Sunday, September 11, 2016

A Splendid Essay on Anarchy

And nonviolent too.
Thus, were we to create a new government taking these ideas with us, we will simply make the same mistakes again. Why? Because one needs people that have abandoned the need to have a government that runs things and puts forth ideology and so forth. That is, once one has an ideology that needs a revolution, one has already lost that revolution. Because that ideology will become a government which then becomes a State and the State will then engage in the usual hypocrisies they all do. It is tempting to say if we only had thus-and-so take place, or this change of government, or this economic system, everything will become perfect. However, if one carefully investigates history, one can see it is littered with such utopian experiments that failed. We are living in one called the United States of America.
A good summary
Hopeless? Not so. He who frees his own mind first cannot be imprisoned by any government. They can slander him, criticize him, call him a “bad American”, or even un-American and he simply does not care. Why? Because he is no longer attached to any of those concepts. He has no ego-self invested in the State which defines itself as “American” and needs no approval from the State to feel whole or complete. The State has nothing to offer him and, therefore, nothing by which he can be ultimately controlled. If this were not so, the government would not invest vast sums in propaganda and state-sponsored peer pressure efforts to keep the illusion up and running. The State does not fear a revolution. They have enough tanks and men to put one down and enough propaganda to cause the majority to cheer the revolutionaries stood against a wall and shot. What the State fears is being ignored. That is one thing tanks cannot defeat.
But this I part company
Of course, one cannot ignore the State when they tax you. Yes, this is so. But what if you were to define value to what is not the government’s currency? Yes, create an Underground Economy with its own barter system or precious metal buy-and-sell method. This is a topic for another day. But the way to stop the government is to first excise it from your own mind. That must come first.
We need to feed the beast only because you cannor complain about the beast of you do not feed it. Religion tells us the degree to which the beast harms us is edifying.  Living abundantly and paying nearly no taxes is legal in USA, so it's not really an issue.

The advice is to escape the idea of being "American." OK, but would it not be even better, more leverage to escape the idea of "landowner?"

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Invincible Ignorance

There is a sort of flip-side to conscientious objection, and that would be invincible ignorance.  This is the person who well knows "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but will kill if killing needs be.  You can spot them, for they have killed and it bothers them not in the least.  Usually they are ex-soldiers, definitely few in number, who have killed and would not know from PTS.

Just as there is no virtue in being a conscientious objector, there is no condemnation for those who are invincibly ignorant and kill.  "You know killing is wrong, correct?"  "Sure."  "Then how come you killed that man?"  "He needed killing."

The kills are always within the bounds of law, either as soldiers or civilians in a mortal situation...  coming upon a robbery, and enemy in the field, etc.

Now we live in a world in which there is much conflict and crime.  We have experimented in the last 120 years of so with attempting to limit violence to state actors, the cops.  It has not worked out very well.  And when it works as designed, then malefactors end up in jail.  Later they are released back into society, often to offend again.  These people need killing.

Now that may sound harsh from a conscientious objector, and a bit hypocritical since I won't do the killing.  But I didn't create the conscientious objector and the invincibly ignorant.  They just are.  What we have with the invincibly ignorant, if left alone, what violence is necessary and sufficient to keep society relatively safe.  That's right, I have no objection to the invincibly ignorant killing.

Well, who decides when a killing is ok?  Now it is a jury or 12, following arbitrary rules.  Better a jury of 3000 or so, all of the people affected by a killing.  To what degree will they have truck with the killer?  Will the killer find he has no friends anymore, and can't find a store that will sell him food for the killing?  Or does everyone buy him drinks for eliminating a bad actor?

What about vendettas?  It's a problem.  That is why Moses established the sanctuary cities.  If there is a killing, and someone wants revenge, the killer makes it to a sanctuary city. There is a trial at the gates, freedom within until it blows over.  The city protects the killer, it is a kind of exile.  Or of course the killer may disappear, a kind of exile.

What about a tough problem.  Under Mosaic law you needed two witnesses, no trials at night, and no executions until the next day, and the two witnesses must cast the first stones if the penalty is death.   Right there is a whole lotta cooling off time before a killing.

And with an eye for an eye, a whole lotta settlements before an execution or the loss of an eye.  it is actually a brilliant legal system.

But what about the child molester?  Often no witnesses, except what a kid says.  Kids are notorious liars, but what if they tell the truth?  Who tries the case, no two witnesses, and is the kid going to cast the first stone if execution is indicated?  Tough one.

Welcome back the invincibly ignorant, who does the killing on behalf of a kids he believes.  Back to what the community thinks about the killing, a pitch perfect sentence.

We have alternatives, and our sysem is not very good, so we ought to review these systems.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Air Force Times Ad Calls For Conscientious Objection

This was no where reported:
KnowDrones, a campaigning group working to ban drones, placed an advert in the Air Force Times on September 14, 2015, which carried a message from 54 U.S. military veterans urging U.S. drone operators to refuse orders to fly drone surveillance and attack missions.
I'd think churches should take out such ads, or at least remind these "fighter pilots" they can recover their souls by repentance.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Why Aikido Beats MMA

OK, that headline is click bait, but it applies.

The striking and grappling arts have contests to decide a winner.

They have weight classes within which one can fight.

They have elimination rounds to limit who can fight whom.

They have rules which must be followed.

So they are strictly limited in what they are allowed to do.

All this admits the fact when it comes to grappling and striking arts, hitting and blocking and grappling is very limited as far as defense goes. It is unlikely to be very useful in most street situations. Imagine going blow to blow with someone who outclasses you in weight, skill, speed, etc.  Ouch!  In a real fight, it is likely the one who picked it outclasses you.  The result of having such skill is a good beating.

Aikido has no restrictions.  Aikido depends on the other person's energy, so weight and class does not matter.  Yes aikido usually looks bad, for too many practitioners are pseudo-mystics, and do not pursue it as a martial art.  Further, training for the sweet spot effortless throw is much tougher than the better grab, hit or twist.  And training in aikido is, or should be, tougher than what I see in any given MMA or jiu jitsu dojo.  (Although I will say no one beats a boxers' training.)  If its not tougher, how come?

There are no weight class and skill level divisions in aikido.  You take on all sorts. There are basic moves, but after that it is improvisation. You have no idea what an aikido-ka will do next. (Well, usually tenkan or irimi first, but after that, all bets are off.)  Aikido-ka have spent their time training with all sizes and shapes.  What they meet on the street is nothing new.

Aikido gets down to hard falls.  The aikido-ka must learn those and at least a third of the throws in any given training session must require it.  So aikido is more precise.  That is hard for both sides.

On the street, aikido leads to hard falls.  As far as I know, judo is the only other martial art that teaches hard falls.  Hard falls usually end fights.  If not, the second one will.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.