user they're stalking. Why open up this possibility?

As someone whose name has been used in a trolly way several times in the "fill out your name" feature, I would much rather deal with that problem than take the security risks inherent in the decision you've just made. This site has communiques from underground actors --- I would much rather they be able to post anonymously and with Tor / i2p. You're right that "security" is often extremely subjective. But given the needs specific to radical politics and the NA anarchist community in general, allowing anonymous comments seems a much better security decision.

this is a week-long experiment
this doesn't effect anonymous article submissions


I probably should ask thecollective: Are the trolls a problem? Are you looking for a solution to the trolls? One way to ensure they weaken is to keep users registered. Another is to use polling to show how the majority of the users feel and how you are justified in changing policy so this site becomes one for anarchists rather than maximalists.

my personal opinion is that the trolls aren't a problem when they aren't just spamming it up with forced memes and personal vendettas. i want a world without captchas.


This is a good idea as no anarch should object to using a nom-de-plume/ nom-de-guerre!

The anon babble-on here was just too much at times!

Now I would just like youse guys ( and gals?) to adopt nyms and or numbers yrselves so we don't have to deal with yr *Anon* racket.

But no biggie if you want to stay a giant clusterfuck.

Thanks again you C's.

Yrs in revolutionary anarchy - professor rat

we didn't talk about this, but my future posts will be signed .1.1

I'll second others on the argument that, indeed, since the most problematic commenters here were logged-in, it ain't very relevant to switch to account-based commenting as far as the mods are unwilling to get rid of these trolls in the first place.

Yet I've seen that Thecollective has went through great lenghts erasing the shitty and useless comments, but why not just holding the accounts hostage, so to teach them to behave? ;-)

Security is also a concern... Though it's still good that Anews doesn't require snitchs scripts for logging in as it used to. But still worried of the fact that yoiu gotta have an email adress to post articles (or maybe I'm wrong... Too lazy/busysweaty to check).

how can we hold an account hostage when users can use the anon/write-your-name-in feature towards the same ends? This was the issue with bicepts/postbicepts/etc.


So my dick is actually hard from deleting comments and occasionally banning IPs. Why are thecollective so opposed to having a fap?

ehhh i'm really not as opposed as it may seem. that's why this is so experimental. i don't think any of us have a very strong opinion either way for this. one thing i see already is how few comments there are on any article we have put up this week. these are also the sort of things we want to feel out.


why do we still have to pass the captcha test when we are now logged in? that is just another layer of beaurocracy that seems counter productive to an active and interesting discussion.

drupal makes it easy to turn captcha off for registered users.

It will be refreshing to not being harassed anymore by ill-mannered cursing trolls with leftist tendencies. I admit that at times I behaved arrogantly and mischievously, I have matured and evolved and wish to contribute positive creative comments to this site from now on, as every existentialist anartist knows, every moment is the opportunity to debunk myths and icons which enslave humanity from its glorious creative potentiality.

This 'experiment' came about after Aragorn! threw his usual hissy fit when the comments on the latest post about The Brilliant weren't 100% people masturbating about how great it was. Grow a pair.

With a few notable exceptions, those comments were just wankers splooging into the text box. If that was the straw that broke the camel's back, then so be it. It was a great example of how people with nothing to say were trying to sully something for no good reason.

what do you have to say other than 'listen to my podcast', 'wow I am such an intellect' and 'fascism isn't so bad kids, come and sit with Uncle Pedo'??

I don't care if new people listen to my podcast or not. This idea of me as a proselytiser is a complete invention of ANews trolls. I do it mostly for my benefit and that of my conversation partners, and to a lesser degree the people who I know will likely listen and get something out of it.

I also don't care about what people think of me in general, especially what they think of my intellect. I live the way I live because I like it and it has brought ME huge benefits. If people encounter my output and find something of use in it, great. If not, I care not one iota.

Fascism, in all of the ways it's been defined, is something I'm 100% against, and it is petty and bizarre that the most some dumb anarchist can come up with to say about someone whose views they don't like is to call them a fascist or a reactionary. It really only speaks to the quality of your thought processes.

As for the pedophile slur, that is one that is even easier to make, since you aren't within physical distance of me, and I am sufficiently unknown that you can spew that kind of venom without consequence in your personal life. But again, what kind of person calls another person, whom they know almost nothing about, a pedophile?

This is exactly the kind of comment that most needs addressing, and the end of anonymity would go someway to solve it, I think.

Next...even though you have been absolutely insufferably disgusting and pitiful towards me, I will answer your question.

What do I have to say? How about the my critique of the revolutionary idea of building one paradigm "within the shell of the old"? How about my alternative suggestion of creating "a patchwork sewn by a million hands to cover the shell of the old as a funereal shroud as it passes solemnly into oblivion" ?

I mean, I could go on, I have 100s of 1000s of words of writing on my computer, some of which are being compiled into a book.

The point is, I have plenty to say, to those who actually want to listen, and share their own thoughts with me in return.

Why are you so against fascism? How can you be 89% against fascism? Is there something else that you might want to put a different percentage in. Like 67% against fascism and 23% against liberalism? Seems like standard leftist math there yo.

Not really. Ideologies can be broken down into their component parts, which are ideas. Some ideologies have a grain of truth to them, or some ideas that I find useful or interesting. For example, Kaczynski was an ideologue with some ideas and some bad. I'd say that I'm (very approximately) 50% in agreement with his ideas and 50% in opposition (or not interested).

Fascism has absolutely nothing of value, AFAIC.

It's not really math, it's just a figure of speech or way of understanding more or less. But in terms of ideas, I think it's fair to say roughly what portion of them finds appealing.

If by your first question you are actually asking me to say why I don't like each of the ideas, well then I'm not gonna do that. I don't want to spend my time explaining why I don't like fascist ideas any more than I want to explain why I don't want to have raw sewage sprayed onto me with a fire hose.

This isn't a good move. As suggested by others, there is security as well. The problems are often more a difference in what is considered humor, considered in good taste and then there is the troll friendly behavior that was put out by the previous administration, working with me and others of similar mind that there is more to trolling than snarky comments. The humor of the site will change. I don't know if "suffer" would be a word used by those that agree with this change, as they seem to not understand what troll humor, troll culture and troll behavior actually is. They don't participate in the game of trolling, so they hate it.

As the administrator of the now defunct AnokChan site, a smaller sister site to this one, we took on the "cesspool" aspects that came from this site to create some of the best, most humorous and often most original images, memes, stories and attempts at trolling. It slowly was becoming something that could've become much bigger had we any resources to throw at the project, but it was not considered a high priority and could not defend itself from the daily spam that attacked it.

For Anarchist News to give way to registration as a condition to comment, I can understand, but I don't understand the policies of this site anymore, nor what is considered in bad taste. Most of the language from the present administration of Anarchist News is hostile to trolling, comments get deleted more than ever and there seems to be quite a bit of yielding to things Anarchist News stood up against in the past, especially the opinions of the gaggle that pretend they don't view the site, but actually do. There is a lot of "we are still troll friendly" statements, but that does not actually seem to be the case. It would be more honest to admit this site is no longer a project people from the previous era should support and we should instead look to starting another project elsewhere to put time into instead of seeing our hours and days of time being destroyed by comment deletions, user banning and hostile behavior with a troll-friendly face.

I am not happy.

What could be of possible benefit, to anyone, of being "troll-friendly" ?

If one has a friendly view of them, why at the same time acknowledge them as 'trolls' ?

I don't know of a Collective member that doesn't identify as anarchist. This is an anarchist site. We do post critical material of anarchists (and of the anarchist franchises) like ITS, the Sits, activists, etc but that is because we believe that a core principle of anarchism is self-criticism. Why don't you agree?

Which comment is yours in response to?

Can anything be done about the nesting code so that it's actually clear which comment is in response to which other? This is literally the only site I've seen with comments that suffers from this problem.

i'm sure we'll install a new theme (it's an annual tradition) and make this problem a priority


Expert techie here. It actually works rather well. You will want to first hit F4, then rub a magnet over your hard drive. Post the results, I'd love to here them. I'm sure you will be satisfied.

There is a history to the troll culture on this site that stems from the collapse of the site. As the nihilist communists began moving to a new site focusing on academic jargon and writing poetry, some anarchists looked in another direction focusing on internet jargon and making memes. It was a deliberate mockery, though done in good humor. These first attempts were then moved from anti-politics to this site and was one of the features of the site in its early years.

Trolling advanced while on this site, but images were eventually ended and AnokChan was created to absorb the interest image creation. While we would get comment deletions on Anarchist News for some of the more over the top displays of humor, the number of deletions was far less.

What has been demanded since worker, and now thecollective, has increased comment deletions is that some policy be created so users know where the line is, which will be crossed, of course, but at least the user knows where the line is and therefore can more easily accept the reason for the comment removal. Given what I've seen from comment deletions, the inconsistency is so high you have one thecollective responding to a comment, that another thecollective deletes. While it might be funny to delete comments and to make people feel that if they do something that isn't consistent with a moderator's values, they might get their comments removed, to those that get their comments deleted, it is discouraging, especially when they see other comments fly by that they might think were far worse.

Anyways, since these comments never seem to be taken seriously by thecollective and they prefer to treat trolls and trolling as a problem, the elements of this site that are interesting will continue to be harmed and those with a strong sense of humor that isn't based on a third grade level will find other things to do. I know this to be true of me, though I do return from time to time, only to see something get deleted that seemed very unjustified and I move on again.

the policy struggle is real, and that may be the resolution to this situation. i can't help but doubt this assertion that in anarchy land, anything has lived up to the elder trolls though. even submedia's ITEOTWAWKIAIFF has become dull. let's compare some of the old to some of the new:


NEFAC, RAAN (or GTFO), post-anarchism, Deep Green Resistance (salmon fucker), anokchan, anoki, infoshop killing their comment section, student occupations, GREECE!, newspaper boxes in the street, Hardt and Negri, lifestylist Crimethinc, aufhabengate, insurractionary anarchism pre-strugglismo, the lifecycle of Occupy, modesto anarcho, grand jury resistance, bash back, KEATING...


hashtag revolts, identity politics winning, lots of podcasts, anarchist memes and other shit on facebook, it's going down, the continued disintegration of bay area and pacific nw anarchist cliques, ITS, the cryptofascist anarchist stuff, basic ass insults being called trolling when it's just weird stalker-obsession basic ass insults, trolling the low-hanging fruit of anarcho-capitalists...

and this is all without mentioning what i get to see on the backend as far as submissions go (not much) compared to before. in general, anarchy land just doesn't seem to have the yumph. where's the submissions from all of these fuckin academics that IAS has produced? where's the hipsterness of the supposed anarchist hipsters? what is going on with anarchist art, music, culture, humor, investigation, analysis, critique these days at all?

so what i'm saying in response more-or-less is that even with a clear policy on comments, there is a lot of lifelessness in anarchist discourse today and i can't imagine the trolls are well fed.


You forgot Bookfair nihilist. Would that be old, or new?

lol yeah that's one of the better 'new' ones ...actually, I can't think of any other 'new' ones worth the royal title of troll


But you also suck as a judge of most things, so there is also that. You might want to be an Ed Sullivan type in regards to humor. Just stand back, introduce us and tell everyone you have a great show today. But he also was a good judge of talent, while you aren't. If anything, you should support my judgement, which is that the bookfair nihilist meme was great and many good trolls were had using this meme. LOL you suck, Na na a boo bo stick your head in doo doo.

i get where you are coming from. i was also involved with the old mod squad and between anokchan, anoki, trotsky cookies, etc. and shit now... everything to me seems totally different. i also think that trolling is nowhere near as novel as it was then, nor clever, nor effective. eris is snoring.


Everything seems different because times change, but also because you are in charge and calling the shots and the calls you make affect the dynamics of what surrounds you. Denying responsibility for your actions while holding others accountable will affect how people engage you. Not communicating changes in moderator behavior, who is a moderator, what to expect from the administration, these affect how people engage the site. If you offer consistent moderation that is transparent, people will know what to expect and will be more apt to behave within these parameters if those parameters are acceptable.

For a site that promoted itself as a low moderation site, that differed itself from Infoshop News by allowing a larger variety of humor spread, that became popular because of interesting content that kept with the pulse of anarchist activity while allowing plenty of space for people to comment as they like, the site has definitely changed.

thanks for the input, there's several things here that i'll be bringing up after this experiment ends.


I agree with papa smurf said.
I think this website has been horrible for anarchism for several years. I began reading and commenting here years ago when became more restrictive with what comments they allowed.
This site has slowly gone down the same road.
I say stick to a policy of free and open diacussion except for the spam "work from home and make $9,999/hr" type of comments.

Just stick to that policy!!!!

all the little babies who can't handle comments they don't like can go fuck themselves. It is a fucking COMMENT on an article. Read it and move on. If you hate it or think it is offensive, respond. Or ignore it and move on with your life! The people who can't handle a comment on a webpage do not deserve to be listened to. They are the equivalent of the worst of the safe space/trigger warning crowd. There are few places left on the internet where un-moderated anonymous discussion can take place, this should be one of them. If it ceases to be, I think people should create a website like and just aggregate content from here and IGD and other news outlets but allow open discussion under the articles. It is extremely needed I think.

Until I realized I could post ubder anonuser here, i was afraid to make an account because i don't want my comments here to be connected to comments i make on other articles both for security and for maintaining a neutral discussion based on the ideas in a comment and not colored by an overall idea of the commenter and what they're about in general.

Happy to hear the images and funny/commentary rollovers are coming back.

An open and anonymous comments policy is simple, clear, and the best way to maintain a neutral position as an admin. If this site can't do that i think another website should be created that can.

Before anything, I admit to hardly ever deleting comments. Ok now, so let's talk about what gets deleted. MOST of the stuff I see that gets deleted (they are hidden, not actually removed entirely) ...they're some version of this:


Wed, 08/31/2016 - 10:19

faggot shit cunt tranny

asshole buttmuncher pussy dick"



Wed, 08/31/2016 - 10:45

Change the cunt of the cuck

Change the cunt of the cuck because this isn't anarchist news anymore and thecollective members don't even identify as anarchists anymore they identify as trannies and cucks and same goes for the majority of the registered commenters. So long as this site keeps using anarchism as a penis to promote their safe space loving masturbationary anti-vagina fantasies us retards are gonna keep trolling the utter cuck out of it."

with some version of "hell yeah!" here and there.

This shit just looks like spam to me, but what else can it be called? I could care less if it's deleted or not. George Carlin already did the standup bit and Blink 182 already wrote the song. there's nothing to it. it could be automated. maybe it is automated.

But policy-wise, how can this be described for the sake of clarity? As "spammy stuff"?

IMO - the anonymous stuff that isn't deleted annoys me more and it's usually not trolling, just someone's after school brain fart. So my horse in this race is tiny, tiny. As a mod question though, I guess i ought to be pondering it.


I think even the weird troll garbage you quoted is useful in terms of understanding a wider cultural zeitgeist to those of us who don't have facebook or whatever. (Also in regard to FB, i think much of the anarchist culture another commenter mentioned being lacking lately has migrated to FB/social media platforms... ANews is a bit of a web dinosaur in that regard i think... Not that i use or think using FB is a good idea, but maybe those who do use it should post shit from there onto here so it can be shared on the wider web outside social network platforms??? That would have to just take some initiative from some FB-connected anarchos to make happen, which i don't count on because the FB anarchos tend to be the most passive consumers of things, not motivated iniative-takers, in general).

But i guess the more important part of my first comment is in supporting the continuation of allowing anonymous comments. Your reply did not address my points regarding that at all.

Considering your points (and if it's a different anonuser) the points made regarding security above, I'm about to fall over on the side of keeping anonymous comments. Eventually, whether it is through clarifying comment deletion policy or just because anarchists are such big-hearted softies, some sort of trust between anon users and thecollective will be key in resolving this ...or changing it and not resolving it ever. For now that's my opinion ...which is moreso just a stronger position for anonymous comments than before. Guess we'll see how other collectivistas feel.


Someone edited the subject line of this comment.

i don't know... emile has many times complained of their comments being deleted. i mean, i can see an argument for calling it "spammy shit", but it is in a different league from the stuff you quoted above. just sayin...

fuck the nesting. this is in response to "anonuser Wed, 08/31/2016 - 09:20" with the post titled "*this*"

I agree with you, but I think the answer is the opposite solution: let all the putrid comments show through (such as the "cuck you you faggot vagina nazi" or whatever dumb shit the collective copied & pasted in a comment below here when showing examples of what they currently delete) and people will psychologically lump "consent is bourgeois" in with the filth and dismiss it all as crazy right-wing fuckery instead of it seeming more legitimate by being left up along with many anarchist comments.
the solution is to leave everything up, let anarchists respond to the filth, and trust people to be smart enough to read and decide what they agree or disagree with on their own. they are just fucking comments for christ sake.

why is it that for so many of you anarchists it always has to come down to your pubic hair and pubic relations? who cares what some hypothetical people think? Who are these " people" and why should i or anyone care what they think when they read the comments on anarchistnews? It seems quite alienated to go by projections of what "people think" as a basis to anything... especially for those who would like to see the current way of life, that of the "common people" (civilized/capitalist/state), go to shit.

How many people in your actual surroundings have you converted to your ideals? I mean people around you... no "trolls", an opportunity to expose your views to people who possibly care about what you think... how successful has this been?

*comment restored, someone is bored and editing others comments*

If i can't get drunk and post comments on Anarchist News its not my revolution"

If you included taking too many Xanax while smoking pot, goldmum has my vote.

I thought you voted union???

I do. After a hard day of work with the boss yelling at me, I sometimes need a chill moment. Got some new manager in the warehouse. Nobody knows why he's there, even the other managers. He keeps a clipboard with him and he's always looking at us, then writing shit down. I thought the cameras were bad.

Which union do you voteunion for?

We need to unify into a force that is decentered, including anarchists and non-anarchists, using a democratic framework, building towards a critical mass, where we can seize territorial autonomy.

as mcluhan would say, there are two stories at play in this current self-analysis going on within anarchistnews and its readership.

1. the superficial story of how to engineer a better channel to optimize the passage and sharing of valuable, meaningful anarchist content.

2. the 'medium-is-the-message' story of how the transforming relational continuum [the medium] is transforming our relations with one another and with the transforming relational continuum we share inclusion in.

sure, we can talk about the new factory we are going to construct in the valley, or maybe simply 'renovate'. as mcluhan reminds us, that is all intellectual abstraction. it is not the physical reality that the residents of the valley are experiencing. the physical reality is the matrix of relations that constitutes the valley (habitat) dynamic that is being transformed by an intervention. what we should be orienting our focus to is the continually transforming relational medium and how our interventions influence it. the transforming relational medium is the message. it is crazy to believe that the 'construction of the new factory' is the 'reality'. It is no more than a 'semantic reality' fashioned from subject-verb-predicate constructs. hence mcluhan's famous remark that it matters little whether our factory produces Cadillacs or Cornflakes, what matters is how our relations with one another and the habitat are being transformed.

the engineering renovations being worked on to improve the performance of as a tool-in-itself is not the bigger story, it is the smaller story.

something is going on in the suprasystem in which the system we refer to as is included in. it makes no sense to analyze the workings of out of the context of the transforming relational dynamics of the suprasystem is included in. in Ackoff's terms, analytical inquiry [into a local system such as] must be GROUNDED in 'synthetical inquiry' which comprehends the need/function that the system ( is satisfying within the relational suprasystem.

it is more than a bit narcissist to inquire into the workings of as if it were a 'system-in-itself', that can be optimized in 'its own right'. that is, it is more realistic to look 'upstream' to the relational suprasystem and its transforming needs, as the actualizer of the genetic expression known as ''. it would be a mistake to think of '' as a local system in itself, and try to 'perfect it' on that basis, as if it could define its own role out of the context of the epigenetic influences that inductively actualize, orchestrate and shape its genetic expression.

too many people 'know' how should work and would make of it an 'intentional community'. this is not helpful. the experimental mode in which thecollective is taking it, is a good approach which has the potential to open it up to the epigenetic inductive influences [the needs] of the suprasystem it is included in. this is where 'direction' [evolutionary/epigenetic shaping influence] should be coming from, not from know-it-alls who would seek to optimize it as a purposeful system-in-itself. .

the relational valley dynamic does not need a new Cadillac factory and/or a new Cornflakes factory, it needs to sustain balance and harmony in its relational nesting within the relational suprasystem dynamic it is included in. similarly, the larger community (the relational suprasystem) does not need a new 'intentionist' anarchist news agency with its own stand-alone policies and protocols. it instead needs to go the 'situationist' route and let its identity or 'genetic expression' 'flex' and be defined outside-inwardly [epigenetically induced/actualized] by the needs of the relational suprasystem it is situationally included in.

in which case, experimentation is a good way to go.

The word you are looking for is PHENOTYPE, but your metaphor(?) of this website as a phenotypic expression of underlying "genes" i.e. context is a god awful very confused analogy. Also no one cares. Your verbal diarrhea is one of the worst things to ever happen to this website you psuedo-intellectual autist.

I think all these comments show the urgent need for a new anarchist website with open, un-moderated, and anonymous commenting!!!!


in fact, if you would actually read my comment, you would [could] recognize that i am not talking about 'phenotypes'. 'phenotype' is a dualist Darwinian concept [essential to the concept of natural selection] that assumes the existence of the 'genotype' as a thing-in-itself-inhabitant which 'interacts' with the 'habitat-thing-in-itself' to produce the 'phenotype-thing-in-itself'.

in the Lamarckian view and/or the systems view, the relation between the habitat and inhabitant is non-dual. that is, the suprasystem includes the system as a relational feature within the suprasystem. the 'university' is a relational feature within the relational social dynamic [Ackoff]. apart from noun-and-verb language-and-grammar which treats it so, ... the 'system' is not a 'thing-in-itself' [understandable by pure analytical inquiry into its internals] which 'interacts' with the larger 'community-in-itself' to produce a phenotype whose relative prosperity or languishing determines whether or not it will be 'naturally selected'.

my comment does not make the dualist Darwinian assumption of 'phenotype'.

While the dualist Darwinian theory is the default understanding of Western society, it is being credibly challenged by a growing minority, a notable critic being Nietzsche. Darwinists [like yourself, evidently] do not like their purificationist local system-thing-in-itself worldview ['survival of the fittest'] to be 'contaminated' by relational understandings which give primary value to the non-dual relations in an ecological diversity, rather than to the materialist things-in-themselves such as 'phenotypes' seen, dualistically, as what you get from a notional 'interaction' between two mutually exclusive things-in-themselves aka 'inhabitant' and 'habitat'.

the 'dualist' view of '' as a 'system-in-itself' that can be designed and optimized in its own right, is the Darwinian view, a highly simplified view that is not the only view. there is also the 'non-dualist' view of the physical reality of our actual experience [as contrasted with the dualist view of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar'] wherein epigenetic inductive influence within the greater relational social dynamic is the natural actualizer, orchestrator and shaper of 'genetic expression'. in other words, 'genes' as the self-asserting atoms of evolution are a convenient, 'pragmatic idealization' that should not be confused for 'reality'. as Emerson observes, in accord with Lamarck, the relational-situational dynamic not only inhabits the organism, it authors the organism [in other words, epigenesis is in a natural, non-dual precedence over genesis, as with 'field' and 'matter'].

so, no, 'phenotype' is NOT the word i am looking for.

and yes, i understand how filled with fear and loathing Dawkinsian Darwinists can get when they feel threatened by non-dualist views of physical phenomena.

regardless, can be not only understood but guided by either a dualist or non-dualist perspective. e.g. exceptionally performing teams tend to have in common that they let their identity flex non-dualistically, allowing outside-inward [epigenetic] shaping by the relational dynamics of the suprasystem they find themselves situationally included in, as transpires in the continuing 'now'.

this contrasts with the standard Western [dualist, narcissist] team that prescriptively defines and operationalizes its own genetic architecture and uses as driving force, 'purpose' and associated 'future goals and objectives'.

"Emile and the phenohypes"
Good band name

And now I can't edit (as was once possible) or remove it.

This is maybe a little embarrassing for me, since it proves I'm an idiot who can't click the right button, but I'll get over it. That said, it should maybe be fixed? Unless this is an intended part of the experiment, and not a residual effect of it.

i guess for me, the real question regarding anonymous vs registered user comments is this:

do you want this "space" to be a typical online discussion forum, or do you want it to emulate real, actual discussion among thoughtful people who choose to engage in it? i personally long for the latter, as it can be fun, interesting and quite useful to have meaningful discussions with folks that happen to be far away from where i am. typical online discussion is usually shallow, often thoughtless, and most significantly, is completely subsumed into the mediated status quo of digital social media - where "look at me, i'm having my coffee" (or worse, "look at me, i smashed a starbucks window") is considered a meaningful bit of information that must be shared with the entire world.

fuck social media! and fuck people that can't take a moment to register under some pseudonym so that conversations among individuals can actually be followed reasonably. anyone that is seriously worried about social engineered hacking to tie your pseudonymous posts on @news with your hard-core clandestine activities, is obviously not being careful enough about anything. grow the fuck up and realize that absolutely NOTHING you do online can possibly be considered secure. period.

Thoughtfulness, reasonable discussion, and a willingness to listen to new ideas is exactly what anarchists (as a whole) lack the most. I concur with fuckacademics 100%

Anarchists are bot open minded to new ideas? Are you serious??? How do you think they became anarchists in the first place?

I think you and other commwnters on here confuse people's disagreements with YOUR ideas and people's openness to new ideas in general. Which is why i think the opinions of those who think everyone who doesn't agree with every nuance of their ideas is "not open minded" should be ignored. You will never be satisfied and your idea of a good conversation is one where everyone agrees with you in the end. the way, this confused perspective is why we see the same commenters posting the same arguments over and over and over no matter the article. Which ruins the comment section way more than anything else.

It depends on the individual, of course. But in many cases, I suspect it's followship. Have you read 'The True Believer' ?

lone raven - thanks for the agreement. but open-mindedness to new ideas was not what i was referring to. i was simply contrasting typical online discussion forums with a discussion area that attempts to treat discussion as if it were happening between real people interested in meaningful dialog. i don't agree that anarchist (as a whole) lack thoughtfulness, reasonable discussion, etc; i DO agree that is the case with typical ONLINE anarchist discussion. hence my desire for something that comes closer to individuals actually discussing shit sitting around the fire pit. i have no illusions that online discussion - of the type i crave - will actually be like having discussions face-to-face. but when the full-blown internet version of discussion ends up like it does almost all the time, i'd be happy to try to emulate real-life discussion as best we can using this all-to-ubiquitous medium.

open-mindedness was just ONE of a few qualitiies I was appraising, and of course it's a generalisation, and does not apply to all anarchists. and I wasn't referring to ANYTHING in the offline world. when I use online communication, it's mainly to critique other electronic forms.

FA, i love your fire pit analogy and that's why I started the two conversation-based podcasts I've been involved in. I would dearly love to extend those conversations to forums such as this, and share in others' insights. Perhaps this has been misunderstood, so let me take this opportunity to say that, while I don't like ANARCHISM, I have found huge amounts of value and insight in the writings of ANARCHISTS. But nearly all of those have been open-minded, reasonable and so on...

But alas, the wider ONLINE anarchist world has been overrun by punk assholes that say things like: "why do you expect a discussion from A-new comments, old man?" and think that the correct use of fora is to regurgitate profanity in them, as shown by the examples given by the mods above, and in the many comments that have been steadily stripped out of this thread. In other words, they are confusing it with a pig's trough.

And no, 13:52, I don't mistake disagreement (with me) for unreasonable discussion. I am happy when people disagree and converse with me in an appropriate way. I am an open-minded person also and sometimes find myself changing my mind. The connection I was drawing was between the large number of people not interested in even reasonable disagreement, and the number of people who vehemently and visibly recoil from ideas that seriously challenge long-standing anarchist beliefs. The two are clearly proportional. I know this by looking at all the comments on this site (before the current experiment), and seeing how many were of the flavour "fuck off you reactionary! of course we should support Syrian migration! you're a racist if you oppose it!", shit like that. In this thread, although it's far less prevalent, just look at what some people are saying to Einzige about consent. Rather than debate, they're guilt-tripping the admins for allowing his comments to stand. Pathetic.

My final conclusion is that if I look at this thread, I see, after the many contributions and the careful moderation, a thread that is of a far higher quality than the average A-News thread. I can only hope that the collective see it the same way I do.

And I'm really glad I don't have to complete Captchas.

I know this site was not designed with me in mind, but I hope my opinion counts for something, however marginal it may be.

When YOU come onto an anarchist website and post comments that "seriously challenge long-standing anarchist beliefs" you should expect vitriolic and intense responses you idiot. Do you not see that in that situation YOU are the troll??? You narcissism is through the roof.

"how many were of the flavour "fuck off you reactionary! of course we should support Syrian migration! you're a racist if you oppose it!"

So, are you seriously proposing that anti-immigrant rhetoric should be welcome here, or that it isn't "reactionary" and "racist"?

Well, I can't exactly speak for what "should be welcome here". That is really down to the website owners, and if they look to their users, then the userbase more widely. But bear in mind that such a userbase is not monolithic and in fact each visitor would 'welcome' or 'reject' certain messages and perspectives based on their own feelings.

I would like to see a discussion where no viewpoint was deemed 'unwelcome'. When encountering views that I find truly unpleasant, I either argue against them or ignore them, depending on different things. But that's just me. Again, I can't speak for anyone else.

As regards the actualy subject of immigration, my own view is merely that it is more complicated than the standard internationalist fare likes to make out.

We can look at this problem from different perspectives. If the focus is on undermining the legitimacy of states, then this is where the "no borders" rhetoric stems from, clearly. Some might even argue, from the anti-capital perspective, that sanctioning unlimited immigration might help 'crash' the capitalist system.

But there are two aspects to this thought experiment that are usually not considered by the mainstream anarchist viewpoint. Firstly, they don't seem to be thinking through just how much the people in the host countries really don't want this, and that in trying to force them to accept the immigrants, this approach antagonises these people. Now, you may not have much sympathy for the relatively-affluent denizens of countries like the USA and those in Europe, but at the same time, the general anarchist project often talks about gaining the support of 'the people'. So be aware that if you tell these people that you don't care about the 'first world problems' they might find when immigrants arrive on their doorstep, they might actually develop even greater antipathy towards your revolutionary projects than they already have. So you can tell them as much as you like that "..''your' governments started the wars that led to these people losing their homes...", and this might even be largely true, but the net effect is still going to be one that actually strengthens the established view, in my opinion.

Secondly, there is an anti-civ perspective that says the immigrants would be better off finding a way to live independent of a moneyed economy than travelling (sometimes by foot - did you hear about the Arabs walking to Germany through Serbia on foot!) to countries where the best they can look forward to is washing cars, cleaning toilets, etc. for a few bucks a day, and in the process being absorbed into the very same alienated culture that we should be trying to undo. In other words, Syrians moving to Germany and the UK and the Czech Republic, et al. actually ends up assimilating them into the culture of empire.

So those are two reasons why I think that anarchists should think a bit more carefully about it. If they want to knee-jerk, scream slurs, and miss the point, that's up to them.

My own personal view, as a person who has been affected directly by this immigration, I don't like it for myself, and of all the immigrants I've ever met, none of them came anywhere close to the kind of happiness or state of freedom that most Europeans enjoy. So they aren't really benefitting from being here, except in a very shallow economic sense, to produce remittances to send back to Syria anyway.

Some will undoubtedly argue that this is a view entirely produced by the 'privilege' afforded by my race and class, but then I would also retort that such identitarian thinking is extremely problematic and part of the problem, not the solution to all this inequities and alienations.

It's more complicated than some people make out, that's all I'm saying.

the problem is really one internal to anarchism. There are anarchists who say things that challenge longstanding anarchist notions. Whether anarchism settles as a free-floating non-organisational libertarian attitude and project, or down traditional Leftist lines, is up for every person who calls their self 'an anarchist' to decide.

But those among you who want to be all sectarian and ignore this internal critique (as well as the external critique, which I represent), call it 'fascist', and ignore it, will probably end up further calcifying your organisations and associations, I would argue.

It is one thing to reply, in a measured way, and make a counter argument in favour of immigration. It is quite another to police a forum and demand that anyone questioning immigration be banished, which some on here actually want.

"There are anarchists who say things that challenge longstanding anarchist notions."

There are also liberals, fascists and commies who say things that challenge longstanding anarchist notions. If they show up here and insist that they're "anarchists" are we obliged to accept them? Am I being too authoritarian if I dismiss a demand that we vote for hillary, or is it only fascistic rhetoric that we're supposed to welcome?

"I would like to see a discussion where no viewpoint was deemed 'unwelcome'. When encountering views that I find truly unpleasant, I either argue against them or ignore them, depending on different things."

So, in the midst of a reportback on a knife-fight with Klan members, we're supposed to welcome a bunch of arguing that maybe the boneheads have a point? Where are actual anarchists supposed to discuss strategies and priorities while all these topics are being derailed by fascist apologism?

"If the focus is on undermining the legitimacy of states, then this is where the "no borders" rhetoric stems from, clearly."

"No borders" is not an optional part of anarchism. If believe in borders, or any other core part of state power, you are not an anarchist, period. If we broaden the definition of anarchism to include support for the state, what's the point of using the word at all.

"the people in the host countries really don't want this, and that in trying to force them to accept the immigrants, this approach antagonises these people."

Putting aside the framing of "forcing" people to accept immigrants (as if other people's right to free movement is an infringement of their liberty), where doesn't this logic apply? Is there any part of anarchy that wouldn't "antagonize" people who hate freedom?

"immigrants would be better off finding a way to live independent of a moneyed economy"

Where? Back under falling bombs in Syria? And if "living independent of a moneyed economy" is so easy that refugees fleeing a warzone can do it, how come it's so hard for people with homes and bank accounts in first-world countries? And why do you get to make this choice for immigrants when you're obviously not willing to do it yourself?

"the best they can look forward to is washing cars, cleaning toilets, etc. for a few bucks a day, and in the process being absorbed into the very same alienated culture that we should be trying to undo. In other words, Syrians moving to Germany and the UK and the Czech Republic, et al. actually ends up assimilating them into the culture of empire."

So...are you opposed to migrants living on the fringes of society doing ultra-precarious illegal work, or their assimilation into German/British/Czech society? Because anti-immigrant rhetoric drives both.

"as a person who has been affected directly by this immigration, I don't like it for myself"

You're such a fucking victim and not at all privileged.

"It is one thing to reply, in a measured way, and make a counter argument in favour of immigration. It is quite another to police a forum and demand that anyone questioning immigration be banished, which some on here actually want."

This is a site for anarchists, which you're pretty clearly not. The notion that both sides of this issue should be given equal time on an anarchist website is ludicrous, and while I'm more than willing to argue this kind of crap on occasion it gets a little tiring when it starts to dominate the site (which it has). I'm not saying that you should be banned (tho I wouldn't complain) but it would be nice to not have my own posts censored for disagreeing, or to be able to point out when the opinions people are putting forward are reactionary without being accused of censorship (by people who denounce everything as "leftist"). You can't have it both ways - either we allow right-wing opinions but allow people to point out when they're right-wing, or we maintain that we're all anarchists here and take measures to ensure that's the case.

How many fields did you crop to build that army of strawmen?

Go back and count the number of questions you've asked out loud that don't pertain in any way to what I actually wrote.

"You can't have it both ways - either we allow right-wing opinions but allow people to point out when they're right-wing"

I challenge you to give me YOUR definition of 'right-wing' and then tell me one idea I espouse that is 'right-wing'.

Being anti-immigrant is right wing. That isn't even a maximalist position, rather a reactionary one. We need a democratic framework to prevent these types of poisonous ideas from spreading into our collective well that is this website. If we had a democratic moderation, I'm certain the reactionaries would be given no quarter and we'd have far more autonomy than we do now.

and then tell me how I am allegedly occupying this position

Thank you for taking the time and effort to make the abarchist counter-arguments to this fascists' comments.
BTW--as you can see, name calling can be a short-hand way of making an argument when you don't have the time to explain every single point that should be obvioius to any anarchists and has been made 1,000 times before. Especially when it is a response to an argument that gets made here every fucking day (like emile's same argument you see here every day) or is a comment any anarchists should find obvious disagreement with. Leave up all comments and provide an up/down vote next to each so people can express their agreement or disagreement with a comment without gaving to make a comment.

"do you want this "space" to be a typical online discussion forum, or do you want it to emulate real, actual discussion among thoughtful people who choose to engage in it?"

Why do you assume that forced registration will result in a more thoughtful or better discussion when all evidence so far suggests that registered posters are the worst offenders?

"anyone that is seriously worried about social engineered hacking to tie your pseudonymous posts on @news with your hard-core clandestine activities, is obviously not being careful enough about anything. grow the fuck up and realize that absolutely NOTHING you do online can possibly be considered secure. period."

Bullshit. As stated above, the main threat here isn't the kind of hacking from which nothing is secure, but from individual cyberstalkers who's main weapon is a google search. Even if you use your pseudonym nowhere else and never ever take part in social media, having posts tied together makes it far easier to piece together your identity. Hell, even if you don't ever post on this site, anarchists are a rare breed and if one of these (often unstable and dumb-as-mud) cranks thinks you sound like a certain username who hails from your region ("male, tall, banjo player" etc) then you too might become a target. There are whackjobs out there who spend all their time obsessing over local anarchists (especially if @s are at all active in your area), and I've seen that end in lost jobs, false police charges, televised slander with their names and pictures and plenty of lawsuits, and it could easily lead to a lot worse.

anonuser 23:10:

i don't assume anything. and i strongly disagree that registered users are the worst commenters. sure, everyone posts stupid shit sometimes, but unregistered anons are by far less thoughtful and more frequent in their inane one line reactive attacks against anything they disagree with. folks like ziggy may have a more challenging perspective than typical lefty anarchists, and i surely don't always agree, but if one actually pays attention to what they are saying it is clear that all the insipid barbs accusing them of being racist or sexist etc are rooted in complete ignorance of the perspective being articulated.

as for security, i repeat that what you refer to is unrelated to technology per se, it is social engineering, applied to these technological tools. from a purely technical perspective, commenting as an unregistered anon is essentially no different from commenting as a registered anon. even with the use of tor etc (which may make things somewhat more difficult, but not at all a roadblock for those with skills and interest in tracking you), tracing your posts technically is no different either way. follow the ip (easy with the help of isp router logs and tor exit nodes), then map it to a hardware mac. a registered name is absolutely irrelevant.

folks that have only ever known this techno-nightmare seem ignorant of the possibilities of living a life without it.

personally, i don't give i shit whether @news continues to enforce registration or not. i find most discussion here pathetic. i was merely expressing my own opinion about registration, based on 30 years of experience with different forms of online discussion. you disagree. cool.

I'm kinda with "anonuser" and the replies by "thecollective' to his rant reminds me of the very same arrogant, disrespectful dismissal that Worker had in response to the non-moderation or non-removal of highly-controversial trolls that have been doing nothing else here than cause burden and deteriorate the level of discussion on this site, as well as its value or any serious anarchist out there.

I can't get out of my head the idea that this "experiment' was a bad joke on the repeated suggestions by readers to create an account-based posting system, only to show to everyone that it's not going to change anything (just make things more controlling and less secure) in a context where they DON'T want to kick out the most noxious trolls of this site.

As a matter of fact, they haven't kick them out of the site for years, and we're still having the same issue of PNW shitlords enforcing their dick-brains for more rape and taking of space.

So I guess that yeah... the mods at this point don't seem to be for real in any way whatsoever. Unless they behave as if they are, and address the criticism thrown at them for ages.

Yeah, my take away from all this is that almost ANY moderation, other than actual spam and complete gibberish posts of invective, only demonstrates the biases of the mods and doesn't improve the dialogue at all. This place is a sewer, don't like the smell? Leave.

IMHO, all the hostility towards anons from logged-in users AND the mods demonstrates some sort of cognitive difficulty people have with not developing a bias towards anonymity, even if you're theoretically sympathetic to it, some anon gets under your skin one day and then you're sounding off like any other reactionary. Reminds me of the people who scream at us just for wearing masks because it makes them uncomfortable.

I don't fucking care if you like me or my friends OR our opinions OR those other masked-up kids who I don't know and admittedly they're being shit-heads, I STILL don't care about your stupid little feelings. Be grateful that the worst thing that happens to you today is you got your little feelings hurt, k sweethearts? Kiss my ass. Double-birds for everyone trying to "control" things and inevitably (and only) making shit worse with your unchecked hubris.

If that was the purpose of this experiment, well played mods, well played.

Spot on!!
If the mods and sewer rats here don't get your point, i think it is imperative another website is created where the people who run it understand the perspective you articulated.

Thanks. I'm pretty sure my position is anarchist, that's all that I'm sure of. Oh, also that I'm an asshole and totally not sorry.

"We fascists are the only true anarchists" ~Mussolini

"One day I went down to the sewers only to find the Light of philosophy, and it was called "Emile"... Then I went on full living-room intellectual wanking on my way back up, understanding that it's all there is and can ever be with North American anarchy..."

We are our own God, no need for sauntering outside of ones own intuitive relationships.

Best reason to have democracy yet. If we are all our own God, we need to have more collective responsibility to ensure our individual autonomy.

How can I say this? As an aesthete I don't want dirty feet trampling through my mind, nor a democratic stampede polluting the harmony I nurture everyday. I beg you, do not reply to my comments, I am only being courteous, refrain please, or else!

Or else? Interesting response from a maximalist. Is your head in the clouds? I'm sorry I ruined that comic book you were dreaming about. Sorry not sorry. Direct action, mutual aid, cooperation, autonomy, decentralization and democracy. These all go hand in hand and will give us the world we want, the Ultimate Anarchist Triumph (UAT). I will never stop trying to expose the strong anarchist connection to the most effective methods of engaging masses of people that has generated some of the most successful struggles of the highest quality that have ever existed just because it isn't perfect. I suggest you pull your head out of the clouds, get your feet on the ground and engage people, anarchist and non-anarchist, else you will remain paralyzed, always wishing for your comic books to be real while never making a real impact in the world. That is a sad story. I feel sorry for you.

Or else, I challenge your interpretation of what a maximalist is? Extremism and irreconcilability are alien to my aesthetics concerning social harmony, in fact, from my position regarding revolution, if there was a spectrum of engagement, I am at the minimalist end, which is by far less paralyzed in its net production of quality positive outcomes/capita than would be a compulsory democratic one. I have never voted in my entire life, and will go to my grave proud that I never wavered and succumbed to the bleating desires of the weak herd of philistine peasants who have no comprehension of the anartist sensitivities to beauty and harmony which is in reach of all of us. But I will continue to help them doing their menial tasks for them, being the good Samaritan, out of duty to my own aesthetics of harmony, and I believe you to be a philistine peasant and pity you but respect you, up to a certain limit, and then.

I do not advocate revolution, insurrection, riots nor protests. I advocate decentered groups building to a critical mass, using a democratic framework, aiming for territorial autonomy. From here, it is a matter of defense, rather than offense, to determine the context and character of the struggle to exist. We are better than the authoritarians and the maximalists because we offer a better way that goes in the same direction as most current struggles are going.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against revolution, insurrection, riots nor protests. I only see these as moments that revolve around a conflict with a state or states in a territory or cluster of territories. The most realistic way of growth is to aim for autonomy now using a democratic framework, working with anarchists and non-anarchists. The core root of being an anarchist is ensuring individual and social autonomy, so joining in the struggles with others while offering strong anarchist principles is key to achieving the Ultimate Anarchist Triumph (UAT). This would be the spreading of territorial autonomy across the world, ending the world of states and freeing us to make the world as we like.

What is a maximalist? It is a term, influenced by the old Russian term, yes, but taking into account that it is indeed a pejorative for an anarchist that has philosophically meandered themselves into a paralysis of action. This is typically because they are dreaming with their heads in the clouds, transforming the anarchy in their head into a comic book instead of a reality.

As for your petty insults that which to put me beneath you, I question your anarchist credibility. Someone mentioned something about reactionaries on this site and I'm starting to think you might be one of them.

which = wish

It appears I can't edit my own comments, as I could before. Why is that?

After anarchism there is only the association of anartists who have transcended the toxic binary relationships which cripple the political discourse. Why am I replying to you at all probably stems from the fact that I am incredibly bored at the moment, having no woman to massage my agony, and so, just as the cat mouths and claws a mouse playfully, giving it a chance to escape, flinging it into the air and catching it before the coup de grace, so I allow this conversation to continue, playing with your ignorance and rhetoric. If you enjoy being insulted, continue to reply to my comments and I will comply.

PS,,*snickers* No true anarchist would reply to a democratic unionist.

*I can't believe I am playing this game but here goes*

The rejection of democracy is not just something coming from a maximalist anarch aspiration. If we were creating a hierarchy of wants based on 1 aspirations 2 preferences and 3 tolerances democracy arguably does not even make it to a preferential level. There are very pragmatic reasons why democracy is not a good idea even at the level of preference(see Bob Black's Debunking Democracy for example). It's a buffer between autocratic dictatorship and the libertarian continuum that includes anarchy. Maybe it's a last resort decision making model that you turn to under certain conditions, but it is not something you aspire to let alone should even prefer. There are other modes of decision making like the Iroquois model that can't really be called democratic because there was no formal voting procedure. There are numerous preferential options that anarchists and anarchs have before democracy becomes an option.

It should tell you a lot that from either an extreme economic position or extreme anarchist position democracy is simply not liked. It's not the best thing for making the trains run on time if you're into that, it's the best thing for facilitating resource based interests if you're into that and it is certainly not the best thing for symmetrical, relational existence which I'm into. Also, as Mark lance argues, stop fetishizing process.

There is the remote possibility that VU can grasp the contradiction between elected representation vs individual autonomy, maybe by reading BB. *I can't believe I am playing this game but here goes* A magnaminous attempt is always worth a try.

The Iroquois used consensus rather than (majority-style) voting but other than that the process was actually quite formalized, and arguably heavily influenced the founding fathers' design of American democracy.

the founding fathers were coming from a law-based culture. "culture is language and language is culture" and the founding fathers with their noun-and-verb language did not live in the same reality as the iroquois.

for the iroquois, there was no assumption that the individual was an 'independent being' with his/her own internal process driven jumpstart behaviour [the product of noun-verb constructs] that leads to a moral judgement based governance system that assumes that the individual is fully and solely responsible for his/her behaviour.

there is no equivalence for 'consensus' between a relational culture like the Iroquois that sees 'cause' as indefinitely deferred within an unending matrix of relational dynamics transpiring in the continuing now, and Europeans that see 'cause' as something that is locally jumpstarting and bridging from the past through the present into the future, as depicted by a local, independently-existing 'noun-subject-being' that is given idealized jumpstart powers of action by a 'verb', and thus rendered capable of constructing a future state from the immediate past state.

for the Iroquois, "it takes a whole community to raise a child-soldier whose venting of relational social tensions he finds himself situationally included in sources a massacre, by his hand, of a dozen fellow villagers". this differs radically from the European assumption of 'independent being' as built into noun-and-verb language that holds the individual to be fully and solely responsible for his own actions. this idealized 'independent being' is the basis of the Western Euro-American legalistic social dynamics management framework with its moral judgement based retributive justice.

'consensus' in the European sense, is like that of a jury that employs the 'democratic' practice of 'voting' to select, by political competition, that 'version of semantic reality' that all will agree to employ as the 'operative reality'.

'consensus' in the Iroquois sense, is nothing of the kind. it is an agreement to work together to cultivate, restore and sustain RELATIONAL BALANCE AND HARMONY IN THE CONTINUALLY UNFOLDING NOW without an intermediating BELIEF in a notionally TRUE depiction of REALITY comprised of 'past states of being' and causally projected 'future states of being' formed with words and grammar.

that is, the Iroquois are not in the habit of constructing 'semantic realities' that they 'believe to be true' and to develop 'consensus' through a 'political process' that selects the most popular 'semantic reality' for use as the 'operative reality' for the entire group. wolves that run together may imply 'consensus' but it is has nothing to do with choosing a common 'semantic reality' for use as their 'operative reality'.

'concensus' within a relational culture whose belief in the connectedness of all things wherein 'independent being' is nonsense [does not arise], differs radically from 'consensus' within a mechanistic culture that uses 'independent being' as the foundation of its language-based semantic reality constructions.

in sum, there is no comparison between 'concensus' across relational and mechanistic languages and cultures. in the former 'consensus', situationism is put in precedence over intentionism ['reality' is understood as continually unfolding in the timeless present], while in the latter 'consensus', intentionism based on constructing a desired 'future state' prevails while the unfolding 'situation' is seen as 'noise' that can be overcome by putting more energy into intentionally determining the agreed-by-consensus 'desired future state' as expressed within a noun-and-verb based 'semantic reality'.

as mentioned elsewhere, the agreed-by-consensus 'desired future state' [which cannot exist within the timeless relational language of the Iroquois] is inherently subjective and incomplete; e.g. by spraying the habitat with DDT, we can construct a desired future state free of mosquitoes, ... by military intervention, we can construct a desired future state in which the middle east is free of Saddam Hussein. in the European language and culture, people believe that these desired future states are 'real' and 'can be achieved'.

science and logical hypotheses such as these [which are inherently subjective and incomplete] are what 'science and the social consensus that it rallies' are able to achieve. but only in the sense that 'what is achieved' is the fulfillment of a logical proposition which has precious little to do with the full relational complexity of the physical reality of our actual experience [externalities and side-effects not accounted for in the simplistic logical hypothesis are what we actually experience].

'mission accomplished' is what science claims and this claim is true, but in a logical sense only. in the physical reality of our actual experience, the intervention guided by a consensus 'semantic operative reality' transforms our relations with one another and the habitat in a manner that is far more relationally complex than any scientific logical proposition.

iroquois consensus is grounded in actual experience of inclusion in a timeless transforming relational continuum while European consensus is grounded in a popularity-based 'semantic reality' that incorporates belief in the power of a collective to construct a desired future state [depicted by inherently subjective and incomplete logical constructions].

let's also not forget that the "founding fathers" (lol!) did not want the u.s. to be a democracy per se, as they saw that as not only the "tyranny of the majority", but a likely stepping stone to dictatorship. no, instead they made it a "republic", which supposedly adds protections for individuals and minorities (again, lol!). everyone knows how well that has worked.

democracy is the wet dream of liberals. i have no time for either.

Democracy is 'the god that failed'

I recommend everyone read that book

People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn is pretty good, but I am aware it is a democratic socialist that wrote it. Are you aware of the reactionary nature of this book? Perhaps you can give your own synopsis that better explains what you got from the book, as I am not seeing much to be learned from a reactionary book that often slants or obfuscates facts to generate the kinds of narratives they enjoy. It is more comic book writing nonsense from silly authoritarian maximalists that can't get their shit together. More nay say nonsense to push an agenda that is at odds with any concept of social autonomy as anarchists understand it, meanwhile they are just as worthless to other authoritarians with this dumb heads in the clouds. This is for people that graduate from First Person Shooter (FPS) culture to a higher level of imagining you are a hero while doing jack-all.

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.