TOTW: Privacy

  • Posted on: 6 November 2017
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

As many of you know we at have attempted to preserve your privacy since our founding. The core server does not maintain logs (except when troubleshooting and then they are removed), the Drupal software at the heart of @news has the Indymedia log clearing plugin installed (and removes logs every 20 minutes), we, as a rule, try to remove legal name information. Our question is, does anyone care? I know a few diehard technophiles will jump in and talk about how -their- privacy is the most important thing they own and we are fools to even entertain any other option but is it true?

As far as we can tell, a lot more anarchy talk (which is at the heart of this project) is happening on Facebook than here. Even as we have become more balanced (and not run by one person) their seems to be an increasingly engaged audience that only talks about changing in the world in the most heavily surveilled Internet space every constructed. Yes, there are outliers but many (if not most) users of the Internet seem perfectly fine giving up their privacy for ease of use and lack of friction.

Does this mean that our goals of a broad conversation are misplaced (because corporations are going to be better web designers than DIY projects)? or does it mean that, perhaps, privacy is a bourgeois conceit that makes no sense in this new world we live in?



Deeper than facebook babble, my private dood is unfathomable, my individuality is soaring in the stratosphere, where bourgeois fear to tread


The fascist pigs who rule the USA and make it a plantation where the rich are Massa and the rest of us are nothing but slaves arguing over who gets to be a house slave love to watch, don't they? So why not give them a show? We should be able to talk about treating Congress to a rousing chorus of "Up Against the Wall, Motherfucker" without having to hide as if we were doing something wrong.

its called mission manger

For obvious reasons, vaguely referencing my past experiences in the black market where I got educated on a form of security culture that's very different than all the tech-oriented discourse today.

I encountered that term later in activist circles but I'd already learned a very low-tech, basic version of it that I still swear by.

I've been targeted by state-paid infiltrators and navigated through mild to seriously sketchy situations and it wasn't about encryption or social media at all.

It was about relationships and context. Trust people completely or don't say/do sketchy shit. Read about all the previous court cases and study the methods used by law enforcement or their stooges.

All of which is to say, who gives a fuck about shit-talk on this website?! Nobody.

I hear jz mention surveillance/technology and the death of privacy? What is privacy? Tribal living certainly isn't privacy yet jz tells everyone that life will be 'future primitive.' there is the one-way mirror lack of privacy where 'they' are watching/listening to us but 'we' can't do likewise to 'them.' privacy or are we talking anonymity?

We're talking about extra work thecollective does to appease some nerds who never do anything illegal anyway.

I think A-News doing everything it can - and does to secure privacy is a good and great thing, and they deserve a pat on the back for their years of work in this department. So, kudos on that.

Absolutely! But as stated in the topic, a lot of people don't give a fuck and a lot of the time, it makes little difference.

That's until you enter sketchbag thunderdome. Then you better have a plan to manage risk.

The obvious recent example being all these kids who selfie their breakfast every morning and suddenly jumped in to Antifa activity. Bad times were had.

Original poster responding, think that people that have been around pre-Trump need to help with the new kids, and I agree, the concept of security is fucking horrible. Also the new new folks that are coming into anarchism, Generation Z, like are...yeah, it's gonna take some work. I think a lot of this means restating the same basic 101 things that we have been during every new wave. Which is hard and boring and sucks, but we gotta do it.

You're quick to dismiss "diehard technophiles", but why? Are the experiences of someone who values privacy online less valid that your conception of a "normal" person? If your goal is to cater towards an audience more reflective of societal norms, then perhaps you should just bite the bullet and become Reddit, or CNN, or IGD, or whoever else. Obviously this is a generalization, but the point is valid: this is already a site which caters to a very particular type of person; if you decide the privacy geeks don't matter, it's either because you're catering to a broader audience that shouldn't really be relevant, or a narrower one that will eventually end up with the collective and a few named users patting each other on the back for a job well done (then crying about the feeling of exclusion). There are plenty of people who face threats that aren't what a typical user of this site face (e.g., someone with a stalker who is even mildly technologically skilled). Do you really think so highly of yourself and those like you that if they aren't capable of fitting their existence into your threat modeling, they shouldn't be considered? I would think here of all places people would understand why there's reason to be critical of shaping our values in a democratic fashion, and understanding how this leaves people behind.

But to step outside of motivations and goals, let's look at privacy itself. Clearly, we know that there is some non-zero value to privacy on this site (we have hard documentary evidence that LEAs monitored this site in the past, I see no reason why they would stop), so the question then is whether it's "worth" the effort to maintain. Personally, if you're going to continue to allow commenting, people will continue to post illegal shit, and whether you think that's a reasonable thing for someone to do or not, to me at least it makes sense to make a best effort at keeping them out of jail. More generally though, there's the matter of chilling effects that a lack of privacy creates. I, personally, will not use this site if I cannot use Tor. The ability to engage in reasonably interesting discussion without ties to my personal identity is a service I don't get very many other places, and something I at least value. If I don't feel like I can have a reasonable degree of anonymity in my posts, I am going to unconsciously self-censor, and the discussion generally will suffer as a result. This isn't a very debatable point, we have plenty of studies that show this phenomenon isn't relegated to "diehard technophiles". Even for those who don't pay attention or explicitly value these things, we have an understanding of how the expectations and conceptions of privacy end up affecting, say, whether a person will discuss something like Atassa. So now bringing things back to motivations and goals, if anews is supposed to be a platform for having discussions we cannot find elsewhere, then shouldn't it be within anews' role to encourage people to have those discussions? Remember, privacy isn't just about keeping things secret. It's also the narrative that surrounds information.

Peanut gallery here! It's because these same technophiles do wonky threat modelling of their own, thinking that every little discussion is so damned interesting to these LEAs you mention, when a lot of it is just people taking themselves terribly seriously.

But the difference between justified paranoia and delusions of grandeur is tricky, it's true.

Idpol privacy is personal privacy these days, the "person" is the "citizen with rights", that bullshit zone of pseudo space and banal economic values combined into a mixture of the new future character to aspire to. If you have no credit you're a non-entity bound for obscure poverty in a concrete prison,,,or dead. Yeah, why should I or they care, expediency is the new methodology for existence, spontaneity cannot be extrapolated to a destiny of mortgaged values and relationships. The dood laughs and engages the flock and inspires them to seek other realms where privacy becomes a bygone tribal frustration, where the existential void can never hold a jelly mold up to any traveller on the path to eternity.

Was going to ask for some of whatever you're smoking, then I realized it's your own farts.

Privacy should be built in to internet technology as much as possible so we don't have to think about it so much, you mentioned the log roller etc. Also the division between above ground and below ground activity should be maintained as far as security culture is concerned. Since the repression is not that high at the moment I don't worry about it much but if I was going to do some dirt I wouldn't mention it on the internet. That being said I might look into encryption and anonymous browsing but I do like to be able to share some things on the internet because it's more fun.

You know one time I did get a warning from my ISP for downloading a bootleg copy of Naruto which was a little unnerving. Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they aren't watching you.

today felt really SHITTY because of privacy issues. ugh. I'm going to save some pics and deleat the fb. that's some nonsense. Also, wtf is a malwar and virus scan thing? I'm from the woods. thx

I got TOR but it, like, never works.

ugh, now fb won't let me log on cause, like, I dunnno. But like, a few days someone tried to get in it.


We deserve your mockery. Especially for that non-ironic Naruto reference.

You seem pretty cool I like the way you type, maybe we could chat sometime?

At the very least stop using Fedbook and get on Twitter. There are excellent conversations going on there too with less security concern than on FB.

Whatever you do, don't create an account here with an email address you care about. The admins of this site will straight email cluster bomb you if you don't follow the party line.


but I created an email account and then only used it to register with this site. After 6 months or so, I started getting emails that I was signed up for various STD positive dating sites.

@thecollective - How do you delete your account here, anyhow?

In the old days, we always did things this way: our own servers, our own software, our own security policies. When the Secret Disservice used a server raid against NYC Indymedia in a failed attempt to find out who published the hotel rooms of all the 2004 RNC delegates, they got nothing. Because NYC Indymedia had no server logs, it did not matter that Tor usage and privacy plugins were not yet common. Nobody got arrested, nobody went to prison, the GOP delegates got to sweat with no revenge.

Some of the communiques that get posted to this site are for seriously heavy shit. While I am sure the posters are serious about using Torbrowser with security all the way up, and still not using their home Internet connection the reality is shit happens. Anti-tracking and privacy are a never-ending arms race. Suppose the person who posted a seriously heavy communique got unlucky with Torbrowser updates, or just could not get enough bandwidth at a camera-infested coffeehouse to download the newest Torbrowser update. Suppose this site had decided to start keeping logs, and that not-updated version of Torbrowser contained a critical security hole? That happened before and led to the Freedom Hosting/CIPAV fiasco. Those server logs could then get a comrade identified and sent to prison, or that comrade might be murdered by the pigs while fighting for his or her freedom.

That's the possible price of keeping server logs, or of using 3ed party widgets or 3ed party content on the front page or the posting page from other servers that do log IP addresses. By comparison, a comrade using Tails/Tor on a site that also does not log IP addresses, and doing so from a public place has a stout three-layered defense. If they are sitting in the woods with a Pringles can wifi antenna aimed at the library on the other side of the trees, its a four-layered defense and probably impenetrable no matter what they are posting.

Hello my firends!

Anarchists talking in facebook, why they do not create an account in NSA directly? is almost the same.. lol

You want privacy?, use i2p!

you can create a mirror there, and after some time, when people uses it more, you could remove the 'clearnet' site.

We a re few anarchist around i2p, just look for us. ;) IRC2P, #anarchism #salt

Anyway, check about the hardware backdoors, intel AMT and so on.. I would not trust hardware either in this times. Yes, in resume, if you are targeted, companies and govs control it all... If yo are not targeted, everything sent without encryption will be saved.

Good luck!

and yet, it is also the most culturally accessible way to talk about it. It is a bourgeois conceit of a sort, in the sense that a high social status (being bourgeois, in very simple terms) affords a degree of guaranteed privacy, and in the sense that there is something of an aspirational culture among lower social status people (the proles) to have it, just as there is with things any other hallmark of a bourgeois lifestyle.

Really, I ought to say whatever the Invisible Committee line is. The bourgeoisie destroyed itself as a class to become an aspiration? Is that it? Who wants to look it up?

I have other things to say, so I may just edit this comment a little later to say those things. GOTTA GO TO WORK NOW, FUUUUUCK.

Kinda wrong, SS... The wealthy "elites" have always cherished privacy as PRIVILEGE. The current discourse you find among social libertarians (Left and Right, and beyond) rather talk about privacy as an undeniable right, that trampled upon by authoritarian relations and institutions.

and say we have to define all these terms.

But I think I could accept that perspective, in the sense of, like, there has long been a notion around in many world cultures (which hopefully sociology has, y'know, done at least one useful thing in trying to demolish it) that the people at the top deserve to be there. All the world cultures I'm talking about tend to be a bit, umm, governmented. Anyway, divine right of kings, mandate of Heaven, survival of the fittest... It's had a few names.

Anyway, an ASPECT of being at the top is "privacy". Because without "privacy", you cannot actually remain at the top forever - or at least your chances are diminished. You need to communicate orders and delegate tasks in order to maintain your position, but it is in your favour if you can control this information, and prevent it from getting into the wrong hands.

There are obviously benefits to privacy - for instance, if you want to do shit that you'd rather not be public knowledge, or even outside-of-relevant-parties knowledge (I am alluding to sex stuff). And this is where it becomes a bourgeois conceit. In capitalism, i.e. the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (watch me marxin' out), privacy is something that you can buy - or at least that's the idea. We also get an aspirational culture of people wanting access to that privacy. I think there is less of this than, say, poor people who want to have cool cars or the best drugs or the best video games, but there is still such a group.

None of the stuff in the above paragraph necessarily has anything to do (directly) with power. And we can imagine some very powerful people who, like, don't do weird sex things, and so wouldn't be spending money on that kind of privacy. Austere fascist/traditionalist archetypes, instead of decadent liberal/royal archetypes.

In conclusion: I want to make a serious distinction between elites, i.e. those with the most power on a societal level (think Trump, Zuckerberg, Putin, Thiel, Xi, and not that many other people on a global scale), and "the bourgeoisie", which the Invisible Committee says hasn't existed as a distinct class for at least a good few decades now.

Invisible Commitee can't acknowlege the existence of the very fucking Leftist bourgeoisie they're part of. Typical pattern...

But the privacy we were talking here -if I'm not mistaken- isn't the bourgie privilege, which isn't very relevant to any of us today. It's rather stuff like using encryption and having a security culture. Okay, it's also the wily antics like having a beer then porking a girl without telling your wife. lol... So 1991.

It's time to decentralise the web already, please start browsing and hosting via peer-to-peer connections. F the icanns and TLD sellers.

Hard as fuck to set up on Linux, and no Android fork... which is something these days. Sure I can compile it on Linux AMD64, but that's not how it's going to be used more widely. Not every Linux user is an insane coder who likes to spend hours a day tampering with basic functions, others want the fucking thing to WORK OUT OF THE BOX, which is something the GPL and Linux dev commnities still are having a hard time getting... So this leaves us with easy-to-use programs, on terrible orwellian systems like Wincrap and Macshit.

So no this project is not 'ready' for tons of users desiring privacy on their devices, because it's laughable to talk about anything private on Windows and Mac Os X,, or even on the Systemd-based Linux distros.

Yes, we need a BeakerBrowser for Linux dummies installation manual. I'm a Debian noob and gave up figuring out the error logs after hours of searching the forums on and outside github. I'm sure there's a reason BB doesn't release a .deb file, but come on it's important software.

The other comment is right in the way that Beaker Browser is not a sandbox... If you're running this program within very insecure systems like the "Big Corporate Two", you're still fucked in relation to whatever's happening in your computer. Same for using Tor on Windows (lol). You want some good privacy online? First adopt operating systems that are enough secure and open-source, which includes the base subsystems like the BIOS and the SystemD horror show (which Tails btw is based on, afaik).

I really appreciate the extra steps the collective takes to protect our privacy. As we're seeing with the DisruptJ20 website and case, the lines between legal/illegal activity are shifting quickly. And people who say "I'm not doing anything illegal" or "I'm not discussing illegal activity" are naive enough to think that the laws today will always be the laws.
That is all to say, thank you and keep up the good work.

I agree with 11:56 that what's legal today might be illegal tommorow so it doesn't pay to become complacent about security. So internet activity becomes another field of struggle just like the street where combative protesting is being punished and someday this website may be blacklisted and a visit could get you a threatening letter from authority or a knock on the door. While I'm not a martyr it becomes a matter of which hill do you want to die on, the street or the internet because both arenas carry certain risks to people who enter them, which leads us to a productive area of conversation about security culture and tactics that I'm always interested in hearing.

How very pious of you!

I'm on board with both BeakerBrowser and i2puser, but I feel we have to be more aware in what we communicate online and also how we use the internet when dealing with nonanarchists. Perhaps it's about time we started thinking what that may look like.
Would it mean the minimising of call-out culture, or relentlessly b*tching and brigading sworn enemies within the anarchointerweb?

Unfortunately call out culture will only go away over time, from a combination of identifying/ignoring the drama-seekers and of course, NOT being shitty to each other (for no reason or self-gratification). There's no easy fix, only developing critical-thinking will even make a dent.

And again, not being awful to people unless they really deserve it.

We've generally done pretty well at keeping normies and authoritarian leftists out of anarchist spaces - generally without much coercion. The way we've kept normies out is by making spaces in a way which seems unattractive or stigmatising to normies (too dirty, too hands-on, etc). The way we've kept authoritarian leftists out is by not having democratic organisations to hijack (though there's also been some coercion in some places, I've never seen these groups *try* to pull anything at my local social center). I wonder if something similar is possible with idpols. They are very easily "triggered" and will ostracise people and spaces very quickly. Name your place the "Metropolitan Indian Center", openly display a few "appropriated" cultural items and "dreadlocks welcome here" posters, a few pictures with dicks and vaginas on, and maybe some anti-idpol propaganda, and most idpols will boycott of their own accord.

The trouble is that idpols will go on the attack (rhetorically and physically) if they self-exclude (which in their mindset is: we've excluded them because we're racist or sexist). And anarchists suck up to them out of a sense of white guilt and failure to recognise that idpols are authoritarians (hence why half-a-dozen people can shut down a bookfair or a CrimethInc convergence where they're heavily outnumbered). We need to start treating idpols at least as badly as Leninists, and maybe similar to Nazi entryists in our spaces. If they pull this aggressive shit, we need to respond in a militant way, same way as if Nazis or Leninists were trying to shut down the space. We also need to create a strong either-or boundary between anarchy and idpol - at least as strong as the boundary between anarchy and authoritarian leftism. Of course idpols will hate us for this, cry racism and so on, run smear articles in their outlets and the mainstream media, and scream about how they're the "real" anarchists and we're closet authoritarians, but this doesn't matter as long as they can't shut us down (Nazis and Leninists call us nasty names as well).

We also need some way of responding to the question "what's an anarchist way of dealing with abuse (or racism, or violence...) in anarchist spaces". We need a response which is *not* call-out culture and *not* derived at all from the idpol or Third Way or behaviorist repertoire. This is a big project, but I'd suggest some mixture of: people are responsible for their own safety; people will not be banned from vital or life-saving initiatives for any reason; in situ expulsion can be used in case of fights, but does not lead to longer-term bans; people will only be excluded if they have a strong ideology and values counterposed to anarchy - and not for instance, for one-off incidents however serious, for non-self-controlled psychological symptoms, or for unintentionally causing distress (basically this means: undercover cops, organised Nazis, strong and explicit racist, sexist etc views, politicians and gangsters if they proactively try to dominate the site, and maybe unrepentant serial rapists and batterers); small affinity-groups pick their own members however they like, but have no say over the composition of the entire network; informal, not formal, sanctions will be used; where possible, reconciliation will be preferred to exclusion; where possible, people skilled in NVC should mediate conflicts in a way which *avoids* shaming, recognising the root needs involved; the space is not responsible for interactions among users when they are outside the space; low-level nuisance is to be expected and tolerated; women are encouraged to physically confront (e.g. slap) physical harassers; people should be encouraged to argue - but not in a monological way - with racist and sexist views (including: to explain carefully *why* they think something is racist or sexist); nobody is responsible for creating a "safe space" and there will be no generic "codes of conduct" or "abuse policies"; banning someone is worse than someone self-excluding; people should not tell others what to do, and if they do, then it's to be expected that others will refuse to obey. People are Unique Ones and not ciphers for social groups. People engaging in call-outs for stuff below a fairly high prejudice threshold (particularly unintended offence) should be ignored or laughed-at, or told to fuck off.

Ideally we should also look towards creating an anarchist "therapy" or anarchist "anti-therapy" such as the precarity consciousness-raising approach or Somatherapy. Anarchist therapy/anti-therapy should not aim to "heal" a person by making them calmer, more compliant, and better able to handle stress (the neoliberal/idpol view), but rather, should aim for 1) disinhibition and ability to experience euphoric states, 2) conscientisation - the "click" or "ah, yes" moment when perspectives change, and 3) a strengthening of will, combativeness, and ability to act in a propulsive way. We'd then be differentiating ourselves both organisationally and affectively from idpols.

Look at how socialism emerged from the shadow of liberalism, how communism emerged from the shadow of socialism, and how 60s radicalism (including proto-idpol) emerged from the shadow of communism, for a sense of how we can deal with idpols.

I agree on a number of these ponts. I would only quibble with the anti-normie thing. I think a healthy agnosticism should be taken towards norm based behavior. Ironically the anti-normal thing goes back to the 60s and may well have played a role in the rise of IDPol. I think an integral approach to normal and non normal is best. Anarchy needs some salt of the earth types that come from the normals.

I also think that there is no fixing this current milieu just as there was no fixing the old syndicalist era milieu going into WW2. Much of what you talk about doing are the foundations for a new radical current that will probably require a 20-25 year building period or so.

Yeah, from my knowledge of Kondratiev wave cycles I'm anticipating the next big revolutionary wave in about that timeframe. It may be a little late for some of us, though.

I think the syndicalist currents mostly got absorbed into, or crushed by, orthodox communism - but there were always a few people who kept the flame alive, and some of those people (along with people coming *out* of orthodox communism, like Socialisme ou Barbarie and the Lettrists/Situationists) carried the flame forward to the 1968 wave, and there were theorists in the 30s onwards (Gramsci, Frankfurt School, Reich...) who inspired this generation, and these might be worthwhile tasks for those of us who haven't succumbed to the idpol tide. If it's anything like what happened to orthodox Marxism, idpol is in for a massive fall, when the people it's excluding become visible again (same as socialism did before... which paradoxically led to idpol). I look forward to seeing idpols squirm to try to show there's something open or agency-affirming in their ideology, that it isn't just a rigid authoritarian dogma, when it's thoroughly discredited at that stage.

Also, remember that anarchist/autonomist currents are more alive-and-well in some contexts than others. I've read recently that Exarchia has recovered the last few years, and is back to being almost a no-go zone for police. Hamburg was huge. France and Spain have decent movements. Latin America has some interesting stuff going on. The idpol plague is strongest in Anglophone countries, and to a lesser extent Northern Europe. What would happen if there was another big financial crash, or a world war, or an internet shutdown? I honestly don't know.

I'm an entertainer of Strauss and Howe my self. Going by their predictions the 2040s-50s will be the 1960s-70s which followed the 1880s-90s(the latter two epochs had radical bohemian similarities). It all seems to fit at this point going forward. There probably does have to be some kind of late teen to mid twenties or so tribulation period and when the smoke finally clears there will be some type of reconstituted rest and relaxation period that births a new bohemian radical epoch. I don't like being mediated by cycles as I would love 1886 or 1968 to be right now but it does seem like that's how things are going to work out going forward. IDPols, ANTIFAS and Altrighters gonna gonna for at least the balance of another decade.

In terms of the groups you mentioned, the 21st century forms should be what those radically ahead of the curve should be getting on yesterday. The big difference this time being that the greater 20th century was cancerized by post WW1 dominating Marxism and even the good strands of radicalism were in a world where anarchism was comatose and Marxism(mostly bad and in a few cases good) was the only game in town. Those groups you mentioned would have been IMMENSELY better if they were defined by Anarchist and Stirnerian Anarchy lines of flight as opposed to Marxist ones. 20th century radicals at their best were spectered by Marx. This time anarchism and anarchy are the only game in town as Bob Black would say. It hasn't contracted and collapsed like it did after WW1. It still has a structure albeit toxified by Marxist-Maoist leftist residue. The post leftist anti-IDPols know what they have to do in regards to cleansing.

Whether a collapse happens or not I think what's really needed right now is a new salonic movement. Philosophy is needed more then politics at this point. A 21st century Young Hegelian Die Freien if you will. These are the sorts of people that get banned from r/Anarchism/ and expelled from the greater milieu;)

Would you elaborate on your concept of salonism? Are you talking about an avant garde cultural movement instead of boring old leftism and ineffectual protesting? I try to strike a balance between work and play, conformity and counter cultural activity that keeps me from becoming alienated and miserable. I still participate in political protests and queering the environment mainly for my own enjoyment, not so much for the effect. I mean there's only so many things to do in the US and I'm not self destructive.

And yes I mean it as a way of trying to re-birth a new avant garde epoch akin to the 1880s and 1960s. Right now there does not even exist a 21st century equivalent to the Lettrists(which was birthed during and at the end of WW2). Individuals like Isidore Isou and Paul Goodman in their young form are what we need right now or certainly in the next 10 years or so when it will be obvious that new epoch of thought is needed. You won't find these kinds of individuals in the current decadent tit sagging milieu.

New thought forms will take some time with the needed quality individuals to flesh out some new principles, but it's what has to happen.

Actually I think we have new specters - the 1960s/70s gave us not only a revival of anarchism and Stirnerian lines of flight, but also the beginnings of idpol and the rise of poststructuralism. Some of the poststructuralists and the early pre-idpols are Stirnerian at times, anti-alienation and pro-desire... but then again, so was Marx and early (pre-Stalinist) Marxism. Leninism/Stalinism systematically selected the worst bits of Marxism (threw out the baby and kept the bathwater) and fused them with the cancerous "science" of the downturn period. It's the same pattern now: the current idpols and a lot of the academic "radicals" have systematically thrown out the desire-affirmative aspects of poststructuralism and 60s/70s pre-idpol, and the Marxisant aspects, and keep the worst aspects -
Derridean style, Levinasian ethics, Lacanian analysis, a misreading of Foucault which turns him into an everything-is-domination determinist, and the identity-obsessions, reverse-prejudice, cultural/moral policing, and general intolerance of the worst of the identity stuff - and melded these with a bunch of other stuff which was never part of 60s/70s movements and in some cases didn't even exist back then. I'd say anarchism in the English-speaking world is largely comatose or colonised by idpol, and these weird mutant idpol-pomo-Third Way ideologues (whose doctrine is surprisingly homogeneous, despite their lack of organisational structure) are taking over everything left-of-center.

Viewed as libidinal politics, I would say that Stirnerian (anti-)politics is always affirmation, positive emotions, euphoria, joy, play, self-empowerment, creativity, life; 30s ideology was neurotic hatred of life and fear of freedom, driven by a desire to maintain character-armour and a repressed organisation of the personality, the traditional authoritarian type; and idpol/Third Way is a new negative formation based on the valorising of a different set of negative and superegoistic emotions (anxiety, shame, discomfort, trauma, victim-identity, desire for self-change, the 'authoritative' manager-type) which functions similarly, but differently enough to disorganise existing counter-movements. Have a look at Chapter 12 here: the agenda is pretty obvious, "don't feel joy and anger and empowerment and unity against the system, feel guilt about privilege, fear, responsibility, self-restraint and a desire for self-change".

Ok this is good but I still want to know about the salon because it sounds sexy and chic. The word makes me think of Glen Greenwald and or maybe hairdressers and glamour.

Sex+? What is ethical porn?

The art of the self expressed through identity and psychodrama in scenes and skits and shows, sounds good to me. I'm always valorising myself but I'll step my game up so I'll be ready to throw down or take a turn on the catwalk, I put gel in my hair and spiked it up a little yesterday and made me feel sassy. I need to break new ground and make some films in different territory, perhaps I'll write some graffiti again downtown or make some clothes, I've been meaning to get a denim jacket at the thrift and cut the sleeves off and decorate it. There's always something to do, beauty is in the street.

The only reason I work is because I don't have SSI or a trust fund and haven't won the lottery. The work I do for money is fairly tedious and uninteresting except for mowing grass which I enjoy because it's part of my exercise program. We have a small home based business which is gravy pretty much. The work I do on myself is always rewarding, I got a new dildo in the mail yesterday and tried it out last night, felt great!

When I turn the camera on I feel like Cecil B. Demented, there's something exhilarating about recording part of your life and sharing it with others and watching it over again. Especially when it's not choreographed and you don't know what's going to happen. Plus I realized that just because you're holding a phone doesn't mean people know you're recording, just act like you're looking at something on the screen.

Increasingly home health care is an extension of the hospital, I think in the old days you used to live in the hospital until you were cured but now they try and send you home as soon as possible because the outcomes are better and there's a whole industry grown up around home health care. The person I live with had osteomyelitis which is a bacterial infection that lives in the bones usually of the feet and is difficult to eradicate. He had a series of surgeries and amputations over the years and I was able to assist in the recovery by administering intravenous antibiotics through a pict line and providing wound care, also doing household chores and running our business. This was the culmination of my transition into gendered labor which began about 15 years ago when I stopped doing manly jobs like construction or fishing and started working at home and living with my dad (which is transgressive around here). As I find helping old or sick people rewarding I might go into health care as my next career and there are provisions in Medicaid for family caregivers to receive training and even compensation.

One time I searched for the word 'baedan' on Twitter and while the results were sparse I was attracted to one trans woman who I followed and befriended as well as her cis lesbian wife. They were pretty nice to me although I did sense a bit of a dark side, one had a baeddel tattoo and turned me onto a PDF of The Faggots And Their Friends: Between Revolutions which I loved.

My early life was like Brandon Teena, although I'm not trans I was a scrawny waif with a cute face and a toothy grin trying to get along in the world of men. I had a tough act and played it straight to get by until I got into a position to drop the act and be my natural self. Now I don't try to conform to cis normativity because I don't have to and I'd rather bash back.

boys don't cry is a good movie.

"Many creative initiatives followed the days of December. Thankfully so, since the slogan-chanting and the clashes in the streets seem inadequate to open up new horizons in the movement, unless
they are complemented or preceded by structures of reproduction, the imagination and socialisation of which can potentially widen the move- ment’s elds of action and creativity in directions that street action and current affairs alone can’t—apart from a social mark and the neces-
sary commitment to existing and urgent conditions of power.
And we were there in order to change ourselves and December at the same time. With our privileges, our inequalities, our contradictions, our loot- ed subconsciousnesses, our authoritarian behaviours."

Good read.

December was critiqued as "masculine." Interesting. I know what the author meant, of course. But, IMO, discussions of femininity and masculinity are taboo in the US. Of course, there is a lot of self-identification, and discussions of gendering, but... I don't know how to put it, but I've never heard an anarchist describe femininity or masculinity.

I started reading this article last night but was overcome by sleep. I awoke with an idea for a new virtual salon, MIA male identity art, where we come together as men in rapport, through the art of the self motif to deprogram and decolonize from toxic masculinity and male chauvinism and craft identities that are conducive to group activity with diverse people. Can you hear the drums, Fernando?

Sounds good, I once did a caricature of a bull holding the cape being charged by a redneck cowboy with a dildo tied to his forehead like the mythical unicorn

I once did a caricature of a naked women, sketched with skill in charcoal black and white, sienna blushing life onto her lips. She was surrounded by artists, in a cold studio, painted with the shit of caged monkeys.

"Soma groups last a year and a half, with frequent sessions, including usually one full weekend per month for the entire group, as well as frequent capoeira classes, study sessions, social activities, and two self-organized group trips. These times together allow the participants to build and develop the group dynamic, in line with the principles of anarchism."

Will this replace the bookfairs?

Different people care differently about privacy.

I don't think it's just “diehard technophiles” who care about this stuff. It's a lot of the hacker community and hacktivists do as well. The technophiles aren't necessarily on here at all – but the hacker types will refuse to use anything but Linux, never use Facebook, and anonymise everything several times over.

There's some signs that a sizeable subset of Internet users value privacy a lot. Use of Tor and VPNs is high and rising. Imageboards (4chan etc) have great popularity among younger users and hikikomori types. There's a lot of fake or disposable accounts on all the giant sites – Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr and so on. But, the old kind of standalone website isn't used so much these days. From what I've seen, all those sites are struggling. They've been sidelined by Web 2.0, and they don't have the addictive quality of social media or imageboards.

Internet use has moved statistically towards a few major platforms. Outliers tend to feel “forced” to use these platforms to stay in touch with others. Politically, I think it's hard these days to run a movement of any scale with zero social media engagement. All the relatively successful movements – Occupy, BLM, Standing Rock, Arab Spring – have had strong social media components. Even groups suffering persecution – like salafis and alt-right for example – manage to use these platforms quite effectively. But, it's about how you do it, how aware you are. I think the really high-risk groups will build networks on social media, but then take the potential recruits elsewhere (or offline) for the good stuff. Anarchists have never really done this (it probably requires more organisation and cynicism than we have), with the partial exception of Anonymous, and we are missing out I think.

Facebook use among anarchists differs a lot. Some people I know refuse to use it under any circumstances. Some use it under one or more false identities. Some use it under their real identity, but restrict who they “friend” and who they don't. Some will discuss general theory on Facebook (the state knows they're an anarchist anyway), but not specific actions. And some people are just naïve, or irresponsibly blasé, or defiantly in-your-face about carrying on on Facebook. In my experience, it varies a lot with age-group, political orientation and constituencies. Older people – veterans of the anti-globalisation wave or before – either don't use Facebook, or use it selectively – rare use, zero politics, or news-only. Younger people use it a lot, and use it quite naively. This is rubbing off on some older people too. I think this reflects the gap between legal and surveillance risks, and actual observable outcomes – the rate of prosecutions for social media comments is going up, but mostly, people are finding they and their friends can post what they like with impunity. It's possible that this is a honeypot scenario, or they're more interested in passive surveillance and profiling than they are in arrests, or they simply don't have the resources. Suffice to say the pigs are *capable* of acting on social media posts in some circumstances, such as the London 2011 unrest and the Gezi Park protests, but it's so episodic that people don't manage the risk very well.

But, there are also national variations. None of the continental European activists I know use Facebook, and they're generally wised-up on things like PGP. Activists in the UK will network on Facebook, but will not generally post action details, or anything incriminating. This may be because there's a stronger tradition of free speech in America, so people are less careful there – or maybe because there's more recent memories of dictatorship in a lot of Europe. I think it's also an aesthetic choice for some people, to be as anonymous as possible.

I would add that it's pretty easy to create anonymous accounts (without IP address) on most sites with forced identity. It's harder now that it was ten years ago to set up free emails and use them to create accounts, but there's still a lot of options – Guerrillamail, Protonmail, Mail2Tor, Even for phone verification, there's workarounds (burner phones, SMS sites). It's actually rather easy to set up (or buy) fake Facebook and Gmail accounts. You can find sites selling accounts at something like $20 for 100. People can – and do – run high-risk trolling campaigns on Facebook (e.g. 4chan users targeting bereavement pages with content including illegal porn, false accusations, and gore) in spite of its identity-focused, data-mining architecture.

Alternatively, aggregator sites which combine content from the main provider with content from various lower-key competitors (e.g. Reddit, Raddle, Voat; YouTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo...) might be effective as a way to reduce the impact of censorship, especially if they also impact usability (e.g. ad-block). Something working like allchans/Overchan (which used to aggregate posts – I don't think it does now). I'd love to see something like this for anarchist and/or radical sites.

I think the way forward may eventually be to try to make software which creates peer-to-peer environments with direct encrypted connection, while also being interoperable with things like Facebook – something which runs as an app, or a separate program, and maybe also encompasses things like Tor, torrenting, Bitcoin wallet, inbuilt games and apps, chatrooms, etc. The trick is to make it peer-to-peer, with no central server, and therefore harder to censor – of course the content from Facebook etc wouldn't be, but the inbuilt architecture could avoid centralised data storage and suchlike. It might have distributed data like on torrents or blockchain, perhaps people's social media content would be encrypted and then stored in small chunks throughout the network for a certain time. If it was able to check Facebook and download the posts without the ads, integrate these with your Twitter feed and (user-friendly) RSS, and also offer end-to-end encrypted voice and video call (Skype functionality with security) and some kind of interest-matching system, it might be able to compete with the media giants and eventually break free of them.

come on, folks. anyone that thinks they can have ANY kind of real privacy online is delusional, ignorant, or both. i appreciate the effort to minimize exposure, but you gotta be realistic. anything said online (or on the phone/text/etc) is out there for the consumption of those with the means and skills to capture it. primarily the state and its agents, but surely not limited to such.

Good to hear realism piercing the fog of delusional paranoia which obsesses the participants of the binary conflagration. It should also be added that certain nations, to reduce the collateral and other damages during warfare, can now disable the most obscure and petty seg,ent of infrastructure on the other side of the planet, things like the water pump for the town supply of just say Dodge City,,,,So let's understand that with this in mind, a new approach to dealing with authority and loss of creative liberties in ones own autonomous zone must seek new methodologies which mutually pacify the swelling neo-libclone benevolent yet totalitaringly boring invasion.

Nobody's talking to you Le Fool,,, ;)

I've only just discovered this site. I appreciate the anonymity and hope the venue remains in place.

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.