Leaving out the ugly part - Hakim Bey/Peter Lamborn Wilson

Hakim Bey/Peter Lamborn Wilson

This article is an exposé of Hakim Bey, aka Peter Lamborn Wilson's paedophilia. A fact which many commentators conveniently brush under the carpet.

The Brooklyn Rail (July-August 2004) has just published an interview of Peter Lamborn Wilson (Hakim Bey), that gives the reader a misleading and incomplete picture of the subject. The interview was then forwarded to the Research on Anarchism list-serve. "Wilson rightly became celebrated as a kind of urban prophet," the interviewer writes, "It was an identity to add the others he bears seamlessly and without contradiction: anarchist, poet, public intellectual, psychedelic explorer, artist, social critic, Sufi mystic."

The interviewer's special phrasing, "seamlessly and without contradiction," is where she begins, unintentionally, to mislead. I am writing to describe another unusual way in which Mr. Wilson has distinguished himself that may make a wrinkle or two in the average person's opinion: he is a public paedophile intellectual of international reputation, and one who mixes anarchist ideology into his paedophile discourse. Even though we're talking about a writer whose work has now been translated into French, Russian, German, Dutch, and other languages, I should like to emphasise that there is no reason why the interviewer should have already known this. The Rail's pages, however, have presented him as entirely respectable thinker, and I am writing to correct that mistake.

It was actually the very first thing I ever heard about the man: "Same person as Hakim Bey. Goes for little Boys," was the matter-of-fact comment from one of his New York City comrades, around 1991, when I was still new to anarchism, and living in Philadelphia. At first there was no special reason for me to make an issue of it. I have known people who have mentioned sexual encounters they had with adults when they were children, and which they considered to have been harmless. I've simply pointed out that the burden of responsibility lies only with the adult, and not with the child, and that was the end of it. I have not once been considered a prude by anyone who knows me, nor anything but blunt and heavy-handed when discussing in favour of one's right to choose the sexual lifestyle. But choices made by consenting adults is the realm of the discussion.

Peter Lamborn Wilson (who writes at least as often as Hakim Bey and makes no secret of the pseudonym), uses anarchism in an ethically warped, opportunistic way by pretending that adult-child sex is a natural freedom. It isn't, and not only would almost any anarchist disagree with him, but they'd also dispute a child-rapist's right to a non-violent remedy in many cases. As a person who is and always is, in both public and private life, as an anarchist, I feel the responsibility to simply put my disagreement on record. I do so now because the forwarding of the Rail interview creates an error of omission on the r-a list.

There is a periodical, preserved at the University of Michigan's famous Labadie Collection, that seems to make an unlikely fit with the purpose of that special archive, which is to preserve anarchist materials in particular, as well as those of other social movements, including sexual freedom and gay liberation. It is the NAMBLA Bulletin, which has been published monthly since 1983 by the North American Man-Boy Love Association. "Man-boy Love" is a term used by apologists of paedophilia. I hereafter use the term paedophilia where such people would object to its use. But why was a paedophile magazine acquired by an archive with such a charter? Most people would argue that "Man-Boy Love" is not an issue relating to gay culture at all, since paedophilia occurs no more or less frequently among gays than it does with straights. Very few people of any politics consider adult-child sex to be a legitimate lifestyle choice. But the former curator who added NAMBLA Bulletin to the Labadie was actually keeping to the central mission of the anarchist archive when he subscribed to the journal.

Beginning with the July-August 1985 issue, the magazine carried a long series of items by Hakim Bey, who was already a distinctly anarchist writer. Most of them were discussions of the paedophile obsession with a clear anarchist slant. Anarchist ideology was the mode of justification, the method of persuading children to have sex and to keep it secret. Take for example the following poem, "My Political Beliefs," from NAMBLA Bulletin's June 1986 issue, page 14:

barelegged on his bicycle in the park he rides beneath
a children's fountain droplets catch his hair which
the afternoon makes somewhat bronze, beaded with molten dew
--the sunset over Jersey like an industrial krakatoa:
Newark Gold, Secaucus Red, East Orange.
The button on his blazer: Anarchist Bicyclists
he's in the bathtub, I see
him through a crack in the door playing with himself, he calls me in, shows me
underwater push-ups and sit-ups, except for his gallic buttocks his skin is gilt as the air over the Hudson. The touch of his wet, bath-wrinkled fingers in my hand... but then...
one of his parents clumps down the hall... I suppose to make sure neither of us is raping the other...
[chorus of groans] Ohhh! for a
Buster-Keaton-bomb all spherical & black as coaldust with sweet sparkling with sweet sparkling fuse a mindbomb to
Drop on the Idea of the Family! O for a libertarian isle of runaways! O goodnight
Moon, I am lost, actually lost without him
But I didn't want this to be
Just another poem about hopeless love. Pretend it's a manifesto instead. Down with School! Boy Rule OK! In the land of dreams
No governance exists
But that of anarchs and kings, for dreamers have not yet learned to vote or think past the unfurling of the moment. He touches my cheek, runs delicate fingers through the hairs on my arm.
My liege shatters all Law for a triple kiss.
--Hakim Bey

Many of Hakim Bey's best-known anarchist pitches first saw print as paedophile apologies. NAMBLA published his "Association for Ontological Anarchism, communiqué #2" in July-Aug 1986, and a journal called Gayme ran "A Temporary Autonomous Zone" and "Pirate Utopias" in issues of 1993-95, along with his more obscure "Contemplation of the Unbearded."

Bey's best-known book Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ) describes spiritual zones in which anything goes, where the oppressive rules of the outside society need not interfere with what feels good to do. I realise that many honest people have read TAZ without taking any sleazy impression from it. I hope they'll forgive me for pointing out that paedophiles say these same things to children. In his essay "Obsessive Love" (Moorish Science Monitor, Vol. 7, #5, Summer 1995), in which he pretends to be quite the classical scholar, he talks about ancient religious views on romantic and obsessive love. "The Greco-Egypto-Islamic ferment adds a pederastic [i.e. paedophile] element... the ideal woman of romance is neither wife nor concubine but someone in the forbidden category..." He uses the term "spiritual alchemy" for witnessing the "Devine Beloved in certain beautiful boys," and remarks that, "since all homosexuality is forbidden in Islamic law, a boy-loving sufi has no 'safe' category for sensual realisation."

In fact, one of the commonest defence lawyerish lines about paedophilia is how "the Greeks did it," or how incredibly well Michael Jackson sings and dances; or how some long-dead and noteworthy author was also was in the habit of boning the baby. These are feeble and irrelevant ways to side-step the ethical issue. Knowledge is power, and children know almost nothing. But just so we go through the points, it was a minority of rich Athenian Greeks during the Classical period, not all "the Greeks," who accepted paedophilia, while, by the way, they were also proclaiming their misogyny in rhetorically gorgeous ways. Athens was a slave-owning society in which democracy was observed only between citizens not between everyone --and the use of slaves as sexual chattel carried no age-restrictions. Furthermore, in no way should artistic talent cause one to be forgiven a sexual abuse or rape. In fact, when a paedophile is very witty and well-spoken, this very same skill is used to attract young, gullible targets. To argue for paedophilia is imbecile when it is sincere. It is so logically pathetic, in fact, that one almost needs to be a child to believe that it's sincere.
Pressing the anarcho-paedophile cause in another way, Wilson (Bey) reviewed the reprint of the late 19th century German-based anarchist John Henry Mackay's book Fenny Skaller and Other Poems, etc.. Bey's essay was entitled " Man-Boy Love Novel Still Relevant 100 Years On." (NAMBLA Bulletin April 1989). In "Obsessive Love," Bey again invokes Mackay (1864-1933), whose paedophilia was never known to other anarchist writers during his life: "I admit to a philosophical preference for Mackay's position..." [which means the] " giving up of all false chivalry and self-denying dandyism in favour of more 'pagan' and convivial modes of love." He closes the essay with his clearest anarcho-paedophile statement: "it has taken on a tantalising reality and filtered into my life in certain Temporary Autonomous Zones an impossible time and space and on this brief hint, all my theory is based." What he means by this is that he really has sex with children, rather than leaving the matter to fantasy, and that this is his purpose when he preaches anarchism.

Hakim Bey is the pseudonym for 59-year old Peter Lamborn Wilson, who has been based in New York City for most of his life, but is now living upstate in New Paltz. The Brooklyn Rail's interviewer, has this mistakenly reversed, giving Bey as the original name, Wilson as the pseudonym. The guy was born a WASP, and perhaps became Sufi one day while prowling the mountains of Asia. He has no occupation, and in 1994 told an interviewer (Voice Literary Supplement, New York, Feb. 1994) that he "thanks God that a trickle of family money keeps him 'independently poor.'"[1] The name Lamborn is rare in New York, and it is where the Sugar industry magnate Ody Lamborn died in 1971. It's been my impression that Hakim Bey's trust fund was originally earned by tormented labourers on sugar plantations. Whether it's from sugar or from something else, this brings us to Wilson's touching concern, about what he called "a class war situation" in the Rail interview : "Where's our support for the Mexican migrant agricultural workers?"

I have operated dangerous machinery in factories, carried lumber up flights of stairs, and I have (like most anarchists) done other boring, low-paid jobs to feed myself, starting around age thirteen. Still, I have known several anarchists who come from wealthy families, and I've thought well of them because they make the choice to use their privilege (freedom allowed by their trust fund) in good faith; perhaps to heal wounds made earlier by their own relatives. But Peter Lamborn Wilson gives me an unquiet feeling when he pretends to understand and hold concern in his heart for that other world, where he's never paid a visit, and where people work because they must work. It has the very phoney ring of someone pouring syrup into a liberal ear.

His use of his word-skills, of course, has me feeling still worse. As he conjoins his paedophile mission with anarchism, he knows very well that anarchism is now very popular among the very young. This is not "spiritual anarchism," as he entitled a public "Chaos Day" lecture in December of 2002. It is paedophile opportunism. Another device he uses a lot is exemplified in "Tectum Theatrum" (Fifth Estate, Summer 2003), in which he uses Latin phrases over and over, never to say something there's no English word for, but to impress the utterly naive reader. Having read Classical languages in college, this is especially tedious and transparent to me, but it certainly will have its desired effect on adolescent readers.

While he has no occupation, Bey/Wilson has not been idle. In Fifth Estate #363, just this past winter, he relates how, when he was in his mid-twenties, he was wandering around Persia and South Asia, smoking opium and "looking for traditional anarchism" in Sufism. Under his pseudonym (Bey), he's found some paedophile culture over in that region as well. His translation of Abu Nuwas' poetry, O Tribe That Loves Boys was published in Amsterdam in 1993.

When he was about thirty, Bey founded the Semiotext(e)-Autonomedia Publishing group in New York. It has since become one of the larger of the US-based anarchist publishers, and Bey remains with the group, which carries several of his titles. An early release was Loving Boys: Semiotext(e) Special (1980), edited by Bey. Thus he's been on this crusade, in print, for at least twenty-five years. For some time, he had a program on WBAI Radio, entitled "The Moorish Orthodox Radio Crusade."

In the letters column of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (#20/21, Nov-Dec 1989, p. 42), a letter announced a new a zine for contributors 17 and under. Wild Children, as the zine was called, solicited articles on "anarchy (of course!), sci-fi, sexuality & love, spiritual paths (or lack thereof), and anything else kids would like to submit." The letter gave Hakim Bey as the editor, at a Brooklyn PO Box. Lev Chernyi, the editor of Anarchy[2] replied that "Wild Children sounds like an interesting idea. I hope it works out. Any young readers interested?" In 1998, a 64-page anthology of this zine was published, switching over to the name Wilson as editor.[3] While the anthology is not considered a paedophile text and is carried by some anarchist bookstores without concern, it should be noted that its contents were solicited by a public anarchist-paedophile apologist during the same years (1993-1997) when he was contributing pieces of clearly anarchist-paedophile intent to the magazine Gayme, which was a bit more strident than other child-molester periodicals, and was once the target of a public prosecutor in Massachussetts. Due to legal issues relating to the its contents, in fact, the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives in Toronto preserves the title but will not allow scanning or copying of its pages. I have been unable to locate original copies of the zine Wild Children, but in yet another NAMBLA publication, its Journal (#7; 1986), the age "ten-and-a-half" occurs as the age of a boy in a sketch by Bey. In typical paedo-style, everything is pushed to where he can't go farther without the expectation of some angry person attacking him. But Bey takes things to the next step by using a name by which he (Peter Wilson) is actually identified. He's safe in doing so because of the extreme toleration of anarchists in general, and the shallowness of many.

Paedophilia is not the only opinion for which Hakim Bey has irritated other anarchists. One example is his views on abortion. In "Communique #9" of the Association for Ontological Anarchy, Bey wrote: "According to Chaos Theory, it does not follow that we are obliged to like or approve of murder or abortion. Chaos would enjoy seeing every bastard love-child carried to term & birthed; sperm & egg alone are merely lovely secretions, but combined as DNA they become potential consciousness, negentropy, joy... If 'meat is murder!' as the Vegans like to claim, what pray tell is abortion?"

I will not offer any reason to be offended by the paedophile literature or the misogynist position of Hakim Bey as quoted above. The ethical idiocy of both are self-evident, and neither is part of anything that should be considered an anarchist idea. I am not surprised that these opinions exist, but I am most uncomfortable for realising that there is a discreet haven for both within the anarchist culture of the United States. It makes me wonder, in fact: why did the world-wide Catholic Church sex abuse scandal go by a few years ago, without any commentary from American anarchists? Is this another dirty little anarchist secret?

As for what I mean by a "dirty little anarchist secret," here's another example: when about 7,000 priests were killed, many Catholic churches burned, and many saintly cadavers mockingly defiled at the beginning of the Spanish Revolution of 1936, it was in pretty bad taste, but there were very logical and fair reasons for people (including a huge number of anarchists) to take their anti-clerical rage into action. Many anarchists have denied that any of this happened, saying that it was all just fascist propaganda, or that it's been wildly exaggerated. Actually, there is plenty of hard evidence that it did happen. Rather than a bizarre, revisionist denial, I would rather hear us say that the current craze for anarchist soccer-teams has its roots in Spain (Madrid, I believe), where teenagers played football with the skull of a saint, out in the plaza in front of the church named after him. Why don't we just talk about it? Why can't we talk about a fairly well-known anarchist author as the paedophile personality that he most certainly is? What's the point of calling oneself "anarchist" if there's some area of discussion where it's too disturbing to ever step?

More directly intriguing to me is why I have been shut out of letters columns or declined for print in anarchist periodicals on about twenty occasions (and again now, in the Brooklyn Rail) when I cite the articles, name the issue, and express my disapproval for a man who presents child molestation as a point of anarchistic freedom. The reasons given by editors vary widely. Some reactions are hostile, taken very personally. Other cases express appreciation and some concern for the information. Certain editors have written so much thick, loving praise for Bey, and printed so much of his work that they find themselves cornered when the paedophilia item is raised. They have no sympathy for child-molestation but they frantically search for paths by which they can stay clear of its discussion, perhaps fearing that somehow, the stink of it would cling to them and their publication. They'll sometimes argue that it's unfair to link the person with the person's writings. I point to these editors, as I have here, that it's in the writings that all this is happening, with the less bold examples sometimes drooling out in their own anarchist pages.

In the present case, the writer who interviewed Lamborn Wilson recently at his green wood-frame house in New Paltz was glad to have been informed, and there was a short, respectful exchange between us. But the editors of the Rail merely tossed off a form letter: "Thank you for your input..." There was no evidence of any sort of concern, nor admission that the interview made a completely skewed impression of its subject, no hint that editors have an ethical responsibility for what they put on their pages.

Worse still is for there to be no reply, not even a private note. I was particularly disgusted by Andrei Codrescu, the (obviously anarchist) National Public Radio commentator who gave "TAZ and the Tazzerites" a glowing ten minutes of his voice on All Things Considered in July of 2003. I very respectfully wrote him about these concerns, then I confirmed that he'd received my letter, but I received no reply at all. The obvious message is that it's beneath Codrescu's consideration to acknowledge in a ten-second message - Yes the paedo-stuff is a drag but I like his other writings, sorry but I disagree or whatever he thinks. He means that Hakim Bey's 25 or more years as a public intellectual of anarchist paedophilia is not any problem for him when he tells seventy million people what cool stuff the guy writes, without reference to the paedophile origin and undercurrent of TAZ, the same item he recommended.

No one anywhere denies that Peter Lamborn Wilson (Hakim Bey) is paedophile, least of all the man himself. I state what I see on his pages, I offer my opinions as opinions only, and I make no accusation of criminal conduct. The citations are right there, for anyone to check for accuracy. Endlessly, anarchists have privately agreed that I am absolutely right, on-the-money correct, about this issue. The number who have written that opinion down where anyone else can read it is very close to zero. I am left with the impression that they are not taking responsibility for what they know. This does not speak well of the anarchists of the United States. I feel that with anarchism becoming ever more popular, the greater portion of new anarchists are just consumers of anarchist stuff. Since such people can't deal with a new ethical problem, they probably would not know what to do with that new, real revolutionary opportunity for which they pine so passionately.

The fact that a widely celebrated, living anarchist writer has smeared the anarchist tradition with a sugar-coated image of paedophilia is an issue that will continue to be raised. I feel that this is fair and relevant because I keep spotting distorted presentations of Hakim Bey and his motives, as in this last issue of the Brooklyn Rail.

Robert P. Helms is an independent historian of anarchism, now writing about the early movement at Philadelphia. He is editor and principle author of Guinea Pig Zero: An Anthology of the Journal for Human Research Subjects (1992). Formerly of Philadelphia, he now lives in a suburb of Paris. He can be reached at gpzero(at)earthlink.net


Anyone who wants a copy of the Hakim Bey paedophile bibliography (a work in progress) should just ask, and the author will email it to you.
1. Erik Davis, interviewer,"The Wandering Sufi: Itroduction to the Mystic with Peter Lamborn Wilson," Voice Literary Supplement, New York, February 1994
2. The same editor sometimes uses the name Jason McQuinn.
3. Wild Children: A Zine For Kids. New York, Scb Publishers, 1998. Peter Lamborn Wilson (Editor) and Dave Mandl (Editor).

Taken from The Research on Anarchism List (RA-L), which is an international forum which was started on January 1, 1996, and is devoted to book reviews, research and discussion of the theories, histories and cultures of world anarchist movements and to other topics related to anarchism.

Posted By

Oct 18 2005 14:39


Attached files


May 17 2010 16:34

Blah blah "consent", all this fixation with "consent" among the radical left and feminist circles has really helped folks like Hakim Bey justify their sexual abuse.

If a stronger will manipulates a weaker will into "consenting", it is still rape. There are scumbags who have mingled throughout anarchist and radical feminist scenes, raping with impunity, thanks to this rather obvious loophole.

It's no coincidence that the legal codes of patriarchy are all oriented around consent when it comes to sexual abuse.

Jul 18 2010 10:43


May 18 2010 00:51
If a stronger will manipulates a weaker will into "consenting", it is still rape.

If you manipulate someone into giving in, that isn't consent. Hell, even the laws around consent in New Zealand accept that consent must take place without any coercion, and the laws are woefully inadequate.

May 18 2010 13:42
If you manipulate someone into giving in, that isn't consent. Hell, even the laws around consent in New Zealand accept that consent must take place without any coercion, and the laws are woefully inadequate.

Just to clarify I was heckling a child abuse apologist, whose post has been subsequently deleted, arguing that child rape is all about whether or not the child gives "consent". We're clearly in agreement on thinking that's bullshit....to say that the patriarchal laws of New Zealand are more progressive than a supposed "anarchist" like Hakim Bey!

Jul 16 2010 23:53

Akai, do you have documentation for the thing about Bey in Mexico? That'd be helpful. Thanks.

Jul 17 2010 06:02

No info on Google re. Bey/Wilson's conviction for being a paedo in Anarchy mag or any other. Nothing about his exploits in Mexico (pure hearsay and defamation w/o proof). Has the man EVER done time, been arrested, or beaten-up by moms or dads? Is he on a paedo watchlist? I've checked the sex offender registry online and there is no Peter Lamborn Wilson named for NY state.

Of course writing for NAMBLA is another matter, and using anarchism as his defense for boy love, (if he is actually doing so) then that is intolerable.

Apologies for sounding like an apologist. I am certainly NOT into kids or those who are.

Jul 18 2010 10:44


Jul 18 2010 05:00

Akai, I'll take your word for it but.... all I'm saying is, some source for this that's more credible than an anonymous stranger on the internet would be nice, as this argument comes up once in a great while. Saying "I read it posted an internet forum once" is going to carry only slightly more weight than "I had a dream about it" or "my dad says he read it in a book." Know what I mean? In case it's not clear though, I'm convinced that Bey is a pedophile. I found all this quite shocking when I first heard about it because I've met many anarchists who took Bey seriously, and I remain pretty surprised that it's at all controversial with anyone that his pedophilia is a problem.

Jul 18 2010 10:42

Actually I feel quite uncomfortable about the whole thing now. I did not care to make any "documentation" of this all at the time and really am not into any attempts to do so, although at the time of reading I felt emotional and motivated to, as I said, "break the silence" about it. I am wondering now whether to delete or not.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think I am the only person from the people writing comments here who can claim to have known the person well for some period of time, so I think I, unlike others, can make an informed opinion.

I don't like all this talk about state sex offenders registers. etc. and actually regret speaking on this particular thread.

Oct 21 2010 18:46

I think this whole thing is a bit of a useless waste of time. Has Wilson had or proffessed to having any contact with small boys outside of the fiction and fantasy of his poetry? Or perhaps he had some encounter with a cultural group at some point in which such behavior was encouraged and excepted. And if so, what then?

Oct 21 2010 18:56

further, is it pssible that wilson is simply utilizing the concept of the taboo sexuality of the pedophile to perhaps shock the reader into new horizns of thought? To get the reader to question their own system of values, to push the boundaries?? I think most readers, myself included and a father of three boys, were initially disturbed by some of his imagery and suggestions. Perhaps it is a literary device to get us to question what society has led us to believe in as right and wrong.
Also, I agree whole heartedly with his view on abortion. I am neither pro life, though i think life should be cherished and protected, nor am i pro choice, though of course individuals should have freedom of choice. its a bogus dichotmy, the concepts "pro life/pro choice are not opposite ideas or view points, as if to be pro life is to be anti choice, and pro choice is to be anti life. bullshit.

Oct 21 2010 23:22

The concept "bogus dichotomy" just maintains the core binary oppositions which all hierarchies are based on, that between truth and falsehood and that between dichotomies and non-dichotomies. Anarchy will be post-binary.

Chilli Sauce
Oct 24 2010 01:44
is it pssible that wilson is simply utilizing the concept of the taboo sexuality of the pedophile to perhaps shock the reader into new horizns of thought? To get the reader to question their own system of values, to push the boundaries?? I think most readers, myself included and a father of three boys, were initially disturbed by some of his imagery and suggestions. Perhaps it is a literary device to get us to question what society has led us to believe in as right and wrong.

Seriously? Are you fucking serious?

Rob Ray
Oct 24 2010 11:00
Perhaps it is a literary device to get us to question what society has led us to believe in as right and wrong.

Or perhaps he's a paedophile, which would be rather more likely given that it was written specifically for the bulletin of the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

Chilli Sauce
Oct 24 2010 11:53

Yeah, A are you claiming he's been using this "literary device" for over 25 years and when doing so not directing it at 'challenging anarchists' but challenging paedos in the publications of openly paedophile organizations? Really?

Rob Ray
Oct 24 2010 13:30

Hey maybe aeternitas is onto something here ncwob, maybe Bey's targetting paedos to help them think outside the box about their approach to the mores and morals of the state.

How the average reader of the NAMBLA bulletin might have received Bey's work:

Paedo: I like little boys
Bey: Wow look at the gallic buttocks on that one
Paedo: You've just blown my mind man, society's vision of right and wrong is totally warped.

I mean Bey's work would definitely be a positive reinforcer under those circumstances to help paedos realise that social pressures stopping them from doing what they want to do are basically wrong and should be ignored, which is obviously a good thing yeah? The last thing we'd want is for paedos to restrain themselves...

Oct 25 2010 04:46
Aug 2 2012 12:04

why does hakim bey exist

Oct 13 2011 12:36

You know, I don't agree with a lot of things about Hakim Bey, including this, but I can't deny being moved by his way with words.

I am reminded of what one academic said about Nabokov's Lolita, that it is ultimately about the power of the beauty of words to seduce us into making an accommodation with evil... (Nabokov is a far greater writer than Wilson, but the point still holds...)

One approach to consider, a rather spiritual one I suppose, is that all evil contains good, and serves good, and is necessary for the good - that is not to say we should not fight it, but realising the fundamental goodness of evil, we become more forgiving and more loving of those caught up in it...

I say all evil is a corruption of some good, but perversions, being not ordinary but rather extraordinary evils, these are corruptions of extraordinary goods... let us not lose the opportunity of the extraordinary good in our haste to rightfully oppose the extraordinary evils which are corruptions of them...

People should let kids be kids... but the very murderous dehumanisation of those who have the misfortune to have their desires misdirected in that direction, that greatly disturbs me...

Oct 25 2011 18:04


Oct 25 2011 17:32


Oct 25 2011 15:39


Oct 25 2011 17:07

Mental homophobe banned and posts unpublished

Dec 4 2011 00:39

Look, being attracted to children is not an 'orientation', it's a problem. Any kind of sex or attraction between consenting adults is an orientation. Children do not have the capacity to consent, thus an attraction to them can ONLY EVER be conceived of as abusive. Paedophilia utilises a sexual and developmental hierarchy as well as the power differential between children and adults to ensure that adults are able to get what they want without regard for the welfare of their partner - something that would cause concern in any adult relationship. If you disagree with that you probably need your head checking.

Dec 4 2011 02:02

I said it on the last post squirtle, but I will say it again just in case anyone else is reading this. Your equivalence of homosexuality with paedophilia is ridiculous. it is a disgrace to homosexuals and children. do one

Eastern Anarchist
Jan 24 2012 00:00

Wow! I read the article, I read some of the comments, and then I ask myself: "Is this by any chance the forum of the British National Party or some other fascist organization?" because it certainly makes me feel that way.
How can people that describe themselves as anarchists, use the same repressive arguments about intergenerational relationships as the people that we detest and fight against?
Kids cannot give informed consent? Really? This is nothing short of an insult against young kids. Should I believe that the people that frequent this website are against youth liberation? Since by what I read here I take it you believe, like the present (patriarchal, authoritarian and heteronormative) society that children are inept in making correct choices and therefore the (insert repressive statist institution here) should make decisions for them.
I am against any kind of rape or other type of violence against children and young people, that should be clear to anyone! But in the same time I cannot understand how an anarchist website has transformed in a tribune for authoritarian statist views about sexuality. Not all things are black or white. You of all people should know that!

P.S. May I sugest to the author of this article membership in the BNP? I think he'll be heartily welcomed as the head of the "Get the Perverts" office inside the party, because as far as I'm concerned, judging by what he writes, he has nothing to do with anarchism whatsoever.

Juan Conatz
Jan 24 2012 00:07

Actually, terming child rape as 'intergenerational relationships' is about as 'unanarchist' as you can get. I don't see how allowing or condoning nonconsensual sex is antiauthoritarian in any way. It's actually really disconcerting the number of self-declared 'anarchists' who continue to find this article and post in defense of pederasty. Disturbing.

Jan 24 2012 00:12

Oh my word. 'Intergenerational relationships'. There just aren't the words.

Jan 24 2012 00:45

@Eastern Anarchist fuck off troll

Eastern Anarchist
Jan 24 2012 04:37

Just where did I condoned child rape in my comment? Did you read what I had to say, or did you just read 'intergenerational relationships' and ran away scared? Just asking.