With the "dangerous ideas" the image at the top, and all this pushing "huge news" I don't have much trust for this website. It reeks of conspiracy and internet clickbait. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/20/colin-barnett-links-closure-of-remote-aboriginal-communities-to-child-abuse This is far better, and linked in the post this thread links to.
It's clearly an anarchist site, not a conspiracy site, with every article there either being about world politics or anarchist theory, and the article links exclusively to mainstream media outlets as sources (The Guardian, NTV News, ABC News, Indymedia), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, unless it's the old "all non-capitalist world views must be crushed" rhetoric, in which case, I'm wasting my breath. As for the phrase 'dangerous ideas', that sounds very much like a baseless conspiracy theory to me. All anarchist viewpoints are considered dangerous by the establishment political order. Don't be a reactionary all your life. How annoying would it be if I, as an anarchist, posted on every capitalist, statist biased article (so, 99.9% of all articles) complaining of 'conspiracy' and 'clickbait'? It's a well written, well sourced article with a refreshing anti-establishment viewpoint and the Guardian article you suggested I link to is only part of a much bigger story. I guess you'd rather live in a world where only big conglomerate media outlets were able to write articles and indie journalism was banned?
So my skepticism was well deserved. The word statist always makes me laugh, just like when vegans use the term "specist". Damn statists, ruining the world with their logic and proof of having the better system. Not at all, if you actually had reason to say that the sites reeked of either conspiracy or clickbait. Unfortunately, I feel that when you say "99.9%" of all articles, it's a tell that you are picking and choosing based on if you agree with the points of an article, rather than if it actually fits the description. Yeah, if this is what "indie journalism" consists of.It's clearly an anarchist site,
How annoying would it be if I, as an anarchist, posted on every capitalist, statist biased article (so, 99.9% of all articles) complaining of 'conspiracy' and 'clickbait'?
I guess you'd rather live in a world where only big conglomerate media outlets were able to write articles and indie journalism was banned?