Alas, we killed Flash. It's undeniable that that technology enabled a Cambrian explosion of creativity.
I liked the idea you had Flash off by default and you enable it only for the page or section of page you liked, I am running now Vivaldi with Javascript off by default because we have a even more garbage experience now with JS, like on BBC news with JS off the links are broken (wtf the web developers can't even create a working link without JS)
There are many reasons your link may not work. Why do you assume incompetence?
The problem is not JS the language but how it is abused and similar to Flash you get people installing plugins or turning it off in settings and white-listing JS on necessary pages, in my case I will not read the article most of the time or use a private window.
I completely disagree with this, if I'm understanding you correctly. As someone who disables Javascript, I don't want you to purposely break a page that previously worked (in the sense of being able to read the content of the article) simply because a portion of it which I might not even use doesn't work.
The fully competent solution would be to use progressive enhancement[1] (i.e., use functioning anchor elements initially, and use Javascript to add the Javascript-only functionality on top of the HTML solution).
If you don't have time for that, the somewhat-competent solution for alerting non-technical users that Javascript is disabled would be to add a banner at the top of the page (like Stack Exchange does) stating that some features will be broken without Javascript.
Recent addition of our timeline editor means we think it ticks all the boxes as a replacement.
There's also a handful of forums, gamedev.net tigsource and others.
StackOverflow is a common place to search for answers, if you can find questions asked about "what can I use instead of flash" without coming across as an advertisement.
Then Adobe bought it and duct-taped it to the Creative Suite and switched to a subscription-based business model.