This article is an exposé of Hakim Bey, aka Peter Lamborn Wilson's paedophilia. A fact which many commentators conveniently brush under the carpet.
Leaving out the ugly part - Hakim Bey/Peter Lamborn Wilson
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.
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.'" 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 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. 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.
Blah blah "consent", all this
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.
Quote: If a stronger will
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.
Quote: If you manipulate
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!
Akai, do you have
Akai, do you have documentation for the thing about Bey in Mexico? That'd be helpful. Thanks.
No info on Google re.
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.
Akai, I'll take your word for
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.
Actually I feel quite
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.
I think this whole thing is a
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?
further, is it pssible that
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.
The concept "bogus dichotomy"
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.
Quote: is it pssible that
Seriously? Are you fucking serious?
Quote: Perhaps it is a
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.
Yeah, A are you claiming he's
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?
Hey maybe aeternitas is onto
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...
why does hakim bey exist
why does hakim bey exist
You know, I don't agree with
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...
Mental homophobe banned and
Mental homophobe banned and posts unpublished
Look, being attracted to
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.
I said it on the last post
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
Wow! I read the article, I
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.
Actually, terming child rape
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.
Oh my word.
Oh my word. 'Intergenerational relationships'. There just aren't the words.
@Eastern Anarchist fuck off
@Eastern Anarchist fuck off troll
Just where did I condoned
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.
So am I a troll for pointing
So am I a troll for pointing out how unanarchist the positions of some self described anarchists are? Then perhaps I am a troll, who knows. And yes, fuck off yourself. Good bye.
Indeed, just aren't the words
Indeed, just aren't the words to describe how sexually repressed some "anarchists" are. Oh my word indeed.
Seriously? Your litmus test for sexual repression is how well an "anarchist" swallows paedophilia? wow.
@revol68 Here is what I
Here is what I think. I believe that from a certain age, a person that can be called a child can indeed give consent. Young kids are usually very vehement about what they want and what they don't, so why not trust them to make a decision in this regard as well? It's their body, and they should have the right to decide what they do with it. Notice that I talk about CONSENT and in no way do I condone any kind of violence and misstreatment of young people. The fact that when hearing about an age gap between two people, everyone instantly jumps at the conclusion that somehow rape and violence are involved, is what I truly find to be disturbing.
There are countless examples of people that have been involved in their young years in such relationships and their oppinion abot this experience is nothing but positive. And mind you, all those experiences were CONSENSUAL, by their own statement.
Are you aware of a monster called Tom O Carroll, who wrote a book in which he contended that the sounds made by a child of less than a year old could be construed as consent?
Do you think all 'age gaps' are the same? When I hear of a person of 40 and a person of 20 together, I dont conclude that 'rape and violence' are involved, is that the same as a person of 20 and a person of 10?
@Arbeiten So I gather this is
So I gather this is all that you understand from everything that I said? Well, this is just sad, honestly. So from what I understand you are against youth liberation? Or do you believe that this integral part of the anarchist struggle refers only to those above 18? And do you also believe that youth liberation doesn't refer to sexual matters as well? Well think again!
@revol68 And just where did I
And just where did I say that I am for "some dirty old cunt" to exploit a childs sexuality? You just repeat this nonsense over and over ignoring what I said.
Just like you, I say that the child is the only one who can decide what he wants, or doesn't wants. But to say that a kid cannot decide for himself and an authority figure should decide for him "because he knows better" is what I find objectionable in the harshest terms.
Now let me tell you something. Present society tries to present children as those asexual "innocent" creatures. You and I know that this is bullshit. Children from a very early age are very curious about the body and its functions. I can state this from my own experience as a child and I'm shure that if your honest you can recall similar memories from your childhood. It may come as a shock to many but yes, children are sexual beeings, just like everyone else, and they have desires and fantasies just like everyone else and I believe they should be free to explore their feelings freely, without intrusion from the state or anyone else. And if their desire leads them in a relationship with someone older then them, then that is their business and no one elses. As long as this is what they want and no coercion is involved.
Eastern Anarchist wrote: As
And therein lies the problem. Any relationship a child or teenager has with an adult is never going to be on an equal footing, and as a result, they are bound to be manipulated if not coerced just to keep the thing going. How can that possibly be beneficial to them? There's nowt wrong with kids being curious, what's wrong is people old enough to know better getting involved.
Quote: . And if their desire
Can you explain why you are interested in having sexual relations with a child?
@PartyBucket Yes, I am aware
Yes, I am aware of Tom O'Carroll, but unlike you I don't consider him a monster. But yes, if someone would have said what you imply he did, then that is of course condemnable. But alas, his writing has been taken out of context countless times and I feel this time is no exception. Perhaps the fact that in his books he has proved in many ways that relations with children are, for the most part, completely harmless is what in fact drives you and other people to hate him so much. I know, it doesn't feel good when someone blows away your warped worldview.
@Jason Cortez Did I said
Did I said that? So for you, saying that children have sexual rights is akin to wanting to have sex with children? Interesting point of view. So according to you, you have to be gay to fight for gay rights, right?
@flaneur And here we go
And here we go again. The voice of repressive heteronormative society in action.
Yes, sex is bad, indeed very bad. Forgive me father for I have sinned!
@PartyBucket Yes indeed,
Yes indeed, there is an irony, but unfortunately the irony is on you and the people that share your oppinions and who continue to cling to old discredited theories.
I mean, what can you really
I mean, what can you really say to someone who thinks children can give meaningful consent on sexual activity with adults. You already have placed yourself outside both most people's morals and even science itself. Consent means an understanding of what you're agreeing to. There's a development issue when it comes to comparing adults and children, this really doesn't even need to be mentioned. It's obvious.
If you don't consider Tom O'
If you don't consider Tom O' Carroll a monster you're one too.
Paedophile apologist banned.
Paedophile apologist banned.
If libcom admins really had
If libcom admins really had an anarcho-stalinist death squad that could trace peoples IPs and neutralise them, this thread would be the ultimate honeytrap :bb:
Now I have no problem with a
Now I have no problem with a 30 year old and a 60 year old hooking up, but defending a dude who writes poetry about spying on little boys taking a bath through a key hole as an "intergenerational relationship". You sick fuck, you think a small child could "consent" to that?
I don't mind teens having sex together etc, etc. What I do mind is predatory old men fighting the cause of 'youth liberation'. And no, I don't believe a young boy/teenager can have a meaningful and consensual relationship of somebody Bey's age. Anarchists are also AGAINST oppression as well as FOR liberation. You don't honestly think older men like younger boys because they have good things to discuss? No. It is an essentially unequal and predatory relationship.
This whole conversation sheds a very dark light on T.A.Z's doesn't it?
On the question of sad. The only thing I find sad is this topic being bought up time and time again and the circular nature with which the debate always takes.
'YOU GUYZ ARE ANARCHISTS WHY YOU NO LIKE BEY!'
I can't really comment on
I can't really comment on Hakim Bey having never read any of what he's written (although him writing for NAMBLA seems incredibly worrying and something as an anarchist i definitely wouldn't want to be associated with) but i thought i might chime in with my 2pennies' worth about the general topic of "intergenerational relationship" (which sounds far too sinister for my liking, a bit too much like NewSpeak).
The whole argument that a child freely consents to sexual relationship reminds me too much of the claim that workers consent to be exploited by capitalists. Maybe in a reductionist way you could say a 13 year old can consent to sexual contact with a 30 year old through verbally saying 'yes' but is it freely consenting? Is it absent of any form of coercion, whether conscious or unconscious? I highly doubt it.
Personally i think with age gaps when it comes to sexual/romantic relationships it's quite relative. Up until a certain maturity level large age gaps become riddled with subtle and not-so-subtle coercion. Hell, even between teenagers one of them can feel coerced into sexual contact before they're comfortable with it ffs.
To equate opposition to adults having sexual contact with children to opposing youth liberation is disgusting and a logical fallacy.
@Eastern Anarchist and other
@Eastern Anarchist and other pedophile apologists and enablers.
I'll repost what I wrote in Steven's blog a while back:
In humans, neural development continues (sometimes) until the very early 20's. Before that age you wouldn't be that far off to say that teens are more or less mentally handicapped (tongue firmly in cheek). The reason why people consider this behavior to be wrong is because an adult who has sexual relations with a minor is very much taking advantage of a person who's brain has not finished developing, i.e. they don't fully posses the capacity to exercise their autonomy in things like giving consent. You guys are deluded and/or sick. Luckily, either one is easily fixed by using your fucking heads for a second and consulting that mode of knowledge we now days refer to as "science".
Here's a nice article:
@ Eastern Archist For you
@ Eastern Archist
For you sexual rights are akin to your wanting to be able to molest children without condemnation or guilt. I am sure you want to believe that children can give meaningful consent, as it makes it easier for you to look at yourself in the mirror. The very fact that you use terms like"intergenerational sex" exposes your complicity, as it is disingenuous, designed to 'normalise' such behaviour.
This is shocking and well
This is shocking and well written, and that's why people believe it without checking if the author really wrote all that. Please! Critically read everything, specially this kind of attacks: That's one of the few perfectly advices that Marx gave us, and by that i mean: Have you guys here tried to search and read the sources of this article? I bet you don't, i tried and i couldn't find them, specially the NAMBLA bulletins (the most direct supposed confessions of pedophilia) and the gayme zine that strangely "will not allow scanning or copying of its pages".
I'm not denying that Bey/Wilson may be a paedophile, i know that he has an strange fascination for historical pederasty without giving an academic and critical view of his investigations. I'm pretty sure he has anti-age of consent views, but i'm not sure how deep are his views because i can't find sources for that. I prefer to say that the author of this article is, maybe, a doctrinaire "social anarchist" that hates writers like Bey. Yup, in my opinion i don't like the kind of Bey, the people that mix anarchism with occultism, religion, and extreme individualism without giving anything to the society, maybe just trying to make "anarchists" reforms in the actual capitalist system. But all that is not a reason to write such a big attack on him based on lies, specially when he says that he is not a worker, that only because for his surname he may be the son of a bourgeois, or his attack on mexicans, that's unsourced and academically unethical, and don't give me your "anarchist" bullshit about ethics, because fuck you! We all have limits and that's named ethics (this applies to pro-paedophilia anarchists too).
i am against the banning of
i am against the banning of "eastern anarchist". he articulates his point of view, which noone has to applause. seems that people who think similar will remain silent in future, which does not mean that they would think different. it is an authoritarian manner to ban him.
@Wejale if you use the search
@Wejale if you use the search function on this site you will find this article http://libcom.org/library/paedophilia-and-american-anarchism-the-other-side-of-hakim-bey
@uhu this site is not in any way obliged to give anyone a platform for there point of view, and its not authoritarian to ban people who advocate politics incompatible with those of the site, its a site for about libertarian communism, not a free for all, there are other sites for that
uhu wrote: i am against the
Fuck you, no platform for paedophiles
@radicalgraffiti It's really
@radicalgraffiti It's really easy to write a poem, post it on the internet and sign as "Hakim Bey", the source of that poem is still this site and if you try to find that number of NAMBLA or any other you'll get more sites reposting this same thread.
I think that these "sources" are fake.
Well, I guess you can believe
Well, I guess you can believe that, but you have no more reason to believe they're fake than you do your true--except that Bey's views on pederasty are easily available. As to the poems, the author says he saw them in an academic archive. Do you disbelieve every academic paper you read because you personally haven't seen the archive they used for research?
Well there is always this
Well there is always this (from his "COMMUNIQUES OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR ONTOLOGICAL ANARCHY"):
And this (from his "The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism")
@Chili Sauce "Do you
"Do you disbelieve every academic paper you read because you personally haven't seen the archive they used for research"
No, that's impossible and that's why there are so many errors, lies and non-supported affirmations in most social sciences investigations, the point is to avoid them.
Wejale wrote: @Chili
Nearly as impossible as trying to avoid social sciences ;-)
I wasn't saying that, i'm an
I wasn't saying that, i'm an historian and at least everyone has their personal academic ethics, i said that every writer has to avoid affirmations without a good source, or making prejudices, valor judgements, logical fallacies, etc etc. This thread is filled with that.
Can an admin just ban these
Can an admin just ban these mental peado apologists please
I was thinking... I still
I was thinking... I still think TAZ is an in-parts moving book even though I agree with much of the criticisms of it made here. I am wondering how hard it would be to create a "cleansed" version of TAZ, with all the bad stuff removed? Of course, I suppose in some cases it's hard to determine the boundaries between the bad stuff and not, because some passages are clearly that way, and others it is maybe more implied - there is black and white and then there are shades of grey
Maybe this sounds too much like censorship? Well, if that's what it is, then maybe in some cases like this it is justified. Given it is "Anti-Copyright" doing so should be permissible.
Maybe this is too much of a "have your cake and eat it too" approach, but it is an attempt to both acknowledge the value some people have found in the work, and at the same time acknowledge your very valid criticisms of it
Let's get to the nubbins - is
Let's get to the nubbins - is there valid reason to be concerned about PLW interacting with Anarchist families' minor children? That might depend on whether or not there is valid evidence that PLW has ever actually abused boys. Does such evidence exist?
Well, that depends on who PLW was prior to 1975. Was he once a close friend & associate of Adam Starchild - before that person took the name of Adam Starchild? If he was, then yes - such evidence does exist.
I used to live in the East
I used to live in the East Village in the early 90s and I encountered Wilson/Bey several times and found him to be a delightful and generous man. I was extremely upset to fund out about his pedophile activities and even more upset that one of his Moorish Orthodox Radio Crusade colleagues (bald guy with beard & Jewish surname) refused to even acknowledge Wilson/Bey's dubious sexual interests, while at the same time presenting himself as a champion of the oppressed and downtrodden. If having sex with children in third world countries (which Bey/Wilson has boasted about) isn't wrong and exploitative then what is?
hi, there is a recent article
there is a recent article about Hakim Bey, the T.A.Z. and this defamatory campaign against his work and person..
please read (if you are not afraid of the truth.. i'm not meaning this is the truth..) :
Hakim Bey: Repopulating the Temporary Autonomous Zone
Author: Simon Sellars, Jan 9, 2012
the subject about paedophilia is in the section "SECOND BACKLASH: “OPPORTUNISM, NOT GOOD WILL"
Quote: Thus, the reactions to
This thread is like paedo
This thread is like paedo catnip.
Yeah, we might as well change
Yeah, we might as well change the threat title to: How to Catch a(narchist) Predator
Thank the lord above that the
Thank the lord above that the site admins have a long-standing policy of referring the IP addresses of paedo-friendly posters to the appropriate authorities. 8-)
Buttom and Khawaga, so
Buttom and Khawaga, so everyone who reads Hakim Bey and agrees with some of his philosophical ideas is a paedo-friendly poster and a predator...
you commies are everywhere the same old fashioned shit.. i laught a lot because you express so well your similarities with white power fascists.. it is really easy to understand why they were able to cooptate your ideas and call it national-anarchism..
Your small brains work like this:
HB is against social revolution
HB is individualist, lifestylist, M. Bookchin advised us before..
HB is always quoting thinkers and philosophers that i will never be able to understand
HB is nietzschean and stirnerite
individualism is a Bourgeois disease
HB is a sexual predator
It's more 'HB is a supporter
It's more 'HB is a supporter of NAMBLA, therefore he's in favour of noncing'.
happyzero wrote: everyone who
dear Joseph Kay, i'm not a
dear Joseph Kay, i'm not a supporter of Nambla and i'm really against noncing..
But i admit that there is a gray area about classifiyng a person to be minor or adult.. the law says it is 18 years old, i'm not so clear about that.. and as anarchist i do not have the right to tell someone when he/she has the right maturity to make decisions about his/her sexuality..
but of course it is clear for me that a pre-adolescent or adolescent person will be easy manipulated by an adult.. and this may happen often because we live in a society that represses sexuality with law and prejudice, and since very soon we are subjected to some system o value which alienates ourselfs from our true will...
happyzero wrote: dear Joseph
conclusion: fucking children is fine.
oh, and also, nazis posing as anarchists could never take hakim beys "idea" of the TAZ, and turn it into some sort of "national autonomist zone". that simply couldnt happen. at all. ever. because his ideas are inherently revolutionary. unlike commies ideas, which are totally reactionary and JUST LIKE THE NAZIS (renowned for their tyranical opposition to fucking children).
fuck pedo's but wasn't that
fuck pedo's but wasn't that NAMBLA thing cleared up? I thought that nambla just published his writings without ever contacting him so it wasn't as if he specifically wrote that shit for them? anyone know the scoop? It's really chicken scratch and I shouldn't give a fuck, but does anyone know?
Quote: Thank the lord above
Who are 'appropriate authorities'?
Jim Clarke wrote: The issue
Both are obviously beyond the pale, but being involved with a paedophile political organisation is a step further.
it's a moot point whether a
it's a moot point whether a paedo-apologist is a member of a formal organisation or a lone-ranger, in fact I'd imagine that most people that act out the sort of shit rationalised in such writings is not a member of a group, could be wrong though, Revol would probably know
Choccy wrote: it's a moot
I think it matters in the case of well known "anarchist" writers whether or not they are involved with/actively supportive of paedophile political groups, because it reflects on their motivation for writing political texts
But it wouldn't reflect on
But it wouldn't reflect on his 'political' texts if he was writing pro-paedophile texts as a lone ranger?
well, this is really 'chicken
well, this is really 'chicken shit scratch'.. but i also scratched it when i wrote my first post..
althought, if you want to continue searching about this subject (child sexuality) in a serious way, without prejudice.. And if you are really concerned about protecting children from sexual abusers, please read the following:
1. Was Severino Di Giovanni a paedophile?
"In 1927, Giovanni left his wife, and had commenced an affair with America Josefina ("Fina") Scarfó, the fifteen-year-old sister of the Scarfó brothers, Alejandro and Paulino." in wikipedia
2- Read this text by Feral Faun: To Have Done With the Economy Of Love
3- Material and reprints from Anarchy a book named "Child sexuality" from Ardent Press
I'm happy to call Di Giovanni
I'm happy to call Di Giovanni a paedo if it means we can get back to talking about Bey being one also....
Choccy wrote: But it wouldn't
I haven't looked into this in depth, but it seems to me that Bey has been careful not to make his texts too explicitly pro-paedophile - for example a lot of people who like the idea of 'Temporary Autonomous Zones' would be shocked to find out that Hakim Bey's interest in it is probably as a child rapist.
Keeping his pro-paedophile motives hidden allows his supporters to defend his ideas - perhaps in the same way that for example Proudhon's misogeny and anti-Semitism don't invalidate him as an anarchist theorist, because they were personal bigotries rather than fundamental to his ideas.
However the association with NAMBLA makes Bey's commitment to a pro-paedophile agenda undeniable, and therefore makes things like TAZ untenable - we should not tolerate people who argue such ideas are a part of anarchist theory IMO.
doam wrote: Quote: Thank the
+1 for proper use of a
+1 for proper use of a in-joke.
its discussions like these
its discussions like these that libcommunity flame culture circa 2005 has its place.
LAY OFF THE NEW POSTERS
LAY OFF THE NEW POSTERS EH?
LET'S KEEP THIS FRIENDLY EH?
PLAY THE BALL NOT THE PLAYER, EH?
How big is bey still in the
How big is bey still in the anarchist movement?
Not as big as he gets in
Not as big as he gets in playgrounds.
lol he actually wrote this,
lol he actually wrote this, what wank
Ever heard of John Henry
Ever heard of John Henry Mackay? From Wikipedia:
"John Henry Mackay (6 February 1864 – 16 May 1933) was an individualist anarchist, thinker and writer. Born in Scotland and raised in Germany, Mackay was the author of Die Anarchisten (The Anarchists) (1891) and Der Freiheitsucher (The Searcher for Freedom) (1921). Mackay was published in the United States in his friend Benjamin Tucker's magazine, Liberty"
"Using the pseudonym Sagitta, Mackay wrote a series of works for pederastic emancipation, titled Die Bücher der namenlosen Liebe (Books of the Nameless Love). This series was conceived in 1905 and completed in 1913 and included the Fenny Skaller, a story of a pederast. Under his real name he also published fiction, such as Der Schwimmer (1901) and, again as Sagitta, he published a pederastic novel of the Berlin boy-bars, Der Puppenjunge (The Hustler) (1926)."
PLW-Hakim Bey's pederastic literary output seems a mere pebble, next to the life-long avalanche of pro-pedophile propaganda which Mackay was responsible for. Would you ban this rather formative Anarchist's writings, also?
On the other hand, I believe that PLW's accounts of his early life are at least 50% fiction. I can't find any documentation for a Peter L Wilson born & raised when and where he claims, nor can I find any independent confirmations of his alleged wandering around southeast asia and the middle east. I don't believe he was born "Peter Lamborn Wilson".
There was a school teacher who lived in New Jersey in the early 1970s, who had an intense interest in libertarian anarchist philosophy, and was involved in a large scale child pornography & prostitution conspiracy. When this person vanished, in 1975, he was a wanted fugitive accused of participating in the abuse of a 10 year old boy. There are startling parallels between this person and PLW-Hakim Bey, including very unique personal interests (far more unique than simply being "pro-pedophile").
NARF wrote: Ever heard of
Maybe, unless they had some sort of value that could be wholly separated from his promotion of pederasty. As best I can tell, Bey's don't.
(Incidentally, I'm not sure what you mean by "ban", unless it's a rather confusing way of saying "reject" or "want nothing to do with". It's not like gangs of anarchists are going off burning copies of The Daily Nonce or summat...)
@jonthom - In one of the many
In one of the many threads, here, devoted to PLW-Hakim Bey, there was some talk of asking anarchist booksellers not to stock PLW-Bey' writings and - should they decline to co-operate - removing the books by theft or force anyway. [I would be opposed to that, simply because it would be censorship of the written word].
If you've never heard of Mackay, you might be interested in a little research on the "Free Love" movement, circa 1850-1945, especially the late 1800s & early 1900s. Here's an interesting introduction:
Most Free Love advocates of that time were concerned to "get the state out of our bedrooms", in the context of consenting heterosexual relations between adults, decriminalization of birth control & abortion especially - but the movement included advocates for decriminalizing adult gay & lesbian relations, heterosexual relations between adults and adolescents, and pederasts such as Mackay advocating decriminalized relations between men and boys. [Pederasts are not the same phenomenon as Gay Men, a fact that was recognized even back in the 1800s!]
There should be no doubt, that a longing for 'sexual liberation' contributed substantially to popular support for the various radical movements of the 1800s & 1900s in Western European nations & North America (such as there was).
As for PLW-Hakim Bey...
I DON'T WANT my suspicions about him, [far more than suspicions, unfortunately], to be correct. That would be a propaganda disaster for several communities of persons that I like & have respect for. One reason why I have not been more direct, why I don't just name the person I believe PLW once was, is that I keep hoping someone will dig up verifiable data proving to me that I'm full of sh*t on this matter. I'd LOVE that to happen.
However, as that continues to NOT happen, I feel a responsibility to at least leave a trail in some public forum through which others could reconstruct my own research, so that I won't take this info to my grave if I were to kick the bucket in the near future. [I'm in the latter stage of my life]
Thank you NARF for posting
Thank you NARF for posting your very valuable opinion on this matter.
NARF wrote: Quote: "Using the
I know nothing about Bey and have never had the slightest interest in reading him but I have read Mackays book, and it is in no way an apology for pederasty. As far as I remember, it shows the misery of being very poor in the Weimar Republic and the element of teenage gay sex was part of this misery and part of the need to get money to survive. If this is an example of this sites obsessive and almost prurient, slightly perverse, concentration on paedophilia and the need to attack it in the most inappropriate situations, then I begin to suspect you might have it wrong about Bey as well. Obviously if you have been the victim of paedophilia I can understand such an obsession, but I suspect that most of you have not and are simply disgusted by any attempt to discuss underage teenage gay sex except from a rather classical disapproving Victorian mentality.
How does dealing with the
How does dealing with the pedageddon operate in a libcom society? Are pitchforks allowed or does that belong to an outmoded form of production?
Mackay's anarchism was mainly
Mackay's anarchism was mainly based on Stirner and Tucker ... in Germany during the 1970ies, a number of radical papers ran a solidarity campaign with a pedophile writer (I forgot the name), pointing, that this was political repression by the bourgeois state :-( ... among them e.g. the operaist Autonomie and Befreiung (which became in 1977 in a way today's Direkte Aktion)
addition 20/08/2013: the name of the writer was Peter Schult (1928-1984), he was convicted of false imprisonment for three years in 1971 and for eight cases of sex with children/juveniles in 1982 for 34 months, he already had some convictions for similar reasons during the 1960ies
GerryK wrote: I know nothing
Not much point in you speculating about others' objections about him, then.
xslavearcx wrote: How does
If one examines the transition of living pedo to dead pedo, i believe burning at the stake is another relevant socially necessary process.
GerryK wrote: I know nothing
Gerry - I would agree with this assessment of "The Hustler", by & large. It does contain some of the myopic rationalizations characteristically employed by "boy-lovers", such as - that their primary motivation is to mentor & assist gay youth, (when in fact their primary motive is to sexually exploit kids in trouble) - nevertheless it is an important piece of historical fiction.
Have you read any of the Sagitta 'tracts' - as opposed to Mackay's novels? I think you'd find them very frank apologia for pederasty...
Harrison wrote: If one
Another example of why I have not made my considerable research into this matter entirely public. Vigilantes are scum, no better than police in my opinion. I'm not going to facilitate some self-professed judge-jury-executioner by providing facts through which they could justify murdering this man.
You'll have to figure it out for yourselves, I guess.
Confirmation from Columbia
Confirmation from Columbia University - there never was a Peter Lamborn Wilson enrolled at that institution. (He was enrolled at a different institution, under another name, at that time)
Christ, this article really
Christ, this article really doesn't say "child rape" enough. Hakim Bey is a sick guy, and this article writer seems to use way too many euphemisms here. It's still a good article laughing at lifestylists, and that's just great.
I will admit that Hakim Bey
I will admit that Hakim Bey does have style in his writing, but his pedophilia and his defenses of it are indefensible
I'm disappointed (though not
I'm disappointed (though not surprised) at the level uncritical engagement.
I realize it might come from a well-meaning place, but you're doing no one a favor if you're just rehashing talking points, especially when they come out as very homophobic, which I'm seeing a lot of.
Let me say this: yeah, it's hella problematic for adults to engage with sexual activity with children, BUT not because of nature or some bullshit, but because of society's treatment of sex. If one does engage in sexual activity with children, you put the child at risk for trauma. So yeah, I don't condone sex-acts with kids.
BUT, that doesn't excuse persecution of people for fluid desires. Some people have have consensual force fantasies, which people call rape fantasies. Can it be problematic, yeah, but it doesn't mean crucify anyone who does.
Children have sexuality, but in this culture you can't even talk or thing about it. I agree that children should explore and express that sexuality. I think it's too risky for adults to get involved, but I think sometimes in history, past or present, when yeah, there's adult-child sensuality and no one gives a big fuck. It happens. Children don't explode because sexual energy is too much for them to handle. Sex is like a drug. It has the possibility of being an intense, scaring experience if one doesn't have the right framework/grounding and even as adults this isn't always the case, even when we do consent.
I don't give 5 year olds psychedelic mushrooms; i wouldn't even take them hunting (having them kill food); i wouldn't want them to do a lot of things. the risk is just high, especially given cultural taboos.
So I'm not defending sex-with-kids, but i'm saying these gross stereotypes and puritan values popping up are preventing a more honest approach.
We live in times of international sex trafficking of kids as well as people being given federal crimes and lifetimes of policed harassment because they had sex with someone a year or two too early (when they're in very close age groups). The two are part of one global culture of fucked up attitudes regarding sex and we can't approach that with views we've inherited from the culture that created this mess.
ghostrail Quote: but I think
Will you please, kindly, just fuck off and die.
Signed by me, a childhood sexual abuse survivor.
This thread is one hell of a
This thread is one hell of a honey trap for paedos...
I'm very sorry to hear that, Fleur :(
this revolting nonce-apologist is now banned.
ghostrail wrote: Let me say
Its not about the risk of trauma, it's about exploiting minors for your own sexual gratification and ends. No one is going to be subjected to this shit and grow-up reflecting on it well, and that has nothing to do with society. The power relation between adult and minor is exactly why its abusive and should be anathema to communists.
Has someone who has had loved ones subjected to this vile behaviour, I would echo fleurs sentiments.
I think it was the late
I think it was the late German marxist sexologist Günter Amendt (who sadly was killed in an accident a few years ago) who wrote on the topic that it is true, that some children develop sexually relatively early. But he added that this authentic children's sexuality only very rarely involves adults and it never involves those adults who are "interested" in children
So disturbing. I did a
I did a search for HB after reading T.A.Z.--among other things, because of the repeated references to "boy love,' and my eye jumped to this article. I have nothing to add beyond that, but one point, relevant to "Leaving out the Ugly Parts."
Reference was made to the murder of priests by Spanish anarchists--coming after many paragraphs documenting Bey's pedophilia, I anticipated some connection--beyond this being another example of ugly parts anarchists don't want to talk about. I was asking myself... given the recent exposure of pedophilia and priests--how much of this might have been revenge? Was at least some of the violence driven by memories of traumatic abuse as children? Is there another story buried beneath this buried story? Has pedophilia ever been cited as justification for what otherwise appears as a level of violence that defies all reason?
The suggestion of an association is inescapable. Whether there is any historical evidence is another matter.
Could the writer of this
Could the writer of this article or someone please tell me where Emory Wilson (Hakim Bey's father) got all the money to leave him a trust fund for life? I know he was the general editor at Harvard Press and published many books. I'm wondering if he also inherited money from Bey's grandfather, and how the money was made. Would he have made enough money for Bey's unemployment and world travel with his editor's position? I am looking for deprogramming information for my son who was radicalized by his reading starting at 13 years when he was diagnosed as schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder and is now an unemployed druggy. Thank you. This article about his pedophilia will also help. I could find no bio on Emory Wilson anywhere. [email protected]
dharmma123 As vile as Hakim
As vile as Hakim Bey and his nonce loving acolytes are, I can guarantee you that your son's schizophrenia and substance abuse problem was not caused by reading his shitty writing. As for anti-social personality disorder (also known as sociopathy) there is some contention if it exists as a stand alone mental illness, as it generally presents in teenage people who have been brought up in a troubled and or abusive family. In addition, somebody's employment status is no indicator of a person's worth.
Good luck with getting a bunch of anarchists to help you with "deprogramming" your son. I assume by "deprogramming" you mean the physically coercive, often violent, psychological torture, in which you detain your son against his will and harangue and abuse him until he recants his opinions? If your son does have mental illnesses, what the fuck do you think you're playing at? "Deprogramming" is a pile of bunk to start off with, it rarely works except to imbue the person organizing it with a sense of power that they are proactively doing something.
Get your kid some actual psychiatric help. He may not be receptive to it though. Stand by with substance abuse and recovery program information for if and when he's ready to quit.
"Get your kid some actual
"Get your kid some actual help"....reflects a total ignorance about how hard this is to do. I have been trying for over 25 years to get some actual help. Actual help is not a panacea, a guaranteed cure. Rx consists of more prescribed second generation benzos. Psychiatrists are necessary evils to me. Much current research indicates that an abusive environment does not cause schizophrenia, but that schizophrenic children are more likely to be abused. Chicken or egg? Second, Watson of DNA fame is studying schizophrenia intensely as he has an adult child with it. He leans toward having an old father's moldy dna, which my son did. If you go on Youtube you can also hear Watson lecture on marijuana causing schizophrenia and his research about that. My son started smoking when he was 13.. My son's diagnosis is drug induced psychosis, but he was diagnosed tentatively with schizophrenia when he was 13.There is also research on alcoholic fathers, which he had, affecting DNA. Also the mother having a virus during pregnancy, which I did. Also brain damage, which he may have had when he crashed his bike and hit his chin on the pavement. HOWEVER, I am not concerned with causes at the moment except to address your smug know it allness. Just gently inserting the information that to live Hakim Bey's philosophy requires a trust fund, and his trust fund came from his father who was an editor of Harvard U press, is hardly abusive. And I'd like to find out if generational money was made in an exploitive way contradicting all Hakim Bey's "compassion" concerning slavery. I do NOT think Hakim Bey caused his schizophrenia, but provided a rationale. He seems to be ready to quit (for the 5th time) and I have done nothing but research various new rehabs and detox programs the last three weeks. Sorry "deprogramming" was such a trigger for you. You seem programmed by the word deprogrammed. I don't see how pointing out Hakim Bey was a moocher is such a dastardly act. My son has gone three weeks not using. He is seeing all kinds of decisions he made that did not serve him in his best interests. Perhaps one day you will have a schizophrenic child and not be so quick to judge. Perhaps you one day too, will have an antisocial disordered child, and you can pay for his lawyers, and his detox ($10k a week) and his college because he doesn't believe in working, and his graduate school because he doesn't believe in working, and his bails, and expunging arrests from his records and for you, all the while singing the praises FOR antisocial behavior. And watching him slowly kill himself. And I am not asking a bunch of anarchists for help deprogramming my son. I just want one question answered HOW DID AKIM BEY'S OLD MAN GET HIS FORTUNE, AND HOW DID THE OLD MAN'S FATHER GET HIS FORTUNE? Excuse my shouting. I see I could have asked that without sharing personal information and not been a target for Mr. Cool Armchair Psychiatrists.
Aren't you the charmer,
Aren't you the charmer, wishing mental illness on someone else. Fwiw though, I do have an adult child with a psychotic mental illness, as well as a couple of other co-morbid mental health issues, as well as recently been registered as physically disabled on account of her physical illnesses. I am aware of the genetic causes of mental illnesses, between my partner and I schizophenia, bi-polar disorder, ASD, and ADHD doesn't run in our families, it gallops, so spare me the lectures on genetics. I am more than aware of the struggles involved in getting medical help. What I do know though is that having her kidnapped, contained and shouted at by some bullying snake oils salesman will not cure or help her in any way. It would just be a cruel thing to do.
Also spare me the referencing to James Watson. The man had one good idea, largely off the back of the research he stole from Rosalind Franklin, and lives on the grace of that, hanging about at Cold Spring Harbour working on such theories that African people are less intelligent than white people, that libido is linked to skin colour, that you should genetically engineer people, stupidity is a disease, girls should be engineered to be prettier and that it would be a valid choice to be able to abort a gay child. As for his cannabinoids and schizophrenia theories, they've been debunked like the rest of his stupid ideas.
The man's an idiot, living off his stolen glory.
By the way, it's Ms Armchair Psychiatrist to you.
I know all about Watson
I know all about Watson stealing from Rosalind so you spare me. No one looks down on Watson for his racism and duplicity more than I. When I just asked for info a man's bank account origins where did you get the idea I am going to have him "kidnapped, contained and shouted at by some bullying snake oils salesman...[which} would just be a cruel thing to do" as a "cure." Jesus H. you really embellish don't you. You should be a novelist. I merely want to mention to my son that Hakim Bey's money was not earned and probably mostly from ancestors who worked and exploited others if indeed that is true. And when you have spent every cent you have made for the last 25 years trying to help your adult child, then get back to me. Congratulations on her getting disability. I am 68 and can't retire because he needs the money for intermittent hospitalization. So let's hear it for there' s no antisocial behavior. And if he does get off drugs, that does nothing for his psychosis so keep your pie in the sky. Butt out.
From the article that you
From the article that you cited: "“The results of the current study suggest that having an increased familial morbid risk for schizophrenia may be the underlying basis for schizophrenia in cannabis users and not cannabis use by itself,” note the researchers." If schizophrenia is in the genes, it can be triggered by cannabis.
There are several theories
There are several theories that attempt to explain the relationship between cannabis use and mental illness...:
The vulnerability theory: stating that cannabis use leads to the development of psychosis in people who have a family history of psychotic episodes.
The contributing cause theory: stating that cannabis use is one of many factors which leads to the development of psychosis.
The self-medication theory: stating that individuals who have psychotic experiences, use cannabis to self-medicate in advance of being formally diagnosed with a psychotic disorder.
Overall, the body of scientific literature has not been able to provide a definitive answer as to whether cannabis use causes psychosis. Compelling arguments and data have been provided to suggest that those with a predisposition for mental illness can exacerbate those symptoms by using cannabis, however some fundamental questions remain. Namely, if there is a direct link between cannabis use and psychosis, it should follow that the number of diagnoses of psychosis should rise with the increasing prevalence of cannabis use in society. This phenomenon has not been established."
Don't come at me with one little study, you unemployed troll.
What the fuck do you mean by
What the fuck do you mean by deprogramming then? It's generally regarded as being that dumbass practice that was popular in the 1970s when "concerned parents" tried to remove their adult kids from cults, tried to deradicalize them from left wing organizations, tried to turn gay kids straight. Didn't work then, it didn't work now. I can't see how finding out about Bey's grandad's money will do to alleviate your son's condition. If the man really is an anarchist then he will know that all wealth is created by exploiting other people. Jesus, it really doesn't matter what somebody's granddaddy did, Kropotkin was a prince ffs.
fwiw though, given that you clearly correlate earning money and having a job to be a marker of a person's worth, I'm not unemployed. I work in publishing, have a house and medical insurance and all those other things that stupid and shallow people in this really crappy society value above other things. It doesn't make me better than anyone else, especially someone else who is unable to work because of illness. And goddamn it, I wish I didn't have to work because I can think of a million and one other better things to be doing with my time rather than generating profit for someone else. I don't believe in working either, it's a meaningless waste of my life.
Incidentally, I don't have a red cent left over at the end of the month either, on account of supporting my children. It's what parents do.
You seem to have a thing
You seem to have a thing about unemployment being a personal failing dharmma. It isn't, and you should probably rethink that judgmental streak of yours.
Fleur's posts are ace
Fleur's posts are ace
Yeah nice one Fleur. Dh,
Yeah nice one Fleur.
Dh, perhaps there were some misunderstanding around your use of the word "deprogramming", but that doesn't excuse your rudeness, or attempt to abuse someone on the basis of them being unemployed: which is a completely unacceptable insult, as in a capitalist economy there will always be a certain percentage of people unemployed, the same as there will be a certain proportion of people below a certain height.
Also I note this discussion is very much being derailed from the OP, which is about Hakim Bey, so let's please not have any further off topic comments.
evidence please. I keep
evidence please. I keep researching this around the internet, and it's all conjecture based upon some alleged poetry he submitted to NAMBLA. I've yet to see that, nor do I care to. but it seems people see the word "pedo" and go into a fierce attack mode without sussing the facts, details and context. don't get me wrong, I'm no apologist! lock them up and get them treatment a.s.a.p.! but, come on, show me some proof that PLW did anything other than write sufi-like poetry!
Wtf are you talking about?
Wtf are you talking about? The NAMBLA poem is listed and referenced in the article, there's nothing "alleged" about it. If you're not prepared to actually read the evidence presented to you then it's no wonder you think it's conjecture!
I think the poster in
I think the poster in question is suggesting that the NAMBLA article doesn't constitute evidence of pedophilia - which is obviously a batshit position to hold, don't get me wrong.
Just like Warren - "a happily married straight guy", lest there should be any doubt - said on that other thread, if you don't like Bey's poetry, that's on you.
The fact it's about watching a young boy take a bath through through a fucking keyhole while his parents are out of the room, that's just like the Sufi way, man. How could you possibly suggest that's evidence of pedophilia. WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE!?!
It's a bit weird, imo, people
It's a bit weird, imo, people setting up accounts here with the sole intention of defending Hakim Bey. Probably not as weird though as actually liking his shitty poetry or thing that his crappy TAZ ideas are anarchist theory.
Damn, you anarchists have as
Damn, you anarchists have as many problems as us Marxists-- Hakim Bey, Michael Schmidt, Chomsky's "indifference" to the MIT-CIA-Pentagon-Research nexus......
Apparently Peter Lamborn…
Apparently Peter Lamborn Wilson aka Hakim Bey died on 22 May 2022.
Bumping this because people who pay tribute to him should read it.
Yep, here to read this after…
Yep, here to read this after his recent demise.
A lot of homophobia here.
And a lot of refusal to even discuss this on any level deeper than the surface. Why do anarchists like to stay in their safe bubble?
I'm here to find out if Bey was active in his violation of children or merely writing lame hash-fueled poetry about it? He seemed to be sort of a recluse and luddite, keeping a safe distance from everyone. Was this his way of controlling his impulses? Or WAS he using this to break down some taboos (as someone above tried to mention before being banned!)?
If you don't even like Bey's writing, maybe keep your onions to yourself too? I personally LIKE what I have read and found inspiration over the years in it. This pedo thing IS challenging that, however, and I'm really wrestling with it now. I also love William Burroughs' work, but he killed his wife and mentioned 'boys' in his writings too. Do I just toss it all in the bin and forget it ALL? Or do I somehow factor it all in while continuing to grok the deeper stuff that I originally was drawn to?
Again, I dunno!
Burroughs, Gysin and…
Burroughs, Gysin and Ginsberg went to Tangiers to fuck boys, which is slightly more "challenging" than writing about it.
We may never know whether or not PLW raped children. What we do know is that he was a political advocate of normalising that activity.
Whether or not people can continue to enjoy the artistic work of any of these people is up to them.