https://anarchistnews.org/comment/242024#comment-242024

There are some people who want to be real rude aboyt the definition of anarchy, also, to exclude (explicitly or not) anything they're not into, basically a "no true Scotsman" thing. But then there's also people striving to be accurate. It is a widespread fallacy to think words' semantic contents have fixed borders, but working within this fallacy, this is hardly morally objectionable. Personally speaking, it is very rare for me to say "you are not an anarchist", but I definitely raise my eyebrows when some people use that word for themselves, given what they're into (and this includes some crypto-Leninists fwiw, not just post-left types). It's like, you seem to be using that word because you want to recruit or you want to belong. Understandable, but why the fuck should I feel duty-bound to accommodate you?

https://anarchistnews.org/comment/242047#comment-242047

I know people with no theoretical training whatsoever, who seem to naturally think like anarchists - often because they're traumatised by authority, or they've lived in autonomous zones for a lot of their life. There are indigenous groups who are not anarchists, do not call themselves anarchists, yet in many ways think like an anarchist. There are people who are not anarchist, who are anti-anarchist, who think like anarchists to the extent that their own communities or networks or movements are pitted against the state. And there are people who claim to be anarchists, who *are* anarchists in most of their macro-politics, who do *not* think like anarchists, but rather, think like the mainstream. These people are incapable of revolution because of the cops and wheels in their heads. Ultimately a clever media strategy or a social crisis rigged the right way would be enough to get them acting like just another curtain-twitching Fox-viewer. I'd count most left-anarchists and idpols in this category. They could have a revolution, create no-go zones, and all the state would have to do is encourage some drug dealing or petty crime and they'd start acting like pigs. Because they care about spooks and morality, in-group and out-group, more than they care about dispersing power.

https://anarchistnews.org/comment/242023#comment-242023

And now I actually can't be bothered anymore. Why don't you rather just go and do some shit instead of this paternal crap? Why argue for the right to self organize a corpse? I don't fucking know. If you actually speak to people, you'd perhaps be surprised to find out that they actually get that capitalism is a shit deal. And instead of this social insertion, and supposing that since you've read Kropotkin you can go and get them to organize better, be better and all such shit. Why don't you actually figure out what it is these people themselves want? And insofar as your interests meets theirs, then this would be where you organized?

https://anarchistnews.org/comment/242048#comment-242048

Is there then a black anarchist/post-left response to the post-Christian ethics of our red comrades? Yes-- sabotage, circumvent, nihilate, avoid and destroy those institutions and practices that one finds most egregious. Will this build power revolutionary consciousness for the working classes? Who cares. All I know is that individuals acting as agents of destruction are far more likely to realize an insurrectionary moment, and I would trust them for just that reason, as opposed to a gaggle of anti-reformism reformists whose skill set is limited to soliciting signatures for a petition or buttonholing elected officials.

https://anarchistnews.org/comment/241930#comment-241930

Now, get a wrench and go subvert some authoritarian pig system, will you?! Jeez. ;)

https://anarchistnews.org/comment/241962#comment-241962

yes, it was a good thing that the security folks were able to keep these asshats from invading the venue and so had to be satisfied with stomping around outside until they got bored and left. yes, it was a good thing that anarchist commerce went along smoothly so that the youngsters could get this year's t-shirts and patches ("oh, there were BOOKS with IDEAS in them? whatever..."). yes, it was a good thing that nobody on "our" side got hurt. but really, this report (like the others that immediately followed the event) is a sad continuation of alarmist antifascism. i say "alarmist" because ARR, like other professional antifas, exaggerates the danger posed by fascists and their enablers in the mainstream, and those anarchists (those who question the strategy of working with marxists and those who question the automatic requirement of being antifa) whose politics ARR doesn't like.

https://anarchistnews.org/comment/241979#comment-241979

tl;dr version: alarmism requires that people dispense with their principles, leading to suicidal coalitions with anti-anarchists. no thanks.

https://anarchistnews.org/comment/241985#comment-241985

but you're right that it's not an either/or situation. i just don't have much patience for self-described anarchists who promote coalitions with tankies and other marxists (and don't get me started on the ones who promote electoralism or other aspects of liberalism)

https://anarchistnews.org/comment/241924#comment-241924

I find it interesting that despite critiques of science from AP and green anarchist thinking that people such as KT are still down to idealize anthropology and treat it as some sacred field of academic research which is laying waste to all the bad in the world. Sure, a few bad apples like Chagnon but the good guys like Ferguson will always prevail. This whole interview was based upon dropping timelines and science rather than anything to really sink my teeth into that can get me feeling like there is some relevancy to what you're saying. You criticize egoism, but at least I don't have to have an egoistic critique of civilization rooted in anybodys perspective but my own. Stick to the zanie rewilding stuff, at least I can agree with being in the woods feeling good and have a laugh at the more nonsensical stuff.

https://anarchistnews.org/comment/241850#comment-241850

It is extremely tiresome to constantly run into this stupid accusation of orthodoxy and dogmatism. It is not because one is "more" anarchist than another that nationalism is never on the side of those who don't want to be ruled neither rule. It is because nationalism is to be condemned on its own grounds -- the "for" or "against" of some anarchists is of little importance.

May I remind you that just like we refuse to chose between the rope and guillotine, we also refuse to chose between one State and another -- at war as at peace. This refusal is the only theoretical and practical position worthy of being developped on this question. The desire of some anarchists to join the ranks is no excuse.