Nationalism vs Globalism
The new dichotomy, Nationalism vs Globalism. This is how the current USA election debate is now framed it seems, see for example: Hillary’s ‘Racism’ Speech, And the Stunning Emergence of The New Left and Right "Old Lady Yells At Internet" "A titanic struggle between nationalism and globalism is playing out in the American elections" http://russia-insider.com/en/moment-reckoning-has-come-american-political-sc... Left out of this debate of course are other genuine and alternative foundations such as a swing towards individual sovereignty and anarchism, which some name as direct democracy (perhaps a branch of the theory of anarchism/ anarchy/ political anarchy?). The powers that be of course are pushing very aggressively for globalism - their One World Order or New World Order, of course with America at the helm and dictating the terms. But individual sovereignty seems to strike fear into the hearts of oligarchs and global power brokers, since they still frame the debate as a black and white dichotomy between globalism and nationalism - this is their preferred dichotomy, attempting to ensure that individual sovereignty, politically empowering the individual, does not get a look in on this debate. We the disempowered, the non monied, will take nationalism over globalism, and "the elites" will take nationalism over individual sovereigntism. So except that the American voting machines are controlled by the existing powers that be in America and institute an entirely corrupt outcome, with "everything overall touch and go for the results, who can say?" and a "key swing state" "just nudges Hillary over the line" (ever seen this sort of corruption before?) - aka the usual corruption of American elections, there's a real chance for nationalism to prevail in the disgraced olde Ewe Ess of America. Unfortunately it seems the public consciousness is fully entrenched in dichotomies "gotta have a political party, and play the corrupt game, if we gonna get a different outcome". Can these disempowering and unnecessary or "false" dichotomies be busted or changed somehow in the public dialogue?
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. Ps. "New Left" is a DISGUSTING reference to everything that was wrong with the now-non-existent 'left' in the US. It was Reform towards Progressive-liberalism (spellchecker also notes a correction to "Oppresive-Liberalism"). A strategy and tactic-less'borging' of Radical activism by people with access to the media. Cf. The end result of Occupy with imperialist cunts like Dave "I support "anarchists" who collaborate with the CIA for a chunk of Private Property" Graeber Rr
The new dichotomy, Nationalism vs Globalism.
This is how the current USA election debate is now framed it seems, see for example:
Hillary’s ‘Racism’ Speech, And the Stunning Emergence of The New Left and Right "Old Lady Yells At Internet" "A titanic struggle between nationalism and globalism is playing out in the American elections" http://russia-insider.com/en/moment-reckoning-has-come-american-political-sc...
Left out of this debate of course are other genuine and alternative foundations such as a swing towards individual sovereignty and anarchism, which some name as direct democracy (perhaps a branch of the theory of anarchism/ anarchy/ political anarchy?).
The powers that be of course are pushing very aggressively for globalism - their One World Order or New World Order, of course with America at the helm and dictating the terms. But individual sovereignty seems to strike fear into the hearts of oligarchs and global power brokers, since they still frame the debate as a black and white dichotomy between globalism and nationalism - this is their preferred dichotomy, attempting to ensure that individual sovereignty, politically empowering the individual, does not get a look in on this debate.
We the disempowered, the non monied, will take nationalism over globalism, and "the elites" will take nationalism over individual sovereigntism.
So except that the American voting machines are controlled by the existing powers that be in America and institute an entirely corrupt outcome, with "everything overall touch and go for the results, who can say?" and a "key swing state" "just nudges Hillary over the line" (ever seen this sort of corruption before?) - aka the usual corruption of American elections, there's a real chance for nationalism to prevail in the disgraced olde Ewe Ess of America.
Unfortunately it seems the public consciousness is fully entrenched in dichotomies "gotta have a political party, and play the corrupt game, if we gonna get a different outcome".
Can these disempowering and unnecessary or "false" dichotomies be busted or changed somehow in the public dialogue?
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. Anyway, to the new subject: in what way is individual responsibility precluded by individual sovereignty or anarchy? You've brought this up before and I seem to recall saying the same thing then - individual sovereignty is a good thing, let's hold hands and sing the kumbaya praises of individual responsibility brother Rayzer! I can feel a dichotomy, coming on. Got the taste for it! Just can't wait for it! False di-cho-to-mies, coming on! <with apologies for the Aussie XXXX brand beer commercials> Now Rayzer: we recall you getting your kahnickerbokeries rather worked up about motorized carriages and shortly thereafter lauding the wonders of the DMV. So what does that tell us? Are you not trusting of humans to exercise individual responsibility? Or you have a basis of fear that says in an old electoral candidate's voice "we must ensure compliance"? Seriously, you sound mixed up. Your words comes across, consistently, as notably nationalistic - perhaps you can speak to us as to why this is so?
Ps. "New Left" is a DISGUSTING reference to everything that was wrong with the now-non-existent 'left' in the US. It was Reform towards Progressive-liberalism (spellchecker also notes a correction to "Oppresive-Liberalism"). A strategy and tactic-less'borging' of Radical activism by people with access to the media.
Cf. The end result of Occupy with imperialist cunts like Dave "I support "anarchists" who collaborate with the CIA for a chunk of Private Property" Graeber
Occupy was a corruption from the start - there was possibly a small group somewhere that was co-opted to make it look "legit grassroots" - but the total lack of clear and named goals, propensity to anonymity ("everyone's a leader" "bring your cause whatever it is and we're protesting it", "big business is bad, that's what we're protesting") all appeared entirely self defeating from the get go, nihilistic even :) (And I speak as someone who contributed materially to the comms team in the Melbourne Australia "Occupy" bullshit.) The appearance of "co-opt the current generation of foment and make sure they achieve nothing" was stark to some. Co-opting / spear-heading a FOG (false oppositional group) is so effective though since humans in general jump on bandwagons, don't think and lack the education to properly think or appraise more than one step ahead.
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.
Anyway, to the new subject: in what way is individual responsibility precluded by individual sovereignty or anarchy?
I'm discussing from a US POV. Donald Trump IS the perfect representation of most Americans who believe in individual sovereignty. Would you say he feels at all responsible for anybody but him and, as Phil Ochs said, "A small circle of friends".
You've brought this up before and I seem to recall saying the same thing then - individual sovereignty is a good thing, let's hold hands and sing the kumbaya praises of individual responsibility brother Rayzer!
I can feel a dichotomy, coming on. Got the taste for it! Just can't wait for it! False di-cho-to-mies, coming on! <with apologies for the Aussie XXXX brand beer commercials>
Now Rayzer: we recall you getting your kahnickerbokeries rather worked up about motorized carriages and shortly thereafter lauding the wonders of the DMV.
So what does that tell us?
It tells me you're making it up. All I ever said was I want the person who MIGHT run me over with a 2,000 pound deadly weapon to prove, at least, the competence not to do that and have some sort of group-recognized documentation to that effect. If that translates to DMV luv for you, so be it, but it's an extrapolation on your part. It's nothing I ever said nor believe. Ps. Daddy Semi-truck-driver used to 'sign off on sonny boy's Class A Tractor license and that was good enough for most states. There were literally thousands of truck drivers in the US who didn't know how to adjust tractor-trailer brakes which, until the last decade or so, had to be adjusted manually or... Let me put it this way if you're mechanically minded, there a shaft going into the drum with an S-shaped cam on it that pushes the the backs of the brake shoes out. If you don't adjust the 'slacks' the cam spins without touching the backs of the shoes and the brakes? They don't work! I want truck drivers to prove they know how to adjust their brakes. Rr
Are you not trusting of humans to exercise individual responsibility?
In nation-states? Absolutely not.
Or you have a basis of fear that says in an old electoral candidate's voice "we must ensure compliance"?
Seriously, you sound mixed up. Your words comes across, consistently, as notably nationalistic - perhaps you can speak to us as to why this is so?
I don't believe in national borders. You're confused.
Ps. "New Left" is a DISGUSTING reference to everything that was wrong with the now-non-existent 'left' in the US. It was Reform towards Progressive-liberalism (spellchecker also notes a correction to "Oppresive-Liberalism"). A strategy and tactic-less'borging' of Radical activism by people with access to the media.
Cf. The end result of Occupy with imperialist cunts like Dave "I support "anarchists" who collaborate with the CIA for a chunk of Private Property" Graeber
Occupy was a corruption from the start - there was possibly a small group somewhere that was co-opted to make it look "legit grassroots" - but the total lack of clear and named goals, propensity to anonymity ("everyone's a leader" "bring your cause whatever it is and we're protesting it", "big business is bad, that's what we're protesting") all appeared entirely self defeating from the get go, nihilistic even :)
(And I speak as someone who contributed materially to the comms team in the Melbourne Australia "Occupy" bullshit.)
The appearance of "co-opt the current generation of foment and make sure they achieve nothing" was stark to some.
Co-opting / spear-heading a FOG (false oppositional group) is so effective though since humans in general jump on bandwagons, don't think and lack the education to properly think or appraise more than one step ahead.
It had it's moments, but generally, Adbusters intended an insurrection and they got one. Good thing it dissolved instead of the other thing that happens to leaderless, tacticless, strategyless insurrections, crushing by force. Locally the prog-libs almost immediately hijacked it(local politicians spoke at the 1st GA, which ended up using modified consensus meaning if you disagreed you were simply voting yourself out of the decision instead of blocking it)... but shit still happened. http://75river.tumblr.com/
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 08:26:05PM -0700, 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.
Well that's no philosophy worth subscribing to then is it?
Anyway, to the new subject: in what way is individual responsibility precluded by individual sovereignty or anarchy?
I'm discussing from a US POV. Donald Trump IS the perfect representation of most Americans who believe in individual sovereignty.
Would you say he feels at all responsible for anybody but him and, as Phil Ochs said, "A small circle of friends".
OK, gotcha... How about this then: 1) let's get clear on what particular political philosophies are 2) provide examples and say "this applies" or "this not applies" 3) proceed with useful discussion My point is, what some might see here is a classic strawman: a) "individual sovereignty sucks, because Trump!" Is it possible this could be seen as attempting to steam roll the conversation by hook and by crook into a direction that is either not useful, not true, not relevant, not based in fact, materially deficient, not constructive, or some combination of the above? Just wondering...
You've brought this up before and I seem to recall saying the same thing then - individual sovereignty is a good thing, let's hold hands and sing the kumbaya praises of individual responsibility brother Rayzer!
I can feel a dichotomy, coming on. Got the taste for it! Just can't wait for it! False di-cho-to-mies, coming on! <with apologies for the Aussie XXXX brand beer commercials>
Now Rayzer: we recall you getting your kahnickerbokeries rather worked up about motorized carriages and shortly thereafter lauding the wonders of the DMV.
So what does that tell us?
It tells me you're making it up. All I ever said was I want the person who MIGHT run me over with a 2,000 pound deadly weapon to prove, at least, the competence not to do that and have some sort of group-recognized documentation to that effect.
With your explicit eimplication being that: a) political anarchy precludes this, and b) the DMV is the solution to a lack of individual self responsibility
If that translates to DMV luv for you, so be it, but it's an extrapolation on your part. It's nothing I ever said nor believe.
OK, so you do not uphold state authorised force (police with guns, courts and jail for non-compliance) by authority of 'DMV', to force compliance with "arbitrary" road "rules"? Wanting clarity on this one.
Ps. Daddy Semi-truck-driver used to 'sign off on sonny boy's Class A Tractor license and that was good enough for most states. There were literally thousands of truck drivers in the US who didn't know how to adjust tractor-trailer brakes which, until the last decade or so, had to be adjusted manually or... Let me put it this way if you're mechanically minded, there a shaft going into the drum with an S-shaped cam on it that pushes the the backs of the brake shoes out. If you don't adjust the 'slacks' the cam spins without touching the backs of the shoes and the brakes? They don't work!
I want truck drivers to prove they know how to adjust their brakes.
And that requires state-sanctioned 'democratic' force for compliance, by way of state entities such as DMV?
Are you not trusting of humans to exercise individual responsibility?
In nation-states? Absolutely not.
In "what" 'states' exactly, DO you trust individual humans, collectively generally with all the obvious exceptions, to exercise, generally, individual responsibility?
Or you have a basis of fear that says in an old electoral candidate's voice "we must ensure compliance"?
Seriously, you sound mixed up. Your words comes across, consistently, as notably nationalistic - perhaps you can speak to us as to why this is so?
I don't believe in national borders. You're confused.
Let's not get caught up in terminology - fascist state, demoncratic state, whatever the hell we call what we mostly live within these days. I believe in national borders - they exist today, they are enforced by police and military means / force, by what are called 'governments' which are allegedly democratic but are mostly fascist. I believe in them - they exist. I could assume you mean you don't believe in them as in "you would prefer they did not exist" - you might have said something like this in the past, but I want to not put words in your mouth. Frankly, I like the idea of hanging around with folks of like belief and values, principles and morals/ ethics (never sure which term is PC these days) - and I have heard and read numerous examples of "Islamic leaders" in middle eastern and also western countries, make religious calls, publicly, loudly, clearly and with absolutely no ambiguity, for islamic immigration to western nations, and to breed themselves into power. I object to that on principle. If you want to emmegrate from your country, and immigrate into my country / nation, I want to know that your belief systems are "somewhat compatible" with mine! The closest term that may be considered politically correct so far is "cultural strength" - I want some cultural strength for "my culture", within "my country". For these reasons I like some aspects of "nationalism", at least when nationalism is not used by TPTB to undermine those in my nation / tribe to cause the majority within it to feel guilty for how we live, what we believe in, and the wealth we enjoy. AND I vehemently oppose the many and varied evils I witness going on all around the world and conducted in the name "Australia" (and USA, France, Germany, etc). This world politically is a bloody mess, we see it, we need to do everything we can to correct things.
On September 3, 2016 12:14:53 AM EDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
AND I vehemently oppose the many and varied evils I witness going on all around the world and conducted in the name "Australia" (and USA, France, Germany, etc).
You don't seem to have any problem with all the nasty shit Russia and your favorite fascist-oligarch Putin is up to.... John -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 06:37:58AM -0400, John wrote:
On September 3, 2016 12:14:53 AM EDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
AND I vehemently oppose the many and varied evils I witness going on all around the world and conducted in the name "Australia" (and USA, France, Germany, etc).
You don't seem to have any problem with all the nasty shit Russia and your favorite fascist-oligarch Putin is up to....
Putin has never taken a bribe, as far as those investigating him (for years) have been able to establish (posted previously). Russia may leave plenty to be desired (also previously agreed to). However: Do you say that USA special forces hanging Saddam Hussein, for daring to sell Iraqi oil in a currency other than US$, was a good thing? Do you say that the toppling and murder (despite surrender) of Qadhafi, and the laughing and sneering by Hillary Clinton with her "we came, we saw, he died", for his attempt to create a gold-backed pan-Arab currency, is a good thing? Do you say that American global hegemony, is a good thing? Do you agree that Putin and Russia gave balls to "the global south" to stand up to the modern empire (the USA) and create BRICS? Do you say this is a bad or a good thing? Finally, John: do you suggest a new world order with a one world government headed by America and backed by American currency and run by American 'laws' and "courts", to be the better option, than the multi-polar, nationalistic, multiple balancing/ competing powers option?
On September 3, 2016 6:53:06 AM EDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Putin has never taken a bribe, as far as those investigating him (for years) have been able to establish (posted previously).
LOL!
Finally, John: do you suggest a new world order with a one world government headed by America and backed by American currency and run by American 'laws' and "courts", to be the better option, than the
OBVIOUSLY the answer is no. I have zero faith in America or the corrupt oligarchy which runs it. Likewise, I have just as little faith in Russia and Putin, an EQUALLY corrupt and despotic oligarchy. Or perhaps kleptocracy is a better term for Russia - the words don't really matter, it's all a variation on a theme. I don't believe in EITHER system, or any of the established nation states as legitime actors in good faith on the so called global stage. You, on the other hand, are an unabashed apologist for Putin and Russia. You practically blare Pravda all over the list with the crap pro-Russian links you constantly send. As someone else on the list said recently : it's propaganda bullshit and it's embarrassing. John -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
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. So I'll settle for keeping out of it :) <SNIP>
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. Ought we stick to discussions which are not self defeating and premised on failure?
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". 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. Some like the monastic isolationist life, and far be it from us to decry anyone who chooses that. 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! 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/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes 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). 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.
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 :(
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:03:56AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
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.
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.
You're not quite getting this point: One particular issue at hand: DMV issued driver licenses. We have the options: - isolate (monastically, or with some friends) - not isolate In the case we 'not isolate', and we drive to another 'not-isolationist' community, we then are presented with two options (amongst others like "get a friend to drive me", but let's cut to the chase here): - drive by common law/ natural law right/ the blessing/ etc - obtain and drive with a state-issued driver license (eg DMV) Mirimir, when you say you choose to 'fly below the radar' or rather 'nod and smile', what, specifically, are you suggesting in this very real and current and modern scenario? (And before you try to sidestep the issue: the properties are 97km apart, driving and walking are your only means of transport, and you have to meet in person not video conference, perhaps shipping a few garbage bags of prime head or juicy tomatoes.) ....
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.
Except to the degree one can put credence in time dating and the contents of an actual scroll at ground zero of the mutual suicide that occurred at Masada from their self proclaimed (in said scroll) leader. Feel free to only put credence in contemporary internet-accessible blogs, rather than such scrolls, since it's on the internet it must be true and all that...
On 09/03/2016 12:22 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:03:56AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
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.
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.
You're not quite getting this point:
One particular issue at hand: DMV issued driver licenses.
We have the options:
- isolate (monastically, or with some friends)
- not isolate
In the case we 'not isolate', and we drive to another 'not-isolationist' community, we then are presented with two options (amongst others like "get a friend to drive me", but let's cut to the chase here):
- drive by common law/ natural law right/ the blessing/ etc
- obtain and drive with a state-issued driver license (eg DMV)
Mirimir, when you say you choose to 'fly below the radar' or rather 'nod and smile', what, specifically, are you suggesting in this very real and current and modern scenario?
I have a driver license. My vehicles are certified safe. I have insurance. I drive prudently, avoiding attention. If detained by police, I am calm and respectful. Refusing any of those things is, in my humble opinion, just too fucking stupid for words. It's true that I learned those skills as a drug smuggler ;) But more generally, I fly below the radar when it's workable.
(And before you try to sidestep the issue: the properties are 97km apart, driving and walking are your only means of transport, and you have to meet in person not video conference, perhaps shipping a few garbage bags of prime head or juicy tomatoes.)
It's only a problem if you're so pigheaded that you need to openly defy authority ;)
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.
Except to the degree one can put credence in time dating and the contents of an actual scroll at ground zero of the mutual suicide that occurred at Masada from their self proclaimed (in said scroll) leader.
What exactly should I care? Far more interesting is the Copiale Cipher. http://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-the-manuscript/ https://scottishrite.org/about/media-publications/journal/article/the-copial...
Feel free to only put credence in contemporary internet-accessible blogs, rather than such scrolls, since it's on the internet it must be true and all that...
Mostly lies, for sure. But that's true for everything :(
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 01:18:42AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 09/03/2016 12:22 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:03:56AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
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.
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.
You're not quite getting this point:
One particular issue at hand: DMV issued driver licenses.
We have the options:
- isolate (monastically, or with some friends)
- not isolate
In the case we 'not isolate', and we drive to another 'not-isolationist' community, we then are presented with two options (amongst others like "get a friend to drive me", but let's cut to the chase here):
- drive by common law/ natural law right/ the blessing/ etc
- obtain and drive with a state-issued driver license (eg DMV)
Mirimir, when you say you choose to 'fly below the radar' or rather 'nod and smile', what, specifically, are you suggesting in this very real and current and modern scenario?
I have a driver license. My vehicles are certified safe. I have insurance. I drive prudently, avoiding attention. If detained by police, I am calm and respectful. Refusing any of those things is, in my humble opinion, just too fucking stupid for words.
It's true that I learned those skills as a drug smuggler ;) But more generally, I fly below the radar when it's workable.
Got it. Compliance with external authorities for travel (papers please, yes sir!), and living your life where it's not confrontational. OK. I accept your choice. Opposing the state is a very confronting thing to do. So let's not pretend that compliance with the state is anarchism. All I'm asking, as I asked above in the thread, is that we speak a little more clearly and refrain from disparaging those who DO try to improve "the shit pile" by confronting the system in one way or another. Is that too much to ask? Or shall we always receive "you're too damn stupid to fly below the radar on some things, and basically comply, so give up on changing things at a system level because it's never going to happen"...
(And before you try to sidestep the issue: the properties are 97km apart, driving and walking are your only means of transport, and you have to meet in person not video conference, perhaps shipping a few garbage bags of prime head or juicy tomatoes.)
It's only a problem if you're so pigheaded that you need to openly defy authority ;)
I hold that we can improve the shit pile. I also hold that we should be cautious in dropping a bucket of cold water on those who want to try, and be cautious in immediate declarations of "it's not possible". Is it possibly less than 'constructive' to dishearten individuals before they've even begun? Could doing so, in the context of "fly below the radar with compliance with the state" be seen as, I dunno, statist propaganda perhaps? And if you agree with that, can you see why Juan is so vehement in his responses to "statist propaganda" ? :) ? ?
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.
Except to the degree one can put credence in time dating and the contents of an actual scroll at ground zero of the mutual suicide that occurred at Masada from their self proclaimed (in said scroll) leader.
What exactly should I care?
That's up to you. You said it wasn't possible. Now you say you don't care. What would you suggest I now say? Perhaps "whatever!"?
Far more interesting is the Copiale Cipher.
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-the-manuscript/
https://scottishrite.org/about/media-publications/journal/article/the-copial...
Cool. Thanks.
Feel free to only put credence in contemporary internet-accessible blogs, rather than such scrolls, since it's on the internet it must be true and all that...
Mostly lies, for sure. But that's true for everything :(
Can we improve on buckets of cold water and absolutes ("impossible to tell")? (I'm entirely guilty of flashing absolutes around..)
On 09/03/2016 02:33 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 01:18:42AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 09/03/2016 12:22 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:03:56AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
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.
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.
You're not quite getting this point:
One particular issue at hand: DMV issued driver licenses.
We have the options:
- isolate (monastically, or with some friends)
- not isolate
In the case we 'not isolate', and we drive to another 'not-isolationist' community, we then are presented with two options (amongst others like "get a friend to drive me", but let's cut to the chase here):
- drive by common law/ natural law right/ the blessing/ etc
- obtain and drive with a state-issued driver license (eg DMV)
Mirimir, when you say you choose to 'fly below the radar' or rather 'nod and smile', what, specifically, are you suggesting in this very real and current and modern scenario?
I have a driver license. My vehicles are certified safe. I have insurance. I drive prudently, avoiding attention. If detained by police, I am calm and respectful. Refusing any of those things is, in my humble opinion, just too fucking stupid for words.
It's true that I learned those skills as a drug smuggler ;) But more generally, I fly below the radar when it's workable.
Got it. Compliance with external authorities for travel (papers please, yes sir!), and living your life where it's not confrontational. OK.
I accept your choice.
Opposing the state is a very confronting thing to do.
There are many ways to oppose.
So let's not pretend that compliance with the state is anarchism.
I don't have much use for labels.
All I'm asking, as I asked above in the thread, is that we speak a little more clearly and refrain from disparaging those who DO try to improve "the shit pile" by confronting the system in one way or another.
Is that too much to ask?
I call them as I see them ;)
Or shall we always receive "you're too damn stupid to fly below the radar on some things, and basically comply, so give up on changing things at a system level because it's never going to happen"...
Maybe review that in a decade or two :)
(And before you try to sidestep the issue: the properties are 97km apart, driving and walking are your only means of transport, and you have to meet in person not video conference, perhaps shipping a few garbage bags of prime head or juicy tomatoes.)
It's only a problem if you're so pigheaded that you need to openly defy authority ;)
I hold that we can improve the shit pile.
So go for it, dude :)
I also hold that we should be cautious in dropping a bucket of cold water on those who want to try, and be cautious in immediate declarations of "it's not possible".
I don't say that it's impossible. Just pretty damn unlikely. And 99% of those "trying" are just blowing smoke.
Is it possibly less than 'constructive' to dishearten individuals before they've even begun?
So maybe do something, instead of talking so much about it.
Could doing so, in the context of "fly below the radar with compliance with the state" be seen as, I dunno, statist propaganda perhaps?
Are you fucking serious?
And if you agree with that, can you see why Juan is so vehement in his responses to "statist propaganda" ? :) ? ?
Juan is an idiot.
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.
Except to the degree one can put credence in time dating and the contents of an actual scroll at ground zero of the mutual suicide that occurred at Masada from their self proclaimed (in said scroll) leader.
What exactly should I care?
That's up to you. You said it wasn't possible. Now you say you don't care.
What would you suggest I now say? Perhaps "whatever!"?
Far more interesting is the Copiale Cipher.
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-the-manuscript/
https://scottishrite.org/about/media-publications/journal/article/the-copial...
Cool. Thanks.
Feel free to only put credence in contemporary internet-accessible blogs, rather than such scrolls, since it's on the internet it must be true and all that...
Mostly lies, for sure. But that's true for everything :(
Can we improve on buckets of cold water and absolutes ("impossible to tell")?
(I'm entirely guilty of flashing absolutes around..)
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:03:56AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
I wouldn't say monastic. Just private. Read old Bill Burroughs' stuff about the Johnson Family.
It's been years since I read Naked Lunch or any of the other cut-up novels (although I did re-read Junkie and Queer recently)... Still, I remember the Johnsons... the correct interpretation of WWJD is, of course, What Would a Johnson Do ? John
On 09/03/2016 06:51 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:03:56AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
I wouldn't say monastic. Just private. Read old Bill Burroughs' stuff about the Johnson Family.
It's been years since I read Naked Lunch or any of the other cut-up novels (although I did re-read Junkie and Queer recently)...
If you like the Johnsons, you gotta read his last trilogy: _Cities of the Red Night_, _The Place of Dead Roads_ and _The Western Lands_.
Still, I remember the Johnsons... the correct interpretation of WWJD is, of course, What Would a Johnson Do ?
Right, WWJD :) His Johnsons are cypherpunks. Recall who he was. An heir of Burroughs Corporation founders.
John
On Sep 3, 2016, at 8:59 PM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 09/03/2016 06:51 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:03:56AM -0600, Mirimir wrote: I wouldn't say monastic. Just private. Read old Bill Burroughs' stuff about the Johnson Family.
It's been years since I read Naked Lunch or any of the other cut-up novels (although I did re-read Junkie and Queer recently)...
If you like the Johnsons, you gotta read his last trilogy: _Cities of the Red Night_, _The Place of Dead Roads_ and _The Western Lands_.
Funny you mention it - The Western Lands is on my book shelf right now. I don't seem to have copies of the other two, but I can dig them up somewhere ... John
Still, I remember the Johnsons... the correct interpretation of WWJD is, of course, What Would a Johnson Do ?
Right, WWJD :) His Johnsons are cypherpunks. Recall who he was. An heir of Burroughs Corporation founders.
John
On 09/04/2016 05:21 PM, John Newman wrote:
On Sep 3, 2016, at 8:59 PM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 09/03/2016 06:51 AM, John Newman wrote:
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:03:56AM -0600, Mirimir wrote: I wouldn't say monastic. Just private. Read old Bill Burroughs' stuff about the Johnson Family.
It's been years since I read Naked Lunch or any of the other cut-up novels (although I did re-read Junkie and Queer recently)...
If you like the Johnsons, you gotta read his last trilogy: _Cities of the Red Night_, _The Place of Dead Roads_ and _The Western Lands_.
Funny you mention it - The Western Lands is on my book shelf right now. I don't seem to have copies of the other two, but I can dig them up somewhere ...
Best read them in order :) I believe that _The Western Lands_ was his last novel. It's very much Burroughs' "Book of the Dead".
John
Still, I remember the Johnsons... the correct interpretation of WWJD is, of course, What Would a Johnson Do ?
Right, WWJD :) His Johnsons are cypherpunks. Recall who he was. An heir of Burroughs Corporation founders.
John
participants (5)
-
John -
John Newman
-
Mirimir -
Razer -
Zenaan Harkness