individual responsibility - was Re: Nationalism vs Globalism

[Zenaan Harkness]

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.