Anarcoccultismo. Dissertazione sulle cospirazioni dei Re e sulle cospirazioni dei popoli

by Erica Lagalisse

Nel corso della storia, un filo rosso ha sempre legato i circoli occulti ai movimenti politici: dalla massoneria ai movimenti operai internazionali, dagli alchimisti ai culti esoterici, la storia del contropotere ha sempre mostrato le zone d’ombra invisibili allo sguardo del comune pragmatismo. Non a caso, il simbolismo riveste un ruolo centrale per definire la geografia e gli equilibri delle forze tra loro in competizione.

In Anarcoccultismo, Erica Lagalisse analizza come le teorie politiche, i simboli e la storia dell’anarchismo e del socialismo affondino le proprie radici anche nell’occultismo, passando attraverso la caccia alle streghe (detentrici di una scienza medica empirica), maghi rinascimentali e massoni rivoluzionari. Tenendosi alla larga da improbabili teorie del complotto e avvalendosi di una minuziosa bibliografia, Anarcoccultismo mostra come i sentieri oscuri dell’eresia di ogni epoca sono incrociati con la lotta alle disuguaglianze, all’oppressione patriarcale e alle coercizioni del potere.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Occult, Theory, Religion, Philosophy

240 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2018

Reviews

[Victoria Law · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was utterly frustrating.

I was intrigued by the premise and the introduction. But in the ensuing chapters, Lagalisse name drops philosophers with little to no (usually no) explanation as to what they believed or why they might be important.

In her ending chapter, Lagalisse critiques the anarchist movement, writing, "as any anarchist can see, fluency in a particular vocabulary, knowing the names of certain historical figures, and being vouched for by someone 'in the know' is all requorement for entry into the anarchist club."

Yet she is guilty of the first two problems throughout the entire book. She references Spinoza but makes little effort to ensure that the reader, who may be utterly unversed in philosophy, knows who she is talking about, what he espoused, or why he might be important.

In other chapter, I have no idea what she is talking about. For instance, what is Emmanuel Swedenborg's "internal millenium"? Apparently Owenite communes (whatever they might be) are based on these teachings, but she doesn't bother to explain what either are or their significance.

Yes, there is such a thing as Google and a smart phone, but if I have to look up every term, I may as well read a different book.

The little explanation she provides can be confusing--she asserts that Kropotkin's Mutual Aid was inspired by Japanese revolutionaries, but then states that it was Mechnikov, a Russian who spent time in revolutionary Japan but, as far as I can tell, is actually not Japanese himself.

[Ruxandra Grrr]

I will not rate this book for a couple of reasons. One of them is that I did not fully understand it. The other is that a bunch of chapters kinda swiftly go through centuries of philosophy and history with a bit of a summary. 22% of the book is the bibliography and index, and then there are also citations after every chapter. So I feel like I would definitely want to delve deeper into a lot of these books and ideas - but I probably won't get to 99% of them, and that's fine.

I did find it quite interesting. I don't remember exactly when / why I added and bought it, but probably either from reading a book by David Graeber (who encouraged Lagalisse to write this), or it was mentioned in one of the billions of leftist video essays I watch online, every year.

I loved how it engaged with the idea of spirituality, religion and belief, but also one of the prime values of anarchism - autonomy, which always seems to be hierarchically superior to interdependence. This was especially satisfying to read because of how I used to roll my eyes on XTwitter in the past at some atheist anarchist bros and how they rolled their eyes and got completely combative saying that spirituality of any kind is incompatible with anarchism. I vehemently disagree.

This book covers basically the occult origins of anarchism and how they intersected with gender and other identities (indigenous, Jewish, working class), starting with the Freemasons and Illuminati, which until now I had completely ignored and had no idea where they started, because of conspiracists. The final chapter actually covers conspiracists, which was super fun, but also intersectionality.

I found it really engaging to think (even more than usual) about how every school of thought builds on top of the previous one, and no matter how much deconstruction happens, there are always weird, skeletal remains. Like for instance, the communist star and the anarchist 'A' in a circle both have their origins in alchemy and Freemason symbols. Other skeletal remains found all the way down: sexism and racism and the audacity of white men. :P

Maybe I'll come back to this after I am a bit more well-read, but this was a super interesting reading experience, as much as I understood of it!

19/31 reads in 31 days in January.

[Bogi Takács]

Library impulse borrow (I notice that there is a theme along these lines in the new acquisitions - thank you, unknown stranger). A very quick and high-level overview of links between Western esotericism and anarchism, and also broader left-wing thought. It was an interesting read that also tangentially managed to say some important things about anti-Semitism, but I felt that it could have been expanded to thrice this length.
______
Source of the book: Lawrence Public Library

[Cassie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not good for a first book in the occult genre nor philosophical as she breezes through several references without explaining them deeply. But if you’ve done your other required reading this book is going to serve as an illuminating survey of what the title claims. I loved every word and sped through it in a couple days in Los Angeles- the perfect city to read anything occult. Her writing is easy to get through and her thoughts are well organized. Excellent academic book!

[Giovanni · Rating 2 out of 5]

Erica io sono con te nella volontà, ma hai buttato il sugo sulla pasta quando era già nel piatto, senza mantecare.

“Sono a un livello troppo embrionale della mia ricerca etnografica per dimostrare questa affermazione, ma l’esperienza empirica mi suggerisce che questa sia la strada giusta da seguire (cosa che viene confermata anche da quanto emerge dai social media e da YouTube) e, a naso, che questo fenomeno potrebbe essere parte di uno schema più ampio.”

Traduzione probabilmente infame, ma non sei tra amici su facebook, è un libro che vai a pubblicare.

[Diletta · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mi sarebbe piaciuto qualcosa di più, soprattutto nella seconda metà (avrei voluto più info, più esempi). Ma è comunque una bella lettura che, come quelle belle, ne fa esplodere altre duemila (forse proprio per chi io ne so già abbastanza mi sarebbero piaciuti più spunti in quella seconda parte).

[Cristiano Pala · Rating 3 out of 5]

Il vero voto sarebbe 3 stelle e mezza se solo GoodReads si decidesse a implementare i mezzi voti.
È possibile per movimenti secolarizzati come quelli anarchici e socialisti poter essere accoglienti e inclusivi nei confronti delle soggettività non occidentali che magari non condividono ne condividono il materialismo e l'ateismo? Secondo l'autrice di questo breve e agile saggio, è possibile a patto che gli attivisti politici riconoscano che movimenti di cui fanno parte, affondano le proprie radici in realtà che partecipavano a delle tipologie di spirituaità totalmente opposte a quelle odierne. Per dimostrarlo, Erica Lagalisse ricompone una genealogia che va dalle guaritrici medioevali, ai maghi rinascimentali fino ai rituali delle società segrete del XIX secolo. Ogni passaggio di questa linea evolutiva ha lasciato tracce nelle pratiche e nella simbologia usate dai moderni attivisti anarchici e socialisti,
Qui il simbolo della branca spagnola della prima internazionale, righello, compasso e pendolo a formare una A, vi ricorda qualcosa?
La seconda parte, altrettando interessante è composto da istruzioni molto pratiche su come effettivamente le comunità anarchiche e socialiste possono essere maggiormente inclusive e rispettose non solo delle soggettività non occidentali e indigene che ho precedentemente nominato, ma anche nei confronti di soggetti come i complottisti, anch'essi, nonostante una visione spesso aberrante della realtà, portaatori di un disagio che non può essere liquidata da chi si propone di cambiare lo stato delle cose esistenti.

[Salem ☥ · Rating 4 out of 5]

“[...]broadly put, the witch hunts were a gendered class war wherein elite males forcibly took over both the conceptual and practical realm of healing from peasant women; as the fifteenth-century Malleus Maleficarum explains, 'If a woman dare to cure without having studied she is a witch and must die.'”

This was an incredibly interesting read, though probably a bit above my level of understanding. When I'm older and a bit more well-read, I'll probably end up coming back to this essay to see how my level of knowledge has evolved.

[Laura · Rating 2 out of 5]

I struggle to review this book -- there are definitely some interesting ideas here, but also some issues of execution.

In the introduction, the author describes this book as a "short, accessible book about ... a large, inaccessible topic," yet the text is far from accessible. Authors and concepts are mentioned with little to no clarification of their meaning or relevance; as a reader with multiple graduate degrees in fields that overlap with the subject areas covered here, I am not sure how a reader with less familiarity with the subject matter could possibly find this the least bit approachable. This is particularly frustrating given that the topic is, indeed, large -- the historical chapters tracing interconnections between anarchist and occult developments could've been far longer (these, I thought, were the most interesting). These sections suffer from what are to me (as someone with a background in these areas) some strange omissions and broad generalizations.

I found Lagalisse's criticisms of the insistent atheism of some anarchists to be both well stated and important. The historical chapters that precede this argument demonstrate that, as Lagalisse argues, the insistence that spirituality and radical politics cannot meaningfully coexist fails to engage with anarchism's histories *and* perpetuates colonial thinking. In my experience contemporary anarchist organizing is more perspectivally and spiritually diverse than some of the statements here suggest, but I certainly know precisely the kinds of discourses Lagalisse is critiquing here and share the many of the concerns raised.

I found the concluding section on 'conspiracy theorizing' significantly less convincing, and indeed less clearly connected to the sections that precede it.

[kaitlyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

very difficult to get through if you’re not familiar with anarchist (or at least other deep leftist) philosophy. after forcing myself to get through the HEAVY name-drops & undefined social movements & theory in the book, i was able to find some really unique & substantive concepts that i can only imagine are more interesting with preexisting knowledges of anarchist thought. luckily, Lagalisse’s book comes with an insane amount of footnotes, which were extremely helpful in explaining some of the theories that i lacked nuances in & left me feeling like i had a LOT more reading to do. i am glad to have Lagalisse’s perspective on sexism in leftist spaces & think that this subject, in particular, was the author’s strong point (or at least one of the main points i enjoyed reading about). “And just as the state characterizes itself as benevolent to its citizens, the anarchist is benevolent to the people (women) similarly subsumed in his ‘autonomy’ without whom he could not survive.” (pg. 86).

[phillip jane stressman · Rating 2 out of 5]

and another thing: i’m not mad. please don’t put in the newspaper that i got mad.

[Miguel Gosselin Dionne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un point de vue original et la mise en lumière de liens historiques importants entre la pensée occulte et les Lumières. Cependant le texte était trop en surface pour être réellement convainquant et je suis resté sur ma faim. On a davantage l'impression de suivre l'autrice dans l'élaboration de son projet de recherche que d'en lire le fruit. Un ouvrage qui en appelle d'autres.

[Individualfrog · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not as fun or interesting as its wonderful 16th-century style title page suggests, but certainly worth a read. My initial reaction on seeing this in my local bookstore was to chastise myself for not being bolder, more honest, more weird and uncompromising, when I talk about politics in my zine or even in person; but on reading it through, the book is probably less bold and weird than my zine after all. (Athough I cherish the challenge I originally felt, and hope to make my zines more bold and weird yet!)

Its first half is, as Lagalisse puts it, a "heretical account" of the history of science, the Enlightenment, Hegel and Marx, and of course anarchism, as being deeply influenced by the occult: the Corpus Hermeticum, numerology, alchemy, Freemasonry, spiritualism, the Illuminati, etc. All the "irrational" things that get elided or hidden in mainstream teleological accounts of science are highlighted, perhaps given their proper prominence, considering that the lines we now draw between magic and science could not exist back then. (She wonderfully suggests that "calculus was arguably the caput mortuum of Newton's alchemical search for the Philosopher's Stone", which basically sums up this whole section.) Pointing out hidden/forgotten religious assumptions that underlay our whole Western worldview, and the specifically Masonic-inspired strategies of the 19th Century left-wing, sometimes comes across as strained, sometimes eye-opening (finally I understand Pierre's weird detour into Freemasonry in War and Peace!), but always fascinating.

This done, she then moves into her two main points, which this historical analysis is in service of. First, that contemporary anarchism, deep in secular/atheistic and "rational" modes of thinking, ignores or condescends to women, indigenous people, "religious" or "spiritual" approaches to radicalism, etc. Describing the reactions of readers to her article about the marginalization of an indigenous female activist during her own speaking tour, Lagalisse says:

Most were happy to admit that we must "pay more attention to gender," generally speaking, and regarding my question of anarchist atheism, many agreed that we should indeed be more "respectful" of "indigenous identity." This last continually disturbed me, as I had taken care to emphasize that the problem goes beyond a failure to be sufficiently polite in the presence of difference. Beyond being "disrespectful," the modern Western insistence on a mechanical universe delimits the radical imaginary in general. To refrain from telling the non-atheist activist that they are wrong (while continuing to think they are), simply because he or she is a person of color, is altogether different than deconstructing one's colonial mentality, which treats the religious as Other in the first place.

The second and final aim of this little book, maybe to Lagalisse the most important? certainly the one emphasized by Barbara Ehrenreich in her foreword, is a sort of plea against the automatic dismissal of the conspiracy theory as not worthy of respectful discussion but grounds for freezing someone out of the movement or whatever. This is argued mostly on the basis that conspiracy theories are marked working class, to the extent that one and the same claim (e.g. that the CIA trafficked drugs) might be considered respectable and insightful coming from an academic, but a crazy conspiracy theory coming from a trucker or day-laborer.

As you can maybe guess, if you know me, I am entirely in sympathy to the first point, and not very much at all to the second. The idea that dogmatic rationalist atheism, strictly applied as a qualification for participation in the left, is antithetical to liberation would be the animating force of the book is the idea that gave me that excited frission in the bookstore. And there is a lot to like here, including an argument (which you were maybe not expecting, since you are probably primed to see "idpol" statements like caring about women and indigenous people as necessarily of a piece with annoying liberals online) against the concept of "cultural appropriation": "When entire cosmologies are reified as 'proper' only to specific ordained identities, we are effectively saying they are false. . . Appropriating indigenous spiritual forms without the intended content is entirely in line with the logic of capitalist colonialism, but so is marking off and containing everything considered sacred as property (and thus nothing more.)" At least, I would insist that we understand that all the categories we take as basic and universal: religion, nature, human, family, individual, whatever it might be, are socially constructed and completely up for grabs; and the easiest way for me at least to understand and grasp this is through what we call "religion", itself a startlingly modern and Western concept. When I read about the government of ancient Rome, Athens, Sparta, etc I am driven, when I can force myself to actually read what is written and not what I imagine is supposed to be there, to understand that what we separate as "church and state" were one and the same thing, and this leads me to begin to understand in what way that is still true in America today. The problem with atheism is that almost all atheists are idiots: they are skeptical only of things they are told to be skeptical of, and never look skeptically at anything they already believe.

But maybe because I am not cool enough for the kind of anarchist scene Lagalisse runs in (when she says "as any anarchist around can see, fluency in a particular vocabulary, knowing names of certain historical figures, and being vouched for by someone 'in the know' is all requirement for entry into the anarchist club", I kind of know what she's talking about, but only through reputation and analogy to the intensely political proto-hipsters of my college years, who were not anarchists but hardcore Marxists in bands with names like 18th Brumaire and Harper's Ferry. I have never been in a position to even get rejected from the anarchist club by not being in the know), I have of late gotten more and more impatient of conspiracy theories in leftist (internet) spaces. When I look for political content I am not surrounded by snobs who want me to know about Giorgio Agamben and Carl Schmitt but rather Jimmy Dore types who insist that Gladio explains everything and Bernie and AOC are paid agents of the deep state to sheepdog the left into the PMC-dominated Democratic Party. (No, I will never forgive Ehrenreich for her coinage of this spurious and ridiculous term/concept.) I'm sick of reading confidently stated shit like "Pelosi is controlled opposition"...fucking Pelosi? Opposition to what? She is the hegemony. I'm sick of hearing about "corruption" and how everything would be fine if we had better, incorruptible, elites. Fuck "listening to" the working class when they say unions are a plot to corral the workers into obedience or whatever the fuck -- I am a needleworker, I am the fucking working class. You can listen to me. I understand conspiracy theory to be a reaction to the mystery of a "democratic" system in which The People always lose, but stop this learned helplessness shit and get organized. You can start by conspiring yourself, in the Babeufian manner, to do some kind of secret entryism like the Illuminati did into the Freemasons or Bakunin into the First International. Make up some occult mystical symbols, maybe a secret handshake and a password; those things are fun, and fun is one thing the left is in dangerous need of these days.

Anyway, my definitional Marxist status as a proletarian aside, I found this book written in an almost self-parodically abstruse academic style (admirably, since it is written to convince academics, but nevertheless unlovely -- she frequently cites her own dissertation, "'Good Politics': Property, Intersectionality, and the Making of the Anarchist Self" McGill University 2016, by its full title) but I find the reviews here complaining about "name dropping", and Ehrenreich's foreword saying it "sent me off to Google page after page" almost as baffling as Lagalisse's claim to have been 10 years in post-graduate education without ever hearing the name of Rosa Luxemburg. I guess it just hits exactly where I am, and I have done the required reading to understand it already. As above, so below.

[R. Reddebrek · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think "Occult Features of Anarchism: With Attention to the Conspiracy of Kings and the Conspiracy of the Peoples (Kairos)" was a title chosen to grab attention rather than a genuine attempt to reflect the contents of the book. Because it simply does not reflect the contents. Anarchism disappears for large parts of the book. Sometimes the wider Socialist movement of the 19th Century is substituted for it, and several sections are dedicated to connections between the Occult and Marx.


And in several places where Anarchism is addressed, it is the Anarchism of North American academic circles. A world in which I have no experience nor connection. What is here are several arguments that share an environment but never come together, only occasionally come closer. The Index is in two parts, the first a historical essay on "the Occult" and "Paganism" and its connections to the European socialist movement. It's essentially a chronology of thought, but the connections can at times be very slight. Often the connection to the wider socialist movement is to be accepted due to being contemporaneous or influenced by a person who had some connections to what is now considered Occult. And the significance of these connections is just left to the imagination. It's neat reading that modern Anarchist/Marxist/Socialist etc, symbols and iconography can be traced back to the Free Masons, but what is the actual significance of this? It's rare that Lagalisse bothers to make a further point, for her, it is enough that the Free Mason's and the IWW used pyramids in their graphic design.

The second part is frankly a list of grievances with attitudes and behaviours that are apparently common on campuses in the United States, and an appeal to give conspiracy theorists a chance at becoming viable anti-capitalists. The usage of Anti-vaxxers as examples of conspiracy theorists who are more moderate and not virulently anti-Semitic aged very poorly (published in 2019) to American audiences, but was already a bad sign in the UK post the MMR conspiracy. More frustrating though was the passage that cited that conspiracy theories are more popular than any Anarchist ideas in North America, and charges the Anarchist with a choice either stay an exclusive small safe space or do what Lagalisse wants, and that is to invite conspiracy theorists to their movement. And that is just a false choice. Those are not the only two options, I would suggest a better option would be to challenge the reactionary and dangerous parts of conspiratorial thinking and build bridges with those willing to build with them.

Lagalisse seems to reject this. I say seems because I do not know what exactly she is advocating. I am guessing based on an anecdote about a Zapatista called Magdalena, a group of I guess Anarchists were rude and marginalised Magdalena (how they did this was not made clear, there's a footnote to read another piece by Lagalisse on the subject). In response to the criticism of this incident, there were many commitments to be more respectful of Magdalena's views. Lagalisse believes this was not good enough and wants that audience to accept and shared those beliefs. Why Magdalena is exempt from a quid pro quo is explained by the audience being White settlers while Magdalena is not. How that relates to conspiracy theories amongst the North American population which despite references to the West, Whites and Europe, are the only population she's concerned with, I'm not entirely sure, but her recommendations are the same. Lagalisse seems to be advocated the Anarchists should stop being a bunch of uni professors and adopt some of the views of the conspiracy theorists. She pre-emptively separates the `bad` conspiracy theorists who believe in Jewish lizards, and the `moderate` conspiracy theorists who oppose vaccines because their babies get sick (even pre-COVID this is a shocking misrepresentation of the anti-vax beliefs) and people who believe the CIA deal drugs. Which apparently is a niche conspiracy theory that gets you shunned in Lagalisse's world, despite being common knowledge and well documented and admitted.

It's a sloppy and dangerous argument.

The reliance on anecdotes, coupled with a narrow life experience, is another one of this work's many weaknesses. I don't believe in rejecting anecdotal experience completely, I think they have a value when used appropriately. But here it's at their worst, used to facilitate mass generalisation without any attempt to check if the experience is representative or not.

This text aims at monolithic subjects, the Anarchists, the modern Western World and so on. But it's quite obvious that she's directing her commentaries on a few people she knows personally, and then leaps to assume that these are representatives of the whole.

"as any anarchist can see, fluency in a particular vocabulary, knowing the names of certain historical figures, and being vouched for by someone 'in the know' is all a requirement for entry into the anarchist club."

I'm sure this is an accurate reflection on whoever she knows as Anarchists (Lagalisse declares herself a critic of Anarchism in the text) but I don't recognise this description. I'm not saying Anarchist like this do not exist, I have encountered examples, but they've been a tiny minority and I haven't had to interact with them in any meaningful. Her wider commentaries on how students and post grads behave seem pretty awful, but they have little relevance to me nor the Anarchists I've run into. And I think Lagalisse is guilty of many of these same crimes. This text often just name checks important people as if that's enough to support the argument being made, a tactic she's criticised in the text by bringing up Carl Schmidt. And her views on North American activist culture are supported by anecdotes of her time in activist circles in Occupy and a Montreal Zapatista support group. And like most popular academic texts, it's peppered with academic terminology with no attempt to explain them. This is not a good book to read if you don't regularly use a priori to pick just one example.

I complained about the misleading title at the start, I'm not sure what an accurate title would look like, though I do think had I been forewarned that I'd have skipped it, there are some interesting bits of information to be found, but lots of what it presents regarding the socialist movement of the 19th century are already fairly well known, because they weren't hidden, but this book pretends its revealing surprising knowledge. And its wider criticisms and alternative views are muddled and potentially very dangerous if they caught on.

[Jonathan Norton · Rating 2 out of 5]

Brisk historical summary of the historical sources of the traditions feeding in to modern anarchism. I'm left with the impression that modern campus "anarchist" activism is itself an exercise in cultural appropriation, but the culture in question is of dead Europeans who are presumed to be ok with being spoken for by their descendants, even though the latter have no clue about the religious contexts in which it occurred. Not much going on here, just the old story of intellectually-flimsy young "radicals" on a journey to becoming equally dull "conservatives".

[Rhys · Rating 2 out of 5]

Though the occult links of freemasonry to early anarchism was interesting in its way, I didn't quite understand why it mattered. Similarly, there were a lot of connections being made with thinkers and events, but the relevance was washed away in a torrent of ambiguity. And I'm not sure if 'conspiracy thinking' is a working-class phenomenon that should be considered in solidarity actions.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lasalisse will have you intellectually running and they don’t care if you can keep up or not. Brilliant. Covering massive amounts of terrain within only 100 pages or so, there is a plethora of delightful political ideas to consider and enjoy within this original work.

[sam °❀⋆.ೃ࿔* · Rating 4 out of 5]

excellent critique of the anarchist movement’s historical and present-day exclusion of religion and sexuality to the detriment of Indigenous voices in particular.

would have loved for there to have been more connections made between ‘magic’ and anarchist practice.

[Brianna · Rating 5 out of 5]

I stumbled upon this book in a small, quirky bookstore called Lovecraft Arts & Sciences, which I was visiting as part of my trip to NecronomiCon, a weird fiction conference in Providence, Rhode Island. I had never heard of Erica Lagalisse and had no idea what to expect from the book. I’ve learned to be skeptical of anything that refers to either “occultism” or “anarchism,” as both of these terms are widely misunderstood and often reduced to horror-movie stereotypes, but after skimming through the book a bit, I decided to give it a shot and bought it.

I’m so glad that I did, because this book nearly single-handedly restored my interest in academia. Both occultism and anarchism are treated with the deserved complexity and nuance, and Lagalisse offers many useful insights on topics that I’ve been turning over in my mind for some time now. It’s difficult to convey in a way that will seem compelling to someone who hasn’t read the book, but I feel that Lagalisse exhibits an intellectual curiosity and sincerity that I find extremely rare. I feel that many progressive/leftist spaces have become dogmatic, and analysis is limited to making judgments based on predetermined rules, rather than actively trying to curate and refine those rules, constantly seeking more perfect knowledge. It seems to me that Lagalisse is someone who is invested in a real pursuit of knowledge, even if it means challenging existing paradigms and being a minority opinion.

It’s difficult to explain exactly what this book is about. At a basic level, Lagalisse does exactly what the title indicates: She recounts the history of occult/spiritual features of anarchist/leftist movements. In a more general sense, though, I think the purpose of the book is to challenge certain preconceptions about anarchism and social progress, particularly the idea that religion/spirituality has never been part of anarchism and that it has no place in the movement today. Lagalisse also touches on the tendency of activists toward virtue signaling and enforcing community norms over making concrete contributions to social progress.

I was immediately hooked by Lagalisse’s discussion of the relegation of the religious and sexual to the private, as opposed to public, realm. This discussion early on in the book also ties into her later discussion of how the model of “cultural appropriation” is applied to spiritual practices. When spirituality is seen as something to be kept private among culturally appropriate individuals, it becomes impossible to have a real discussion about how spirituality—which, in reality, is a manifestation of one’s worldview, values, and aspirations—can and does play an important part in social and political life. I really related to Lagalisse’s experience of feeling “disturbed” that her fellow academics and activists were eager to dismiss serious concerns with meaningless verbal concessions and increased politeness.

Another major idea explored in the book is conspiracy. Lagalisse isn’t the first to observe that the systems of power constructed by the wealthy elite have obvious similarities to ideas of conspiracy, yet left-leaning activists and academics tend to look negatively upon so-called “conspiracy theorists,” rather than seeing them as potential recruits or allies. Conspiracy theorists are dismissed as crazy weirdos, right-wingers, or both, despite the fact that these theories often originate in working-class discontent and come to conclusions not dissimilar to accepted anti-capitalist critiques, i.e. that a small number of powerful individuals have a disproportionate, abusive influence on the rest of humanity. Lagalisse attributes this treatment to latent anti-working-class sentiment among privileged professionals as well as the aforementioned need to secure one’s own reputation and social circle by excluding anyone who could threaten it. Although not really explored in the book, I would also argue that this behavior is likely influenced by ideas of moral purity originating from religion. The same activists that deride religion are clearly being subconsciously influenced by unaddressed internalized beliefs, which emphasize judgment of individuals based on their moral choices rather than viewing beliefs and behaviors as products of one’s environment and things that can be changed through novel inputs.

Overall, I felt that the book was well-written and easy to read. This is a short book, at only 138 pages. I prefer it this way, as it keeps the book from being bogged down in dense explanations and unnecessary tangents. That said, brevity comes at the cost of comprehensiveness. It’s not uncommon for Lagalisse to reference something without fully explaining it, whether for the sake of flow or simply because the target audience is expected to be familiar. For me, this was just enough for me to feel that the book was intellectually stimulating, without being so confusing that I lost interest. I also like when a book gives me direction for further exploration, which this book certainly did. However, some readers might find this frustrating.

In terms of scope, the book is focused on the United States and Europe, with brief mentions of Canada and Latin America. While I think other perspectives would certainly add to the discussion, I understand what the book is trying to do and think it’s still quite valuable in what it contributes. There’s a complex discussion to be had about what can be termed “occultism” or “anarchism” outside of a Euro-American context (including things that might have similar theoretical features but not be self-identified as such), but this is outside of my qualifications to discuss and outside of what the book is trying to accomplish.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the intersection between politics and religion and/or analysis of left-leaning political movements. No book is perfect, but I’m giving this five stars, as I consider it a standout work.

Note: I apologize for any imprecision in the language of this review, as I’m not well-versed in the field of political science.

Notable Quotes:

“Most were happy to admit that we must “pay more attention to gender,” generally speaking, and regarding my question of anarchist atheism, many agreed that we should indeed be more “respectful” of “indigenous identity.” This last continually disturbed me, as I had taken care to emphasize that the problem goes beyond a failure to be sufficiently polite in the presence of difference. Beyond being “disrespectful,” the modern Western insistence on a mechanical universe delimits the radical imaginary in general.” (Lagalisse 7)
“The fact that Marx builds on Hegel who builds on the Hermetica does not necessarily mean they are wrong…” (Lagalisse 70)
“It makes sense that a critique of cultural appropriation emerges in the present-day context, wherein cultural difference is fetishized and certain people may valorize themselves by accessorizing commodified attributes of those they structurally oppress, but we may also lose something in the process of applying the logic of property to culture, and to spirituality in particular. When entire cosmologies are reified as “proper” only to specific preordained identities, we are effectively saying they are false to the extent that they do not apply across the cosmos whatsoever. The sacred is thus rendered as alterity, nothing more than a cultural accoutrement in a marketplace as big as the universe. Appropriating indigenous spiritual forms without the intended content is entirely in line with the logic of capitalist colonialism, but so is marking off and containing everything considered sacred as property (and thus nothing more).” (Lagalisse 76)
“As anti-systemic resistance in Europe shifted from the millenarian mode to modern socialism, the biggest difference was not, in fact, that the former was “religious” and the latter wasn’t, but rather that in the latter the paradise of heaven would be manifest on the earth through the works of men not God—indeed, men as God—and that it was the job of a chosen few males who had access to “ancient spiritual wisdom” circulating in new secret masculine orders to inspire them to action.” (Lagalisse 79)
“...unless we narrowly define “vanguard” to mean “political party” per se, the common notion among present-day anarchist activists that Marxists are “vanguardist,” whereas anarchists are not, does not bear scrutiny. Anarchists have always considered themselves purveyors of particular insight and continue to join social movements and the general fray to steer it all in a more revolutionary direction. To offer just one contemporary example, anarchists participated in the Occupy movement (2011-2012), despite its observed “reformist” aspects, to prevent it veering in a racist and nationalist direction and to steer it toward a liberatory politics. My point here is not to criticize such a practice, but to suggest that its disavowal and dissimulation within discourses of mere “solidarity” may be disingenuous (if also, at times, tactically reasonable).” (Lagalisse 81)
“Since the 1980s, the academic usages of “intersectionality” continue to shift, as do activist methodologies of “intersectionality.” For example, many founding moments of “intersectionality” were one and the same, with calls for (white women) activists to work outside their “comfort zone,” yet today’s campus activists mobilize “intersectionality” to elaborate entitlements to “safe space.” Also, middle-class activists now often ignore the “intersection” of class even though the theory of knowledge inherent to activist and academic praxes of “intersectionality” relies on the theoretical precedent of “class consciousness.” In “Good Politics,” I explore these developments to suggest that campus activists in North America have preempted the black feminist challenge of “intersectionality” by recuperating its practice within the logic of neoliberal property relations and self-making projects. We see, for examples, that activist performances of “allyship” (to persons of oppressed identities) often consist in valorizing one’s self vis-à-vis one’s peers as a subject of “good politics” instead of constituting tangible benefits for the persons with whom one is “allied”: by “calling out” bad politics elsewhere, one garners good politics oneself.” (Lagalisse 98)
“...it is common for diverse professional-class activists to enjoy locating racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. among (diverse) working-class subjects (who have a relatively small presence in the milieu), as in this way they may take the critical lens off themselves. …Such dynamics of self-valorization among professional middle-class activists would not be possible if activists held the experience of class oppression to provide “good, subversive knowledge” in the way they often suggest race and gender oppression due with reference to “intersectionality”.” (Lagalisse 99)
“Are anarchists truly interested in mobilizing people and their discontent into resistance movements? Or is the priority among activists to distinguish one's self as having “good politics” and protect their small, safe, social enclave?” (Lagalisse 101)
“Suggestive patterns among multiple arts of memory in diverse cultures imply that there may be a (necessary) connection between classification and inference on one hand and evocation, ideation, and poetic imagination on the other…” (Lagalisse 112)

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short, but heavy academic book with more footnotes than a LOTR book. Interesting theories, though many not new to those who read up a lot on the occult.

[shamaya · Rating 3 out of 5]

An extremely interesting pamphlet neatly exploding the "rational" basis of Western scientific thinking, anarchism and Marxist analysis. Where this is weak is it's continual oblique references to "anti-Semitism", and its inability to level a significant critique in the purpose of anti-Judaic thinking in the Western project. This wouldn't be so bad, except for the fact the author says "cabalic" a bunch without explaining what that means. As such, the nature of Western esotericism as appropriative of Jewish and Muslim theological and culture work is elided.

Worth reading though

[Bill Weaver · Rating 2 out of 5]

One gets the feeling that this is, despite its veneer of (academic) sophistication, a rather shallow or possibly naive view of history. The author writes as if preaching to the choir, which is understandable I suppose given the subject matter. Somehow I don't think she imagined anyone from the moderate bourgeoisie reading this piece. Nonetheless I spent much of my youth in the trenches of the "street theater" and so I'm familiar with this style of saturnalia. This is about the strain of anarchism that runs throughout the hermetic/heretic and revolutionary or avant-garde tradition in society. I don't think she quotes Paradise Lost anywhere in here but really she should have. Satan surely must be smiling at all these magicians and bomb throwers imagining "the paradise of heaven would be manifest on the earth through the works of men not God - indeed, [here the ultimate heresy] men *as* God[.]" (pp. 79-80, emphasis as italics in the original) This is really the problem with all this utopian thought, and really my problem with most progressives, let alone anarchists. This is funny because I used to be an anarchist. I totally understand the thin line between politics and terror, between utopia and hate. The author takes great pains to separate herself and the other anarchists from "Marxists", as if this somehow absolves them of all the 20th Century massacres wrought in the name of "levelling". Still there is a lot of fun information here so I can't completely throw it in the dustbin. It seems funny that she doesn't imagine a third or middle course of thought here, namely that conspiracy theories of all sorts, whether it comes from the populist right, the activist left, or even the academic social system, are all wrong. The idea that any cabal can entirely steer society is fairly outmoded in my book, but still she offers the idea of competing pyramids, which I suppose is accurate in a sense. Still, communication is a process outside the control of any individual, and society is so far as I can tell, not much different. And the irony of an avant-garde having to lead the charge, a group of dedicated revolutionaries to carry the flag, an elite vanguard as "levelling project" - this is truly funny. The means ARE the ends, I think she meant to say, except still she can't escape the pyramid of power. This is the thing, that politics is conspiracy yes, but there is a unity of the paradox here between "power/opposition" and you can't escape that anymore than you can escape society. If you project politics onto everything, that is all you will see. The idea that anarchists are any different than kings is funny too.

[Brandy Cross · Rating 4 out of 5]

* to read again

Lagalisse has compiled a somewhat messy but mostly cogent essay (not book) on the intertwined history of anarchism [sic modern leftism] and that of the occult, primarily leaning on the Freemasons, Hegel, and associated symbology.

This is at times anecdotal, at times asking provocative questions (E.g., is the conspiracy theorist so disdained, not because of the lack of logic behind his views but because of his class, is Hobbes lack of religion not related to his potential as an atheist but because he substituted The State for God -> he's just as religious, his God simply bears another name).

There are layers here and the language is academic and difficult. Early on, Lagalisse also (laughably) refers to her work as "accessible", perhaps in length yes but not in content. Reading this requires either a thorough grounding in leftist literature, psychology, and psychoanalysis - with perhaps a smattering of philosophy thrown in. If you cannot easily jump from Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation to Spinozan ethics and through Hegel and Marx, you will *likely* want to spend a considerable part of this book reading and looking up basic ideas and information. It's not at all "accessible".

That aside, I like it a lot. It's cute, it's thought provoking, it's clearly very well researched and written by a highly intelligent person who, quite contrary to the trend in current non-fiction, respects her reader's intelligence and ability to do their own research.

Rating is 3.5 stars. I've rounded up because of the inherent value in actually criticizing the left from an internal standpoint, on actually valid concerns, and doing so in both a historical and socially contextual way.

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Damn, this was very good as a first intro to the occult/secret society side of all this.

The final chapter is also (I think) a very valuable and important discussion of conspiracy theories, misuse/abuse of the concept by elites, and general disregard/disdain for “conspiracy theorists.” It ends with a loose template for & call to action to positive intervention by activists.

I bet those who have much more experience with the subject matter than I will still get something out of it, but perhaps not to the level that I did. To me it was most valuable as an intro to a bunch of new concepts/ideas, giving me a bunch of fascinating avenues for further reading, and as an intro to certain specific analyses I hadn’t come across or heard articulated as well before. My brain hurts.

[Petros Lamprides · Rating 3 out of 5]

Πολύ ενδιαφέρον θέμα και με αξιοπρεπή τεκμηρίωση, αλλά θα μπορούσε να έχει μεγαλύτερο βάθος στην ανάλυση (ανθρωπολογικά) ή/και καλύτερη παρουσίαση (ή και γνώση) του θέματος ιστορικά. Πιο αναλυτικά, τόσο η ανάλυση, όσο και η ιστορική ανασκόπηση, ενώ είναι πολλά υποσχόμενες, δίνουν την αίσθηση πως μένουν σε πολύ πρώτο επίπεδο. Μια αρκετά κατατοπιστική πρώτη ματιά σε ένα θέμα που σίγουρα επιδέχεται πολύ μεγαλύτερη εμβάθυνση. Σίγουρα αξίζει να το διαβάσει κανείς, έστω και ως εισαγωγικό κείμενο στο θέμα.

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This slim book, of which a full quarter at least is footnotes and bibliography, holds a promising thesis that in it's rush to garner the academic validity it claims to eschew, blows through hundreds of years of history and philosophy and ideas in around sixty pages. It diminishes much of her supporting claims to incomprehensible word-salad at worst, with the super annoying and sophomoric tendency to cite her own previous and also likely sophomoric papers on the subject. That said, after this exposition which she claims to be the thesis itself, Lagalisse finally finds her own voice and ideas in the concluding two sections (around 30 pages) of the book, which take on the fundamental notions of how conspiracy theory functions within our contemporary realm of media while excised from the serious, academic study under the auspices of social elitism. It's a weird and fine line to tread, with implications of racism, classism and elitism that are as inherent in the hallowed halls of academia and social justice as they are in the darker recesses of youtube. Her depictions of her fellow white, educated and progressive class seem more aimed at deflecting criticism of her own writing and self-aggrandizement (again: super annoying) than creating a meaningful discourse. There are a handful of interesting ideas that can be gleaned from reading her intro and final two chapters, whilst using the rest of the book as merely a syllabus if you have any real interest in the subjects and want to find primary sources.

[Gaia Ferrazzano · Rating 3 out of 5]

Come tanti altri hanno già rilevato -a partire dall’autrice stessa-, non è esattamente un testo compiuto. Il libro è in formato minuscolo, davvero troppo ristretto per risultare soddisfacente a livello argomentativo. Gli intenti sono davvero interessanti, ma appunto, lo sviluppo è monco. Nello specifico, Lagalisse vuole mostrare come: - il continuo riferimento alla razionalità e all’ateismo da parte dei teorici anarchici celi in realtà delle profonde radici legate al mondo della magia [la stessa costruzione della razionalità filosofia, in realtà, si origina proprio a partire da una prospettiva sul mondo naturale che evidenzia corrispondenze divine]; - il successo contemporaneo delle teorie del complotto non sia un fenomeno da deridere e relegare in maniera classista alle sacche sociali che non hanno avuto accesso a un’educazione di buon livello, ma anzi, si potrebbero leggere come “miti fondativi” del capitalismo non molto diversi, in un certo senso, dalla narrazione filosofica dell’uomo come buon selvaggio o, all’opposto, come ontologicamente cattivo.

Peccato che il tutto venga appena accennato e, soprattutto nella seconda parte, sia ridotto a poco più che semplici supposizioni. E mi dispiace parecchio, perché in realtà è una prospettiva davvero molto interessante e una potenzialmente arma senza pari per affrontare un fenomeno che pare fare sempre più presa su una buona fetta di popolazione. Quindi Erica, pls, vai avanti con le tue ricerche e non arenarti.

[Federico · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dissertazione interessante della storia, forme e attualità dell'anarchismo, con un buon saggio breve sul cospirazionismo moderno.

L'idea che la fede anarchica sia fortemente legata ad una tradizione ermetica mi ha inizialmente colto di sorpresa: durante la lettura mi sono dovuto ricredere e considero uno spunto molto interessante di ragionamento su cosa significhi essere anarchici oggi.

Dall'altra parte, la disamina sulla concezione del complottismo come fenomeno mitologico moderno utile a esprimere problematiche vere e sentite - anche se in maniera assurda e poco colta - ha consentito un gradevole approfondimento di un tema che mi era già noto, ovvero l'approccio dialogico migliore da assumere con un soggetto complottista.

Peccato per alcuni errori nella traduzione o di battitura.

Consiglio il libro a chi abbia già una base di conoscenza dei maggiori filosofi e delle scienze politiche moderne, se non anche di un pizzico di occultismo ermetico. Senza di esse è purtroppo potrebbe risultare difficile fruire completamente di questo libro, che pur si impegna a fornire contesto filologico e filosofico ai ragionamenti che illustra e indica un'ottima bibliografia che occupa diverse decine di pagine di conclusione.

[Alex Borghgraef · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half of the book is a fascinating yet too short overview of the parallels and links between the hermetic movement and various progressive movements over the centuries.
The second half unfortunately devolves way too much into social sciences/idpol buzzword bingo. There's some interesting comments on how 'cancel culture' can be used as a display of social status in the elite segments of leftist subculture, but the author tends to fall into the same trap when accusing her peers of being secretly classist when they condemn conspiracy theorists. There is such a thing as objective reality, not all opinions are valid and the best way to make a progressive movement (or any movement) come to a grinding halt is to accommodate the batshit theories of every raving lunatic who walks through the door ( and there will be many).
I'd give the book a 2, but as an interesting starting point and reference on a subject which is new to me, I'll give it a 3.

[Javier · Rating 2 out of 5]

This short book had some interesting insights to offer, in terms of the historical affinities between anarchism and occultism. The similarities between the Masonic "Square and Compasses" and the anarchist A, and between the programs of Bakunin and the original Illuminati, are especially apt in this sense. Lagalisse rightly frames anarchism as a sort of religion. She traces its influence on the "Conspiracy of the Peoples," as against the "Conspiracy of Kings"... otherwise known as the "Holy Alliance" of reaction represented by Tsarist Russia, Prussia, and the Austrian Empire in the nineteenth century.

However, the argument is much less compelling when it comes to the defense of conspiracy theories and anti-vaccine bias in the conclusion. It's ironic, then, that the author should object to Theodor Adorno's critical analysis in "Theses against Occultism" while simultaneously proving him right.