Listen up, (A)narchist!!

in politics •  7 years ago 

I know how it is to have your sacred cows slaughtered.

It hasn't been easy for me to let go of the mindwarp put on me as a kid.

Mine was a Germanic father and a Lutheran upbringing.

So, my every instinct says get in the box, do what you are told, don't stick out from the crowd.

Go along to get along.

Sadly, that was not to be for me.


FreeBorn is what you are before your parents tell you that you are catholic, muslim, jewish, Satanist, or democrat.

(Strange that my auto correct capitalized Satanist, but not the others,...)


In order to qualify as FreeBorn you have to go back and re-evaluate all your sacred cows.


I like to assess any rules presented to me as, 'Well everybody knows,...'.

Who made that rule, why was it made, does it only apply in certain situations?

Most of us just accept as a given that the law applies to us.

Well, it doesn't.

The laws only apply to you if you don't stand up and make them prove the laws apply to you.

They cannot present proof, or they would.

Given a pass on it's burden the state is plenty happy to treat your ignorance as a free pass to screw you.

Just ask any lawyer.

@marcstevens  http://marcstevens.net


But I digress.


In order to return to what you were when you came out you have to seek out knowledge from outside the box you have been put into as a child.

All those, 'Common sense' rules may be there just to keep you working in the factories enriching the crapitalusts.


So, if you want to continue to call yourself an anarchist, you may want to re-evaluate that stance in light of these facts put forth by someone that thought anarchism was the under man's revolt against civilization.

This book was published in 1921, so please, recognize that any bastardizations (Rothbard, Chomsky, Molyneux, et al) that have appeared since, are just that, corruptions of the original urge of all anarchists to live free of forced compliance.

Those folks would not have gotten coverage in the statist press without serving the purposes of the state.


If any of you have come across this book in your advanced college educations, please let me know.

Otherwise I will take it's absence from the curriculum to be a sure sign that it does not serve the purposes of the statists, if only by telling the truth.


So, the reality is that if you are claiming anarchist as your self-identity you should learn where that name comes from, how, and why, we anarchists use it.

We are not looking for half-measures.

We are not looking to set ourselves up as the new overlords of crapitalism.

We simply want to live free of coercive authority, and we will damn well smash any glass, or bomb any buildings that stand in our way.

We, anarchists, have a long tradition of this.

So, anarchist, make your attentat, but be sure not to damage any living things,....

If you are not prepared to live up to what it takes to be an anarchist, stop bastardizing our word, huh?



Have a perfectly peaceful day.

Keep working, stop paying.   No war, but the class war!!

Viva!   Tradeqwik!

Minds.com

Vote FBA King of the World

How to win in court!

How to win in court for far less!!


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Very well written post :)

I like the "freeborn" term.... but i totally agree, when you start challenging your own or your cultures sacred cows... only then can you truely grow and understand yourself/surroundings

Thank you.

Measureless violence?

A paragraph before that was Bakunin's Genius: Don't reform, push for more and more control, until the people have had it.

Yet in the following part there's exemplified measures of violence, and how each act, is endearing in different ways, so that if a good son kills a bad father it's worthy, but if a bad son kills a good father it undermines fatherhood. Then closes, implying that Bakunin, and Anarchism promoted good fathers being murdered to change the system.

The real purpose of killing judges under anarchism to undermine the rule of law, and it's lawlessness, you don't pose philosophical conundrums to a would be attacker, you resist them.

Maybe we shouldn't kill people that aren't attacking us, nor paying others to do their attacking for them?

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Clearly, yet a whole group of people beg for masters to impose rule of law, they aggress by default, at all times, through the people they promote and advocate for, and who are at odds with liberty. In any other circumstances, outside authorized force, the obvious would be yes, kill the people who support the mafia directly, kill the ones involved directly, duh. When this mafia and it's rackets is authorized, it magically grants a +10 protective​ shiled. Magical rainbow farting unicorns​.

Rule by force is the disease, who and how are just symptoms.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Dismissive bullshit. Rule by force is what we're disusing, and that includes who and how, especially how. We were discussing the inherent right to resist and killing judges good or bad is one way to do that, and it's not "killing people that aren't attacking us" like you implied, but it's killing people that are actively attacking us.

I agree, judges should stop sending their thugs to rough us up.

We weren't discussing what judges ought to do, we were discussing what to do, and who to do it. Killing judges.

Well, I know if one feels the need to do that I wouldn't vote to convict.

Dead on with the 'common sense' quote.

It IS a way to put people into place (like factories, etc).

I'm in my opting out zone. I'm debt free, cash flow positive, and leave the US as much as possible.

Good for you, perhaps some anarchist successes can let you live free in the land of the free,....

Tainted genius:

Russian noble/Upper Class.
Idle and Turbulent Disposition.
Being at Hopeless Outs with society.
Plunged into the stream of revolution.

I see the point, Bakunin was a rebel through and through and he cast out his nobility for the company of the low brow crowd. Even so, that doesn't qualify as tainted genius, it says nothing of a man intelligence, his knowledge and intuition and vision. All those points, him being a bum, his disposition don't speak about his philosophy.

To be fair, anything that didn't meet with Lothrop's worldview was going to be seen as tainted.

He is a victim of the box his education put him into, as well.

It is just one more purview to be purveyed.
Perhaps somebody may learn something from it having been resurrected from the memory hole.