Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
9. georges simenon, "maigret's first case"8. georges simenon, "maigret defends himself"
9. georges simenon, "maigret's first case"8. georges simenon, "maigret defends himself"
10. georges simenon, "maigret and the ghost"9. georges simenon, "maigret's first case"
Ok, i'll try and keep it up:Go on.
what did you think of this?9 - Occult Features of Anarchism: With Attention to the Conspiracy of Kings and the Conspiracy of the Peoples - Erica Lagalisse
I thought it was embarrassing drivel - an academic version of that crap attack on Active distro for their anti-religion banner. The author misused a number of concepts, understands anarchism to be either the liberal tradition or a heap of stuff that has very little to do anarchism (i.e simonian state technocracy), argued dangerous political positions regarding anti-semitism, showed woeful lack of knowledge as regards previous work on conspiracy, a woefully out of date (non)reading of marx and marxism, no idea of the right wing roots of the idea of modern anarchism/marxism as secular religions, talked loads about subjects and people it was clear she has only the slightest familiarity with (the footnotes often make this very clear) and was basically just an utter mess that. No wonder the phd-anarchists have been fighting each other to praise it.what did you think of this?
cheers - i won't bother thenI thought it was embarrassing drivel - an academic version of that crap attack on Active distro for their anti-religion banner. The author misused a number of concepts, understands anarchism to be either the liberal tradition or a heap of stuff that has very little to do anarchism (i.e simonian state technocracy), argued dangerous political positions regarding anti-semitism, showed woeful lack of knowledge as regards previous work on conspiracy, a woefully out of date (non)reading of marx and marxism, no idea of the right wing roots of the idea of modern anarchism/marxism as secular religions, talked loads about subjects and people it was clear she has only the slightest familiarity with (the footnotes often make this very clear) and was basically just an utter mess that. No wonder the phd-anarchists have been fighting each other to praise it.
If you've not read it, the conspiracy/occult stuff simply amounts to her very briefly outlining the trad timeline of hermetic thought etc then pointing out that a load of people not really connected to anarchism were sympathetic to it, which means that modern day anarchism is a form of religious thinking and to criticise religious or conspiracist ways of thinking is racist etc
Could only have come from an academic.
Started into the year with 'The In-between World of Vikram Lall' by MG Vassanji. Not got properly into it yet so will go back to it later, at some point (always do, just sometimes defer).
Have leap-frogged to 'A Fraction of the Whole' by Steve Toltz.
1/30 Charles Spencer - Killers Of The King: The Men Who Dared To Execute Charles I
2/30 Michel Foucault - Remarks On Marx
I read 3/4 of this (and it ain't short) last year then bailed - each chapter was the same thing over and over. Only read it for the reasons you suggested.3/30 Robert Forbes and Eddie Stampton - The White Nationalist Skinhead Movement UK & USA 1979-1993
Terrible bands described in tedious detail. Being a racist skinhead doesn't sound much fun. Worth a skim of a pirate PDF for the partisan descriptions of Hyde Park, Waterloo etc. Some unintentionally hilarious lyrics.
I read 3/4 of this (and it ain't short) last year then bailed - each chapter was the same thing over and over. Only read it for the reasons you suggested.
Spot on!