On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:04:28AM -0000, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 09:20:15PM -0000, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > >> > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 16:22:44 -0000 > >> > > We can hope for the occasional 'benevolent' dictator. They might be > > rare, but they occasionally get into a seat of power. > > For sure. I'd be an avowed monarchist if I could have even a 25% chance > that the king would be a Marcus Aurelius. > > I don't think that such men are rare, in fact. I think they are smart > enough to avoid politics. Politics attracts the worst of the lot.
This is a fundamental problem. You, me, others, we need to promote those within our circles whom we consider to have a moral foundation for their choices and actions in life, to try to take and hold seats of power. Does not matter if your seats of power are in a global hegemonic empire, or merely the 12 seats on your local council, or some other system where a "benevolent dictator is supposed to wield ulatimte authority" - by "being too smart to get involved in politics", as you correctly point out, the DEFAULT POSITION is that the worst of our lot TAKE THE SEATS of power! They are not challenged by those with good foundations! No matter your system, we have a duty to one another to hold each other to a higher standard, and to be involved in politics and the wielding of power that any gathering of humans implies, political or otherwise, since it's ALL politics. > > I remain marginally hopeful you will never be proven wrong on "that > > which exists, exists." > > > > But hey, I'd love to proven wrong on that too :) > > Lol. Yeah, I don't think I'll get proven wrong on the existence part > necessarily. But maybe someone will come up with a clever way to culture > jam and get a whole bunch of quality people into the fold questioning the > need for centralized institutions of power. Well, you seem to get it, why have you not created a political party "Anarchy FTW" or some such? It might sound funny, but how can this not be anything but a personal duty of you, I, and any with wholesome intention? How is it that, regardless of political philosophy underlying whatever political system currently prevails in the shared common delusion, that we can justify NOT being involved? > You know, the main problem with anarchism is that there are no doctors > and engineers to speak of. Speak for yourself. And I encourage you, with a warm heart, to advise yourself to caution yourself in the words you use, in the genericisms you proudly flaunt as they they're God's given truth to the current reality. Guaranteed we could find at least a handful of "doctors and lawyers", who subscribe to at least some aspects of political anarchy! Fatalism is not becoming of the intellect - that's a descent into blind and bloody fanaticism. > Its mostly political ideologues, and > change-the-world hippies and freaks. MAY BE mostly. Certainly not all. I'm pretty sure most "mainstream" folks are aware that we need to start doing something different to get a different global outcome :) The conspiracy theorists have proven on many counts to be conspiracy factists :) :) Turns out, some of them "freaks" were actually more rational and more observant than the religiously blind "majority". This is a good sign. > A few ivory tower professors. And lawyers. Eben Moglen should stand in politics. Linus Torvalds should stand in the same party - wouldn't that be fun :) Yes yes, of course throw RMS into the mix - I've tried communicating with him about all this, but he's a bit stubborn in wanting the platform and the solutions to be laid out for him, perhaps not as aware of the influence he could personally wield were he to join or start a political party. We need to gently, with kindness and patience (LOTS of patience with the narrow but humanely belligerent such as RMS), steer the ivory towered intellectuals into the firm and unrelenting direction of participation in politics. WHATEVER system prevails at $this point in time! There is no other way that I can conceive of, to get an overall better future. I do wish there were an easier silver bullet where I could say to you "yeah, good on ya mate! go live your own life and avoid all politics it's all doomed anyway, so I pat your back for giving up mate!" Hmm? > Great people, in my experience, but you don't get solid respectable, > work-a-day "professional" types that way, and they are the key.. the > backbone, to any real social movement. That's just patience, persistence, working first and foremost on purging $my own demons, working on recognizing fellow $justice seekers, weeding out their bullshit, owning $my bullshit when others call me on it ... ... generally, learn to be a great human, a fantastic team player, a subtle and ego free behind the scenes influencer (if possible, I know from extended personal experience that ego is a shit of a thing to try to purge). Be the one who can in 6 years time confirm it as truth when an Eben or a Linus or an RMS says "yeah, Jimmy, aka exorcist, helped get me thinking straight on this one - good folk must step up to the plate, as best we can at least". > That's why the hippies failed in the '60s. They couldn't get enough > middle-class normies to smoke grass and fuck freely. It was too scary for > them. Identifying the liberating edge of comfortable intention for a positive political shift, in the mainstream crowd, is indeed our greatest challenge. Let's put some thought into this won, rather than hold hands singing kumbaya. > In Zen monasteries, the roshi, the master, is treated like "one of the > guys." You can make jokes, and poke fun at each other. That sort of thing. My kinda "master". > There is no grand show of deference inside the monastery. That is for > the outside world. The roshi will wear fancy robes, and everyone will > bow and all this. Let's take turns wearing The Robe. Now all we need is a suitably religious sounding yet subversive prayer chant to enchance the masses :) > Because the knew that if you lived without authoritarianism, and > showed it to the general public (especially a rigid society like > Japan), it would be dangerous. But, you make a big show of bowing to > some guy, and people think "oh ok.. they must be OK, they have > structure like everyone else." That's awesome! Love it! > But the monks know its all nonsense.. its just for show. It's an act, a > play they perform. > > I've often thought that a successful anarchist movement would need to > incorporate something like that.. as social camouflage. You need to institute that as a cardinal rule I'd say. :D