Not to pick on Cantwell, but I just got done listening to some of his post-cuckery philosophy about the 'necessity' of the state as a result of no one wishing to actually dismantle it. The whole idea that because no one would join him and actively engage in his methods of ending the state, then it is impossible and we should find ways to live with it and make it more suitable for ourselves.
And I got to thinking about that. It's idiotic and evident of a complete lack of actual commitment to a philosophy or ideal that he has spent so much time and, even to today, continues to pay lip service to, anarchy.
This won't be long, I promise, because I can sum up what this stupid thinking is pretty concisely:
An 'anarchist' advocating for one political candidate(a point on the political spectrum) over another is like an atheist advocating for one religion over another.
"Well, Trump seems to be less dangerous than Hillary and Johnson has no chance, so we should vote for Trump." -Cantwell(summed up)
"Well, Christianity seems to be less destructive than Islam and Judaism is too fringe, so we should follow Christianity."- a confused atheist
This is a ridiculous notion for someone who accepts that politics and government are dangerous and inherently evil and destructive. It is, furthermore, completely antithetical to anarchism and thus to an anarchist. Anarchism means no rulers. It is strictly APOLITICAL, meaning not of politics. It is a decisive separation from politics. Much as atheism is a decisive separation from theology.
Neither can both be separate from their antithetical counterparts and advocate for them.
Essentially, what Cantwell has done is throw a hissy fit because no one(himself included) has taken to arms against the state in a manner that he can acknowledge and finds suitable. As a result, he has chosen to prove that his whole purpose of creating a name for himself in talking about anarchy was simply to stir shit up and convince other people to do things in a way he wanted them done and that he is, honestly, nothing but a hipster who, seeing that people aren't 'anarching' right, that it is now too 'hip' to be an anarchist who abhors the state, he has now engaged in trying to create a new school of anarchism(not that new) that is reluctant statism.
Because no one did what he said to do, he now believes that we should engage in state processes to try and get the state to make people do what we want them to do. Are you getting it yet? He has essentially backslid into the statist mentality that he, for so long, railed against. More likely, he has simply become open about it now that he sees that anarchists aren't going to start burning politicians at the stake at his direction and so he is using the label of anarchist to pull away those minds that are still mushy enough from statist brainwashing and convince them that they can be anarchists and engage in forcing political whims on others through voting.
I agree about most of this, the only part I question is how much he was ever interested in the actual philosophy. I've never heard anything from Cantwell that wasn't completely racist, violent, misogynistic, and generally pretty hierarchical.
I don't agree with a lot of his personal biases and I don't like how he always put those into his writing and talks as if they are part and participle of anarchy rather than his personal prejudices in addition...
But yeah, his sudden cuckery begs the question of if he was ever an anarchist or simply a political hipster.
As I recently explained, being an 'anarchist' that votes or advocates the state is like being an atheist that goes to confession or advocates the church. If you think the state is, at best worthless, at worst destructive, then why would you engage in it or support it? Even if to 'destroy it from within' which, any person who thinks about it, would know never works, just as the FBI infiltrating gangs and the mafia never worked to dismantle them.
it's really a shame to see him ....flip-flop on his past principles which he claimed to assert/stand for lol
It begs the question of if they were really his principles to begin with.
Cuckwell never "backslid" into anything. He was always a statist. That was apparent years ago. He has always advocated the use of violence and coercion to impose his views on others. He simply didn't want it done through the existing government, but by himself and the idiots dumb enough to follow him.
All he has done is follow his previous mentality to its logical conclusion. Cantwell hasn't changed. He's grown into his final form.
I can appreciate this view and I can't say as I disagree.
"seeing that people aren't 'anarching' right,": Well verbed!