Prince Peter Kropotkin
Part One: Sticks and Stones
One of the vulgar tactics deployed by the wanton and the ignorant is the calling of names. Find the right name and the unwary will immediately be deflated, a somnolent public deceived.
One such name is 'hippie'. Nobody has a good word to say for the hippie, from the mainstream conservative to an alternative researcher such as Jan Irvin, who informs us that the 'hippie movement' of the 1960s was largely masterminded by the CIA and related agencies. Never mind that no serious and self-respecting counterculturalist of the time actually referred to themselves as a hippie, or that the word was a creation of the mainstream media. No. 'Filthy', 'bloody', and several others I do not wish to include here, are the adjectives invariably linked with that most vile of specimens, the hippie.
'Conspiracy theorist' is another catchphrase used to dismiss somebody you may happen to disagree with. The term first came into common parlance. I believe, following the assassination of JFK, and was employed to shoot down anybody who suggested that the truth might be anything other than what the official channels told us it was. It has become a phrase used in the mainstream pejoratively, connoting wackiness, cookiness, and paranoia. I heard the term 'conspiracy theorist' employed most recently in this manner by Brian Cox. Excuse me, Professor Brian Cox, if you please. The Great Professor is the current darling of BBC scientific rationalism, most likely a replacement for Richard Dawkins, who is getting on in years and not sexy enough. Now, I confess to having only watched about twenty minutes of Prof. Cox in total: his cutting-edge scientific presentations seem to have a disturbing effect on my intestinal tract. Anyhow, I caught him at the end of a programme about the Moon. 'We'll be online to answer your questions about the Moon after the programme' he hissed through the permanent smirk on his face. 'But no conspiracy theorists, who think we didn't land on the Moon' he continued smugly.
Bloody wacko conspiracy theorists. Not worth bothering with. Now, personally, I consider it unlikely that the Moon landings were faked. There are, however, serious rational questions to be answered about some of the evidence presented. Has Professor Cox, supreme exemplar of scientific objectivity that he is, actually cared to take a look at a few of the inconsistencies surrounding the official story? I doubt it.
The other time I caught the Great Professor on television (this is an unashamed digression, I know), he was in the middle of explaining science and equations and stuff to a hand-picked audience of 'celebrities' and the like (what a message that piece of theatre is sending out.....). 'The new physics is not mystical or woo-woo New Agey' he assured us smugly. 'It's very precise.' Now, look here, mate. These mystics through the ages you're so fond of poo-pooing have had far more knowledge and direct experience of the workings of the universe than will ever get processed through your own equation-and-diagram-addled brain. 'Mystic' turns out to be another knee-jerk term of derision, in the hands of Father Superior Cox at least.
Finally, we arrive at my other insult, the total dismissal: 'anarchist'. What is an anarchist? Well, it's a person who doesn't believe in rules, and has a penchant for chaos. Anarchists go round disrupting nice demonstrations organised by nice left-wing type people for nice worthy left-wing type causes. Don't be surprised, should you have the misfortune to ever encounter an anarchist, if they are wielding a baseball bat or other hard and dangerous weapon. A sort of western terrorist, really. In common with the hippie, an anarchist probably hasn't washed for weeks, and frequently earns intelligent descriptive adjectives like 'bloody' and worse. And it cannot be a coincidence that 'anarchist' sounds a bit like 'antichrist'. Can it?
Part Two: Liberty Calls
The reality, surprise, surprise, is far from the mudslinging and spin. One of the main figures in the history of anarchism is Peter Kropotkin. Or, to be precise, Prince Peter Kropotkin. He is listed in Wikipedia as, among other things, zoologist, philosopher, evolutionary theorist, geographer, economist, and anarcho-communist. In other words, a Renaissance Man of staggering proportions. 'Mutual Aid', published in 1902, is among his more important contributions to human thought. Following the hijacking and twisting of Darwin's ideas by the social Darwinists, who pushed interpersonal competition and 'nature red in tooth and claw' as justification for the existence of political and social power elites, Kropotkin decided to check things out for himself. Taking off into the wide open spaces of Russia (there are plenty of them), he observed closely the behaviour of the animals he came across there. His conclusion: co-operation was every much a requisite for survival and evolution of a species as was competition. Needless to say, and for reasons that should be obvious, it was the ideas of the social Darwinists that prevailed as the currency of the mainstream.
Kropotkin himself did not deny our competitive urges, but insisted that they were not the inevitable driving force of history as claimed by the social Darwinists. This reflection was a vital ingredient in forming his ideas of political anarchism. Personally, I rather doubt the value of studying animal behaviour to give us clues about human nature. In the natural world anything and everything happens. The good, the bad, the ugly. If there is a message, it is this: human behaviour is varied and elastic. Don't try to pin it down too much; many things are possible.
However, in the spirit of political anarchism, we call at the very least work for a huge diminution of central government control, along with radical decentralisation. There are many who will view such a prospect with trepidation; but is this fear really justified? Is it simply a conditioned reaction? Just think. Consider for a moment the people to whom we readily confer control on a daily basis. The Camerons, Merkels, Milibands; the Salmonds, Obamas and the rest. Are these beings who demonstrate an unusual and exceptional capacity for love, compassion, and sympathy for other human beings? No. Are they people more honest, honourable, trustworthy and innately responsible than your next-door neighbour? No. Do they embody remarkable qualities of problem-solving and creative thinking? Not at all. They are where they are purely by dint of working a system, a system of power that they feel at home in. That is pretty much it. There is nothing to lose, but much to gain, through their demise.
Part Three: Quitting the Interface
The notion of modern western democracy has become a grotesque parody of itself. In Britain, we increasingly hear of LibLabCon, where the three 'major' political parties have been reduced to a children's 'spot the difference' game. Debate takes place within carefully circumscribed areas, while issues that could make a real difference to people's lives are conveniently left outside the box, not for discussion at all. In Scotland, whence I write, Big Chief Alex Salmond has an increasingly transparent habit of 'misleading' the Scottish Parliament. It would be uncharitable of me to suggest that 'misleading' is a euphemism for lying through the teeth, thereby demonstrating an utter absence of respect for ones fellow parliamentarians.
The carnival of dishonour knows no bounds. On the occasions that I dare to dip into the 'news', it invariably shouts out loud in my face. A couple of weeks ago, local newspaper headlines told of how Fergus Ewing, Scottish Minister for Energy (another euphemism - read 'Minister for destroying beautiful landscapes and plunging people into unnecessary fuel poverty') was accused of 'misleading Scottish Parliament' on how much extra the gas and electricity consumer had to pay as a result of government renewable energy policies. He protested that he was unaware of any problems with his figures: he had got them from the renewables industry, after all. Comrades, this is the same as going to tobacco companies in the 1950s for information on the links between smoking and lung cancer. Exactly the same. Underhand and criminal. And, what's more, it appears that Ministers in Scotland are under no obligation to apologise for spreading falsehoods anyway. It's up to them to decide.
One simple step we all could take would be not to vote. This is not just passive abstention, but a positive act. As Emma Goldman, another prominent figure in the history of anarchism vividly put it, voting provides an illusion of participation while masking the true structures of decision-making. If nobody voted, the criminals and psychopaths could no longer continue with their dirty tricks. A system cannot keep going if nobody supports it - its only hope would be to usher in a reign of terror that would make even Josef Stalin wince.
'But we should vote' I hear the bleating protests. 'We live in a democracy. We should be thankful, and exercise our democratic rights.' Well, sorry. We bloody well don't live in a democracy. It's a rigged game, to borrow a term from John Lash. Every several years we are presented with a number of identikit cut-outs, none of whom has anything to say that represents proper human aspiration. Besides, the catalogue of dark comics we see paraded as our 'democratically-elected representatives' has little say in what really goes on anyway. This is increasingly determined by groups, organisations, committees way out of reach of democratic accountability. Climate change summits, United Nations committees; agenda 21, common purpose; shady groupings of European bureaucrats. This is where the action is. Behind the scenes, out of the public eye. And the action seems to be almost entirely aimed at creating a uniform, homogeneous, docile, planetary population blithely led by a creeping totalitarianism. This is blindingly obvious; anybody who doubts it frankly hasn't done their ten minutes of homework. And there is a two-minute test you can do to check it out. Firstly, ask yourself whether, as a species, we have become much more evil over the past ten years, say, or not. Then, consider the things that governments have done to increase freedoms during that time; and consider the things that have increased control and interference in people's lives over that time.
So don't worry if you don't vote. Nobody has ever taken notice of your cross in the ballot box anyway.
This is where well-intentioned people who call for greater state control/scrutiny - of the press, for example - have got it so horribly and dangerously wrong. Faith in the state as an agent for improvement would be touching, were it not so terrifying. The notion that the state will be any more transparent, any more considerate of the freedom of individuals, has no foundation. I challenge anyone to show me otherwise; I am open to communication. In the meantime, our first obligation is to disentangle as far as possible from the state and its machinations. Reclaim our sovereignty. Otherwise, there can be no complaints.
To conclude with the eminently quotable Emma Goldman: 'The most violent element in society is ignorance.' And 'Every society has the criminals it deserves.' Thanks, Emma.
