Anarchist.

Not that I know of.

Aah, that's really too bad, then.

Though I'd be inclined to think that he had some leanings towards some anarchistic tendancies... like, proper anarchy, not the bullshit high school kind, where kids dress badly and tell everyone why they want to die, whilst spraypainting large anarchy symbols on garage doors and writing "dark" and "gothic" "poetry", like this:

Die.
I am dead.
Die, die, die.
Death.

Meh. Bastards.

But yeah... I'd generally hope that he is.

[URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchist]Anarchist[/URL], so [URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchism]Anarchism[/URL] --

1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority

what do you think?

It's fairly right on, mostly, except in "active resistance and terrorism against the state". It is, indeed, used by some terrorists but not all. Mostly, it's rejected by the "tarnished" and "bastardized" terrorists, who don't really get what anarchy is really about. After all, that works against the philosophy of anarchy - rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority (the most popular forms of which are media control and manufactured concent, mostly subtle manipulation).

Two words.

Fuck anarchy.

If you motherfuckers didn't have anybody telling you what to do you'd be running around in piles of your own shit.

Face it, you need government.

No offense.

Actually, I don't have anyone telling me what to do.

Well, actually, no... I'm wrong, to an extent, on that point. I do actually have people telling me what NOT to do, which (in some cases) gives me incentive to actually do it and/or (in some cases) gives me incentive to actually NOT do it. This, coupled with a fair bit of discipline, is how it could work.

The purpose, or point, of government is to guide the people, not to control the people.

i agree with grade_5 to a certain extent and completely with Jaron

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by grade 5 dropout [/i]
[B]Face it, you need government.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yep.
Exactly.

According to dictionary.com, here is the definition of "government", and the resulting problems I see with it.

The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit.
- "Governing" is defined as "control [of] the actions or behavior", and when related to the government of large bodies of people, this means that their thought is also "governed". That is to say, people are told what to do AND told what to think, say, act like, dress like, spit like, shit like, fuck like, and generally be like. This totally de-emphasizes the importance of freedom.

Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule.
- "Rule" is defined as "be[ing] in total control or command; exercise[-ing] supreme authority." This, again, reiterates the point of facism. Is that not what a facist/totalitarian state does? And who, among you, would argue that Hitler and Stalin were actually good men doing good for humanity? (I would, but that's from a rather detached and fucked up viewpoint, so fuck that.)

7. Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.
- Administration/management implies that the administrators/managers have the final say and it doesn't really matter what those administrated/managed by the said administration/management say because the "elite" have the final say. Again, it's a total lack of freedom.

Basically, my point here is that if you're going to "free your mind", you'll need to get free of the social bullshit that's so popularly rampant in modern society. It's a self-propogating arbitrary system.

I think we should ask him.

nice points Jaron--
but they dont govern ALL 'actions or behavior'.

A Governement will/caninfluence some 'actions & behavior' and certain processes in societies. But not all. And no one said you had to [u]obey[/u] them. That decision is up to an individual- and if they want to be covered by the rights/perks/rules of a certain system- they should comply to the tenets- but no one can force you to get involved.

It's not just the action/behavior that the government controls, however. Because of the influence within the media (one of the four major powers), it's painted in a "good" light (generally speaking) for the public image, so that they can gain more votes next time around and whatnot.

Now, by "government", I'm speaking about the practical government and not the official (political) one, though the political body is part of that governing body. The real power is split between three places. First is the media, which mainlines high-octane bullshit into the overloaded sensory experience that has become what modern society accepts as reality. Doesn't particularly matter what they say, because they'll still influence you subtly/subliminally (unless you know about it, and even then it's damned difficult). These guys bring the others to power, and keep them there. Second is the corporate body, which controlls the dollar. They support the others. Third is the political entity, which server to put a nice face on everything to keep the masses happy with the way things are with the illusion of security.

Religion? It's not the fucking opiate of the masses anymore. Society's new skunk is media.

-- this is a good thread..... thanks for this--

Now. Youre points are interesting ( & good ), but my main opposition toward the attitude is-- by saying that 'Such & Such Government/System etc' is influencing TOO MANY of our thoughts/actions etc-- the only problem is-- by accepting the fact we dont have control in that system makes one really bad thing happen.

Responsibility- or lack thereof, that ppl take. If ppl are subject to giving in- so to speak- and not taking responsibility ( for their own lives )- then they have no right to complain. And thats the last thing id like to see. And yes, i concede- human beings are easily influenced creatures.. i know i know... but we need to take responsibility for things. And if you choose not to work for change ie. make things better. Then that person, can go fuck themselves.

also, re: 'Organised Religion' : which if i havent said before, i am not a big fan of-- ive said it now. Reason/s being- that getting caught up in the brand of religion-- and the pomp and ceremony- it ALSO makes people less responsible for their actions.

What do you think?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by myself, on some other forum, and now reposted in response to the second part of that last post [/i]

Here's what I mean: all organized religion, at some point or another, becomes an institution as a matter of course. The very fact that it's an organized group of individuals introduces beurocracy, heirarchy, segregation, segmentation, and all of the other shittyass things that come from institutionalized religion.

...

I'm sure you get the point of that. It's all fucking subjective, except for the parts which are supposed to be subjective. It's all a dictatorship, with the pastors and priests and church elders and self-appointed prophets and the evangelists and everyone else telling you that if you don't follow their mighty words, you will burn in the fires of hell. Eh... it's more like this. [b][i]THOU SHOULDST FOLLOW MINE HOLY WORDS, ELSE YE BURN IN THE ETERNAL LAKES OF FIRE!![/i][/b] Riiight.[/QUOTE]

haha indeed.

i love how GOD allegedly loves us- but is looking to punish us and send us to fiery places for all of eternity at every opportunity. haha, how quaint- someone who loves us- that is always trying to fuck us over.!!

In response to your earlier post, which I hadn't bothered to respond to...

How are you going to stop a self-propogating arbitrary facist dictatorship without drastic measures? Fairly simple put, by taking subtle and subversive measures.

The only real way to make people figure out things, on their own, is to make them start thinking. Alot of times, this involves one of two methods. The first is shock value, where you present something that almost makes sense (but not entirely) and present it as an opposing/conflicting view to their current one. This way, they're forced to think "outside of the box", so to speak, and as a result are forced to think about more factors than they originally took into account. The second method is basically the same as the first, except over a longer period of time, and through careful manipulation (so that they can see other points of view, and make their own conclusions).

hehe, 'outside the box' - i understand youre sentiment- shame that particular term is so bought/overused/cheap now.

shock value wears off as we become less conservative and subjected to things though. careful manipulation would be the 'way to go' if any.

i agree.

But do you actually do anything about it?

about what? fucking over systems of government?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jaron [/i]
[B]"Governing" is defined as "control [of] the actions or behavior", and when related to the government of large bodies of people, this means that their thought is also "governed". That is to say, people are told what to do AND told what to think, say, act like, dress like, spit like, shit like, fuck like, and generally be like. This totally de-emphasizes the importance of freedom.[/B][/QUOTE]

Okay, well, in my relatively short 17 years of living, the government has not once told me what to think, say, act like, dress like, spit like, shit like, fuck like, and generally be like.

The government has never told ANYBODY what to think. Ever. You make it sound like America is a completely Orwellian state, bro.

To take an obvious example, the media will define what is beautiful and beat it into your head until you wear down and believe it yourself. Look at the (younger) youth and you'll see them act it out. Now realize its affecting you subconsciously. Now explode that out to include what you're taught in school, news organizations interpretations of events, etc. etc. You don't think the gov't. has never taken advantage of these tools? You don't think these tools change the way you think whether you want them to or not?

He made it out like America was like 1984. That's all I'm saying.

yeah yeah- everyones right so far-- there is Subconcious influence-- thats how you control masses of people-- its true.- but as an individual person-- its your responsibility to define- how much of that you choose to respond to/ let affect you.

i don't think america is *totally* orwellian (after all it is on an american website about an american author we are having a convo like this one), but i do think that people need to look deeper before they accept something as fact.

even though i'm in the journalism business, i don't think the major international news media always ha the best of motives. not always the worst either, but ppl should take care to get news from as many different sources as possible.

for example. 9/11. total emotional blackmail in the states. whenever someone says something a commercial politician doesn't like, they throw up 9/11. so then if you persist in saying something like, "maybe if SUVs got more miles to the gallon..." then it means you don't care about 9/11. the media has not questioned this, b/c then it looks like *they* don't care about 9/11. that's pretty fucking orwellian right there.

also, i don't know why no one has addressed the fact that iraq supports the PLO... in fact they're our counterpart on the other side of the arab/israeli conflict.

so yeah. george orwell has started to rock, if not quite spin in his grave.

WS: Yes by fucking over whatever form of totalitarianism your particular government subscribes to, but not necessarily that. What I'm talking about it making other people bloody well THINK, so that they can take their heads out of their asses and not jump to conclusions that make little or no sense.

dropout: bronskrat basically paraphrased what I was saying. Does it really matter what methods a government uses, if the ends are the same? I'd say not particularly, especially when those ends are so similar to Orwellian totalitarianism (1984). But whatever methods the American government is using, it's STILL like that. It controls your thought (through the media and education system), and therefore your actions - everything, including what I mentioned before. If it doesn't directly control them, it certainly subversively influences them. It's the brilliance of the brainwashing system. Noone realizes that they're brainwashed, and just as you think you've overcome the brainwashing, you figure out that you're just brainwashed in different ways and damned comfortable to boot, because that's the way it's always been (for you/me/whomever).

What WS said, in his last post, is actually applicable to more people than yourself. While it's not an inherent responsibility, I consider it my "duty", so to speak, to "enlighten" other people (i.e., make them think MORE, whether or not they think at all when I meet them).

insomnomaniac has a few good points there, especially with the 9/11 incident (which is, unfortunately, totally and completely overkilled). I am, myself, an American citizen but I don't actually really support anything that the government is doing. Not because the government is doing it, because there's some things that the government do that I actually agree with in the first place (so I conform to them). However, any "traumatic" event or any event that makes the general public uncomfortable (tragedy is just a more extreme version of discomfort) can be and generally IS used to manipulate those within your realm of influence to do what you want, which is exactly what the government is doing. For example, how the HELL do you think that they managed to declare war on terrorists and soon thereafter declare war on Iraq, while America itself (and all other significant world powers) is a terrorist state (relying on the definition of international terrorism, which is any group which uses threats of manipulation, whether through military force or economic manipulation, to get what they want out of other groups)?

[QUOTE]while America itself (and all other significant world powers) is a terrorist state (relying on the definition of international terrorism, which is any group which uses threats of manipulation, whether through military force or economic manipulation, to get what they want out of other groups)?
[/QUOTE]

jaron has been reading his chomsky.

Haven't read any for a while, but some of my ideas stem from reading his stuff about Manufacturing Consent and Media Control.

Actually, I discovered Chomsky because of my brother, who I was talking to about this stuff. Apparently, I was saying the exact same things as him, but didn't have the references. He just puts it better than I do.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jaron [/i]
[B]WS: Yes by fucking over whatever form of totalitarianism your particular government subscribes to, but not necessarily that. What I'm talking about it making other people bloody well THINK, so that they can take their heads out of their asses and not jump to conclusions that make little or no sense.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Ah, i see.

Well, on a personal level, 'my' government ( not like i voted for them or anything ) -arent totalitarian- theyre just conservative wankers with their mindset stuck in the 50s.

And do they "permit" you to do things that you don't agree should be done? Do they tell you that you CAN'T do things that you think SHOULD be done?

Concent==Consent.

why don't any of these ultra-egghead types know how to spell?

I do know how to spell, but all knowledge goes straight out the window as soon as you start regularly getting two hours of sleep, every night.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jaron [/i]
[B]And do they "permit" you to do things that you don't agree should be done? Do they tell you that you CAN'T do things that you think SHOULD be done? [/B][/QUOTE]

What are we talking about here? Rioting in the streets? drug use? what?- i think we may be getting fixed up with the issue of misinformation and the 'bovine public' that makes up most of any nations population.

Gimme some examples dude- and we can flesh this out some.

eww Chomsky. I just want to add that not all of these manipulations are intentional (which I think insomnomaniac was alluding to). Many are also born out of ignorance and out of possibility (i.e. no single news organization can report *all* the news, so what gets deleted can be interpreted as bias, however unintentional that may be).

He thinks the carpet pissers did this?"
"Well, Dude, we just don't know."
--The Big Lebowski

[QUOTE]I do know how to spell, but all knowledge goes straight out the window as soon as you start regularly getting two hours of sleep, every night.
[/QUOTE]

know what this is, jaron?

the world's tiniest violin, and it's playing, just for you...

insomnomaniac: It's a bit high-pitched for me, but... ;P

WS, it's not so much that. Well, drug use is actually a fair argument but it's been fairly bashed into the ground. Most of the arguments that people of my position would argue have already been argued (and that was one too many times, saying "argue"), so... but drug use, that's a fairly decent argument.

My question is: Why not?

re: Drug Use/Sale of Drugs

thats a tax issue. essentially.

elaborate, wes.

jaron: call me kitty, por favor...

ok, if governements passed a legislation so that they could REGULATE the sale of currently illicite substances-- cocaine, mdma ( e's ), special k, even marijuana-- etc etc- ..... they could tax it.

Thats the only reason why theyre still 'illegal substances' even though we have been in society using such substances for years- and legitimate use-- other than 'fun'.

And, if the INDUSTRY ( i cite also -- SEX is an industry too- brothels etc- well, thats regulated here in Oz ) -- if the DRUG INDUSTRY was regulated- prices would be better & there'd be less misuse/abuse of drugs.

+ with it- Better Education-- not just Zero Tolerance/Drugs are Bad.- thats spoon fed bullshit .

However, they don't regulate it (generally speaking), because of that said Zero Tolerance/Drugs are Bad line of thinking.

Taking a historical example, the period in American history when alcohol was made illegal (I forget what that period's called right now, so fuck that), all that happened was that the prices of alcohol got higher. People were still getting it, and drinking, but it was generally lower quality (at least the American-produced stuff) and drunk in secret (so that the cops couldn't bust you). When it was re-legalized, there was apparently a fair bit of fuss about whether or not drugs (soft ones, such as marijuana) would be legalized. It was decided that they would not (obviously), and why? Because the "people in charge", that is to say, the legislators (governmental representatives) decided against it because none of them did it. After that, the decision has been kept mostly because of what WS said.

it was called the Prohibition.

and that was the 20s or 30s- whats stopping a regulation of the industry now ?

As you said, tax concerns.

The "ethical ramifications" and whatever other lines the government is arguing? Those're pretty much cover for that.

Also, it's really a matter of control. (I figure that) they don't actually want anyone to purchase (or any otherhow acquire) and consume drugs that come from anybody from them. Perhaps this isn't so much a tax issue as a power issue - they want social/political/economic power, and need it to propogate the system that they're pimping. To do that, they must have at least a (large) measure of control over their "subjects", "citizens", or general population (over which they rule/govern) if not total control.

Re: Tax Concerns.

What im saying is-- if they regulate the Drug Industry- the government can tax producers of the drugs-- so the Govt. is happy>they have more money. And they wont care who is going to purchase what if they can make more tax$$ from it.

So, give ppl who want drugs what they want -good quality at a good price-- if its a regulated industry-- they can control the quality and use of-- so ppl dont abuse susbtances--

Right, and that stops alcohol abuse too, I'm sure.

relevance?

I didnt mention the word 'alcohol' dude-- im talking specifically about 'substances that are currently illicit'.

And my point is that, whether or not they're legal/illegal, they're still going to be abused by a fairly large number of individuals and groups because it's viewed as "cool" to get blasted and puke all over your friends, no matter what substance you took to get that way (provided you live to hear the story).

Basically, that was in response to "they can control the quality and use of, so ppl dont abuse susbtances."

no they wont.

if substance (A) is readily available to the public-- and can buy it without fear of persecution- theyre less likely to abuse it. And if you can buy something legally and safe-- then you will be more willing to listen to info. & education on the subject.

if you treat people like morons or CRIMINALS! then of course theyre more likely to have a negative attitude regarding it.

& furthermore-- Addicts need help, not to be thrown in jail. and im not another 'bleeding heart'--- you treat sick ppl, NOT lock them up.

Treatment is necessary, true. However, what's the difference between a nicotene addict (who smokes until his lungs turn black, develops lung cancer, and generally fucks himself up), an alcoholic (who drinks enough booze to fuck up his liver, develop liver cancer, and generally fuck himself up), and an cocaine addict (who snorts enough to trash his nasal passages, deaden his brain, and generally fucks himself up)? Not too damned much, except that the first two are legal (albeit controlled/regulated) while cocaine is illegal (controlled/regulated to a much greater extent).

My point here is that, no matter what the substance is, even if it eventually makes the person miserable, the person can still get addicted and abuse it and many people do.

What it comes down to is that we need the government, even though the people who are involved with it get a high off effecting and influencing other people's lives. Its the short end of the stick, but its something that we have to deal with.
I think once someone has a government the removal of it promotes people to do acts that they wouldn't have reasonably thought of otherwise.
If the cops decided to go on strike, would you more inclined to riot and loot than if the police just didn't exist?
Basically Governments will always be in place because the basic instinct of the want of control. Man has always wanted control on some form, and when you decide to control and hold power over people, that = government.
If anyone can be loyal to a any given group or people, then it is considered a form of a government for in inflicts influences on people.
So basically. This whole thread is more or less irrelevant because everything is a government and its impossible to get rid of because its not an instituition, its a trait of man.

[QUOTE]if substance (A) is readily available to the public-- and can buy it without fear of persecution- theyre less likely to abuse it. And if you can buy something legally and safe-- then you will be more willing to listen to info. & education on the subject.[/QUOTE]

i agree ppl shouldn't be treated like morons, but throughout history there is always a stable group of hardcore addicts no matter what. some people just have a propensity to become addicted, no matter what substances are available.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by insomnomaniac [/i]
[B]i agree ppl shouldn't be treated like morons, but throughout history there is always a stable group of hardcore addicts no matter what. some people just have a propensity to become addicted, no matter what substances are available. [/B][/QUOTE]

amen.