On 09/03/2016 02:33 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > 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.
There are many ways to oppose. > So let's not pretend that compliance with the state is anarchism. I don't have much use for labels. > 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? I call them as I see them ;) > 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"... Maybe review that in a decade or two :) >>> (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. So go for it, dude :) > 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". I don't say that it's impossible. Just pretty damn unlikely. And 99% of those "trying" are just blowing smoke. > Is it possibly less than 'constructive' to dishearten individuals before > they've even begun? So maybe do something, instead of talking so much about it. > Could doing so, in the context of "fly below the radar with compliance > with the state" be seen as, I dunno, statist propaganda perhaps? Are you fucking serious? > And if you agree with that, can you see why Juan is so vehement in his > responses to "statist propaganda" ? :) ? ? Juan is an idiot. >>>>> 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..) >
