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

Zenaan Harkness zen at freedbms.net
Mon Nov 4 20:46:11 PST 2019


On communication ...


On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 05:50:00AM -0000, xorcist at sigaint.org wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:35:31 -0000 Juan wrote:
...
> > 	Fine, So what's the cause/source of statism? =)
> 
> Social mammals have a herd instinct, and more specifically humans
> naturally select leaders at a subconscious level in social situations.
> 
> Because we're in some sense pre-disposed to selecting leaders, we're
> exploitable to people who would seize power. To many, it seems just
> natural and comfortable that there should be someone, with authority, that
> they can look to in order to find out what they should do.
> 
> You can see this in early teen children, where kids start to select
> "popular" kids, and others try to emulate them. It's no coincidence that
> the "king" and "queen" of the prom will be the most popular pair of kids
> in school. In fact, the king and queen as selected years before the prom.
> It's no coincidence that the jocks in high school go on to become the cops
> as adults.
> 
> At a deep level, that is the mechanism. Primates, humans included, have an
> ingrained alpha/beta dynamic that makes us select leaders. That is the
> core psychological hook that the whole thing rides on. And it trickles all
> the way down, individual sub-groups will have their own leaders, and so
> on. A hierarchy .. a pecking order.. arises rather spontaneously.
> 
> For people deeply attached to the state, when you call into question the
> state, in an emotional way, you're sort of insulting their father, or
> maybe "big brother" would be more apropros, and you're calling into
> question the entire structure of what they know. They find it difficult to
> believe a world without the state is possible, because at some unconscious
> level, they've always felt the presence of that hierarchy. It lets them
> know their station in life, and that is comforting to people.. at least
> people in the middle, and certainly at the top.
> 
> So, what do we do about all this? 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. We can
> recapture some of that, and finally dispense with the authoritarian
> nonsense.
> 
> First though, taking the emotional/social side into account, I'd like to
> highlight a few things that are important in order to grow a base of
> people large enough to do away with the state, and to survive without a
> state (that is, the types of social changes we'd need to have in place in
> order to not re-create a state after their downfall).
> 
> The emotional ties people have are important to consider, when trying to
> "win a convert" to an anti-authoritarian view, make your arguments against
> the state .. "gentle" .. couch it with "I wonder if people could organize
> without it.." when they object, AGREE, but continue with the "wondering."
> We should feel compassion for people so enamored with authoritarianism,
> and be gentle with them. 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. Be compassionate: the
> statist is one that is weary, and feels weak. They get brow-beat with
> orders from superiors regularly. Our job is to give them respite. Don't
> brow-beat them with arguments designed to make them feel inferior. Gently
> encourage new thoughts. Make them feel strong. Ask for their opinions, and
> don't be quick to dismiss. If you disagree, nudge them towards your view.
> 
> It is more effective, persuasion wise today, and one day, without a state,
> those would need to be social norms so that the "betas" get uplifted, and
> feel like they too can lead, in some areas.
> 
> 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.
> 
> With those types of norms in place, the roots of power have less surface
> to take hold, and in the absence of a state (either self-made collapse, or
> insurrection) we're more likely to be able to fill the power vacuum with
> something better than the current notion of the state.
> 
> 
> > 	Well, to some extent that must have been true? Granted, the
> > 	fact that they agreed with whatever you said is suspicious. But
> > 	the solution seems a bit ad hoc. Maybe confusing them worked,
> > 	but you must have confused other people who were listening too?
> 
> At first, yeah.. but like all social circles "word gets around."
> 
> And yeah.. it was a bit ad hoc, but that is kind of the whole thing..
> people are individuals, and a successful non-authoritarian society has to
> have really flexible social protocols to adapt to that individuality.
> 
> The only way, that I see, to really make a society where people don't have
> to conform to an insane litany of arbitrary social norms is to have very
> few social norms that are very flexible and adaptable towards people.
> 
> > 	There may be a mix of causes, but as a libertarian I would
> > 	say : 1) being lazy is a virtue 2) by far the most important
> > 	problem is the rigged economic system.
> 
> I must say, I'm surprised by #1. Most libertarians I've met are very
> enamored with the self-made-man trope and the idea that people should be
> ambitious, and do well for themselves. Or did you mean libertarian in the
> old-school sense, and not so much the modern "objectivist" sense?
> 
> I don't entirely disagree with you here. Certainly, people deserve more
> time for slack, and sloth, but I don't know that I'd say laziness is a
> virtue.
> 
> The rigged economic system is a problem, true. Providing alternatives to
> that system is another thing that needs to at least have seeds planted if
> we're to get through a power vacuum.


...


> >> > 	All the services that the state has monopolized like
> >> > education, 'health care', whatever. can be provided by the
> >> > market/the people/the commune once the state is gone.
> >>
> >> Cart before the horse, man.
> >
> >
> > 	Yes, exactly. That is exactly the reason why your analysis
> > 	isn't right.
> >
> > 	You cannot compete with the state, providing all the garbage
> > 	services the states provides, if you don't deprive the state
> > 	FIRST of their monopoly powers.
> 
> It's not a matter of competing. It's a matter of providing an alternative.
> It doesn't need to be a complete, viable alternative. It just needs to be
> a working model. A proof of concept.
> 
> Why? Because I'm not trying to destroy the state.. directly. I'm not
> trying to blow it up, and start from zero. I'm trying to grow alternatives
> that will, over time, allow the state to wither.. the same way it didn't
> appear overnight and slowly grew. That is how it will be replaced.
> 
> At bottom, a state is just a human activity. PEOPLE DO it. We just have to
> attract a critical mass of people doing something different.
> 
> > 	Consider the example of stuff banned by the state like 'some
> > 	drugs'. What is your plan? Sell drugs on the black market? And
> > 	you think that would limit state power? It obviously never
> > 	does.
> 
> Uhm. The cartels run Columbia dude, so I'm not sure what you're exactly
> getting at there.
> 
> But you're making a subtle error. Helping disabled people isn't illegal.
> The state has their hands in it anyhow. We can take that over, and get
> them out of it.
> 
> By appropriating social services, there is also a propaganda effect
> involved.. the state will have a difficult time blasting away at
> anarchists involved with helping disabled, the homeless, etc. Food not
> Bombs gets shit, usually out of health-code nonsense, but even still, they
> are relatively immune because of the propaganda effect.
> 
> You lose that when you get into overt crime areas. 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.
> 
> It is, essentially, why I am politically pacifist. In theory, I'd be up
> for good old insurrection, but I'd have to KNOW we'd win. Fuck the
> self-interest of it, I don't care about that.. but the potential for
> centuries of setbacks is too great if we let the victory write our
> history.
> 
> 
> > 	And it doesn't even have to be an army. It's just a matter of
> > 	getting a big enough number of people to say "no".
> 
> AGREED! Critical mass of people living without the state. That's what I'm
> working towards.
> 
> >> We're not there yet. In order to fight, people need something to fight
> >> for. Thats where the OTHER non-state services come in, in my view.
> >
> >
> > 	As you said, cart before the horse =P
> 
> Perhaps. But I like the smell of this horse better.
> 


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list