On 09/02/2016 11:30 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 10:33:58PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 09/02/2016 09:26 PM, Razer wrote:
On 09/02/2016 07:01 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 06:06:24PM -0700, Razer wrote:
On 09/02/2016 05:51 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
individual sovereignty and anarchism
Try "individual RESPONSIBILITY to the 'collective' called humanity and Anarchism" and I'll nibble. Until then it's just Feudal Nihilism by different means.
Nihilism sounds like moral relativism, not very useful.
"Feudal nihilism" - I don't understand what that's supposed to mean.
It means you don't care what happens to the shitpile as long as you're at the tip of the turd.
I do feel some compassion for the shitpile. But playing in shit is just not very interesting. And change (or even transformation) is at best illusory.
That is not agreeable, nor constructive, although the statement may be provable over specific time periods and at certain levels of analysis.
Maybe not agreeable or constructive to you, but accurate, I believe.
Ought we stick to discussions which are not self defeating and premised on failure?
My point is that playing those games is pointless. Choosing not to play is the only sane option.
So I'll settle for keeping out of it :)
That's tough - where the use of force is vested in the state and its institutions such as the DMV, and you "just want to drive to a mate's place to catch up".
It's just a fact that states monopolize force. Refusing to play does not mean overt resistance. You just avoid attracting attention, and smile and nod when necessary.
Although "keeping out of it" is a laudable goal superficially, the implications are fundamentally opposed to living a full and enjoyable life engaged with other humans.
Not at all! I just hang with others who keep out of it ;)
Some like the monastic isolationist life, and far be it from us to decry anyone who chooses that.
I wouldn't say monastic. Just private. Read old Bill Burroughs' stuff about the Johnson Family.
But, for many of us, where "keeping out of it" means not engaging or physically interacting with interesting folk who also exist within "our nation", isolationism is intolerable!
It doesn't mean that at all.
We see what happened with the ascetic and isolationist Essenes who "seceded from the Zadokite priests" and wanted to live their lives independent of Rome (the empire at that time), so this battle we face to live our own lives (independently of the TPTB) is nothing new, see: https://waldodhc.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/masada-the-essenes/
They attracted too much attention. There is no public history about the ones we want as role models :)
Some say the leader of the Zealots was Jesus the Nazarene, the last King of the jews and there is some evidence to this - a book where the author alleges he read the last scroll of the Zealots in person, but was not allowed a copy (can't remember the name of the book right now).
That was a long time ago, and impossible to tell from bullshit.
Point is, the proles are prone to fear, reactivity, lynch mobbing and plenty more, and the isolationism of the Essenes, their desire to live free of rome, combined with their penchant for education and science (geekiness and personal and tribal advancement) may have been part of why 'the rest of the Roman society' was in fear of them, and ultimately preferred to destroy them / force submission, rather than let them live their lives as they chose.
Yes, they attracted too much attention :(