dennisfrancisblewett

dennisfrancisblewett wrote (edited )

I read a little of the article and stopped. I find "black anarchism" segregatory. It antithetical to anarchist philosophy. You don't need sects of anarchist thought: It is just the man generating a divide amongst fellow anarchists.

  • Dennis Francis Blewett
−6

dennisfrancisblewett wrote (edited )

Yes, for illegalism. They are ignorant if they think they have done something illegal. Even with deconstructionist thought, one could argue it isn't worthwhile to read an insurrectionary text. I have increasingly come to believe one of the most anarchic things you can do is do nothing.

−1

dennisfrancisblewett wrote (edited )

I recommend no texts. I just read through "illegalism," and it appears to be an ignorant philosophy.

First off, one cannot ever commit a crime. All crimes are ALLEGED. No person ever fulfills the elements of a crime. And if you think you have, then you've been brainwashed. Philosophies, such as deconstructionism, show that you linguistically can't even statutorily manage to commit a crime. Deconstructionism argues that you cannot make sense of the meaning of words. You thinking that you have made sense of words would be a faulty generalization and perhaps best written off as an epiphenomenon.

If you can't make sense of what words in a criminal statute mean, then nor should an accuser.

As an anarchist, I've taken to heart a saying by Abraham Lincoln that I will paraphrase, "It is never reasonable to break the law."

From years of reflection, that means to be prepared to deny that you have committed a crime in the situation some accuser wants to prosecute you.

Fact is, though, no one ever breaks the law. Proving innocence may be difficult in court, though, especially with prosecution making the false claim that somehow you've fulfilled elements that linguistically no one but an absolute authority should be able to make sense of.

  • Dennis Francis Blewett
−4