9 votes

Anarchy in the USA! And everywhere else: James Corbett & The Boiling Frogs Post Roundtable


http://youtu.be/bQ_QEdpxocc

In this edition of the BoilingFrogsPost.com Roundtable, James Corbett, Sibel Edmonds and Peter B. Collins welcome Andrew Gavin Marshall for a discussion of his recent podcast on "Anarchy, Socialism and Free Markets." We talk about anarchism as a philosophy and what it really entails, as well as how it links to socialism, libertarianism and other political philosophies. We also delve into some of the questions and critiques that many raise to the idea of anarchism.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Test for authority?

I was welcomed to the Round Table discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ_QEdpxocc#t=158

I heard:

"Let's just have a real talk, a real talk,no censorship."

I sent the following letter to see if my viewpoint is censored or not:

_______________________________________________
Please consider allowing me to participate in a Round Table Discussion.

Links to my work:
http://www.dailypaul.com/318174/anarchy-in-the-usa-and-everywhere-else-james-corbett-the-boiling-frogs-post-roundtable?bt=1#main%20a[href*=%270615602223%27]

That is a link to your Round Table. I will now write comments and I will publish my comments on that link to your Round Table. If you truly care about solving our common problems then you would welcome my viewpoint into a Round Table discussion. If you prefer to censor my viewpoint, then that is a telling decision on your part, of course that is my individual opinion.

I hope that you make the right decisions.
_____________________________________________________

The Web Page Software responded:

Quote:
"Your message was sent successfully. Thanks."

My message was sent here:
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/contact/

What do I have to offer as part of real talk, without censorship?

If I were invited into the real talk, then I could respond to some of the real talk, such as:

Time: 1:52 (approximate)

"I have always been open to exploring alternatives to the systems that we have and I think that there are many positive attributes of what is called anarchism, but first I think we need to define what you mean by anarchism."

Stop right there, please, and go no further in speaking for anyone else as to what anarchism means, and consider the words offered by someone who found and reported the entomological roots of the use of the word while the word was beginning to be used according to our modern definitions.

I can link that report, and I can quote from that report, but instead I will simply restate, in my own words, why that word is unfit to be used as that word causes problems, as that word does not solve any problems. The word anarchism is one of many duplicitous words that is used by people to accomplish two opposing meanings at once. Who, in their right mind, wants to use words that intend to cause confusion?

The obvious answer is such that someone who intends to deceive is someone who will use duplicitous words. I am informing you of this fact. If you continue to use a duplicitous word, intending to accomplish something other than deception, they you do so with a clearly expressed warning from me to you, right now, right here.

Moving on:
Time 2:35

Stop right there.

Now I see a vital need to link a source and quote from that source. The source I am going to link from is one of the First American Anarchists, so called, who did not consider himself to be an Anarchist (so called), as this specific person was living in the American time of the so called Civil War period. This person risked his life often while working to expose the evils of slavery, so he was called an Abolitionist.

Here is the link (to the so called anarchist Stephen Pearl Andrews):

http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/theindex/1876-tucker-andrew...

Before quoting from the link there can be offered by me a few words to set the stage concerning this information to be quoted soon.

A list, first, of the first so called Anarchists of Modern Times:

Americans:
Josiah Warren
Stephen Pearl Andrews
Benjamin Tucker
Lysander Spooner

French:
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

German:
Max Stuiner

Russian:
Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin

Those people intended to reclaim what can be known as Renaissance.

Their voices, their work, was counterfeited, and so their voices were stuffed out through effective deception and Mass Marketing.

Their counterfeit voices were created in the form of Socialism and Capitalism which were then two opposing dogmas (falsehoods) created so as to divide and conquer the people of the world.

The time period was Wild Cat Banking after Andrew Jackson had effectively killed the Monopoly Banking Cartel in America, and those who intended to capture the world with their Monopoly of Crime had to take the steps required to cause The Civil War.

With that in mind, here is the quote from Stephen Pearl Andrews on the subject of the word Anarchism in current use:

Quote__________________________________
Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter. Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it.
_____________________________________________

You the reader of my words will not understand the very basic principles offered in those words quoted above if you do not apply your will to learn. There is absolutely no way that the knowledge contained in those words can be injected into your mind while you seek entertainment value out of the words you read.

No way, no how; so as the phrase is again repeated "reading is fundamental."

Moving back to:
Time 2:35

Stop right there.

Here now is a quote from someone who claims to be an authority on the modern use of the word anarchism:

Quoting from the Round Table Discussion:
"...that is sort of the fundamental concept of anarchy to be without authority..."

That is confusing in fact, a self-executing contradiction.

"...anarchy is about questioning the legitimacy..."

That is a principle. To see how that is a principle it may help to contrast that principle with the opposite, or nearly opposite, of that principle.

Blind obedience to falsehood without question is a principle.

No matter how obvious, destructive, absurd, outrageous, unbelievable, will be the lie, no matter what, I will believe the lie and I will not question the lie.

That can be seen as an oath taken by people who do precisely that in fact.

That can be seen as the opposing principle, or nearly the opposing principle to this:

One individual at one time in one place whereby the one individual questions the authority of another individual in that time and in that place.

So, clearly, and with an effort to remove all superfluous language, the two principles can be contrasted by enumeration:

1.
One individual at one time in one place whereby the one individual questions the authority of another individual in that time and in that place.

2.
Blind obedience to falsehood without question.

Authority can be derived from either principle. People who use duplicitous words may be driven by the later principle.

How can anyone know if someone, in time and place, is driven by the later principle if someone does not employ the former principle?

I will stop now. I can return here if I receive an invitation.

Joe

Words on a Screen

..The answers you seek are here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/318310/words-on-a-screen

"WORDS ON A SCREEN"

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

How?

I am not offended. I am curious. I ask a question because I have an interest in receiving back an accurate answer to the question asked.

How can you know which answers I seek?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fWyzwo1xg0

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/...

_____________________________________
But woe to that nation whose literature is disturbed by the intervention of power. Because that is not just a violation against "freedom of print", it is the closing down of the heart of the nation, a slashing to pieces of its memory. The nation ceases to be mindful of itself, it is deprived of its spiritual unity, and despite a supposedly common language, compatriots suddenly cease to understand one another. Silent generations grow old and die without ever having talked about themselves, either to each other or to their descendants. When writers such as Achmatova and Zamjatin - interred alive throughout their lives - are condemned to create in silence until they die, never hearing the echo of their written words, then that is not only their personal tragedy, but a sorrow to the whole nation, a danger to the whole nation.
_________________________________________

Art?

Joe

ouch

That was painful.

(collective decisions, collective opinions,... pulls out hair)

guy with white headphones

is a sloppy dopey thinker. Mostly repeating what he's heard others say. not much, if any original thought.

Corbette nails it so many times

wow.