Wolfi Landstreicher: Child molestation apologist

the original version of this post was submitted without the full text, which has been reproduced below - the collective

The material contained in this text is gut-wrenching and disturbing. What follows is a critically annotated edition of Apio Ludd / Feral Faun / Wolfi Landstreicher’s Child Molestation vs. Child Love, from his (otherwise celebrated) anthology, Rants, Essays and Polemics. It is a defense of the sexual abuse of children and, ironically, a call to “fight the real child molesters’’ — Landstreicher’s term for parents, schools, and churches. In some parts of the work, it is quite graphic and the reader should tread lightly. Those who have suffered child sexual abuse in the past may want to stop here.

It is presented with criticism. It is not in the interest of Heresy Distro to distribute molestation apologia by itself. Our choice of publishing this work is in the interest of knowledge — not of the arguments of self-styled “child lovers,’’ but rather knowledge about Wolfi Landstreicher’s views on “child love” so that one can act accordingly in their interactions with him.

Buried deep inside a barely-legible scan of Rants: Essays and Polemics of Feral Faun, is the short essay Child Molestation vs. Child Love. It would seem that very little, if any, attention has been given to this small piece. This is a shame -- and not, of course, because we think it is, uh, important dialogue. Rather, it brings light to a very specific situation within the anarchist community, in which egoist rhetoric is appropriated by predatory individuals in order to justify and bury their sadistic need to victimize and subjugate individuals. We saw this with Dr. Bones, who seemed to enjoy manipulating and fetishizing trans* women on top of writing egoist critiques of society.

As anarchists we should be tending towards anarchy, not using anarchism as a vehicle to reproduce the same degrading authoritarian power structures we supposedly are fighting against. Further, if we claim to have "no gods or masters," then we should be able to hold figures in our circles accountable.

Thus, us here at Heresy Distro have decided to publish a (very) critical edition of Child Molestation vs. Child Love to, hopefully, stop any sort of "child love" quasi-egoism from coming to fruition. While incredibly short (short enough to fit on a single-sheet minizine,) producing this work took an incredible amount of emotional labor to be able to sift through the child molestation apologia. It is not for the faint of heart.


Introduction: A Word of Warning

Here Be Dragons

The material contained in this text is gut-wrenching and disturbing. What follows is a critically annotated edition of Apio Ludd / Feral Faun / Wolfi Landstreicher's Child Molestation vs. Child Love, from his (otherwise celebrated) anthology, Rants, Essays and Polemics. It is a defense of the sexual abuse of children and, ironically, a call to "fight the real child molesters" - Landstreicher's term for parents, schools, and churches. In some parts of the work, it is quite graphic and the reader should tread lightly. Those who have suffered child sexual abuse in the past may want to stop here.

It is presented with criticism. It is not in the interest of Heresy Distro to distribute molestation apologia by itself. Our choice of publishing this work is in the interest of knowledge - not of the arguments of self-styled "child lovers," but rather knowledge about Wolfi Landstreicher's views on "child love" so that one can act accordingly in their interactions with him.


Our intent is not to moralize. Our motives for publishing Child Molestation is love - real, egoistic love for children. We do not believe it is our "duty" to protect children nor are we guided by any outside, abstract, spectral "morals" to do so. It is rather our lived, experienced, and felt camaraderie with children; with our desire to return to the pre-civilized and Wild existence that is childhood. Rarely is there a moment with children when they are not mesmerized by the natural world - insects, spiders, the grass, squirrels, rocks, rain, thunder. This is not merely nave curiosity. Children exist in a state before the bifurcation into man and animal. Truly, the trope of the "feral child" is not a child who has lost their humanity. Rather, they never developed it.

Childhood "sexuality"

One cannot deny that children possess a sort of sexuality, or, more precisely, what adults term sexuality. Childhood is a stage of exploration, and it is to be expected that children will partake in bodily exploration as well - individual and collective.

However, it must be made abundantly clear that a child's conception of sexuality is much different than an adult's. Children do not possess a concept of, and thus cannot grant, consent. Thus, an adult (who possesses a grasp on consent) who engages a child sexually will be enacting a sort of sexualized authority over them. Further, children are scarcely aware of the power dynamics that mark adult sexuality, and therefore cannot contend with and rectify them, as adults can. They are made into objects of pleasure, not, as Landstreicher contends, equal partners in a mutually-beneficial erotic relationship. When one's reading of Child Molestation vs. Child Love is informed by this understanding, the true content of the piece is laid bare: a quasi-egoist appropriation of anarchist rhetoric to justify (and perhaps hide) a cruel and authoritarian desire to control and fetishize the bodies of children.

Child Molestation vs. Child Love

A child is scolded, restricted, forced to conform to schedules and social norms, limited, bribed with rewards and threatened with punishments. This is called love. A child is kissed, caressed, played with, gently fondled and given erotic pleasure. This is called molestation. Something is obviously twisted here.[1]

One of the main dichotomies of this society is the child/adult dichotomy. It has no basis in any real needs or natural ways. It is a totally arbitrary conception which only serves to reinforce authority. [2]

Certainly, newborn infants need to be fed and watched over until they can begin to move around their environment with some ease, steadiness and self-assurance. And thereafter, it is certainly a kindness to inform them of anything they may need to know to avoid accidents and relate well to their environment. But the structuring and regimentation a child undergoes in our society has nothing to do with natural needs or kindness. It is the slow destruction of the child's freedom under authority.[3] From the moment an infant is bone s/he is in the firm hand of authority. S/he is almost immediately forced to feed on a schedule. Early on, s/he begins to see that the "love" of most adults is something that must be bought by conformity and obedience. Sensuality begins to be repressed by the scheduling of feeding and the use of diapers and other clothing even when they're uncomfortable. Toilet training continues the process. And the constant threat of punishment instills the fear necessary to keep the process of sensual repression going strong.

All of this is the dirty work of parents. What defines a "good parent is their ability to instill this repression appearing to be the monsters they are. For once this repression is well begun, the child can be easily molded into what this society wants. School completes the process begun by the parent. It forces the child to regiment most of her/his daylight hours. Sensual activity is straight-jacketed during this time. After school, there is homework which the parents make sure the child does. This process usually continues well past puberty. All of these years of repression and forced acquiescence to authority make the child into a grown-up (more accurately, a groan-up), which, in this society, means a conforming, obedient, and usually anxiety-ridden slave. It is the nature of this education process which makes society define the child-lover as a devil. For to the child-lover, a child is not a lump of clay to be molded to the will of authority. S/he is a god, the manifestation of Eros. The child-lover encourages the free expression of the child's sensuality and so undermines the entire education process. And the child, who has not yet been as repressed as her/his adult lover, helps to break down the repression within the adult. How could a society which requires repressed, conforming, obedient groan-ups possible tolerate child love?[4]

It is clear who the true child molesters are. The parents and schools rape the minds of children, forcing guilt and fear, conformity and obedience to authority upon them, repressing their sensuality and imagination, their wild erotic ecstasy.[5] But children are still less repressed than most adults. Their divinity still shines through with an especially clear beauty. For they are not mere clay to be molded. They are wild, dancing gods. To adventure erotically with children is liberating both for the children and for we "adults" who are really just repressed children. It is a major blow against authority and an expression of paradise. For we all are gods, and all shared pleasure is a beautiful expression of our divinity. So let us fight the real child molesters, the family, the school, the church and all authority, and share erotic pleasure as freely as we can with children. Then we may again regain our own repressed childhood and become the gods we truly are in beauty and in ecstasy.[6]

Critical annotations

(1) As outlined in the previous section, child sexual abuse is not simply kissing, caressing, and playing with a child. This is a gross and intentional mischaracterization of child molestation. Further, one can be opposed both to the imposition of authoritarian social norms and the sexualization of children.

(2) It is true in some sense that the child-adult dialectic serves to reinforce unequal power dynamics. We dispute, however, that the dichotomy has no basis in real needs or natural ways. Perhaps the only meaningful distinction between children and adults is the development of a concept of consent. However, Landstreicher himself even goes further than this - he contradicts himself in the very next paragraph. One must wonder what his intent here in "disrupting" this dichotomy is...

(3) Here is the contradiction - newborn infants cannot feed or protect themselves sufficiently and are totally reliant on their parents. Again, it is true in some sense that the structuring of a child's life is more for the good of capital-S Society than for the child themself. But to state that the child-adult dialectic is completely or wholly a construction of authority is fallacy. What is needed is not the complete or total destruction of the parent-child opposition. Rather, it is a radical reconstruction (or perhaps even a rediscovery) of the lived relationship of family. Unlike the empty, cold, mediated relationships we experience under industrial capitalism, the bonds of family, while certainly not wholly good in any sense, are fiery, hot, and emotionally potent. What is needed is not a destruction of the family - but a liberation of it! A liberation from the chains of Morality and Obligation, and a reformation of the family as a real, lived experience.

(4) In fact, the exact opposite is true. A child is exactly that to the "child lover" - an object to be molded according to authority. Landstreicher's description of child molestation conveniently makes the truth of it opaque. Landstreicher's child lover is more properly a child groomer, who, through the performance of affection and play, makes a child open to sexual acts they do not, and perhaps cannot, understand. They are not being "encouraged" to express their "sensuality." Their sensuality is being produced, they are turned into a machine for the production of sexual pleasure.

(5) How convenient that the authorities Landstreicher charges with "true" child molestation are the ones who are most directly engaged in the protection of children from sexual predators!

(6) Finally, Landstreicher closes with the clearest objectification of children in this "rant." For Landstreicher, in the end, the child is a tool for the production of an imaginary, repressed childhood. For Landstreicher, "child love" - molestation - is a ritual with which he can become feral and return to an Adamic state of "beauty and ecstasy." It is not the relationship he portrays.

There are 164 Comments

"Children do not possess a concept of, and thus cannot grant, consent."

this is bonafide bullshit. any reasonably adjusted six year old child absolutely understands the concept of "consenting" to allow their playmate to play with their toys. that is consent. you might argue that "sexual" consent is somehow different, and i would not argue that one way or the other. but what is different there is the "sexual" - not the "consent" - and how they do or do not perceive sexuality.

why would "consent" be different to a child depending on what is being "consented" (or not)? unless the authorities in their life have already turned sexuality into the hugely moral issue that underlies its (sexuality) distinction from every other vital aspect of an individual's physical, psychological, emotional, etc, being.

to say wolfi was promoting pedophilia is to demonstrate unequivocal misunderstanding.

This is beyond moralizing an issue, it's right-wing Christianity.

The issue here shouldn't be whether or not consent is granted. The question is if it's possible for a child to fully understand the intentions of an adult, and that's a case-by-case, individual determination. I think parents/guardians also have a role to play here.

ADULTS can't fully understand the intentions of an adult. We can't fully understand our OWN intentions. if that is what is required to have non-oppressive sex then we're doomed.

oops, i forgot, we're doomed anyway. never mind.

How will the capitalists find workers if everyone is out playing in the park and having endless sex their whole lives?
Society requires morals, or we return to the jungle and behave like the hillbillies in Deliverance.

Speak for yourself. I am an excellent judge of peoples intentions.

Did we read the same article?

To adventure erotically with children is liberating both for the children and for we "adults" who are really just repressed children.

If this is not promoting pedophilia, I don't know what is.

your misreading of this sentence perhaps speaks more about you than the author?

let me break it down for you. and while i do, recall Stirner's individual stages of life, if you will.

"To adventure erotically with children is liberating both for the children and for we "adults" who are really just repressed children. "

1. children adventuring erotically [with/as children] is liberating
2. "adults" (who are really just repressed children) that adventure erotically as children can experience this liberation.

understand? this is basic!

i expect a public apology to the author followed by a period of your self-imposed social media exile and eventual persona reinvention will follow. forward!

i heard there's child sex slaves in the basement of comet pizza and dc. GO THERE, AND KILL YOU ENEMIES, STOP WHINING LIKE A BUNCH OF HIPSTER BUTTHOLES.

if you define "pedophilia" and "to adventure erotically with children" as the same thing, as having an equal sign between them, then of course, you would conclude that saying "to adventure erotically with children" promotes "pedophilia". you say they mean the same thing, therefore one "promotes" the other....just a circular argument with no context or sensory description.

but if "pedophilia" means forcing, or attempting to fool, someone under a certain age into a sexual act....

and if "adventure erotically with children" could mean (as one example) holding hands while walking through the forest with both people smiling and feeling happy, then obviously one description does not "promote" the other.

Neither... Pedophilia's another of these ultra-far-fetched historical semantic hijackings. It basically is about foot fetish.

Pederasty should be the most accurate term for people who're into kids.


;call "it" rape'....what do you mean by "it"?

in order to define "it", you would need to describe a particular situation....otherwise your're just saying child rape is child rape.


well, i would agree with your definition given that situation, but i didn't read that situation in wolfi's piece....i would have preferred to hear more descriptive and sensuous examples, so for that reason i find it lacking....but that doesn't mean he meant what you said.


She should be home doing her homework and not putting sex and sensuality on a pedestal to worship, like Venus or Aphrodite or even the ancient fertility gods since time immemorial, always SEX SEX SEX Fetish, not just Freud, BUT EVERYONE !!!

when i said i found it "lacking because of no descriptive or sensuous details", i meant wolfi's piece, not your response....sorry for the confusion....

i assume your description applies to your definition of "child rape", but i don't know that it applies to what wolfi intended with his various definitions/words.

yes, i agree....every single action in life contains sensory feelings....

but every written word does not, so many are used as labels without providing any sensuous details or context, and therefore much more open to misunderstandings between people.

so when heresydistro says that wolfi "promotes pedophilia" by saying "adventuring erotically with children", they have not described anything sensuously, or at all, they basically just said that one label is the same as the other....which is why i questioned their comment here.

yes, joyous like a child who has escaped the prison of school.

what is this confused, moralistic dog shit doing on my beloved anarchist news?

After 06/04/2019 -16:00 it becomes meaningless!

Wow, while I was reading Wolfi's essay I thought that it was somewhat shady territory but clearly he was critiquing sexual repression and saying that children have erotic experiences of their own that shouldn't be denied, and that does seem different than defending child molestation, but that last paragraph just trashes that interpretation. What a fucking scumbag.

Also, imagine a political ideology so fucking stupid that one adherent defends child molestation and another (correctly) puts him on blast for it but not until adding a disclaimer, "not that I'm being a moralist or anything!" Talk about spooks, morality stalks you losers everywhere and you're terrified of it.

Calling on adults to "share erotic pleasure" with children and describing "child lovers" as "encourag[ing] the free expression of the child's sensuality" (and then immediately describing them as the "[children's] adult lovers") is definitely implying that Wolfi is (or was) down with adults having sex with children.

*whispers* Mommy dearest, give me some sex, I'm lonely and starved of affection, and will only take up 5 minutes of your time.

how do you define "child" and "adult"? by the legalistic age of under/over 18?

a problem i see in wolfi's piece is that he says he refuses the child/adult binary, yet throughout the piece he uses the word "child".

'yet throughout the piece he uses the word "child"'

to refer to all individuals that want to be free and joyous.

i didn't pick up that meaning as you did. i do like that description though.

but since the word "child" gets used in many ways, i think it likely most people would not interpret the way you described, as i didn't.

I agree that children can't consent to a sexual relationship (it's a biological fact that children are not just tabula rasa; we learn what sex means, in part, by experiencing puberty). But as the other anon pointed out, that has nothing to do with children not being able to understand consent. More to the point though, I'm not sure what was supposed to be achieved by publishing this critique. Nobody was talking about this, and no predator was ever going to be able to successfully defend their actions by saying "Wolfi said it was okay!"

In an era of call out culture, #metoo, etc., this has to be one of the weirdest fights to choose to pick. Who the hell thinks "pro-child predator" is a position anyone actually supports right now? You can't so much as mention hakim bey without someone popping up to remind everyone he's pro-pedophilia. As far as I can tell, any discussion that comes of this is only more likely to get more people aware of this particular position at all, which, if anything, seems counterproductive to the presumed goal of the critique?

The point here is we believe that as anarchists, we should be holding our own accountable. What this article seemed to us was an appropriation of egoism in order to serve authoritarian goals -- the same authoritarianism that pervades all forms of sexual and emotional abuse. We are against the reproduction of domination in all its forms, including in our own communities.

Excuse me? "Accountable" for what, exactly? Writing half an essay that almost nobody noticed? You're not fighting against domination, your fighting someone who decades ago once sort of said something you disagree with. If this were about white supremacy or patriarchy, you could maybe make the case that even discourse which promotes them are a form of domination, but this? Who in the hell are you worried about here? Who is reading this and going, "Oh, guess I should be a child predator now!"? It was on no one's radar, nobody was hurt by it for the past 30 years, and it's not part of any sort of problematic trend in anarchism at large, unless I somehow missed some major trouble brewing. What exactly does writing a polemic like this accomplish that would not have been better accomplished by just talking to the guy?

Also worth noting that things like "Leaving Out the Ugly Part", the libcom "expose" on Peter Lamborn Wilson, are showing up in QAnon and other related videos. I'm guessing the original intent of the author of that piece was not to feed fascist and homophobic conspiracy theory/activism, but that is what has happened.
Also, the Heresy folks claimed that they couldn't find contact info for Wolfi. If you google "Apio Ludd address" it is on the first page of results and if you look at the google image results it is in the first image. I guess they didn't try too hard to find it. They also could have read anything that he wrote recently which also has the address.

Yeah, because the heresy folks are obviously a bunch of bald faced liars. Contacting Wolfi personally was clearly never on their agenda, as opposed to making a name for themselves at his expense thru self-righteous call out antics a la dr. Bones style over something written long before any of them were even fucking born.

That said, I do personally find wolfis essay a bit disturbing or wtv... But I ultimately don't care nor find it a big deal whatsoever for reasons already made clear earlier in the thread. The self-righteous heresy ppl can just go fuck themselves w their ridiculous "totally not moralistic, swear fo gawd!" cyber call out.

it's hard enough to write without answreing to a bunch of jerks about something you wrote over 30 years ago.
heresy distro, giving heresy a bad name.

wolfi is not "one of your own", you still believe in using morality to control the free expression of anarchists, much of wolfi's writing has been for him to speak out against that bullshit.

But whatever, I hope you feel embarrassed about how bad you are at reading essays and dethroning authoritarians.

If this post was intended to refute Ria’s essay, or to support Wild Resistance’s aversive reaction to the teen sibling sex scene in a book, it’s overreach. There’s an enormous difference between amoral consensual sex and an adult manipulating a child into an object for sexual gratification.

Not even gonna lie, none of us have read Ria's essay yet. This issue was brought to our attention by a friend of ours.

Tue, 06/04/2019 - 09:42 : you mention a wild resistance essay and a text by Ria -- have you got links for those? I googled around some and couldn't find them.

Worms everywhere.

So this is put out by Heresy Distro, um, to what are you heretical?

It seems to me Wolfi is ranting *against* instilling authoritarian norms in children, more than *for* having sex with children, or *for* harming children. It also appears that he has not been around children much, I could be wrong. No matter the society/ culture a child is in they will need to learn the ways of that culture/ society. That process is not always pleasant for either child or parent, I would argue in any culture. But, yes, too often child rearing is merely an excuse for an adult to pass on bad habits.

In our society there may be no clear distinction between adults and children, we are a broken culture after all. I would argue there should be a clear ending to childhood and a clear entry into adulthood. These are not about how many years one has, though, but about how one holds oneself in the world.

But making actual adults in a free world is far from here/now, and a separate issue from child sexuality.

Might I remind you Nettle, that heresy is an indictment against Church and State, not God himself.

Hi Nettle, I'm pretty sure we're mutuals on Twitter.
We decided on the name Heresy because we formed as a collective to publish anti-civ and anti-tech thought, which, as I'm sure you'll agree, is pretty damn heretical to a good portion of anarchists (of course not on @news, but you get the picture.)

I would argue that Wolfi is (or was?) justifying child molestation under a thin veneer of ranting against authoritarianism. We tried hard to make this clear in the annotations, however, if it wasn't, here are some choice quotes:

A child is scolded, restricted, forced to conform to schedules and social norms, limited, bribed with rewards and threatened with punishments. This is called love. A child is kissed, caressed, played with, gently fondled and given erotic pleasure. This is called molestation. Something is obviously twisted here.

The child-lover encourages the free expression of the child's sensuality and so undermines the entire education process. And the child, who has not yet been as repressed as her/his adult lover, helps to break down the repression within the adult.

So let us fight the real child molesters, the family, the school, the church, and all authority, and share erotic pleasure as freely as we can with children.

It is quite clear that Wolfi is arguing for "child love" as a sort of technique for undoing repression, which has benefits for both the child and the adult. This is quite obviously an avowal of child sexual abuse, and it is hard to interpret this otherwise.

You make some good points, particularly about Feral (the name under which he wrote that rant) probably having little contact with children ... The piece was written in 1987. At that point, there was an almost moral attitude among anarchists against having children (obviously there were a few exceptions), which meant that people who spent most of their time in anarchist milieus often had very little if any actual contact with children, and this shows in a frequent idealization of children (as happens in Feral's rant here). Basically, there is a whole very broad context, part of it historical, that is utterly missing on how the author of the original post chose to frame this.

I get that you run in circles with wolfi, but can we agree that its kinda creepy? I don't know what accountability ever actually means. I don't know what a reaction to someone writing this looks like, especially since I don't know wolf in the slightest. Or what a few decades passing since this was written could mean. Going with a zine is a weird way to go about bringing up a conversation, but distros gonna do distro stuff.

But can we agree that in the context of the culture this is creepy? At least worth someone who knows him checking in and being like 'what the fuck dude?'

"But chil-dren are still less repressed than most adults. Their divinity stillshines through with an especially clear beauty. For they are notmere clay to be molded. They are wild, dancing gods. To adven-ture erotically with children is liberating both for the childrenand for we “adults who are really just repressed children. It isa major blow against authority and an expression of paradise.For we all are gods, and all shared pleasure is a beautiful ex-pression of our divinity. "

02:34 I don't know what smug community you hang out in, but the kids in my ghetto are the most brutal and cruel manipulative little brat-demons I ever met, and this is due solely to the dysfunction and lack of guidance from adults, lack of discipline and rules and lack of aff3ction, but one things for sure, innocence isn't this Christianized ideal yòu make it out to be, its dancing alright, but not dancing angels, rather dances of raw savagery upon the meek and gentle. Lord of the Flies was not fiction!

3/10 troll You cant call someone smug and say their ideas are christianized when youre saying kids need guidance and that being a brat-demon is bad. Im the one youre replying to and i was a brat demon without guidance that ran around the streets bearfoot and I turned out ok I think.

Not sure where the smug christian idealizing innocence comes from when I just said I think an essay idealizing fucking children is kinda creepy.

I didn't have my nerdy reading glasses on and missed the quotation marks on the last paragraph, my bad, I thought Wolfi's creepy writing was yous. Good work turning that evil little brat you used to be into a nice sounding nice guy.

Firstly, I don't run in circles with Wolfi. I have met him and have hung out with him on occasion but we're not besties or anything.

Secondly, I think he gets some stuff wrong about children but on the point that children have a sexuality he is correct. Children may not grasp all the implications of sex and sexual behavior but they do experience erotic pleasure and will try to gratify those feelings and sensations. This, of course, makes adults uncomfortable. I think a big reason why adults think children are devoid of sexual feelings is that their own erotic displays were so shamed away by parents and other adults that they have repressed that knowledge.
So Wolfi may have expressed himself a bit awkwardly but this essay is getting at something important: we used to be more unfettered in our expressions of our sexuality as evidenced by the unfettered way children can go about being sexual.

Children and adults being sexual together is the main problem people have with this essay and understandably so. This is an area of discussion that requires much nuance, nuance which our current culture seems incapable of. There are some ways child/adult sexuality can happen where the experience is positive to neutral for both parties, but there are many more ways where the experience is mostly negative, especially in our current culture where sex in children is almost automatically seen as abuse. A child may feel neutral about a sexual experience but when confronted by freaked out parents will come to feel only negatively about the encounter. I think this is the case for many children.

So, no, I don't find this essay creepy. It's more like anachronistic, written in a time where discussion of difficult subjects was more the anarchist norm.

That's what I'm certainly about when it comes to detourning away from these puritanical times.

I notice that the person who posted this does not point out that this was something written in 1987. Most likely they did not contact Monsieur Landstreicher to ask him if he still thinks the same way about this, even though it is 32 years since he wrote this essay. I have noticed that most living, thinking people change their ideas at least a bit over time, based on experience. I also know that several more recent versions of the original pamphlet do not contain this rant. This may well indicate that Wolfi did indeed change his mind about this. But it is very possible that those who posted this did not have good intentions and simply wanted to find a way to smear Wolfi. That would explain why they did not first contact him, or look at later versions of the pamphlet. Too bad.

We did attempt to contact Wolfi. He's a bit of an enigmatic individual and we could not find his contact info.
If Wolfi has changed his views on this, that's fine by us. The problem here, however, is that even if later editions of the pamphlet do not contain it, it has only been hidden, rather than disavowed.

When it comes to Wolfi, I (the commenter, not the collective) personally believe he's an incredibly talented theorist, perhaps the most gifted anarchist theorist writing today, regardless of his views on "child love." For similar reasons, I still read Hakim Bey. But, speaking of intentions, I keep it in mind that anyone who publishes apologia for child sex abuse might not have the same intent as I do when it comes to the rejection of morality and authority.

It is true that Wolfi has no public online contact information, but his recent publications do all have a mailing address on them. That's his choice and consistent with his attitude toward technology and particularly cybernetics.
The choice to take a writing from 32 years ago and repost it online (i.e., broadcasting it to the world, including every policing agency in the world) with your commentary without first talking to Wolfi about it, however, has nothing to do with "accountability" (a beautifully economic term), or the better phrase, holding someone personally responsible. I still can so no reason for doing it other than to make yourselves a public name at his expense. Go for it, but in doing so, you are also making enemies, some of whom you may not want as such, because they would be much better accomplices. But, it's up to you; in the Internet era, this seems to be what people do.

or maybe they just want to check another strike against LBC as persona non grata by association

Wolfi probably doesn't want his address to be online but it is. On the first page of a google search for his name + address. His address is in about 10 zines that I've received in the last six months. I guess the Heresy people don't read anarchist zines? Zines are good. Check em out.

to you wolfi is a theorist, someone who makes theories about future anarchist revolutions, but that's never the intention of what he writes. He's an egoist. He writes for pleasure and to critique current modes of thinking.

Maybe the authors could have spent a little more mental labor to complement all that emotional labor (what a fraught handful of paragraphs!) when writing this? What kind of tide of "child love quasi-egoism" are you trying to stem considering this essay was published so long ago?

Not to mention the sadly typical way of approaching someone you have an issue with (Wolfi's fucked up, we're just making you all aware of that in something he'll probably never see).

I'd have liked to think that this brand of egoism had died with Dr. Bones, but its sad, fretful ghost lives on. Live it up, folks, your callout will come sooner or later.

hey member that time dr bones and a flock of outraged anarcho-maoists patrons also discovered (breaking news!!) things about wolfi that didn't fit nicely into the approved rulebook of good and evil, best "egoist"-communist party platform practices to gain followers and dollars?

member how every few years some noob to anarchyland discovers something earth-shattering that doesn't fit within their neat, nice, authoritarian vision of what they think everyone must and should do?

i member.

Will everybody on both sides of the argument STFU with calling each other authoritarian?!

Everyone exercises authority and everyone flexes power over others in some way shape or form. We can all try and *tend* towards being anti-authoritarian, but never completely. Anyone who thinks otherwise about themselves is just all singing all dancing colostomy bag and should read "the anarchist myth" asap. That's right, y'all just got "shoulded". Deal.

no u

No u u u * infinity.

You're an authoritarian. Your Mama's an authoritarian. Your cat is an authoritarian. Yes indeed, nigga. Everyone you've ever known in the anarchist space, is a power-flexing petty authoritarian.

But wait! There's more!

Y'all are moralists, too. Like heresydistro, "ethically" outraging over some essay he wrote 30+ years ago while tripping over themselves to assure us they're not being moralistic.

isn't just a river somewhere in Egypt my dude.

To the Heresy folks:

Do any of you recall having sexual attractions and desires as children? I wanted to fuck the Spice Girls, Brittany Spears,Christina Agullera from like age 6 (and would have, if I was given the opportunity). I even had sexy dreams about it. I'm sure many here commenting can recall similar childhood desires. What about you folks?

Of course. As explained in the zine, children have a sort of sexuality. That doesn’t justify adults tucking children.

if children have their own kind of sexuality, doesn't that just raise another question? What does it mean to say you "desire to return to the pre-civilized and Wild existence that is childhood" at the same time you point out that children also lack a concept of consent and power dynamics in sex? Would this constant sense of power dynamics and consent be another aspect in which adults (yourselves included), not children, have a problem with how they conceive of and engage in sex? If we're to return to a state of childhood, doesn't that apply to our sex lives as well?

I vividly remember gratifying sensual experiences at five years old, running into my mother's room after my bath so she could dry me off with a towel and then lying naked on that towel so she could rub baby powder all over my body. Societal standards and cultural mores cut that pleasure short for me.

At 7, I was fascinated with and titillated by naked bodies. At 8, I wanted to watch my babysitter pee. At 9, I got an erection from my baby sister jumping up and down on my butt while I laid in bed. At 10, I wanted to look up every skirt I saw. 11, fantasized about oral sex, wrote erotica and drew lewd pictures all over my notebooks. 12, compare erections and masturbate with brothers and cousins. 13, seriously wanted Ms. Fox, the substitute teacher with legs for days, to fuck me. 14, fantasized about my 40 year old aunt and wishing we could engage sexually.

In each instance, these desires were repressed and I was shamed. These adults "looking out for my best interests" are the ones who did me the most harm. There was an entire year before I was 10 where I went mute because I feared becoming gay and the subsequent ostracization. I spent my teenage years curtailing my sexual curiosity for fear of embarrassment and felony charges.

Am I a better human being because of your moralistic kind? Will you just wave off this criticism and say I'm bitter that I can't fuck kids?

I was severely caned by Catholic nuns for staring under their robes and doing sketches of them with huge erect penises with crucifixes dangling from them. Yeah, I know, I'm pretty fucked up and twisted huh?

ahhh the gish gallop followed by YOU'RE CALLING ME A CHILD MOLESTER. Not very chill of you, wilma

It's all part of a singular argument, they were a child with sexual desires.

I say pick up the authoritarian stick on a very select few issues, without any doubt and some regret. Anarchist analysis helps to be certain of when to apply the stick. The accusations of the "egoist" would only be amusing under those circumstances. Tell it to the stick.

for confirming what I just said. i.e: everyone's an "anti-authoritarian"... until it expendiently suits their purposes to pick up the authority stick and the morality morning star.

However, I want to clarify I'm not trying to single out and come down on the anarchist political tendency/anarchists, but rather people in general, and people gonna people gonna people, is all.

Happy to but don't forget to reverse the logic for the most interesting part.

Many people who engage in highly problematic behaviour will complain loudly about how authoritarian you are, when you react to their bullshit, usually when they've established they can't beat you using violence or guile. More complexity on the interpersonal level, guess this ain't anarchy 101 shit

Totally, and those ppl are lame af (if they actually believe their own bullshit, that is). Glad I'm not one of them.

And more interesting, still! As for me, I'm not above cynically deploying moral-authority now and then in certain situations in my personal life when I think it'll achieve a certain end and get me what I want. I don't do it because I believe in morality, but because morality is a powerful currency and often a pretty effective Machiavellian tool.

I learned from the best. I used to know a nihilist who would do this all the time, and it was usually directed at me. Their glaring hypocrisy used to piss me off and it wasn't until a few years later after shedding my own moralism that I was able to calm down and instead step back and appreciate the craftiness of their strategy.

Heh! I think I deploy everything cynically nowadays. Peak nihilism FTW

for the noobs in the back. here's the intro to the collection:


Here I am, a free spirit, a divine wild being wishing to make love to all that lives in a mad, erotic paradise. And all around me that paradise is denied by fools who think it evil or dangerous. And I get mad, I rant, I rave. They're going to know that paradise is here, now, for those who dare to create it. Or if they don't know, it won't be because I haven't tried to tell them.

In these essays and polemics, I attack viewpoints that deny anarchic paradise, I praise the wonders and beauty of chaos, the Cosmic, erotic dance. I rant against authority, ideology, morality. I dare to be offensive because some people need to be offended. I dare all who read this to imagine the impossible, for possible and impossible are socially defined. We are told that paradise isn't possible and that divinity could only exist somewhere far beyond us; so we mad ranters declare that we are even now wild, erotic gods living in a mad, chaotic paradise that we will defend against that we will defend against authority and its lies until all authority ceases to exist. And as long as it continues to exist, we will rant wildly to drown out its lies and to inspire the divine free spirit to awaken in everyone

Feral Faun

Gosh... Laying in my hammock, I exploded in LoL at reading both the amoral proposition of Wolfi demonstrated here, but even more at the stupid, misguided, deluded moralist defaming in the footnotes.

Parents and teachers as the "protectors" of children? My lavish fucking ass!!! It's well documented that most child abuse cases (over 90% in North America) are committed by either parents or people in the direct parental milieu, including schools but also circles of friends or extended family arrangements. Nuclear family homes are especially some of the best contexts for child abuse for how they're privately isolated from the public view. How the fuck can you be witnessing and be able to denounce wicked shit happening between four walls where you're not even allowed to come in?

In many cases of your holy families, the protectors of children are so often foxes guarding the chicken coop! For being abuse, you basically need a relational context of abuse (of intimacy, and/or authority), i.e. one that an isolated household can totally provide with!

Now keep being paranoid about all these pedos at the park or shopping mall, while the good good prole daddies and mommas are "protecting" their child...

Ok rfa, so … it was written to troll before trolling was a thing? I've always been unclear on what exactly the "gotcha!" moment is when people are antagonized in to taking a firm anti-exploitation position regarding children… never seemed like I learned something useful or interesting about the trappings of morality from that particular issue. People are sometimes hypervigilant in their desire to be protective of children. So what? Why is this example of "morality" better than any other?

So therefore, at least 2 possibilities here…

1. proto edgelord bullshit trolling. ie not nearly as clever or insightful as it gives itself credit for.
2. the kinds of rationalizations for behaviour that would justify at least SOME concern if argued seriously.

Have I missed anything?

sorry senileoldtroll, i can't reply to the content of your reply since you failed and replied to fauvenoir. however i hope fauvenoir replies to you with satisfactory and furious anger.

ps. come back to irc. i miss our rap battles and especially the hugs that always follow <3

pps. shouldn't the title of this stupid critique be "Feral Faun: Child …"?
i mean at least try to be accurate in your ridiculousness

You're in a festively trolly mood today! One troll to another :P

i do enjoy a good festival. i mean who doesn't? however, i am no troll. i'm an agent of chaos casting burning glances at anything or anyone capable of bearing witness to my condition, my fever of lux et voluptas…

^^sensitivity troll^^

i'm with Nettle. clearly Feral/Wolfi has had severely limited experiences with actual children.

Its good to see, from the general mood and opinion of comments on this thread, that Sir Enziege has finally been exonerated after years of pleading for a tolerance and understanding of the infant sensibilities.

Seems that word doesn't mean what you think it means … and ziggy doesn't "plead" either.

After all the warnings of graphic terribleness, I'm seriously failing to see where that is, regardless of what you think of his positions. I'm not gonna get into the weeds too far on this but I think it's fundamentally anti sex the way this piece and a lot of people engage with these topics. Sex is viewed in this context we're discussing as the worst possible thing that can happen to a child, worse then death in probably a lot of people's opinions. Gone are lofty notions that sexual play can be fun and light hearted and loving, suddenly with the age difference it's utterly horrifying. Obviously there are age related power dynamics but I've never bought this whole product you're selling of erotic play being so inherently awful. I imagine you're fine with the very same children being sexual with each other, even if that probably makes you a bit queasy. Can you really not imagine a non abusive sexual encounter on an inter generational basis? Usually, with these gentle encounters (not the violent or overtly coercive ones), it is society's job to tell the child or adult later on that what they experienced was not normal, healthy, or good but just the extreme opposite. Call me an anarchist but anytime authority figures are telling me about my experience of something and how it's wrong i raise my eyebrows and am suspicious. You're taking consent too literally and legalistically. In spirit and concept, consent is a pretty simple one. It's about people doing things with each other that they enjoy and feel comfortable with and backing off if one person stops being into it. It's something you can experience beyond sexuality in all sorts of encounters. If you're petting a cat and it's purring and rubbing against your hand, the cat is enjoying your attention and it's a very consensual situation. If the cat starts getting annoyed and walks away and you chase it and hold it down and force your petting on it, this is not very consensual. Seriously, what am I missing here? If two people of any age have an enjoyable sexual experience, who are you to question it and make it wrong for them?

It's not that engaging in such behavior isn't fraught with potential issues, but are they all inevitable? And aren't all sexual encounters fraught with many potential issues? It's a constant negotiation and navigation and should ideally be a beautiful process that enriches all involved. My main position is that I have read of positive relationships or encounters between children and adults and I believe they exist. I don't care so much about the incidence, they exist and from an anarchist perspective i don't want to participate in denying them or condemning them. There's a good story of a relationship between a 13 year old girl and a 40 year old woman i think in the zine Child Sexuality that LBC distributes i think or one of their offshoots like Ardent. Don't think it's online.

Full disclosure, I have no interest in children and have never been on the other side either. I'm just interested in understanding other people's perspectives with an open mind.

This article is pretty interesting because it shows the intersections between child love and the gay movement, shows how there used to be more nuanced understandings of these things or at least a willingness to hear a different perspective:

Side note, I don't think Wolfi is actually engaging in encounters with children which seems to be your implication. I think he's just interested in exploring the ideas around it and interrogating them. Hakim Bey is a little more unclear. There have been many other historical anarchists that flirted with these ideas also. Like that Irish or Scottish guy who wrote the book The Anarchists, forget his name.

Let the indignation begin, or continue!

Written by the cofounder of NAMBLA …

"Seriously, what am I missing here? If two people of any age have an enjoyable sexual experience, who are you to question it and make it wrong for them?"

What's missing is an analysis of power and gross disparities of it. Anarchists are all about intensely scrutinizing power dynamics, so I'm obviously pretty suspicious of people that claim to have any understanding of anarchist theory and then fail to apply it here.

Note that none of what I just said requires indignation. It's just logic.

You can have an analysis of the power disparities, but how does that rule out the possibilities of positive experiences that aren't abuse? If it's acceptable for an adult and child to mutually have pleasure in learning together, playing together, etc. why does sexual play all of a sudden become horrifying if introduced? Foucault would ask: what's so special about sexuality? Why is it being put in this separate category? And we see how between adults and between children sexual play often other organically overlaps with other play. What is the meaning of this strict separation when it comes to adults and children? What is the terrible thing children must be protected against? Is the body so terrible and its pleasures so terrible that only already corrupted adults can handle the sexual addictions they've developed, as if it's like smoking cigarettes? There's always talk of adults "imposing" sexuality on children or "sexualizing" them while in parallel acknowledging that children do have their own sexuality that they're very capable of enjoying. The arguments around this always seem to suggest that first a sexual act occurs and then violence is just around the corner and just because a fight between an adult and a child is no contest, therefore they cannot engage in any acts that a child might refuse, even though adults are constantly doing acts on children that they're refusing and using their power to impose them. Now many of that acts might be necessary, done out of knowledge of their importance, but almost every argument i see that's outright against any possibility of non abusive sexuality between adults and children ends up leaning on lots of weak fallacies, bad comparisons, and ultimately puritanical views on the body which are supposedly reserved only for children.

You're rocking several pretty obvious fallacies here too.

First of all, I don't have the burden of proof because I'm not the one making a dubious claim. I say this is highly likely, almost guaranteed to be a gross power disparity and you say but MAYBE it wouldn't be. I don't have to argue that I'm 100% right, you have to explain why anyone should care about your 1% of the time where theoretically there's no harm.

But don't bother because like I said, you're either trolling your ass off at this point or …

respectful appropriate sexual relations with adults, then the issue becomes more one of... what makes that possible, and what makes the non-respectful, inappropriate ones the way they are. acknowledging that some people experience those relationships as positive means opening up the question to cultural expectations, subjectivity, etc.
the way the argument is now, and what you seem to be colluding with, SOT(sadly), is a blanket assessment that determines for other people (that 1% to use your pulled-out-of-your-ass percentage) what their experience is.

Not really … it's not a blanket assessment, as you acknowledged that I already said. It's just exceedingly likely that it's exploitative for a whole host of reasons that should be excruciatingly obvious to a reasoning person. I'm pulling percentages from my ass, just as you're implying that the exception proves … what exactly? That maybe somewhere, sometime, people misunderstood a relationship? So what? Why is that interesting?

I would also argue that you're demonstrating a lot of bad faith by implying that I'm somehow doing anything other than holding a position contrary to yours. I'm just some normal person with no more capacity to enforce my will than any other.

You've also repeatedly failed to discuss your own motivations for this discussion and such dedication begs that question, doesn't it?

(pet peeve)
b. i'm not the only anon responding to you.
c. you're colluding, not doing it yourself. your rejection of the significance (in practice and in theory) of the 1% (all power to the bullshit percentages) is my problem with your perspective here. not that you would rather focus on the dangers of these relationships, but that that focus encourages the witchhunters, purists, rule-followers, etc.
d. maybe i'm less talking to you, as i think that you're not operating indignantly (again, to use your term), and more talking to the point, using you as a more interesting foil than most, and perhaps to other readers who are waffling. that silent audience, spectators as we perform... and maybe not. things change.

Pffft … I'm "encouraging witchhunters" etc. I can barely hear you from so high up on your high horse with a crucifix balanced on top of the horse where you've nailed yourself for the purposes of this speech. *slow clap*

Lets wait for the witch hunters, shall we? Surely they'll be along any minute to burn us all.

Yes to this. Once you start asking dangerous questions and listening to others' experiences (instead of sweeping the "1%" under the rug as if they don't exist), you might come to some "scary" conclusions, like that maybe this neat set of social norms around child sexuality aren't so perfect after all. And yeah, to me the numbers don't matter but I suspect for more than 1% of these encounters it's positive but I don't think it matters much. 1 in 5000 people are intersex. That's way less than 1% but should we sweep them under the rug, pretend they don't exist because they complicate things some of our ideas about what men and women are? To me, it wouldn't be surprising if only small minority of adult-child sexual encounters are positive, because the society they exist in is to viciously against them happening that they help but be a bit infected with the effects of that, but I could imagine that if the culture were slightly more open about these things, that percentage would be a bit higher. I believe it's in either Denmark or Holland that the consent law is such that a 12 year old can engage in relationships with adults with their parents' permission, just to give a current example in the Western world of a slightly different attitude toward these things.

I'm not trolling, not a pedophile (not that I'm convinced there's anything wrong with that), and not replying to any of this out of a sense of hatred or desire for conflict, but genuinely interested in a dialogue about these issues which is why I keep coming back. I think comrades can disagree on this without it being a public shame fest, but I think the discussion is good because as anarchists, we should always be open to what we believe being bullshit and wanting to peel back the layers of our conditioning to discover forms of freedom we didn't even know were being suppressed and ask ourselves what liberation really looks like, inclusive of all our discoveries.

Well if you're genuinely interested in discussion, you might want to break that unfortunate rhetorical habit of implying that I'm "sweeping intersex people under the rug" by talking about why rationalizations for pedophilia cause me concern.

That's some serious fukin apples and oranges right there. lol

"that I'm "sweeping intersex people under the rug" by talking about why rationalizations for pedophilia cause me concern."

Hahaha I'm the commenter you're responding to and that was actually funny. I don't mean no beef comrade, I just interested in thinking outside the box about some of these things. You can't question these sorts of things in the mainstream, you'd have a lynch mob coming after you. So I think the anarchist space should allow some discussion on these issues. I remember going to an anarchist event when I was 16 dominated by old people and I remember the presenter said something about the movement being incestuous and this dude shouted out "What wrong with incest?" and it really stuck with me because while I was a bit appalled I also appreciated how confident he was in asserting such an iconoclastic opinion and that he thought it was legitimate in the anarchist space to be questioning if others were truly questioning enough or thinking enough outside the box. So Wolfi exists within that space, as does Hakim Bey, and I don't think moral purges are very helpful to the kind of thing we overall want to build.

You know what part of my problem here is? We're just off in the weeds on weird sex taboos for my interests in anarchy. I'll admit it! I just don't care enough about this stuff except as morbid distraction.

I can understand the road that folks take from more generalized forms of sexual repression and opposition to it … to eventually end up here in this little cul-de-sac of an issue.

I love (most of) Wolfis writing and think way too many anarchists are acting like an inquisition of late but come on y'all. Denying that this piece was a pretty transparent defense of fucking kids, or defending/philosophizing about it is a good way to chase away anyone whose been hurt by that shit or has a legit problem with it. I know this is anarchy 4chan or whatever but it seems like in standing against the MoRaLiStS at all costs people are willing to stand up for fucking anything.

it is a defense of fucking kids or defending/philosophizing about it. first that "or" is huge, not a little thing. philosophizing about something is not the same as doing it.
second, he's not talking about fucking kids, he's talking about kids fucking, and that is also hugely different from what you said. the fact that you don't recognize either of those IMPORTANT differences is moralism, aka (iin this case) blanket policy because individual experiences are irrelevant to the story you're telling.


I saw the picture of this, a few of the words, and saw wolfi landstriecher's name, and i didn't really want to read this article because i already felt like agreed with the set of points he was trying to make here. I was bored , and unfortunately i read the heresy distro's embelishment on it.

I do not believe wolfi is trying to justify raping children or manipulating them into sexual relationships that they didn't want. In fact, a lot of the points being made here are things i've said to people fairly recently: children do not have a "sexuality" in the way us fucked up adults think about it. It's not totally our fault though, our ideas about sex largely came through misogynistic porn, the scolding of our parents, and christianity.

Luckily, my parents were very affectionate towards me, even though they were also somewhat douschey and controlling as well. In fact, in an ideal wild anarchic situation, children would learn from their parents and the people who actually give a shit about them.

At anarchist news: Why were these sick and perverted individuals who can't even read the literature that they call out given a platform here? If the intent was to troll me, well congratulations, you won, I'm mad as i type this.

Apparently wolfi wrote something designed to antagonize people when he was younger … rfa posted that info earlier, apparently from the same document. Apparently edgelord stupid games still win stupid prizes? lol

1. intentionally antagonizing or provoking does not (always) equal trolling.
2. feral faun was not ever/anywhere saying: rape the children!!!111
3. everybody knows #2 is true.
4. heresydistro is trying to make a name for themselves by being bones-like or is just very dumb.
5. this is all incredibly stupid.
6. please stop saying "edgelord." it's unbecoming.
7. i miss you, senileoldtroll.
8. june will bring much suffering.

serves him right for being a communist celebrity who calls himself an egoist only to shit on wolfi for making a cleaner translation of stirner's work. Man, if i were morally obliged to critique every single person who supposably like richard spencer...then i would have a career.

weird how heresy is continuing this stupid cycle, now shitting on both of them! Are we done publishing critiques about people's work when we don't fucking understand it?! Well I'll keep getting enraged by it and smashing walls.

Hey rfa! Sorry your june isn't panning out so far. This is definitely stupid but I'm respectfully disagreeing about if this was trolling. Don't make me quote your own post where feral faun is being all "Imma piss everyone off for the lawls".

"please stop saying edgelord" <---- NEVER! *unbecomes*

Miss you too <3

Isn't that sort of antagonism your whole shtick? My perspective is that you, like Landstreicher, can vacillate between dispeller of bullshit and willfully obtuse troll (seriously, sometimes it feels like whiplash), but that just may be the price of entry when a singular and prickly personality loudly communicates their position.

"willfully obtuse" is what you throw at someone at the end of a disagreement then? I suppose I did end up talking a lot here, so "loudly" might be fair. I get lured in by poorly reasoned posting. But antagonism isn't my whole shtick, no. Just another tool in the box.

glad you're mad. i am too.
think it's a good idea to keep up with what anarchists are saying, even/especially when i disagree with it. we do take non-sectarian seriously (at least, as seriously as we can, more some days than others, probably).
thecollective member .4

There is always a context to any writing that is necessary for understanding it. The fact that several people here keep talking about "fucking children", something not mentioned once in the piece itself, it shows that they do not know that context and are reframing this in a context of their own making. In the context of Feral Faun's own writing at the time he was exploring the idea of a much wider conception of the erotic in which "fucking" played only a very minor part. He saw the erotic as encompassing the ecstasy one might find in watching a lunar eclipse or a sunset, in smelling a fragrant wildflower, in taking in the full experience of a walk in a wild forest, in listening to the songs of birds and tree frogs or the howling of wolves. You can find plenty of this in his writings of the time. Yet I doubt anyone here would say that he wanted to "fuck" or justify "fucking" the sun, the moon, wildflowers, forests, birds or tree frogs ... Unfortunately applying this same idea, of an expansive eroticism is not essentially about "fucking" to children will tend to make most people think that you are talking about "fucking" children ... But there is a further context to this in that in the zine culture of the mid to late 1980s, there were a significant number of people discussing these things with each other, and so his theoretical explorations are also part of that bigger exploration. I think that most people involved in that exploration realized over time that even both actually predators against children and those who desire a moralistic crusade could readily MISrepresent such writings as a defence of sexual predation against children, something neither Feral Faun (Wolfi L.), nor most of the others involved ever actually advocated. Should he have written as he did? Probably not, because it was open to the worst misinterpretations. And I suspect that is why this writing basically disappeared until Heresy decided to give it a public face again ...

74 comments on this subcultural fingering of belly button lint piece -- only 4 comments about the Its Going Down piece addressing the prospects for mass revolutionary upheaval in a rapidly declining United States. It never changes with this scene...

did someone say "mass! revolutionary! upheaval!"? oh boy! oh boy! sign me up for monthly donations!

Revolution is a pipedream, IGD sucks.

Revolution is a pipedream. Signed, my boss, your landlord, the police department, corporate America, Hillary Clinton, flag-waving MAGA Chuds, and the US anarchist subculture.

they can happen, but nothing good comes from them. just republic rebranding.

If seen as a projected event suspended in some future.

It isn't to those agents you mention above (outside of US anarchists), but rather something for them to avoid at all costs.

Different. If some commie revolution happens in NA I'm not going to oppose it, but rather its predictable dogmatism and despotism, that will quickly make it turn into yet another Red capitalist revolution. And yes the Redcaps are among you, if they aren't you. When it's all about your clan and its interests, as you allow yourself to exclude people from the Commune over a bunch of allegations and ID pol fronting, then yeah you're pretty much reproducing it.

Brought on by those who try to execute it. Individual and social Insurrection not inherently political economic countersensical(to use a Chadafrican term)revolution.

apparently thinking adults having sex with children is moralism now? sweet jeebus what the actual fuck

is that what you think this conversation is about? because you'd be wrong, donkey.

Children don't develop the ability to think critically until around 8 years old on average. And I'd assert one need be capable of this kind of concrete thinking to make individual decisions about power dynamics and differentials.

Hey heresy, have you spoken up against giving puberty blockers to children? If you care about children how about a critical essay and/or expose on it? i mean, if there ever was child abuse being widely advocated for..creating little beings based on sexist stereotypes, the gay and lesbian eugenics.. transhumanism - authority/technology/alienation/capitalism/patriarchy working in tandem, a central driver of civ, - into practice. Probably not, because that would mean taking an unpopular stance that might be risky and dangerous, you might even be labeled and smeared as bigots for your concern, unlike attacking one individual who almost certainly wasn't actually encouraging 'child abuse' and certainly has had zero influence in the real world in terms of it...


Wtf mate. Can you link me to people advocating giving puberty to small children?

I actually consider this a grey area as I am concerned about childhood and cybernetic medicalization. There is also the fact that some dysphoric tendencies are not long term and a child who demonstrates these traits might retain the cis given gender in the long run though go full on gay or lesbian ect.

On the other hand...I can understand inhibiting against the stuff that you don't want to be at as rationally an early age as possible. I certainly don't see it as part of some eugenics conspiracy nonsense. There is a cybernetic medical agenda obviously which should be critically analyzed and rejected however if one has transphilic tendencies and generally likes and affirms trans body mind structures I don't see why one should be qua against it.

>There is also the fact that some dysphoric tendencies are not long term and a child who demonstrates these traits might retain the cis given gender in the long run though go full on gay or lesbian ect.

This should be glaringly obvious and i can't see why anyone would think otherwise. if this is true it's just another example of how absolutely fucked the trans-activist crowd are...

I'm not inherently against pube blocking considering the yolo fact and you only have one chance to be the gender you want to be. Perhaps pube blocking could further inhibit against visual traits that you don't want. My issue is medicalization and the interests connected. You already have bad diagnosis regarding things like depression that is driven by financial interests, I think the trans activist affection crown should also see the problem here and treat a child wanting to do this as a more serious right of passage.

I also think this should be part of a general context where adolescents and children have A LOT more freedom and autonomy then they currently do. This would mean greater intelligence to make these decisions as well as proper informed consent. Providing these things are in place I have less of a problem with this process. This would mean though that the trans activist affection crowd would have to take some naughty positions regarding younger aged freedom and I can see why they want to continue being on the right side of normative values as currently defined. One should be cynical about why children are given these marginal medical options of transition but not the option of opting out of school, education, parental custody societal responsibility ect.

"be cynical about why children are given these marginal medical options of transition but not the option of opting out of school, education, parental custody societal responsibility ect."
Because gender has never been a threat to established patriarchal power.

This is a classic "Dr, Bones" style progrom initiated by a-historical, self-righteous millenials who (consciously or subconsciously) realize they are too weak (or cowardly) to risk attacking UNDENIABLY real enemies (police stations, IRS offices, etc), so they instead target someone they don't know (though many of us do---and have for 3 decades or more) and haven't made any attempt to directly communicate with....typical of a generation that exists largely on the internet, facebook , social media, twitter and smart phones...a pathetic grab for attention and relevancy...I'm not at all impressed and want to beat the shit out of every individual associated with so-called "heresy"

and cheers that heresy distro were shown to be the idiots they are. There are a few of those out there who think that children can't have decision making autonomy due to their lack of development, but in reality, you have to let children do what they want or they won't develop that faculty anyway. May all children develop their erotic desire to explore the world that they are forced to live in, and praise satan, the supreme edgelord/metalhead, for pointing out that if there are indeed anarchists, here are their top enemies:

-cops (obvious)

-any branch of the state

-capitalist authoritarians

to select an egoist who writes essays, whelp, that's just making a mockery of the whole cause. PRAISE SATAN, PRAISE ANARCHY *does metalhead bullhorns*

He is not advocating child abuse or molestation which by definition involve involuntarity. Also to the consentards to perpetuate that governmentalist contractual spook, technically you don't consent to physical existence which houses inherent sufferability(see those who become anti-natalists). You also don't consent to the 12 Years A Slave program that is modern education(think those who become anti-school and education as adults, is there not inherent trauma there from a societally selected value?), at least try to be consistent. INTENT is what matters not consent. The anarchic world is a world of intention and situation. Consent makes sense on a kink.com set.

People should look at Chill ma Wilma's first post to this thread as that does show an example of potential adult child compatibility. This is clearly a software taboo disgust issue and not anything grounded in hardware problems(stealing murder ect). In a far flung year like 2077 I expect mores to be VERY different on this issue. My take on pedophilia child love has always been(unlike Tom O' Carrol who non the less makes very convincing arguments in A Radical Case, 1980)a descriptive approach and not a normalization based one(like O' Carrol). IF pedophilia comes back via subjective intent to intent human actions LET IT FUCKING BE literally. This is a taboo subject and good anarchists and all anarchs don't do taboos or selectively encoded societal disgusts especially those grounded in an underlying logic of repressive carnal control.

The Streicher still rules, you still suck.

So, Wolfi is a sinner and "official bad person" according the Dr. Bones replacement Heresy Distro. I forgot I was on anarchistnews and thought I was on some conservative evangelical christian website while I was reading this trash. It reads like the stereotypical "think about the children" garbage conservative christians go on and on about.

Heresy Distro trying to make a name by attacking Wolfi, just like Dr. Bones did. So, they went out to search for something that doesn't conform to their rigid moralistic version of "egoism" and found something from 32 years ago. Lacking reading comprehension, Heresy Distro thought they hit the jackpot and wrote this trash thinking Wolfi is literally advocating for people to rape children. Heresy Distro was immediately confused after posting this conservative christian trash here. Why weren't people on anarchistnews getting their pitch forks out for the witch hunt of Wolfi part 2, heresy distro thought to themselves after they retreated back to their hug box on reddit.

A few points,

1) This small essay is from around 1987, over 30 years ago. Wolfi is known to be something of a hermit who isn't easily available via most internet communication. So maybe before we panic about this we write him and ask him first if his views have changed and second why he wrote the article.

2) While the idea that a child can consent to something they clearly can't understand is absolutely wrong, all Wolfi did was write something. There is no evidence I've seen that Wolfi has actually molested anyone.

3) Respecting even the most vile thoughts is important for serous discussion. I don't agree with almost anything in Wolf's essay here, but perhaps it is an.opportunity to put the whole issue to rest. There is, after all, excellent evidence that children just aren't mentally equipped to understand sex and its complex dynamics and implications.

Why use this as a way to witch hunt Wolfi?

Alex. Baby. Children can't consent to all types of adult determined dynamics which they eventually come to understand down the road, some preferable things some not so. My favorite example is 12 years of forced learning, you really think a fucking 5 year old understands the ramifications of the 12 years to come on the first day of school? Again we know that a small amount of humans become libertarian and more in their life which would suggest that they were probably traumatized by the school experience to some degree perhaps worse then if they had a sexual encounter to compare things. As Dendrophilian of youtube fame said, children will understand in due course.

Also Alex, sex ain't all that complex, relationships might be, but base intercourse is not. Why do you think these HAVE been allowed in past(Greece) and present contexts(The Samba stuff). There is no need to single out sexual intercourse as a selected taboo to control around children. This is carnal control and repressive logic plain and simple.

And finally, consent is a liberal governmentalist contractual interest and issue not an anarchist or anarch one.


more like a few liberal points

1) why does this matter? you're still following witch-hunt logic
2) you have to "understand" something to consent to it? how can you understand something without exploring it? nobody could possibly consent to anything in your universe (all the worse for consent)
3) Excellent Evidence? did you Read that in a Research Paper from The Academy?

was to change the way that people think about sex and eroticism. Children do not understand adult sexuality because they haven't hit puberty, this is true. But children are also very affectionate at times, and a parent giving birth to a child is itself "erotic", just cuz the kid came out the reverse way the penis came in doesn't mean parents should be scared to touch their kids.

Anarchism, for me, is in part about how anarchic mode of living can create ways of thinking and behaving than what we are used to. Read the book "don't sleep there are snakes", the guy who wrote it was a christian missionary who was trying to translate the bible into the piraha's language. He was pretty shocked by some of their "sexual" practices, one of them included grown men men grabbing each other's penises while they were horsing around.

Two further responses,

1) No, you cannot consent to things you don't understand. Sex is frought with many emotional issues that children can't possibly understand. In addition, most children won't know much about pregnancy, diseases, or other risks associated with sex. I will grant that children don't understand many activities, but it still makes sense to wait until they know what they're getting into when it comes to sexuality.

And even teen's brains aren't developed very far in terms of making decisions analytically.


2) There is a enormous amount of evidence that pedophilia is damaging to children. The damage varies, but I think harmful behavior generally isn't useful either to ourselves or others.



Sex is just sex, there's nothing complicated or emotional about it. Only secular and religious puritanical retards think this way. Also there are all kinds of complications that can come from non sexual thins involving adult to child asymmetrical dynamics. I would argue that institutional education interfering with emergent childhood learning is ACTUAL molestation(the real molesters as the Streicher rightfully says). I also don't take brain full frontal cortex developments seriously. Adulthood and maturity is a base and not a fully completed branch. In archaic survival contexts you start what you are not yet fully finished for.

The two pub links hardly prove your case. If you really want to take on serious data deal with the evidence that Bruce Rind has put forth. Rind's data puts much of the prevailing views on adult child sexual harm into major disrepute.

Sex is, of course, somewhat ambiguous as an isolated act. Still, sex releases a number of chemicals into the brain. Children, who aren't thinking analytically to begin with, aren't ready to handle or process this yet.

t’s not casual because when you have sex with somebody, and it’s pleasurable, it drives up the dopamine system in the brain. That can push you over the threshold into falling in love.

"It’s not casual because when you have sex with somebody, and it’s pleasurable, it drives up the dopamine system in the brain. That can push you over the threshold into falling in love.

And when you orgasm, there’s a flood of oxytocin and vasopressin. Those neurochemicals are linked with the attachment system in the brain."


I really don't see how there is a needed connection. It's just hot sticky pleasure at the end of the day. Many sexual encounters are one and done affairs with no relational strings attached. Children who 'play doctor' are already handling and processing it and then some.

You valiant warriors of free expression, this thread is absolute proof that Democrats and Anarchists are not necessarily smarter or more worthwhile ppl to talk to than bible thumping conservatives. But ya know, I guess i cant be too mad. If ppl want to be controlled by fear of what might occur under more permissive and lax ways of thinking, whelp, they got it.

Actually, only virgins who have never had sex think there isn't anything complicated or emotional about sex.

Its just like indulging in an interesting feast is all!

@base that's all it is. Anything more then that is based on other factors outside of sexual intercourse.

wolfi's essay is about having sex with kids, lol, one of the things about being human is you have to cope with the fact that some people are willfully deaf.

and nobody is denying here that sex can have complicated emotional factors, but it doesn't have to, there are plenty of people i know who have/had sex without there being any sort of moral quandry or serious attachment involved. The sex-phobics just want to go on believing that sex is inherently dangerous.

>Actually, only virgins who have never had sex think there isn't anything complicated or emotional about sex.

lmao.this is so naive. are you 15?

What about the virgins that have had sex?

Finally new evidence that backs up my prophesy that you are all a pack of primmie nihilist pedos. Congratulations to the comrades at heresydistro for exposing this filth that is staining our milieu. This kind of thing will never occur in our global left transhumanist market dojo because our AI would predict these deplorable behavior patterns and rm -rf them before they even initiated. Everybody knows this. Excelsior!

Safe in your vacuum sealed affection deprived world of touch screens!

To make another important general point regarding the issues of sexuality I do agree with Foucault that it is a series of categorical constructed spooks. I would think that anarchy would have a different more neo-archaic idea of what sexual intercourse could be as an conceptual totality. I can agree that children and sexualization is problematic but I would also say it's problematic for adults to in the long run.

Carnality is beyond categorical construction and object fetishism and all ages can partake. This is my own Foucaultian informed post-sexual term.

This topic overall has kinda haunted me over the past five days, unfortunately i didn't take in the whole subject matter, and initially didn't read the entire article, but it's kinda hard not to have a tormented reaction to this:

"The material contained in this text is gut-wrenching and disturbing. What follows is a critically annotated edition of Apio Ludd / Feral Faun / Wolfi Landstreicher's Child Molestation vs. Child Love, from his (otherwise celebrated) anthology, Rants, Essays and Polemics. It is a defense of the sexual abuse of children and, ironically, a call to "fight the real child molesters" - Landstreicher's term for parents, schools, and churches. In some parts of the work, it is quite graphic and the reader should tread lightly. Those who have suffered child sexual abuse in the past may want to stop here."

@HeresyDistro: if you want to oppose authority and domination, then a simple first step is to stop lying, and stop distorting reality to fit it the way that you see it. There was nothing in wolfi's section about abusing children.

The only evidence i saw in the whole thing of his line of thinking being what society describes as "pedophilia" is how his writing in a way idealizes children, which some known "child molesters" (i mean, but have you seen them actually do anything fucked up to children?) have done. Idealizing anything in a way is delusional.

BUT, I think, if you care about children, then it's important to see their lovely qualities, rather obsess over trying to control their behavior as many parents wind up doing. The way that people are conditioned to live these days is pretty dehumanizing. How are we going to reverse that? Are we going to go on calling each other out and assuming the worst about them without any additional information, or are we better off encouraging the exchange of affection, which i believe was the purpose of wolfi's "eroticism"?

driven by retroactive outrage typical of the worst of reactionary millennial call-out culture. This is essentially worse then what Dr Bones did which I would not think possible coming from anarchists as opposed to a fucking commie but they did it. It's just like what that fish and chips become feces valuable site libcom did to Hakim Bey back in the day.

Slow clap to all you moralist morons.

Detraction: a lessening of reputation or esteem especially by envious, malicious, or petty criticism; belittling, disparagement.

In Roman Catholic theology, detraction is the sin of revealing another person's real faults to a third person without a valid reason, thereby lessening the reputation of that person. Detraction differs from the sin of calumny and the civil wrong of defamation, which generally involve false accusations rather than unflattering truths.

The Catholic Encyclopedia clarifies:

Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.

An important difference between detraction and calumny is at once apparent. The calumniator says what he knows to be false, whilst the detractor narrates what he at least honestly thinks is true.

Detraction is among the list of mortal sins (not to be confused with the seven deadly sins). A sin is considered to be "mortal" when its quality is such that it leads to a separation of that person from God's saving grace.

Which means Heresy Distro has committed a gravely sinful act, which can lead to damnation if they do not repent of the sin before death.

Furthermore, Heresy Distro has been found to be guilty by association to one of the sins that cry to Heaven for Vengeance (peccata clamantia), due to being involved in the attempt at a patricidal act in the recent GSABF. In addition to that, their name boasts of an Eternal Sin, which are sins which will not be forgiven by God; Heresy, impugning the known truth, arguing against known points of faith.

This means Heresy Distro is most likely condemned to the eternal flames of Hell, but only God can impart Divine Justice, and His mercy is great.

The Roman Catholic Church declares Heresy Distro to be excommunicated until they repent and seek God's forgiveness.


I might be chiming in a little late in this so-called "debate" (translated: attempted smear campaign for publicity seeking purposes), but I felt compelled to call out what pathetic non-thinkers (reflective of a sickly, cyber-mediated, technologically-addicted generation) the half-assed"rebels" involved with "heresy" really are...Have any of you even seen the "child sexuality" issue of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed? Of course not, you weren't even born when it came out and, therefore have no historical context (or real interest in freedom and the UNCENSORED discussions freedom requires), to comprehend how "free" anarchist discourse used to be,,,If it's too much for you, then go join the Socialist Workers Party! Clearly, you don't belong here and have mis-labelled yourselves....go try to make a name for yourselves with liberals, progressives and other reactionaries...y'all are WORTHLESS...

Back in the old days, it was said, "Those who live be the sword shall die by the sword". Nowadays, one might say, "Those who live by the internet die by the internet". Wolfi does NOT live by the internet. You can't kill him here no matter how disgusting your tactics. Dr. Bones tried to attack him here. Dr. Bones ultimately went down. Heresy distro, expect the same ... You live by the internet (so pathetic for people who pretend to be "anti-civ"), you will die by it.

Kinda always disruebed me too, if truth be told, buut having said that.. How are you still talking about and trying to generate outrage over this literally decades later? Me thinks this has more to do with you and ego than with wolfie.



Its sort of. Ironically pertinent to this whole discussion that young people in the sexually unrepressed anti-X-tian indigenous islands of the Pacific, where sex was as free as going to an orchard and picking any fruit from any tree, still lined up to take hazardous journeys AWAY from this hedonistic society, because of boredom.
As I've always maintained, whether it be authoritarian or utopianistically free, if you don't like the super-cult you have been born into, love it or else leave it, and learn to conquer your inner jailers.

So theŕe exists this eternal dichotomy, crude amoral pragmatism vs obsessive moral narcissism, the beauty and the beast, the Dionysusian vs Àppolonian, sugar daddy rapists vs puritan priests, none of these attaining the balance of power, and boldly striding through life in possession of their own desires and actions, taking or leaving whatever they want without any qualms or inner turmoil, JUST DOING IT!!!

But that was only one facet of moral free social intercourse in a superstitiously religious, authoritarian and hierarchiçal culture. Sex was still governed by the familial elder's codes, land was owned and wasn't free, food was unequally distributed also according to these monarchical/priestly social strata.
No wonder the young all wanted to flee these islands, which beneath the veneer of paradise existed a toxic prison archipelago full of power hungry law makers.

a couple thoughts:

1. why do i see the vast majority of posts here equating intercourse/penetration with sex? not to mention that sexual and sensual are 2 very different things, despite the gray areas of overlap.

2. why do i see the vast majority of posts here perpetuating, and even adding to, the moralistic and dangerous elevation of "sexuality" (whatever that is) to some sacred place above all other human attributes and behaviors? that is some seriously heavy baggage there.

2. Because people are afraid of where the road of removing special status from sexuality might lead them and thus don't even want to consider it. Being alienated from society for being anti-capital/anti-work/anti-state is one thing, but standing alongside "child molesters" is a little too iconoclastic of a line to cross that they didn't bargain for when they got into this "revolution" game.

Some non-anarchists have already figured this out: https://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1153/michael_jackson.html

That's the whole point, sex and sensuality have been lumped into one forbidden desire with a set of moral conditions controlling its levels of acceptability. Killing is another forbidden and suppressed desire, its not like sexuality is the only pursuit which is managed and moralized about.
Burroughs recognized sex and death as the 2 main psychological fears and reflexive response conditioners and control agents in the human narrative. Call it sensuous love and heroism, or rape and death, its all the same when you take the props away.

"Call it sensuous love and heroism, or rape and death, its all the same when you take the props away."

Consent or intent are not props, but preconditions of agreement between two mature persons for having intercourse. Not based on moralism, but on the awareness that each and every person OWNS THEIR FUCKING BODY (you don't). Your claim at "authenticity" is the part that is moralist, in the way that it self-justifies what is an act of aggression upon a different person than you.

It's all looking so fancy to you 'til the day you get ass-raped in jail by some inmate at least 2 times your size/mass.

Hold on a minute. Aren't we all incels these days?

Scandalization in anarchists terribly depressing. Someone digs up a couple of sentences from decades ago, or in the case of Chomsky (who looks frail even for a 90-year-old), who says almost anything and *bang*, we're suddenly in a bourgeois morality play where the scandalizers have switched into haughty holier-than-though mode while infantilizing themselves in the process.
Hardly surprising nobody wants to be an anarchist these days.