A Platform For Anarchy

Provided unwittingly by the State

In 2017, I started conducting an interview per week mostly with popular voluntaryists/anarchists. I did over 50 shows. An overwhelming majority of these people I interviewed, when asked, claimed Ron Paul was what lead them to anarchy. I was surprised since I never knew that Ron Paul had that kind of impact. I personally missed the boat on that one.

You can behave like a purist and be mad that Ron Paul was a politician and not a pure anarchist, but the contribution his run for President made on growing the community in which you can behave like a purist and have anyone around you today to click “like” on your petty post complaining about it is undeniable.

The bottom line is that if there’s a chance that another person can bring that level of influence about the harm of government interventions, with the knowledge of US foreign policy, the knowledge of the devastation of government affairs in everything from poverty to pollution and have that person exploit the political process to do what Ron Paul did, once again bringing thousands through a quick pipeline from statism to anarchy, I’m all for it.

Stick with me, here. I know what you’re thinking.

“Karen, you’re talking about VOTING!!!”

No. I don't have to vote to promote it or to be on board with it. I don’t have to go within 50 yards of a polling location. I just have to nod my head when that person points out the fallibility of government on the platform and say, “it’s true” or “he’s right, you know” where everyone I know who still votes can hear me. Do you copy?

And the fact is, that if it were a Democrat or a Republican or any other candidate or elected official, if they finally said something that was true, you’d probably do the same. I hope you would. Doesn’t make them a “good person.” Just means you might point out, “Hey, so and so just called out Israel for stealing the atomic bomb in the Presi-fucking-dential debates! That’s freaking awesome!”

My main qualm with those among us who are purists is that rather than capitalizing on the biggest opportunities to date to promote liberty, they are going to highlight the one or two things with which they disagree with the guy at the podium (or for being on the podium) and make those things seem like they invalidate what the person is saying. They strawman the fuck out of these people in front of statists, and my biggest beef is that they do so, time and time again with this kind of borderline personality disorder obsession about how “if you don’t agree with me 100%, you are wrong 100%.” It’s weird. It’s really weird. It’s this “you’re either with us or against us” deal.

Who the fuck is “us”?

Please do not speak on my behalf. I see an opportunity or a loophole to exploit the state using the process of the state, I think someone should take it. You want to play holier than thou. I’m not saying you’re wrong about everything, but you are wrong to a fault, nay, to your own demise about this.

And if you truly want there to be more of “us”, you’d figure out what got most of “us” here in the first place and try to duplicate it.

Chances are, if this smarmy, little bitch described herein is you, you have very few friends that live up to your standards of anarchy and freedom. Admitting as much should tell everyone everything they need to know about what you are doing personally to grow the number of people who are not going to bring pitchforks to your door when the shit hits the fan: little to nothing- possibly steering people back to the state. In this case, I find it rather convenient that you want to strawman people who are still making conversions while you “model” anarchy.

Nice job, sport. Keep up the good work.