individual responsibility - was Re: Nationalism vs Globalism

[Zenaan Harkness]

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-copiale-cipher-an-early-german-masonic-ritual-unveiled/

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..)