The Cantwell Paradox

Not to pick on Cantwell, but I just got done listening to some of his post-cuckery philosophy about the 'necessity' of the state as a result of no one wishing to actually dismantle it. The whole idea that because no one would join him and actively engage in his methods of ending the state, then it is impossible and we should find ways to live with it and make it more suitable for ourselves.

And I got to thinking about that. It's idiotic and evident of a complete lack of actual commitment to a philosophy or ideal that he has spent so much time and, even to today, continues to pay lip service to, anarchy.

This won't be long, I promise, because I can sum up what this stupid thinking is pretty concisely:

An 'anarchist' advocating for one political candidate(a point on the political spectrum) over another is like an atheist advocating for one religion over another.

"Well, Trump seems to be less dangerous than Hillary and Johnson has no chance, so we should vote for Trump." -Cantwell(summed up)

"Well, Christianity seems to be less destructive than Islam and Judaism is too fringe, so we should follow Christianity."- a confused atheist

This is a ridiculous notion for someone who accepts that politics and government are dangerous and inherently evil and destructive. It is, furthermore, completely antithetical to anarchism and thus to an anarchist. Anarchism means no rulers. It is strictly APOLITICAL, meaning not of politics. It is a decisive separation from politics. Much as atheism is a decisive separation from theology.
Neither can both be separate from their antithetical counterparts and advocate for them.

Essentially, what Cantwell has done is throw a hissy fit because no one(himself included) has taken to arms against the state in a manner that he can acknowledge and finds suitable. As a result, he has chosen to prove that his whole purpose of creating a name for himself in talking about anarchy was simply to stir shit up and convince other people to do things in a way he wanted them done and that he is, honestly, nothing but a hipster who, seeing that people aren't 'anarching' right, that it is now too 'hip' to be an anarchist who abhors the state, he has now engaged in trying to create a new school of anarchism(not that new) that is reluctant statism.

Because no one did what he said to do, he now believes that we should engage in state processes to try and get the state to make people do what we want them to do. Are you getting it yet? He has essentially backslid into the statist mentality that he, for so long, railed against. More likely, he has simply become open about it now that he sees that anarchists aren't going to start burning politicians at the stake at his direction and so he is using the label of anarchist to pull away those minds that are still mushy enough from statist brainwashing and convince them that they can be anarchists and engage in forcing political whims on others through voting.