Go to footer

Skip to content


new theme

No-particular-theme discussion board.

Moderators: Yarrow, Yuda, Canteloupe


Postby |Y| » Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:48 am

Hey SteppenGuest (Wolf!), long time no see!

Actually, this is incorrect - it means almost precisely the opposite.


In the context of his essay that's exactly what he's saying. He's saying that "lifestylism is a result of people wanting to please themselves rather than giving a shit about some idealized conception of the movement."

Yet I doubt very seriously the movement needs people to give a shit about it for it to work. In fact, I would really hate for that to be the case. Since then we'd get into the realm of indoctrination and religion and all that foldera. No, you don't have to "believe" in it for it to work.

Social malaise (e.g. Capitalist exploitation) + lack of organised social resistance (strong non-authoritarian collectives, not based on a Communist model) + subsumation of 60's individualism by Capital (brands, subculture mining, MTV)


Bookchin says that 'lifestylists' drift toward satisfying the ego as a refuge (away from) "social malaise." Thus social malaise by his own reckoning is a cause, he just claims that it is a symptom instead, but he's wrong and doesn't make the point at all. - 1

"Organized social resistance" is comparable to and can easily fall into the same trap that communist or otherwise statist forms of organization have. Indeed, we already live in a highly structured and organized world, and the so called collectivists have yet to make an appreciable dent in the state as a whole. The only approaches that are not suceptable to this delimma are those that are anti-organizational. And the crazy Circle A painting bastard anarchists sure are stirring up trouble for the state - 1

And you're using a computer. (I'm being snarky here since you're being such an asshole.) -1

It also means that authoritarianism has caused lifestyle anarchism, by the total sublimation of experience under Capital, which has put forward that no other model of Society can exist (or if it does exist, it has no 'freedom' within it).


The cause, as I rightly pointed out in my essay, which you failed to address, was that they required an alternative form of existance. Sure capitalism (the significantly more powerful capitalism of America) certainly did play a role, but it wasn't from a consumerist level. In fact, as I noted in my essay, the move has been away from consumerisation and "bohemian lifestyle," which is actually pretty damn ironic. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Individuals just cannot find an out.

Your secretarian ramblings are amusing at least.

In effect, he's stating that lifestyle anarchism is a reactionary force, holding a central core of belief in negative freedom - which social anarchism does not share, as it has its roots in positive freedom (which of course, does mean it shares ground with Communism, but not in the authoritarian manner you are suggesting).


Firstly, this sort of philosophical bullshit really isn't for me. I really didn't like even reading his totally incoherent essay, and I sure don't think that you're worth responding to (but my evel self ego must relent and compels me to). There is no "postive" or "negative" freedoms, as I showed. Bookchin fails to establish it, anyway. His essay has this completely incoherent idea that autonomy and freedom are an inherent contridiction but I do not think he, or anyone who attempts this illogical line of reasoning, has actually shown it to be the case, nor could they.

Freedom from, freedom to, they cannot be seperated. If you have too much of either you are walking down a path of authoritarianism.

However, fundamentally mis-understanding his arguments (especially visa vie negative/positive ideals of freedom, and what they have meant to the West/East ideological battle between them, esp. Cold War politics) does undermine the accuracy and worth of the essay.


I think you've failed to establish any sort of misunderstanding here at all. And I think it would take a much more thorough discussion for you to even come close. The thing is that you do not seem to think that Bookchin's disregard for a large contengent of anarchists matters. This means that you are a secretarian bitch who sticks to failed ideologies. Fucking assholes are the bane of the movment. You're incapable of critically or even reasonably analysing his argument because you've already agreed with it wholeheartedly.

If you need a 101, try "The Trap" by Adam Curtis, its fairly "non-intellectual" in its style.


I don't need a '101' to completely assinine points of view. I have shown how his view is wrong, and like I said, you haven't established otherwise. Though it was a nice try. I might check it out if it has something else to offer, but if it's just more of the same I don't think anyone else could've made the argument better than Bookchin.

Hate to say it, but if you don't understand the context, you're bound to argue from a position of ignorance.


Hah, you hate to say it? Your whole post reeks of enjoyment at the insults you're throwing at me. In defense of someone who bashes practically all of the movement before no longer considering himself an anarchist at that! What a load of shit. Anyone who doesn't assess Bookchin's essay very critically needs to get their heads on straight.

p.s. Your essay "the second law" is drivel. I mean scientifically incorrect drivel.


No it isn't. It's factual. Get over yourself already.

Quotes such as "Enter the second law. Earth is actually a closed system, or at least, for all intents and purposes is a closed system." are absolute HOWLERS of ignorance.


Ignorance? That the earth does not, for all intents and purposes, exchange matter with an outside system? The difference between an opened and closed system is whether or not matter exchange is occuring.

Open systems have a number of consequences. A closed system contains limited energy. The definition of an open system assumes that there are supplies of energy that cannot be depleted; in practice, this energy is supplied from some source in the surrounding environment, which can be treated as infinite for the purposes of study. One type of open system is the so-called radiant energy system, which receives its energy from solar radiation – an energy source that can be regarded as inexhaustible for all practical purposes.


Using wikipedia as a source is pretty fucking hilarious. Is this what you do? Try to figure out a way to "prove me wrong"? Then google for your supporting theory? I really don't see what the issue is here. I don't think that I disagree with this at all, you know, for all intents and purposes.

You: "The difference between an 'open' and a 'closed' system is that a closed system does not exchange matter, whereas an open system does."


Hey! Isn't that exactly what your supporting theory states? You know, the one you got from wikipedia?

No. In thermodynamics, an open system is one whose border is permeable to both energy and mass. A closed system, by contrast, is permeable to energy but not to matter. Now. Tell me, and the dinosaurs, how a huge piece of space-rock a mile+ wide hitting the planet doesn't prove that our boundary is permeable?!?


Sure thing. For all intents and purposes that ain't going to happen though. :) Basically for every bit of mass that goes into space we recieve about the same if not more in return (if we recieve more matter than we release, we are in fact just recieving energy, this is what the closed/open system discussion is talking about). So yes, sir, the earth is, for all intents and purposes, a closed system.

This is about the conservation of mass. When chemical reactions occur, they occur on a closed basis, that is, the matter/energy exchange happens within the chemical reaction and nothing is lost or gained. The whole point of the argument is that, quite simply, the planet is capable of existing so long as nothing is lost (because open systems require sustaining their matter flow, whereas closed systems do not). If you cannot comprehend this I do not know what to tell you. You have such a poor understanding of the planet and its systems that it really is astonishing.

Human based environmental impact / species extinction is well documented circa 35k years ago. Which was before technology, and even agriculture.


The impact I was talking about was clearly in reference to energy usage. Sheesh. In fact I do go on to write there and in other essays that quite frankly it is sort of astonishing that our small energy usage could have such a huge impact, and I even go on to explain that, too. :) But you are just wanting to pick a fucking fight.

Er. Do you have *any* idea about what the word "TRADE" means? And facts such as the massive dispersal of Polynesian cultures?


Yes, and I gave myself plenty of "thousands of years" to play with. :) The earliest evidence we have of written language is in fact with regards to trade, and that was about 5k years ago. The "thousands of years" I'm talking about go even further back. Just the anthropological assumption for the most part. ;)

By 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km² out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068.[17]

Yes, it is STILL there and has NOT got smaller yet!! Far from it, there's evidence that global warming is actually increasing its size.


Why are you so pissed at me, dude? The point is that we can work with our environment, which you clearly missed. There has been a reduction, your scientist says so (and certainly the overall ozone has gotten better). Perhaps "repaired" was an overstatement. I see you neglected to note smog reductions, and all. But, like I said, you just wanted to attack me. And part of me wants to rip out my slights against you, but I'm going to leave them in.

Because like all secretarians, you just pick someone. Or something to hate. And hate on it.

You're a fucking idiot.


And you're just an asshole.
I am a leader, but you will not follow me.
User avatar
|Y|
One Step Beyond
 
Posts: 5629
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:16 am
Location: The Americas


Postby Canteloupe » Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:55 pm

Seems to me this conversation should be filed under olde theme, what?
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. — Bertrand Russell

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. — H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Canteloupe
Thomas Paine
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 5:11 am
Location: Mae East


Postby |Y| » Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:58 pm

:lol:

Sorry. I should've let it slide. I feel like I need to defend myself, though. That whole lifestylist ego and all.
I am a leader, but you will not follow me.
User avatar
|Y|
One Step Beyond
 
Posts: 5629
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:16 am
Location: The Americas


Postby AliasCanteloupe » Sun Apr 08, 2007 8:41 pm

I appreciate the impulse, to be sure. I must confess, I haven't read the article yet, but plan to.
AliasCanteloupe
 


Postby Guest » Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:36 am

Basic 101 - I used wiki because it's that damn easy already, and its about the level of your article (but at least 'peer' reviewed. *cough* *cough* ) :

MATTER CYCLES
Each of the elements that is vital for life exists on Earth in a closed loop of cyclical changes. From a systems point of view, Earth is essentially a closed system with respect to matter.

Energy ENERGY FLOWS
The functioning of our planet relies on a constant input of energy from the sun. This energy leaves Earth in the form of heat flowing to outer space. From a systems point of view, Earth is an open system with respect to energy.

Life LIFE WEBS
A vast and intricate network of relationships connects all Earth's organisms with each other and with the cycles of matter and the flows of energy. From a systems point of view, Earth is a networked system with respect to life.



Try this on the first being incorrect:

http://jesse.usra.edu/archive/jesse03-4 ... html#_ftn6

Viewing the Earth as a closed system for matter is simply a case of too little > time to be statistically significant.


There is no "postive" or "negative" freedoms, as I showed.

Claiming to 'disprove' a central debate on what freedom is / is not from some of the best political theorists of the century is pure ego, I'll give you that. I'm actually pretty sure you haven't. Nor have I. Nor has Bookchin. Nor has anyone. I do however doubt you know the whole historic reasoning behind it, and the relationship between the two. You never know, try wiki.

And the crazy Circle A painting bastard anarchists sure are stirring up trouble for the state - 1

What planet are you living on? Did you miss totally the de-fanging of the new left movement post 9/11, the dissolution of the impetus of the ESF/WSF, the massive increase in State powers and the loss of private autonomy in Western democracies, and the betrayal of any of the much vaunted G8 sops to the developing world, people doing hard time for non-violent demonstration, destruction of property and so forth etc? The political impetus gained in the 90's with regards to anti-Capitalist movements has suffered a massive blow, even with the bolstering of the anti-war movements (in the UK currently being co-opted by the SWP etc).

If by "sectarian" you mean "not being a self-deluded one man forum" then so be it. I don't hate you ~ but I do see a marked inability to actually deal with the reality of our situation. Bookchin ceased to matter a long time ago, but then again, so did this forum.
Guest
 


Postby |Y| » Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:24 pm

SteppenDistorter,

Viewing the Earth as a closed system for matter is simply a case of too little > time to be statistically significant.


It should be noted for all here that I say that the earth is closed "for all intents." If your grasp of the English language is not very good, this means that earth is closed as far as we can concern ourselves.

Indeed, the link you sent me (and btw, I am a really nice person for actually reading completely arbitrary links people give me, I have better things to waste my time on) pretty much proves my own case, but of course you had to go and arbitrarily quote garbage from said link.

The link says, "The Earth system. Earth is an open system. Its primary input is energy from the sun and from space. Input of matter, in the form of meteors and cosmic dust, is ordinarily not great, although major impacts from planetoids occur every 100 million years or so. Earth outputs heat and light to space, maintaining an approximate overall steady state with respect to energy." This is a very narrow view of the Earth system because it does not consider the cycles that are taking place on Earth as we speak. Cycles which are inherently closed.

Indeed, your very link furthers my argument by stating, "Although no system, except possibly the total universe, is completely closed [...]" Which is entirely correct. No system is completely closed. Quantum physics denies this. When we talked about "closed" systems, we're really talking about theoritical constructs or "largely closed" systems.

Name one closed system. Even many chemical reactions, for example photosynthesis, aren't closed by any strict definition (as photosynthesis releases oxygen converted from water, not CO2) yet the equation is still balanced, and we can (and do) consider the system closed. But your simple minded view of the planet, and your failure to consider the broader argument, cannot grasp the basic idea.

Do you know of the carbon cycle? Water cycle? Nitrogen cycle? Are these open or closed systems? Hint, they're closed "for all intents and purposes." If the nitrogen cycle wasn't closed it would've all escaped into space as is likely the case with Mars. Our wonderful magnetosphere has kept practically every every 'heavy' atom right here on this planet of ours. Sadly, you will still fail to see the point.

Claiming to 'disprove' a central debate on what freedom is / is not from some of the best political theorists of the century is pure ego, I'll give you that. I'm actually pretty sure you haven't. Nor have I. Nor has Bookchin. Nor has anyone. I do however doubt you know the whole historic reasoning behind it, and the relationship between the two. You never know, try wiki.


I have, in my response to Bookchin and many times over the years. If you'd like to get into the debate, I'd be happy to. BTW, what is it with anarcho-collectivists invoking the "appeal by authority"? I don't have to dismiss you simply because you aren't (presumbably) one of "the best political theorists of the century." I think that's pretty fucking weak. Especially for anarchists, who I would think wouldn't want to appeal to authority in that vein.

I note that you really haven't actually gotten to the meat of my argument against Bookchin's bullshit. I wish someone would. There were comments in Chuck0's blog about the essay I wrote about how it would "flame secterian debates." I say bring it the fuck on, even though that wasn't my intent. If anyone finds flaws in it I welcome their criticism.

What planet are you living on? Did you miss totally the de-fanging of the new left movement post 9/11, the dissolution of the impetus of the ESF/WSF, the massive increase in State powers and the loss of private autonomy in Western democracies, and the betrayal of any of the much vaunted G8 sops to the developing world, people doing hard time for non-violent demonstration, destruction of property and so forth etc? The political impetus gained in the 90's with regards to anti-Capitalist movements has suffered a massive blow, even with the bolstering of the anti-war movements (in the UK currently being co-opted by the SWP etc).


Delusional ramblings of someone who simply doesn't see the movement for what it is. Completely unstoppable. Always adapting. Always moving forward. In America everyone sat back and thought Seattle '99 was some breaking point, and when nothing significant occured afterward there was a 'decline' in the movement everyone started whining and moaning. This is only a reflection of your own inability to actually, you know, get something done in your own life. So what you do is inflate these paranoid beliefs to the point of insanity. The west has it fucking good, I don't care how many idiots get jail time for being unable to keep their circles tight lipped with ranks of loyal and like-minded comrades. That's not a big deal. It really isn't.

Boo fucking hoo. Go see the third world asshole. Go watch shows about industrialism (Manufactured Landcapes is a recent favorite of mine) and get out of the house for a change. We have it good and we will have it good for a long time to come.

If by "sectarian" you mean "not being a self-deluded one man forum" then so be it. I don't hate you ~ but I do see a marked inability to actually deal with the reality of our situation. Bookchin ceased to matter a long time ago, but then again, so did this forum.


You haven't established shit dude. The primary reason for flag being 'dead' is that it is split with infoshop.org and has had registration issues for the longest time. There is absolutely no other reason for it. The infoshop.org forums have a shitload of debate, of which I am going to jump in to tonight. If the people have to go there to get their debate, then I'm fine with that. flag.blackened.net/forums isn't some magical place that supposedly 'matters.' The movement as a whole is what matters.

In reality flag as a website and a concept is very much alive, hosting dozens upon dozens of websites, with infoshop.org being one of the primary anarchist oriented sites on the internet.

Get over your elitism and actually address the issues I bring up rather than nitpicking bullshit.
I am a leader, but you will not follow me.
User avatar
|Y|
One Step Beyond
 
Posts: 5629
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:16 am
Location: The Americas


Postby |Y| » Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:30 pm

BTW, you're from the UK? No wonder you're jaded. Orwellian society in full force over there.

In America we shoot street cameras with high powered BB guns.
I am a leader, but you will not follow me.
User avatar
|Y|
One Step Beyond
 
Posts: 5629
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:16 am
Location: The Americas


Postby AmericanWankersAreGreat » Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:37 pm

|Y| wrote:SteppenDistorter .
<ironic>.< That's why I gave you the 101 on Matter-closed, Energy - Open, Life - networked.

Our wonderful magnetosphere has kept practically every every 'heavy' atom right here on this planet of ours. Sadly, you will still fail to see the point.

No, I don't. I do, however, appreciate the concept of "scale". And heavy atoms aren't the first to go. Look at Venus. Look at Mars. I do believe that you've missed the point there, or actually know nothing about ecology. Venus became a CO2 hell-hole due to hydrogen bleeding. Mars most likely lost its proto-atmosphere due to over-oxidisation of all elements (actually the closest you GET to "2nd law" in this discussion, due to total reaction leading to no free atoms).


Claiming to 'disprove' a central debate on what freedom is / is not from some of the best political theorists of the century is pure ego, I'll give you that. I'm actually pretty sure you haven't. Nor have I. Nor has Bookchin. Nor has anyone. I do however doubt you know the whole historic reasoning behind it, and the relationship between the two. You never know, try wiki.


I have, in my response to Bookchin and many times over the years.
If you'd like to get into the debate, I'd be happy to. BTW, what is it with anarcho-collectivists invoking the "appeal by authority"?

Hmm. Do you know what IRONY is? Irony is a web jockey proclaiming they've solved the concept of 'freedom.. over the years' when their 'opposition' has just stated that [b]NONE
of them have solved it. If you count 'an appeal to authority' as stating 'NONE of us has defined it' then you're a fucking Communist or Sopholist.

I don't have to dismiss you simply because you aren't (presumbably) one of "the best political theorists of the century." I think that's pretty fucking weak. Especially for anarchists, who I would think wouldn't want to appeal to authority in that vein.

There's a reason you get that position under Capital. Yes, political, but also - you have a load of hungry young theorists attacking you at every point. Its called 'peer review'. Yes, it has its faults.. but yes, it produces better work than your intarweb blog bollocks.

<snip> Don't worry, I shared it around, and a couple people came here. They got bored, left, asked why I'd wasted their time - sadly, I couldn't answer anymore.


Delusional ramblings of someone who simply doesn't see the movement for what it is. Completely unstoppable.

Examples, please - when the FUCK did painting an anarchist 'A' get you anywhere. Wake up, child, even Banksy is selling his art for £35k a time these days (and yeah, his 'A''s are better than yours).

Always adapting. Always moving forward. In America everyone sat back and thought Seattle '99 was some breaking point, and when nothing significant occured afterward there was a 'decline' in the movement everyone started whining and moaning.

So please.. tell me the strident steps the New Left in Amerikkka has taken over the last 8 years. I'm really interested, since the four collectives I'm in touch with over there have reported a depressing trend in progressive movements to that you defend.

This is only a reflection of your own inability to actually, you know, get something done in your own life.

Weak. You went to S.America once. *claps*. I've been to Russia (net-collective, wicked), Australia (Forests in T, mine protests), Malaysia (forest burning), Newbury (forests), Italy (anarchists, then we went & stormed the UK dome), CAT, and on, and on, and on (Bosnia, 95, during the revolution. Nasty, but informative). This *is* my life.

So what you do is inflate these paranoid beliefs to the point of insanity.

So. You disagree with my (quick) over-view of the New Left movement in the post 9/11 times, and/or the sociological effects that it presented? WFT? Have you not read your own Patriot Act?

The west has it fucking good,

Yes. We all know why.. I hope?

Go see the third world asshole.

You went to the "third world" once (its called the DEVELOPING WORLD asshole, way to get all colonial on us). In the past 10 years, I've lived in the "developing world".. 4 years, min. Africa. Yes. Malaysia - Indonesia. Yes. 2nd world ex-Soviet block. Yes. For all of your "OMG Appeal to authority" you do fucking like swaggering around like you're the only person whose been.. to like.. a "poor" country. Wanker.

..and get out of the house for a change. We have it good and we will have it good for a long time to come..

FFS. And you're a supposed 'Anarchist' these days?!"?!!? I didn't see Emma relaxing, eating her McDonalds & being all satisfied. Do you know nothing about the current state of the world, CIA / IPCC etc reports, and the low estimate figures of about 200-500mil people dying before the end of the century? (discounting nuclear engagement, most likely in Pakistan - India over refugees from Bangladesh or water rights in the Middle East).

We're supposed to be fighting for social justice...

That doesn't mean we can drink CocaCola, eat fish from an ocean on the brink of collapse and so on...

Oh.Wait.


I guess it'll be alright, especially since the Ozone layer "only took a couple of decades to revert to normal"... right?


Wake up. Be informed. You ain't, and god help me (irony) if I meet you in a "third world poor as shit" country you deign to visit on a little Anarco-Tourism to see the local revolt, not help and then cow to the police and fuck off back to your hotel.

In Bosnia, our hotel *was* the third left, second right off snipers alley - and had some banging tunes ;)
AmericanWankersAreGreat
 


Postby Going2a3rdworldcountry » Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:45 pm

Stupid thing cut the first half.


Suffice to say -

What planet are you living on? Did you miss totally the de-fanging of the new left movement post 9/11, the dissolution of the impetus of the ESF/WSF, the massive increase in State powers and the loss of private autonomy in Western democracies, and the betrayal of any of the much vaunted G8 sops to the developing world, people doing hard time for non-violent demonstration, destruction of property and so forth etc? The political impetus gained in the 90's with regards to anti-Capitalist movements has suffered a massive blow, even with the bolstering of the anti-war movements (in the UK currently being co-opted by the SWP etc).


If you are indeed "part of the movement" and not just a revolution-tourist-come-web-jockey. Analise. Tell me where the New Left is going. Tell me what you think the New Left is. Tell me which groups you're talking to who aren't a little pissed off at the new "Orwellian" culture. Tell me the last time you went to a round-table and did something (other than fly in an airplane as a white tourst).


Or.. just listen to Morrisey, even he sold out.
Going2a3rdworldcountry
 


Postby kkk » Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:01 pm

Actually, just got a call.

See you in Iceland, camps are still on :)

And yeah. Good luck, LyLiar, Din had you pegged. Total wanker, enjoy your cyber-space "kingdom". Remember - all is good. Technology is great. We can fix anything we fuck up, including Ozone holes (which we *hope* will close), rainforests and so on and so forth. Btw, all anarchists are like the ego-me, and we do shit like fly a few thousand miles to tourist a political movement without a) contacting any of the people involved b) knowing the situation and asking "the third world" what they'd like and c) getting scared of those nasty people on both sides who might be using violence or being police.

Yeah. Next time, oh warrior of ANARCHIST FREEDOM, just send them the plane-ticket fare in hard $$, you'll do more good.

I despair. But hey. I'm off for another jaunt "
:roll:

"The west has it fucking good, I don't care how many idiots get jail time for being unable to keep their circles tight lipped with ranks of loyal and like-minded comrades. That's not a big deal. It really isn't. "

Ok. People doing time / being tortured is "no big deal". Solidarity, bro. Or does your ego-anarchism preclude it?


"Boo fucking hoo. Go see the third world asshole. Go watch shows about industrialism (Manufactured Landcapes is a recent favorite of mine) and get out of the house for a change."

Been to Chernobyl or been involved in the Ukrainian anarchist movement? Worked aid agency crap in E.Africa.. and so on?

Thought not, you fucking poseur.
kkk
 


Postby |Y| » Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:41 am

SteppenAsshole,

No, I don't. I do, however, appreciate the concept of "scale". And heavy atoms aren't the first to go. Look at Venus. Look at Mars. I do believe that you've missed the point there, or actually know nothing about ecology. Venus became a CO2 hell-hole due to hydrogen bleeding. Mars most likely lost its proto-atmosphere due to over-oxidisation of all elements (actually the closest you GET to "2nd law" in this discussion, due to total reaction leading to no free atoms)


'Heavy' was in quotes for a reason, Steppenwolf. Venus became a CO2 hellhole because of volcanism which is active to this day. It replenishes the atmosphere and negates the stripping effect from the solar wind. Mars', volcanism, however ceased many millennia ago, and all of its Nitrogen, and most of its CO2 is gone. Oxidixation alone accounts for very little of Mars' past atmospheric decline. Especially considering that we now know for sure that Mars had surface water (which requires a huge atmosphere to sustain).

Hmm. Do you know what IRONY is? Irony is a web jockey proclaiming they've solved the concept of 'freedom.. over the years' when their 'opposition' has just stated that NONE of them have solved it. If you count 'an appeal to authority' as stating 'NONE of us has defined it' then you're a fucking Communist or Sopholist.


No, what I have done is shown the inherent contridiction in thinking that freedom is anything but the two. The appeal to authority is citing "best theorists" as if my own observation is somehow invalidated because of that. It is not. And it wouldn't be if a million billion theorists came out against me. It would only be invalidated if their argument was sound and showed holes in my own. Which is something I don't see here.

There's a reason you get that position under Capital. Yes, political, but also - you have a load of hungry young theorists attacking you at every point. Its called 'peer review'. Yes, it has its faults.. but yes, it produces better work than your intarweb blog bollocks.


Hmm, where are they? If it's just you, okay. But the attacks in recent years have dropped dramatically. Granted a lot of you guys disappered, but yeah. Are there people critiquing my Bookchin essay? I'd be pleased to talk to them. Anyway, 'peer review' is not happening in this instance, and it's wierd that you'd invoke a largely scientific process to politicial papers, especially considering how long I have seen Bookchin's essay go without a significant rebuttal. Hell, if you look at his past history you can see that he was "pro-lifestylism," at one point, and indeed, Post Scarcity Anarchism is pretty hard on collectivists (as we know them) in general, but hey, that's just how things are I guess.

<snip> Don't worry, I shared it around, and a couple people came here. They got bored, left, asked why I'd wasted their time - sadly, I couldn't answer anymore.


You should've sent them to my blog, maybe they would've learned something. :)

Examples, please - when the FUCK did painting an anarchist 'A' get you anywhere.


When someone, just one person, saw that symbol, wondered WTF it was, and did a "google search." It's our logo, we need to use it more. :)

So please.. tell me the strident steps the New Left in Amerikkka has taken over the last 8 years. I'm really interested, since the four collectives I'm in touch with over there have reported a depressing trend in progressive movements to that you defend.


Hmm, the prevailing trend is not in "activist movement." The prevailing trend is in things like anti-RIAA struggles, in open source, in piracy. What many anarchists seem to be lacking in clarity is that people don't have to "belong to some movement" to be anarchists or identify with anarchist struggles. This is why Bookchin's essay is so damaging. It creates this idea of what an anarchist should be, and writes off the rest of humanity. It doesn't even address how anarchists can appeal to the masses at large. And this is an inherent failure of the movement as a whole. Over the past few weeks I've been sharing anarchist books on eMule, since they're so utterly difficult to find online (which is sort of ironic given how easy it would be for anarchist bookstores to scan in their books so people can read them). In that time we've gotten over 12 million users on eMule and my books have had nearly a gig downloaded.

So why would I be pessimistic? I have no reason to be. I don't cling to a religious ideal. I look at how society is functioning as a whole. I listen to people, I don't cram shit down their throat. I bummped into two people the other day when I went on a BASE jump. We got to talking and I was thirsty and pulled out a bottle of water, offering two other bottles to them, and the discussion was along the lines of "getting away from our work environment to relax; though hiking in warm sun was far more taxing on our bodies than our jobs were, it was something we enjoyed." Wow. That's all I can say about it. I got an email from someone about my blog, regarding Manufacturing Landscapes. I plan to blog about his email because he sympathized with what I was saying.

There's no room for pessimism in the movement. If you don't think your little project is getting anywhere, then boo hoo. I look at the bigger picture.

Weak. You went to S.America once. *claps*. I've been to Russia (net-collective, wicked), Australia (Forests in T, mine protests), Malaysia (forest burning), Newbury (forests), Italy (anarchists, then we went & stormed the UK dome), CAT, and on, and on, and on (Bosnia, 95, during the revolution. Nasty, but informative). This *is* my life.


Ooh, so you're a lifestylist, heheh. Let's see whether or not you are one in a positive or negative sense. I'm not going to get into who is a "bigger anarchist" thanks.

So. You disagree with my (quick) over-view of the New Left movement in the post 9/11 times, and/or the sociological effects that it presented? WFT? Have you not read your own Patriot Act?


Actually, I haven't read it, believe it or not. I don't want to get all pessimistic and whiney over completely useless shit. I'll bitch if it starts affecting me, but I highly doubt it will. I'm not an idiot. Anyway, I'm not concerned very much about little groups which have lost people or become more paranoid due to near irrelevancies.

You went to the "third world" once (its called the DEVELOPING WORLD asshole, way to get all colonial on us). In the past 10 years, I've lived in the "developing world".. 4 years, min. Africa. Yes. Malaysia - Indonesia. Yes. 2nd world ex-Soviet block. Yes. For all of your "OMG Appeal to authority" you do fucking like swaggering around like you're the only person whose been.. to like.. a "poor" country. Wanker.


Hmm, you did? Then shit why aren't you making my arguments for me rather than being a bitch? Where are your solutions to these problems? What do you think can be done? I've seen plenty of "third world" in America. I don't actually have to go on tour of the world to understand the problems that are going on. And neither do you. Especially if becoming involved in whatever movement is occuring clouds your understanding of the situation as a whole. You can be in the midst of a huge battle and still not see those on the outside of the battle as those who don't want it, those who want something better, those who want to be free but not your way. There's a distinct difference between going somewhere and visting for awhile, and actually seeing that place for what it is. You remind me of a tourist. Go to some third world shithole and stick to whatever your goal is, not recognizing the environment that is around you.

FFS. And you're a supposed 'Anarchist' these days?!"?!!? I didn't see Emma relaxing, eating her McDonalds & being all satisfied.


Aww. Emma didn't relax and eat McDonalds. She fucking danced, baby.

We're supposed to be fighting for social justice...

That doesn't mean we can drink CocaCola, eat fish from an ocean on the brink of collapse and so on...


Yeah, you're definitely a lifestylist. :) Let's see how long you last. Too bad you won't have decades to test it, though, as we will have revolution by that time. And it won't be because of guys like you.

Be informed. You ain't, and god help me (irony) if I meet you in a "third world poor as shit" country you deign to visit on a little Anarco-Tourism to see the local revolt, not help and then cow to the police and fuck off back to your hotel.


I should help non-anarchists? Like you helped non-anarchists in your goals? I can't sit back and observe the situation, see it for what it was, and move on? I went to Cuba, I should've been part of the revolutionary guard, given up my US citizenship, and worshiped Castro? That's the difference between you and me. You go to some place seeking "social justice" yet you view social justice on a different level. You don't view the environment around you, you focus on whatever your stupid goal was, and that's it. This reminds me very much of my stalker Guest who would brag about going to Palestine (most subsidized people on the planet per capita) and "helping out" there. Guess what? I'm a new kind of anarchist. :)

In Bosnia, our hotel *was* the third left, second right off snipers alley


Yeah? What anarchist movement was occuring there? Couple of anarchists going to get themselves involved in statist affairs? Sounds fun.

If you are indeed "part of the movement" and not just a revolution-tourist-come-web-jockey. Analise. Tell me where the New Left is going. Tell me what you think the New Left is. Tell me which groups you're talking to who aren't a little pissed off at the new "Orwellian" culture. Tell me the last time you went to a round-table and did something (other than fly in an airplane as a white tourst).


The movement as I see it has nothing to do, as I said, with 'activists.' The movement is a prevailing trend in rejecting capitalist property rights on a scale never before scene in the history of humanity. :)

I don't need to go to a "round-table." Do I? Should I really have to involve myself with groups who I don't necessarily identify with? I've been to those group meetings before. They weren't for me.

Btw, all anarchists are like the ego-me, and we do shit like fly a few thousand miles to tourist a political movement without a) contacting any of the people involved b) knowing the situation and asking "the third world" what they'd like and c) getting scared of those nasty people on both sides who might be using violence or being police.


Hmm, did you miss the part about me driving there? I drove my motorcycle. I haven't used a plane in ages. Especially post-9/11. I'd hate to be stopped. :)

That's really the difference between you and me. I want to see what's between me and my destination. I don't like to isolate myself from what I'm going to see and what I'm going to do. See, those 'activists' who went to Oaxaca? They flew in their nice cushy planes, they landed, and got in a nice rental car or van , and drove straight to their destination. They didn't see the farmer fields, where Mexicans work their asses off. They didn't see the shitty conditions outside of Oaxaca in the farming communities which relied Oaxacan markets to survive (which the activists had forcebly closed down, causing ieerpairable damgage to those people; I wonder how many elderly died because of that). No, they don't see shit. They're too concerned about their fucking 'movement.' This is why anarchism doesn't gain acceptance. This is why I say, "Hey, here are some interesting things that are optimistic," because these things exist outside of some "anarchism as a religion" environment. When you have a religion that religion is all you see. I have no doubt that my trip to Oaxaca was more informative than any of the 'activists' who went before me. I saw some pretty damn authoritarian, pretty damn selfish, pretty damn corrupt 'leftists' while I was there.

Yeah. Next time, oh warrior of ANARCHIST FREEDOM, just send them the plane-ticket fare in hard $$, you'll do more good.


I drove. It costed me less in gas than it would have if I got a plane ticket at half cost. Anyway, I wasn't there to do good. I don't think so highly of myself that I could do good to some poor ass country by going there and standing behind some barricade. Especially in support of authoritarian organizations.

Ok. People doing time / being tortured is "no big deal". Solidarity, bro. Or does your ego-anarchism preclude it?


It's not. :) It really isn't. I don't have maryters. I don't have anarchist heroes. I don't really give a shit. And frankly I wouldn't want anyone to give a shit about me were I to go down.

Been to Chernobyl or been involved in the Ukrainian anarchist movement? Worked aid agency crap in E.Africa.. and so on?


Chernobyl is a huge tourist spot, why would I want to go there? I'd rather go see the 'little rock' in AK. Or meet some people at any fine restaurant you can find on any road in the Americas. I had tequilla in Mexico while a band of old guys played in the background. I tend to live life and not be consumed by little irrelevant movements. I see it. I don't worship it.

Thought not, you fucking poseur.


Hey, it's your religion. More power to you.
I am a leader, but you will not follow me.
User avatar
|Y|
One Step Beyond
 
Posts: 5629
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:16 am
Location: The Americas


play happy wheels

Postby vishal23 » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:04 am

Hello Friends, Here we are going to provide you the best portal for online happy wheels free games and these games are amazing games. You can play these games online without facing any type of problem or error. You can play these games according to your preference in the best quality. Also these games are available in various varieties. These games are the best platform for having great entertainment. Once go for these games.
vishal23
 


Re: new theme

Postby paylituzu » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:49 pm

"Image
Gclub เกม รูเล็ต เป็นส่วนหนึ่งของประสบการณ์ขั้นพื้นฐานของการเล่นเกมคาสิโน ดังนั้นหาก GCLUB คาสิโนออนไลน์ เว็บไหนไม่มี รูเล็ตออนไลน์ ก็ไม่อาจเรียกได้ว่าเป็น คาสิโนที่แท้จริง และนั่นอาจถือเป็นข้อบกพร่องหากเว็บคาสิโน ออนไลน์ไม่บรรจุเกมรูเล็ตไว้ในคอลเลคชั่น บางเว็บไซต์ของ คาสิโนออนไลน์ ดูเหมือนว่ารูเล็ตมีจำนวนคนเล่นมากกว่าเกมคาสิโน อื่น ๆ ด้วยเคล็ดลับการชนะในการเล่นเกม รูเล็ต บนเว็บไซต์ คาสิโนออนไลน์ นี้ อาจทำให้อัตราต่อรองของคุณพัฒนาขึ้น เกม รูเล็ต มีสองรูปแบบให้คุณเลือก คือ รูเล็ต แบบฝรั่งเศสและแบบอเมริกัน

ข้อแตกต่างระหว่าง รูเล็ต GCLUB ฝรั่งเศสและอเมริกัน

ความแตกต่างระหว่าง รูเล็ต ทั้งสองคือ ล้อ รูเล็ต อเมริกันมีสามสิบแปดตัวเลขในขณะที่ฝรั่งเศส รูเล็ต มีสามสิบเจ็ด กฎง่ายๆคือ ผู้เล่นจะเดิมพันว่าลูกบอลเล็กๆจะไปหยุดอยู่ที่หมายเลขและสีอะไร วงล้อจะหมุนไปอีกทางและลูกบอลจะวิ่งไปตรงกันข้าม จนมันตกลงบนตัวเลขต่างๆ รูเล็ต เป็นหนึ่งในเกมคาสิโนที่มีคนรู้จักดีมากที่สุดในโลก มันต้องอาศัยโชคลางและทักษะในการเล่น ซึ่งเป็นลักษณะเด่นที่ดึงดูดทั้งผู้เล่นใหม่และผู้เล่นที่มีประสบการณ์

คุณสามารถใช้กลยุทธฺ์ต่างๆเล่นกับวงล้อ สล็อต แต่ผู้เล่นบางคนไม่ต้องการการเล่นที่ซับซ้อน หลายขั้นตอน พวกเขาเพียงอยากวางเงินเดิมพันและเอาชนะ

ผู้เล่นที่เล่นวิดีโอเกมและ สล็อต บ่อยๆ เริ่มหันมาเล่น รูเล็ต ที่คาสิโน ผู้เล่นใหม่ที่รู้สึกมั่นใจมากขึ้นจะเริ่มต้นด้วยรูปแบบนี้ เกม รูเล็ต โด่งดังมากจนสามารถพบได้ทั่วไปทั้งในร้านขายอุปกรณ์ โดยมี gadget สำหรับคนที่ต้องการมีไว้เล่นที่บ้าน

รูเล็ต เป็นเกมคาสิโนที่ดีที่สุด >>> อ่านต่อ"
paylituzu
Swivel-Hips
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:37 am

Previous

Return to Board index

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests