“I don’t care about politicians. The only thing I care about is what’s being controlled in the country so that I can comply and not get arrested or fined. Fuck politicians,” said my host Christos from Airbnb in Athens as he explained to me how pissed off he was that, due to new regulations, he had to install a new light with an emergency exit sign in every apartment.
I’ve shared a similar view with Christos since childhood, so I’m always surprised by how many people still take politics deadly seriously. In this blog, I’ll look at how I see it and hopefully help others find their own way out.
But first, I’ll take a closer look at something more personal…
Me and my trolling
Many people think that I am extremely insensitive in certain situations. For example, when I wrote an article about why the voter is a human garbage, many people—including libertarians—wrote to me saying that I had gone too far, that I was dehumanizing and condemning voters, and that it was not nice of me.
Of course, the article about human garbage wasn’t the only one of its kind. I’ve expressed similarly intense and sharp opinions many times on all sorts of things – and people therefore interpret my behavior in these situations as “trolling.”
But I don’t perceive my behavior as “trolling.” I don’t write or say things to upset or provoke anyone. I say them as they come naturally to me. The fact that someone labels it as trolling is their interpretation—their label. For me, it’s simply a way of expressing my thoughts and attitudes.
So even if someone claims that I “troll often and inappropriately,” I don’t know what to think about it. Maybe it’s trolling, maybe it’s a way to provoke thought, disrupt comfortable beliefs, and force people to confront ideas they would otherwise ignore. Of course, from the outside, it can seem cold, cruel, or provocative without a clear purpose.
I often hesitate myself when it comes to the line between “seriousness” and what others call “trolling.” I have thought about this many times, and in many situations I have felt that I could have behaved differently—more gently, more sensitively, less sharply. Whether or not I have reconsidered my position in specific situations, what is essential for me is that I say what I say because I truly believe it. Not to anger, sadden, or cause suffering to anyone.
If someone gets triggered, I’m sorry, but most of the time it’s not my responsibility. An individual’s reaction is their own. If something I say triggers a strong emotional response, it means that the person has some kind of biased way of thinking that is worth examining. That’s where the real work on one’s own mind begins—one must analyze these reactions and understand why something triggers them, instead of blaming others for saying something “unpleasant.”
So when someone calls my behavior “trolling,” I take it as proof that I’m touching on sensitive issues. And that’s all.
So I’ll see how much this article “trolls” some people. Maybe more, maybe less – but I hope that every reader will take it in their own way and take something away from it.
Democracy as the best alternative
But back to the topic at hand.
I often hear the opinion: “Democracy isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we’ve come up with so far. We have no other alternative.”
To me, such statements are, without apology, complete bullshit. It’s like saying that a woman locked in an apartment with an abusive husband has the “best alternative” — because her previous husbands brutally beat her, cut her with a knife, or shot her with a gun, and this new one only occasionally slaps her and swears at her.
Why even look for the “best alternative” to something like that? Why look for the optimal option among different forms of violence? A woman simply must free herself from her husband’s violence — just as humanity must free itself from the violence of government.
Of course, someone may object:
“But a woman cannot support herself, or she will be attacked on the street.”
Similarly, someone may object:
“Who would build roads, hospitals, and schools?”
However, is there any argument that would justify the violence of her husband/our government? What exactly is functioning in the abuser’s apartment besides violence? The water supply, electricity, and massage chair that the abuser bought for the apartment with his woman’s money? Are all these things a reasonable reason for the woman to stay in his apartment and not complain about the best alternative she has had so far?
Democracy and elections
Many people claim that we should work towards an ideal non-violent state, in which people live freely and society functions without oppression, through elections. But I say: WTF?
Many anarchists argue with a million sexy mathematical and statistical reasons why elections cannot be the solution, and honestly, I personally respect people who can do the work and impress a few intellectual individuals and infect them with the idea of giving up on elections. But even this is only a partial solution. The fact that something is inherently evil cannot be calculated, quantified, or visualized on any graph. If something is bad, it simply must be eliminated.
I am not writing that we should take up pickaxes, roxor bars, and pitchforks and eliminate some government officials. I do not tolerate violence at all, and in my view, it is not a solution to anything. Elimination means that we should only expend energy to ensure that the evil is not present here, and I am convinced that what destroys and weakens the government the most is the absence of attention from the people.
And that is precisely why elections are not the solution for me.
Why? Because the government itself created elections. They are tools designed to legitimize power and keep people in a passive state, where they believe that their vote makes a difference. The power of the government lies primarily in the fact that people take it seriously. Just remember the absurd situations in Slovakia during the COVID-19 pandemic: the government ordered the mandatory wearing of masks, but after a while most people just hung them around their necks or didn’t wear them at all. Hundreds of controls, fines, and bans did not work because real power does not lie in papers, laws, or regulations—it lies in people’s obedience. People only followed the rules that they recognized as meaningful or practical.
The moment society stops taking laws seriously, power itself ceases to function. Regulations and rules become empty symbols, and the government, no matter how hard it tries, loses control. This is precisely why elections and political reforms become irrelevant: if people stop legitimizing power, the system weakens without a single blow of violence.
Who will respect the laws if everyone stops taking them seriously? Who will control the old ladies selling onions on Bazoš without VAT? Who will control movie downloads via PirateBay? Who will control voluntary contributions in crypto for fetish videos sent by a 15-year-old girl to a Telegram group? Who will lock people up for weed if even Greek cops smoke it during their all-day break? Who will lock up people who draw graffiti on their own walls in their own apartments? Who will monitor whether a private workshop for the production of homemade probiotic lemonade containing alcohol is taking place in the basement? Who will deal with voluntary toy exchanges in the park when all laws relating to sales no longer apply? Who will investigate the production of a robot in the garage that feeds the neighbor’s cat? Who will check whether students use lights or candles in the house at night when no one pays the state’s lighting bills? Who will deal with someone hanging a poster with a protest poem on the wall, or a local DJ playing music on the street without a license? Who will threaten sanctions for anything we consider “illegal” today, when no one respects these laws and no one complies with them?
And it is precisely at this moment that it becomes clear that the state is nothing more than an illusion that exists only in people’s minds. Without obedience, without fear of punishment, without legitimacy—without attention from citizens—authority dissolves on its own. Police officers become ordinary people. Judges and officials cease to be arbiters of laws and rules. Offices empty, forms remain unsigned, and sanctions undelivered.
And suddenly, when the system that was supposed to control everything and everyone ceases to exist, true freedom emerges. Everyone becomes responsible only for themselves and the community in which they live. Without laws, without penalties, without hierarchy – just pure, functional, spontaneous cooperation.
So what about our elections?
Imagine a situation where your violent husband beats you. Would you discuss the rules of hitting you and try to agree on a “fair” number of slaps, hoping that this would contribute to non-violence? Of course not. The same applies to politicians. If politicians don’t deserve a proper spanking, they certainly deserve collective cancellation or ignorance, not a vote in the elections. LOL
For me, voting for a politician is legitimizing their authority. Voting does not create freedom or justice; it only confirms that the system has value. That is why we must focus on rejecting the system, on ignoring it, and thereby weakening it. Not on “improving” it through elections.
Conclusion: Authority, Respect, and Freedom
HOW to sum it all up?
I am not afraid to confront beliefs – my own or those of others. Trolling, provocation, directness – these are all just tools that show that the system people rely on is an illusion. Democracy as the “best alternative” is as much a myth as feeling safe in the home of a violent person.
As for this article, many readers may interpret it as some kind of over-motivated and over-agitated call from a young, hyped-up anarchist (as is often the case with similar texts that do not speak positively about politicians). I would therefore like to emphasize that I personally do not see much point in doing anything specific in relation to the government, except for realizing its essential nature, which is, of course, illusory.
My goal was simply to show the absurdity of the system we are creating, not to deliver some heart-wrenching anarchist BOOBOOBOOO about how we should cherish our individual selves and, in rejecting authority, also avoid respect for others (I often feel that many anti-state elements also take this approach). That is not the case. Personally, I feel enormous respect for a multitude of beings. Living and non-living people and animals. For the fact that they exist and also for the fact that they have abilities that I, for example, could not even dream of.
However, respect is not synonymous with authority. Authority is a power that people accept and legitimize—whether through voting, obeying laws, or fear of punishment. Respect is the recognition of the value, abilities, and uniqueness of another, without automatically obliging anyone to obey. I can respect a scientist, a spiritual teacher, my parent, a dog on the street, or a fish in the sea, and at the same time completely reject the power that the system forces me to accept.
Therefore, it is possible to be fully respectful towards others, to appreciate their contributions and experiences, while not legitimizing the system of power that restricts us all. Respect and authority diverge—one can be lively, spontaneous, mutual, and authentic, while the other is just a rigid illusion created and maintained by society.
And that is precisely the point of the whole article: anarchy and freedom do not mean ignoring others or lacking respect. They mean liberation from authority that has no justification other than that people believe in it. Respect is real, authority is fiction – and freedom begins when we stop taking fiction seriously.
When we stop taking laws, elections, and rules seriously, power simply ceases to exist. Without a state, without regulations, without taxes and without fines – society becomes autonomous. People organize their lives themselves, spontaneously, voluntarily, and meaningfully. Freedom is not a utopian promise; it is a reality waiting for us to stop ignoring it.
And so, if something provokes a strong reaction – whether it’s an article, a troll, or a view of democracy – it’s not a question of who is telling the truth or what kind of “ideal” society we want to live in. The problem lies in the system itself, which we have come to regard as natural and grant legitimacy to. And as is the case with every phenomenon in life, if we do not rid ourselves of our approach to the system as something real, we will not rid ourselves of the system itself.
