Mishelle

Thanks for reading and any comments or critiques! http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/homesteading/2014/03/19/voluntaryism-is-peace/

Stef talks about this in his book Practical Anarchy, starting around page 150. As soon as I get a chance I'm going to address your above thoughts in detail, In the Gray, because it sounds like just the kind of basic practice I need!

Chomsky says in the documentary "Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century" that Mikhail Bakunin made one of the few predictions in the social sciences that ever came true and that's why no one studies him--is that true philosophers, have you studied him?! His prediction was around the state/corporation relationship and its future as a totalitarian system (the Red Bureaucracy) " which will be the most vile brutal regime the world's ever seen" implemented by the technical intelligentsia serving private or state elite powers. Great film, btw, if anyone's interested.

I don't fully understand the man-cave or the female equivalent. I wonder sometimes if my "woman-cave" is crying! I'm trying to make the parallel when my hubby goes to his man-cave, which is chopping wood, hehe, very manly-manish. We laugh about it afterward, he knows he goes there to " feel manly" again, sometimes triggered by being disappointed with himself for disappointing me, but other times just from frustration from something going wrong in his projects. I feel it is sometimes shame-triggered and I also think he represses his anger and frustration and takes it out there. It works, so it's hard to complain about it or want to change it! But sometimes I wish he could direct his anger at me, if that's what he were feeling, and yell and cry and get it off his chest, because then I'd be included in the process. Instead his more intense emotional world remains a mystery to me. I think it helps him to solve things by himself, I think he would feel weak to do so otherwise. Anyway, I don't know if that offers anything to the conversation. I did have a boyfriend once who I wished would get himself a man-cave and not constantly hound me with his ever-changing emotions. That was an exhausting relationship that ended VERY badly!!

I'm glad that's your experience xelent, it's crucial to have time to learn about oneself. but of course, the woman experiences it as a 3-prong torture chamber: damned for putting you there, damned for asking you to come out, damned for not being there once you finally do

Holy crap, Lians, do you have your own show yet?! There's a lot here to respond to, but just while I'm shoveling down my lunch before heading back to the garden . . . i knew a couple of those terrified guys I would have totally bonded with in those years of my 20s. My Hubby called himself, quite unabashedly, a "simpleton" when we first met. I was very charmed by that honesty and lack of attempt to charm, because he knew very well that was not what "I was looking for" The inner-life is mocked and berated, on boys especially. I begged men from their man-caves, that doesn't work either. I would love some man-tears. I almost married a woman to have this kind of so-called depth. Emotionality does not equal depth. Yes, I want us all to be able to experience our emotional lives more with each other, and that feels deep and connected in the moment. But, women have this in relationship with each other and it is not necessarily a measure of depth, it's just a measure of vulnerability, on the path to true depth and relatedness.

Yes, totally agree on this point of not being mutually exclusive -- we are all deep and we are all shallow. When i was complaining about the sea of shallowness all around me, and set off on all kinds of deep relationship and study, I quickly found myself exhausted and overwhelmed and longing for some shallow!

I was wondering about that part of the show myself, with the 2 different women. I wasn't certain I understood what he was saying and wanted to hear more, with more concrete examples. But, if the gist was that women don't hold themselves or each other accountable--then I say SPOT ON! This is a big reason why I find it more difficult to be friends with women. Also it's true in the shallowness--guys will call themselves shallow, and call each other out on it at times--this is against the "girlfriend code". Lots of things you can't say to women that you can say to men. And the reverse is also true, I guess. With a guy friend I could say "dude, packin' a few on, eh?!" But he would never say that to me. But, to a woman I could say, "I'm so sorry about your break-up, are you ok? Do you need to talk?" Whereas to a guy to ask "are you ok?" will probably get me a half-shrug and "whatever, it's over, what can you do?"

"But, about the "few men appreciate a woman's mind". I disagree ! I think allot of men appreciate a woman's mind; that is my whole point about this. There are Men out there that are serious about there relationships and are not shallow but we have monkey brains that say O look big breast, or big mussels and tall ! Then Men and Women complain that there are no nice people out there. This is my whole point about shallowness." Ivan, I think your point and this discussion is very important and relevant. Let me ask, What percentage of men (not stereotypes or on TV) do you think appreciate a woman's mind, in the general population? And, at what age to you think they start appreciating it? As I mentioned, I was friends with guys in school, not girls so much. That means all through high school and college. I'm not coming to this opinion as someone who only "dated" guys, guys were my buddies, they called me with their girl problems, they hung out with me as the only girl in a group of guys--at bars and so on--so they were very comfortable around me. Even the smartest most successful and good looking of them did not really care if his date was smart. It went in this order: looks, kindness, sense of humor, social skills. What she would be doing for a career, if she was smart, what her life goals were, never entered the picture. Some of these guys married the dumbest most gorgeous blonds you'd see on any city street, and laugh about her dumbness without any trace of bitterness or hostility about this. "Yeah she's so dumb, let me tell you this story . . ." Of course, that said, these guys were/are shallow! I was no gorgeous blond but I did have a stead stream of suitors and I always loved deep conversations about meaningful things--the number of suitors who had any interest in those conversations was about 3 out of 10. And come to think of it now, 2 of those 3 only tolerated these conversations in hopes of continued um, shall we say, access . . . We live in a shallow world--we raise material girls and material boys. It's an unfortunate and annoying truth, I'm afraid.

"In most areas it seems to me that it's difficult to maintain control since as you grow larger the odds are that you will become less efficient since your organization is becoming more complex, which makes you more prone to error and slower to adapt." Very helpful, sounds right to me, thanks cynicist!

I believe both genders have equal capacity for shallowness. In school I used to think girls were more shallow, and because of this most of my relationship were with guys. When I came to terms with the amount of time I was spending in my own shallowness, I realized I preferred guys because their shallowness was more like my own! I liked smokin' n' jokin' n banter n lame arguments about politics and religion, not shopping and family and petty drama. "Since most (straight) young women of passable looks or better have the option to sit back and let various men try to woo them over, they have less of an incentive to develop themselves." Girls DEVELOP their looks--this is something I see very ignored or misunderstood in these conversations, including sometimes a critique of Stef when he talks of beauty and how easy beautiful girls have it. There are some problems with this theory: 1. most girls, even beautiful ones, do not know they are beautiful until they are sexually pursued by boys, when they then compare themselves to magazine photos of airbrushed models. Cindy Crawford and Julia Roberts both called themselves ugly girls. 2. the most beautiful girls get lots of unwanted attention and because of this are more likely to find themselves in positions with boys/men that permanently scar them and makes her want to be invisible and using various means to do so, like gaining lots of weight, or otherwise 'letting herself go' 3. I've known plenty of "beautiful" women who work VERY hard to get and stay that way--this is not just genetics, it's learning to employ all the smoke and mirrors, and it's not as easy as it looks from the outside! All the cosmetics, the staying in shape, eating well, coloring the hair, doing the nails, knowing the styles, ACTING attractive--these aren't just further "gifts" of beauty. Trust me, she works at it. WE ALL WORK AT IT until we give up and admit time has us beat. Then we get plastic surgery, or finally find friends who can see inner-beauty

This is a good point and I agree--hemp is a good example as well. I was thinking of a couple stories when I wrote that--Tesla was one, and the guy with the electric car who was murdered, I forget his name. Not that Tesla was murdered, but he absolutely was repressed by the establishment for reasons of profit motive. If Chomsky were right and we as anarcho-capitalists were unknowingly inviting 'corporate tyranny' that would mean we were accepting that corporations would have armies, right? I understand the point before someone made about there being no real incentive there for doing so. But, assuming an incentive was control, just as it is now, how would the population protect their interests in shared resources? I'm thinking specifically of power and water at the moment because they seem so crucial and so easily controllable by bigger interests because the average person or group does not have the equipment or know-how to get these crucial resources on their own en masse. I believe we now have the technology to change that, but I still don't see it happening any time soon. I realize Stef talks about these issues of envisioning how something will look and the futility of that (the who's gonna pick the cotton and so on) and I totally agree, but still I find it very helpful to try to picture it, to know not only how to argue better, but also to know what to strive for in my own life. So, thanks for any links to podcasts that might be helpful, or your continued thoughts on how it could work, what it might look like, just for the exercise, not like we're Zeitgeisters or anything. hehe

I liked this, I find it to be true as well. I was extremely social up until my early 30s, looking from the outside, it was as you opened the convo, Ivan, like Friends or Seinfeld, we were, from the outside looking in, let's say -- attractive, stylish, travelers, always laughing, some quite rich, always about town, lots of parties, 'the cool crowd' etc. Having been on the inside of these groups, I can tell you there is nothing of substance there. They are 'tribes" based on circumstance and location and propaganda and false intimacy. Everyone is a caricature of himself and the least bit of emotional honesty brings collective wrath. I've had 3 different groups of friends like this, yes certainly I see now a lot of it was me accepting this and attracting this, but I think comparing these groups to sit-coms was more spot on than you realize. Now that I realize how true friendship should look, I have one friend left besides my hubby, and it's hard sometimes, I won't deny that, from one extreme to another. But, once you 'outgrow' people, to spend time with them again is actually harder than being alone, imo. When I feel sadness for my current isolation, I reframe it and tell myself another equally important truth: "Isn't it wonderful this solitude where I can really get to know myself and reach out to only those who really want to know me too. What a great luxury it is to have that level of confidence, courage and resilience." I have every intention and "faith" that I will attract a real tribe in time, my way.

Congratulations and thanks for sharing this moving account, it's very inspiring and touching. I have not been good at this in the past and your story gives me motivation to keep trying.

My guess would be that your lifelong vision for yourself is not clearly defined. Have your written your eulogy yet?! I think it's very natural that we get caught up in the energy of the moment, but it's having the biggest vision for ourselves that helps reign us back in and get back on track. That's been my experience anyway, I get easily obsessed as well. Hope this is helpful for you!

My latest post, inspired by a Statist friend http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/homesteading/2014/03/14/voluntaryism-vs-the-global-domination-agenda/

I like it so much I think it begs to be continued!

This is a great question and harder to do than I expected. I consider myself quite creative, but this is like trying to visualize what aliens look like! I was researching the history of the corporation and see it cannot by definition be separated from the State. The original corporations served the needs of the State, who in turn served the needs of the people, at least on paper. The corporations were gradually able to usurp State power by applying individual's rights to those of the corporation, to create the system we have today where the corporations write their own legislation and are a big part, if not the biggest part, of the shadow government. So first we need another word for corporation, right? Is there one? Because what we now think of as a corporation couldn't at all be possible in a free society. Still, someone has the guns, who? Someone is paid to protect the rights of the individual and the interests of the enterprise. Say it's a power company, global, and the latest technology will put them out of business if they don't adapt it more quickly than their main competitors--they altogether have a huge incentive to disappear those techies, quietly, just like happens today. It's so easy! I don't see how that changes before a fundamental shift in human consciousness--where suddenly power has no ability to corrupt and is no longer like heroine to those who covet it. Until then I have a very hard time seeing how right will ever trump might. It's a lack of imagination I think. Should try this exercise after a puff and cocktail might get much better results!

Do y'all think global government will bring us closer to anarchy in future, or will it be a big step back considering the further centralization of power? I get the impression Chomsky is an elitist even as he constantly speaks "for the people" -- same thing with PJ. It's seems like a self-knowledge contradiction. It's like "I believe in democracy and the power of the people" People over Profit! and in the next breath--"OK, get your notebooks, here's how we're all going to live as one in peace and harmony. . ." "And furthermore, I want freedom from the 'systemic violence' so I can better assert my intellectual superiority!"

Still reading the posts and listening to some Stef-casts on the topic of corporations in particular. This struck me from cynicist, thank you: "' watched around 10 videos so far and I haven't seen any arguments against Anarcho-capitalism, just the corrupt relationship between corporations and the state. He rails against tariffs and treaties like NAFTA, but blames capitalist interference in government for the problems. He is a skilled linguist but I get bored listening to him because he makes lots of assertions and uses vague language to do so (like "private power" or "top down system of power"). If anyone can find any actual arguments from him at this point I would be impressed." I'm glad I'm not the only one to wonder about the actual arguments, because that's why I said "shaming and finger-wagging" before and thought maybe that's just my impression because, ya know, old age and all can make people that way and sometimes that's all I can see, while some good point might be missed since I'm reacting to the 'tude -- hehe He does say rather often "it's not worth even discussing" -- like he's the grand PooBa of all things worthy of thought! Still reading and appreciating all the comments, back soon.

Very helpful, thank you! I'd love to hear more on this, because I've heard this argument before from others. As an example they use East India Company, saying it actually BECAME the government once they'd gotten the mercenaries and weapons they needed. I realize they got these thanks to the government initially, but then "went rogue" or so the history books want us to believe. Still, with weapons all over the place that can be used remotely even, is war really that expensive anymore? Working my way through the rest of the posts, but here's what I'm wondering for now. Thanks for any more insights!

My latest post--seems I'm still set on trying to convert my collectivist readers, hehe, how can I help it when my blog is on the Peace Corps site! alas, love it still, and welcome any comments or critique from y'all! http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/homesteading/2014/03/07/self-reliance-for-community/

Anyone interested in a serious discussion about the Chomsky videos and his scathing views of anarcho-capitalists? What they're advocating though they don't know it is pure corporate tyranny, he says, along with a lot of other shaming and finger-wagging, as well as some points that deserve to be addressed. http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001627.txt https://www.youtube.com/user/TheChomskyVideos?feature=watch I'd be very interested in learning how to logically, with a calm passion instead of snarky irritation, address his points. Can anyone help me out with this?

My latest post--America, Land of the Not-so-Free http://peacecorpsworldwide.org/homesteading/2014/02/26/self-reliance-for-freedom/ thanks for reading and any feedback!