StylesGrant

Sadly government contracts to 'privitization' is the crisco that greases the wheels of a fascist guilded age style authoritarian culture. There's a lot of it.

I hate the paper arguments in general. The implied notion that zeitgeisters are statist is controversial. I strongly believe many are, or would be predisposed to it due to ignorance about various key aspects of history. I am more worried about the pretenses and misgivings of people who listen to Peter and Stefan than I am Peter and Stefan. Now we already have a presupposed hypothesis that the leftist anti-market, vegetarian, global warming believing, pro-sustainability will somehow overpower the dominant military-neoliberal-transnational corporate state complex that is American elite interest. And that in your supposed property, you would need a DRO private enforcement (pinkerton?) to run the hippie squatters off your property. What sincerely worried me, was the prison podcast, only about 10 minutes long, of Stefan's. The way he would deal with a rapist. I think he should sell a screenplay on that one, it sounds more thorough than minority report. You need force to blacklist and embargo all participants who would theoretically consider offering refuge to an offender. You've insinuated that people are being kept on a criminal database tied to a DRO or credit bureau. This is something to consider given the severity of having bad credit even now in the debt system we have, in this over financialized system. No one likes the idea of constantly being listed, tracked, and held under a rating system of large credit and other financial and insurance institutions that are monolithic, outside their representation or understanding, and heavily shaped by large political association $. I recommend listening to the Rome series by Dan Carlin to understand the difference between Republican interest and populist interest, and how that played out in the long run. I mention that, because you should also read up about the Texas populist being opposed to North Eastern finance. It is also organized finance that played a large role in sparking both world wars. Personally I don't think you can take out the aspects of currency in this paper argument, even though Peter is against usury. But I believe currency can become a weapon against organized market hegemony. This is in my mind, a war between Capitalisms. State Imperial Capital vs. Panarchy/Populism/Direct Participation Economics/Counter-Economics (Read the books by Brett Scott http://suitpossum.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-heretics-guide.html and also Raj Patel's books) Peter is obsessed with the idea of the market and usury perpetuating scarcity and inefficiency, so therefor money is bad and etc - MFK outlined the flaws in this. I believe that the capital production + technical complexity has resulted in efficiency also. This is why we have factory looms and not hand deseeding cotton (though essentially textiles are still fueled by near slavery). And there is a strong 'temporal' aspect to capital exploitation or 'structural violence'. The technical efficiency is great for profit, but not for long term profit. The real currency is time, a lot long term economic planning is nothing more than a game of speculation. This is part of the point behind me mentioning 'infinite unicorn crap powered tractors'. If you pumped 'clean' non-externality fuel into this economic argument, the capital agricultural markets would still speculate and rape the local economies because they don't care about the science. You can use technical efficiency for the wrong thing. There is technical efficiency in capitalism, but capitalism is not a resource based economy because the goals of the usage are deliberately unsound from resource management tenets. You cannot tie fractional reserve banking, rent seeking capitalism, and the risk and cost immune carte blanche blank check financialization of central financial institutions driving behavior of stocks to real land value based on industrial concepts. From the permacultural and sustainable ecological understandings of resource management you get more in the long run, sustained regenerative productive capital, temporally. My definition of structural violence IS monopoly economic coordinated intrusion. All an-caps either are ignoring, are lying, or are unaware in cases where they will not concede to well defined cases of intrusive economic suppression against competing ideas. Africa is a story of rampant land abuse, as is colonization and feudalism, simply by the profiteering of the land in the short term or mismanagement and neglect. If people can simply steal money from the region and funnel it into speculative markets elsewhere, then there is no true economic productive capital for those local regions. For example; Money works and wins in the scheme of Western Medicine, and the consequences are playing out. Mercola wrote a good article just recently. I would not even be on this forum, or associating with libertarians, nor skeptical about global warming, but because of having my life sabotaged by rotten scoundrels in the medical complex, I have learned REAL not PAPER political economics. Many of you are underestimating the capacity for collusion and violence when an industry is being protected. Only obtrusive counter economics, agorism, crypto-finance, as well as other constructs outlined by people like Peter Joseph and Robert Steel can effectively undermine protected economics. But follow the money, and you can see that the goals of global warming advocates and anti-global warming are heavily associated with state-industry collusion interests. There are many, many environmental reasons to support sustainability as a school of thought that do not pertain to carbon. Mother nature has a long list of shit she wants to kill you with long before the global warming argument is arrived at. (strongly suggest listening to interview with Joe Rogan and Randall Carson and Joel Salatin) You would be surprised how much real political economics you would learn from some health radio people such as Robert Scott Bell or Gary Null. There is tremendous technical efficiency, complexity in Western medical science, but its geared, through statistics, actuary, premeditation by elite pharmacist to give calculated results. And this is tied to profits. It cannot cure chronic conditions, while Eastern medicine does. Because Eastern medicine is designed on technical efficiency to create long term sustained productive capital i.e. well being. Pharmaceutical treatment without cure for chronic conditions is a rent seeking behavior that uses intrusive violent political economics organized through cartel to stop sustained technical efficiency for the value of an individual. Peter is always talking about 3D printers. Well, he should be. Any disruptive force that can increase productive abundance should be supported. Politicians and Lawyers are beautiful with language. They only go to school to learn to lie, they don't need real world arguments, or knowledge of agricultural science, or other science. Just sound good in a debate, and win the day. Most people want peaceful trade...but there will always be those who want to do harm..with money. The best thing to do with these people is censor them the way they have censored good people....through disruptive economics...to pull the rug out from beneath them...to delegitimize their profiteering. Peter conflates those who do use the profit seeking, individually accountable concept of property with the outright theft, because that is what the magical word structural violence is, it is theft through forceful economic censorship. I give you this quote I have a socialist friend, whom I debated numerous times to convince him his Belgian government and the EU are evil. He says that the world would be better off run by just scientist. I have to agree with him on that almost. Sadly, elitist corrupt scientist are a key element of the evil. The madd evil genius scientist stereotype comes from somewhere. Everything we have was gotten through some form of violence, and the rights we have wanted were wrought out of the hands of elitists. They give us constitutional rights like a parent gives a child an allowance. There are very real natural scientific laws. The western mind has always sought to cheat nature through some arbitrary notion. When people try to sell you that lie, they are enslaving you. So I can sympathize with SOME of Peter's misgivings. There are clearly madmen who run the world who will speculate and engage in financial wizardry at any cost by stealing value elsewhere. And it is theft. If you lie about natural science, and build finance upon it and sell it you get what I said, you get a bastard currency. This is a perversity, just like those wonderful drugs the doctor gives you to make your depression go away. There is a perversity happening at the biomolecular level. A few more quotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netwar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterarchy

Also this http://prn.fm/expanding-mind-buddhas-machines-070614/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/19/open-source-revolution-conquer-one-percent-cia-spy @ MFK who had said I am well aware there are teeth and nail hissy fit differences between how definitions were stated about open source between the zeitgeisters and ancaps, and that robert steele is by no means an ancap or nap person. There are areas where he is on board with zeitgeist, and other areas clearly where he is not. I am given to the notion that he, certainly more than many, is much more aware and intimately knowledgeable about what a military state complex and neoliberal capital model with socialist policies can do and is trying to get beyond that scope. So you should read the article. Then fight and whine a lot about it, and then hopefully begin dictating definitions to clarify what you perceive, what is, what ought, what you think should be in your ancap defense. But this particular quote from MFK reminds me of one of the many monologues of Joe Rogan. It has come up on many of his episodes, and certainly was well illustrated by the likes of George Carlin and Bill Hicks. Frankly, when I look into open source conversations it always seems to go back to hallucinogens. Perhaps this is a clash and merge between Randian Objectivism and Eastern metaphysics (maybe the whole premise of The Matrix) ...Huxley comes to mind. ..but these people who make these connections rarely enjoy being labeled part of the status quo. Anyone who has come to these revelations is certainly not voting corporate democrat or looking for more intrusion into behavioral freedom of individuality.

Well certainly, structural violence is a poor word choice, or an anti concept as you call it. And these kind of words tend to develop a negative connotation that often out lasts or expands beyond the original meaning. But I would call a lot of things structural violence. And again,...this should illustrate the ambivalence of the word. Statism is structural violence. National socialism, welfare, the IMF, bailouts, austerity programs, restructuring economies, taxation, government and corporate surveillance. I mean hell anything mentioned in Orwell's book. Or pretty much any of Chomksy's points on US foreign policy. Or for instance, the video about Detroit by Stefan. Colonialism especially comes to mind. There was just an important article in Nat Geo about the Chinese, and other countries buying land to turn into large industrial farms from the sub saharan governments. Whatever fanciful definition in the minds of the ancap and zeitgeisters that has arisen to denote the meaning of structural violence, is in my opinion wrong. I don't think the arguments of African populations against the corrupt behavior of their governments is childish, when it is in regard to their food security and land rights being infringed by outside planning. This is a type of censorship or neo-colonialism at best. Something that "shitload of violence" isn't relevant to fixing. It's entirely dependent on infrastructure building and planning. Talk to the food movement groups in America, and you'll see they are almost entirely a combination of populist and libertarian. I dare you to ask them if they want more government agencies to "fix" stuff for them. If that's what you think, you have some research to do. Honestly I can't explain the situation better than Gregory Sam in the interview of the video I posted or in his book The State is Out of Date. Crypto-finance, alternative finance, permaculture, and an open-source tool for multiple parties to work with as an engineering and public planning database, including the Chinese and Brazilian corporations, could literally change the whole continent of Africa and set a precedent for a political, financial, and agricultural model that would force the West to change. Without the concept of open-source, its likely that the "planning" will continue to take place over the heads of the poor there. I said it once, so again- it's all about trade monopoly. The answer is simple, much simpler than radical socialist central planning which is really sort of a dark ironic comedy when you know the truth (for instance Stefan's video about Che). Stop censoring people, barring people out. Monopolies and middle men drive this, and to think otherwise is total blindness. There is a reason people talk about corporate fascism, corporate surveillance, or corporate state surveillance complex. People in high places care a great deal about being able to censor things, and to think otherwise that they do not seek to suppress other ideas is foolish. Now I pose you this- say people do indeed create public databases, engineering tools, simulators, things along the lines of what Peter Joseph has mentioned as well, but better explained by Robert Steele,. . . it is not altruism or a sharing economy, it is a form of investment..but it is at odds with the secretive nature of neoliberal corporatism. Something tells me the people writing ObamaCare and the Transpacific Partnership are not very keen on your metaphysical definition of access "property" in an open-source system. And to further emphasize a point- permaculture is more prudently based upon fiscal economics, technical efficiency, and the conservation and avoidance of waste than the neoliberal capital model or fractional reserve banking and credit based economies. The value rate created in a credit system and its debts, with derivatives and such, are all based on the debt itself or the petroleum, and the amount of food that this can create, or livestock. The amount of externalities in that system are untold when you look at the lost efficiency. These values are based on intangible properties, ulterior motives, and underlying state policies and initiatives, metrics and end goals they have arbitrarily set. Economic efficiency is an extension of scientific efficiency in a real economic model, but not in the petrol-dollar model. It doesn't matter if you create an an-cap global society and power your tractors and fertilize your fields with infinite unicorn crap, if you manage the land in a wasteful way and build your currency upon wasteful bastard science than you will get a bastard currency. Real wealth, real value, real trade, and real investment, and thus real capital are in technical efficiency and a real resource based economy. So my point is not that I want a resource based economy marxist utopia, but to explain to you that modern capitalism is delusional because it thinks that it is a resourced based economy. The currency is only as sustainable as are the technologies the societies practice. The banker can print money, but the soil cannot print micronutrients.

not all money is bad, not all property is bad, a great deal of hierarchy is unjustly illegitimate or more so redundant, martial force in self defense is justified but coercion is not, structural and cultural coercion through political and economic means is the same thing as force and is immoral

as from definition on urban dictionary If indeed, the origin of hatred towards hipsters is a collective pejorative connotation to those who oppose all seeming flaws in the American society by those who feel a need to justify the status quo, who is at fault? It seems cultural homogeneity and monoculture is a powerful tool of control. In fact, people like Chomsky constantly talk about Cultural hedgemony. Is Chomsky a hipster? If hipsters are self evolving, self organizing, self created, divergently, without collective association, is it that they merely spring from the earth like flys..or are they a product of an actual cultural environment? Why are some people so afraid of admitting that mainstream American culture and its institutions are heavily rooted in historical, childhood, and anti-principal anti-scientific immoral delusions? If half of society is run by people who are afraid of being ostracized or seen as lacking in character and dignity and responsibility in a Capitalist society and refuse to criticize or allow criticism of the institutions that create the culture, and many are degenerate hipsters who offer no solution, change, or creation -but mere self expressed spiritual rebellion- then is there a future? What kind of culture looks at self expressed rebellion and deems it useless? How is boycotting the consumption and participation in inherently immoral structures of the culture and economy not having an effect on the shape of a society in its economic directions? Perhaps the apathy of society coupled with the tool Stockholm mentality is why the socialist national solution for those seeking protection from external and internal conflict sounds so cozy.

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the-open-source-revolution-is-coming-and-it-will-conquer-the-1-ex-cia-spy/

I do believe people overly glorify the "noble savage" yes. In a sense. But, it is like trading the witch for the devil. And I have made this argument with people so many times. The relative amount of killing in 20th century civilization has gone down, Loyd Demause talks about this. The rate of tribal death in indigenous tribes was however about 10 to 60% through violence in some areas. But you can still rest assured, the level of manic frantic modern style mental insanity does not significantly exist in the relatively stable community, tribal based society. The threat of external economic factors tearing apart your extended family or degenerating your tribal culture does not exist in the large civilized sense. What did exist, was the possibility or being raided and enslaved by other tribes. Generally speaking, I recommend someone read Chinua' Achebe's book Things Fall Apart, to understand this issue. I have been studying to origins of facsicm. I think that one of the main drivers of war in the 20th century, and the 21st century has been a constant ethno-cultural divide caused and perpetually agitated by technological progress, migration, and economic change. When the German's felt that their traditional way of life, culture, family integrity, and means of living were being thoroughly attacked and broken down, they resorted to increased authoritarianism. Loyd Demaus talks about this also. Whenever you attack the family and community structure and its values, and the inherent ethno-cultural values, you get unrest, political vitriol, and the authoritarians come in to feed upon it. The exact same issues are occurring now in the middle east. However, as I stated, this is only half the issue. The other half are the external, foreign economic changes affecting migration, job availability, quality of life, and so on. These are fundamental subjects in foreign studies, developmental studies, cultural anthropology, and environmental studies. I think blue collar beta male is an interesting term, so let's break that down. Same with the the desire to be a master and a slave concept, something I am also studying. I think the majority of the right wingers in America right now, have the desire to be both a master and a slave. While the hipsters, the pseudo-liberals, and socialists are more concerned with being slaves, who are largely complicit. The people running international, state backed, plutocratic capitalism, whom are also maintaining a revolving door with bureaucracies, are at the highest positions masters, sociopaths. But you have to look carefully at the hierarchy to disseminate which people are left brained masters, and which are these sort of people who want to be in power, yet worship power, as a secondary sociopath. The secondary sociopath, is an issue I wish Stefan would cover. You could break down the childhood of the average environmentalist (in the general sense), the average socialist, the average religious adherent, and the typical irresponsible post-modern liberal bourgeois, or hipster, or new-ager, and they all represent people who absolutely have no desire to assert, so they almost instinctively seek out control by left brained primary sociopaths, who effectively run the military industrial complex, the highest positions of multi-natational corporations, think tanks, the majority of the federal government, and a large part of diplomacy. They are the statist and scientific technological elite. The blue collar beta male, and the majority of right wing America, being childlike in mind, are more likely to seek to assert, but only in the beta sense, they want to support statism more openly than say, the liberal or socialist admits (simply they only do so inherently, complicitly, passively). The tea party member supports statism actively. The German people in interwar Germany, supported statism actively. I believe it is true, that the liberal bourgeois was indeed a legitimate reason for the German people to become irate at political and economic issues. If you understand what a thoroughly statist, technocratic, nihilistic, materialistic, capitalistic culture does to family and community structure and values. In this position, and again in America today, you see the insanity of right wing religion being the only real halter against the cultural degeneracy of statist liberalism. If your best chance to preserve individual, community, and family stability, and fundamentally constitutional rights, private property, or at least the concept of individual basic human rights enumerated, with a society that allows the freedom of the individual to develop free of coercion by external autocratic means be it capitalistic or socialistic, is ONLY the desperate attempts of a right wing christian constituency, which supports foreign imperialism and authoritarianism actively- you are in deep water. The dominant western culture, is not certainly one of highly motivated, purposeful, action taking, left/right/center secular anarchist. Once again, if you do like Loyd Demaus, I would employ people to listen to the Gary Null podcast link I posted above. At this point, I would best describe Null as a libertarian democratic socialist. He is not an anarchist, but his analysis is really, really crucial to understanding what situation we are in during these times. What we have, as was during the days of interwar Germany, is a society of liberals who think they are free, or want to be free, but have a nihilistic propensity towards being complicit slaves to primary sociopaths. This is further agitated by the child like impure ignorance and master-slave complex of right wing blue collar men who are not only unwilling to challenge the primary sociopaths, but willingly urge them on through neocon and neoliberal imperatives, and are also too stupid to challenge them intellectually (though certainly not too powerless to undermine them culturally and economically if they were taught anarchy). Sadly, as Null points out, and many others, intellectual liberals have been barred out of all media outlets. As have intellectual conservatives. All you will see, are a see of right wing propaganda spewing ideologues, and pseudo-liberals. The pseudo-liberals like Piers Morgan, urge on a class of little Eichmann, while the Glenn Beck's perpetuate the beta tendencies of blue collar men. It occurred to me, how much they peddle to basic fear and helpless dependency, when I listen to the advertisements on Rush Limbaugh. It is a constant torrent of loan rehabilitation, consolidation, and get out of debt schemes, and of course Viagra alternatives. Pure predatory economic tendencies to get people to support the grand arching schemes of the financial sector, which fuels the fiat petrol dollar and the military industrial complex, and our many wars. The beta male is insecure. I still believe structural violence is an issue. What is at debate is what the cause of structural violence is, but not the existence of it. You would have to be a sociopath to deny structural violence's existence. To debate whether it is the cause of power hierarchy, culture, human psychology, child hood experience, marxism, austrian theories, resource scarcity, pre-existing poverty- these things are all open for debate. What I am concerned about the anarcho-capitilism crowd, is your overly-abounding trust of high, complex, large corporate institutions, as though if you develop yourself, your private property, and walk into this framework, you are somehow going to be a fully voluntary peaceful person. The outright behavior of many of these institutions is to cause "structural violence". Once again, I am not saying this is BECAUSE of free trade as a basic fundamental principle. This could be because... they are huge state backed institutions controlled by an international class of plutocrats, who are sociopaths, who put their little Eichmann in regulatory positions to wash the other hand, and funnel money into elections, the hands of lobbyist, and buy their policy, diplomacy, legislation, and regulations. You must also realize the secondary psychopath is the most abundant yes man, the American version of the SS, the proto-typical upper middle class technocrat. I have met some of these. Even a private consultant, and there are countless, in a high position, is effectively captured and complicit to the industry they work in, these people cannot be successful in their positions without corrupting into technocratic yes men. In the upper strata of financial institutions, energy, regulations, pharmaceuticals, chemical manufacturing, agri-business, medical research, higher education, law firms, there are agendas set forth. This is highly apparent in Atlas Shrugged. You might even be damn well surprised to find that Atlas Shrugged defends the notions of things like alternative health or sustainable agriculture or sustainable finance, things that are highly corrupted by autocracy and government. It is these little-Eichmann who allowed the first two world wars to happen, and they are largely responsible for the corruption of capitalism and American society today also. They are without a doubt a huge reason for "structural violence". They are potentially what would destroy the concept of a Zeitgeist. And I see that they could also destroy the concept of a DRO system. These are fundamentally psychological arguments. Which is not fun, considering, the resource scarcity and environmental degradation are still a driving force of macro-economic statist intervention, which creates the ignorant masses and sociopathic autocracies repeatedly without fail. For the anarchist perspective, I have to argue that if the average common man does not become pro-active towards solving the technological and social problems that resource scarcity provides, then we are doomed to being ruled by technocrats. Zeitgeist is a tool, that could go either way, depending on how the cultural dictates and sets the imperative of my generation to develop their intellectual skills and do things, as opposed to playing GTA V all day and watching porn all night, while the baby boomers bitch and run the world off the side of a cliff.

Here is an insight into structural violence. http://prn.fm/2013/09/progressive-commentary-hour-093013/ More on this later. I want to point out how I agree with part of PJ argument and disagree with other parts.