This piece cuts through the noise of immediate outrage to ask a terrifying question: when the "reasonable" paths of protest are closed, does the resulting void inevitably fill with something far more volatile? Anarchierkegaard argues that the recent condemnation of the British duo Bob Vylan by the UK Prime Minister and Glastonbury organizers is not merely a reaction to a specific chant, but a symptom of a deeper structural failure in how modern societies handle dissent. By framing the controversy through the lens of Søren Kierkegaard's concept of "the Crowd," the author suggests that the government's crackdown on moderate protest has inadvertently created the conditions for the very extremism it claims to fear.
The Collapse of the "Reasonable" Voice
Anarchierkegaard begins by observing the polarized reaction to Bob Vylan's performance at Glastonbury, where frontman Bobby Vylan led chants of "death, death to the IDF." The author notes that both the conservative right and the liberal left have reacted with "unbearably shrill and twee" indignation, missing the underlying message entirely. "The reactionary-to-conservative crowd has set up in its indignity and pearl-clutching, identifying yet another radical act of antisemitism," Anarchierkegaard writes, while noting that the liberal response is equally performative, seeking a "figurehead onto which they can ascribe some level of virtue." This framing is effective because it strips away the moral posturing of both sides to reveal a shared desire for outrage rather than understanding.
The core of the argument shifts to the historical context of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The author traces how this movement, initially modeled on the social pressure tactics used against South African apartheid, was successfully reframed by state actors as inherently antisemitic. "State governments with alliances with the state of Israel found themselves back in the driving seat with a tactical weapon which has, on the whole, been very successfully wielded," Anarchierkegaard explains. By equating opposition to Israeli policy with hatred of Jewish people, the establishment effectively erased the "reasonable" middle ground of protest.
"The legal protections for protest had been eroded and the sweeping away of the 'reasonable' mouthpiece of the revolution in the name of erosion had led to the ironical situation where... the only expression of the malcontents was funneled into 'the Crowd' in its extra-legal vigour."
This analysis holds significant weight, particularly when considering how the closure of legitimate channels for dissent often radicalizes the periphery. Critics might note that the author risks conflating legitimate concerns about antisemitism with the silencing of all political critique, a nuance that deserves careful attention. However, the historical parallel remains potent: when a movement's moderate face is delegitimized, the vacuum is rarely left empty.
The Rise of the Aesthetic and the Crowd
Having established the erosion of "reasonable" protest, Anarchierkegaard pivots to the psychological shift in the protesters themselves. The author argues that we are witnessing the triumph of "the aesthetic" over "the ethical." In Kierkegaardian terms, the "aesthetic" sphere is driven by a demand for immediate sensation and a display of power, rather than sustained moral duty. "The aesthete's rather poor attention span... demand[s] a sign of something or other and the display of power," the author writes. This explains why the crowd, once denied the ability to engage in slow, bureaucratic, or academic forms of protest, has turned to the visceral and the shocking.
The article draws a sharp distinction between the "inert crowd" that merely consumes news and the active, dangerous potential of the crowd when pushed to the edge. Anarchierkegaard warns that the "one," or the conformist individual, is now released from their binds, "bounding on the shoulders of his nihilistic collective." This is where the reference to The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind becomes crucial. Just as the grime-punk scene has historically operated on the fringes of respectability, the political crowd now operates outside the bounds of traditional discourse. The author suggests that the Prime Minister's condemnation of the band as "appalling hate speech" is a classic example of the establishment trying to "turn down the heat" on a crisis that has already boiled over.
"The danger of removing the 'reasonable' option from the mouth of the inert is that it allows the 'one', das Man, to slip in unnoticed."
This is the piece's most chilling insight. It suggests that the government's strategy of shutting down moderate voices does not stop the anger; it simply removes the buffer that prevents that anger from becoming a monolithic, unthinking force. The author posits that the "aesthetes" have now joined the mainstream protest, demanding immediate, direct action and attacking their own complicity in the system.
The Human Cost and the Moral Failure
Amidst the philosophical dissection of crowd psychology, the article refuses to let the reader forget the human reality driving the unrest. Anarchierkegaard reminds us that the controversy is rooted in "the atrocities that rain down upon Palestinian children and act as the objective collision of our collective moral failure to intercede with ongoing genocide." This grounding is essential; without it, the piece would be an abstract exercise in political theory. The author argues that the "moral language" used by the establishment to condemn the band has an "increasingly ironic effect," serving only to antagonize the very people it claims to protect while ignoring the suffering on the ground.
The piece concludes by questioning whether "the Crowd" can be a force for clearing away the immoral, even if the means are themselves immoral. "Maybe, there is a chance, a distinct risk, that 'the Crowd' might become useful in clearing away the immoral by immoral means," Anarchierkegaard writes. This is a provocative stance that challenges the reader to consider if the "civilized" methods of diplomacy and protest have become so ineffective that they are no longer a viable path to justice.
"This inert crowd that understands nothing itself and has nothing it wants to do, this gallery-public, tries now to pass the time, indulging in the fancy that all that anyone does happens just so as to give it something to chat about."
The author's use of Kierkegaard's Two Ages here serves as a stark warning: we risk becoming a society of spectators, chatting about the "appalling" nature of the chants while the underlying crisis continues unabated. The focus on the "aesthetic" demand for a show of power highlights a modern malaise where the feeling of taking a stand has replaced the work of achieving change.
Bottom Line
Anarchierkegaard's strongest move is reframing the Bob Vylan controversy not as a failure of the band, but as a failure of the political ecosystem that left them no room to be "reasonable." The argument's vulnerability lies in its potential to romanticize the "extra-legal vigour" of the crowd, yet the warning that closing off moderate protest fuels extremism is a vital takeaway. Readers should watch for whether the administration's crackdown on dissent leads to further radicalization or if it forces a genuine re-evaluation of the policies driving the conflict.