Responding to claims I’ve been attempting anarchist and/or anticiv entryism
You can find the post I’m responding to here.
The main claim of the post is that I've been attempting anarchist and/or anticiv entryism, but it’s just not true. I am an anarchist who has been going to Earth First! gatherings since I was 17. I also accept anticiv anarchists and anprims as anarchist. I've just talked about desiring to have the effect of deprogramming some Ted K fans from their dogmatic beliefs like for example when some of them glorify the Cambodian genocide.
Disrupting the pipeline
A better clarifying timeline would have included events like the fact that I lived with an ex-anarchist who promoted misanthropic terror attacks and who died really young: a text dump on Jay
Baudrillard asserts that the explosion of the terrorist’s bomb causes an implosion of meaning, a gaping hole in the social fabric that power frantically seeks to cover in order to restore the tyranny of meaning.
I've written about trying to live in doubt and stay open to the value of any meaning people happen to take away from various events in life.
I never claimed that being able to identify trends in the way some people travel down political rabbit holes to find simple answers to life's questions was a perfect defeater to those political philosophies. I just find those situations interesting because I wish I could have pulled friends out from that situation, and hope to be able to do it for others.
They create pipeline quizzes to better learn how to draw people into luddite philosophy, we promote reading and debate them to disrupt the pipeline.
It's clearly stated on the front page of the website that the project is in part simply attempting to fulfill a request made by one of the people Ted sent a mail bomb to, to just help bring more clarity to the foundations of many eco-terrorists political philosophy and the psychology of people who buy into it.
There's also a long about this project page being incredibly transparent that's linked at the top and the first item of the Introductory Texts page linked on the front page. Explanations of the admins pro-tech beliefs are pinned to the top of the twitter account for the website and pro-tech labels are tagged to the accounts of admins on discord.
I think part of the problem is some people were in a bubble because they just weren't on any of the platforms where the website was getting positive feedback.
'Hiding my power level' & 'deprogramming'
I've create anonymous accounts to join diehard ted k supporting spaces where they promote fascist reading material. I simply hide my warm feelings for the people working towards a pro-tech anarchist world, and it means I can gain entry into those spaces.
Then, I look to see for example what books and articles they enjoy reading most, then I upload some of those to the archive, either 'as is' or as a research text dump.
Then, I hope it encourages wider discussion, plus book and essay critiques of those books, which will hopefully have the effect of deprogramming some dogmatic people who were true believers in the goodness of their ideology based on false premises.
Pe No: Pol Pot was way more effective at society wide change. Everything was going good until war weary Vietnam invaded. Ted's still better tho.
Anon: Here's the most comprehensive textbook on the history:
And I've added it to the archive for linking to specific chapters:
Creating lots of sub-reddits
As I was doing that I thought it might be nice to try and fill in the gaps of anarchist themed sub-reddits that didn't already exist, so I created and am currently a moderator of this many subreddits (tho only 7 of them are currently above 100 members):
Anarchist related: 61.
Vegan related: 41.
AntiCiv related: 14.
Entryism is pretending to support an ideology and trying to redefine it to be something different whilst hiding within it.
Claiming branding real estate of ideologues I don't like, making clear it's a critique space and posting highly critical essays of said ideology is simply not entryism.
The Zerzan transcript confusion
I sent the cleaned up transcript to Zerzan to get his approval, he read at least a long way down it as he corrected the name Adam Lanza. I just made a mistake trying to clean up a confusing sentence, full of 'urm's'. Which subrosa acknowledged at the time was a confusingly worded sentence:
yeah… I wouldn’t... uh... argue against it, I mean if thats… uh… It’s conceivable, and uh… I think that, you know, hunter-gatherer life was more gathering than hunting, but still… uh... maybe that would be more ideal, uh [...]
I think Zerzan was struggling to form a full sentence here, emphasizing that is "more ideal" and "it's conceivable" (given that hunter-gatherer life was more gathering than hunting), while also suggesting that it's a bit hard to imagine (if you're "trying to learn anything from the record" / "in terms of our evolution". Whatever that means.)
The archive is open to suggestions
Quoting a Ted K archive librarian:
If anyone's interested in offering clear steps for ways they think the archive could be improved, feel free to let us know. Like how we decided to take the step of splitting off a bunch of texts to create The Library of Unconventional Lives. Or how we've tried to keep a record of controversial texts that were rejected, censored, accepted or deleted.
Obviously the archive is a niche project. The main task we're happy about having achieved is simply creating parallel pages for every page on the Calif. Uni. website archive of UNABOM documents. So that it's easier to search through the various documents:
And a thread was opened up on r/DebateAnarchism half a year ago to hear grievances and suggestions also: