Add new comment

My problem with him is that he's what I would call a structural anti-imperialist. Much of his flaws can be pinned down to that core fact. Anti-Imperialist logic tends to turn into elective an pan unification strategy which can only put together strange bedfellows. It's too much of a voice based strategy. Anti-imperialism-from an anti-leviathan perspective-is a branching problem not a root problem.

Again it should be about a collective exit and escape from a dominant assimilating discursive order. There does not have to be a unified strategy on how to do this. Preston's approach also takes to many leviathan constructed IDs at face value. I can accept that there will be those who internalize an impersonal historical construct but I don't think an anarchist/anarch strategy should be enabling that. National Anarchism is an obvious absurd outgrowth from that strategy.

That's essentially my problem with Preston and his strange bedfellows approach. What I equally don't care for though is the universalist ideologues who have problem with him and make him out to be some fascist ideologue which he clearly isn't. It's people like William Gillis who will play a pawning role in a more assimilated world not a less one.