April 17, 2009
So the Pirate Bay lost their Court case, which is a shame. What really made me nearly choke on my breakfast though was this quote from one of the music industry mouthpieces:
“There has been a perception that piracy is OK and that the music industry should just have to accept it. This verdict will change that.”
This quote couldn’t illustrate more how clueless they are, and why they are ulrimately doomed to failure. As a friend of mine put it, widespread cultural attitudes are not going to change because of laws, so no matter how many people they prosecute and put in jail, people are not going to just turn around and uninstall their torrent clients. Instead, they’re going to get more pissed off, fight back more aggressively, and in the end they’ll win.
On a tangent, however, while reading up on the Pirate Bay stuff, this also came to my attention — that the fourth defendent in the case is actually a well-known suspected neo-nazi. This doesn’t seem to have been widely reported, but it looks like the Pirate Bay crew took in serious donations from Carl Lundstrom, who is heavily involved in extreme-right politics.
Some of the news regarding the links between Lundstrom and the Pirate Bay crew seems exaggerated (claims that he was a stakeholder, for example), and the Pirate Bay trio also claim that Lundstrom was included in the lawsuit because he has a bad reputation and so it helps to make them look bad. When it comes down to it, however, there are no excuses for making such alliances, even if the Pirate Bay was only taking donated money and equipment. If anything, that potentially puts them in a position where they hold obligations to an extreme right figure.
While the Pirate Bay’s fight should be supported, their actual politics have often come across as shallow and sometimes opportunistic in the past, which is unfortunate. Likewise, working with the extreme right in any capacity is something that can only be condemned.
Image credit: Atom X
April 5, 2009
We used to have a link category on the right labeled “Oppositional Views,” which listed links for sites that we considered in direct opposition to anarcho-transhumanist views. These ranged from primitivists and bioconservatives to fascist “transhumanists” and counter-insurgency specialists. We linked to these sites for several reasons: to identify who our opposition was, to allow people to research both positions and decide for themselves, and to bookmark for our own references.
The problem with links, however, is that they boost the other side’s page rank in search engines. And while we don’t mind pitting our positions against our rivals, we also don’t really want to help them wage their own propaganda war. So as of today I cut the links. Instead, I’m making this post to note who they are (and by mentioning them here, hopefully draw some searchers to this site rather than theirs). If you really want to look them up, it’s not too hard to google them.
The sites we had noted before were:
The Discovery Institute — This religious foundation is a major force behind intelligent design/creationism and similar anti-science campaigns. They are also a leading bioconservative forced opposed to transhumanist ideas and policies.
Global Guerrillas — The blog of former green beret and counter-insurgency expert John Robb. His ideas make for interesting reading and study.
Green Anarchy — The leading publication of anti-tech green anarchists and primitivists.
John Zerzan — The major thinker behind the primitivist ideology.
Transtopia — Fascist “transhumanists.” They do a good job of hiding their racialist and fascist politics behind the veneer of transhumanist ideas and tech fetishism, but when you delve deep their true colors become apparent.
The other issue we had with singling out these sites was that we were only listing polar opposites. It could be argued that there are many others that we should list as oppositional views, even though they are part of the transhumanist camp, whether those be free-market fetishizing extropians, pro-state technoprogressives, or authoritarian communists. The ideological battles we are fighting are not two-dimensional — we should be engaging and debating other anarchists and transhumanists as much as we should countering bioconservatives and fascists.