totw

I was discussing the Occupy Movement and Pro-Palestine Encampments with some folks and someone asked why these movements failed to become "mainstream" as opposed to spaces for primarily already radicalized and marginalized populations. Putting aside that I believe this perspective is too simple, as I saw non-radicalized folks in the spaces and why would we make a separation between "marginalized" and "mainstream"? What does "marginalized" mean?, I wanted to examine the base assumption that "more accessibility" is somehow better or makes our movements more effective.

In the realm of antifascist politic, which is in many ways, the dominant expression of USian anarchism, infiltration, doxing, and information sharing are the norm. But are these practices reproducing something antithetical to anarchist practice?

Does it ever feel like nothing ever happens? You may have ever heard the phrase before, which is a bit of a meme now. But the basic idea is that there are no global events that fundamentally change the world order. Current events occur, horrible (Palestine, Sudan, some shitty election) and great (Luigi Mangione, the recent string of arsons) things do happen, but the premise is that the power balance of the world, either between classes or states, fundamentally remains the same or reflects those of recent history.

Topic of the Week - I am writing a review of John H. Richardson’s 2025 Luigi: The Making and the Meaning. The back cover is a mural of him, out of London, depicting him in saintly fashion. Larger than life, solemn face, and a golden halo circling his head. The back cover also includes a quote from the book: “For a growing group of Americans who seem to be vibrating with existential anxieties, he became a screen onto which they projected their fears and dreams.” For anyone with interest in the fields of psychology , sociology, and history as applied to religion, this is nothing new