I watched their video on them becoming an anarchist after having been a Marxist-Leninist at some point in the past (“Why I left Anarchism, and then came back”), and one weird point struck me: At 8:14, they talk about Bakunin’s explanation of authority existing in such things as the authority of doctors or cobblers, which seems to justify the “unjustified hierarchy” definition (though they use authority instead of hierarchy in this case), yet at 9:06, they say that anarchists are opposed to all forms of authority and oppression? Umm, you contradicted yourself less than a minute after you imply that anarchists are not against all forms of authority (their attempt to hand-wave the example away as not authority, but as “skill expertise” is faulty).

Oh, they also have the anti-labelist argument of “oh, anarchism is fluid and cannot be pinned down”, which allows for them to wiggle out of clear contradictions with their ideology (like the one mentioned above); anyone who makes such arguments against clearly labeling people while also solidly adhering to one ideology like anarchism should not be taken seriously, because what they mean to say is that “any contradictions in logic that I make are not to be taken seriously”.

The video in general feels meanderous and intentionally vague at times, which really gives an impression of who this person is.

Edit: Also being against Iran is just an absurdity. Their lack of understanding in imperialism really shows because they end up being against Iran despite American victory being the worst possible scenario.