Anarchist.

'Cos everybody hates a tourist, especially one who thinks it’s all such a laugh and the chip stains and grease will come out in the bath. You will never understand how it feels to live your life with no meaning or control and with nowhere left to go. You are amazed that they exist and they burn so bright whilst you can only wonder why.

Rent a flat above a shop, cut your hair and get a job. Smoke some fags and play some pool, pretend you never went to school. Still you’ll never get it right ‘cos when you’re laid in bed at night watching roaches climb the wall, if you called your dad he could stop it all.

You’ll never live like common people'

What do you mean by that?

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view, and dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.
Sing along with the common people, sing along and it might just get you thru'

I loves me some Jarvis Cocker, man.

right on.

I think Jaron, you should change the word "impossible" to "improbable." Nothing is impossible, and there arn't states of impossibility that change into possibility. Impossibility is an end-result.

The current catalysts are unable to bring about change? Who are these people? Why can't you be one? Your lifetime isn't long enough to see anarchy as a concept that the majority of people agree with, so get off your ass and destroy something.

Personally, I believe we're headed towards nihilism (surprise), and the current war and its commercialization is helping that along nicely. I'll do my part by contributing to the ratings game and devaluation of death. Woohoo! Iza partay up in hea!

"Currently impossible" means that, at the current moment, the current end-result is... well... has a 0% probability of happening in the near future, unless something extremely drastic happens (in which case, your phrasing would be more accurate than mine, so I'll have a nice warm glass of "Shut The Fuck Up" now). Eh... "currently improbable", it is.

"Current catalysts" means that anything, anywhere along the line, that effects the circumstances in a way that changes the eventual outcome (longer term). This means that I, actually, AM a catalyst (along with everyone and everything else). It's merely a matter of what effect I have on the eventual outcome, and the only way to consciously affect outcome is to find out more and act upon your current knowledge. This means that I have a duty, in a sense, to further my theories, ideals, philosophies, and general mindset (along with practical applications) rather than actually go do something about it myself.

(Don't get me wrong. I've actually "done the dirty work" before, and my criminal record makes it fairly difficult to actually get away with anything until my record is cleared. This won't be too long, however, which means that I can... well... fairly subversively act against what stands in the way of my ideals and their practical applications.)

Nihilistic Freak.

[QUOTE]Kitty: I'm always full of shit, hun. Then again, pretty much everyone's always full of shit, whether they know it, acknowledge it, or admit it (even to themselves). I figure I at least have got a (mild) head start. [/QUOTE]

you should go into politics. you're good at spinning things and giving non-answers.

Heh.

Apparently, I also have no heart, morality, shame, etc., etc., etc., which would also be good for that role.

On the other hand, I hate politics and despise everything it stands for. (That is to say, mostly the mass manipulation and subversive deception of the general population.)

On the other hand, I use those methods to make people realize that those methods are commonly used, and make them hate it, which is a bit of a Catch-22...

Here's my 2 cents on anarchy.

Cent #1. - The concept of a completely government-free society is total bullshit, and the realization of such a society would likely result in the downfall of civilization.

Cent #2. - Radical groups such as anarchists, communists, and hell...even neo-nazis are absolutely necessary in a free society based around capitalistic ideals where the few have power over the many, because the occasional threat of drastic correctional measures ensures that the current (and irreplaceable) system continues to function without becoming corrupt (or...more corrupt)

It's basically in the constitution (paraphrasing here) if the government misbehaves the people have the right to replace it...the threat of this (but NOT LIKELY the carrying out of this) simply ensures that things run smoothly.

READ "AFTER DACHAU" BY DANIEL QUINN

THEN, READ EVERYTHING ELSE BY DANIEL QUINN

[url]WWW.ISHMAEL.ORG[/url]

aheffel is right. the ultimate goal of each system--capitalism and anarchism--will never happen, but they are both necessary in the extreme to balance one another. the same is true of people in general.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jaron [/i]
[B]On the other hand, I hate politics and despise everything it stands for[/B][/QUOTE]

yeh? wait on... isnt your little anarchist activity a direct reflection or reaction of your response to politics in the first place? thereby cheapening what youve been saying in this whole discussion??

anarchy is an oxymoron within itself

That's true. I've glad someone 15 agrees with me on that.

Wes, my anti-political views are more of a derivative of my anarchistic tendencies than my anarchistic tendencies are a derivative of my anti-political views.

Ozena, explain and elaborate. Otherwise, your statement will be worthless.

Now moving onto aheffel's pennies.
$00.01 - The concept of a completely government-free society is indeed total bullshit, if you don't take into account the fact that there are natural laws which will and must be followed. (Take, for (a silly) example, gravity. It's a law, a structure which must be followed. Attempting to go against it would be futile and generally fairly stupid. There are many, many similar examples of things that happen naturally, "natural laws" which must be obeyed because that it simply how the world works.) The realization of such a society would likely result in the downfall of civilization as we know it, and a general reformation and reordering of the human world.

$00.02 - Bipolar extremism results in general neutrality, though the particular form of neutrality ensues a fair bit of internal turmoil which results in general dischord (rather that chaos, which also takes order into account). That is to say that yes, bipolar extremism does actually work and is a practical way of going about things. Wouldn't it work much better, alot more "streamlined", if people would bloody well find a middle line? That is to say, take the good points out of whatever social systems they find and fight against the bad points?

There is no such thing as a "free society based around capitalistic ideals where the few have power over the many," because the popular opinions of the society are defined mostly by whomever is most seen. Those who are most seen are (nearly) inevitably at the "top" of society.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jaron [/i]
[B]Wes, my anti-political views are more of a derivative of my anarchistic tendencies than my anarchistic tendencies are a derivative of my anti-political views.
[/B][/QUOTE]

ie. ALL TALK, NO ACTION.
*clap clap*

Actually, that's been covered already, and I've vaguely specified (oxymoronic?) actions which I have taken in the past and will take again.

Talking can be action (albeit indirect action) in many cases, provided that the talking results in the general discomfort of those between whom the talking took place (especially the recieving party, who the main talker is trying to influence) and actions (even inderect, such as publication or discussion, resulting in either more discomfort for a greater number of people; or direct, which would involve taking matters into one's own hands, thereby instigating a similar and potentially more dramatic change in the individuals able to witness the said direct actions).

I thought we covered this in ICQ a while back-- causing 'discomfort' is unlikely to get people to want to listen to you, or more so- care about what you're tying to express.

To influence/convince people, you have to listen to them, instead of just making noise and causing 'discomfort'. You have to listen to people in order to understand them, and what motivateds them to do certain things.

Also, no one will take heed or care what somebody has to say if the messenger has little to no credibility.

I suggest, if you truly want to be an 'Anarchistic Catalyst' --- perform youre methods on real people instead of gleefully informing us of what you 'say' you do. Cos quite frankly mi' dear, we dont give a damn.

Discomfort causes change, however, and (although depending on the type of change) change is usually productive. Whether this means that the people I talk to disagree with me strongly, causing a further rift in ideals, and therefore try to spread their opposing ideals with similar methods thereby generating a wider spread of the ideals which I propogate or that (probably through careful manipulation of the conversation through various conversational tools) they "convert" to my ideals... either way, it is at least productive.

In any case, we've been over the "discomfort" factor before, as well. I specified then, as well, that causing discomfort may be either blatant (in which case the first scenario will probably occur, or nothing at all) or subversive (in which case the second scenatio will probably occur, or nothing at all; in addition, subversive manipulation is much more effective, and I regularly use those conversational techniques rather than "beating [people] over the head" with what I have to say).

To properly cause productive discomfort, one must listen as well.

I do.

Anyhow, I actually do perform my methods on people that I know and meet on a regular basis.

I know you don't give a damn, but you, m'dear, brought it up.

[QUOTE]Wes, my anti-political views are more of a derivative of my anarchistic tendencies than my anarchistic tendencies are a derivative of my anti-political views.

Ozena, explain and elaborate. Otherwise, your statement will be worthless.[/QUOTE]

in other words, 'i can't come up with a snappy comeback right now, please try again'.

Heh. Yeah, pretty much.

So you're saying two things that I am:
1) Change is necessary, stagnance is unacceptable. Either way that things change, things need to change and will change.
2) Change is uncomfortable, and can be deadly.

On the other hand, rebellion against an institution for the sake of the institution is simply bullshit. There's alot of laws out there, alot of societal norms, that are there for a good reason. (Ever ask why the Eskimo's wear clothes? (No? Good, because there's a damned good and blatant answer for that.) Ever wonder why killing people is against the law? Ever wonder why you're not legally allowed to lie? Why theft is disallowed?) It should be simply a matter of following those which are common sense, and ignoring (subversively rebelling against, not as a state of rebellion but rather as a state of protest and practical application of philosophy) that is just plain stupid.

Oh, and yeah... two other things.
1) Careful not to double post, and
2) Welcome to The Cult, seeing as those're your only two posts to date.

i love how jaron reduces things down into little bullet points and stuff. it's endearing.

1) At least they're numbered.

1. hey dude, are most of your posts on this thread? diversy... maaaaan.

1a. ( see, im numbered too! )

2) Eh... not just. There's a few in the Fight Club and Invisible Monsters forums. And the General forum.

3) Nice numbers.

my view on all this is you could convince people of anything if you feed them enough bullshit for long enough. if all the corporate sponsored media news stations told people long enough that eating your own excrement is good for you for long enough, plenty of people would believe it. then once the rest of us noticed that our neighbors were eating shit we'd at least have to try it once. sure there would be a few people who insisted eating shit isn't so great but they would just be the crazy ones. maybe that's why the idea of majority rules is so popular. cause people tend to be swayed with the majority anyway. if people stopped believing the bullshit about drugs being immoral and more dangerous than booze and tobacco they'd be legalized. if we were raised our whole lives to think government is pure evil most of us would be anarchists. would it work? maybe, if people actually believed in the principles.

We can keep a system of government, I just want us to simplify.

Anarchy is such a dirty sophmoric word...

Libertarian Socialist... say that oxymoron and people will think you're smart.

haven't seen this thread in a while...

its unfortunate that self-improvement is masturbation didn't post more often. i like that name