Recent comments

  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Yes, voluntaryists are so into gas chambers.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Actually, Rothbard was not taken out-of-context. (And no, one doesn't need to quote a whole essay to stay in context by any scholarly definition.) The blog from which I cited Rothbard's racist comments even quotes a prominent libertarian who concurs that Rothbard was racist. It seems you're the one displaying intellectual dishonesty. But remember how I compared Libertarians to fundamentalists? You've just scored again -- accusing those who quote the Sacred Canon of taking their Holy Prophets "out-of-context." Context!!!!!! Feb 22, 2010 | 239,985 views http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o Anyway, whenever fundies like you get frustrated and give a royal wave good-bye, you never mean it. I guess we'll see. P.S. I didn't miss any "argument" Tzo made. All he's doing is re-parroting the Scriptures, like a fundamentalist conjuring up Canonical word magic, as if that addresses what I brought up -- that humans are not property, and equivocating humans with property is a deliberate capitalist ploy of dehumanization and objectification.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    You "medicalized" first, with your autism insult. I'd reckon that makes YOU the *original* "Soviet Union" "gas-chamber" operator -- if we're to judge you by your own standards. Sweet Hayzeus, what a cirqe de Godwin.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    PS: Your willingness to medicalize the ideologies of unpopular movements would have fit in nicely in the Soviet Union, where people were declared insane for not being socialist enough. We can all smell the gas chambers now, and this time you'll have the psychiatric community pulling the strings. How therapeutic!
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Clearly you haven't been following the posts of Glen Allport or me on NVC (non-violent communication) -- or the people at the complete liberty website. Many of us have been following the work of Marshall Rosenberg and his Center for Nonviolent Communication for some time, but you'd better ignore that, eh? You wouldn't want to get caught at one of our weekly NVC seminars, would you? Then you'd have to take it all back? Then again, I don't want to pop your over-generalizing bubble of sophomoric assumptions and hyper-criticism because then you wouldn't feel better about yourself after shooting at all the imaginary problems that OTHER PEOPLE have.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    The etymology has an underlying truth: there has never been a City without a State. Both "POLIS" and "CIVILIZATION" mean city-State because human language reflects, quite accurately in this instance, demonstrable reality. Many libertarian volumes laud civilization (the city-STATE) as a good while simultaneously deprecating the State as evil. And how many times have I seen Statist used as a pejorative? Calling civilization (the city-State) good while calling the State bad is a contradiction. You're dodging and weaving around that reality. Care to address the issue rationally?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Once again, you miss the argument Tzo made, and then you go spinning off into your own world of wordplay again and veer off into pseudo-Rothbard land. I say "pseudo" because the blog you cite (instead of citing the entire essay by Rothbard as an honest use of scholarly apparatus requires) is an example of deliberately mis-construing what Rothbard said and meant, and you probably know that because you are making cheap shots without merit. He was clearly discussing a hypothetical instance in which statistics are used, but you are hoping nobody notices that, aren't you? I won't defend all of what Lew Rockwell or Murray have said (they err frequently), but in this case, he is clearly not using the term in the way you hope a skimming reader would assume without full context. On a separate topic (because you have not made your point on racism) you should take a peek at how many people on this site are aware of the foolishness of the whole paleo-phase of Murray and Lew -- but the example you cite is not one of them since Murray is making a rhetorical point about statistics. I've even written about it in the environmental essays that I put together on it. But there you go, spinning off into your own self-make whirlwind. I'm just going to have to view you and your comments as non-communication -- i.e. as troll dust meant to waste time. Bye.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteBoy: That's your problem. You put words in other people's mouths, and then you complain about those words. Why would anyone say "good" or "evil" about the fact that there was something called a polis in Greece as in your statement #1 and #2? What kind of game is that? If you looked at your comments on Alex Knight's essay, you'd already know that I thought that the Greeks were indeed very silly about many things. So stop with the ventriloquist act, eh?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I'm not sure how your sophomoric name-calling addresses any factual or analytic problems you see with what I've presented about anthropology, but I do invite you to address a problem, if there are indeed any. Pointing out a contradiction isn't telling you how you think. The contradiction in libertarian thought is simultaneously thinking: 1. The AGRICULTURAL CITY-[state] is GOOD. 2. The [agricultural city]-STATE is EVIL. The "Statism" that your rage against is a single cultural package. Agriculture+City+State, commonly known as agricultural civilization or simply civilization. You continue to blank-out that reality with various childish subterfuges. But if you can identify where I'm wrong, let me know, OK?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The foreign lenders lent to a sovereign entity that no longer exists. Tough luck for them.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Thanks for the fix, Suverans2. I accept it in the generous spirit in which it was given. I don't interpret it (as WhiteMallBoyIndian would) as an act to capture me via a net woven out of my typos! One of WhiteBoy's problems is that he hasn't mastered anthropology enough to speak about it clearly to others and instead confuses himself and others while reading our minds for us and telling us what (he thinks) we think! Anyway, I had better get back to my "planning out a completely controlled" anarcho-society, complete with plans for everything!
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    "Human societies as we have always known...always been some gaining at the loss of others, rulers and ruled, masters and slaves, kings and subjects, etc." That is a common misperception. Elman Service said in his Origins of the State and Civilization, of egalitarian Non-State society: "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with little or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders." NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf Also, regarding your equivocation of scientific laws of nature and political laws both "dividing," from what is gravity the ideal gas law dividing you? The word "law" regarding scientific generalization based upon empirical observation is really an unfortunate misnomer, stemming from the days that most scientists assumed there was a divine "law-giver." I do agree with you when you write, "A society without any degree of political intervention is the optimization of a spiritual society." Humans had a free society once -- but it wasn't civilization. It was called "The Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins, 1972) The great non sequitur committed by defenders of city-Statism (Civilization,) is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of a city-State (Civilization.)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    @Paul: I've been using the prison metaphor to describe city-Statism (civilization) since reading Daniel Quinn, who used it. Prison is a good illustration. I think Richard Manning has an even more accurate metaphor -- civilization as a ZOO. We're animals in cages, and animals in cages turn psychotic -- and that is exactly how hunter-gatherers view civilized people. Psychotic. Richard Manning on the Psychosis of Civilization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5iBOXcoP_8 Considering that schizophrenia is a Disease of Civilization, as psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey argues in Schizophrenia and Civilization, I think Manning is onto something. @Ken: Freud had it nailed, but thought of city-Statism (civilization) as a "necessary evil." He wrote, "The principal task of civilization, its actual raison d'ette, is to defend us against nature...But how ungrateful. how short-sighted after all to strive for the abolition of civilization! What would then remain would be a state of nature, and that would be far harder to bear." Most city-Statist imprisoned (in-zooed? LOL) people agree with him, including the vast majority of libertarians. That last 60 years of anthropology, ethnology, and evolutionary biology debunk Freud's blind acceptance of the Hobbesian mythology. Man in a "state of nature" enjoyed "The Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins, 1972) The next step? Our lives need to "mirror our genetic heritage" as Manning states in the youtube video above.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    But where did you find that I suggest the word "gang" is anywhere in his articles? Go back up, read what I wrote, and understand it. His deceptive definition of corporation, people who "agree to assemble and cooperate," can be applied to any of the groups above I listed as examples.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Now that you mention autism, libertarians are noted for it. they're the only political group to score higher on systemizing than on empathizing. Not only are they the only political group -- they scored *way* higher. The study notes that such systemizing" is “Characteristic of the male brain, with very extreme scores indicating AUTISM.” Iyer, Ravi, Koleva, Spassena , Graham, Jesse, Ditto, Peter H. and Haidt, Jonathan, Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Roots of an Individualist Ideology (August 20, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1665934 Keep trying to design a the system of a voluntary civilization. Should be as simple as conjuring an animated corpse. The communist have been banging their head against the same "stateless city-State" block wall for years.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I think the word you intended was solipsism, but your humor is much appreciated. Thanks.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    You're welcome. And, I do agree that that author does not, evidently, understand what the differences between a "public/business corporation" and a "private corporation" are, or he is intentionally trying to mislead his reader(s), but where did you find the word "gang" anywhere in his articles? Correction: Last paragraph, (in my preceding post), should have read, "...if their 'guardian or conservator', called the STATE, says they shouldn't." Addendum to my preceding post: sui juris noun Law. capable of managing one's affairs or assuming legal responsibility. Origin: 1605–15; < Latin suī jūris of one's own right ~ Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    That's what Sartre was getting when he noted that: "Hell is other people"* (telling you what to do). Having or needing to reign in our personal prerogatives and impulses in order to live amongst others** is the whole basis for the emergence of statism IMO. I appreciate your insights Paul. Do you have any thoughts about what the next step is? * No Exit, J.P. Sartre, http://www.scribd.com/doc/2925864/No-Exit-by-Jean-Paul-Sartre ** Civilization and Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents#Overview
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Enjoy the autistic solopsism.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Saying a corporation is merely people who "agree to assemble and cooperate," which is what the article purports, is like saying an animal is a dog. So thanks for reinforcing my point, even if you strain to be contrary. Your last paragraph is right on, and why I questioned the author's deceptive definition of corporation.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Asking if a gang is a corporation is like asking if an animal is a dog. Gang. Any company of persons who go about together or act in concert; in modern use, mainly for criminal purposes. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 679 Children don't get to "enjoy", i.e. "to have, possess, and use with satisfaction; to occupy or have benefit of[1]", all their natural rights until such time as they are willing/able to take responsibility for their own actions and their own survival; most individuals are never ready, so they go from being "wards" of the natural family to being "wards[2]" of the "parens patriae[3]", called the STATE. The same holds true for "compan[ies] of persons". The reason for incorporating is to avoid individual personal responsibility, which is why the individual persons who make up corporations should NOT "enjoy" all their so-called constitutional rights, i.e. legal rights, if their "guarding or conservator", called the STATE, says they shouldn't. _________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 529 [2] Ward. ...A person, especially a child or incompetent, placed by the court under the care and supervision of a guardian or conservator. Ibid. page 1583 [3] parens patriae : the state in its capacity as the legal guardian of persons not sui juris... ~ Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Is a gang a corporation? An army? A choir? A tribe? A band? A marriage? It's rather deceptive to define a corporation merely as people who "agree to assemble and cooperate."
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Aggressive NeoCons like Newt do have a better understanding of city-Statism than "isolationists," i.e., civilization must always "grow" (invade, conquer) Several authors analyze this, with one of the best being Jeff Vail's essay The Problem of Growth,* in which he states, "the critical problem facing humanity: the structure of our civilization, its inherent need to grow (and therefore its unsustainability...)" Why? It's a matter of the game theory of The Prisoner's Dilemma. As Jason Godesky states in his essay "Civilization Must Always Grow: "The Prisoner’s Dilemma provides the logical foundation of why civilization must always continue to grow. Each society faces a choice: do we continue to intensify production, adopt greater complexity, and increase the size or scale of our society, or do we happily accept the level we’re already at? If you choose not to intensify, you will be out-competed by those who do–and your lower level of intensity and complexity will become a resource they can absorb to fuel their further acceleration, whether by outright conquest or more subtle forms of economic or cultural exploitation." "War is a staple of [city-Statism] civilization,"*** enabled by division of labor and agriculture, as John Zerzan points out in his essay The Origins of War. There is no static, voluntary, peaceful city-State (civilization,) of which libertarians theorize, for many reasons, and the likelihood of conjuring one is as realistic as creating an animated corpse. War is the way city-slickers roll. _________________ * What is Rhizome? Chapter 1. Problem of Growth. A capstone formulation of why our societal structure is unsustainable, how rhizome presents a solution, and how to implement it. by Jeff Vail http://www.jeffvail.net/2007/01/what-is-rhizome.html ** Thesis #12: Civilization must always grow. by Jason Godesky | 23 October 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/ *** The Origins of War John Zerzan http://www.scribd.com/doc/62268835/The-Origins-of-War-John-Zerzan
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Fine business, Mark, on avoiding grain; I concur, and have improved my health greatly. It's good to see a few people are catching on to the nutritional facet of the critique of civilization -- agricultural city-Statism (civilization) makes us sick, as Mark Cohen documents.(1) In fact, there is a whole host of diseases called "Diseases of Civilization" and "Civilization Syndrome." Dr. Torrey devotes a whole chapter to the evidence that schizophrenia itself is a recent "disease of civilization."(2) But let's get to the heart of libertarianism: economics. The best metaphor for the agricultural city-State (civilization is a prison,(3) as Daniel Quinn puts it. Many other writers, especially anthropologists, recognize this as they look at the data, as does psychiatrist R.D. Lang in his third chapter in his The Politics of Experience. Civilization is brutal, and unlike how most liberarian writers think, in actuality, civilization imprisoned humans into a rigid hierarchy. Straight to property rights: if civilization is a prison, abstract land property rights are the walls. Those walls are a big-government entitlement program to regulate and restrict the free movement of people to live a Non-State lifeway. In other words, libertarians WANT the prison walls, and then call them "freedom." Mention that the walls are what enslaves humanity to agricultural city-Statism, and they have a hissy fit. Attorney Jeff Vail does a good job of deconstructing the libertarian/capitalist perspective of property rights in his book A Theory of Power.(4) He refers to Jason Godesky who also brings up how Lockesian property rights are based on monotheistic hierarchy.(5) The following hierarchical structure is what most libertarians believe, even if they've somewhat secularized it, the core magical thinking of the culture remains: JEHOVALLAH MAN WOMAN (submits to husband) ANIMALS (submits to husbandry) NATURE (only valuable if used by humans) How did the garden-of-Eden Mesopotamian cedar forest get deforested and desertified into the hellish Iraqi desert? City-Statist "property rights" on clay tablets. It's mine, God gave it to to use, and I can use it as I will. That is deforesting and desertifying our home planet, and western christian civilization has greatly intensified the destruction.(6) It's only taken a short time to lose half the topsoil in the Midwest. ______________ (1) Health and the Rise of Civilization Mark Nathan Cohen Yale University Press, 1989 excerpt from pp. 131-141 here: http://www.primitivism.com/health-civilization.htm (2) Schizophrenia and civilization E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb02208 (3)A Condensation of Daniel Quinn Thought Part 1: The Problem is Civilization Prison http://www.lejournalmural.be/english-antilibrary/gorilla-content.html (4) The abstract notion of ownership serves as the single, greatest perpetuator of hierarchy. When one steps back and examines the notion of “owning” something, the abstraction becomes readily apparent. Ownership represents nothing more than a power-relationship—the ability to control. The tribal institution of “Ownership by use” on the other hand, suggests simply that one can only “own” those things that they put to immediate, direct and personal use to meet basic needs—and not more. A society crosses the memetic Rubicon when it accepts the abstraction that ownership can extend beyond the exclusive needs of one individual for survival. (Read Jason Godesky on Ownership) Abstract ownership begins when society accepts a claim of symbolic control of something without the requirement of immediate, direct and personal use. Hierarchy, at any level, requires this excess, abstract ownership—it represents the symbolic capital that forms the foundation of all stratification. ~Jeff Vail A Theory of Power Chapter 9 - Forward, to Rhizome http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/03/theory-of-power-online.html (5) "To date, however, no philosopher has ever successfully divorced Lockesian property rights from monotheism." ~ The Right to Property by Jason Godesky | 18 July 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/2005/07/the-right-to-property/ (6) "Our science and technology have grown out of Christian attitudes toward man's relation to nature which are almost universally held not only by Christians and neo-Christians but also by those who fondly regard themselves as post- Christians. Despite Copernicus, all the cosmos rotates around our little globe. Despite Darwin, we are not, in our hearts, part of the natural process. We are superior to nature, contemptuous of it, willing to use it for our slightest whim." ~ The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis by Lynn White, Jr. Science, 10 March 1967: Vol. 155 no. 3767 pp. 1203-1207 http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/ENV-NGO-PA395/articles/Lynn-White.pdf
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 years 49 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Thank you, Suverans2. Duh, I didn't see that "Edit" word under the comment.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 years 49 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Duplicate deleted
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Dodge and weave if you wish, the issue still stands -- how empirical evidence from archeology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, etc. completely refutes the city-Statist Hobessian mythology found throughout libertarian/ancap/what-have-you literature.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I was NOT playing word games with you; I fall under none of your "rubrics", as far as I can determine. But that aside, you seem to be the one who is playing "word games", agricultural city-Statist. Here's a word that I believe describes you to a "T". ;) troll ▸ someone who deliberately sends a rude or annoying message to a discussion group on the Internet ~ Mamillan Dictionary
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Another wrong premise about libertarians that you keep repeating is that we accept the Hobbesian world view. I even wrote an article debunking that view here: http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/davis_m/davis7.html To wit: "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." ~ Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes "The above premise is flat wrong. The state did not create arts, letters, or society. The state cannot eliminate fear, poverty, loneliness or violence: it institutionalizes them. The premise of state worshipers that life is "nasty, brutish and short" ignores what individuals are capable of when left free. It is the state that leads to conditions making life unbearable, not liberty. The state is based on restricting, controlling and expanding its power. Society is based on respect and trust for and among individuals." I’m actually sympathetic with your views on how wonderful life was in the Garden of Eden. Who isn’t? I also am on a modified "Caveman Diet" that avoids grains (gluten) and other sources of sugar and carbohydrates. It’s basically eating vegetables, fruits and meat. It took some getting used to as I love eating bread, grits, pasta, rice and ice cream, but I do feel better and have lost weight. I still like walking in the woods, fishing and fresh air. Free love would also be great, but my wife probably won’t go for it. The thing is that The Garden of Eden is a lost paradise. I will do what I can to be a sovereign individual in the modern world by making choices that positively impact my physical, psychological and spiritual health consistant with this ideal. You and anybody else can do the same. But The Garden of Eden is gone forever and we have to live in a crowded world. A world of scarcity creates conditions that require peaceful methods to reduce conflict. The non-aggression principle and respect for property rights have proven to be the best methods for accomplishing this goal.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Oh boy, more word games. Generally under the rubric of libertarianism falls objectivism, anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism, etc. At any rate, the Hobbesian mythology parroted by objectivist, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, etc. authors has been debunked by empirical evidence. Now what city-Statist game will you play to avoid the facing the truth? I can't wait to see, but such games run quite the same across all city-Statist political schemes, whether its monocled Reason Foundation minarchists, Free-Republic Neo-Cons, or liberal Progressives.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Rebuttal: I am not a "libertarian", and, to the best of my recollection, I have never claimed to be a "libertarian". It appears, from your reply, that your whole goal here is to get your libertarian "friends" to admit that they are "wrong", which just, coincidentally, would mean, (at least in your mind), that you are "right". Feel free to factually rebut that presumption if it is wrong.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Who cares if I want to go back to a foraging lifestyle, or not? It's the truth of the matter that you're trying to avoid by insisting that I have to somehow "find a way" to live that lifestyle again. Libertarians constantly apologize for the agricultural city-State (civilization) on debunked premises. In other words, you're factually wrong. The question is, when will you admit that you're wrong?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 49 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Click on "Edit", select the entire comment, then type the word "Deleted", which will be the word then put in place of the body of the comment.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” So, other than "repeating the same simple 'facts' over and over and over again", ad nauseam, what is your plan to get yourself back the the 'leisurely' life of the hunter-gathers?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 years 49 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Sorry for the double posting! - Drupal was playing up. I don't know how to delete the first version.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 years 49 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Thank you, bs! You're quite correct. It's an amazing testament to the power of Horace Mann's indoctrination machine that here we are, fully 70 years on, and _still_ we're being told that the bloodbath of WW-II was "good." There's better news, though. The evidence of FDR's trickery is now mountainous, and most of it was put in place not by market anarchists like us but by solid members of the Establishment. When the dam does burst and the truth can no longer be denied, swept away will be not just FDR's halo but the whole system of government thought control. There is for example Hamilton Fish III, from the very heart of the Beast: on December 8th 1941 he was the person who stood up in Congress to open the debate in favor of a declaration of war. At the time, like everyone else, he had been fooled by the Pearl attack. Read his "Tragic Deception" for what he found later. Then there's Robert Stinnett, whose "Day of Deceit" gives a richly detailed account of exactly who did what, in that fateful Summer and Fall of 1941 - all the more powerful an indictment for being understated; he never goes quite as far as asserting that FDR definitely knew exactly where and when the attack would happen. Stinnett is a highly decorated Navy vet and a research fellow at the Independent Institute. A skeptic should consider also Samuel Morison, mentioned in my http://TakeLifeBack.com/oto/otoh215.htm - he was another Navy man and close friend of FDR and a historian who remained a "Good War" believer; but immediately the President embargoed scrap metal and oil in July 1941, he wrote "This means war." Even now, the evidence continues to mount. Only last week I learned from Republican Patrick Buchanan that Hoover himself, FDR's predecessor, saw through the deception almost at once; well worth reading about that at http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan198.html. He tells also of Prime Minister Prince Fumimaro Konoye of Japan, who throughout that Summer tried desperately to avoid war by negotiating with FDR, hinting that large concessions were on the table. Every time, he was ignored or rebuffed. These are all "insiders", whose findings the mainstream media and schoolteachers continue to suppress.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I find the that most city-Statist (civilizationists) libertarians are also opposed to "historical revisionism." Libertarian authors parrot the Hobbesian mythology of Non-State paleolithic life being "nasty, brutish, and short," just like all city-Statist apologists. But hard-won archeological evidence and anthropological studies show that reality is pre-city-State life was "The Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins 1972) The LIE: Ayn Rand: "Let your women take a look at a jungle female with her shriveled face and pendulous breasts, as she sits grinding meal in a bowl, hour after hour, century by century..." The TRUTH: "Their work week is short enough to make us drool in envy." Hunter Gatherers And The Golden Age Of Man http://www.raw-food-health.net/HunterGatherers.html (nice summary, with great scholarly references)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Lawrence, don't lie and twist my argument. I'm not basing *all* assessment only on observation. I'm saying that when one observes something that contradicts a libertarian premise, you have to deal with reality. There is a whole bunch of empirical data that debunks libertarian premises. A=A, right? And if you think that racism is somehow a observed fact (it's not, by the way) then you're right in there with Murray Rothbard and his scientific racism. "In short; RACIALIST SCIENCE is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors." ~MURRAY ROTHBARD source: Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and Scientific Racism http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-r...
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Arguing with libertarian fundamentalists is akin to arguing with young earth creationist fundamentalist; one keeps repeating the same simple facts over and over and over again.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Maximum freedom, personal autonomy, and individual sovereignty is found in egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typologies. This is hard-won knowledge from the last half century of anthropology and archeology and evolutionary biology. If you want to reorganize today's society, and I think that is a noble goal -- it certainly is brutal and hellish as it is -- then you really need to catch up on the knowledge that debunks several libertarian premises. Rand, Mises, Rothbard, etal were horribly misinformed. Let's go over a few key points on which libertarian are wrong: 1. Egalitarianism isn't evil. It isn't collectivism. It's a observed facet of human evolution, it increased our survival rate, and is arguably our most defining trait. 2. Paleolithic tribal life wasn't "nasty, brutish, and short;" it was rather the "Original Affluent Society." The whole litany of Hobbesian mythology has been debunked by the last 60 years or so of archeology and anthropology. Yet all agricultural city-Statists -- libertarians, conservatives, leftists -- parrot it. 3. Land enTITLEment "rights" are a big-government Regulatory scheme over the home planet's surface to restrict the free movement of Non-State societies. Such "rights" are established by brutal invasion (e.g., the Trail of Tears) and enforced by threat of violence in a continual occupation -- thus violating the Non-Aggression principle. Stanley Diamond's first sentence in his volume "In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization," states accurately, "Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home." Attorney Jeff Vail does a superb job of exposing the difference between legitimate property rights and illegitimate property rights in his book "A Theory of Power."* Regarding "going back to primitivism:" it's going to happen to some extent or another, whether you like it or not. Agricultural civilization is as much of a cheating scheme as is fiat money, and thus, the city-State (and its faux financing) always collapses. We're in the beginnings of a catabolic collapse now. I think we're watching The Final Empire** go down. _________________ * Ownership represents nothing more than a power-relationship—the ability to control. The tribal institution of “Ownership by use” on the other hand, suggests simply that one can only “own” those things that they put to immediate, direct and personal use to meet basic needs—and not more. A society crosses the memetic Rubicon when it accepts the abstraction that ownership can extend beyond the exclusive needs of one individual for survival. (Read Jason Godesky on Ownership) Abstract ownership begins when society accepts a claim of symbolic control of something without the requirement of immediate, direct and personal use. Hierarchy, at any level, requires this excess, abstract ownership—it represents the symbolic capital that forms the foundation of all stratification. ~Jeff Vail "A Theory of Power" Online Chapter 9 - Forward, to Rhizome http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/03/theory-of-power-online.html ** The Final Empire: The Collapse of Civilization and the Seed of the Future by William H. Kötke http://www.rainbowbody.net/Finalempire/
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    All I get from your posts is that you think we should live in small roving bands of hunter-gatherers. Egalitarianism isn't one of my premises; it is one of yours. I look at ideas like "We should all be equal" or "We should all be happy" as self-evident, utopian and short on practical applicability. I’m more interested in determining how we can move forward reorganizing society in the real world. The non-aggression principle is one such basis. Do you have any suggestions (besides killing off 99% of the population - which is what it would take to go back to being in said roving bands)?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteIndian: Try to dialog with Tzo. You totally failed to address his cogent argument. Or do you just keep saying the same thing over and over again in different ways no matter what anyone interjects? Comeon!
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Tzo, you're the ace! Excellent argument. Ironically, by WhiteIndian's standard of basing all assessments only on observations of past behavior, he would have agreed with the white racists who were religious apologists for slavery. Their argument was that the "facts" had proven that the white man should dominate the black man who was among the cursed of God. They looked to their domination as proof of their fitness to rule -- a kind of riff on the ideas of Max Weber by which successful protestants in Europe supposedly (Max was stretching it) had proven that they had "earned" their salvation because their success showed it. Oh, brother! Message to WhiteIndian: get off the technology-dictates-reality-philosophy-of-Marx schtick!
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Libertarians always misconstrue egalitarianism. Egalitarianism isn't "equal results." It's equal sociopolitical power, a lack of power structures. Only in an egalitarian society is a human completely free to act as a sovereign individual, and that is exactly what anthropologists observe. "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with litde or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders." NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf Egalitarianism isn't a "childish construct." There are whole volumes written about evolutionary biology and how egalitarianism developed in humans. So right there is one of your false premises. And you're misconstruing my previous statement. There are not unlimited resources in the world, anybody knows that. But the world is naturally abundant, so abundant that paleolithic people have to work only a fraction of the time civilized people work. It was the Original Affluent Society. Regarding division of labor, which Austrian types hold in high esteem: A professional violence class was one of the very first divisions of labor.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    It's not just because history shows 100% of agricultural city-States have State level politics, although that is a plenty good evidence all by itself. The POLIS (city-State) always has its POLICe. There are other corroborating reasons, some as follows: 1. Anthropologists and archeologists have documented that as group size approaches and goes over Dunbar's Number, egalitarianism is replaced by hierarchy. Ethnologists divide human societies into 4 main sociopolitical typologies, as follows: NON-STATE societies • band (egalitarian, small) • tribe (egalitarian, supra-band) • chiefdom (hierarchical, domestication, sacrifice, proto-State) STATE society • civilization (agricultural city-State) 2. Domestication, i.e., dominating nature, results in increased violence and cannibalism, and introduces practices like sacrifice and sacrifice religions, to control people. Chiefdoms (larger in size than bands or tribes, see Elman Service) are regarded by anthropologists and ethnologists as "proto-States" because of the controlling hierarchy. 3. Agriculture requires a large controlling agency over vast areas of land, to coordinate irrigation projects, drainage projects, roads and other infrastructure. As Richard Manning says so succinctly in his book Against the Grain, on p.73: "Agriculture creates government."
  • bs's picture
    bs 2 years 50 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Great article Jim! "It's late in the day; several of the world's governments are now so lethal that they might exterminate the human race (and others) before they can be peacefully abolished. We have, therefore, a race against time. The means exist; it remains only to participate." For survival, we will eventually have to solve our disputes/problems without the use of 'legal' force/violence. If this is true, we can go back as far as we want in history to make the claim 'how about now?'. Which I do, and it drives people crazy hearing an argument against WWII or the Revolutionary War, the 'good' wars.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    "Egalitarianism isn't 'collectivist' in a Non-State (band or tribe) sociopolitical typology." Of course everybody wants everybody to be equal. But what does that mean in the real world? Everybody is different by nature, which is a good thing. My experience with people promoting egalitarianism is they seek equal results (which are impossible) to be enforced by institutional violence. Even in your idealistic pre-agricultural world, the tall people could reach fruit higher up on the tree and faster runners could avoid predators better than the rest. Egalitarianism is a childish construct totally void of any empirical precedent. If you have an alternative view of egalitarianism and empirical data to support it, then I would love to hear it. Hierarchies are not bad in and of themselves; the problem arises when they are created and maintained by violence. Respect worthy actions that elevate some persons to positions of superior respect is a voluntary phenomena that is as human as “walking upright”. Leaders that are followed voluntarily result in social organizations that benefit all, including the followers (or they would not voluntarily follow). It is when violence is used or threatened to create or maintain a hierarchy that they are wrong. You seem to have a total lack of respect for anything. "Do dolphins live in a world of scarcity?" Yes. Is the amount of water in the world infinite? Is the amount of fish available to eat unlimited? Are there no other dolphins that compete for these resources? This position really puzzles me and again gives me the impression that you view the world with child-like wonder. Do you really believe that the world has unlimited resources? What about locally attainable resources available to any creature? Do you really believe that dolphins and crows don’t compete with each other for food? "Quit the deductive logic built on false premises." What false premises? Your profound misunderstanding of those premises does not make them false. "Begin thinking inductively from empirical data.” " The epistemological problems should be obvious to someone with your intelligence. How do you recognize, choose and organize the massive volume of "data" in the world without a philosophical basis of understanding? How do you know if the data you are making conclusions from is accurate, complete or even pertinent without a framework to analyze it? Both inductive and deductive reasoning should be used in the search for knowledge. They go hand in hand when it is truth that you seek. Using only inductive reasoning without the benefits of deductive reasoning results in serial misunderstandings of cause and effect. The snobbery of scientism reveals the void inherent in the character of those that worship it. It has no soul. Finally, I must ask: Do you have any principles to live by other than vague references to egalitarianism? Do you have any ideals that you aspire to? How do you feel about the use of violence? The division of labor?
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    If I am not mistaken, WhiteIndian simply believes that the existence of an agricultural city-state without a coercive government is an impossibility, and he makes his argument by pointing to the history of human civilization, wherein 100% (99.9%?) of all agricultural city-states have endured coercive government. Because of this, he can see no way that an agricultural city-state without coercive government can ever exist. I would like to hear some rational arguments as to why it is a logical impossibility for such a thing to occur, rather than "it has never happened before, therefore it can never happen in the future." Again: The abolition of slavery, the inventions of electricity, automobiles, airplanes, microwaves, computers, and going to the moon. Any argument that these things could never, ever possibly exist or happen because they had never existed or happened before seemed pretty bulletproof at one time or another, but ultimately the argument failed. Humans are smart. We solve problems. There is a problem in front of us now. Saying that there is no solution because up until now we have not been able to find it is no argument at all. Yes, the mass of humanity is fairly unimaginative and can't see anything beyond what is going on in the here and now. But there are always a few who push on and do the impossible. Logically, the solution to this problem is quite simple. Obviously, it is not so easy to put it into practice. But impossible? Someone hasn't been paying close attention to history at all.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    If left/right isn't the issue, as he says, then why pick on just leftist genocide. Capitalism has its own genocide too, killing off a whole Non-State society here in America to make room to impose city-Statism. Capitalism and communism are more alike than different. Both are agricultural city-Statist political schemes that cannot tolerate Non-State society. Why can agricultural city-Statists not tolerate Non-State society? If sovereign individual can hunt and gather their own food, they have no reason to work for others. When the agricultural city-State puts the food "under lock and key" (Quinn,) then people have to work for the system or starve.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Isn't turnabout fair play? Don't libertarian/ancap types call people Statists all the time? Yet they do it in total ignorance, and actually support agricultural-City-Statism, and then rage against the State. It's about as dumb as advocating jet aircraft, then complaining about the jet noise, and calling for the removal of jets from aircraft, and expecting the jet aircraft to somehow magically fly. The agricultural-city-State is a whole, inseparable package. There never has been a city without state level politics, and never will be.