in response to /u/Tequila_Wolf and your linked comments:

(16:50 of the Brilliant episode and again at 1:08:00) to be fair, Aragorn first accused B of being a "paragon of reason" in response to B stating their belief in truth and investment in seeking it, to which B stood by his position of not being vegan. if there is a superiority complex there, so too must be with most folks Ive come across who express similar goals. Ive found it more rare to find folks denying truth altogether, or having no interest in getting closer to it. perhaps its the way B talks about it which irks you, but that seems a different grievance: form over substance. B again jokes about it toward the end, poking at A, which gives me no reason to take them seriously.

(57:30 - 1:00:00) B seems to be using queer here in the context of it being talked about in many anarchist circles as the default good thing to be in a "new world society", so to speak. you seem to both be calling for "radical decentralization," and B seems to be questioning whether that is the actual goal of a large part of self identifying anarchists, or is it being used in speech only. is a particular lifeway (expressed as having the good set of values) the actual goal to be enforced onto others who do not share it?

maybe I missed it in this podcast, but I didnt hear anywhere else queerness was mentioned, and nowhere (having listed to many FRR and Brilliant podcasts) have I heard or read B disparage or misunderstand queerness, usually its been the opposite. nor did I find where they say "biological sex exists" which you infer as "binary biological sex is real." B from another comment thread:

(https://anarchistnews.org/content/my-critics-my-own-peculiar-albatross) "I'm also not a determinist, whether biological or economic. I do think we can meaningfully speak of human nature, yes, but that nature is not completely fixed."

more from that same thread also addressing the pan-sec: "I know very little about national-anarchism except for what Aragorn! discussed on /The Brilliant/ and that it is a very stupid name. The guy Aragorn! interviewed did not seem heinous to me. I have not read their magazine, but I will also need to research, discuss, debate/interview these people since I seem to have bumped up against the decentralism issue hard and am being asked about them. I personally do not see race as a basis for relationships and do not live my life that way, but it is pretty obvious to me that most people do, whether they say so openly or not. When I was first becoming radicalized, I thought that concerns about race would eventually fall by the wayside for humanity - now, I think that is probably not the case. I think people should come together because of similar values, goals, and projects, but it is clear that many people consider race to be among those, and I have no interest in policing everyone's behavior and telling them they should only come together for reasons that I think are good. I do not think it would be practical or ethical to do so. When I was in and among the Bay Area LGBTQ subculture, for instance, I met a lot of people who wanted to form entirely LGBTQ communities and not associate with any straight people at all, which I thought was extremely weird and self-limiting, but, if they want to do that, that's fine with me."

(1:15:00) B clarifies his point here and gets criticism from A about missing a post-situationist analysis of the spectacularization of their zeitgeist analysis, which I think is interesting.

I can understand one's criticism of the practicality/utility of B's pan-sec/bolo thought experiment from either: a) it would never manifest in any real way, or b) if it were to manifest, supremacists (either race or religious, etc.) at the root are invested in expansion of their supremacy and will not leave others alone. however, in either of these critiques (valid or not) I see none of the supremacist apologia, or sexual and/or biological determinism that B is being accused of.

Im not sure the linkage of perennial philosophy to supremacist or determinist positions, but I also know very little of it. Im interested if you have more to say about it.

They're just going to call you delusional, or perhaps something not so direct.

I listened to it when it came out and didn't hear anything like that. Is this like the time you heard him say 'queer people are hurting the anarchist movement', but no one else heard him say that, and then you couldn't find the episode again?