Raise your hand if youre one of the assholes who writes off anything America will ever do because it was built on defeated Indians.
I hate you.

People get conquered. There is not a nation on Earth ruled by the indigenous peoples. Hi, Its called reality.

I don't feel guilty for the Holocaust as a German, because I wasn't involved in it. I do think however that the SS men and women of the time should feel remorse. After all, they're responsible for one of the world's greatest genocides.

Haha. You just admitted that your master race has gotten its ass kicked.

------------------
"God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

What?

bum

fluff

hmmm

so the fetid jungle has your voliton and you feel a warding sense to desist from a bastion


humanity has been dominated by hierarchies for so long that we might asume hierarchy is inherent in human societies, perhaps part of human nature........it self?

k ill put my fist up in a

...fetish for tapping into the trenchant

say hello to mr hat, FUM BOOOOOY

(r)assume

this post isnt for u

go write mien kampthhes crap

others... this is

ten thousand years ,though it seems like a long time, is l;ess then one persent of homo sapiens has been living in societies.by evolutionary standards, civilization?? has been but a blink of an eye.

for essentially all of our history as a species, we have lived in small HUNTER GATHERER societies.

if we want to understand any thing about human nature,and about stable societal structure we learn more by looking at hunter gatherer societies than we do by investergating our behaviour during our recent CONFINMENT IN HIERACHICAL CAGES.

we have an immense amount of infomation about hunter gatherer societies,

and some of the most usefull

is about the NATIVE american societies,

because??

they were studied extensively and documented while they were functioning intact? on a large scale.

(THE AZTEC AND INVA empires are of no interest to us here,nor are any other societies based on agriculture(cool shit)

what were interested in are the EXAMPLES that match 99 per cent of our hunter gatherer HISTORY?. our interest is not in hunter gatherer ECONOMIES!!!!-there are far too many of us today to return to that

RATHER we are interested in how these societies FUNCTIONED politically, particularly THOSE THAT WERE ORGANISED IN A DECENTRALISED WAY.

look at the striking degree of diversity amoung these pre-agriculture societies!!!!,even amoungst ones that interacted with one another regularly.

there were warrior tribes,peacful, nomatic tribes, and even settled communities, when fish were plentiful enough. a considerable number of these tribes has EGALITARIAN AND NON HIERACHICAL STRUCTURES of non trivial complexity, the ones i have loked at and you should as well are the oglala sioux american indian tribe.

there were elders, and there wee cheifs,but they had no authority or command,they were looked too for guidence,but were only folowed when their suggestions met with general approval.when a trial decision was to be made, it was made by CONSENSUS?, and the chief didnt have more weight than others, unless throiugh persuasion of WISDOM.

okay perhaps more interesting-since we must deal with today with the scale of poulations,is the manner in which siox nation of tribes reached decisions for collective action. the INVASION OF THE FREAKEN EURO colonist forced the sioux to make frequent use of this collective mechanism, but it was already in place-the result of millennia of societal evolution.

a tribal council would be called by one of the tribes. each tribe would then hold its own consensus session to decide its position regarding the issue at hand. A CONTINGENT from each tribe. led by the cheif,would then go to the tribal council-where another consensu session would be held.

a cheif had no authority to agree with any thing contrary to what had been established locally.

if he exceeded his authority, his tribe would simply not back him up. on the other hand if the tribe had agreed to purse some venture,then the chief knew he could promise the tribes cooperation and that they would follow through.

TRUST WORTHINESS IS(WAS) a cardinal virtue in most native american societies, a mutual trust is what permitted their DECENTRALISED systems? to function reliably.

IN THIS WAY COLLETIVE ACTION COULD BE TAKEN be planned and coordinated, with out their being any centralised authority, what was delergated to the chief WAS NOT DECISION MAKEIONG POWER,but rather the authorisation TO SAY ON OUR BEHALF THAT WHICH WE HAVE AGREED.this is an all important distinction, it makes the difference between hierachey and local controll.

between centralised and decentralised power-between tyranny and self rule.

the sioux were not an isolated example, by the way, the pattern was a common one, and the interaction between unrelated tribes also exchibited the success of various kinds of consenual relationships.

the iroquois nation was studied bt the american"FOUNDING FATHERS" and SOME historians believe this influenced the design of the us constitution.

these kinds of non hierachical,non federated tribal nations persisted stably FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME LOST.(forget the past people and senses of what they related they saw-the serpent for now though)

they were able to function collectively as nations with considerable effectiveness and coherence when the need arose, wioth out the need for hierachical government of any kind, RATHER THAN BEING CONTRY TO HUMAN NATURE.

I SUBMITT, that self rule may be at the very heart of human nature,and that it appears prominatly on every page of HUMAN HISTORY LOST.,except for that most recent page which began only an evolutionary instant ago, and which is called 'civilisation haha'(AND WHICH MAY BE FUCKEN CALLED(BETTER) DOMESTICATION OF THE SPECIES.

once stored surpluses came into existance,with agriculture and herding, then it became possible to maintain professional soldiers, and so the tools of conquest and emopire building became availible.

it required only one society to pursue this path,,AND THEN ALL THE REST WERE DOOMED-sooner or LATER.....-to either emulate or be dominated by their more aggressive neighbours. once the infection of the hierachical domination begins, the dynamics of its spread are all too apparent and INEVITABLE....

BUT... people have forgotten how to coperate,(sch bch hahaha) despite every attemp of our culture(what is american culture??not answer that yet) to inculcate competitiveness and selfish ness,both in education and in the societal reward system. therre are all sorts of organisations and associations that are entirely voluntary(mine included) and for a mutial benifit.

some ae hierachical, and others are NOT...

the recent 10 000 years conditioning has not unlearned the lessons....ingrained by millions of years of evolution, we may have forgotten the social structures we invented formally, because!!! those can only pass on culturally, but our ability to function in freedom within decentralised structures remains in tact.

any way the rest of this in in my thread in politics global manifesto for transformation

lastly defiant,

.....

nothing

just wanten to build his expectaions up

im done with exile, no more of a challange,

thats giving him the benifit of the doubt

nighty night

I think that's about all you can really expect from us Defiant, rant after rant, like my good friend nihil here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Defiant Exile:
Raise your hand if youre one of the assholes who writes off anything America will ever do because it was built on defeated Indians.
I hate you.
People get conquered. There is not a nation on Earth ruled by the indigenous peoples. Hi, Its called reality.

---

That and slavery. I have never killed or exploited a native american, nor have I ever owned a slave. So why exactly do I owe anyone a debt?


------------------
Common Sense Is What Tells You The Earth Is Flat

quote:

---

Originally posted by Defiant Exile:
What?

---

I think he meant the supposedly "master race" would not rule it's land.

I meant that since Defiant had said that no land on earth is ruled by its indigenous peoples, that that must mean that his nordic superior white race or whatever he prefers to call it has been conquered as well.

Assuming Defiant is right of course.

------------------
"God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

Obviously their power has changed hands. In almost all cases though, it is Nordic people who steal power from indigenous people (MesoAmerica, North America, India, China, Ancient Europe, Mid-East, etc etc)

the native american societies were quite beligerent though on a small scale. wars were pretty constant although low in intensity. low intensity conflict such as theirs is incompatible with the weapons and industrial technology of today. the answer in my opinion is not the decentralization of power into anarco syndicalism but rather the return of the federal government into its traditional constitutional boundries.

ill get you my smithee tee heee heheeee

thank you spock.

your welcome.


smtheee 2008!!!!

The fake libertarians are absurd. They take anarchist arguements that government is coercion and they use them. The problem is they are for government so when they use this argument it can be used against them.

If you do what the "Libertarian" party advocates history will repeat itself. We will end right back where we are now, because they advocate doing exactly what the founding fathers did. This politicial movement like many others is nonsensical.

Let us suppose they achieved their goals. Slowly people would use this minimial government they created to arbitrate more and more of our lives, just like this libertarian party argues is happening now. This party has no solution to this issue. This party is just a dogma based on worshipping the founding fathers of the States. "We hold these truths to be self evident," is all the proof needed in the Constitution itself to affirm it is a dogma.

[This message has been edited by Peter_Kropotkin (edited 11-20-2001).]

Nihil, I thought you abominated political parties and believed in individuality.

None of you are raising your hands cause youre starting to realize how stupid that is, huh? Cause only two days ago most were posting nonsensical rants about how Whitey victimized Tanto and how America is his.

This is my first post, so I understand if it does not carry much weight with you guys. I happen to think that, no, we should not feel guilty about conquering the Indians. However, we should abide by the treaties we made with them. The only reason the Native Americans have the land they do is because they signed written agreements with the U.S. government. I will say also that Christopher Columbus Day is extremely weak. We are celebrating a man who thought that Indians were no better than dogs and should be kept as slaves or killed.

Somebody brought up Nazi's. Do we expect germans to feel guilty about the holocaust? No, I suppose not, but it is something that has to always be remebered. The Inquisition, the slaughter of the Native Americans, the Holocaust, and countless other atrocities carried out by the state. As soon as we say it does not matter and that you hate someone strictly based on their feelings about Native Americans, that is when you have closed your mind and become another drone. If you can not think for yourself please do not communicate with those that can.

I would think that the ability to decide to hate is a sign of thinking and independence.

Are you kidding? Being able to decide whom to hate has nothing to do with independence. You are just listening to some rhetoric from somewhere. It may be from some Nazis or some hate literature. I do not really know, but I do know that hating someone based on their view on a single particular topic shows narrowness as to what human experience is. I hope someday you will stop just hating anyone that does not agree completely with you. Are you a fascist? The only reason I ask is because you sure sound like one, or at least a republican, at any rate.

It's a possibility. Though I've noticed that hate and anger and similar emotions tend to run higher when a mob is involved.

And since very little independence and little thinking exists in your average angry mob...

In an individual though it could be a sign of such things, depending on the individual and the situation they're in of course.

It could also be a sign of fear, or, once again, as in many situations, it could come from a certain need to belong to one group or another.

For example, I'm considered a "punk". That means that for some illogical reason I'm supposed to hate all jocks and all ravers or "guidos" and whoever else just because. Not that I do, of course. But most of my friends don't seem to mind fitting that mold.

------------------
"God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

[This message has been edited by jack's missing mind (edited 11-21-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter_Kropotkin:
The fake libertarians are absurd. They take anarchist arguements that government is coercion and they use them. The problem is they are for government so when they use this argument it can be used against them.

If you do what the "Libertarian" party advocates history will repeat itself. We will end right back where we are now, because they advocate doing exactly what the founding fathers did. This politicial movement like many others is nonsensical.

Let us suppose they achieved their goals. Slowly people would use this minimial government they created to arbitrate more and more of our lives, just like this libertarian party argues is happening now. This party has no solution to this issue. This party is just a dogma based on worshipping the founding fathers of the States. "We hold these truths to be self evident," is all the proof needed in the Constitution itself to affirm it is a dogma.

[This message has been edited by Peter_Kropotkin (edited 11-20-2001).]

---

Government is a necessary evil. It acts through coersion therefore it should act as little as possible. Idealy government should exist to prevent greater coersion than itself, and to provide such basic services as transportation infrastructure, emergency responce, and military protection.

though basicly your arguement is that we should not climb the hill because eventualy we will slide back down. Man like nature does not abide such nihilism. by your arguement life should not have sprung forth because one day the earth will be devoid of life, That the universe should not have come into being in all its glory for one day it shall fizzle into a vast black void of little more than scattered subatomic particles, that we should not bother to live our lives well for we shall die. On the same token should we allow the death of freedom because we must continually fan its flames.

A list of a priori assumptions Smithee made:

1. "Government is a necessary evil. "
2. "Man like nature does not abide such nihilism."

Counterpoints
----------------------
1.Since when was it ever proven that government is necessary? It never was.

2. So it is human nature to not be anarchist? Well since you said it is human nature it must be true! That is the same crap Defiant Exile tries to pull.

You should not talk of freedom. You want a codified morality which dictates what we can and cannot do. A codified morality that will represent nothing but the interest of the government and the rich.

Those are very melioristic arguments Peter, based on the false assumption humanity is rational. However, since the opposite applies, and society, a product of the human race, is also operates illogically to a certain extent, we need the helping hand of an institution to guide us.

The institution will be a helping hand only to itself and the people who help keep it in power and a detriment to all others.

seriously peter how old are you?

have your parents sheltered you that much throughout your life, that you've never experienced the horror of man uninhibited?

your utopian idea of existance is a completely unrealistic idea at this point in time.

"1.Since when was it ever proven that government is necessary? It never was."

you really are naive.

the first thing man did when organizing socially was to instill a government?

you're a fool.

religion was the first form of government, and it came to provide a basis for people live together in close quarters without killing someone for his home or his wife.

like i said in my other post to you,

you should center on realism instead of idealism and you will find the utopia in your arguement is completely unrealistic at this point in time.

At this point in time...

------------------
"God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

government is necessary for the prevention of nonconsentual action. If there were no police no armies, people would organize themselves into gangs and other tribal groupings for protection and to rob others. in this way government is the inevitable result of a social animal. democracy is merly the way in which government is least detrimental to the rights and freedoms of people. Roads and emergency responce are also neccessary for internal stability of a sovereign state hence they are included in the responsibility and province of a state.

Government is the biggest perpetrator of non-consentual action. I do not see how they will help stop it, I do see how they will help to start it.

Let us suppose there were gangs. If a government forces you to do something, it is hard to resist. They employ millions in America as policemen and over half a million other men with guns in the military. You will find it much easier to stand up to a gang, then you will the government.

Also it has never entered the body of scientific knowledge that government is necessary, lostmind's emotional flame does not prove it, nor does Smithee's "Libertarian" dogma. I am not foolish enough to try to repeatedly entreaty through dogma, so after this if you still argue that government is necessary I will just ignore it.

[This message has been edited by Peter_Kropotkin (edited 11-22-2001).]

you will just ignore it,

because you cannot argue it.

do you lock your doors?

why?

i'll tell you what peter.

you lay down your groundwork for a governmentless society.

and i'll give you examples of how just one jackass can fuck it up.

the government now is a great perpetrator of nonconsentual action, you operate under the impression that it cannot be changed.

Mind if I take a stab at that one?

Ok. Peter, I'm going to assume your an anarchist. Your probably a different kind than I am, but your an anarchist nonetheless.

Ok. I'll grant you that government or at least some form of societal organization is necessary. That is a fact. We need a government of sorts, if not even in the traditional sense, to organize trade, and the distribution of goods. However, the power base for government does not have to be the elite. It does not have to be controlled by the few. That's the key here. Who's in power.

My groundwork for a "governmentless" society would be as follows. People would organize into communitys or communes or whatever else for protection and to help maintain their way of life. These groups would, within themselves, organize police forces. Set up their own rules and laws that would apply to their group. These communities would be run by the group. The whole of the population. That's the individual community though. These communities would, out of necessity, begin to form alliances with each other. Defense alliances. Trade alliances.

For example. A community that controls a large amount of farm land would be wise to ally themselves with a community that controls a factory complex, and one that controls a military base. Perhaps one that controls a hospital or a school as well. The factory would produce industrial goods for the farm and base. The farms would obviously produce food and most likely hemp, which is useful in making fuel, clothing, and paper. The base would, with the weaponry contained within, protect the other groups.

That's just a very simple example of an anarcho-syndicalist type society.

------------------
"God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

The only purpose of the state should be to protect it's people.

*looks at video of the World Trade Center falling*

The State really isn't doing it's job. Our government seems to be concentrating much more on unprecidented efforts to internationally police the rest of the world and impose it's culture on other countries under the guise of "fighting terrorism" then it is defending it's people and it's national welfare. We'll bomb Afganistan without second thought with complete disregard for human life, but won't reluate American Airlines and force it to take SOME precaution, which it obviously doesn't in the name of profit. Money first, safety second - it's the American way.

I guess I can't call myself an anarchist, since some form of government is required to keep the peace. I just belief that the current one isn't working. It allowed 2,000 civilians to die which was a reprocution from capitalism already, and decided to combat it with more death. Replacing the system with a better one is a goal in the struggle to be human. Decimating the government would simply be foolish. If you call yourself an anarchist, I'll fully expect you to refuse aid from the fire department when your house is on fire, and refuse to call the police when your house is being robbed.

------------------
Brought to you by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
If you call yourself an anarchist, I'll fully expect you to refuse aid from the fire department when your house is on fire, and refuse to call the police when your house is being robbed.

---

When they stop taking over 50 percent of my income maybe I can have money to save for emergencies, until then it is something I, like most people can not afford.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Smithee:
the government now is a great perpetrator of nonconsentual action, you operate under the impression that it cannot be changed.

---

If it did not force people to do things, then we would not call it a government.

and again

do you lock your doors?

and again,

you lay down your groundwork and i'll show how just ONE jackass can fuck it up.