Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:37:35 +0100
From: Ze Sprout <anarchie-AT-buelinckx.net>
Subject: Re: test


well the basic point is to feel good (that's what my mother always said : she prefered her children to be happy : this didn't involve money or diploma's: just  - in her view - a happy relation and some children and no hunger.) I tend to live up to that (partly, although i don't have money, i earn my living and i have some diploma's, happy relation and a couple of children). But i'm not really happy beacuse the world is in a bad shape and it will get worse. Of all the political, social, religeous and other systems i see only in anarchism a viable future. Realist as i am i see that we won't get now. But if so many years ago Zeno of Citium wouldn't have written his Republic where woman would be equal to men and money and schools would be abolished, Lao Tzu wouldn't have pointed out in his way that the universe is in a continuous state of flux. Reality is in a state of process; everything changes, nothing is constant.. Etienne de Beotie wouldn't have pointed out that dictators are dictators because the people let them, Proudhon wouldn't have written that property is theft, Bakounin that "the urge to destroy is also a creative urge" and so on and so on. Ofcourse it is far more easy to stay home an dsay "in my experience" patati patata. I have children and apart from earning a living to make sure that the are not in need now, i'm also working for the day that they and their (garnd)chidlren will not live in a world with even less freedom as we have now. And maybe you don't realise this but my posts are not about famous people saying useful quotes, my posts are not about who is a good anarchist and who's not. It's all about being an individual seeking other individuals to make a statement of solidarity in this mad world.

Erik

At 09:31 -0800 08-03-2003, Maldoror wrote:
>> being an anarchist means you have to
>> fight everyday for your whole life a battle that
>> doesn't seem to have a chance to be won. 
>
>i think one has to pick the fights s/he participates
>in. if i see that what i'm going to take part in has
>absolutely no chance of changing the outcome i don't
>bother. does this make me not an anarchist? fine so be
>it. i've never been one to embrace -isms because they
>pigeonhole one into a certain mindset and if you
>deviate everyone makes a big deal out of it. like now.
>if i thought that i could change the outcome and my
>protesting would stop bush, fuck yeah i would've been
>out there, but bush has made it abundantly clear he
>doesn't care what ppl think of his actions so then why
>bother.

it is not about Bu$h, because if it would why don't just kill him. No, you'er getting defeatist whilst not even seeing the greater danger. Freedom is speech is being muzzled right now in the u$. Libraries are getting forced by the FBI to give up private user data, people are imprisoned without trial because they look Arab, at least two presumed or real Al Quada members were tortured to death in U$ owned prison camps, CNN seemingly declared war on Iraq even before the Bu$h adminstration did, and nobody cares. Don't you think there are enough reasons to get out of your couch. Ha, that implies you should try to do something without instant gratification. 

>dave on the other hand, given his past, knows that
>protesting has a chance of changing the UK's position
>in the war. and if there's a chance to make the UK not
>go to war then he shold be out there protesting
>because there is a chance in his country. and whether
>he cares or not i applaud him for it as i do everyone
>who knows protesting can change something in their
>country.

The poll tax riot was indeed a riot (but not more). People tend to overplay the importance of their own timeperiod.

>here in this one i'm very nihilistic and pessimistic
>of what protesting can do so i don't see what good my
>added voice will do. if this makes me less of a
>person, fine. i've never had a high opinion of myself,
>or of what i can do anyway. so it changes nothing.

you being a lesser person is in your mind, not in mine.

>> because it shows that you
>> don't buy what "Authority" tells you as "Truth" and
>> it shows other people that they are not alone in
>> distrusting "Authority" and their "Truth".
>
>you think i believe in authority? you think i respect
>it? if so then you've got me all wrong. i don't
>believe in anything. i don't believe in god, the state
>or any other organized notions of the sort where Truth
>is claimed to be found.

you believe in the pointlessnes of action, and that's a notion put into your head by "Authority", like it or not.

>my stance on authority is that in cases like here in
>the U$ i can't change it because 1) the masses are to
>concerned with themselves that my voice saying we
>should fight will be ignored. 2) based on #1 i see the
>said action as being pointless.

the masses ? these are all individuals. Anybody talking like that about the masses has this bad odour of superiority.

>
>i am a nobody. this does not mean i have nothing to
>say. it simply means that what i do have to say will
>fall on deaf ears, so why talk anymore. i've tried
>saying in work places such as the newspaper where i
>used to work that we should form a union to demand
>higher wages due to extremely low pay and the response
>was 'shhh, don't talk about those things. you'll get
>us all fired and we don't wanna lose our jobs.' if ppl
>are too scared to do anything or too wrapped up in
>their own thing, then my voice is not only pointless,
>but useless.

one bad experience does not a winter make.

>does this make me defeatist? probably. but it's not a
>defeatism from nothing. it's based on experience. so
>if i'm less of an anarchist, so be it. being part of a
>label matters little to me.
>
>gr3g

still it is not very clear why you are on this list.

Erik