'Anarchist': An oppressed identity?

[human strike]

"anarchists are portrayed in the media as something they are not; as violent chaotic domestic terrorists. we are more. anarchists have to hide their beliefs in order to get work etc. they are more likely to be stopped and harassed by police. anarchists have suffered from being mass murdered, imprisoned and deported for their beliefs.they are more likely to be labelled as being mentally ill as a misunderstanding of their views."

"i am mainly asking and arguing this point to see what others think; i am not necessary saying that i believe it. I a fed up of people judging all anarchists by intereation of a few, and by what they see on the media etc. i wouldn't judge all black people from interaction of only a few. everyone is different and experiences the world in a different way."

"anarchism is a belief that someone chooses due to their social interactions and observations about the world, in the same way someone may fancy someone of the same sex, or someone chooses to follow a religion..."

These are some excerpts from a conversation I had today with an anarchist where they compared being an anarchist to being homosexual, black and working class. I was reminded of a quote from an article I read recently that said, "Inevitably, those with more privilege would develop new heretofore unknown forms of oppression from which they suffered."

http://andrea366.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/the-problem-with-privilege-by-andrea-smith/

[Devrim]

Oh dear, oh dear. It gets more absurd by the day.

Devrim

[Quail]

This makes little sense - of course the ruling class are going to crack down upon people whose political beliefs include actively trying to undermine them and overthrow them. You could argue that many anarchists, communists, trade unionists, etc., will face some kind of persecution but this is mostly based on their actions, e.g., striking, demonstrating, breaking the law, as opposed to who they are.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

There's no such thing as oppression by identity. I can't just decide tomorrow that I'll be a star trek geek and that the awkward stares I get from my neighbors when I wear a star trek outfit every day counts as "oppression". Oppressed people are generally oppressed on the level of sexuality, gender, nation, disability exc, these oppressions are "real" because the constructs behind them are actually existing historical phenomena. Hurt feelings suck, but subjective feelings aren't oppression and to be quite frank I don't care about your feelings in a political sense.


And in a political sense, I mean as a part of the communist programme. Sure if you tell me about how it sucks to be an anarchists in the pour out your heart thread I'll listen and sympathize because I care on a personal level. But I don't care in the sense that you're hurt feelings won't inspire any political action on my behalf

[Jimmie Higgins]

Repression, yes. Red-baited, yes. Dismissed, yes. Oppressed, no.

For example: feminism is politically repressed, but women are oppressed. Black militancy is repressed, black people are oppressed.

[argeiphontes]

This depoliticizes anarchism. It's ridiculous and counterproductive to the extreme.

[DasFapital]

Bourgeois is gonna be oppressed as soon as I am through with them y'all!

[Zukunftsmusik]

"bourgeois rights advocacy"

[human strike]

To be fair, I'm not sure they actually ever said that anarchists are oppressed, they said "discriminated against". But they likened it to discrimination based on sexuality, class and religion.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, I think this is coming from a really wacky understanding of oppression. There are class realities underlying white supremacy and heteropatriarchy that have no parallel with regards to the political repression of anarchists. Race and sex represent real divisions of labour, and real material cleavages within the working class. Politics, straight up, just doesn't.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Does the author have a need to feel oppressed?

[human strike]

Does the author have a need to feel oppressed?

They are undoubtedly oppressed in other actual real ways. I think partly this attitude stems from the way in which some anarchists view anarchism as the opposition to capitalism rather than just one political expression of opposition. They also spoke about how some people are anarchists but don't know it (it really bugs me when people say this), as if anarchism is anything but a conscious political movement.

[Le Socialiste]

This is ridiculous, anarchists aren't oppressed solely because of their so-called identity (in this instance, anarchism), but because of the political underpinnings making up both thought and praxis. I have my own criticisms of anarchism, but this person's emphasis on it as an identity - and in some ways similar to the oppression of women and people of color - is absurd, not to mention wildly off the mark. In a way, it does depoliticize anarchism.

[Aleister Granger]

Well first we need to define "Repressed" and "Oppressed" so we can get a good grip on what the fuck we're talking about.

[The Feral Underclass]

"anarchists are portrayed in the media as something they are not; as violent chaotic domestic terrorists. we are more. anarchists have to hide their beliefs in order to get work etc. they are more likely to be stopped and harassed by police. anarchists have suffered from being mass murdered, imprisoned and deported for their beliefs.they are more likely to be labelled as being mentally ill as a misunderstanding of their views."

"i am mainly asking and arguing this point to see what others think; i am not necessary saying that i believe it. I a fed up of people judging all anarchists by intereation of a few, and by what they see on the media etc. i wouldn't judge all black people from interaction of only a few. everyone is different and experiences the world in a different way."

"anarchism is a belief that someone chooses due to their social interactions and observations about the world, in the same way someone may fancy someone of the same sex, or someone chooses to follow a religion..."

These are some excerpts from a conversation I had today with an anarchist where they compared being an anarchist to being homosexual, black and working class. I was reminded of a quote from an article I read recently that said, "Inevitably, those with more privilege would develop new heretofore unknown forms of oppression from which they suffered."

http://andrea366.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/the-problem-with-privilege-by-andrea-smith/

Anarchism isn't an identity.

These views are not really surprising to me, they are simply the averment of the ideological incoherency and bankruptcy of contemporary anarchism.

They also fundamentally misunderstand the nature of same-sex attraction and reinforce right-wing perspectives about why homosexuality exists.

[The Feral Underclass]

There's no such thing as oppression by identity.

What then is homophobia, transphobia etc if it is not oppression by identity?

[Hiero]

Well first we need to define "Repressed" and "Oppressed" so we can get a good grip on what the fuck we're talking about.

And hegemony. People are just confused.

[1RebelSoul]

The quotes are very true.
But not surprising.
Fascists hate Anarchists and vice-versa

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If anarchists aren't being oppressed by the State and Bourgeoisie, they're doing anarchism all wrong. Anarchism if done properly is something which should terrify the living daylights out of political and economic leaders. It's not some religious world view or sexual orientation, it's a movement based around the idea that society should be upended (violently, if necessary). The last time there was a robust anarchist movement in the USA, a sitting US president was shot dead. The last time there were robust anarchist movements in Russia and Spain, there was a violent civil war.

If the whole point of anarchism is to violently upend the social order, aside from whatever rights to free speech and association anarchists would have, why would the state and other major institutions just allow anarchists to organize in peace? Only if those anarchists have forgotten the very causes which motivate them!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oh dear, oh dear. It gets more absurd by the day.

Devrim

Hey man, check your non-anarchist privilege!

[Yuppie Grinder]

I think comparing the unpopularity of anarchists to oppression based on gender or race makes no sense and is harmful.

[MarxSchmarx]

One thing the OP raises, however crudely, is that oppression is a multi-faceted phenomenon.

I think that anarchists are "oppressed", just not in the way that, say, women or people of color are. Even under the best conditions, anarchists are subject to police surveillance, economic disenfranchisement, systematic censorship and demonization. Under other conditions (e.g., in Thailand and the PRC) they are subject to even worse treatment by the state, or, in places like Russia or Colombia, state complicity towards violence instigated against them by paramilitaries. This is oppression.

At the same time, anarchists qua anarchists are not subject to some other forms of oppressions. They are not subtlely told, for instance, from childhood that they are inherently criminal, worthless or manipulative. Nor are they subject to, for instance, immediate disqualification for employment on account of their birth year or the sort.

One critique of the absurd notion that anarchists suffer comparable oppression to other groups, however, that I have little patience for is the notion that anarchists somehow have the "luxury" of being able to choose to hide their status whilst in public. True, this is a "luxury" which racial minorities and females lack, but it is a "luxury" which traditionally discriminated groups like homosexuals and religious minorities in essence "enjoy". But the notion that this ability to blend in is a privilege is misguided.

It suggests that self-expression and self-identification is worthy of censure. In this sense, I think a reasonable case could be made that anarchists are oppressed in a similar sense that, say, many religious minorities are oppressed in the west or even, I'd argue, people with some disabilities are. There is of course justified conformism - I think for instance someone who refuses to speak anything but klingon usually should be "oppressed" in the sense that they shouldn't expect others to have to understand them when they say go to a bank teller. But just as oppression is multifaceted, there is a certain continuum here and I think it's fair to say anarchists lie somewhere on that continuum.

[Marxaveli]

One thing the OP raises, however crudely, is that oppression is a multi-faceted phenomenon.

I think that anarchists are "oppressed", just not in the way that, say, women or people of color are. Even under the best conditions, anarchists are subject to police surveillance, economic disenfranchisement, systematic censorship and demonization. Under other conditions (e.g., in Thailand and the PRC) they are subject to even worse treatment by the state, or, in places like Russia or Colombia, state complicity towards violence instigated against them by paramilitaries. This is oppression.

At the same time, anarchists qua anarchists are not subject to some other forms of oppressions. They are not subtlely told, for instance, from childhood that they are inherently criminal, worthless or manipulative. Nor are they subject to, for instance, immediate disqualification for employment on account of their birth year or the sort.

One critique of the absurd notion that anarchists suffer comparable oppression to other groups, however, that I have little patience for is the notion that anarchists somehow have the "luxury" of being able to choose to hide their status whilst in public. True, this is a "luxury" which racial minorities and females lack, but it is a "luxury" which traditionally discriminated groups like homosexuals and religious minorities in essence "enjoy". But the notion that this ability to blend in is a privilege is misguided.

It suggests that self-expression and self-identification is worthy of censure. In this sense, I think a reasonable case could be made that anarchists are oppressed in a similar sense that, say, many religious minorities are oppressed in the west or even, I'd argue, people with some disabilities are. There is of course justified conformism - I think for instance someone who refuses to speak anything but klingon usually should be "oppressed" in the sense that they shouldn't expect others to have to understand them when they say go to a bank teller. But just as oppression is multifaceted, there is a certain continuum here and I think it's fair to say anarchists lie somewhere on that continuum.

Well stated. Would you say the same is true of Marxists?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

One thing the OP raises, however crudely, is that oppression is a multi-faceted phenomenon.

I think that anarchists are "oppressed", just not in the way that, say, women or people of color are. Even under the best conditions, anarchists are subject to police surveillance, economic disenfranchisement, systematic censorship and demonization. Under other conditions (e.g., in Thailand and the PRC) they are subject to even worse treatment by the state, or, in places like Russia or Colombia, state complicity towards violence instigated against them by paramilitaries. This is oppression.

At the same time, anarchists qua anarchists are not subject to some other forms of oppressions. They are not subtlely told, for instance, from childhood that they are inherently criminal, worthless or manipulative. Nor are they subject to, for instance, immediate disqualification for employment on account of their birth year or the sort.

One critique of the absurd notion that anarchists suffer comparable oppression to other groups, however, that I have little patience for is the notion that anarchists somehow have the "luxury" of being able to choose to hide their status whilst in public. True, this is a "luxury" which racial minorities and females lack, but it is a "luxury" which traditionally discriminated groups like homosexuals and religious minorities in essence "enjoy". But the notion that this ability to blend in is a privilege is misguided.

It suggests that self-expression and self-identification is worthy of censure. In this sense, I think a reasonable case could be made that anarchists are oppressed in a similar sense that, say, many religious minorities are oppressed in the west or even, I'd argue, people with some disabilities are. There is of course justified conformism - I think for instance someone who refuses to speak anything but klingon usually should be "oppressed" in the sense that they shouldn't expect others to have to understand them when they say go to a bank teller. But just as oppression is multifaceted, there is a certain continuum here and I think it's fair to say anarchists lie somewhere on that continuum.

Why, though, are people with political ideologies in a meaningful way "oppressed"? In an anarchist revolution, just as in Marxist revolutions historically, people with pro-bourgeois ideologies were "oppressed". It's not like this is a kind of "oppression" which is something necessarily frowned upon by the far left.

Part of the issue is that anarchism isn't just some metaphysical belief whereby people go to heaven or hell if they have a certain kind of moral character. It's a political program that calls for the destruction of one class and the empowerment of another. It only makes sense that the class that would be destroyed would persecute the political movements that want to destroy it. That's the very same reasoning the Leninists used to crush Tsarist and Capitalist ideology! Belief in or support of a political program is thus categorically different from any religious belief. Now, one could support a radical religious political program (such as Islamic, Jewish, Hindu or Christian extremism) but that faces the same kind of state repression as anarchism, Marxism and so on. Supporting religious extremism or a radical political ideology will naturally concern any institutions thus threatened.

Not that such oppression shouldn't be opposed in a sense. We shouldn't just roll over in the face of McCarthyism. It's sort of silly though to see it as in any way comparable to actual discrimination, and its hypocritical to make such a strong moral claim about it.

[Magic Carpets Corp.]

I like these leftist "i'm more oppressed than you!" "no, I am five times as oppressed as you are!" "well I'm 43 times more oppressed than the both of you combined!" games.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Coincidentally, I recall quite liking the Andrea Smith article the OP linked. Smith co-founded INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (http://incite-national.org/) and she's written some pretty important work on colonialism and patriarchy (especially Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide). The article doesn't imply any of what the OP's post does, and is totally worth reading (that's not a shot at you OP - I think you asked a question, and that's cool).

[MarxSchmarx]

Well stated. Would you say the same is true of Marxists?

Thanks Marxaveli. I think it is certainly true that Marxists are subject to oppression in the form of state repression, whether Marxists are "more" or "less" oppressed than anarchists however I do not know.


Why, though, are people with political ideologies in a meaningful way "oppressed"? In an anarchist revolution, just as in Marxist revolutions historically, people with pro-bourgeois ideologies were "oppressed". It's not like this is a kind of "oppression" which is something necessarily frowned upon by the far left.

Part of the issue is that anarchism isn't just some metaphysical belief whereby people go to heaven or hell if they have a certain kind of moral character. It's a political program that calls for the destruction of one class and the empowerment of another. It only makes sense that the class that would be destroyed would persecute the political movements that want to destroy it. That's the very same reasoning the Leninists used to crush Tsarist and Capitalist ideology! Belief in or support of a political program is thus categorically different from any religious belief. Now, one could support a radical religious political program (such as Islamic, Jewish, Hindu or Christian extremism) but that faces the same kind of state repression as anarchism, Marxism and so on. Supporting religious extremism or a radical political ideology will naturally concern any institutions thus threatened.

Not that such oppression shouldn't be opposed in a sense. We shouldn't just roll over in the face of McCarthyism. It's sort of silly though to see it as in any way comparable to actual discrimination, and its hypocritical to make such a strong moral claim about it.


I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the threat posed to the institution is what distinguishes oppression experienced by anarchists is different from oppression experienced by some religious minority? If so, doesn't it become a matter of "which institution"? After all, it is not just the state that "oppresses anarchists".

I should clarify that I agree it is hypocritical for the left to repress its opponents while complain about being oppressed. That is perhaps the main reason I am not a Leninist. I don't think the tools of state repression should be used against individual supporters of capitalism.

But I really think the analogy to religious minorities is where things get interesting. I'd be interested in pursuing this, but I guess I want to first understand what exactly the distinction you are trying to draw here is.

[human strike]

Coincidentally, I recall quite liking the Andrea Smith article the OP linked. Smith co-founded INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence (http://incite-national.org/) and she's written some pretty important work on colonialism and patriarchy (especially Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide). The article doesn't imply any of what the OP's post does, and is totally worth reading (that's not a shot at you OP - I think you asked a question, and that's cool).

I didn't mean to imply anything about the article or ask any questions so I'm a bit confused... I only linked it because I quoted a line from it.

[bcbm]

tbh i have never met an anarchist who argued they were 'an oppressed identity' and anyone who did so in the company i keep probably would be laughed out of the room.

[FreedomForAll]

Every view point against the status quo is likely to be portrayed in a negative light.

[Tolstoy]

So tell me, are you a white, straight, male? Theres nothing wrong with that and theres no reason to try to make yourself oppressed.

Of course, patriarchy and capitalism oppress all except those at the very very top.

[FreedomForAll]

One thing the OP raises, however crudely, is that oppression is a multi-faceted phenomenon.

I think that anarchists are "oppressed", just not in the way that, say, women or people of color are. Even under the best conditions, anarchists are subject to police surveillance, economic disenfranchisement, systematic censorship and demonization. Under other conditions (e.g., in Thailand and the PRC) they are subject to even worse treatment by the state, or, in places like Russia or Colombia, state complicity towards violence instigated against them by paramilitaries. This is oppression.

At the same time, anarchists qua anarchists are not subject to some other forms of oppressions. They are not subtlely told, for instance, from childhood that they are inherently criminal, worthless or manipulative. Nor are they subject to, for instance, immediate disqualification for employment on account of their birth year or the sort.

One critique of the absurd notion that anarchists suffer comparable oppression to other groups, however, that I have little patience for is the notion that anarchists somehow have the "luxury" of being able to choose to hide their status whilst in public. True, this is a "luxury" which racial minorities and females lack, but it is a "luxury" which traditionally discriminated groups like homosexuals and religious minorities in essence "enjoy". But the notion that this ability to blend in is a privilege is misguided.

It suggests that self-expression and self-identification is worthy of censure. In this sense, I think a reasonable case could be made that anarchists are oppressed in a similar sense that, say, many religious minorities are oppressed in the west or even, I'd argue, people with some disabilities are. There is of course justified conformism - I think for instance someone who refuses to speak anything but klingon usually should be "oppressed" in the sense that they shouldn't expect others to have to understand them when they say go to a bank teller. But just as oppression is multifaceted, there is a certain continuum here and I think it's fair to say anarchists lie somewhere on that continuum.

Two issues to consider...

(1) Is it not justified for the state to defend itself against anarchists, considering in an anarchistic society, surely anarchists would use similar methods to prevent a government from forming? I'm not advocating the state is right at all, just saying that they are likely doing the same we would do to them if we had the power. I mean they would be fools not to watch anarchists, as a strong enough anarchist presence could in fact destabilize or even destroy a government in power, which again I would favor, however, I can see them wise to be against that from their position.

(2) Political views can be hidden, race, gender, things of that nature, can not be. To an extent this means even sexual orientation is less a concern, or religious views, as you can hide them pretty effectively. Of course we can argue that you shouldn't have to hide who you are in fear of problems arising, but at least the option is available. You cannot hide your race or gender, or other such primary characteristics, at least not easily.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkkrptc9iX1qf3bn7o1_500.gif

This article is pretty dumb, I just don't know where to start.

[redblackandgay]

Every view point against the status quo is likely to be portrayed in a negative light.

This. As an anarchist I can say that the word carries some very negative connotations with most people. They have been led to believe that anarchy=chaos, which isn't true of course but it is to them. Pretty much everybody grew up under a system that teaches them that they NEED authority, government, religion, laws, etc. in order to survive and the word "anarchy" challenges everything they "know" to be true. Therefore it must be wrong. Its not oppression its cognitive dissonance and its something you are going to have to deal with. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but unfortunately most people can't be troubled to form their own -.-

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but unfortunately most people can't be troubled to form their own -.-

No way, why?

[redblackandgay]

No way, why?

Are you literally asking why everyone is entitled to their opinion or are you being a smartass? Serious question I'm not here to get into a pointless flame war

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Are you literally asking why everyone is entitled to their opinion or are you being a smartass? Serious question I'm not here to get into a pointless flame war

Yes, I am literally asking you and I'm super, duper serial in my inquiries.

[redblackandgay]

You are a troll and I am done with you. I apologize for taking your bait in the first place now please turn off your computer forever.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You are a troll and I am done with you. I apologize for taking your bait in the first place now please turn off your computer forever.

I was, again, being serious and do not feel the need to justify how I chose to phrase things on the internet to someone on the internet, lol, but alright, whatevs.

#whysoserious? #bonerlawlz #nerd

[redblackandgay]

Ok well against my better judgement I'll assume you are being serious. Do you really need justification for the fact that everyone is equal? Everyone enters this world the same way, we are all capable of thinking, feeling and suffering. I would ask you to explain what makes anyone inherently better than anyone else. Equality is a human right, even for annoying trolls.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Ok well against my better judgement I'll assume you are being serious. Do you really need justification for the fact that everyone is equal? Everyone enters this world the same way, we are all capable of thinking, feeling and suffering. I would ask you to explain what makes anyone inherently better than anyone else. Equality is a human right, even for annoying trolls.

That's not what was being discussed here, you said quote:


Everyone is entitled to their opinion

To which I said, "no way, why?" as in, why do you say this? and or how can you say this? That is what's being discussed. Why you feel the need to call peoples names, I have no idea, purrty aggro imho.

[redblackandgay]

That's not what was being discussed here, you said quote:



To which I said, "no way, why?" as in, why do you say this? and or how can you say this? That is what's being discussed. Why you feel the need to call peoples names, I have no idea, purrty aggro imho.

So you're not arguing that everyone is equal? Because if so then it follows that everyone is entitled to think and say what they please. (i.e. their opinion) That's not to say that people can't be wrong but that is their right as a citizen of the universe.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

So you're not arguing that everyone is equal?

Everyone is equal, in theory, as a human being but again, that's not what's not being discussed and is irrelevant.


Because if so then it follows that everyone is entitled to think and say what they please. (i.e. their opinion)

That's silly, we should shy away from this sort of stuff here; it should be a case by case basis. I don't think fascists, neoliberals, capitalists, statists, militarists, racists, assimilationists, normalists, hipsters, the bourgeoisie, cult-of-personality folks, indentitarians, schoolists, sexists, genderists, workists, nationalists, the homophobic, the transphobic, the speciesists, the ableists, the ageists, the saneists, etc. should have a platform for their silliness and general idiocy. So they think something and formulate some convoluted, baseless, incoherent thought cloud about something, horray, so what? Why should they have the right to disperse this thought pollution and subject the rest of us to it? Just cause?


That's not to say that people can't be wrong but that is their right as a citizen of the universe.

What's that even supposed to mean? Citizen of the universe? How can we arrange rights around some title that doesn't in fact, exist? That's silly, no offense.

[redblackandgay]

Everyone is equal, in theory, as a human being but again, that's not what's not being discussed and is irrelevant.



That's silly, we should shy away from this sort of stuff here; it should be a case by case basis. I don't think fascists, racists, the homophobic, the transphobic, the speciesists, the ableists, the ageists, the saneists, etc. should have a platform for their silliness and general idiocy. So they think something and formulate some convoluted, baseless, incoherent thought cloud about something, horray, so what? Why should they have the right to disperse this thought pollution and subject the rest of us to it? Just cause?


What's that even supposed to mean? Citizen of the universe? How can we arrange rights around some title that doesn't in fact, exist? That's silly, no offense.

Okay now you're making sense. I agree that hate is always unacceptable, which was the precise reasoning why I thought everyone should be entitled to their opinion, but I see how this is flawed. Now that I understand where you're coming from, these kinds of ignorant, hateful ideas should not be supported, but if at all possible the people who express these sentiments should be taught to understand WHY they are wrong and hopefully develop a healthier worldview. Effective education and critical thinking are key. As for the "citizen of the universe" comment, I stand by it. That was just meant to emphasize equality, regardless of race, nationality, species, whatever. That's just the way I chose to word it :grin: You'll understand its very easy to misinterpret things on the internet

[blake 3:17]

While I appreciate some of the distinctions that have been made about oppression v repression, I think the issue is a little messier.

I have strong suspicions that bureaucratic hassles which are making life difficult at present are related to my left wing politics and who my friends are and that I may have been flagged on a red/black list years ago.

In order to start a job I need a form that is supposed to take 3 -4 weeks to get back and can take 12 weeks. I'm at about 20, and the same thing's happened in the past where it's taken 30 - 35 weeks.

There are other possible reasons but the probability seems pretty limited.

[argeiphontes]

I have strong suspicions that bureaucratic hassles which are making life difficult at present are related to my left wing politics and who my friends are and that I may have been flagged on a red/black list years ago.

I always separate my personal and professional life. Now that I'm seriously looking for work, I was appalled that my Facebook profile was the first thing that popped up when Googling my name, with my "Inspirational People" being the likes of Julian Assange and Fidel Castro. That's enough to alienate my old H.S. friends, let alone potential employers. Whoops.

[blake 3:17]

I always separate my personal and professional life. Now that I'm seriously looking for work, I was appalled that my Facebook profile was the first thing that popped up when Googling my name, with my "Inspirational People" being the likes of Julian Assange and Fidel Castro. That's enough to alienate my old H.S. friends, let alone potential employers. Whoops.

I try hard on that front & it hasn't been a problem until a couple of years ago. My own dilemma is to do with the state, a particular bump that has nothing to do with me other than chance.

Yeah for a while a google of my name brought up stuff I didn't necessarily want front & centre, but these days it's fine.

& while on occasion I've sounded a bit paranoid on the issue, it seems fairly rational at this point.

The question then becomes -- How far does one go to hide one's radicalism? If we all go invisible because someone in power might not approve, then we're kinda doomed. I know lots of people who are totally ware they're not going to get certain kinds of jobs because of their politics or politically motivated actions, but we can't simply retreat.