Occult Features of Anarchism

Book #6 for 2024. (Bit of a turnaround from Tarzan?) I’ve always been intrigued by the ways in which occult thought and politics have intertwined over the centuries, and this give a reasonably good if brief overview of how medieval millenarian and heretic movements developed through the Renaissance, eventually blossoming into Freemasonry, and the book looks at how Weishaupt’s Illuminati took that into a political and revolutionary direction and inspired umpteen other groups in the nineteenth century to follow the Masonic pattern and use Masonry to further themselves. Theosophy was apparently big among anarchists in the later 1800s. I was kind of amused to see the famous A in a circle logo actually first appeared as a compass and level in the shape of a letter A, and to see that such figure as Proudhon and Bakunin were actual Masons (the latter espousing a Spinoza-esque sort of pantheism).

This historical stuff is good although perhaps not ideal for people coming to the subject completely new, it probably helps to have some prior knowledge. Also, I’m not sure how it really all ties in with Lagalisse’s real subject, or at least the one I think she cares more about, i.e. that anarchism since the 20th century has basically tried to ignore its theological and occult underpinnings, and this is leading it down something of a dead end where they’re more interested in looking like they have what she calls “good politics” than, you know, doing actual good. Which leads to the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t be so automatically dismissive of conspiracy theorists:

…purveyors of “conspiracy theories” are often from subaltern groups, so the educated activists who generally state a nominal concern to “take lead” from “those most affected” by oppression should nominally allow for the possibility that the “conspiracy theorist” may actually be offering positioned insight. Beyond “tolerating” the theorist of conspiracy for the sake of reeducating him, activists’ own ideology suggests that they might listen for subversive social commentary amid unfamiliar exposition.

They might, but that doesn’t mean they’ll necessarily gain anything useful from it. Lagalisse writes about a Zapatista who put her onto the whole conspiracy thing in the first place, and how she managed to convince him THE JOOOOOOOOOOS aren’t really running the world, but I think she got lucky with that one; I’m not sure how much seriousness she thinks we should approach these people with before we realise the exercise isn’t as edifying for them or us as she seems to think it will be.

So a mixed result, I suppose, interesting but I also don’t know how much I agree with her own arguments or how well they mesh with the historical stuff. Still, short enough that I finished it in one night, so I’ll definitely give it points for not being any longer than it was…