by Frederick Mann
Copyright © 1998 Build Freedom Holdings ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: The initial writings and debates on "peme-theory" are in reports #TL075 and #TL076. Since then I've made two major improvements to peme-theory: (1) Distinguishing between positive and negative pemes; (2) Subdividing peme-theory into three levels: basic, intermediate, and advanced. These improvements are reflected in report #TL074 and subsequent peme reports, #TL077, etc.]
PHOBOCRAT OR TERROCRAT?
At 11:31 PM 3/18/98, Daniel Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu> wrote: > >Just as a thought, perhaps phobocrat would be >a better term than terrocrat. When I first read >that term, I had assumed that it was used in >reference to UN leaders or other self-proclaimed >governors of the earth. (That is, a terrocrat.) >Phobocrat is somewhat clearer as the meaning of >the Greek stem "phobos" is fairly well known to >many English speakers. >
This could turn out to be a great suggestion! "Phobocrat" has the advantage that we don't have to explain it. It has a pleasant ring to it too! Please send me your feedback. Do you think "phobocrat" has the potential to catch on and become a powerful meme?
In any case, I suggest we add "phobocrat" to the Freespeak lexicon and start using it. We can use both "terrocrat" and "phobocrat" and see which becomes the more powerful meme.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all." [emphasis added]
-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
WORDS, STICKS, AND STONES
At 12:32 AM 3/18/98, dashadonos@yahoo.com wrote: > >Words don't hurt people, people hurt people. >
Consider a world in which people routinely use sticks to hurt others. Those with the biggest sticks always win; those with the small sticks always lose. How would you like to have a big stick?
Now consider a world in which people routinely use words as weapons to hurt others. Certain bullies have powerful words that put their victims in a weak position and make it easy for the bullies to run all over the victims.
Have you ever heard of a phobocrat "judge" pronouncing a "sentence" on a victim, and the victim getting hurt as a result?
JASON, WAKE UP! - WHY MEMES & PEMES?
At 05:49 PM 3/20/98 -0700, "Jason" <dashadonos@yahoo.com> wrote: > >...[P]erhaps we just play different roles in >the fight for freedom. If what you do and say >can convince more people to fight the good fight >then that's great and I couldn't possibly have >anything negative to say about it. We all have >our roles to play and one isn't necessarily any >more important than any other. Only I'd prefer >a more direct route, I'm only 26 and I want to >be free now. I feel an enormous responsibility >to change the world but I'm not sure how to go >about it. I'm just frustrated that all of us that >are fighting for freedom aren't on the same page >and impatient for that to happen.
The fact that you're frustrated indicates to me that your "fight for freedom" isn't working as well as you'd like.
Earlier you wrote, "Words don't hurt people, people hurt people."
Consider a fish in the ocean. It lives in an environment of water. Suppose the fish thinks, "Water doesn't hurt fish, fish hurt fish." So the fish swims into water that's mildly polluted with poison -- so mildly that he doesn't notice.
So the poison gets into his body. After a while he becomes weaker -- and frustrated because he can't swim as fast and as energetically as he used to...
Consider the possibility that in the same way the fish lives in an environment where the primary element is water, you live in a world where the primary element is words. The fish lives in a water culture and you live in a word culture.
Now, consider the possibility that your mind is poisoned with certain toxic words which prevent you from being as effective as you'd like to be, and as a result you've become frustrated.
Let's examine your "fight for freedom" meme. Suppose the fish had a choice between "fighting for clean water" and "swimming to clean water." Which meme would a wise fish choose? I suggest that your "fight for freedom" meme consists of toxic words. Maybe you would be more effective if you switched to "moving into freedom." How do you "move into freedom?" -- find out at BuildFreedom.
You say, "I want to be free now." Well, why aren't you? Haven't you discovered that you are free by nature? If not, why not?
Imagine a fish saying, "I can't be free until all the sharks in the ocean have been exterminated; I feel an enormous responsibility to change the world but I'm not sure how to go about it."
I suggest to you that your paragraph above is riddled with toxic words (poisonous memes), leaving you frustrated and not knowing what to do -- and hurting you.
Your saying that "words don't hurt people" is a form of "word-blindness." It's the equivalent of a fish being "water-blind" and not knowing where to swim.
You say, "...[A]ll of us that are fighting for freedom aren't on the same page and [I'm] impatient for that to happen."
Unrealistic expectation -- toxic words in your head that hurt you. Because we are unique individuals with different words in our heads we'll never be "on the same page." As long as you keep such toxic words in your head, you condemn yourself to impatience -- and impotence.
>>Freespeak (Frederick Mann) wrote: >> >>Consider a world in which people routinely use >>sticks to hurt others. Those with the biggest >>sticks always win; those with the small sticks >>always lose. How would you like to have a big >>stick? > >The world is not so simple, those with the biggest >sticks don't always win. One just has to be smarter >than the stick or the rockhead on the swinging end. >
I bet you don't appreciate the implications of what you say here! Without deliberately intending to, I set a "cognitive trap" and you "fell" for it! You've made my point! The smarter brain beats the rockhead with a big stick. Smarter largely implies having fewer toxic words, having more healthy words, and commanding more and better words.
Similarly, the brain can beat the gun. I've lived largely free from phobocrat coercion for more than two decades. Not once has a cop even drawn his gun in my presence.
Of course, I would be freer if the threat of coercion by cops were removed -- like the fish would be freer if there were no sharks. Nevertheless, I enjoy an extreme degree of freedom despite the cops.
>>Have you ever heard of a phobocrat "judge" >>pronouncing a "sentence" on a victim, and the >>victim getting hurt as a result? > >Absolutely! I heard it when I was in court in >Lake Charles, LA. I lost twenty thousand dollars >and almost spent five years in Angola for having >a weed in my trunk. I know all about what a judge >can do. It wasn't his words that hurt me though, >it was the guns that back up the idiotic laws >(and him) that got me. If I hadn't accepted the >sentence that the judge imposed on me because I >thought that his title and words were meaningless >(which I do). That wouldn't have stopped a lot >of people in funny little uniforms with more guns >than I have to come impose them upon me...
Let's go to the beginning: You had a weed in your trunk (I presume, of your car). Whether spoken or not, you operated on the basis of words such as, "It's an acceptable risk to drive with weed in my trunk." Then, I presume you did something that resulted in you getting pulled over, possibly because you didn't drive as prudently as you could have. If so, you were probably operating on the basis of words such as, "It's OK to exceed the speed limit because I've never been caught before." Whatever the circumstances were, you took actions which were based on words in your head that resulted in you ending up in Angola.
Remember what you said above, "One just has to be smarter than the stick or the rockhead on the swinging end." You got beaten by the rockhead because you operated on the basis of stupid words in your head that hurt you.
(General observation: If you do certain things cops don't like, the circumstances under which you're most likely to be nabbed are while driving. Cops probably nab more victims by pulling over their cars than in any other way.)
We can analyze a lot more about the role of words in your "Angola experience" -- for example, that the so-called "stupid laws" consists of words -- but that may come later in the debate.
In your signature file you quote: "Freedom is never volunteered by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Whereas these words may have been appropriate for MLK to inspire his followers, they may be toxic words in your head that hurt you. Operating on the basis of these words, you place yourself in the position of the weak who has to demand that freedom be granted to him -- not the most powerful attitude. Why not seize your freedom and learn to live free?
Jason, wake up!
PS. Why pemes? Your relative weakness depends largely on toxic words (poisonous memes) in your head. In a similar way, the power of phobocrats depends on certain words which are power words (deep pemes) in their heads, while the same deep pemes are weakness words in your head. That's what most of the rest of this debate is about.
THE "FREEDOM IS INDIVISIBLE" PEME
"Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us."
-- Robert Anton Wilson , Introduction to The Tree of Lies (by Christopher S. Hyatt. Ph.D.)
At 09:07 AM 3/17/98, I-AFD_2@anarch.free.de (Nico MYOWNA) wrote: > <snip> > >Our freedom *is* more or less limited to the system(s). >As long as I have to defend my sovereignty, to think >about the thinking of politicians and bureaucrats to >disperse their returns [their "profit" from practicing >coercion] from me, to find the hole in their system >to operate outside their systems and to accept their >capitalistic rules I'm *not* full sovereign. My >sovereignty is bound to my ability to escape; and >I have to escape from their systems. > <snip> > >We have to use our minds to expand in a way that could >snowballs. We could activate the minds of others into >becoming more potent freedom weapons. We have to do it >in this way because we are *only* full sovereign in a >world of freedom and sovereign individuals. >
Some freedom lovers say that "freedom is indivisible," meaning that for any one of us to be free, everyone has to be free. The logical extreme is that if there's just one unfree person on earth, then everyone else is also unfree. Suppose everyone were free. If I then locked up just one person, suddenly everyone else on earth would be unfree.
But, what if I'm really free and sovereign by nature, irrespective of the freedom and sovereignty of others?
What if I can discover that I'm free and sovereign by nature -- and then, develop my knowledge, wits, and resources to the point that, for most practical purposes, I can live as a free sovereign -- irrespective of the "unfree" masses around me (who haven't yet discovered they're free and sovereign)?
A consequence of being subjected to the "freedom is indivisible" peme can be that I waste much of my life and resources trying to "change the system" -- see Harry Browne's How I Found Freedom. See also report #FFP05: Harry Browne's Freedom Principles.
On the other hand, individuals are different and unique and live in different circumstances. For some, the most appropriate things to do are "educating others," "changing the system," etc. Division of labor. For many of these people, it may be appropriate to operate according to the "freedom is indivisible" peme. As free as am, I certainly would enjoy even more freedom at less risk, were it not for "the political system."
But for those of us for whom it's more appropriate to free ourselves, would the "freedom is indivisible" peme be an example of using our own words to hurt ourselves?
Could it be that if enough of us were to sufficiently free ourselves so we become, for practical purposes, "uncoerceable" by the phobocrats, their bogus "political systems" would be widely seen for what they are and will collapse?
THE "CONSTRUCTION OF SYSTEMATIC THOUGHT"
At 10:29 AM 3/17/98, Milton Dawes <102362.1465@compuserve.com> wrote: > >And then we have survival of the fittest? The power >of the strongest, over the less strong? Or are you >saying humans will then live in peace and harmony >with each other according to their gene program? >The political power of the former Soviet Union is >now diminished. The political power of the former >Yugoslavia rulers are now over. What do we find in their places? >
According to Robert Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: "But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repairs of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself. And if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government..." [emphasis added]
What if the basic "construction of systematic thought," the basic "rationality," consists of deep pemes? If so, then in order to induce people to change the most fundamental beliefs that really count, might it not be necessary that we persuade them to dump some of their deep pemes?
It's unlikely that any significant number of people in the former "Soviet Union" (so-called) dumped any of their deep pemes. So, with minor differences, they just recreated their "political systems" as suggested by Robert Pirsig.
THE TWILIGHT OF THE PHOBOCRATS
At 03:45 PM 3/19/98 EST, Ultrawoman <Ultrawoman@aol.com> wrote: > >In a message dated 3/12/98 11:18:53 AM, Frederick Mann wrote: > >>As far as I know, there are only about a dozen Deep >>Anarchists in the world. Most of them are subscribers >>to the Advanced Freedom Solutions list. One of the best ways to increase >>the number of Deep Anarchists might be to publish a >>series of science-fiction books on the topic. > >Have you thought of writing a book on your experiences >in the "military"? I enjoyed reading about them in the >Build Freedom reports and hearing about them on the Build >Freedom Houston seminar tapes. If I enjoyed these stories, >I am sure a wider audience would enjoy them as well.
What do you think of the "Phobocrat Series?" We probably have enough material to produce 5 or 10 science-fiction novels. If we can find a competent novelist, I would gladly assist. Are you or anyone interested in finding us a novelist?
(For a taste of my "military" experiences, see '#TL05B: Freedom Steps' -- Step #2.)
CLARIFYING PEMES
At 04:45 PM 3/17/98, "L. Reichard White" <rick.rabbit@elmos.com> wrote: > >As I understand "meme" it is a term applying >to any mental construct which we are not born >with. A meme may be self-created from experience >-- "the best short news clips are on BTV" -- >or, through "infection" (acquired from others) >-- you may now find yourself checking BTV >(Bloomberg TV) for short news clips. It is >transmitted memes that have the most impact >since they affect more of us, and thus it is >these transmitted memes that we usually discuss. > >Memes are usually but not necessarily transmitted >in verbal form. They may be passed by reference -- >"See pg. 28 of 'Thought Contagion' by Aaron Lynch," >as an example. (On pg. 28, you'll find Lynch passing >further memes by reference. Is this recursion?) >A meme may or may not have direct behavioral >implications -- "You must send in your taxes >today," vs. "I signed my name in the guest >register in that Sri Lankan castle." (Nearly >all information has some _indirect_ behavioral >implications.) > >Have I missed anything important here? >
The following is from Richard Brodie's Meme Central website:
"Memes are the basic building blocks of our minds and culture, in the same way that genes are the basic building blocks of biological life."
"The breakthrough in memetics is in extending Darwinian evolution to culture. There are several exciting conclusions from doing that, one of which is the ability to predict that ideas will spread not because they are "good ideas," but because they contain "good memes" such as danger, food and sex that push our evolutionary buttons and force us to pay attention to them."
We are probably born with many memes relating to survival and propagation.
>Let me see if I can clarify my notion of "pemes."
>As I understand it, the term "peme" is a term coined
>as a useful convenience in differentiating so-called
>"political memes," ("I must obey the 'authorities,'"
>"It's for the good of 'society,", "We must protect
>the children," etc.) from memes in general. Pemes,
>in the context of this discussion at least, seem to
>be seen as having the purpose of facilitating the
>"political means" to wealth, that is, conning,
>extorting, or stealing (rather than negotiating and
>trading) value from the people living in a particular
>arbitrarily defined geographical area, and also of
>satisfying the genetic inclinations of those with
>[coercive] hierarchical tendencies.
>
>That is, in this discussion one of the things we
>are (or should be) attempting to do is expose and/or
>identify as many "memes" as possible that probably
>have direct behavioral implications, are widely
>transmitted, usually but not always verbal in nature,
>and have the effect of manipulating people infected
>by them to support the local "territorial mafia."
>
>Have I missed anything important here?
>
Surface pemes like "I must obey the 'authorities'" are relatively weak, relatively easy to spot, and relatively easy to invalidate and dislodge. The "man in the street" clings to surface pemes. Most Egoists, Libertarians, Extropians, Objectivists, Anarchists, etc. have little difficulty dislodging surface pemes.
Deep pemes are vastly more powerful. For most people, they are vastly more difficult to
spot, invalidate, and dislodge -- virtually impossible. For most Egoists, Libertarians,
Extropians, Objectivists, Anarchists, etc., deep pemes are extremely difficult to spot,
invalidate, and
dislodge. From the time that I identified my first deep peme in 1977, it took seven years
to clear out all the deep pemes I've found so far. I haven't found any new ones since
1984. For an example of someone who almost instantly cleared out all his deep pemes, see
report #TL07E: The NSPIC Debate #1.
>If indeed memes are largely transmitted verbally, >we should attempt to approximate the verbal >content -- even if non-verbal, the equivalent >verbal content would be useful. >
No! Most people, including practically all Egoists, Libertarians, Extropians, Objectivists, Anarchists, etc., will run a mile if you confront them with any one deep peme.
They need to be presented very carefully, one at a time. Remember the Peme Rules:
"9. Under no circumstances shall any human be allowed to question, attack, or expose any deep pemes.
10. Any humans who have cleared a few surface pemes from their brains shall deceive themselves into believing that they've cleared all pemes from their brains and that they're "politically enlightened."
11. Any humans who attempt to clear any deep pemes from their brains shall experience a strong and compelling inner voice telling them, "I've got to stop this or I'll go crazy!"
12. Any human who attempts to question, attack, or expose any deep peme shall be ignored, ridiculed, or vilified by other humans."
>A note about non-verbal pemes: THEY CAN BE >EXTREMELY POWERFUL! Saluting der Fuhrer, >the flag, etc. are examples. > >To the extent we can expose/identify and >de-bunk such pemes, we may free ourselves >and others from their effects. > <snip> > >One thing that makes the government situation >so intractable, I believe, is that it is a jumble >of intertwined "pemes," which, on their own would >be relatively weak, but they are combined with: > >1. Threats of force, violence, and ultimately, >pain, -- and > >2. Appeals to our underlying small-group >genetically specified instinctive tendencies >(soldiers don't die or sacrifice themselves for >their "governments," they do it for their kids >and families at home and they do it to protect >their immediate buddies). > >It is my suggestion that it is this complex >which combines pemes, threats of pain, and >connections to our genetic tendencies which >makes the "government-peme complex" so pernicious, >sort of like the bio-war cocktail reportedly >developed by the Russians composed of anthrax, >bubonic plague, and smallpox. >
A good analogy! In my opinion, deep pemes are vastly more powerful in apparently "controlling" people than "threats of force, violence, and ultimately, pain."
In a way, most people, much of the time, unknowingly "control" themselves through their deep pemes in ways harmful to themselves and beneficial to phobocrats, specifically obeying Peme Rule 19: "Whenever pro-freedom humans (secondary peme purveyors) communicate -- although they may question, attack, and expose a few surface pemes -- they shall make a special effort to use deep pemes in their language -- in order to maximize peme survival and propagation."
<snip> > >The strength of a meme is often related to how >well it's hidden -- the Dianetics process of >auditing demonstrates this nicely. Exposing memes >often has a similar effect to Toto pulling back >the curtain and exposing the Wizard of Oz for >what he really is. > >It seems to me that in this context: > >1. "Deep pemes" may merely be pemes that haven't >had their equivalent verbal content recently and >objectively exposed to the infected person and/or, > >2. haven't had their exposed verbal content suitably >de-bunked. > >Here's an example of how an identification - debunk >sequence might work: > >Clinton or some other piece of government-clique >fertilizer claims they're doing something for the >children. You ask a "patient" infected with the >"government helps/protects, etc. the kids" peme, >"So you believe you should support 'the government' >because they do good things for the kids? Is that >right?" Assuming they agree with this verbalization >of the peme, you then proceed to the debunking phase. >You say something like, "Hmm. That's interesting. >I used to believe that myself. But if 'the government' >really helps the kids, how do you explain these things?" > <List of "bad conditions" snipped>
>Now sometimes you will put the "patient" into denial. >But as I learned while teaching (we all have our >skeletons), there's often a long-term effect. The >above "inoculation," if properly administered, will >produce the "maybe government doesn't help the kids" >anti-body meme, which will prophilactically cause >the bearer to gather supporting evidence herself, >often leading to spontaneous recovery from the >"governments help the kids" peme in a few weeks, >months or years. Don't expect to see immediate >results however, although sometimes there *are* >"miracle" cures. And remember, you've only treated >one of the many "pemes" this patient probably suffers from. > <snip>
The above reflects how a libertarian might go about helping "the man in the street" clear out some surface pemes. No deep pemes are addressed above. Actually, deep pemes "hide in plain sight," but most are blind to them and the consequences of using them.
[[>At 11:50 AM 3/5/98 -0800, Yak Wax ><yakwax@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>Frederick Mann wrote: >> >>> 9. Under no circumstances shall any human be >>> allowed to question, attack, or expose any deep >>> pemes. >> >>Been there, done that. >> >>> 11. Any humans who attempt to clear any deep >>> pemes from their brains shall experience a >>> strong and compelling inner voice telling them, >>> "I've got to stop this or I'll go crazy!" >> >>Been there too - I enjoyed being crazy. >> >>I have not been infected by any "pemes" deep or >>otherwise. I'm quite sure it's a genetic thing, >>I've just never been able to adapt to centralist >>thinking (which actually helps when dealing with >>people who are infested with these ideas.) >> >>If you think that's impossible, go ahead and >>prove me wrong. >> >I don't think this thread should be about proving >anyone "right" or "wrong." It should rather be >about determining the validity or otherwise of >my peme theory. If valid, then the next step >would be to identify all the pemes and to discover >how people can clear them from their brains. > >Maybe you could make a list of all the pemes >you've either cleared from your brain, or were >never infected by in the first place.]
I'm still waiting for a response from Yak Wax <yakwax@yahoo.com>. It's, of course, possible that he's a deep anarchist and that this entire debate is for him such a bore that it's not worth spending any more time on. (A deep anarchist has cleared out all or most of his or her deep pemes and is not subject to the Peme Rules.)
Earlier definitions:
Pemes are political memes. They consist of ideas, concepts, phrases, and terms, the use of which increases the power of the "masters" who operate coercive political systems; while their use reduces the power of the "subjects" of coercive political systems.
There are surface pemes and deep pemes. Surface pemes are relatively easy to identify and invalidate. An example of a surface peme is "mandate from the people." This is used by politicians and bureaucrats to "justify" their coercive actions. It increases their power. "Subjects" who accept the "mandate from the people" peme, effectively reduce their own power because they "authorize" politicians and bureaucrats to take coercive actions against "subjects."
Deep pemes are much more difficult to identify as such and to invalidate. Deep pemes are generally accepted as valid by practically all people, including freedom lovers. If you try to question, attack, or invalidate a deep peme, most people will think you're crazy.
Two questions may help us identify pemes:
(1) Which words/concepts -- if I accept and use them the way most people habitually do -- place me at a disadvantage in relation to the political "masters?" (Which words tend to increase the power of politicians and bureaucrats, while reducing the power of their victims?)
(2) Which words, if the political "masters" didn't have them nor any equivalents for them, would dramatically reduce the power of politicians and bureaucrats?
If the "typical" Egoist, Libertarian, Extropian, Objectivist, Anarchist, etc. is asked to make a list of items that satisfies the above, he or she will probably come up with a number of surface pemes, but not one single deep peme.
A deep anarchist needs a special process for helping someone shed his or her deep pemes. There's a little obstacle to overcome: Peme Rule 9: "Under no circumstances shall any human be allowed to question, attack, or expose any deep pemes."
Around 1981 I had dinner with a close "near-libertarian" friend in the Atomium restaurant in Brussels. I tried an experiment. Every time he used a deep peme, I relentlessly challenged it: "What do you mean by [deep peme]?"; "What are you talking about when you say [deep peme]?" After about 20 minutes he became quite ill, had to go to the bathroom, and puked his guts out. He returned to the table after about five minutes, but couldn't continue his gourmet meal. Our friendship ceased that night and I haven't seen him since.
Deep pemes need to be carefully and gingerly presented one at a time.
THE PEME CONFLICT PRINCIPLE
Nobody argues about the word "book" -- not that I've heard of, anyway!
There are certain words, some people can argue about until the cows come home, till they go to sleep at night -- in fact, until they die -- without coming to any useful conclusion, agreement, or resolution.
Please read the following material on "society" carefully. It contains important clues. Ask yourself why some people sometimes think and argue in these ways. The material also includes some important insights I find useful.
At 02:44 PM 3/18/98, "David G. McDivitt" <mcdivitt@IAMERICA.NET> wrote: > >Those seemingly in control have been absorbed >into society, whereas society dictates their >actions, no differently than other people. >They just happen to be in a different position >within society. If you meet one of these "people >in control", will you kill him? Will you explain >to him how evil he is and that he deserves to >die? Actually, he is living his life and feeding >his family quite similar to the way you and I do. > >The point is to defeat "social consciousness" >which is an alternative to "individual >consciousness". To do this, all one must do >is continue to speak in terms of individual >consciousness. Social consciousness is the >consciousness of the entity of society. >Individual consciousness is of me. It is seldom >necessary to insult people personally, when >speaking against social consciousness, however, >if you do not acknowledge society as an entity >in this regard, you have no choice but to >address people personally, chastising them. > >Society is a given. It will not simply disappear. >The degree to which people speak in terms of >individual consciousness, rather than social >consciousness, is the degree to which society >is disempowered. Therefore, we still have society, >and we still have individual people. They are >not the same thing.
At 02:23 AM 3/19/98, "David G. McDivitt" <mcdivitt@IAMERICA.NET> wrote: > >At 10:18 AM 3/18/98, Mark Lindsay wrote: >> >>Please clarify/examine your phrase "Social >>consciousness is the consciousness of the >>entity of society." Are you saying that an >>abstraction has consciousness or is capable >>of being conscious of something? What do >>you mean by such a phrase? > >If I felt society was an abstraction, I could >not say it has consciousness. You are putting >words in my mouth.
At 12:56 PM 3/18/98, eric.pavao@analog.com (Eric Pavao) wrote: > >> From: "Karl R. Peters" <u1006057@warwick.net>: >> >> On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Bill Bartlett wrote: >> >>>Society has a different meaning than merely >>>the plural of individual. It is the common >>>interest, and it is more than merely the sum >>>of the individuals composing it, because it >>>creates greater potential and increased >>>possibilities for all. > >Possibilities? Possibilities for what? >Increased taxes and suffering? > >>There *is* a problem with the word 'society', >>and I think Bill Bartlett has inadvertently >>demonstrated it. Yes, society is more than >>merely the plural of the individual, but it >>is not simply "the common interest". > >For two or more things to have something in >common, they have to be the same. For two or >more people to have a common interest, they >have to have the same interest. To make an >assertion that a whole "society" of people >can have any common interests is nothing but >absurd. If but one person disagrees, than >you can't say the it is a common interest of >the society. > >>Rather, society is a "thing", a "spirit" >>if you will, that shapes and pushes its >>members around, much as an "organism" can >>be described as the "spirit" that pushes >>the individual cells in that organism around. > >No. A society is not a "thing". You can't >touch it, you can't see it, you can't smell >it, you can't even seem to define what it is. >Why? Because it doesn't exist. > >>The point that I am trying (and not particularly >>succeeding at) to make is in regards to the >>issue of the morality of this thing called >>Society. Is society a thing we have a moral >>obligation to? Or is it morally acceptable >>to ignore the interests of this "thing" and >>concentrate on our own private interests >>instead. > >There is no "thing", therefore there are no >interests to ignore. > >>That this thing "exists" is fairly clear, >>but the rightness of subservience to it is >>not so obvious. It seems that those who >>wish to escape subservience to it are >>trying to do so in a disingenuous way, by >>claiming "it doesn't exist!" > >It isn't fairly clear that it exists. What >you are referring to as a "society" is nothing >more than individual people, going about their >individual business, for their own individual >reasons. No two of the individual people are >exactly the same, so to group all of them >together and say there is some common >interests is absurd.
At 08:59 AM 3/20/98, AnarcoCap1 <AnarcoCap1@aol.com> wrote: > >Ah, the myth of the "common interest." If the >interest is so common, why can't you get unanimity >on it? The idea that "society" is greater than the >sum of all individuals who comprise it, is one of >the most dangerous examples of self-delusion, and >an extreme threat to individual liberty.
At 09:20 PM 3/19/98, billbartlett@vision.net.au (Bill Bartlett) wrote: > >Law of the jungle eh mate? Kill or be killed, >eat or be eaten? Of course it fits the self >interest of the capitalist class to promulgate >such myths, to undermine the concept of co- >operation and solidarity which are fundamental >human traits (but inimical to the class interests >of capitalists. But what puts the lie to this >absurdity more than anything else is the intense >class solidarity of the otherwise competitive >capitalist class themselves, at the merest >suggestion of revolutionary change they put >aside all their differences to fight the class >enemy - the working class. > >In a way modern industrial societies are composed >of two societies, the owners and rulers, and their >servants, their wage-slaves. These two great >classes indeed have nothing in common, what >benefits one class is a cost to the other. What >reassures one class, causes the other anxiety, >and so on.
At 09:20 PM 3/19/98, billbartlett@vision.net.au (Bill Bartlett) wrote: > >So when people say "no such thing as society', >it seems to resonate "Heil Hitler!" And it makes my stomach turn... > >Capitalists of course see things differently, >they see (or admit) no connection between their >greed and others' suffering. But in this they >are simply wrong, and I am obligated to say so.
At 09:33 PM 3/19/98, jryder <jryder@cyberhighway.net> wrote: > >It has to be that way. Dog eat dog. >In any other system, all the dogs >eventually starve. > >When the gazelle wakes up, he has to run >faster than all the others if he is to >survive. When the lion wakes up, he has to >run faster than the slowest gazelle. Whether >you're a lion, or a gazelle, when you wake up, >you'd better be running. Unless you're lazy >like Bill [billbartlett@vision.net.au (Bill >Bartlett)]. > >This country used to be strong. Real strong. >The lazy never signed up for the journey, and >the weak died along the way. And look how far >we've regressed... > >Class? There is no class... > >I really see no need to use and invent new words. >The ones and concepts I've got know work fine and >are universal.
At 01:27 AM 3/20/98, "Karl R. Peters" <u1006057@warwick.net> wrote: > >...Why feed your family? Why not simply leave >'em and start a farm by yourself? > >Myself, if 99% of the people in this country >dropped dead, I'd celebrate, and head out for >the country, and live on a farm by my SELF. >I'm one of those rare nuts who actually enjoys >being alone.
At 11:03 PM 3/20/98, billbartlett@vision.net.au (Bill Bartlett) wrote: > >I tend rather to believe that a society includes >the humans as well as their relationship, otherwise >it would not need a separate word, we could just >call the relationship a "relationship"... > >Another reason why that Fred Mann character irritates >me I suppose, he wants to devalue our very language >for his own petty gain. Guess that is pretty much >the usual form of con-men, but I lead a sheltered >life and don't come across them as much as you big >city folk, so it gets to me more.
At 04:22 PM 3/20/98, "Bye, Daniel J." <D.J.Bye@shu.ac.uk> wrote: > >Individualism in the following sense is I >think spot on: > >That the individual is the basic sociological >unit. >That societies consist of individuals. >That only individuals can have interests and >feelings. > >I think this is pretty much unarguable. >"Society" for example, cannot have an >opinion or a will: "Society" has no "mind" >to have opinions or desires *with*. Believing >otherwise can lead you astray.... > >Where individualists can go wrong is in assuming >that therefore "society" does not exist. Society >is the name we give to a group of people who >have various relationships with each other. >Of course it exists!
At 09:26 AM 3/20/98, eric.pavao@analog.com (Eric Pavao) wrote: > >> From: "Karl R. Peters" <u1006057@warwick.net>: > >>...This web is one example of a structure of >>interdependent relationships between people, >>which I'm calling a society. > >Call it what you want. What you describe I >call capitalism, you call it society. Whatever >they are both just ideas neither really exist... > >BTW: In an earlier post, that I didn't have >the time to respond to, you (or someone else?) >asked "do numbers exist?" > >I would answer "NO" numbers do not exist anywhere >but in the minds of humans. Numbers are symbols >invented by humans to represent an idea.
At 02:37 PM 3/20/98, "i.m.mckay" <cllv13@ccsun.strath.ac.uk> wrote: > >At 07:40 AM 3/20/98, AnarcoCap1 (Joseph) ><AnarcoCap1@aol.com> wrote: > >> Corporations are legal fictions, and thus, >>like "the government" do not exist. > >Actually, most people would agree that corporations >and governments do actually exist. I suppose what is >meant here is that they should not exist, which is >a somewhat different concept. That Joseph starts off >denying reality is somewhat sad, if not unexpected.
At 02:24 PM 3/20/98, "Karl R. Peters" <u1006057@warwick.net> wrote:
>
>...The trouble is, *ALL* ideas are like this.
>For example, the idea 'book' is just an idea
>that helps us explain our perception of these
>heavy things we're surrounded in while walking
>through a freedomry. In fact, every word which
>does not itself refer to a direct perception
>("hard", "red", "pain", "awesome", and the like
>are words which do refer to direct perceptions)
>is of this kind where it cannot be said to be
>definitely "real".
>
>Yet still, "book" and "person" seem very real
>to me. "Society" is fairly real, yet not as
>real as a rock. "Two" is less real, "4,567"
>even less, real, and "3i + sqr(3)" even less so.
>
>"Existence" is not a simple binary flag, but
>a matter of degree, probably related to how
>useful and familiar the idea is.
Suppose you were a deep peme (or a set of deep pemes). What would you say? How would you argue? Consider the Peme Rules and "God Module" -- report #TL075: Peme = Political Meme, as well as "Bicameral Stage 2" -- chapter 5 in Wake Up America.
Would you say, "We are universal; we don't need any new words?"
Would you say, "I (society) am a "spirit," if you will, that shapes and pushes my members around?"
Would you say, "Those seemingly in control have been absorbed into society, whereas society dictates their actions, no differently than other people?"
Would you say, "I am obligated to say so."
Would you argue in circles in ways almost guaranteed to produce no useful resolution?
Would you use put-downs and become insulting? (I've edited out most of the put-downs.)
Would you create conflicts?
Would you "make my stomach turn?" (Is this related to my "near-libertarian" friend who puked his guts out when I challenged his deep pemes?
So when is it the real person talking, and when does it seem to be the peme (or set of pemes)?
Be all this as it may, there is a fundamental difference between a word like "book" and a word like "society." People don't argue over "book"; they do over "society."
The Peme Conflict Principle suggests that any word people habitually argue over -- particularly acrimoniously -- is likely to be a deep peme for them. Such deep pemes tend to be emotionally charged and people tend to polarize themselves at extremes around such deep pemes: "society," "property," "race," "abortion," etc.
There seems to be a great deal of disagreement, unresolved issues, even acrimony between various ideologically diverse freedom groups. Maybe an awareness of pemes and the peme conflict principle can bring us closer together.
See especially Peme Rule 4:
4. Pemes shall divide humans into opposing and conflicting political and economic factions -- such as "conservative"/"liberal," "capitalist"/"socialist," and "statist"/"anarchist" -- who shall endlessly argue, fight, and even kill...in the name of pemes.
YAK WAX ON DEEP ANARCHISTS & PEMES
At 06:40 AM 3/21/98, Yak Wax <yakwax@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Frederick Mann wrote: > >> I'm still waiting for a response from Yak Wax >> <yakwax@yahoo.com>. It's, off course, possible >> that he's a deep anarchist and that this entire >> debate is for him such a bore that it's not worth >> spending any more time on. (A deep anarchist has >> cleared out all or most of his or her deep pemes >> and is not subject to the Peme Rules.) > >That is, of course, possible.
At 07:32 AM 3/21/98, Yak Wax <yakwax@yahoo.com> wrote: > >I'm writing this directly to you, but if you wish >to use any of this in your debate I don't have any >objections. After I replied to your post on "pemes" >I joined your freedom list for a short amount of time >to see how you and other list members were advancing >in this area, because I found little or no reason to >help I did not respond. This was due to a certain >degree of paranoia on my part to anyone who has >cleared what I believe your "deep pemes" to mean >from their mind. I have studied this area myself >and have drawn some conclusions that justify this >paranoia. Firstly, I never applied these ideas in >the ways you have and never created "peme rules" >(which, BTW, correspond to my own experiences >completely.) When discussing these topics I used >to talk of a 'political food chain' - occupying >the top are 'originators' (these would be "deep >peme" creators) with 'propagators' of various >kinds (in your terms these would be creators of >"surface pemes" and followers of "surface pemes") >all the way down. If, in fact, you have cleared >"deep pemes" from your mind, then your political >biases (of attacking authority) is part of your >own egoistic pursuits. From my own exploration >of these ideas I have found 'originators' to be >the most dangerous of persons, although I have >my doubts to whether any truly exist. > >It is my belief that a "deep peme" cannot be >created by someone who is 'infected' with "deep >pemes." It follows that 'originators' would >be what you call "deep anarchists" (although >I disagree with your terminology, as "anarchist" >is a highly political standpoint that is the >result of infection, I have always referred >to myself as "non-political.") Also, if an >'originator' wished to gain control of others >he or she would do so by first ridding them >of those deep pemes created by others, and >simultaneously establishing a new set of >"deep pemes" (in your case anti-authority.) > >Obviously I have nothing against your or >anyone else's egoistic pursuits (true >decentralization can only occur when all >entities populate the top of the 'political >food chain'). I'm just trying to determine >your own standpoint.
THE 'POLITICAL FOOD CHAIN'
| 1. |
Deep pemes ("constitution," "president," "authority," "emperor," etc.) Political Concepts |
Originators/ Deep Anarchists | |
| 2. | Surface pemes ("the public interest," etc.) Political Beliefs |
Propagators/ Phobocrats | |
| 3. | Toxic memes ("he made me angry," etc.) Personal Self-Defeating Beliefs |
Followers Rebels |
I find it interesting that your experiences accord with the Peme Rules -- they are of course slightly overstated (but not for some Followers and Rebels!)
My list of Originators:
1. William of Ockham
2. Voltaire
3. Jonathan Swift
4. Lysander Spooner
5. Max Stirner
6. Friedrich Nietzsche
7. Hans Vaihinger
8. George Gurdjieff
9. Aleister Crowley
10. Ron Hubbard
11. Timothy Leary
12. Robert Anton Wilson
13. Hakim Bey
14. Max More
Who else should I add to my list?
The primary characteristic of Originators is their ability and willingness to question everything. I suspect all the above had or have this quality.
I don't think any of my Originators have cleared out all their deep pemes. They could be regarded as Proto-Deep Anarchists. (As a result of my identification of the Peme Conflict Principle, I discovered that I also have more deep pemes to tackle.)
Originators are extremely dangerous to the status quo -- provided they can get people to listen to them. (There are, and probably have been, many more unknown Originators who failed at getting people to listen to them.)
I don't "attack authority." I attack the very idea or notion of
"authority" (so-called). The notion of "authority" in the political
sense is a deep peme. (To regard Einstein as an authority on
relativity is valid.) All so-called "political authority" is bogus -- hucksters
who call themselves "president," "emperor," etc. and suckers who
believe them.
I certainly am not "anti-authority" because from my perspective there isn't any so-called "authority" to be against. There are only pretended "authorities" -- and Followers who believe and obey them, and Rebels who believe and fight them.
Hubbard was a master at helping people remove some of their toxic memes, then installing his own toxic memes to create Loyal Followers. As far as I know, Hubbard never addressed what I consider deep pemes.
I think that someone with deep pemes can both help others remove deep pemes and install new deep pemes.
By "anarchist" I mean someone who has no ruler and doesn't rule others. I would agree with you that an anarchist operating at the Rebel level ("anti-authority") is infected -- he hasn't shed the idea of "authority" (so-called). He doesn't realize that the hucksters masquerading as "emperor," "president," etc. are imposters and liars.
You say, "...[T]rue decentralization can only occur when all entities populate the top of the 'political food chain'." You're right. Coercive politics is about those higher on the 'chain' "eating out the substance" of those lower on the 'chain.' To prevent having your "substance eaten out," you have to raise yourself to the top of the 'political food chain.'
Deep Anarchists of the world, escape from the 'political food chain' hierarchies and disperse at the top!
At 04:10 PM 3/21/98 +0000, PeterTurland <peter.turland@VIRGIN.NET> wrote: > >Genes, Memes now Pemes. >New Taxonomical Themes. >Neologisms Abound. >In a net wired ground. >Of esteem seeking ideological dreams.
At 02:53 PM 3/21/98 -0500, "Karl R. Peters" <u1006057@warwick.net>wrote:
>
>Scarily enough, I actually agree with 'Freespeak' on something...
>
>On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Freespeak wrote:
>
>> Consider the possibility that in the same way
>> the fish lives in an environment where the
>> primary element is water, you live in a world
>> where the primary element is words. The fish
>> lives in a water culture and you live in a
>> word culture.
>
>This is *definitely* true. Many of our problems are caused
>not so much by other people as simply by the way we *all*
>look at the world, and plow into each other blindly.
>
>Think of it this way. Either we can get into massive fights
>every time we get into an accident at a road crossing, or we
>can erect traffic lights to help us avoid one another. The
>former is continuing to use non-productive ideas ("moral obligation",
>"free-will", "God", "materialism") to guide our behavior, while
>the latter is discovering some new way to think which causes
>the old problems to become *irrelevant*.
CLARIFYING PEMES II
At 07:33 PM 3/20/98 GMT, rick.rabbit@elmos.com wrote: > >> The following is from >> <http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/meme.htm#faq>: >> >> "The breakthrough in memetics is in extending >> Darwinian evolution to culture. There are several >> exciting conclusions from doing that, one of which >> is the ability to predict that ideas will spread >> not because they are "good ideas," but because they >> contain "good memes" such as danger, food and sex >> that push our evolutionary buttons and force us to >> pay attention to them." > >Cool insight! > >It has occurred to me that one clarifying principle >so far missing from the peme discussion is that many >of the memes we are calling "pemes" have very positive >uses in human behavior. A good example is the "protect >the children" memes. Clearly it's necessary for our >race to do just this, protect the children, and we >have a genetic predisposition to do so. It's only >logical that "memes" indicating how to do this should >evolve and be transmitted. > >So when we go about protecting kids under our own >motivation and in an appropriate context, the memes >involved don't justify being classified as "pemes" >-- they're not being used for political purposes >(probably.) > >It's when the memes are invoked by political cliques >to manipulate or as an excuse to steal, for THAT >PARTICULAR USE of the "protect the children" memes, >etc., they can usefully be called "pemes."
Yes! There's a whole range of survival memes which, if hijacked by phobocrats for nefarious purposes, become surface pemes.
>Further, it is this confusion -- having legitimate >instincts and memes labeled with the same symbol but >used for BOTH "positive" and "negative" purposes -- >that makes it so difficult to separate the political >cliques from the power they can get from invoking them.
Good point! Phobocrats are very good at using survival memes to "justify" their coercive actions. To the superficial "masses" anyone who questions phobocrat programs can be branded a "child hater," "job destroyer," etc.
>...I would suggest the same logic applies to >ALL "pemes" whether "deep" or "surface." The >logic's just, probably, more difficult to apply >to presumably more subtle "deep pemes."...
The most powerful deep pemes depend on their survival the bicameral need for "external authorities" -- see chapter 5 of Wake Up America.
>...The strong "political" memes must, if the above >logic is correct, count for their strength on >hijacking pre-existing human instincts...
We could call the bicameral need for idols a primitive human instinct. The Follower worships idols; the Rebel hates and tries to fight them. (The Deep Anarchist seeks to expose their falsity.)
>SOME SPECULATION: > >In general, strong political memes work by evoking >instinctive behavior, often by a simple S-R (semantic >shorthand for signal-response or stimulus-response) >mechanism. > >I would also suggest that it's possible so-called >"deep pemes" may make people confronting them >uncomfortable because such a confrontation might >challenge deeper needs for a feeling of "stability," >which can be severely challenged by reductionist >insights: > > "Our raw material consisted merely of events; > but when we find that we can build out of it > something which, as measured, will seem to be > never created or destroyed, it is not surprising > that we should come to believe in "bodies." > These are really mere mathematical constructions > out of events, but owing to their permanence > they are practically important and our senses > (which were presumably developed by biological > needs) are adapted for noticing them, rather > than the crude continuum of events which is > theoretically more fundamental." -- Bertrand > Russell, 'ABC of Relativity,' pg. 117. > >The implications of such insights seem to sometimes >evoke some sort of "terror of chaos," or something in >some people. Perhaps such fears are more common than >I think?
Maybe at certain levels of development, human consciousness takes the form of an interdependent network of basic concepts, such that if any one concept is threatened, then the threat tends to be perceived as being against the whole of consciousness. "If I lose this one precious deep peme, then my entire consciousness will collapse."
For many people, this may apply for deep pemes such as "society," "constitution," "president," "emperor," etc.
At 03:36 PM 3/21/98 EST, ARTSCHOLBE <ARTSCHOLBE@aol.com> wrote: > >Nice thoughts, Fred, but neither you nor Jason will >ever be free as long as the state can grant special >privilege to the few at the expense of the many. Right >now, you, all of us, and our progeny, owe someone >for the right to place our foot on the earth from the day >that we were born. And that never stops. In fact, if >those who hold title to the land decided not to allow >you to set foot on it, you would not be able to earn >a living in any form, or find shelter for the night. Does >that sound like freedom to you? Or do you like living >out of a packing case over a grate?
The peme program has spoken.
The fish can't be free, unless all the sharks have been exterminated.
Poor victim ARTSCHOLBE can't be free because the big bad ogre "state" grants privileges to the horrible exploiting few at his expense.
Poor ARTSCHOLBE lives in a world in which there are no privileges, except those granted by the big bad ogre "state" and by the horrible exploiting few.
Poor ARTSCHOLBE is at constant risk of greedy, selfish landowners revoking his permission to be on their land, condemning him to live "out of a packing case over a grate. "What a shame!
Poor ARTSCHOLBE doesn't know how to grant himself even greater privileges than those supposedly granted by the big bad ogre "state." What a shame!
Now imagine that you're a deep peme called "state," sitting on a throne in ARTSCHOLBE's brain in the form of the top-dog mind parasite. What attitudes would you want to induce in your victim? Abject helplessness? And what would you want your victim to say? What messages would you want poor ARTSCHOLBE to spread?
THE STOCKHOLM SYNDROME
At 09:34 AM 3/22/98 +0000, Emily Sandblade <codehead@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >Recently, on a cryptography list, there was a discussion >about how a prisoner of a political system begins to accept >that system, just as prisoners in extreme situations begin >to identify with the prison guards. It is an act of survival >on the part of the prisoner: by identifying with his captors, >he can withstand the torture and violence that he is subject >to. > >This well-identified mechanism, known as "The Stockholm >Syndrome" may be readily used to explain why NSPIC becomes >so deeply ingrained in the psyche of most individuals.
NSPIC = Neuro-Semantic Political Illusion Complex. NSPIC consists of pemes (political memes) plus the Peme Rules. See '#TL07E: NSPIC Debate #1' and '#TL075: Pemes = Political Memes'.
>I believe that there are strong similarities between >the cases of: >[class 1] individuals in an overtly hostile situation, >such as overt prisoner situation, and >[class 2] those who live under a government where the >immediate threat of violence is somewhat less apparent. > >These two classes are described as follows: >----- >Class 1: The individual's safety and life is at the >mercy of cruel and unpredictable captors. The captors >threaten to kill the individual and are perceived to >be capable of doing so. > >Class 2: The individual perceives his safety and >life to be at the mercy of unpredictable terrorcrats >who may use violence to enforce their wishes. The >terrorcrats threaten to kill, imprison, or take away >everything valuable to the individual and are perceived >to be capable of doing so.
"Terrorcrat" = terrorist bureaucrat or coercive political agent -- usually written "terrocrat." Phobocrat is used in the same sense.
>----- >Class 1: The individual cannot escape. > >Class 2: The individual believes that he cannot escape. >----- >Class 1: The individual is isolated from support, or in >the case of hostages, the knowledge that other people are >trying to help them. > >Class 2: The individual is isolated from support, and >discredits any support that he might see. >----- >Class 1: The captor shows kindness as well as violence, >increasing the individual's sense of being totally >dependent on the captor. > >Class 2: The bureaucrats show kindness as well >as violence and unpredictability, increasing the >individual's sense of being totally dependent >on the government. >----- > >In this syndrome, all the individual's attention is >focused on survival. The individual clings to the >captor because the captor has complete power over >him. If the captor doesn't use this power, the >individual feels grateful and in his mind the >abuser becomes a good guy. The individual also >knows that any expression of anger, resentment, >or challenge to the captor's power will result >in violence. (Sound familiar?) > >There are four stages in Stockholm syndrome: > >1. Disbelief and denial. "This isn't happening." >The person refuses to believe the evidence that >he sees. > >2. Acceptance. The person comes to identify >with the captors/terrorcrats, and believes that >his life depends on them. > >3. Escape/release from situation, accompanied >by depression and post-traumatic stress. The >individual is separated from the source of his >identity, and feels lost without it. In addition, >he may continue to identify with the former captor, >going to such lengths as trying to defend the >captor, and even re-entering the previous >relationship. > >4. Integration of the experience; re-establishing >personal identity; acknowledgment of the horror >of the captor's acts. > >Stage 3 may be correlated with f-prime's description >of some libertarians, who have managed to lose some >of their "surface pemes," but are still have an >intrinsic commitment to their captors. > >Stage 4 hints at potential processes to discover and >release the deeper beliefs. > >---------------------- >How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What >would things have been like if every police operative, >when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been >uncertain whether he would return alive? If during >periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there >in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the >downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but >had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly >set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen >people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else >was at hand? -- the organs would very quickly have >suffered a shortage of officers -- and, notwithstanding >all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have >ground to a halt. -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
This is a great contribution to understanding why so many freedom lovers support the terrocrats at the most fundamental or semantic level. Peme Rule 19: "Whenever pro-freedom humans (secondary peme purveyors) communicate -- although they may question, attack, and expose a few surface pemes -- they shall make a special effort to use deep pemes in their language -- in order to maximize peme survival and propagation."
The word "government" is one of the most pernicious deep pemes. The falsely-called "constitution" is a fraud, hoax, and sham. The hucksters who masquerade as "president," "congressmen," etc. are liars and imposters. The false notion that these terrocrats constitute "the government" is central to NSPIC = Neuro-Semantic Political Illusion Complex. To habitually call these phobocrats "government" (using the word as if valid) is a lie, a gross and harmful misrepresentation of reality.
To use the word "government" as if valid, is to conceal the fact that the entire "political system" is a hoax, fraud, and sham. It's a form of identifying with the terrocrats.
The power of terrocrats depends most fundamentally on words such as "constitution," "government," "state," etc. not being challenged, i.e., using them as if valid.
(Caveat: Most people operate at a level such that it's not appropriate to challenge the terrocrat lexicon in their presence -- they'll simply think you're crazy and you'll lose your audience. Great care needs to be taken to challenge basic terrocrat words (deep pemes) when it's appropriate to do so.)
Report '#TL50C: Bought-Into-The-System' expands on several issues relevant to this topic. Interestingly, it includes a section on "Identifying with the Enemy."
PHOBOCRATS, ECONOMICS & BIOLOGICAL IMMORTALITY
At 11:50 PM 3/22/98, I-AFD_2@anarch.free.de (catkawin) wrote: > >Mr. Mann wrote: > >> But, what if I'm really free and sovereign *by nature,* >> irrespective of the freedom and sovereignty of others? >> >> What if I can discover that I'm free and sovereign by >> nature -- and then, develop my knowledge, wits, and >> resources to the point that, for most practical purposes, >> I can live as a free sovereign -- irrespective of the >> "unfree" masses around me (who haven't yet discovered >> they're free and sovereign)? > >Mr. Mann speak her against his own words: "We have to use our >minds to expand in a way that could snowballs. We could acti- >vate the minds of others into becoming more potent freedom >weapons." Why should we do this if we are really free and so- >vereign *by nature*, irrespective of the freedom and sovereig- >nty of others and if we can live as a free sovereign -- irres- >pective of the unfree masses who haven't yet discovered they're >free and sovereign?! If we can live as free sovereigns without >others -- why to hell should we activate other minds into more >potent freedom weapons?!! >
I have a long-term goal of biological/physical immortality. The greatest hindrance to BI, in my opinion, comes from coercive political thought and behavior. To reduce the risk of being killed by coercive political people, it's in my interest to do something about it.
I'm in the process of tracking down the most basic causes of coercive political behavior, and developing the means to communicate about this effectively.
For me there are five elements here:
1. Discovering you're free and sovereign;
2. Developing the practical skills, etc. to live prosperously as a free sovereign;
3. Assisting others to do 1 and 2;
4. Reducing the risk of others violating your freedom and sovereignty.
5. Achieving BI.
>And on the other hand: >Who is my freedom and sovereignty by nature if I live in a >poor country with 50% unemployment, a high inflation, no industry >and 150 $ annual salary average per inhabitant?! Who is my free- >dom and sovereignty by nature if I am very poor and hungry?! >Who to hell is my freedom and sovereignty by nature if I don't >find solvent customers for my service in a backward country?!
In practically every poverty-stricken part of the world some people become wealthy. You
could also
move to another part of the world. If this seems difficult, you could work on a ship, and
"jump ship" in some appropriate "not-so-backward" part of the world.
Then there are all the things you can do via computers/Internet that are not location dependent. You can find solvent customers in other parts of the world. (All the above is easy for me to say because I've done it!)
>I didn't say that "freedom is indivisible" -- but we have to accept >that the system isn't only a spiritual phenomenon; it's a fallacy >that the system haven't no negative practical economic effects. To >free humans from 'peme' programs as the only simple way to give >everybody a chance to discover they're free and sovereign is a >middle class dream in industrial countries. If we should activate >our freedom and sovereignty by nature irrespective of others than >we need a developed economy like the industrial nations and last but >not least a access to the internet -- and this isn't for 80% of >humans on earth a option.
In my opinion, coercive political behavior tends to have devastating economic consequences for the vast majority of people. Nevertheless, I believe individuals can rise above bad economic circumstances.
Much more is necessary than clearing out peme programs. See Report '#TL05B: Freedom Steps' and the 'Millionaire Reports'.
IS "PROPERTY" A DEEP PEME?
At 04:46 PM 3/18/98, "Stephen J. Arthur" <sarth396@neors.cat.cc.md.us> wrote: > >Is "Property" a Deep Peme? > >Does putting a "word" in quotations change >the meaning? >
It sometimes changes the meaning the author wishes to convey. In the context of the peme debate, it often indicates that the author questions, challenges, or rejects the validity of the word. For example, so-called "constitution" and falsely-called "government" indicate that the author regards "constitution" and "government" as bogus words.
>Will the anarcho-capitalists ever realize >that "property" only has meaning within the >context of "society"? > >Will they ever manage to build that boat? [See <http://www.freedomship.com/>.] > >If so, will its inherently unequal economic >principles cause freedom to capsize?
>Will the extropians succeed in cloning Ayn >Rand? Will she write a fictional account >of the freedom ship called "Neptune Drowned"?
Before I formulated the Peme Conflict Principle, I would have said the word "property" is probably not a deep peme. Now I say it probably is. It's a dividing concept many people polarize themselves around, particularly at the ideological extremes. Peme Rule 4: "Pemes shall divide humans into opposing and conflicting political and economic factions -- such as "conservative"/"liberal," "capitalist"/"socialist," and "statist"/"anarchist" -- who shall endlessly argue, fight, and even kill... in the name of pemes."
On some lists there have been long and sometimes acrimonious arguments over "property" -- with no useful resolution that I know of.
A useful question might be: If "property" were a deep peme in people's brains, what would it make them say?
At 09:29 AM 3/21/98, swaxman@ix.netcom.com (sheldon waxman) wrote: > >There is no such thing as "society." There is >only the individual and community. > >"Only independent contractors are truly free; >workers-employees are slaves. Law is force. >Laws are the enemy of Freedom. Freedom requires >the individual to be sovereign." - SRW >"Tyranny is the absence of Freedom" - Thomas Paine ><http://www.libertarian.com/shelly/> ><http://www.freedomlaw.com/> -- R.J.Tavel
At 09:14 AM 3/21/98, Harry Pollard <george@4link.net> wrote: > >I use community. > >Often people cooperating together freely in community >need to come to a conclusion about something that >affects all of them. > >Then, I see nothing wrong in voting to a decision. >(I assume that they are contracted to such a procedure. >However, some caveats. A simple majority will get lots >of things done, but with large numbers dissenting from >the decision - not good. > >A consensus is by far the best - but in any group there >are bloody minded people who are 'agin it' no matter >how desirable a positive decision might be. So somewhere >between 50% and 100% is reasonable. The higher the >necessary number, the fewer the decisions that are made >- but with most people agreeing with the verdict. > >So, perhaps 90% or 95% might be good - which will have >the effect of framing the question that needs a vote >in a way that is mostly acceptable - except to the >bloody minded. > >One of the advantages of Georgist economics is that >cities (communities) will be compact and built a few >miles apart (or many!). > >They might choose different economies and political >systems, perhaps from pure anarchism to pure socialism. >Their competition will show which systems are working >better - and will pressure some to adopt the ways of >others. > >So we'll find the practical voting percentage in a >marketplace. > >In a free society, a major goal - perhaps THE major >goal - is increasing cooperation. To enhance the >effects of cooperation, some rules and laws may be >necessary to lubricate the times when we rub up >against each other. > >And so it goes...
At 10:16 PM 11/17/97, Tim Starr <timstarr@netcom.com> wrote: > >"Mike O'Mara" <romike@seeker.hermesnet.net> wrote: > >>On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, "Rob Bass" <roberth@bgnet.bgsu.edu> wrote: >> >>>From: Mike O'Mara <romike@seeker.hermesnet.net>: >>> >>>>...[M]ost of the prominent classical libertarians >>>>have agreed with John Locke: that no person has any >>>>more right to claim land than any other - therefore, >>>>each individual has an inalienable right to land, or >>>>equivalent compensation... >> >>>That was not Locke's position. You need to read some >>>more Locke. It's true that he's not a contemporary >>>libertarian, but he wasn't a Georgist either. >> >>In Locke's *Second Treatise of Government*, Chapter 5, >>he said that an individual has a right to claim land, >>but *only* with the proviso that "there be enough and >>as good left in common for others" (Section 27). > >That STILL doesn't mean "that no person has any more >right to claim land than any other," contrary to your >claim above. > >>If you mean to say that Locke did not always follow >>through consistently with his own principle, that >>is true. But his principle itself, if applied >>consistently, leads directly to the conclusion of >>Thomas Paine and Henry George: each individual has >>an inalienable right to land, or equivalent compensation. > >The labor theory of value also leads to the conclusion >that workers have the right to all the fruits of their >labor, thus entitling them to seize the means of production >from the capitalists, if consistently applied. So what? > >Locke made a mistake. His Proviso is wrong. It wasn't >his only mistake, either. He got a lot of things right, >but not that. Many other smart, well-meaning people >made the same mistake. > >The only difference between Socialism & Georgism is >which factor of production they focus on. Socialism >promises to free us from the oppression of private >ownership of capital by collectivizing it, while >Georgism promises to free us from the oppression >of private land ownership by collectivizing it.
>From John Pugsley's Journal, Private Conversations >with the Money Masters: > >...It's internationally agreed that all types of >plunder, mayhem or murder are acceptable for a >government, as long as it limits its predations >to its own citizens. > >Let me see if I can explain this bizarre game in >plain talk. > >People cordon off a piece of land and arbitrarily >announce that it is henceforth a "sovereign nation." >Ruffians and schemers soon grab the posts of >government, and by the power they vest in themselves >set about plundering the individuals who live there. >This has been going on for thousands of years, until >today the entire earth (other than a portion of the >oceans) is divided among different gangs, who wear >pinstripe suits, and run their plunder under the >flag of governments. > >Over time these bandits have learned that it's in >their own best interests to ignore what the other >gangs are doing within the other borders. It's >internationally agreed that all types of plunder, >mayhem or murder are acceptable, as long as the >other governments limit their predations to their >own citizens. Each agrees not to try to enforce >its own laws in the territory of another gang.
THE "SCARCITY" META-MEME
During most of our evolutionary past, our ancestors experienced scarcity of the wherewithal to survive. In nature, scarcity seems to be the rule. Many of our ancestors starved to death.
I suspect that practically every human has a very deep and very strong "scarcity instinct." It's as if we view the world through "scarcity glasses." Wherever we look, we see "scarcity."
I call "scarcity" a meta-meme because it tends to be so pervasive -- we tend to see everything as "scarce." It's a toxic meta-meme.
Historically, the best fighters for and defenders of resources ("property") tended to be the best survivors. So it's highly likely that most of us have a very strong and very deep "instinct" to fight for and over "property." It also tends to be pervasive -- we tend to see the world as pieces of "property" to fight for or over.
Fighting for/over "property" is likewise a toxic meta-meme.
These two meta-memes probably combine with the "property" meme to form a deep peme best called "scarcity-property-fight."
We need to clear it from our minds.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com