[From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist at sigaint.org]

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 05:50:00 -0000
> 	Psychiatry is radically different. Being 'mentally healthy'
> 	simply means being 'well adapted' to a society of crazies.

I get where you are coming from. I've often said, "Being well-adapted to a
sick culture is no sign of health."

> 	The fact that psychiatrists and the like may sometimes say some
> 	sensible things doesn't counter this other fact : they also
> 	say very crazy things. And do very criminal things.

Agreed.

I see. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me more like your main
criticism is of the establishment of psychiatry, and not so much with the
study of the mind, personality, and so on as such?

I can agree with this. I think a great deal of psychiatry, as a discipline,
is half-assed, and generally speaking am critical of institutions generally.

But in terms of explaining common aspects of human behavior, I find
psychological models fairly accurate.

> 	Maybe she doesn't like gym class. And maybe the tantrums are
> 	caused by some other reason.

No, she won't wear shoes if she can help it. "Pathologically" prefers bare
feet, or socks.. and can accept sandals. She really does get a
panic-attack type response to it.

Some autism is characterized by tactile response things like that. She
used to flinch at touch very easily too. As in, she could be sitting on
the couch, ask you to come over, see you coming over and you could gesture
out your hands to indicate touch.. but she would still jump a little if
you touched her shoulder or whatever. She's basically over that, now
though.

That example is like a weird "two-fer" .. Aspies (affectionate name for
those with Asperger's) tend to not understand body language well, so the
gesture of oncoming touch wouldn't necessarily be interpreted correctly.

> 	So, the issue is not any mental problem on her part, but
> 	having to deal with less than fully civilized people...

I wouldn't consider it a problem.. and my understanding is that because
its biologically based, its not considered mental illness, or a disease of
the mind. It's a condition. Like being quite short.. a "little person"
it's no disease, it's just them. CAN that condition be a problem to deal
with? Of course.

She has real issues coping with things that 'normal' people tend to have
zero issue with. She's different.. very much like being quite short, and
having issues coping in the world with average sized people.

How "normal" people treat her causes far more problems than her condition
causes her on its own, by far. I imagine that is true for little people as
well.

> 	In this case, it's the family. Which I think is some sort of
> 	model for the state...As in paternalistic governments, nanny
> 	states, founding fathers, the pope, patriotism (from
> 	pater)...that kind of thing...

Ok, so we're talking models of the state, and not THE totalitarian state.
Yeah, authoritarianism has bad effects, for sure.

>
> 	Exactly. Greedy STATE LICENSED doctors working as salesmen for
> 	the greedy pharmaceutical mafia that exists only thanks to
> 	STATE GRANTED patents and other IP shit. Furthermore, they drug
> 	up children who are not 'normal', i.e. they are actually
> 	healthy children who don't get along with 'normal' savagery.
>
> 	So the state seems to play some sort of role in all that...

Greedy state-outlawed drug dealers, working as salesmen for out-lawed
cartels, selling outlawed, unpatentable freely reproduced and copied
products and other shit. Furthermore, they drug up children who are just
looking for an escape from the 'normal' savagery.

So the state seems to have little role, in all of that...

Greed will always be around, man. Greed will infect any system you have,
or don't have. Greed infected monarchies, modern nation-states, churches,
personal relationships.. I mean.. name it, and if it involves humans,
greed has been a problem for it somehow, somewhere I'd wager.

>> If people were so fundamentally, at their core, rational -- why does
>> this irrational thing exist?
>
>
> 	Because there are well organized 'minorities' who are able to
> 	impose their views on the rest.

But it isn't rational to allow a minority to impress its will on the
majority.

So we're back to square one.


> 	Even if we were cleverer than the rest, it doesn't follow
> 	we should be in charge. And a group of stupid people controlled
> 	by a minority of marginally less stupid people is a recipe for
> 	tyranny and disaster.

Why not? If rational is the metric for good, then the most rational people
can do the most good. They'll seek to do the most good.

It may still be a recipe for disaster, but it would seem to be a smaller
disaster, or take a longer time, or SOMETHING positive compared to those
that can't reason to the same level of complexity.

Society is complex. There are a lot of moving parts. Irrational people
running the show seems to be the recipe for disaster.

>> It doesn't mean, I or anyone else, should necessarily be
>> "in charge" .. because I can't decide what meets someone else's
>> emotional needs any better than they can
>
> 	Well at least I agree with the conclusion...

Indeed.
>> The point is that if "rationality" is the metric for "good" then the
>> "most rational" people should be in charge. They should be the agents
>> of the state.
>
>
> 	Except that the state is a criminal organization so by
> 	definition it's not "good".

OK, fair enough, so perhaps phrase it a different way.. the most rational
should, in some way, have their views take precedent over the irrational
views. Whether that is a "state" or whatever you want to call it, it seems
clear that if "rational" is "good" then "irrationality" needs to be
suppressed.

>> You can see this in early teen children, where kids start to select
>> "popular" kids,
>
>
> 	Did I mention that children (and 'teenagers') are well known for
> 	defying authority? The 'authority' of their shitty parents, for
> 	starters.

I don't think so. But yeah, I was certainly one of them.

That doesn't invalidate what I'm saying though. At the same time that
children start selecting their peer leaders, they rebel against their
parental leaders.

It's because they are defining their own identity, and that identity -- as
a primate, is largely bound up in hierarchy.

"No, Dad, I'm not going to listen to you. I'm going to wear makeup like
the cool girl in school does!!"

Bottom line.

>
> 	You seem to be focusing on facts that validate your theory but
> 	ignore the facts that don't fit...

Not at all.

> 	And of course, fuck big brother too! Now I'm kinda wondering
> 	what's your take on 1984? An example of heretical and misguided
> 	rational thinking?

Indeed.

The music was god-aweful.

> 	The way you describe the situation? We do nothing because
> 	nothing can be done. You can keep repeating your deterministic
> 	views, based on...'biology'? 'psychology'? but if you
> 	keep repeating that alpha/beta thing, at least face the
> 	logical consequences of your own theories.

Oh, I do.

Hierarchy, to some level, will always(?) be present in human society. It
does not follow, however, that the alphas need to always be the most
cunning, competitive, driven sociopaths we have around.

If you've ever met an alpha type who is actually a genuinely nice person,
its obvious to see the positive effect they can have on people, in terms
of getting them to be more confident themselves.

Do that long enough, on a large enough scale.. I don't know how many
generations it would take.. and my perspective on the situation with
regard to primate evolution may go the way of the extinct dodo.

>> Well, it should be immediately
>> obvious that we're up against something much larger than a mere
>> principality. It may seem daunting to consider, but it's really not
>> that big of a deal. Humans have organized in fantastically diverse
>> ways in history.
>
> 	Hm. Now the 'herd instinct' has vanished?

Murder of crows = herd of crows. Pride of lions = herd of lions.

Society of humans = herd of humans.

That humans organize, in a society, is a herd instinct.

Just because we're social animals doesn't mean we can't have different
ways of organizing. There are constraints, but the Native American economy
was run on beads and the honor system. Some societies were ruled by the
strongest, others the oldest.

But there is always the perception of an alpha. How that gets defined and
created, is open to some possibilities.

> 	But I don't wonder. I've studied the subject =)
>
> 	And actually I do listen to statists first, and then yes,
> 	shred their 'arguments' to pieces. Seems to me that's the
> 	intellectually honest way to talk to people.

No, its the dick way of talking to people that will guarantee that they
will get angry, and won't remember what you said, just that what you said
made them angry. And so, since they don't remember, they'll never change
their mind.

>> when they object, AGREE, but continue
>> with the "wondering."
>
> 	...pretend to agree with nonsensical stuff?

If you'd like to call it that, sure. But its really just about effective
communication.

There is a reason we use the term "argument" in two contexts: logical
debate, and heated, angry confrontation.

The very choice of words "I'd like to propose an argument" vs. "I'd like
to entertain a point of discussion" .. can have very different effects in
terms of how open the listener is going to be.

It's like body language, tone of voice. It's an important part of genuine
communication.

>> We should feel compassion for people so
>> enamored with authoritarianism, and be gentle with them.
>
>
> 	Feel compasion for people who advocate all sort of attrocities?

Of course. Conceivably you'd feel compassion for a person hit by a bus and
through no fault of their own had their body broken. Why would you not
feel compassion for a person whose mind, and very spirit was broken by the
weight of the state?

>> Many
>> anarchist writers of the past have looked at them as some sort of
>> debased beast who is content to lick their chains, and this view is
>> why we don't have more people.
>
> 	Oh, so it's bakunin's fault now? =)

Indirectly, yes. I appreciate much of the man's thought, but he made
errors he couldn't have forseen. We all have.

I could wish that my errors wouldn't be visible for hundreds of years.

> 	Arguments are not meant to make people feel inferior.

What they are meant to do, and what they do, are two totally different
things, aren't they?

And I agree with you, to the extent that one must gauge the audience.
I enjoy a hardy 'argument' myself. There is a sport in it. There is an
implied competition.

But when I can tell that someone is going to take the competition
personally, and that it will in fact be a wall to getting at the truth, I
don't 'argue.'

> 	And what kind of 'leading' would the 'betas' do...?

I don't know. It depends on the individual, of course. I'm a terrible
cook, and in matters of cooking, I defer to those that are my betters.
I've never made shoes, and so I defer to the authority of the boot maker.

With apologies to Uncle Mikhail, naturally. :)

>> Take note when people are being deferential towards you, and putting
>> you in a subtle position of social power, and ABDICATE that power.
>> Ask for their opinions, and defer to them. When someone comes to you,
>> for advice, or a solution.. Be content to say you don't know, and
>> encourage them to use their own understanding. Encourage them to see
>> that you aren't their superior.
>
>
> 	I'm not sure what that is about. I'm not a politician nor I
> 	believe in authority...

Doesn't matter if you believe in it. You can disbelieve in VD all you
like, someone can still give it to you, and without your consent.

The point is, be aware of the subtle ways in which people express their
feelings of their inferiority to you, or others, and subtly uplift them.

> 	There shouldn't be any 'power vacuum' absent the state. That's
> 	like saying that absent the mafia there would be a 'crime
> 	vacuum'. Well, yes, actually that's the point of the whole
> 	anarchy exercise, a power vacuum, meaning nobody has power.

Rather not. The point of anarchy would be power equilibrium. With a
vacuum, there is always something trying desperately to get sucked in, and
to fill the vacuum. Anarchy would be equilibrium. No power pushing out,
and none seeking to attain it.

And if you dispose of a state without people being ready to live without
it, there WILL be a new state.

Spain. WWII. After Franco fell, there was decentralized organization.. no
rulers to speak up. Cooperation to run the country, and after the war they
made a new government.

They didn't have to. It just seemed like the thing to do. Fuck, we have to
keep up with the Jone's. Every other self-respecting people has a
government. We better get one.

>
> 	And don't think that 'manipulating' or 'causing' or
> 	'suggesting to' somebody to get a degree is a good thing. So
> 	both the means and end strike as less than ideal.

Really? Because she went from not being able to support herself, nor her
child, and being on state assistance, to getting a decent job. I haven't
seen her in some years now, but last I heard she is a quite prosperous
small business owner now.

I get that university is largely a scam. It's a fucking pyramid scheme,
basically. But like most "multi-level marketing" schemes, if you really
put in the effort, you can get ahead.

>> It was a genuine, human moment. If inspiring each other to be our best
>> selves is distasteful, then I would suggest that you don't actually
>> like humanity very much.
>
> 	Yeah. I'd tell people that academy is a disguting mafia and
> 	that they shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole =)

Forget every I've said. Stay a loner =)
>> Statists will say, we NEED taxes, to help with welfare, to
>> build roads, and so on.
>>
>> We know thats bullshit.

And?

It doesn't matter what we know is bullshit. The point is helping OTHER
people know its bullshit. If a deductive argument gets them there? Good.
If example, and suggestion get them there? Good. If it takes a hit of LSD?
Fine.

The point of an argument is the truth, right? Well, which is the valuable
part? The form of language, the process that gets them there? Or the
truth?

If you actually value the TRUTH of the idea that the state is perhaps the
worst idea humans have ever come up with (with the possible exception of
Barry Manilow recordings), I'd imagine that you'd be keen and open on any
way to dispel that idea .. and not be hung up on little fine points of
communication style. I'd think that any block or friction to getting that
idea dispelled would be done away with.

> 	So, you are going to build roads.

No, I never said that.

> 	There  already are sizable 'charity' efforts. They don't
> 	change a thing, IMO.

So what does? As I mentioned some time ago, you're taking the tact of
questioning without offering alternatives. Its a good debate tactic, if
you like to just carry on. It won't dissuade me. I know the tactic. I've
used it on occasion. No matter how many questions you come up with, even
if I can't answer, actually proves me wrong. Whether its logic puzzles
that may stump me, or fine points of magnifying conceptual distinctions,
none if it actually proves anything I've said incorrect, unless you can
provide an alternative that is in some way better, simpler, or so on.


> 	It's good that you disagree because I can't think of anything
> 	more fucked up than sending people to schools, let alone state
> 	schools (which is what virtually all schools are today anyway

Shows how little you know about this area of life. These are private
institutions. They cater to people with cognitive disabilities.


>
>
>> We'd be able to pay for
>> them if we took money from religious charities, then we wouldn't need
>> the government grants. I get out voted on that by some rabid atheists
>> in the group though, so it is what it is.
>
> 	As if theocracy was anything but the most brutal sort
> 	statism?

You like to exaggerate terms. So do I. Hyperbole can be fun, yeah?

Depends on the theology. I imagine you're not real versed in, say, the
Dalai Lama's rule as a theocratic leader. Not many states give up their
terrority to avoid bloodshed.

Not that I have much use for the guy, really. But I won't get into that.

In any case, I'd have thought that someone who made such a big show about
the coercive nature of taxes would understand that I'd rather not take tax
money because I know its at the barrel of a gun.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but if people want to put money into the
Easter egg for charity work, that's fine by me. It's voluntary.

These days, at any rate.

> 	People should be able to provide food for themselves?

I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't completely detached from reality.

What should be, and what is. You seem to have a problem with that whole
reality thing. What arguments are meant to do, vs. what they do.

There are other examples, it seems, I don't feel like going back through
the thread to find them.

But you really should get that looked at.
> 	They don't seem to be interfering with state power too much,
> 	if at all...

Neither does your trolling?

> 	Only to a very limited extent. Because the state knows pretty
> 	well that if their power gets really challenged, they can 'fix'
> 	the problem.

It's all about PR.

> 	There are various problems with that. One is that your
> 	alternative statist programs are just that. Giving 'free' stuff
> 	to people is obviously NOT the way to encourage people to be
> 	independent. Second, even if you can give some free stuff away,
> 	it will never scale.

You can feed a man while he learns how to fish. I'm not sure it scales to
feeding trolls though.


>> There is no reason you can't boot strap an independent
>> program using tax dollars initially.
>
> 	Lol. Not only you are playing state, you are also using state
> 	money? It doesn't get any more 'anarchist' than that...

I always vote not to do so, as I've said. But, I do understand the logic
of those that vote for taking state money: its better than using it
elsewhere (military), and if we can bleed off the state to get programs
rolling and people set up, all the better. We could take a lot more state
money, but we don't.

And we're not 'playing state.'

You can LOL at bootstrapping from the state if you like. But its how
things work in the real world. You know, that pesky thing called physics
and biology.

Like you for example. You were bootstrapped out of your mama's vag, sucked
on your nanny's tit, ate their food, and burdened them. Papa could have
gotten more ass if not for all your crying. And they didn't even have the
responsibility to do this for you, seeing how you aren't them and you
should have been taking care of yourself, after all you were just the
result of an ejaculation.


> 	I suspect that your grasp of math is way better than mine.
> 	However your overall political analysis doesn't strike me as
> 	good.

I don't really look at it as political analysis, seeing as I have no real
political ideology. I see advantages, and disadvantages, to a lot of
theories. And I don't much care which are tried, or not, or even if the
current one is simply rebooted.

The interplay of life, people, history, technology, and so on is so vastly
complex that no theory can hope to make accurate predictions of what will
work, or what won't work due to emergent behavior, the so-called
"butterfly effect" and so.

I'm simply giving my outlook on the state of the world that I live in.

The way I think about states is the way I think about children. I've often
commented on "playground politics." The dynamics of how 5 year olds act
are quite similar to the nonsense nation-states engage in.

I don't need political analysis or ideology to see through that nonsense.

>> It's not a matter of competing. It's a matter of providing an
>> alternative.
>
> 	I call that competition. I think it's the correct word =)

So, your car breaks down. Person A offers you a ride. Person B offers you
a ride.

You think they are in competition? It's not the correct word.

Competition implies striving, and struggling. It involves trying to beat
another at some mutually important task, or game, and so on.

I'm not in competition with the state. I don't want to do what they do.
They really don't want to do what I do.

To give themselves an air of legitimacy, they are forced to provide
certain services. They'd probably rather line their pockets or buy bombs.
I'm not trying to beat them at that game.

I'm not forced to provide services. If I worked harder at my job instead
of the other stuff, maybe I'd make more money and line my pockets. Instead
 I choose to provide services.

I'm not in competition with the state. They aren't in competition with me.

I am providing an alternative though, that if widely supported and used,
would take away one of the false ways the state legitimizes itself.

>
> 	You can go to grocery store 'A' or to grocery store 'B'. 'A' is
> 	an alternative to 'B'. And viceversa. And both stores are
> 	'competing'.
>
> 	People can use state services, or your alternative services.
> 	You are competing with the state.

You can ride in your friend A's car, or friend B's car. You can choose
either service.

They are not in competition.
> 	My point is, how would you solve a quintessential statist
> 	problem like the 'war on drugs'? What kind of alternative can
> 	you provide to the 'war on drugs', apart from ending it ASAP?

Civil disobedience and getting high.

>
> 	You can take it over only if they allow you. And I'm not making
> 	an error. I'm switching to an area (drugs) where it's not clear
> 	how the 'provide alternative options' strategy can be
> 	implemented.

Fine. Who cares? Not all strategies are fit for all terrains or all
conditions. That's obvious. Each strategy needs soldier/workers. That's
obvious.

You propose no real strategy as an alternative, other than - what are you
advocating? Nothing. Except talk.

Fucking dumb.

> 	Yes, that's true. But do notice that before the state ITSELF
> 	appropiated social services, they were mostly provided by
> 	'private' mutual aid societies and the like.

So I'm trying to re-take lost terrain? OK. Sure.

Better than waiting for a solution from you that will never come, or
waiting for an insurrection to take the whole show and HOPEFULLY actually
ends in anarchy .. and not just another criminal gang with guns.

And since your solution (I suspect its insurrection because you won't say
it) includes getting a gang of people with guns together, and then killing
guys who HAVE power, it seems really risky that when the dust settles they
won't TAKE power. In theory it could work.. but it requires too much that
never seems to come about: millions of people free from greed.

And if they are when they start, you lose a leg or an eye in the fight..
then you start thinking "well, I DESERVE something" that other people
didn't get.

I know to much history to fall for that shit. I'm real suspicious of
violence as a solution.

>> This is what fucked
>> over anarchism at the turn of the 20th century. The "propaganda by
>> deed" horseshit is what inspired robberies, crime, assassinations, and
>> associated "anarchy" with "chaos" in the public mind.
>
> 	I don't know...

Don't know what.. how 'anarchy' got associated with violent chaos?

Get reading.

> 	Well, that's a lot harder if people are living in a statist
> 	society. You can have your alterative help system for disabled
> 	persons but you will still be subjected to taxation, regulation
> 	and whatnot.

Yeah its hard. What makes you think getting rid of the biggest, global
mafia EVER was gonna be easy? You think its gonna be romantic like some
fucken Hollywood movie? You get to hang out with yer buddies in a bad ass
bunker, get a cool nickname carved on your rifle, shoot some bad guys, get
a sweet scar, and get the girl?

No. It's fucking busting your ass to do the shit people don't want to do.
All the shit that people don't want to do, gets shuffled to the state.
They don't want to police their own neighborhoods and confront violent
criminals they want to call the cops. They don't want to fight fires. They
don't want to hang out with 30 unruly kids and try and teach. They don't
want to provide services. They don't want to do SHIT. They want to be
coddled, and taken care of by Mama state. They want to fuck around, live
in the basement, buy their toys, and take as little responsibility as
possible.

Laziness is no virtue.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, and I'm willing to listen to any
practical ideas that would be faster, or more efficient.

But FAILING that, I'll do the work, laying the foundation as best I can,
pebble by pebble, with far few too few workers, and far to few fucking
pebbles.

If nothing else, in my last days, I'll know I truly did try. It wasn't a
theory, or a "political leaning" or a dream. It was my life. And along the
way, I meet a lot of rad people doing it, I learn a lot, and I grow as
person.

You really can't beat it.