Educating Who About What?

The Circled A and its Parasites

parasite n 1. an organism living in or on another organism for its own benefit 2. something or somebody depending on something or somebody else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Ninety percent of the anarchist movement is a joke.

Anarchism has come to be used to describe anything but anarchism.

Anarchism, as a movement in Britain, is just about nonexistent. Anarchists have no influence whatsoever within the working class, although we see anarchist principles at work all the time throughout our class. The best parts of our lives normally exist outside of anybody's control. Human nature is good; the conditions most of us grow up in are bad.

"Anarchists" get a buzz out of feeling part of some anarchist tradition. They romantically look to Spain as proof that anarchist society is workable and desirable by a mass of people. Yet for some strange reason these people appear to be completely detached form the mass of people who would make anarchism a reality. Maybe it is fear of being pushed out of the way by real people, making real change that keeps the supposed anarchists to their weird little worlds. Jealous of their specialized subject being taken from them by those it's really from and for.

People appear unwilling to face up to the realities of our present society, wishing instead to bury themselves in empty rhetoric and totally empty and useless supposed anarchist organizations that struggle like fuck to sustain themselves. Anarchist groups today appear to be social clubs for society's misfits, where all kinds of weirdos discuss matters they have no connection to, in the grand name of anarchy.

University educated politicos, with absolutely no valid experience of a working class existence, talk emptily about capitalism and class from a position of privileged detachment and every other load of bullshit imag9inable except for anything of value, such as...


1. The middle class's involvement in politics, its contradictions, and the damage done by wevolutionaries and wadicals, their insincerity...
2. How come the anarchist (?) groups who profess to have right lines, have everything but members? Are people thick or is their method of working wrong? (How come very little anarchist propaganda strikes a chord in people?)

People do not want to look at the obstacles that need considering. To look at society and to realize the reality of the situation that we live in is something very unpalatable for most supposed anarchists. Most supposed anarchists haven't the bottle or desire. Until discussion begins that privileged idiots and boring politicos do not hinder, we haven't a hope in hell of getting anywhere.

We know in anarchist politics that most people give up at the first hurdle out of frustration and defensiveness. People dig themselves into a corner - staying put in their road to nowhere; groups producing crap papers no one seems to want to buy or read.

Most political shit that gets produced bears no relation to people's lives. Most of what is produced assumes the reader is a political bore with plenty of knowledge of irrelevant and pathetic political language, half of which comes from another classes' view of things. The middle class is very inarticulate; they try to hide this by their use of words. When we understand the words the academics use, the fuckers have no hiding place. They have nothing to say and no reason to try to say anything 'political'.

The academics (bored people who sit on the sidelines of any class conflict), who profess to be revolutionaries, have main priorities which seem to be making almost, but not quite, stimulating books and magazines for very unstimulating people - kind of like pseudo intellectual shit to have on your coffee table to impress impressionable fools with and to help the purchaser to feel that they are concerning themselves with the world's ills, when really they are not. There's actually comfort in such 'politics' for some people.

Turning a blind eye to unsightly reality will not further anarchism in any way. The anarchist exists in irrelevant groups as a shield to protect them from reality. It's avoidance of accepting that they're ignored and powerless... and realistically, up to nothing of any value.

Is it Trumpton we live in, or England?

One anarchist (?) from the Solidarity Federation said at a recent meeting of the Northern Anarchist Network, "I'm sick of hearing about the middle class - there are only bosses and workers." In the cartoon world of his organization this is maybe the case. A very simple and romanticized view of things. A very, very inadequate view of society, outdated by maybe 70 or 80 years or so. We know this view is the basis of all anarchist groups - out of date left wing rubbish.

Everyone else knows society has changed and does change, but not the politicos. Concrete realities that clash with their views they choose to ignore.

Millions of us are on the dole and don't have bosses as such, yet we do have middle class people affecting out lives, breathing down our next, held up to us as successful people and role models. Our managers and controllers - but not necessarily our bosses.

What world do some people inhabit in order to come up with such a line? Some people's vision of society is basically addled by their involvement in 'politics'. The critical lack of class analysis that exists within supposed class politics enables ex-public schoolboys and all other shades of liberals to stand along side working class revolutionaries without it seeming peculiar. Questions are not asked, which spares the impostors embarrassment and creates a very weak and bastardized movement. We don't speak up 'cause usually we don't want to make fools of these clowns who are supposedly on our side. This should end, though. Politeness is the art of non-communication.

Talking about fighting back today is like talking about rope in the house of a hanged man. Thanks to the wonderful politicos - everything they touch turns to shit.

Middle class people elbow their way into wherever there's room. Their behavior is selfish, causing the people who really do give a fuck to move away to look for something more real. If you're sick of the bastards who we are up against as a class, and you try to do something about it, you end up finding the bastards exist in the same roles in politics as they do outside politics - controlling and dominant. Middle class behavior in politics is disgusting and it's no wonder people move away from it. Their involvement is an embarrassment. Our class is blessed with common sense and can usually suss out bullshitters a mile of and stay away as a result.

Some people start fires or cut themselves up to get attention while other people join bands.

"The revolutionary and social goals of anarchism are suffering and far-reaching to a point where the word anarchy will become part of the chic bourgeois vocabulary of the coming century - naughty, rebellious, but deliciously safe."
- Murray Bookchin, "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism"

For some anarchy is about social change, for others it is about social status. Anarchism has its subculture figureheads, who tell us from stages and with lights shining on them that hierarchy, rock 'n' roll, and the status it gives them to pop idiots is wrong (what needs to be said about that?). They sing the praises of people involved in struggle yet remain at a comfortable and well-maintained distance themselves, because what they are and what they would like us to believe they are are two entirely different things. It is only that the audience isn't meant to discuss or see that bit. Go on, you've achieved your five seconds to say something pretentious, stupid and embarrassing and pretend it's somehow related to anarchism.

Read the full text here -  http://www.openlyclassist.org.uk/