I guess I’ve always been an anarchist, despite spending many years denying that I was iin fact an anarchist anytime made the conclusion that I sounded like an anarchist.
Just as I spent many years fighting against the fact that I’m a transsexual-woman, I fought against the obvious fact that I’m an anarchist. I fought against my anarchist tendencies for much the same reasons as I fought against being a transsexual. I always feared that coming out as a transsexual woman nobody would take me seriously in life & neither did I think anybody would take me seriously politically I thought if I said I was politically an anarchist.
I remember a few years ago I remember the local Lib Dem candidate standing for parliament said to me that I came off sounding like an anarchist. When some statist politico says to you that you sound like an anarchist it’s a means that your ideas can’t be taken seriously etc. Alice Humphreys isn’t the only statist politico whose tried to undermine me by trying to label me as some anarchist lunatic; I remember Mark Littlewood doing much the same & that was when I was making a serious effort to be more conventional & conform etc.
About a year ago I was talking to a friend who lives out in Utah about the fact anarchists never get taken seriously & I didn’t want to associate with anarchists because I wanted my ideas to be taken seriously. This anarchist friend of mine responded by saying everybody was too f**king worried about being taken seriously & if he’d given a f**k about being taken seriously then he’d not of protested against the TSA, half naked in snowfall outside Salt Lake City airport & he’d not of got on the local news (which had).
When I was locked into the whole party politics & elections paradigm, I feared more then anything not being taken seriously & therefore being labelled an anarchist lunatic as it was means of undermining any argument I might have had on any issue. I always believed that if you did go about calling yourself an anarchist would create barriers due to the stereotypes people have of anarchism & anarchists & plus back then I didn’t think anarchism was a realistic proposition & of course I was a member of a ‘liberal’ party not an anarchist collective, so it didn’t seem correct to be going about calling myself an anarchist etc. Whether or not people considered me an anarchist or not, people involved in the Lib Dems never took any reasoned argument I had seriously nor did anybody as a whole who was involved in the whole party politics & election. Mark Littlewood is supposedly is a libertarian & he was more interested in appealing to the voters of Tonbridge Wells then actually sticking up for any principle pertaining to greater freedom.
Back in 1999, I was quickly bungled out of a Lib Dem meeting for asking Simon Hughes MP, would he legalise marijuana? I think many of my generation would ask politicians of any party similar questions about why are they persecuting people for ingesting plant materiel into their body, but of course I was told by the local party bigwigs that asking such a pertinent question at such a public forum was an embarrassment to the party. I got the spew that asking such questions would be manipulated & exploited by the press. Politicians running scared to actually stand up for greater freedom, because of what Murdoch & the Daily mail might do, kind of explains a great deal of the problem.
Recently a friend of mine got elected to his local council & he told me when he was campaigning to get elected about how when he got elected he was going to stick up for geolibertarian principle & since he got elected has he? Has he f**k! Ed’s now too scare to say anything too radical at the fear of being marginalised or not being re-elected & I kind of think well what’s the point of being elected to office if you’re not going to use the office you’ve been elected to affect change. With Alice Humphreys I knew she was a careerist who would say or do anything to get elected & stay elected, but Ed Joyce I expected different & he’s turned into what I despise, another namby-pamby politician with no balls to stand up for any worthwhile principle. What is the point about being scared about being re-elected if you’re not going to get elect for what you believe in?
You remember Obama when he was campaigning for the US presidency proclaiming ‘change was coming’ only for him then when he gets elected to surround himself with the same Wall St cronies that surround Bush. Oh but of course there’s the response to the Obama presidency the ‘Tea Party Movement’ which ironically seems to campaign for the freedoms that corporations want rather then the freedoms people like me want. Obama, Bush, whoever else, it doesn’t matter they’ve been bought by whatever competing corporate interests. David Cameron & Ed Miliband, they’re just puppets of corporatism & mouthpieces of corporatism. These politicians get bullied by greed & bribed by greed & that is why no politician is never really going to do anything in favour of radical freedom. I know many politicians probably do get elected with good intentions but then they get bullied & bribed by corporate interests & probably think screw idealism or principle; its best not to rock the boat, best to use their position to just feather their own nest etc. The consequence of giving into the greed of corporatism is the erosion of liberty.
The final straw for me on my conversion to anarchism was Dale Farm. It’s a disgrace on its own that gypsies asre getting turfed off property that gypsies own, but the bigger disgrace is that because gypsies aren’t able to buy the law is being used against them. Yes the gypsies facing eviction built upon greenbelt land but so do supermarket chains, the only difference is that those supermarket chains buy permission to do so, in other words if they buy the law. If the wealthy are able to buy the law in their favour then the rule of law is a f**king lie & then some. The situation with Dale Farm is but the latest incidence I’ve witnessed that proves that all are governed by the rule of law is a fallacy.
If Marx was right about anything he was right about anything its that the purpose of the political classes was to protect the interests of the wealthy & yep that's pretty much what they do & voting ain’t going to change that! If voting changed anything they’d ban it. Voting only gives people the illusion of choice, the illusion they’ve a choice in how they are governed, the illusion the people are in charge. Not much choice when whoever wins whatever election is most likely bought by corporate interests. Even if you do get a choice in which political party takes charge of government, you don’t actually get a choice as to whether you want to be governed by that government.
If Marx was right about anything he was right about anything its that the purpose of the political classes was to protect the interests of the wealthy. No matter the size of government there will always be corporatism & therefore liberty will always be eroded in the interest of corporate greed. As long as there’s corporatism then those proposing real freedom will be ignored, marginalised, laughed at, spat at, derided, assaulted, killed.
The only logical conclusion is that people opt out of being governed by the current system of government & form their own vulnerary communities & vulnerary choose how those communities are governed & not order with force how other communities choose to govern themselves.
Pragmatism doesn’t work its just perpetuating the same tyrannical bulls**t in different degrees. Idealists might get taken serious, but as my friend Furb said people should worry about being taken seriously, it should be about what you believe to be right.
I guess I’ve always been an anarchist, despite spending many years denying that I was iin fact an anarchist anytime made the conclusion that I sounded like an anarchist.
Just as I spent many years fighting against the fact that I’m a transsexual-woman, I fought against the obvious fact that I’m an anarchist. I fought against my anarchist tendencies for much the same reasons as I fought against being a transsexual. I always feared that coming out as a transsexual woman nobody would take me seriously in life & neither did I think anybody would take me seriously politically I thought if I said I was politically an anarchist.
I remember a few years ago I remember the local Lib Dem candidate standing for parliament said to me that I came off sounding like an anarchist. When some statist politico says to you that you sound like an anarchist it’s a means that your ideas can’t be taken seriously etc. Alice Humphreys isn’t the only statist politico whose tried to undermine me by trying to label me as some anarchist lunatic; I remember Mark Littlewood doing much the same & that was when I was making a serious effort to be more conventional & conform etc.
About a year ago I was talking to a friend who lives out in Utah about the fact anarchists never get taken seriously & I didn’t want to associate with anarchists because I wanted my ideas to be taken seriously. This anarchist friend of mine responded by saying everybody was too f**king worried about being taken seriously & if he’d given a f**k about being taken seriously then he’d not of protested against the TSA, half naked in snowfall outside Salt Lake City airport & he’d not of got on the local news (which had).
When I was locked into the whole party politics & elections paradigm, I feared more then anything not being taken seriously & therefore being labelled an anarchist lunatic as it was means of undermining any argument I might have had on any issue. I always believed that if you did go about calling yourself an anarchist would create barriers due to the stereotypes people have of anarchism & anarchists & plus back then I didn’t think anarchism was a realistic proposition & of course I was a member of a ‘liberal’ party not an anarchist collective, so it didn’t seem correct to be going about calling myself an anarchist etc. Whether or not people considered me an anarchist or not, people involved in the Lib Dems never took any reasoned argument I had seriously nor did anybody as a whole who was involved in the whole party politics & election. Mark Littlewood is supposedly is a libertarian & he was more interested in appealing to the voters of Tonbridge Wells then actually sticking up for any principle pertaining to greater freedom.
Back in 1999, I was quickly bungled out of a Lib Dem meeting for asking Simon Hughes MP, would he legalise marijuana? I think many of my generation would ask politicians of any party similar questions about why are they persecuting people for ingesting plant materiel into their body, but of course I was told by the local party bigwigs that asking such a pertinent question at such a public forum was an embarrassment to the party. I got the spew that asking such questions would be manipulated & exploited by the press. Politicians running scared to actually stand up for greater freedom, because of what Murdoch & the Daily mail might do, kind of explains a great deal of the problem.
Recently a friend of mine got elected to his local council & he told me when he was campaigning to get elected about how when he got elected he was going to stick up for geolibertarian principle & since he got elected has he? Has he f**k! Ed’s now too scare to say anything too radical at the fear of being marginalised or not being re-elected & I kind of think well what’s the point of being elected to office if you’re not going to use the office you’ve been elected to affect change. With Alice Humphreys I knew she was a careerist who would say or do anything to get elected & stay elected, but Ed Joyce I expected different & he’s turned into what I despise, another namby-pamby politician with no balls to stand up for any worthwhile principle. What is the point about being scared about being re-elected if you’re not going to get elect for what you believe in?
You remember Obama when he was campaigning for the US presidency proclaiming ‘change was coming’ only for him then when he gets elected to surround himself with the same Wall St cronies that surround Bush. Oh but of course there’s the response to the Obama presidency the ‘Tea Party Movement’ which ironically seems to campaign for the freedoms that corporations want rather then the freedoms people like me want. Obama, Bush, whoever else, it doesn’t matter they’ve been bought by whatever competing corporate interests. David Cameron & Ed Miliband, they’re just puppets of corporatism & mouthpieces of corporatism. These politicians get bullied by greed & bribed by greed & that is why no politician is never really going to do anything in favour of radical freedom. I know many politicians probably do get elected with good intentions but then they get bullied & bribed by corporate interests & probably think screw idealism or principle; its best not to rock the boat, best to use their position to just feather their own nest etc. The consequence of giving into the greed of corporatism is the erosion of liberty.
The final straw for me on my conversion to anarchism was Dale Farm. It’s a disgrace on its own that gypsies asre getting turfed off property that gypsies own, but the bigger disgrace is that because gypsies aren’t able to buy the law is being used against them. Yes the gypsies facing eviction built upon greenbelt land but so do supermarket chains, the only difference is that those supermarket chains buy permission to do so, in other words if they buy the law. If the wealthy are able to buy the law in their favour then the rule of law is a f**king lie & then some. The situation with Dale Farm is but the latest incidence I’ve witnessed that proves that all are governed by the rule of law is a fallacy.
If Marx was right about anything he was right about anything its that the purpose of the political classes was to protect the interests of the wealthy & yep that's pretty much what they do & voting ain’t going to change that! If voting changed anything they’d ban it. Voting only gives people the illusion of choice, the illusion they’ve a choice in how they are governed, the illusion the people are in charge. Not much choice when whoever wins whatever election is most likely bought by corporate interests. Even if you do get a choice in which political party takes charge of government, you don’t actually get a choice as to whether you want to be governed by that government.
If Marx was right about anything he was right about anything its that the purpose of the political classes was to protect the interests of the wealthy. No matter the size of government there will always be corporatism & therefore liberty will always be eroded in the interest of corporate greed. As long as there’s corporatism then those proposing real freedom will be ignored, marginalised, laughed at, spat at, derided, assaulted, killed.
The only logical conclusion is that people opt out of being governed by the current system of government & form their own vulnerary communities & vulnerary choose how those communities are governed & not order with force how other communities choose to govern themselves.
Pragmatism doesn’t work its just perpetuating the same tyrannical bulls**t in different degrees. Idealists might get taken serious, but as my friend Furb said people should worry about being taken seriously, it should be about what you believe to be right.
http://twitter.com/sophiabotha