Add new comment

This is more like a summary of topical things and connected lines of thought.
It's not saying much, just ramble that meanders. I feel like I have to say a lot about this, but not really.
I'm angered by its lack of substance, yet it features long paragraphs.
It timidly approaches anarchy and illegality, just merely mentioning it and alluding to things close to it, so as to seem in the know, and not oblivious. Yet this topic was not researched at all and hints no previous knowledge of these subjects.
Paragraph number 7 is the only explicit mention of anarchists in relation to illegalism, which almost seems like the begrudgingly visited wikipedia out of some nagging compulsion to due diligence. What if they had read more about the topic on The Anarchist Library ( They'd rather invent an illegalism out of uninspired poetic getures used for filler and framing, out of liberal prejudices and pop cultural references, out of the latest news headlines, than to discover what it's been all along, or what it can be now if you live it. They propose as a "ha! betcha didn't think of that?" as a "provocative idea" that pushes the boundaries of acceptable and polite discourse, what has long been the daily life of many.

But no, it's not a thoughtful exploration, just topical "content" that tries to hit on trending keywords, drawing on anarchists, illegalists, and witches with the same level of superficiality, just for the aesthetics, the exotic appeal of something scary, dangerous, edgy. The images have nothing to do with the text and are use in the same way as the many other words it uses, and topics it covers.

It points to many things, the personal faults of the author, but also to the limits of the liberal worldview and how it falls into incoherence overwhelmed in facing current scenarios. Grasping at straws to provide a narrative and a political project that does not accept or recognize the premises of the alternatives, but being forced to acknowledge them even if in name only so as not to seem out of touch, attempts to incorporate them into their rhetoric seeming more bizarre.

Characterized by their own admission: " I suffer from the same lack of political imagination that I think many of my peers are experiencing, and for that matter most people across the political landscape, shrouded as it is in smoke and tear gas. The movements currently arising to try to give political direction to people who are adrift are messianic movements without messiahs, and they bear an eerie psychological resemblance to the witch crazes of 17th century Europe" and then later as " It has become almost inconceivable to imagine a meaningful form of political action, and so we twine with the stars, suplexing into impossible positions, desperate to find some spell that can be cast from the real world into the void of power, that will have an actual effect on the forces that structure our lives. Politics has devolved almost completely into the realm of magic, but there is a pervasive illusion that this is not the case. Many believe that politics is still something that can be touched, that can be tagged or tasted, that the post office will carry their voice and their desperate need to a distant reader who actually has the material conditions of their lives in mind."

It evaluates anarchists by their liberal criteria of "how to get big". They critique mutual aid for not "redistributing the hoardings of Capital". They mention illegality, but not looting and the possibility of that playing a part in some vision of mutual aid. This is not groundbreaking thinking, if they'd had shuffled their children's tales imaginary a bit, they'd have found Robin Hood alongside tales of witches. If pressed it could only conceive of "socialized illegalism" as taxing plus a welfare program, of abolition as an amendment to laws and constitutions, not as burning their enforcers at the stake (in keeping with their imagery).