Rebel vs. Anarchist.
Kevin B. Murphy
and wants to participate in an armed rebellion against the government... Is
the government condescending to rebels? Yes, yes it is... The government
condescends to rebels by allowing them to keep and bear arms... The
government condescends to rebels... you condescend to rebels... and I
condescend to rebels. Now that we have that part straight, what is an
anarchist? An anarchist is a person who does not have the right to keep and
bear arms and does *NOT* want to be condescended to... An anarchist is
*RATIONAL*. It is all about being *RATIONAL*. If you step out on a limb
and openly tell people that you are an anarchist, then it is a way of saying
that what is rational... is what is really important to you. The brady law
basically sends a message that while the government condescends to rebels,
the government intends to take anarchists seriously... Well, government, if
you're going to take anarchists seriously, then don't condescend to us...
It's a rule, DUH!!! Yeah, you know, I don't know honestly if being rational
is all that important to me... It's like... I have at least one anarchist in
my family and I love my family so... (shrug)... It's like... being rational
is only *really* important to the super IQ crowd... It means everything to
them... You feel me, dawg.
--
Denial of Free Will makes the Knowledge of Order Absolute.
John Stafford
"Kevin B. Murphy" <kmurp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> What is a rebel? A rebel is a person who has the right to keep and bear arms
> and wants to participate in an armed rebellion against the government.
IOW, a rebel is a loser. I am done laughing out loud at nuts who think
they can take over the government with their guns. Lemmie give a clue
from where I live - even our librarians have guns, professors, regular
people of intelligence in the trades. If some gun-nutcase starts
rattling his weapon to endanger us so recklessly we are going to shoot
him dead.
> .. Is
> the government condescending to rebels? Yes, yes it is... The government
> condescends to rebels by allowing them to keep and bear arms... The
> government condescends to rebels... you condescend to rebels... and I
> condescend to rebels.
Pacifying them is not the same as condescending. Let 'em suck on their
guns.
> Now that we have that part straight, what is an
> anarchist? An anarchist is a person who does not have the right to keep and
> bear arms
In the USA that would be the insane, felons and persons discharged by
the military under less than desirable conditions.
> and does *NOT* want to be condescended to... An anarchist is
> *RATIONAL*. It is all about being *RATIONAL*. If you step out on a limb
> and openly tell people that you are an anarchist, then it is a way of saying
> that what is rational... is what is really important to you.
That makes no sense at all.
> The brady law
> basically sends a message that while the government condescends to rebels,
> the government intends to take anarchists seriously...
Huh? The gov takes all ten of 'em seriously?
> Well, government, if
> you're going to take anarchists seriously, then don't condescend to us...
> It's a rule, DUH!!! Yeah, you know, I don't know honestly if being rational
> is all that important to me... It's like... I have at least one anarchist in
> my family and I love my family so... (shrug)... It's like... being rational
> is only *really* important to the super IQ crowd... It means everything to
> them... You feel me, dawg.
Oh, I get it. You are working on a drunk act.
Immortalist
> In article <ne6dnaq5LYwZy5DWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdn...@giganews.com>,
> "Kevin B. Murphy" <kmurphy...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > What is a rebel? A rebel is a person who has the right to keep and bear arms
> > and wants to participate in an armed rebellion against the government.
>
> IOW, a rebel is a loser. I am done laughing out loud at nuts who think
> they can take over the government with their guns. Lemmie give a clue
> from where I live - even our librarians have guns, professors, regular
> people of intelligence in the trades. If some gun-nutcase starts
> rattling his weapon to endanger us so recklessly we are going to shoot
> him dead.
>
So-called rebellion not only perpetuates the market economy, it's the
economy's biggest driving factor. ...you can't "sell out" or be "co-
opted," because you're already participating in the market, where
rebellion is just another word for relentless innovation, fashion and
cool. ...consumerism [is] motivated by competitiveness rather than
conformity...
...our lifestyles and spending habits reverberate throughout every
facet of our lives. The lesson is, if one wants to participate in the
consumer culture, continue with the current lifestyle, but if one
desires to be a genuine rebel, move to the forest and become a hunter-
gatherer like our ancestors (and Ted Kaczynski).
Nation of Rebels:
Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture
by Joseph Heath, Andrew Potter
http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Rebels-Counterculture-Consumer-Culture/dp/006074586X/
Remember Macrobiotics? The Frug? The Animals? Baba Ram Dass,
Millionaire Michael Brodie, and Wavy Gravy? What about smoked bananas,
can-you-dig-it, and fa-a-ar out? Do DMT, STP, and LBJ ring a bell?
Okay, then, how about lovebeads, RYM-II, the Diggers, and the League
for Spiritual Discovery?
The real question, then: has the counterculture seen the light at the
end of the social tunnel? Consider some of the evidence:
American campuses, according to Esquire, are quiet; the Weathermen
have abandoned the scene; rock-and-roll has entered a phase of such
overt decadence that it may never recover; many of those who so
hopefully went back-to-the-land have since returned to the city
streets; brown rice sales have plummeted; cheap booze is back; the
Haight is long dead, and so is the Lower East Side; Bill Graham has
sold his theaters; underground papers are in trouble everywhere; Abbie
and Jerry are embarrassments; the West Coast has accepted Jesus.
Have the fruits of the counterculture rotted upon the vine even while
America was a-greening? Have both Marx and Jesus prevailed over the
Big Beat after all? Did the counterculture do its own thing and,
having done so, had done with it? Stay tuned.
The answers to these questions is, and must be, an unequivocal "Nah."
To answer otherwise would leave us in the role of Mr. Dylan’s Mr.
Jones who knows that something’s happening, but doesn’t know what it
is. That something is happening, or continues to happen, is obvious.
The directions of American culture are more self-consciously opposed
from within than they have ever been.
To assert that the counterculture is dying is to confuse change with
death and culture with its artifacts. If the counterculture has failed
to fulfill the prophecies of Reich, Revel, and Rubin, then it is their
vision which is debunked and not the culture itself. We do not blame
nature for its complex organization, but Thales for asserting a
simplicity that wasn’t to be found. To say that the counterculture is
sick because the Haight-Ashberry is dead would be as foolish as to
conclude that the end of slavery signalled the demise of the United
States....
A Word From Our Sponsor
Jim Hougan
November 20, 1972 London
http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF001972/Hougan/Hougan09/Hougan09.html
ZerkonXXXX
> if one desires to be a genuine rebel
A 'genuine rebel' isn't looking for a instruction manual nor wanting to
fill a desire to rebel or to be genuine.
> Remember
Police, government and corporate offices being bombed?
The massive illegal drug culture?
Riots and national guard jeeps in the streets?
Underground press? FM radio?
Building occupations? Kent State? Columbia?
It seems if there was not a real rebellion the federal government
particularly the FBI did not get the memo.
Kevin B. Murphy
On 25-Nov-2009, John Stafford <nh...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> In the USA that would be the insane, felons and persons discharged by
> the military under less than desirable conditions.
Look, John, I'm not scared of guns... I don't know about you... To me, they
are an expensive luxury item and I have better things to spend my money
on... What I don't particularly care for is this attitude where I'm expected
to believe that if I don't exercise my rights, then they will be taken away
from me... and sure enough, I've never exercised my rights to possess a
firearm and the right to possess a firearm has been taken away from me... I
want my rights returned to me even though I don't have any interest in the
purchase of a gun. Whose side are you on? Are you a Smith? It is not my
problem that I don't make sense to you. You seem to trust the government to
determine who should own a gun... I say, the government is constitutionally
bound to allow everyone to own a gun, otherwise, the government is not
trustworthy. If I wanted to interject some common sense into this thing...
The Brady Law is an embarrassment to the people who practice law. The
legislative branch is putting political pressure on the judicial branch to
make something that isn't constitutional, constitutional... Is that the way
government is supposed to work? Is that what you call checks and balances?
Since it is unconstitutional, the judicial branch should strike it down
but... why does the legislative branch think that they have the upper hand?
Kevin B. Murphy
On 25-Nov-2009, Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So-called rebellion not only perpetuates the market economy, it's the
> economy's biggest driving factor. ...you can't "sell out" or be "co-
> opted," because you're already participating in the market, where
> rebellion is just another word for relentless innovation, fashion and
> cool. ...consumerism [is] motivated by competitiveness rather than
> conformity...
I worked in a redneck shop so what I suppose that I can conclude from that
is... I don't really have anything in common with that which is a rebel...
but being a rebel is a very serious thing and I shouldn't condescend... I
want to say that rebels are too stupid to be scared but... the positive is
that rebels don't stab you in the back and the minus side is that they're
too xenophobic to be open minded so it is for the best that I don't work
there any more... So is this differant then what you're talking about... I
suppose it is fashionable to embrace the rebel mystic for the purpose of
feeling included instead of the opposite thing. The cousin of one of these
rednecks is asking me questions like, 'Why didn't you stay in engineering
for the money.' I didn't have an answer for him. But I keep thinking that
maybe someday I will know what to say to that... (Look, Brad, eighty percent
of the world does nothing for a living... They get money while doing nothing
for it... I would love to get in on that golden goose but I'm just not in
synch somehow... What is aerospace engineering? It's a program to keep smart
people off the street... and that is all that it is good for. Now, you and
I work for a living so we're the stupid ones and that is the way it it.)