It's like an old Dissensus thread that starts off on a topic I'm interested in, but by page 18 someone has mentioned Spinoza and by page 26 there are just three people left talking about fascism.
Clearly Josef is still upset by people taking his tatty cardboard sign from outside LD50 but he should know that most of the anti-fascists who were there that I saw were from Hackney rather than Goldsmiths. ("LOL! Students!", say the students)
It's good that Nina is doing a book about men, but weird that she slates liberal feminism for being increasingly about the victimisation of women before jumping right into the victimhood of men - their high suicide rate and that they get sent to war.
Philosophy types should avoid talking about magick in arid theoretical terms, as indeed should everyone. That said, the stereotype of feminists who are into magick as doing this at a purely "low magick" level of Buffy or Harry Potter is quite blatantly missing out the more sophisticated exponents. Also to critique this as "low magick" but not take the host to task for his "fake it until you make it" approach to simulating cleverness is pretty weird, as "fake it til you make it" is exactly the approach of chaos magickians who were seen as the antithesis of high magick in my day.
The discussion of Catholicism was so general as to be useless really. Contrasting the different approaches, strands etc from South America, West Africa and Northern Ireland in relation to paganism would have been better.
There is some absolute guff at the end about "plausible deniability" which ignores the entire history of post-war European fascist movements (with the exception of its most overt Nazi forms such as the British Movement or National Action). The idea that we should take everyone at face value is pretty stupid and you would think not the sort of thing self-styled philosophers would advocate for as this would put them out of a job.