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/ > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 :(