So, after my previous outpourings I’ve been having something of a hard time finding something to actually write about. However ‚feminism‘ is a very popular movement at the moment, no matter where you look there it is, and every time you look there’s somebody explaining what ‚feminism‘ is and not agreeing with any other ‚feminists‘ in their definition. This kind of behaviour in my opinion completely undermines the entire cause, and here’s why.

Judging by my observations of numerous daily arguments about feminism, I know already that this is a controversial idea. Men, the great oppressors, are not allowed opinions on this stuff. I can already hear the cries of feminists the world over. „You don’t know what it’s like to be a woman! You don’t understand!“. Or at least that’s what they would cry if they saw this. I acknowledge that nobody will ever actually see this. But if we disregard this, then I would like to begin with the following preface. I am a man. And while, as I’ve mentioned previously, I am not a fan of definitions and shit like that, having now looked up the definition of feminism, I would also say I am by definition a ‚feminist‘ (you have no idea how hard it was for me to type that). I believe wholeheartedly and completely that gender should not be a factor in determining anything, or in other words men and women should be equal. There is also no doubt in my mind that this is not the case in the world, and thus this cause is a valid one. Furthermore, I have no doubts that people with this idea really need to get their shit together if they ever hope to actually achieve this.

Take the point I already touched on, the attack of male opinions in this area. I respect that not all ‚feminists‘ do this, but I have witnessed many arguments in which men who contribute their opinion to an argument on this are attacked regardless of what their opinion is, simply on the basis that they are a man. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but if your goal is the equality of men and women, then surely you must have at least the most basic respect for people and their right to a fucking opinion. If men and women are to be equal, then surely their thoughts and ideas must be considered on an equal footing, and not disregarded on the basis of the gender of the person having them. It’s literally the very thing that you claim to be opposed to. Were the roles to be reversed, as they usually are might I add, then you would quite rightly point out the sexist element of this. To my mind at least nothing undermines a cause more than hypocrisy, and whenever I see this it makes me sad to my very core. They say fight fire with fire. That’s bullshit. You fight fire with water, or some other suitable chemical compound like carbon dioxide (sorry, I had to let my inner geek out there). The way to combat sexism is not with sexism. The way to combat racism is not with racism. The government in the UK recently decided to pass a law that mandates that by some arbitrary point in the future, I can’t remember when, at least 40% of senior positions within corporations must be held by women. While that is good for women, who do occupy a pitifully low fraction of such positions, it’s completely against the spirit of equality and serves only to tip the sexist balance in the opposite direction. If you’re truly in support of equality then you don’t need law on your side, you simply need an environment that you can trust to make a decision based on the relevant grounds rather than the irrelevant ones. So how do you go about creating this environment?

You go after the bastards perpetrating this injustice. Sexism, whether institutionalised, entrenched within society’s history and still widespread, or made based simply on some idiot’s personal bias, is still a crime. I would argue a crime against humanity, since it denies women that most basic right with which we are all born, namely the right to be treated as an individual on our own merits and weaknesses rather than the external and irrelevant factors such as gender and race. You don’t change these cultural idiocies with laws, you change them by actually getting rid of the fucking cause. Unfortunately, the people who make and enforce the laws are, like the heads and elites of corporations, rich, middle-aged white men who still live in the ’20s where the only function of women was to cook their dinners and suck their dicks. What needs to be tackled is not numbers of women within this culture, but the culture itself. And the only way to do that is get rid of government and these hierarchies within business.

To those who would argue that men are just better than women at these things, you can go fuck yourself. I’ve previously written about the diversity of humanity in terms of interests and ability, and that argument applies here too. Roughly speaking, the world is split 50/50 in terms of gender. Thus, by simple laws of statistics and evolution, 50% of people with a talent for any given role will be female, and thus it’s not unreasonable to expect that in practically all areas of work (with some exceptions) 50% of the workforce would be female also. There’s no argument to the contrary, there’s nothing that men are inherently better at than women or vice versa, that’s just the way it is, and all that stops it being so is the perpetuation of rich, middle-aged, white cunt culture.

I must say also that there is one thing I find more disheartening then women attacking men, and that is women attacking women with conflicting opinions on what ‚feminism‘ is and is not. Seriously, what the fuck? Once you’ve established equality with those who’ve oppressed you you’re then going to oppress those who struggled with you for it? If you believe in equality for women and men, surely you must also believe in equality for women and women. Telling other women what they can and can’t do based on your own personal ideas of actions that are or are not conducive to your definition of feminism is the most hypocritical thing I can imagine is possible. This becomes most apparent in things like the ‚Page 3 debate‘ that’s been going on recently. If women choose to take their clothes off and display themselves then that’s 100% their choice, much as your choice not to is 100% yours. Nothing ever demeans anything when it’s done out of personal desire, uninfluenced by any external factors. You may not agree that naked ladies should be featured in a newspaper, that’s an entirely different issue. If you genuinely believe in the equality you claim to, then you believe in the freedom of everybody to do whatever the fuck they want unlimited by gender or any other factors. Please, surely you must recognise this.

And now, for one final attack on the male culture which has given rise to the need for feminism, I don’t think I’ve quite got it all out my system. Even when these arseholes do let women into their precious little circles, their treatment of them once there is just sickening. It makes me so angry when I see political leaders (white, middle-aged, rich men) come out and boast about how many women they have in their party to try and come across as ‚progressive‘. Or business leaders (also white, middle-aged, rich men) come out and talk about how many women they have in management positions because they’re so ‚equal rights‘. Women aren’t some sort of fucking cattle or mechanism for scoring points with. They’re just people doing a job, same as anybody else within said organisation. That’s what true equality really is. When there is no distinction, when women don’t need to be dragged out in front of cameras and paraded about and made an example of for the benefit of their male leaders, when they can just go about doing what they do without being a woman doing it. That is when feminism will have achieved its true goal. And I look forward to it.



So, here comes the final instalment. Once we’ve got rid of oppression through ridding ourselves of government and money, what does the world actually look like?

Well, for a start, we have a much greater sense of community, and we break down the world into smaller, much more manageable areas than the ones we currently have inflicted on us. As a general rule, the larger a democracy, the more people get fucked over by it, thus by process of being pissed off with larger groups telling us what to do, we break down democracy into a very local, very fair organisation. Think local councils, but even more local. There are no official boundaries or anything like that, if a society is enlightened enough to have got rid of government they’re smart enough to know that discrimination on the basis of somebody’s origins is just fucking ridiculous. Therefore we live in groups small enough that everybody can have a say, and vote on any issue that arises directly rather than via some slimy reprehensible cunt claiming to represent us. These issues will be very few in number, since everybody is equal and free to do as they please, and the only matters which would require any kind of vote are ones affecting a whole community. The best thing about this, I believe, is that through this genuine personal freedom rather than the lie of freedom we currently operate under, people will gain in respect not only for themselves, but also for others as they will see that everybody is equal in this right to do whatever the fuck they like. Rather than being forced into selfishness by a system that rewards this, people might actually help each other out a bit, since there’s no motivation to watch others struggle any more.

Removing the motivation of money, or the threat of starvation depending on your viewpoint, you then allow people to do what they actually enjoy for a living. You don’t get children being forced into leaving school as soon as legally possible, or even before, because their family can’t afford to feed them any longer. You don’t get people forced into working ridiculous hours in shit conditions in a job they hate because it’s the difference between them starving or not. Or on a slightly less drastic note, you don’t get people choosing engineering over science because it pays better (this is the difference between me and my brother, for example). As I’ve mentioned before, I come from a very middle class background where money was never forced to become a factor in any decisions I’ve made. I got to the leaving age in school and could choose to continue studying there. I finished studying there and decided to study some more at university, choosing to study science because that’s what I fucking enjoy. I’m currently doing a work placement and I absolutely love it. I couldn’t be happier with my life in this respect because money – or rather the lack thereof – never forced me to do anything I didn’t want to do (well that’s not strictly true, I did have to get a weekend job in a shop to try and avoid the massive debt  that awaits all students at the end of their education, but I even learned to like that for different reasons). I consider this joy not a privilege, but a basic right that should be afforded to everybody, and the only way to ensure this is by getting rid of our current system which for many people is tantamount to slavery. Through the diversity of interests and desires of people, you will then end up not only with everybody happy in what they are doing, but you will also find that there are few, if any holes in the functioning of your community. This breadth of interest will act to ensure that at the very least most of the essentials of your community are met simply by people doing what they want to do.

But what about all the jobs that nobody wants to do? You know, the jobs that poor people allegedly reject continuously so they can stay on benefits? There are two answers I would like to present. First of all, there are different reasons for enjoying a job. My current one on placement I enjoy simply because it’s what I enjoy doing. My job in the shop I came to enjoy after a while because I enjoyed the company of my colleagues. Two very different motivations, both leading to the same outcome. Now given that we live in a very diverse world with everybody being entirely unique, you’re bound to have some people that enjoy these allegedly ‚unwanted‘ jobs, for one reason or another. For example, one job I would not enjoy would be that of a postman. I would not want to get up at such hours in the morning as they do. However there are bound to be people who do enjoy the early mornings. Some may feel a sense of joy in connecting the people of the world to one another (OK so the idea of e-mails is kind of killing that, but in principle that’s not a bad reason to enjoy this job). Some may just be lazy and enjoy the fact that the working day may start early, but it also finishes at around 10 if you do it right. The same arguments could be applied to any job. Now I realise that you may not accept this. There are some jobs so bad that nobody could ever ever enjoy them right? But they are necessary. Thus somebody will do them. It’s part of the responsibility for yourself and your community that will grow from the sense of community discussed earlier. Of course letting your community fall into a state of disrepair is an option. Nobody’s going to tell you to do these things. Nobody can force you either. But are you actually going to allow that to happen? No. Indeed if your community was so compelled, you could set up some sort of rota for these tasks. The point is, by hook or by crook, they will get done. It’s not that big a deal.

How do we produce for and feed ourselves? The answer is simple. People will always want to be farmers. That’s a pretty good job. You get to live in the countryside with the fresh air and the animals and shit. Not something that really appeals to me, but there’s many people that it will appeal to. They produce the food. Other foods which are slightly less natural in origin, i.e. these processed things, may or may not continue to be produced without the motive of profit. Frankly that’s of little importance. They only serve as a cheaper alternative to what you can get from nature, and since we’re no longer a world of impoverished people forced to buy whatever we can afford rather than what we want, they are no longer strictly necessary. Of course there may be people who see this as a way of feeding the masses, and given that this is a truly noble goal, may choose to continue the production of such foods, that’s up to them. I can only speculate. What matters is that the world is more than capable of producing enough for all, and there are more than enough people willing to do this, and now that nobody can’t afford to eat, we don’t have people starving to death because their interests or talents are not so well paid as others.

As for getting this food, nothing fundamental need change about the way we go about it now, other than the exchange of money. You simply go to the supermarket, pick up what you need, then take it to your home. We don’t have money any more so you can skip the paying part. All that is required is to make sure that there is enough for everybody, which can be easily coordinated. Just because we live in small communities doesn’t mean we shut out the rest of the world. The world is a wonderfully connected place, and we are all fundamentally compassionate beings. If one farm’s fields weren’t big enough to meet the demands of those it provides for, a simple communication to another one along with an explanation of what is required will suffice. Of course there’s nobody to dictate to this farm that they must help, but if they could why wouldn’t they? It’s like when you see homeless people in the street. I believe that the vast majority of us would feed and shelter and care for these people if it were within our capabilities, however our pockets are not bottomless and there aren’t enough houses, so it proves impossible. But if we could help, we would. Without money, without having to look after yourself first, you can always help.

Now, there’s no government to impose anything on anybody, we are all free, but I feel that there are some universal basics which should at least be noted if not acted upon. I like the basics of don’t kill, don’t hurt, don’t steal. They seem pretty fundamental to me. I doubt there’ll be many problems with this, in the sort of society that I think would evolve from freedom we would have enough basic respect for one another to observe these without much thought. There are then things like freedom of speech, religion, no discrimination etc, which again should all be pretty widely observed anyway because of the respect we have for each other born of true freedom. I think the most fundamental rule should be that of equality in general. Nobody is any better or any worse, any more or less deserving, any different from anybody else in their right to be as they wish to be.

So in summary, my idea is basically to reset the world to a time when people were truly equal. To a time when there was no money and trade, only a community effort to look after one another. To a time when there was nobody to force anybody into anything, and they actually had a say in the things that affected them directly. Now of course, with this freedom comes also the freedom to do it all over again. There’s no government to stop a community reinventing money, and thus causing the disgusting level of inequality we see in our world today. There’s nothing to stop a community reinstating some form of government to rule over them. It is after all part of the human mindset to want to be given purpose and and be told what to do, hence why we have religion. As equals within a society of equals it is nothing other than their right to do so, and for this to be respected. Or you could just stay free. Free of hierarchy. Free of inequality. Free.




So, time for the second instalment of my ‚Utopian Trilogy‘ (again I apologise for the pretentious titling but I just can’t help it, it’s cool to have a trilogy OK?). Having tackled the issue of ‚Power‘ previously, I now move to the other major issue affecting the functioning of the world, namely ‚Money‘. The last instalment is just going to be focused on how these two would combine and what a world looks like in my dreams. So here we go.

Money. A concept devised by humanity, wholly unnatural, at the root of all things bad about the world and frankly something I think needs to be got rid of.

Money is an indicator of the value of something. Be it the value of a product to a consumer, or a worker to an organisation, or something else, that is all it really is. But how do you actually decide how much any of this stuff is worth? What are the criteria? At the most basic level this is entirely arbitrary and makes absolutely no sense to me at all. For example, take any item you can buy. Its cost is determined by what? The cost of the work that went into it plus that of the raw materials. Fair enough. What dictates the cost of these? The cost of labour is determined by the manufacturer and what they pay their workers (with a generous cut for the managers who did fuck all). How do you decide how much these people are paid? Why would workers in one organisation be paid more than another? Or workers in different professions? Is there any fundamental difference? I don’t think so. As for the raw materials, what determines their value? They either got dug out of the ground or produced in a lab. How do you decide how much they’re worth? Probably the cost of the labour in their extraction/synthesis. Again, entirely arbitrary and without any actual foundation in reality. Reading this I must say it’s nowhere near as convincing as I would like it to be in all honesty, but I hope you get at least the basic idea, which is that the value of everything is entirely artificial, and thus so too is the value of money.

But money is how we get stuff. Without it there is practically no way to survive unless the likes of Bear Grylls and his ilk make far better programmes. And this is where the fundamental problem lies with money. Because it is so vital to our modern way of life, indeed entirely indispensible to all of us not blessed with the sort of training that John Rambo got, it encourages the very worst traits in the human character. Everybody needs and thus wants money. Hence in the pursuit of survival humanity will resort to anything. That’s why you see so much crime in impoverished areas committed by the poor. It’s not a matter of desire. I don’t believe anybody steals for a living, or for the fun of it. It’s necessity. Survival instincts. And the need for this is created by humanity itself with the invention of this concept of money. Now, I accept that not everybody lives in poverty. So surely those who find themselves outside of this world would be fine. Fuck no. Through the miracle of greed, these people are every bit as bad. They just want more and more and more, pushed by consumerism, so they can accumulate more and more stuff and show it off to their friends and push them into the same cycle of greed and pretentiousness. And it seems, by observing those at the top, that the more you have the more you want. The greed of the richest in our world simply astounds me, and I don’t understand how the world can be OK with that. We try to set out rules and principles and shit to live by, but where money is concerned all bets are off. People will lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes to get a bit more. Everybody’s addicted.

But it’s humanity who created this mess. The main judgement of whether somebody is ’successful‘ or not in our world is their material worth, be that how much they have in their bank account, or how much their house costs, or what car they drive, the world is obsessed with it. Once you’ve fed yourself, put a roof over your head and met the basic needs for survival, everything else is just showing off for the approval of your peers. The only way it’s not is if you genuinely want these things, which I can accept that some people might, but what I don’t accept is that your ability to get these things should be based on how much money you have. I don’t tend to include personal anecdotes, but there’s one I find particularly relevant to this, and given that I’m not liking this piece so far and it’s not as convincing as I would like since I’m currently unable to express myself in an eloquent manner, I shall include it.

Unfortunately, I am from a very middle class family in a very middle class area. I live in a ’nice‘ house in a ’nice‘ area, went to a ‚good‘ school, I couldn’t be much more of a middle class white boy dream if I tried. I hate that I’m from such a world, but I digress. In our kitchen, we have  a toaster. Toast is something my brothers and I eat from time to time. We had a toaster capable of cooking two slices of toast, and for many years we used this happily, never, ever (as far as I can recall) having any trouble with the fact that it only cooked two slices of toast. Then at some point our parents decided to buy a new toaster which can cook four slices. What is the fucking point in that? In many years of eating toast never was it required that we cook more than two slices at a time. So why had we bought this? Precisely the reasons given above. Greed, driven by consumerism and social pressure so we could show off about how much money we have. This angers me so much. To this day that toaster has never cooked more than two slices of toast at a time. Indeed we always use the same two slots so the other half of it is still fucking brand new. And at the root of this pointless fucking bullshit is money, and the side of humanity it encourages. So why do we still encourage this? Why do we allow our self worth to be tied so strongly to this idea of money and material worth? I say we shouldn’t.

Now if we say that we actually want this stuff, and it’s not motivated by some streak of greed and pretentiousness. If we actually want this stuff, why shouldn’t we have it? Why should there be any barrier to you getting what you want? Why should an entirely artificial idea stand between a real human being and their desire? Why should somebody who works in a shop paying minimum wage not have a 4 slice toaster that they want, but a driving examiner and a police office worker should be able to buy one because they feel like it, just in case one day they’re maybe really really really hungry and need 3 slices of toast? Why should money be essential to get what you want? We’re all human beings, broadly speaking we all need and want the same things, so why should money create such divisions among us? Why should this pathetic idea of what somebody is worth hinder them in the way they wish to live their lives? My proposal is this. It shouldn’t. If I want something, as a human being, equal to all other human beings in my right to be happy and have what I want to have, then I should have it. There should be no barrier. We should simply all work together to produce what we want and need, and then give it to those who want and need it. I realise this is something of a difficult concept to grasp at first, but it seems pretty obvious to me in all honesty. Let’s say I want to go to a Chinese buffet for dinner because I fancy a bit of Chinese food. Why then should I be forced to go to McDonalds instead because it’s cheaper and it’s all I can afford? Why, if I want to listen to music in higher quality, should I be denied this because headphones aren’t compatible with what I get paid? Why should this invented concept stand in the way of what I want? Note I say ‚I‘ here, but these are only examples intended for general illustration. Why shouldn’t we have what we want because of some arbitrary worth we’ve had attached to us?

Now, I accept that it’s highly unlikely at any point in my lifetime or indeed in this millenium, that this will come into force. So if we do insist on having money, why can’t we at least do a better job of distributing it? A particular fact that seems to be going around at the moment is something along the lines of (unfortunately it’s late, I’m tired and can’t remember exact numbers) ‚the richest 85 people in the world have the same amount of money as the poorest 3 and a half billion‘. Yes, half the world’s worth amounts to that of 85 greedy corrupt bastards who’ve spent their lives taking money from the poor that they don’t need or have any use for, in exchange for a product that is either completely essential to human life and should be available to everybody, or more likely a product which, through advertising (or as I like to call it lies), people have been manipulated into buying on some pretence that it makes you a better person for having it. The idea of this completely fucking disgusts me, I won’t lie, and I don’t understand how anybody can actually think that’s OK.

If we insist on having money, if we insist on imposing this shit on ourselves, then why also make it a problem for some people? We are all equal I believe, and the greatest source of inequality is financial inequality. How does this arise? Well while the currently wealthy tend to have inherited this wealth through the rich conspiring among each other to keep themselves wealthy and everybody else down, let’s ignore that for now and assume we all started on an equal footing. How did it arise? People get paid differently depending on the job they do. Why? Just fucking why? Who decided that a banker should be better paid than a binman? Why should an electrician not earn the same as a politician? As humans we are all inflicted with an ego to one degree or another, and thus we like doing what we’re good at, and that’s often what we end up doing for a living. So why should some talents be better rewarded than others? Why because somebody happens to be good at physics, should they earn any more than somebody who’s good at making chairs? They have equal talents in their chosen profession, so why should that be the difference between eating and not? Why should that be the difference between (going American here) health insurance and none, and by inference life and death? How can that ever be acceptable? How can anybody justify to those on the wrong end of these arbitrary values people have assigned to them why they should starve because they’re good at something different from somebody else? I couldn’t. So yes, what I’m alluding to here in case it’s not clear is that we pay everybody the same, regardless of what they do. There is no logical justification for anything otherwise.

And then, finally, if that is implemented, then surely it’s not that much of a leap to move to the moneyless system that I talked about earlier. If everybody has the same amount of money and everybody can get what they need and want, then why do we need to bother with the exchange of this paper stuff, which we believe to hold some value? If the stuff is there and everybody has the means of getting it, why bother with such a symbolic gesture of paying? Don’t. Just get rid of it, and live free from the shackles which this places upon you.

A couple of footnotes. Firstly, I’m not especially happy with the way this has come out, and this may be subject to considerable editing in the future if I find a more coherent way to express myself without the obscene amount of question marks I feel like I’ve used here. And secondly, soylentjeremy I promised you that I would address some of the things we’ve talked about recently and I realised that this piece doesn’t really do that, I’m not avoiding the issue I promise but the next piece that I’ll be writing was always going to be a lot more along those lines so your reply will come mainly from there. Anyways thanks for reading anybody who did!




So, the first entry of my ‚Utopian Trilogy‘ (I’ve always wanted to have my own trilogy, sorry) is on the issue of power. Who should have the power in your life?

What follows is my logical justification of this answer. Nobody but you.

And I don’t mean in the sense of one of these dreadful self help books about taking control of your life and being the master of your own destiny and cliché cliché cliché. Even if you subscribe to and carry out that bullshit, you will always be a slave to a government and a system designed to fuck you over to help somebody who doesn’t need it. I mean there should be nobody who rules you. No government. No boss. Nothing.

Note this idea is not born of trying to be cool and rebellious, or of listening to Russell Brand (big fan of him though). This is born of sitting and thinking about the world and how much I hate it and why I hate it and what could be done to make it better. My reasoning runs along these lines.

We begin with monarchy. This will be short and sweet. The idea simply baffles me. Ruling a country is not a fucking birthright. Nobody should ever be respected on the basis of their relatives or what their surname is, let alone put on some sort of pedestal and treated like some sort of idol and how anybody at any point in the history of man could ever have thought this was a good idea is beyond me. Indeed how anybody managed to impose this on the rest of their country is beyond me. I don’t really have much more to say about that one. Now government.

What does a government do? Asides from take your money at the end of the month without much justification, they make laws. That’s their only function. After a little thought, I realised that about 90% of laws could be summarised by 3. Don’t hurt. Don’t kill. Don’t steal. All the government’s laws do is tell you not to do these, or drugs.

I’ll spend a little time justifying that statement, as I realise it may not be immediately obvious. It is however clear that they cover laws against murder, assault and theft at least. What about all the other laws that the government are constantly passing for our benefit!?!?!? Tax laws for example. These only define what the government considers theft (pretty backwards since they’re in fact stealing from you). Don’t steal. Property law defines what belongs to who. Don’t steal. Rape? Don’t hurt. Abortion? Don’t kill (although the point at which it becomes murder is subjective). one may argue drugs is don’t hurt yourself, however that’s bullshit. That’s just the government being cunts. My theory is that because there is generally an anti establishment feeling attached to those who take drugs, this law allows the government to subtly persecute those who oppose it, but obviously that can’t be proven though. However on drugs, they should be legal. What you choose to put in your body is 100% up to you and nobody can tell you otherwise. The consumption of the drugs alcohol and nicotine is a matter of free choice and therefore so it should be for all drugs. It’s well demonstrated that addiction is a disease, a health problem, so treat it as such, or throw me in jail for having a fucking cold. For an example of why this is right, see Portugal.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with these principles at all, in fact I believe they’re all very good, solid ideas upon which to base a society. I put it to you that you are a (reasonably) normal person, probably. Have you ever killed? Stolen? Hurt? If you’re reading this the likelihood is that like 99% of the world you haven’t, or at least not to any serious degree. So then I ask the question. Why do you need a government to tell you not to do these things? My answer is you don’t. Simple.

Now we’ve toppled the main obstruction to our freedom (well, we’ll come to police later), what about a more everyday example most of us have to struggle with? Your boss. Whether you like them or not, they still order you around and still have power over you based on some sort of perceived authority that is imposed on you, and I believe that just the same as government this is wrong. I’ve not got much experience in employment it must be said, I’ve had one job and am currently doing some work experience, and to be honest I’ve liked all my bosses. But I never saw why they deserved respect because they said they were above me. I’ll apply my arguments to the example of my job in a shop, but I see no reason why these wouldn’t generalise to pretty much all jobs.

I worked in a sports shop for quite a while (almost 5 times as long as an average employee) and saw 3 managers in my time. I liked all of them, they treated me well and I was happy to do what they asked when it made sense and was fair. But that was the only reason. Not because they had any kind of authority that I respected. I have in fact come up with two solutions to this power problem, which could have run our store every bit as well without any hierarchy.

Everybody has a talent. Some more than others, but everybody has something they’re good at, and given a cross section of people you are always bound to have a range of these talents. That’s just statistics and nature. Solution one involves using those talents. Some people are bound to be better at organising and motivating (the job of a manager) than others. So allow these people to deal with such tasks as delegation and organisation. I know this may sound like appointing a manager, but the difference is this. These people aren’t imposed on you. You aren’t told that they are better than you and you must obey all their commands. They aren’t given authority by either themselves or some other mysterious authority from higher up the management chain. They are equal to you in terms of authority, you simply do as they ask not because they say you should, but because they are good at this sort of thing and you respect that, and thus respect that it’s probably a good idea based on that fact. They may not be able to do what they’ve asked you to do, you may be much better at them than that, and that’s the respect they’ve shown you in asking you to do this. The example in my store was that it was split over two floors, making it impossible for the manager to be on both at the same time, so the manager usually stayed on the ground floor because it was the more important and busy of the two, and upstairs it was left to the experienced staff to organise the top floor. They weren’t above their colleagues, they simply knew what had to be done and how best to do it and the less experienced staff respected this and did as they were asked. The manager couldn’t have had things running any smoother, so did we really need them? No. Just a little respect.

I realise the above just sounds like calling a manager an equal, and of the two solutions I propose it’s the least favourable. The second is simply that things are run collectively and democratically by everybody. Everybody has a say and you work together to do what has to be done. I believe that naturally this situation will be in some ways similar to the above as there will be some who better understand what to do and thus will have more involvement in this collective process than others, however the difference lies in the lack of appointment of an organiser or organisers and everybody perhaps has more of a part in it. The example in my shop was one evening it was the manager’s day off and the experienced staff member was not in until the end, leaving me and two colleagues who hadn’t been in the store as long as me on the top floor. However I’m not much of a leader so we simply got together for a few minutes, discussed what had to be done and who would do what and then went and did it. We didn’t even need to appoint any kind of ‚leader‘ at all, we simply used what we knew and did what had to be done. In short, did we at any point actually need a manager? No. Any kind of guide other than our own? Also no. So why would we need it in future?

Finally, we come to the police. What would we do without them? Exactly the same as we currently do. I refer back to the arguments above regarding the redundancy of government making laws that nobody breaks. I now go a step further. Assuming you have never broken these laws still, I now ask why you haven’t broken any of these. Was it because the law told you not to? Or because as a human being you have respect for others and wouldn’t do these things? I suspect the answer is the latter. So why then do we need police to enforce laws that nobody breaks? To make sure that you’re not doing what you had no intention of doing anyway? All the police really do is exercise the will of government, and this only serves to impinge upon your freedom. Think of protests for example. They get shut down all the time on very poor excuses and often in brutal circumstances by the police. Are they not supposed to enforce the right to free speech rather than act as an impediment?

What if somebody does break one of our three rules though? I realise that this happens anyway, and would continue to do so without police. The answer is quite simply to take care of it as a community. Work together with your fellow human beings who share your respect for humanity to catch the perpetrator. Maybe even give a group of people within your community the job of doing so. Just don’t give them any kind of special respect because of this role. They’re just people doing a job, they don’t deserve it any more or less than you.

And here I end my argument. I don’t believe in systems of authority and think all those in existence should be dismantled. I have faith in humanity, and I don’t think we need self important pricks to impose themselves on us and tell us what to do. We don’t need to be led.

PS: I’d like to add that I realise the police argument isn’t fully developed and much weaker than the rest. I’m still working on it in my mind, as of everything that I’ve written about here they are the only ones who I can see doing any good. I think they key to it lies in treating them differently, not as some sort of authoritative force, simply people doing a job like everybody else. Anyways, thanks for reading!




Don’t worry, this one will be pretty short and sweet. Basically the purpose of this post is just to give my coming posts a bit of context. In my next 3 posts I will be discussing my ideas for how the world would be better, dealing with the two main issues, money and power, and then their unification in the third. I’ll probably have these done within a week, or at least I plan to. Enjoy.



Where I Stand

I know all 0 of the people who looked at my last and first foray into writing have been pissing themselves in anticipation of the next, so here you go.

Yesterday I took a politics test of sorts here ( http://thevirtualpolitician.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/where-do-you-stand/ , also a very interesting blog I’d recommend giving a read, and if not I recommend at least opening this link and having it easily accessible in another tab as I reference the picture at the top throughout) and based on his map I am an anarchocollectivist. What the fuck is that? I have an interest in politics, and while I had great fun doing the test I also came to realise that the graph which he uses to classify everything in fact represents what I find to be a huge problem with politics, or humanity more generally . Why you ask?

Because not everything can be put in a fucking box. Why are we as a human race obsessed with classifying everything based on the most petty and insignificant of differences? All it does is create division and argument based on these pathetic criteria instead of an actual rational debate about things which genuinely matter. I put to you the following case, and the possibilities based on what I could apparently do.

Path 1

I walk up to somebody in the street in order to incite a discussion about politics (unlikely given I’m really, really fucking shy, however suspend your disbelief for a moment please). I say to them „Hello, politically I believe in the disestablishment of governing bodies in order to allow people to govern themselves, and I believe that as human beings we are all equals and thus should work together in order to provide for both ourselves and each other. What about you?“. Assuming this person doesn’t beat me up for interrupting whatever they were doing, and has an interest in politics too, we then proceed to have a nice rational conversation discussing the merits of different ways of doing things and perhaps one is able to better inform the other about a different way of thinking. All is well.

Path 2

I then go to the next unsuspecting victim of my strange compulsion to approach strangers and talk about politics, only this time I decide to say „Hello, I’m an anarchocollectivist, what are you?“. Again we make the assumptions made above in order to allow this hypothetical conversation to occur. There are now two ways for this to proceed. In the unlikely event this person too is an ‚anarchocollectivist‘, they reply with „Cool, me too“. Conversation proceeds no further. Or in the more likely event they don’t share my views, their reply is „Cool, I’m a(n) [insert box here]“. Instantly there is a division , and due to the primitivity (is that a word) of human nature, we proceed with hostility towards one another’s ideas on the basis of some arbitrary classification.

In assessment of the argument I just made, I know it’s not exactly concrete. Ignorant and divisiveness is possible via path 1, as is rational debate possible from path 2, however the point I’m trying to make here is that it’s a lot easier to discuss an idea as an idea itself than it is to discuss it under some rigid heading. Which leads me to my next point.

What if some of my ideas don’t fit into my box? The idea that anybody can be classified by these concrete lines and everything they think can be encompassed by one single word is absurd. What if I take my beliefs that make me an ‚anarchocollectivist‘ then take a dash of inspiration from my favourite politician Nigel Farage (please sense the sarcasm here) and decide that I believe in all of those things but only for British people, immigrants can fuck off. Does that automatically stick me at the other end of the map in ‚Fascism‘? Because of one slightly different idea? Does my box suddenly span everything in between the two? Or do I suddenly not have a box? Do I have a box all to myself? OK, I may have taken it a little far with the questions here, but you get the idea. Trying to meticulously classify everything with a single label is stupid in a world of practically infinite diversity.

Furthermore, it’s quite possible that one can become a prisoner of one’s box. What if I, as an ‚anarchocollectivist‘, suddenly have an idea belonging to my neighbour ‚anarchocommunism‘. What do I do with this shocking idea!? Am I allowed to have it? But it’s on the wrong side of the line! How can I be thinking this!? Or does having this idea suddenly make me an ‚anarchocommunist‘? It’s like when you see these American films about high school where everybody fits into some sort of fucked up stereotype. What if a ‚jock‘ was also smart? Do they become a ’nerd‘? If a ’nerd‘ develops a talent for football are they then a ‚jock‘? (As a side note, in the unlikely case this reaches anybody from America, are your high schools really as clique-y and stereotypical as these films make out? I’ve always wondered). Or consider music. If you’re a reggae artist and you make a fast song (i.e. a ska song) are you then a ska artist? Or if you slow it down are you a rocksteady artist? I find this example particularly helpful, as most people who make this kind of music don’t really stick to one and cross over between all. That is what a mind needs too. Freedom to think whatever the fuck it likes without trying to live up to some sort of self-imposed limits. Just think as you please and let the world worry about putting you in a box.




I guess it’s time to write my first real entry. I am from the UK, Scotland specifically, and in my country the foremost fascist scum party, or ‚right wing‘ as they’re normally called, is UKIP. Their main policy is ‚immigrants are responsible for everything that is wrong with our country and the EU means we can’t kick them out, so let’s leave the EU so we can kick them out and have a country with no ethnic diversity so you can all be British and have British jobs‘. Apart from the racial stereotyping and just straight up fucking lies encompassed by this statement, my biggest problem with this is that they think they have the right to deny people freedom of movement.

Freedom of movement is, I believe, a fundamental human right of everybody on our planet. Countries are simply a social construct which have evolved from the very earliest days of humanity when tribes used to fight with other tribes because they camped in different places. Now the tribes are bigger and called countries, and they think that drawing lines in between somehow entitles them to the land on one side and is some sort of impermeable barrier that can’t be crossed by anybody. Nobody owns the fucking land. Nobody has the right to claim the land as their own (as a side note, if any members of Dirty Revolution ever see this, first of all, what an honour it is that you would look at my blog, and secondly my apologies for borderline stealing one of your lyrics here). I can draw all the fucking lines I want and it will never make the land mine. Nor will being born there. Nothing should ever stop you going wherever you want to go. This planet belongs collectively to the beings who inhabit it (animals included), every single fucking molecule is as much mine as yours as your cat’s as the mouse he’s got hanging out of his mouth. What makes you think you own this island Nigel? What gives you the right to decide who is and isn’t welcome because of where they were born? What makes you more entitled to be on this island than anybody else?

And now to the point about racism. OK, technically not racism. Xenophobia. Discrimination is reprehensible regardless of what you call it. Just because your policies aren’t ‚kill all Romanians, they’re after your wallet‘ or ‚violently beat Polish people because they stole your job‘ doesn’t mean you’re ’not a racist party‘ as you’re so consistently telling everybody. Every single word you speak encourages hatred of minorities, just because you dress it up in nice politically correct language doesn’t mean there’s not a fundamental problem with what you’re saying. Creating tension and division between equal peoples is just wrong, plain and fucking simple and I don’t understand how you’ve managed to convince anybody with your bullshit. Then again perhaps you haven’t, I think in western Europe ever since the Cold War there has always been an undercurrent of ‚anti eastern‘ sentiment, perhaps you’ve just reawakened it. Or provided it with a new figurehead. Whatever you’ve done doesn’t change how despicable your politics are, likewise to all those who have been taken in by them.

With regards to this nonsense that Polish, or more generally Eastern Europeans are coming to ‚your‘ country and taking ‚your‘ job, I literally can’t comprehend how it is possible for anybody to think this. You may argue for whatever reason that they shouldn’t be in ‚your‘ country, I don’t believe that to be valid as stated above, but how can you actually think you are entitled to any job they may get once they are here? They leave their country because there is nothing there for them, and they go elsewhere simply for a chance, yes a chance, of maybe finding work. They go simply to compete for the jobs that are there, jobs that you are welcome to apply for as well, and then it’s a case of the employer picking the most suitable candidate. Immigrants don’t get jobs based on the fact that they’ve come from another country. And if you try to suggest that, then you only serve to weaken the argument that you should have the job based on the fact you are British, unless you’re ’not racist‘ but think your nationality automatically entitles you to a job and those of other nationalities are not. And if you think that you are somehow being undercut and the immigrants are working for less money, that’s illegal on the part of the employer, not the employee. They can’t be blamed for being exploited.

Unfortunately UKIP are no longer a trivial collection of middle class wankers with racist ideas. Given the general apathy with regards to voting in our country, there is an admittedly small but still appreciable chance that our country may end up with these cunts in charge. Then what? We leave the EU, which despite my reservations about its future no doubt has an overwhelmingly positive influence through the freedom of movement, the common market and many other things, we kick out all the immigrants, leaving our country devoid of diversity and culture and all the positive aspects brought about by it. Does it stop there? NO. Bullies always need somebody to oppress. So who’s next? Judging by the comments of numerous UKIP politicians, gays. And then? Probably the poor, they’re pretty easy targets as the fucking Tories have shown us all. Even if for some reason you actually believe that immigrants are the root of all evil and need to be eradicated from the country, it won’t be long before you’re in the exact same position. Don’t think otherwise.

To anybody who persevered until this point, I thank you, and apologise for the slight incoherence and jumpiness of my argument. I don’t usually write anything like this so I’m hoping to develop the craft a little. Also i don’t know if comments are possible, however if they are, I invite UKIP fans to explain to me why I’m wrong in their eyes. But please keep in mind that just as you and Romanians, you and I are equals and your opinion is valued, but abuse because we don’t share one is not.