Report #TL07E: NSPIC DEBATE #1

by Frederick Mann
© Copyright 1997 Build Freedom Holdings ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

INTRODUCTION

by Frederick Mann

[NSPIC = Neuro-Semantic Political Illusion Complex.]

The basic NSPIC hypothesis is that a number of illusions in the minds of individual human beings keeps coercive political systems in place. The illusions together form a complex. They are "neuro-semantic" in that they involve language, and how language affects perception, thought, communication, and behavior related to politics.

I started becoming aware of NSPIC in 1976 after reading Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. Spooner essentially argued convincingly that the supposed "US Constitution" was never signed or adopted by anyone in a manner that would make it a legal or valid contract. As a result, he called the people pretending to form the "US government" a secret band of thieves, robbers, and murderers. He extended his argument to also apply to all other supposed "countries."

The implications are profound: all coercive political systems are frauds and scams. The people in them are imposters and liars. The supposed "constitution" under whose "authority" they act, are all invalid. The notion that these imposters and liars can "make laws" is quite absurd. All coercive political systems are entirely hoaxes.

Starting in 1976, it took me seven years until 1983 to identify and clear the major illusions that constitute NSPIC from my thinking. Since then I've been working on identifying the root causes of NSPIC, improving my ability to communicate about NSPIC, and developing ways to assist others to overcome NSPIC.

In 1996 I started a debate with Mr. John de Rock on what I then called the "De Rock Hallucination" or "DRH." In September, 1997, I changed the name from "DRH" to "NSPIC."

Soon after the debate started, a very bright individual called "Simon Baker"  [name changed] joined the debate. He seemed to have completely mastered all aspects of NSPIC right from the outset. He seemed to have done instantaneously what took me many years of "mindbreaking" work. Amazing!

In September, 1997, I remarked to SB (Simon Baker), "You probably grasped NSPIC faster and more thoroughly than everyone else." Here's his repsonse.

NSPIC -- SPONTANEOUS MASTERY

by Simon Baker

A bit of history which you might find interesting: I'd say it's because I never really suffered from it. I hadn't read any of yours or other's writings when I first participated in the debate during '96 when it was first held on John de Rock's list (so my thoughts in these areas were somewhat imprecise compared to now). My introduction to all this stuff was through JW, with whom I met on the internet around December-'95... JW encouraged me to order all your materials, which I did a bit before the debate started... As soon as I saw your [first] reply to John in there, I instantly realized what you were writing about.

Prior to chatting with JW and reading that, I still used the word "government" when talking to others, but I personally thought of it as a bullshit concept (and most "politicians," "bureaucrats," etc. as complete dimwits), but didn't know what I could do, other than just keep my ideas to myself and do my own thing privately - which is what I did. (I always thought of "tax" as theft, etc., and so I found ways to avoid paying it.)

One thing I used to notice about myself when I said the word "government" to others was that I felt uncomfortable using that word - though this was also on a half-conscious level at the time.

I was thrilled when I first met JW and he explained advanced freedom things to me, and more so when I read more in your reports, etc. (which I casually went through a few months after receiving them) - mainly because I had just found some enlightened people that I never knew before, and previously thought may not have existed! I hadn't read any of Lysander Spooner's or any of the other's works prior to then either (I had no idea that such things had been written, so never looked for them - I didn't even know the terrocrats had a pretended "constitution" back then either - I knew very little about all the ways people were being scammed, all the frauds going on, etc., etc. at the time)...

["Terrocrat" = coercive political agent or terrorist bureaucrat.]

Prior to reading your materials, my realization of DRH/NSPIC (in the area of "government") wasn't fully conscious, but as soon as I read your comments like "most people hallucinate "government"," it was like: bang! haha! Yep!

An instant cure! - though a lot of this was further clarified as I read your reports afterwards. It's so obvious to me anyway.

In the area of "law," I always considered "it" to be absurd bullshit - except where "it" was just common-sense written down, which I had no problem with, but thought was a waste of time...

[SB does not "feature" again in this report. We'll meet him again in the next NSPIC report -- '#TL07F: NSPIC Debate #2.']

PRELUDE TO DRH DEBATE

by Frederick Mann

The DRH debate was actually preceded by a John de Rock article to which I responded. I think this information is important in that it points to a kind of mindset that I believe to be related to DRH/NSPIC.

Also relevant is that Mr. de Rock had been involved with Build Freedom, a highly freedom-oriented organization, for about two years and wrote the article that follows for Build Freedom News, our monthly newsletter at the time. I have the impression that Mr. de Rock got involved with Build Freedom because we share hopes for achieving physical or biological immortality, and that freedom issues are secondary to him (if at all relevant).

LIBRA MORTEM

by John De Rock

This article looks at the question as to whether the high rate of technological progress we are now used to can continue over the next several hundred years, to produce such wonders as an end to the aging process.

Mark Plus, of the Society for Venturism, has sent me an audio cassette and a cutting from "For the People" on the debate on this subject. The cassette was of a radio show, a part of a series called "Background Briefing." This episode was called "The End of Work."

It was based on a book by Jeremy Rifkin, The End of Work, suggesting that economic problems could be solved by getting everyone to work a 30hr week for 40hr wages. The expense would be met by the government taking less in taxes. This would be balanced by having to pay out less welfare to the unemployed.

This seems to be an excellent idea, but they did miss out on a few points (or I missed them -- I usually listen to things like this whilst mowing the lawn or something equally mindless).

1. People working 30hr weeks should be discouraged from taking a second paid job. (They could work for themselves, but they shouldn't get additional employment. Rather than a blanket ban, the tax system could be used to penalize overtime or a second employment.)

2. The standing tax and regulatory charges on employing people should be dropped, i.e., it should cost the same amount to employ 8 people for one hour as it does to employ 1 person for 8 hours. I am not opposed to regulations making the workplace safer, what I am opposed to is compliance costs, i.e., the owner has to pay someone an extortionate amount to inspect it. This racket is widespread in the UK at the moment.

3. People working for only 30hr a week are likely to be less stressed and will perform better per hour, i.e., the actual output would be equivalent to (guess) 35 of the 40hr/wk man's work. This would only apply if the employee was relaxing during the rest of his time. If he was stressed during the rest of his time, then this would not apply.

The economic ills this is supposed to solve are:

1. A relentless fall in simple jobs, e.g., farm laborer;

2. GNP doubling with average income falling;

3. The "knowledge sector" only trading with itself, not the rest of the world;

4. The middle class becoming a new underclass.

Although I think the 30hr week is an excellent idea, I am not convinced that it will solve any of these problems. The real problem is that wealth production (scientific research, design, manufacture) is "secondary" to circular movements of money around the knowledge sector. The problem is that most of the knowledge that is being traded is not scientific knowledge, but "regulatory" knowledge.

If the GNP is going up I suppose that this need not worry us unduly if this relates to real items. But if there is no money left for people to buy manufactured goods, then manufacturing will cease. It is this problem that is worrying economists and many people on the radio show.

The show didn't make a particular reference to government regulations but if everyone is spending their money on compliance costs, then stagnation will result. (Of course money spent on compliance costs is not necessarily given to the government, it can be to lawyers, inspectors, accountants, assessors, etc.)

The article in For the People by Franklin R. Kegan addressed more directly the points that worry me about economics. Kegan writes of an all powerful sector "General Overheads and Administration" where huge salaries and fees are earned for very little "heavy lifting" as he puts it, without being connected to any direct requirements for sales or goods manufactured.

He sees a division in society between those who like the first of the month because that is when they get their fees, and those who dread the first of the month because that is when they have to pay fees to someone else. He sees little linkage between the information economy and the production economy. He says that the information economy will subcontract all actual work to an underclass. Companies will consist solely of administrative staff to manage these contracts, and it will be these staff (and their fee earning consultants) who will be the high earners in luxurious surroundings. Fortunes will be made by knowing the right people at the right time to do deals, either purchases of stock or brokerage of commodities.

From the point of view of looking for specific advances, such as a cure for aging, we need to ask how much this matters. Any economic debate usually takes a position and then extrapolates it to an extreme. The extremes mentioned here probably won't happen, because the system would fail in other ways before they were actually achieved. This suggests that from the point of view of the human race as a whole, these economic arguments won't make a lot of difference. We will discover immortality one day.

But from the point of view of any specific individual, these considerations make a lot of difference, particularly for people alive today. The reason is that the more money is spent chasing information about obeying regulations, the less money is spent on fundamental research. Therefore the fundamental research takes longer. Therefore the specified individuals die before a cure for whatever kills them is found.

Some people may say that you shouldn't worry, just sign up for cryonics. Well, sign up by all means, but cryonics is only the second worse thing that can happen. Being burned or rotted is the worst thing. Cryonics is worth it because it is the only option available for those who love life. But it is not a particularly good option or a particularly reliable one -- just the only one. Serious expansion of the human lifespan by controlling aging with the resulting reduction in "dread diseases" such as cancer and Alzheimer's disease could make people alive today live forever (or at least until their personal accident) without cryonics. That is if the regulators and lawyers leave us the resources to do the research in time.

UNCONSCIOUS DEATHISM

by Frederick Mann

Something that has concerned me for some time is the apparent unconscious deathism I've observed among some people who aspire to immortalism.

By "deathism" I basically mean the belief that death is desirable or inevitable. Under "deathism" I include beliefs that are conducive to death, particularly psychological, economic, and political beliefs and orientations.

By "immortalism" I basically mean the belief that physical or biological immortality is possible and desirable. My "immortalism" includes taking active steps to achieve physical or biological immortality. These steps include: optimizing my diet, getting appropriate exercise, increasing my ability to use my mind in life-enhancing ways, linking up with other immortalists, furthering cryonics, making appropriate arrangements for cryonic suspension, and taking effective actions to remove obstacles to immortality.

Core Beliefs of Psychological Reversal
According to Robert Fritz (The Path of Least Resistance) there are two basic beliefs most people suffer from:

1. A belief in personal powerlessness;

2. A belief in being worthless.

I indicated that these beliefs were at the root of psychological reversal. In report #TL13F (the sixth 'millionaire' report), I referred to what psychologist Albert Ellis calls the "worthless-piece-of-shit" syndrome. In addition to having a deep-seated and pervasive experience of being powerless, many people also have a deep-seated belief in themselves as "worthless pieces of shit." Deep down they feel they don't deserve life, freedom, success, wealth, love, etc.

(By the way, when a human body dies and is buried -- rather than suspended cryonically -- it effectively becomes a "worthless piece of shit." Some eastern philosophers have remarked that it's a pity that so many people die without having lived.)

I've identified two more core beliefs of psychological reversal:

3. A belief in scarcity;

4. A belief in external control.

Such deep-seated core beliefs tend to have a pervasive influence on how people perceive themselves and the world, how they think, what actions they take, and the results they achieve. They're like tinted glasses that color everything you see.

Psychological reversal is most reliably detected through the failure to produce the results we desire. Also, when people take actions that seem designed to produce the opposite results to those they espouse, we can be pretty sure they suffer from psychological reversal. James Robertson's article on page 10 recounts the saga of "George." Here's a freedom-lover taking repeated actions that seem designed to get him jailed or killed -- a clear case of psychological reversal.

Scarcity
The belief in scarcity creates a "poverty-mentality." In report #TL13A (the first 'millionaire' report), I indicate the tremendous abundance of resources we have available to us, and I refer to Buckminster Fuller's assertion that given all the resources we have, every man, woman, and child on earth should be a millionaire many times over.

I haven't read Jeremy Rifkin's The End of Work, but I have read some of his other writings, which led me to suspect that he suffers from the poverty-mentality. The notion that work is scarce is quite absurd. There are billions of humans on earth with unsatisfied needs and wants. Anyone with reasonably functioning hands and a brain can work at satisfying these needs and wants. The notion that anyone needs a "job" in order to work is also quite absurd -- it's also an aspect of the external-control belief ("slave-mentality").

External Control
Up to a certain age, children require external control in order to survive. In the absence of external control, they fall into swimming pools and drown or run into the street and are killed by cars. For an immature child, external control is how the world works.

Part of growing up -- maturing -- is the development of self-control. Adults can think for themselves, control themselves. To the extent that people in adult bodies cannot exert self-control, they suffer from immaturity and psychological reversal.

The belief that adults must be externally controlled is also a denial of self-ownership and an acceptance of slavery -- the "slave-mentality." If you believe that others have the right to control you, you're essentially a slave.

If you believe in coercion -- basically the use of force or threat to overwhelm the will of another -- you're essentially a slave or suffer from slave-mentality. Killing is an extreme form of coercion. Whether you can admit it or not, if you willingly grant others the right to coerce you, they will most likely assume they have the right to kill you.

People who believe in the draft or conscription, don't believe in self-ownership or self-control. They believe that political bureaucrats own their victims and have the right to force them into battle to kill or be killed. If you accept coercion in principle, it's difficult in practice to reject any particular form of coercion.

The American political system was created on the basis that the political bureaucrats started having few and limited coercive powers. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were supposed to severely limit the coercive powers of political bureaucrats. But coercion was accepted in principle.

As soon as you accept the least form of coercion or external control, you've accepted the master-slave principle -- slave-mentality. You're saying, "I'm not in charge of my life and property; my master is." This is psychological reversal.

Freedom and Life; Slavery and Death
To me, freedom is life and life is freedom. Slavery is a mild form of death. Death is the cessation of freedom. The belief in external control or coercion is a form of deathism.

...When immortalists accept, advocate, or practice coercion or external control, they promote deathism. In both cases psychological reversal is involved.

Value Creation and Destruction
Coercion tends to destroy value; at least, it prevents the creation of value. In the absence of coercion and psychological reversal -- if more people were aware of the phenomena of coercion and psychological reversal -- we wouldn't have to concern ourselves about the rate of technological progress.

In the absence of coercion and psychological reversal, it's unlikely that there would be any economic problems. Every man, woman, and child on earth would be a millionaire many times over. Coercion is an external barrier between and individual and the plentiful resources available to us. It's also a barrier to the development and utilization of resources -- a barrier to technology. Psychological reversal is an internal barrier to the same.

Analysis of the DeRock Article
The idea of the "30hr week for 40hr wages" is based on both the false beliefs in scarcity and external control or coercion. People shouldn't decide among themselves how long they should work or how much to pay each other -- some external-control authority should decide. This is deathism in disguise.

"People working 30hr weeks should be discouraged from taking a second paid job. ... [T]he tax system could be used to penalize overtime or a second employment." Accepting any "tax system" is an acceptance of coercion and external control. If you grant others the right to take your property by force, can you prevent them from treating you as property? More deathism in disguise.

"I am not opposed to regulations making the workplace safer." (I'm assuming this refers to external regulation, rather than self-regulation.) If you grant others the right to regulate your workplace, you've accepted a master-slave relationship. You've relinquished self-control. More deathism in disguise.

Now read or skim Mr. DeRock's article again. Does it represent a sense of vitality, enthusiasm, optimism, and life? Does it offer any solutions? Does it create the impression that he knows about free enterprise? Is it indicative of psychological reversal? Deathism?

Victim-Mentality
Mr. DeRock's final sentence is the clincher: "... [I]f the regulators and lawyers leave us the resources to do the research in time." In other words, we are the poor slaves and victims, owned and controlled by the regulators and lawyers. The only resources we can have are those they're kind enough to leave us. We can only extend our lifespans if they will let us -- poor victims!

When you combine the scarcity belief with the external-control belief, you get the "victim-mentality" -- severe psychological reversal... and deathism.

The Build Freedom Approach
Rather than try to reform the severely psychologically-reversed establishment system, we simply create a new system based on psychological alignment. As we progress, it becomes easier and easier for people to shift into our free system.

In the absence of a small core of individuals, sufficiently psychologically aligned, Build Freedom would never have gotten off the ground. Our positive, psychologically-aligned approach does inspire some people to step out of the psychologically-reversed morass and [take charge of their lives].

As a result of our reaching out to more and more people -- and maybe the "hundredth-monkey" effect -- more individuals will start doing great things.

However, most people are too psychologically reversed to enter the world of Build Freedom. So we need to provide the means for them to become psychologically aligned. Fortunately this challenge is also an opportunity -- to make money by providing the products and services that will enable people to achieve their full potential. And, even more fortunately, some of these products and services are already being provided by people like Dr. Roger Callahan (1-800-359-CURE) and Michael Goldstein (1-800-IDENICS).

Transforming Yourself from a Loser into a Winner
In his most profound book How to Argue and Win Every Time, America's foremost trial lawyer -- who hasn't lost a criminal case in decades -- describes his transformation from a loser into a winner. This is also a metamorphosis from psychological reversal to psychological alignment. Mr. Spence used to lose case after case, to the point that he was in utter despair about his career. He writes as follows:

"Assuming the role of prey -- giving permission to be beaten: If losing is not a necessary part of my life, then why do I lose? Who gives permission to my opponents to beat me? Permission! I remember as a child being whipped by the bully on the block every day, until one day being whipped was no longer an acceptable way of life. Once I withdrew my permission for the bully to beat me up I was no longer beatable. The shift in the paradigm from one who granted permission to be beaten to one who withheld such permission was the magic. The power did not arise out of bolstering myself with false courage. I was still afraid. I did not deny my august failings as a young lawyer. I recognized that I lacked many skills, indeed, most skills of a competent trial lawyer. The power was in the single word: permission.

For there to be prey, the prey must agree to play the role of the prey. Once recognizing my power to give or withhold permission to be prey, I would never again give myself permission to play the role of the vanquished. It was that simple.

Something magically happened when I withdrew my permission to be beaten. How do I describe the changes that occurred? One does not see one's own expressions or observe the way one walks across the room. One cannot perceive accurately the effect one's energy imposes on others. I can only describe the phenomenon from the feedback of others. People perceived me differently. I looked different. I walked differently. The sound of my voice changed. I thought differently. My attitude, the attitude of a winner, became pervasive. [emphasis added] I remember reassuring my client, "We will win. Do you know why? Because they have to kill me before they can get you, and they cannot kill me. They cannot kill me because I will never give them permission to kill me." The change permeated my being. An astounding metamorphosis occurred. I became a winner."

The Phenomenal Contribution of John DeRock
Mr. DeRock has been one of the first and staunchest supporters of Build Freedom from the outset. He has promoted Build Freedom to thousands of people. As a result of his efforts, people from all over the world are involved with us...

Let me also express my appreciation for the monthly articles on cryonics and immortalism. They've certainly strengthened my resolve to achieve biological or physical immortality. And I'm sure they've inspired quite a few others to become life-oriented, rather than resigned to death.

Mr. DeRock has also sent us many ideas, suggestions, and articles, for which I'm very thankful. Some of them have been implemented to make us more effective. [Recently he sent us a report]:

"Support of Government Bureaucrats is Dwindling." I would like to comment on another factor that re-enforces this viewpoint. That is the output of the film industry. When one watches old films on television and indeed old television series, the heroes often work for government agencies. A lot of this probably originates from wartime (WW2) propaganda. Such films were made by both sides, the Nazi ones being rather less subtle than the output from the Allies.

Much science fiction seems to be with a message that authority is good. With the possible exception of "Star Trek" this trend is also dwindling, although it is not quite dead. In the hugely popular "X-Files" the heroes work for a government agency, although they are very much on the fringes of it. Ironically it is the UK's government-owned British Broadcasting Corporation that broke the mold with its "Dr. Who" and "Blake's 7" series. I expect most people have heard of these. "Dr. Who" concerns a time traveller who is at variance with the authorities of the world he came from, and "Blake's 7" concerns some escaped prisoners from a Federation of planets which looks as though it started out as the USA. They find an abandoned alien space ship and somehow manage to pilot it around the universe undoing wrongs done by the Federation."

[Editor: And don't forget "The Prisoner" series -- "I am not a number; I am a free man!"]

PORTHTOWAN VANTAGE POINT

by John de Rock

[This article appeared in the December, 1995 issue of Venturist Monthly News, 7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110, Scottsdale, AZ 85260; editor: Mike Perry.]

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is an international commercial treaty, whose purpose is to sponsor trade negotiations. Its administrative center is in Geneva, Switzerland.

There is a proposal to GATT made by the German government that it should be made illegal in all GATT signatory countries to sell vitamins and other products to extend lifespan, i.e., RDAs only (the "recommended dietary allowance") will be the rule of law. This prompted some reflection about the role of a collective entity toward the individuals that comprise it. An interesting analogy then came to mind.

Humans as individuals get worried when some of their cells become immortal (what we call "cancerous") and fail to maintain the organs of their bodies. They get surgeons to cut these immortal cells away as they fear that they will take over their bodies and render them unviable (i.e., dead). So serious is the risk to life of cancer, that such action is still performed if it results in disfigurement or loss of faculties, e.g., sight or a limb.

Humans coexist on this planet with entities made up of humans as their cells etc., these entities being called governments. It seems entirely rational for these entities to wish to surgically remove diseased "tissue" (i.e., individual human beings), and even "tissue" they consider to be diseased (e.g., of an "impure racial origin").

It may be very difficult for individual humans to be aware of the thought processes of governments, as these "policies" can have effects very different from what the words that make them up suggest. Sometimes awareness does surface, such as when the rest of the world formed alliances to eradicate a government that did a lot of extermination. These alliances even suspended existing governmental disputes, e.g., in the case of communism vs. capitalism.

The latest anti-vitamin idea has come from an area where (under a totally different regime) it was suggested that the incurably ill should be exterminated. This time there is no obvious conspiracy, no fuehrer, no heiling, but nevertheless a direct attack by a government on individuals and an attempt to acquire the cooperation rather than the opposition of other governments around the world.

We cannot counter this attack by making racist, patriotic or nationalist attacks on the German people. Maybe we should not even attempt a conventional confrontation at all.

I think the best approach may be to try and communicate with the government involved and get the idea across that individual life extension is not the same as cancer-of-the-government, and could actually be beneficial to government. In Maximum Lifespan Dr. Roy Walford spells this out.

Governments "farm" individuals for their productivity. Initially they provide child welfare and education, and in order to keep the workers happy they offer elderly care rather than extermination. There is a payload of so many years' productivity in relation to years of dependency. If aging was abolished, then people would on average die after 600 years of life from a personal accident. Thus for 15 to 30 years education (depending on skills required) governments get 570 to 585 years of production. If people are dying from accidents only, then many deaths will be sudden and therefore cheap to administer. There may still be some disabled people to care for (to encourage the others) but the number would be far lower once disease and aging are no longer players in the field.

Communicating with a government is not easy at all. You can communicate with individuals who make up its cells, but this is not always effective. Probably the best way of achieving this is for people with access to television and the quality newspapers to keep on producing articles portraying the economic advantages of the abolition of aging and disease. Governments communicate in terms of economics, and one needs to communicate the ideas in economic terms to as many departments as possible.

FURTHER THOUGHTS (Mike Perry): I've found unsettling the way the collectivist mentality intrudes when we'd like to do something controversial but clearly called for (and I'm speaking now for conditions in the U.S., which I am most familiar with, but presumably this applies elsewhere too.) An example is the case of a cryonicist with a brain-threatening terminal illness (or any other painful, terminal condition) who wants to be frozen promptly rather than linger on in pain and/or increasing debility. In this case an individual (the cryonicist) has a clear, personal wish to undergo suspension pre-mortem, yet the state denies this right (as affirmed in the Thomas Donaldson case some years ago in California.) It would seem logical, and consistent with American traditions at least, to allow the individual to chart his/her own course, and make whatever choices he/she may desire, so long as the rights of others are respected. This simple principle, which is at the heart of libertarianism, nevertheless is not recognized in American courts, nor elsewhere as far as I am aware. I don't know if it has a name; I'll call it the principle of individual self-determination, or (trying to make a good choice of acronym among various possibilities) POISE.

As to why POISE is not respected, a large part of the reason must be simple societal inertia, coupled with the protests of reactionary elements such as certain religious groups. Changing this stance will presumably not happen overnight, but will be a slow process. An important milestone in this direction may be near: to allow "assisted suicide" or euthanasia for the terminally ill. Oregon passed a law to this effect in 1994 but it is suspended pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. More generally though, I see a gradual process, as we hopefully progress in numerous ways over the coming decades. Two possible obstacles to more rapid change are (1) the fact that many people make a mess of their lives if allowed certain choices (e.g., using drugs) that are now increasingly open, and (2) the possibility of disadvantaging children if certain choices are allowed (e.g., drug usage during pregnancy or while raising a family.) (1) may be an unavoidable trade-off, though it could be helped by educational programs, while (2) could be resolved by recognizing that children and children-in-the-making have rights that must be respected.

Editor's Comments - Frederick Mann
I would like to examine the notion of "communicating with a government." Let me start by telling you about something that happened at our seminar in Florida earlier this month. I asked the audience if any of them believed that "government teaches people in school." About a quarter of the audience raised their hands indicating "yes." I asked them how many had actually seen "the government teaching people." Again, about a quarter indicated "yes." I told them that I had seen teachers teaching people, but I had never seen any so-called "government" teaching people.

I asked them to tell me what this supposed "government" they say they saw teaching people looked like. I asked them to tell me what they actually saw. Nobody had any answers.

In order to communicate with an entity, that entity needs to be able to receive, process, and return communications. If we want to communicate to a "government" we need to ask some questions:

1. Does this "government" have eyes or ears to receive communications; or does it have a sense of touch so it can receive communications in the form of braille? (It's no use saying that, "Well, I can communicate to people in government," because then you're communicating to people, not to a "government.")

2. Does this "government" have a brain with thought processes to understand communications?

3. Can this "government" read or write?

4. Does this "government" have a mouth with which to speak?

5. Does this "government" have an address where you can write to "it"; does "it" have a phone number where you can call "it?"

6. Has anyone ever observed communication with a "government?"

7. How will you know if you've successfully communicated with a "government?"

By "hallucinate" I mean "perceive something that isn't" -- "seeing something where there's nothing." Mr. De Rock -- together with about 99.999...% of other humans -- hallucinate volitional entities they call "governments" and they imbue their hallucinated "government" idols with magical powers.

This is a primitive and debilitating thinking habit about 99.999...% of humans suffer from. Most people actually believe that some of the noises that emanate from the mouths and pens of some of the terrocrats masquerading as "government" (so-called) is "the law" (so-called). They imbue these noises and scribbles with magical powers as being "special words" which must be obeyed, changed, or repealed.

Many people believe that if "the government" utters the right noises or writes the right scribbles (they hallucinate as "the law"), then all kinds of problems will magically disappear. Many others believe that if "the government" (so-called) "repeals" some of "its" noises and scribbles, then all kinds of problems will magically disappear.

The phenomenon of "government" (falsely-called) is primarily a phenomenon of collective hallucination.

POLITICAL FAKERY, FANTASY, CHARADE, (HALLUCINATION?)

The following article by William F. Buckley, Jr. appeared in The Arizona Republic of April 25, 1996:

Politicians pin hopes on fakery
I first laid eyes on television at age 19, a man-of-the-world infantry second lieutenant reduced to administrative work because the emperor had surrendered. I dined most nights with an aging uncle and aunt who had an impressive black-and-white set about the size of my computer screen.

There was not much to look at in 1945, but my uncle, a retired lawyer and a scholar, would never miss a wrestling match, and these came two or three times every week. I would look at him with amused condescension as he egged on this hunky man or the other, roistering in the drama. It wasn't until I had looked in on several of these that, calmed down to have dinner, he mentioned nonchalantly that the fighters were faking it.

This did more merely than take me by surprise. To begin with, it was hard to believe, except that Uncle Claude knew everything, so it had to be as he said.

My first reaction was extreme indignation, of a kind only a teenager can generate. The very idea that two fighters should go out there feigning a fight to the death while apparently everyone over 19 knew that it was charade. I was upset both by learning that the wrestling matches were simply histrionic exercises and by confronting the fact that even knowing this, the audiences nevertheless tuned in.

I did not accost my uncle with the apparent pointlessness of watching such a match because to have done so might have suggested I thought him senile, which was far from the case.

The same disillusion crystallizes on the broad capital front. It is hardly on the order of a great discovery to know that politicians are frequently guided by ambition. Politicians need to be aware of the political warp and woof of democratic practice.

When I was a college student, a professor of political science brought into his classroom one morning a dour elderly man dressed in dull blue, his sparse hair neatly splayed over his forehead. He was the mayor of New Haven, Conn., invited to acquaint us with municipal government.

Mayor Celentano got right to the point. He opened his briefcase and withdrew a packet of letters. "These," he said to the students "are this morning's mail. I'll open that mail in front of you. That will give you an idea of what my responsibilities are." He proceeded, with a little gold scissors withdrawn from a vest pocket, to open 24 pieces of mail. Twenty of them contained parking tickets. Since the mayor didn't smile, we didn't smile -- not on the outside.

But that kind of thing is now done on so grand and systematic a scale. Once again resentment rises less from one's inside knowledge that the wrestlers are phonies than that knowing them to be such we tolerate it. I mean, tolerate the president of the United States and his blatant manipulations designed to effect his re-election.

Time magazine, in its April 22 issue, gives us several illuminating and dismaying pages in which are analyzed the strategy of Bill Clinton to win a second term. What is required of him is fine rhetorical performances commemorative in character (where possible), as in the president's eulogy of Ron Brown and elegy for the Oklahomans killed a year ago by the terrorist explosion, and transcendent bytes after shaking the hands of emperors and such.

That gives us President Clinton, Great and Sentient Statesman, Concerned for All Mankind and Observant of All That Goes on in the World.

But there is then the nitty-gritty of the campaign, and Time does a nice job of singling out examples.

Long Beach, Calif.: "$16 billion to buy 40 C-17 transport planes from McDonnell Douglas."

San Francisco: "$1.1 billion to extend the rapid-transit system to San Francisco airport."

East St. Louis, Ill.: "$295 million to extend the light-rail system."

And then my favorite: San Diego: "$13.7 million to dredge 7 million cubic yards of sand out of San Diego Harbor to make room for three aircraft carriers, and then pump the sand onto the city's eroded beaches."

What galls is less the pork than the public knowledge of it. It is as if you and the wife were taken to dinner and the theater, and on the drive home the host detailed what he expected of you in return. There is an extraordinary insouciance written into the business of streetwise cosmopolitan reporters and editors writing in a national magazine about the utter abuses of the president in full knowledge that nothing will be done to curb such abuses and that advertising what they are will by no means generate resentment.

In a better world, such events as are routinely reported by Time would have got Time the Pulitzer Prize and generated united anti-Clinton bipartisan citizens' committees.

But no. We are not to get in the way of the fantasy world of disinterested public service and democratic probity. Bring on the next wrestler and tingle with the excitement of it all.

Editor's Comments - Frederick Mann
Mr. Buckley begins to see the edges of the fakery. What if the entire political system, from beginning to end, from top to bottom, is 100% fakery?! What if, all the people, everywhere in the world, throughout history, who have called themselves "government"... what if all these people have been liars, imposters, and hucksters engaged in a masquerade?

What if all the people, everywhere in the world, throughout history, who believe or have believed even one word from these liars, imposters, and hucksters... what if all these people are and have been suckers?

Progression of Freedom
The following sequence is a somewhat arbitrary sequence of how your thinking and behavior in respect of freedom might progress:

0 -- "Slave in the street" -- kowtows completely to the "system"; typical Democrat, American "Liberal," Republican, Socialist, Communist, Fascist, etc.; thinks politics is 100% real.

10 -- Dissatisfied or disillusioned with "system"; knows little or nothing about freedom; thinks politics is 10% fakery.

20 -- Moderately freedom-oriented: Classical Liberal; some Conservatives and Republicans; some Patriots; thinks politics is 20% fakery.

30 -- Partial Free-Enterprise Operator -- some economic activities within "system," some outside; knows a little about freedom; thinks politics is 30% fakery.

40 -- Strongly freedom-oriented: "Limited-Government Libertarian"; (Ayn Rand) Objectivist; willing to tolerate some government; thinks politics is 40% fakery.

50 -- Leftist freedom-oriented: Anarcho-Socialist; rejects all forms of government; doesn't believe in individual property rights; thinks politics is 50% fakery.

60 -- Thoroughly freedom-oriented: Anarcho-Capitalist; Anarcho-Libertarian -- rejects all forms of government; believes in individual property rights; says: "The emperor is naked"; thinks politics is 60% fakery.

70 -- Fully Practicing Freedom Technologist: Anarcho-Capitalist who lives free; practically all activities outside "system"; lives his or her philosophy; thinks politics is 70% fakery.

100 -- Philosophically free from all "government" illusions, brainwashing, hallucinations, etc.; realizes that the so-called "government" phenomenon is 100% fakery, fantasy, and charade; has fully transcended the "De Rock Hallucination" (see below); asks "Why do you (sucker?) call an ordinary naked huckster an "emperor" (so-called)? Are you projecting or hallucinating? Can't you see that the wrestlers' act is 100% fakery, fantasy, and charade?"; thinks politics is 100% fakery; rejects all statist concepts like "state," "country," "nation," "constitution," "government," "king," "queen," "emperor," "president," "prime minister," "law," etc. as pure hallucination.

What Nietzsche Wrote
"There are still peoples and herds somewhere, but not with us, my brothers: here there are states.

The state? What is that? Well then! Now open your ears, for now I shall speak to you of the death of peoples.

The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and this lie creeps from its mouth; 'I, the state, am the people.'

It is a lie! It was creators who created peoples and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.

It is destroyers who set snares for many and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred desires over them.

Where a people still exists, there the people do not understand the state and hate it as the evil eye and sin against custom and law.

I offer you this sign: every people speaks its own language of good and evil: its neighbor does not understand this language. It invented this language for itself in custom and law.

But the state lies in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it says, it lies -- and whatever it has, it has stolen.

Everything about it is false; it bites with stolen teeth. Even its belly is false.

Confusion of the language of good and evil; I offer you this sign of the state. Truly, this sign indicates the will to death! Truly, it beckons to the preachers of death!

Many too many are born: the state was invented for the superfluous!

Just see how it lures them, the many-too-many! How it devours them, and chews them, and re-chews them!

... It would like to range heroes and honorable men about it, this new idol! It likes to sun itself in the sunshine of good consciences -- this cold monster!

It will give you everything if you worship it, this new idol: thus it buys for itself the luster of your virtues and the glance of your proud eyes.

It wants to use you to lure the many-too-many. Yes, a cunning device of Hell has here been devised, a horse of death jingling with the trappings of divine honors!

Yes, a death for many has here been devised that glorifies itself as life: truly a heart-felt service to all preachers of death!

I call it the state where everyone, good and bad, is a poison-drinker: the state where everyone, good and bad, loses himself: the state where universal slow suicide is called -- life."

Friedrich Nietzsche, 1884

How would you grade Nietzsche on my Freedom Progression?

THE DE ROCK HALLUCINATION

by Frederick Mann

In his article above, Mr. John de Rock included the following:

"... Humans coexist on this planet with entities made up of humans as their cells etc., these entities being called governments...

It may be very difficult for individual humans to be aware of the thought processes of governments...

I think the best approach may be to try and communicate with the government...

Governments "farm" individuals for their productivity...

Communicating with a government is not easy at all..."

...I commented... to the de Rock article... [using the term "hallucination" - "The phenomenon of "government" (falsely-called) is primarily a phenomenon of collective hallucination." I've now decided to call it the "De Rock Hallucination."]

The De Rock Hallucination
It is really unfair of me to call it the "De Rock Hallucination" because about 99.99...% of humans suffer from it. But who says I have to be fair?! Henceforth I shall call it the "De Rock Hallucination" because Mr. De Rock has expressed it in the most extreme and absurd form I've encountered so far -- he went so far as to write about "the thought processes of governments."

The purpose of my comments and questions above was to expose the hallucination. First I told the story of the people who said they had seen "government teaching students in school." But when I asked them what they had actually seen, they had no answers.

There are people who claim to have seen a creature they call "bigfoot" or "sasquatch." If you ask these people what they saw, they'll tell you that it was something like, "an eight-foot-tall, hairy creature that walks on two big feet." They might even show you a picture or video of it -- or a plaster cast of its footprint.

I've asked quite a few people who believe in "government" and who state that they've seen a "government," to tell me what they actually saw. Nobody has been able to tell me. Nobody has shown me any pictures of a so-called "government."

The De Rock Response
Mr. John de Rock did not answer any of the questions I posed above. He did not provide any answers because he has none -- just like the people who say they saw "government teaching students in school," couldn't tell me what they saw. Mr. De Rock responded as follows to my hallucination assertion:

"Writing in Build Freedom News, Frederick Mann suggests that governments are a collective hallucination, and presents arguments for this assertion.

An alternative viewpoint might be that governments are entities which comprise individual human beings as their cells. Their organs are committees, cartels and professions.

The hallucination may not be that governments exist, but that they are anything other than creatures in the same way human individuals are creatures comprised of systems made from cells. The creatures we know as governments have carved up the planet and only permit human individuals to move about when they have passports, work permits, etc. They have arguments and they fight each other. When humans fight each other, some of their cells are damaged, even if they don't kill each other. When governments fight each other, some of their cells are damaged, only we see it as humans killing each other.

Humans may scratch an itch and kill a few cells in so doing. Governments do the same sort of thing, when they deny people life saving treatment or conscript them into something dangerous. Some humans have bits cut off their bodies in the belief that this will prevent the spread of cancer.

Governments do a similar thing when they deport people, or imprison them, etc.

There is a special instance when governments actually eat people. This is the autopsy, where a dead body is cut open to see how it died. The food the governments get is information, and in so doing they destroy what information is left for possible cryonic suspension.

A colony of ants is most likely unaware of what is happening when a human kicks over their nest. Ants are probably unaware that human beings exist at all. Likewise most humans are unaware as to the true nature of governments.

But if you were about to crush an ant as you walked by, and the ant politely asked you to avoid it, would you do so?"

Editor's Response - Frederick Mann
Let me repeat Mr. de Rock's first sentence in part:

1. "... Frederick Mann suggests that governments are a collective hallucination, and presents arguments for this assertion."

To what extent is this a reasonable reflection of what...I wrote:

2. "The phenomenon of "government" (falsely-called) is primarily a phenomenon of collective hallucination."

Suppose I were having a discussion with a person who claims to have seen a UFO. Suppose I suggest that the person might have been hallucinating.

1. Am I suggesting that the UFO was an hallucination?; or

2. Am I suggesting that the alleged act of "seeing" the supposed "UFO" was an hallucination?

Semanticists make a distinction between "map" and "territory" (or "menu" and "meal"). Let's call a statement about "territory" (or "meal") a type 1 statement; and a statement about "map" (or "menu") a type 2 statement.

Can you see that Mr. de Rock's, "... Frederick Mann suggests that governments are a collective hallucination, and presents arguments for this assertion," is a type 1 statement?

And can you see that my, "The phenomenon of "government" (falsely-called) is primarily a phenomenon of collective hallucination," is a type 2 statement?

The Phenomenon of "Government" (Falsely-Called)
I'm writing here about a map in people's heads. I'm saying that most humans -- 99.999...%; and worst of all, Mr. de Rock -- have a pathetically mistaken map of what they call "government." They are suckers who believe the hucksters.

[Previously] I wrote an article on "Unconscious Deathism" -- mostly the unconscious deathism of Mr. de Rock. His map of what he calls "government" is a most grotesque form of unconscious deathism. It is indeed fitting to brand his kind of map -- which 99.999...% of humans suffer from -- as the "De Rock Hallucination."

Sometimes the first step in solving a problem -- or curing a disease -- is to give it a name. To start transcending the De Rock Hallucination you may want to read Alice in Wonderland and Gulliver's Travels. Particularly if you think deeply about what the authors are really getting at when they say things like, "Kings and Queens are just playing cards" and "pissing on the palace." Consider the possibility that Lewis and Swift were at or close to the 100-level of my Freedom Progression.

If you're interested in overcoming the De Rock Hallucination, you may want to study the following Build Freedom reports:

#TL06: Discourse on Voluntary Servitude;

#TL07: The Constitution of No Authority;

#TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak;

#TL07B: The Nature of Government;

#TL07C: Wenger Debate #1;

#TL07D: Deep Anarchy;

#TL50A: Semantic Rigidity, Flexibility, and Freedom;

#TL50C: Bought-into-the-System.

Physical Reality vs. "Say-So Reality"
Another important distinction is that between physical reality and "say-so reality." Physical reality has to do with what exists physically. In general, physical reality is independent of what people say. A wall is solid. You can see it, touch it, and feel it. Unless it's very flimsy, you can't walk through it. No matter what anyone says, or how many people agree or don't agree about the wall, makes no difference to the wall.

"Say-so reality" has to do with what people say is so because they believe it -- in the absence of physical evidence.

Say-so reality may influence people, affecting their behavior, thus impacting on physical reality. The Berlin wall was a physical reality. What people believed about it was their say-so reality. When a critical mass of people in "East Germany" (so-called) said "no" to the wall, they gained the courage and power to tear it down.

Please send me your suggestions for assisting others to transcend the De Rock Hallucination. This is crucial to the development of human sanity.

DUMB OBSTINACY

The following article by Steve Wilson appeared in The Arizona Republic of March 13, 1996:

Taking obstinacy to new levels in finding a car at airport

How's this for dumb:

I flew into Sky Harbor Airport on Sunday and walked to the Terminal 4 parking garage to get my car. I knew exactly where it was parked--Level 5, Space 247. Unlike those scatterbrained types who need to write down their location when they leave their cars at the airport, my superior memory makes this task unnecessary.

When I reached Space 247, I found a different car parked in my space.

This was not possible.

I retraced my path. I had entered the west side of the garage on Friday and spiraled up the ramp. A sign at the first exit, Level 4, said there was no room and to continue to the next level.

I complied and pulled into Space 247.

Someone stole my car, I imagined. What else could explain this Jeep in my parking space?

Before reporting it stolen, I thought I ought to look around. There's an infinitesimal chance -- roughly the same as Bob Dole being elected president this year -- that I had parked in a different space. The next half hour was spent checking out all 779 spaces on Level 5.

No car.

Even though I was positive I hadn't entered Level 4, I went down and checked Space 247 on that floor. No car.

Then I walked up to Level 6, even though I was certain I hadn't been up that high.

There, in Space 247, sat my car.

My mistake, I learned later, was in presuming that I had entered on Level 5. The way the garage is set up, the west side ramp feeds cars into Levels 4 or 6 only. On the east side, cars enter on Levels 5 or 7 only.

Not knowing where I had parked was bad enough, but what really struck me as I drove home was how unwilling I'd been to admit to myself that I'd made a mistake.

Marilyn vos Savant wouldn't be surprised.

She's the woman listed in the Guiness Book of World Records for having the world's highest IQ, which is 228.

She knows how reluctant people are to admit they're wrong or change their minds once a decision has been made.

In a just-published book, The Power of Logical Thinking, she writes about our irrational stubbornness in connection with a famous brainteaser, the "Monte Hall Dilemma." The name is taken from Hall's long-running TV program, Let's Make a Deal.

The problem goes like this:

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He asks, "Do you want to pick door Number 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?

The answer seems simple and obvious to most people. They see no advantage to switching and stick with door No. 1.

The correct answer, however, is to switch. This contradicts most people's intuition that the odds on each of the two unopened doors must be one-half. They aren't.

When you chose Door No. 1, the odds of getting the car were one-third. You had a one-third chance of being right to begin with, and you still do. Since the odds on Door No. I remain at one-third, and opening door No. 3 leaves only one other door where the car could be, the odds on door No. 2 must now be two-thirds.

Computer trials confirm that switching doors leads to winning the car 66.7 percent of the time.

Most people get it wrong for two reasons:

First, they miscalculate the probabilities of sticking and switching. That's nothing to feel inferior about. After this problem appeared in her Parade magazine column in 1990, vos Savant received nearly 10,000 critical letters, including hundreds from people with Ph.Ds.

But even if the true probability of winning by sticking were .50, as most people presume, there's still no rational basis to prefer standing pat. So why don't more people switch?

Vos Savant sees psychological mechanisms such as belief perseverance and cognitive dissonance coming into play.

Both make it hard for us to change a belief, or in this case, a choice, after it's been expressed. Once we make a decision, it gets tied up with ego and we can become irrationally committed to it. We anticipate feeling worse if we switch and lose than if we stick and lose.

Our brains are wired in such a way that encourages us to stay with our choices, no matter how poorly informed or insignificant they are. We'd rather feel right than reconsider.

Even when the odds are that the car is parked behind a different door.

Or on another floor.

COMMENTARIES ON THE DE ROCK HALLUCINATION

From Mark Lindsay:
When I was in school I took a philosophy class in which we would sit out in the lounge area and discuss philosophy and ideas. Many of the students in the class would often use the word "society." They would make statements like "Society doesn't approve of that" or "Society says people should be fair and just." I found such statements quite annoying. It was obvious to me that "society" (so-called) cannot and does not do anything, since it does not exist. Where the other students saw something they referred to as "society," I only saw individual human beings.

So for me it was only a small step to extend that insight to the notion of "government." However, it was only until I actually sat down and thought about it that I actually applied that insight to the term "government." So the problem wasn't so much the ability to glimpse the insight as it was to wake up and apply it elsewhere. A distinction could be made here: possessing a given thinking skill and applying it. By applying that thinking skill, which I had already possessed, to the notion of "government," I was able to increase my personal power tremendously.

The following quote is from The Incredible Secret Money Machine by Don Lancaster:

"A granfalloon is any large bureaucratic figment of people's imagination. For instance, there's really no such thing as the Feds or the General Veeblefeltzer Corporation. There are a bunch of people out there that relate to each other, and there's some structures, and some paper. In fact, there's lots and lots of paper. The people sit in the structures and pass paper back and forth to each other and charge you to do so.

All these people, structures, and paper are real. But nowhere can you point to the larger concept of 'government' or 'corporation' and say, 'There it is, kiddies!' The monolithic, big 'they' is all in your mind."

Lancaster's statement seems to me to be of major importance for overcoming the "De Rock Hallucination." For it is important to understand that the "De Rock Hallucination" is grounded in semantics and the use thereof.

We need to develop methods for assisting people in transcending the "De Rock Hallucination" which can be taught at the Personal Power Institute. I am making an open request that anyone who has or acquires an understanding of the "De Rock Hallucination" record the mental steps which brought you to that point and send a copy to me. Your input on this matter would be extremely valuable.

From Melissa:
Meeting Frederick was a turning point in my life. Here was someone with advanced thinking skills who could express some of my ideas and thoughts more clearly than I ever could. But there was one thing that he repeated often that I couldn't understand at all. He said, "There is no such thing as quote government unquote." This had me completely puzzled. "Of course there is a government," I thought. People talk about it, it's in the news all the time. How could what he was saying be right? So I puzzled this over in silence. I was reluctant to ask what he meant for fear of looking stupid.

Finally the mystery was solved. Frederick and I were discussing a report he was planning to write, '#TL50A: Semantic Rigidity, Flexibility, and Freedom.' One of the topics in this report, is a thinking skill: distinguishing between symbol and referent. As you read this newsletter, you may be sitting in something that you call a chair. It isn't really a chair, that's just what you call it. There is a difference between the word or symbol and the object you are referring to. Wow! Here was something that I had never thought of before, yet once it was pointed out, it was very obvious.

You might think, "So what? Why is this important?" Much of the time, it isn't. When the referent is a thing, a physical object, the distinction isn't important. What happens when we use a word like "government?" What is the referent? The word "government" is generally used as a singular noun describing a creature that sounds like a human only much more powerful. Here are some examples from... [some earlier newsletters...]: "Certainly the government is concerned only for itself and it's kin (politicians). Certainly the government will kill or imprison me if this is perceived to be in its interest. Certainly the government has the power to do so." ... "It may be very difficult for individual humans to be aware of the thought processes of governments..." and "Communicating with a government is not easy at all."

You can easily find other examples in the newspaper or just listening to people talk, of the word "government" being used as if it refers to a single volitional entity. Who or what then, is this beast called "government?" Have you seen it? Have you spoken with it? Do you know any one who has? Even though the word "government" is often used as if the referent is a single being, it's obvious that it isn't. So what then does the word "government" refer to? Maybe nothing. No thing. Maybe there is no such THING as "government."

At first, this may seem like a trivial distinction. After all, there are still policemen, judges, congressmen, IRS agents and other assorted terrocrats. Yes, there are people who call themselves "government." Some of them are very dangerous and all of them want to interfere with the lives of others. But thinking of "government" as an ill-defined, all-powerful foe, puts you in the position of a victim. How can anyone possibly stand up to the type of "government" Mr. Freeman and De Rock believe in? I certainly couldn't. This is a scary creature. But if I cross paths with a terrocrat or two, I can handle that. Terrocrats are human, with no magical powers. I can arrange my life to avoid or minimize contact with them. I can't defend myself against a mythical "government" beast. Terrocrats are human. I can deal with them.

From Elizabeth:
Possibly the word "government" needs to be defined or redefined for the masses (sheople) so that the individuals using this word do not become snared by semantics. I define "government" simply as a meme, an idea or a set of ideas formed by a person or group of people who wish to impose, by force, that set of ideas within a geographic boundary. Therefore, according to the creators of that meme, anyone born within that geographic boundary is under the jurisdiction of that "government " (set of ideas)! Maybe the jerks that support this notion just want the best real estate they can get their grubby little hands on. (Ask the Indians born in North America how they feel about that.) The masses follow these ideas because of the cultural conditioning that permeates their little brainwashed minds. Most people cannot see the structure for what it really is.

It appears to be a territorial behavior left over from the bicameral mind and is inhibiting the evolutionary development of the populace.

Editor's Comments - Frederick Mann
Semantics is very important in beating terrocrats. They use primarily words to tyrannize their victims. In my own personal case, no terrocrat has ever pulled a gun on me, nor threatened to do so. No terrocrat has ever sent me anything but words.

Two Build Freedom reports in our Semantic Series have been written:

#TL50A: Semantic Rigidity, Flexibility, and Freedom;

#TL50C: Bought-into-the-System.

ON GOVERNMENT

Dear Frederick;

OK, let's see if I can add anything to your search for a definition of government. The definition should define its true nature as it exists, plus why it exists. In other words, why is it that over the past 2,000 to 3,000 years or so, governments have kept popping up all over the place like mushrooms in a moldy cellar, whenever a group of people escape from an oppressive regime and go off by themselves somewhere?

What I would say is this: Government is the natural result of the widespread and deep-seated conviction, that some kind of external power to guide and control our lives; an absolute necessity.

This belief must be a vestige of the bicameral mind, and it's ironic that it is a belief based on a fallacy. Those of us who have read the studies of Julian Jaynes, realize that the brains of virtually all ancient peoples functioned like those of modern day schizophrenics. A voice, vision, emotion, thought, odor, or some similar impulse sincerely believed to be an external source of guidance, wisdom and commands; i.e., the voices of the gods, a voice from the toaster, etc. As we now know, all these "hallucinations," no matter how real they seem to be; are one half of the brain communicating with the other half in such a way that it is perceived as coming from somewhere else. Very dangerous, if a person has decided their impulses can be trusted implicitly, they will do anything, even rape and murder; and sincerely believe they bear absolutely no responsibility for their own actions. (Sort of reminds you how a government bureaucrat can commit all sorts of atrocities without a pang of conscience so long as he is following "regulations!")

Anarchy simply means a society without a government, but the term tends to be equated with the total breakdown of society itself; violence, and the worst kinds of man's inhumanity to man. And yet, throughout history, governments themselves have been responsible for the worst kinds of atrocities imaginable. Still, the average person cannot imagine life without a government to tell them what to do.

Learning to live free is much like a child maturing into adulthood and learning to make its own decisions without the guidance of parents. In order for a society of mutual cooperation to be successful, the majority of people must first acquire the knowledge, wisdom, and intellectual maturity to understand that freedom, integrity, and respect for the person, property, and freedom of others; is the condition which will maximize their own potential for accomplishments, prosperity and happiness.

Private services can be set up to efficiently and cost-effectively provide for all of society's needs, including the resolution of various kinds of problems. Build Freedom seems to be doing on every front, the things it will take to actually bring about this kind of society; and that's a first, as far as I know. Thanks, Frederick!

Sincerely, Correspondent

Editor's Comments - Frederick Mann
Julian Jaynes's book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind provides important background information to help you understand why 99.999...% of humans suffer from the De Rock Hallucination. The third part of Jaynes's book is subtitled "Vestiges of the Bicameral Mind in the Modern World." The first chapter of the third part is titled "The Quest for Authorization."

What has popped up again and again in recent centuries are hucksters who called themselves "government" and suckers who believed them.

A better statement would be: "The "government" hallucination is the natural result of the widespread and deep-seated conviction, that some kind of external power to guide and control our lives is an absolute necessity."

Jaynes wrote:

"We, at the second millennium, A.D., are still in a sense deep in this transition to a new mentality. And all about us lie the remnants of our recent bicameral past. We have our houses of gods which record our births, define us, marry us, and bury us, receive our confessions and intercede with the gods to forgive us our trespasses. Our laws are based upon values which without their divine pendency would be empty and unenforceable. Our national mottoes and hymns of state are usually divine invocations. Our kings, presidents, judges, and officers begin their tenures with oaths to the now silent deities taken upon the writings of those who last heard them...

Thus, as the slow withdrawing tide of divine voices and presences strands more and more of each population on the sands of subjective uncertainties, the variety of technique by which man attempts to make contact with his lost ocean of authority becomes extended. Prophets, poets, oracles, diviners, statue cults, mediums, astrologers, inspired saints, demon possession, tarot cards, Ouija boards, popes, and peyote all are the residue of bicamerality that was progressively narrowed down as uncertainties piled upon uncertainties."

The "government" phenomenon is a form of bicameral hallucination.

THE WORD GOVERNMENT

by John de Rock

This relates to an [earlier] article... in which Frederick Mann and the staff of Build Freedom took me to task for using the concept of government in various articles...

I agree that any government has no intrinsic right to existence. Legal laws are not the same as the laws of physics. [It has been suggested that Frederick Mann lost the support of David Devor and his Project Mind Foundation for insisting that they were the same -- sickening as Mr. Devor would have been in my downline with a whole Foundation behind him!]

I also agree that the government isn't unstoppably powerful. If you evade paying say $100 tax will the tax gangsters react the same way as if it were $100 million of tax? Of course not -- you are quite likely to get away with the $100 because it is not worth bothering about. Anti-IRS programs probably work because of that factor. Make a bloody nuisance of yourself and they'll let you keep your $100. If you go to court the situation will blow up so much that the effort required, and the publicity, will just not be worth it.

Furthermore I agree that the government cannot utter the right noises to solve problems. As Harry Browne has pointed out, you solve one problem to create another. Attempting to make the divorce laws "just" is a very good example of this. (It is just about as sensible as attempting to make a perpetual motion machine or get electricity out of nothing.) I do believe that the sum total of all problems that exist would be reduced by having the smallest amount of government intervention possible. There will always be some losers whatever system is adopted. If Build Freedom, Fortuna, Networktool or anyone else can develop a system with zero central government it would lead to the least suffering, but there will still be some losers. You cannot legislate cancer out of existence, for example.

Mark Lindsay took exception to people saying that "society" wouldn't approve of various things he wanted to do. Of course it just means "the majority of people would not approve." I had worked that out long ago, and merely seek to keep myself away from people who would not approve. (Although it is great fun posting contentious messages to Internet newsgroups and copying them to another newsgroup of different persuasion. For example promote cryonic suspension on uk.legal, getting a lot of anti-sentiment and then cross post the lot to sci.cryonics and watch the sparks fly!)

Melissa seemed to think that just because I am aware that governments have powers I am unaware that "terrocrats" are individuals who can just as easily be dealt with as any other individuals. I recall from law drama movies how the judge sometimes says to witnesses, "Do you have no respect for the law?" No one has ever replied, as far as I know, "I respect the law in the same way I respect a wasp or poisonous snake. I do not respect it as I would respect a just and wise human being."

Elizabeth stated the fact governments are groups that exist for the benefit of their officers. I know all of this, (and would add the professions, particularly the legal ones) and agree with it, but I do not think it can be solved by semantic arguments.

Maybe these three people didn't know any of it until they heard from Frederick Mann, so I suppose from that point of view his arguments have some purpose. But if we are denied the shorthand in how we write about government it makes life that much more complicated. Perhaps we should put "government(h)" as a shorthand to indicate that we know government is not physically real in the same way as for example the Berlin Wall.

Legal laws can be controlled by mass movements. In the UK, a poll tax was defeated by public pressure, for example. This is an example of people communicating with a government. Rioting and blowing up buildings is another example of such communication. This is extremely negative and it is also damaging to individual humans. I believe that a better form of communication should be developed. Build Freedom is just the sort of organization that ought to be researching such better communication methods. Examples are the mailing campaigns waged by the Life Extension Foundation to try and get the government to realize the damage done by the FDA -- it has killed more Americans than the Nazis in Word War 2.

If Build Freedom dogmatically has to regard governments as an hallucination, then it should develop methods of communicating with those groups of people who act under that hallucination to oppose others going about their normal business. After all, if it can explain to them as individuals, for example, that for the purposes of medical and legal research to hack up the body of someone who wants cryonic suspension you are actually killing him, then maybe they'll desist if you can convince them that they are not under the protection of a government. But if you have no way of communicating with them except by throwing a bomb at them then most endeavors will fail, because it is only very seldom that terrorist or blackmailers get their way. Governments (sorry, people acting under the hallucination of being members of governments) will kill any number of humans rather than let terrorists get away with their demands.

In the case of scientific or physical laws, the situation is different. Public pressure against the rainfall or temperature in the UK would have no effect, however vehemently expressed.

Some collectivists do believe that you can control the physical world, for example rainfall, by getting enough people to pray for a change. But prayer has never been measured to have effect. In communist Russia, the alternative was tried -- outlawing religion. Again no effect was achieved. I believe at the moment in the USA there is a movement that is burning churches, but I think the action is aimed at people grouped by race rather than as a complaint against some aspect of the physical world (that God made). [Also see discussion in <alt.moderated.atheism>.] Communicating with the physical world equals in my mind to communicating with God, and this is impossible.

However there are currents in the affairs of men that are best described by the use of the word government and concepts about "government teaching," etc.

No doubt in Frederick Mann's mind what things are called is important to reality, but the reality is that "government" is a collective noun for a group of people who have achieved by using mutual cooperation powers over others to extort money and even life itself.

This same situation applies with the professions. My partner and I wanted to arrange a "friendly" transfer for consideration of real estate between us and in order to save costs asked a solicitor to do both parts of the transaction. After a while the solicitor decided to "let me go" and suggest that I employ another solicitor (thus doubling the costs) "because of the rules of the Law Society." Here the legal profession is acting collectively and dishonestly to extort money, and the individual solicitor is hiding behind the apron strings of the collective. There is no real reason why the same solicitor should not act for both parties just to ensure that the real estate is transferred properly.

If we have to write in Build Freedom News without using the collective noun "government," then it is difficult and requires more words. This means that readers have to wade through more words to get at the point being made, and may even stop reading before they get to it.

To say "The government teaches X in schools" is merely a shorthand for saying as follows: A group of powerful people who control the country require you to send your child to a school where it will be taught X. If you don't send your child there you will be made to do so by force, even force of arms.

The same group requires the teachers to teach X, If they don't, they risk losing their jobs. If they lose their jobs, the same group will stop them getting others in the same profession, and if they can't earn money it turn them out of their homes if they don't pay their taxes and mortgages.

This group claims that its authority originates through history from God, a being they claim created the entire universe. [We could then discuss the validity of such a belief making the article even longer.]

If you have to go through all that every time you write an article, then the article will get tedious.

The term "virtual reality" is a fairly recent buzz word. Governments are virtual beings inasmuch as they do react to situations in the same way as beings do. I agree they have no mouths, eyes in the same way animals do, but they do react to situations.

Take the recent events in the United Kingdom concerning the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the British government. The IRA calls a cease-fire and seeks negotiation with the government. The government says it won't negotiate unless the IRA gives up its arms (i.e. that collective is denied the "right" to hold arms). The IRA refuse. The British government would never concede the right to another organization arising within its geographic boundary to have arms so it would not let the IRA keep their arms for the duration of the negotiations. The cease-fire is now over and humans are being killed again. Both organizations, UK government and IRA, are equally the enemy of the people killed. The UK government would rather have people killed than make the concession. It is just like international wars, where the governments involved are equally responsible for the murder of individual human beings. Have all these people died of an hallucination?

Frederick Mann would have us believe that governments do not exist. I wonder if ants in an ant colony have any concept of what is happening to them when a human walks over one of their trails and squashes a few. Maybe some of them conceive of larger animals, but they rest would say "don't be silly, such things could or do not exist." Frederick Mann did not answer this in his article.

The reactions of governments to situations make up much of what goes on in the world. Indeed, if there is a disaster such as a flood or hurricane, the individual is often more discomforted by government regulation and control than the actual disaster itself.

The problem of the collapsing welfare state is a case in point. In the UK the government collected taxes and "national insurance" [a pyramid program where compulsory premiums of those now working pay the current pensions and health care budget. It only works as long as the working population grows. Now there are less children being born and people live longer, the proportion of those working is falling and the premium income is failing.] The UK government has now declared it is not going to pay for long term care if any of its "insurance clients" require care during a terminal illness, until their assets have been reduced to a very low figure. Because of government regulations and taxes, long-term care is very expensive, roughly $1,500/month. Already 40,000 houses are being compulsorily sold every year because one or other of the occupants requires such care.

This reaction by the government has reduced the feeling of security in home ownership by all citizens, young and old. The UK, unlike the US, is based on home ownership rather than rental. Too late, its citizens have found that owning a house is not safe but makes the owner liable to losing his wealth. Is this really all an hallucination?

...Frederick Mann refers to the "de Rock Hallucination" (with various spellings throughout the article) to represent something he does not like. Little wonder that he is getting anonymous letters signed by "correspondent," etc. in his newsletter. I do not think this is wise, it creates schisms in the movement where none need exist, and also confuses people. Why not just say "the government hallucination?"

I know of someone who chooses to say that things should not be talked about if the are not nice. She would rather be cremated than cryonically suspended "because she likes being warm" when really pushed into a corner to talk about death. Frederick Mann obviously doesn't like government -- hardly surprising as I think he is German, and that country was almost totally destroyed by its government at one point in history. He deals with his dislike of government by trying to create the concept that it does not exist -- it is an hallucination, like the woman refusing to discuss death. Attempting to link the name of one of his organization's supporters with something he does not like is not a sensible thing to do. Unfortunately this seems to be an inherent problem in any libertarian movement.

I suggest that this whole issue is a red herring. Whether you concede any inherent right to those who call themselves government the right to do so or not, governments do exist, and by virtue of their mutual cooperation they do have power over individuals.

Build Freedom seems to exist because there are many people who seek freedom from this power.

Yet Frederick Mann himself is reported to have said it is too dangerous to have a Build Freedom office in the UK and Build Freedom freedom technologies which are within the laws of many countries would not work in the UK. You can only protect yourself by using false identities and similar methods which are outside the law (and incidentally outside the BF Code -- members are exhorted to obey all known laws). Why does this situation exist in the UK? Because of an hallucination?

Frederick Mann's Response
Many politicians use a dirty trick to demonize their opponents. It works like this: Politician A says X. Politician B then said that A said Y. (Often, there is little or no relationship between X and Y.) B then says that Y is bad or wrong; and therefore A is bad or wrong.

Because most people suffer from the De Rock Hallucination, they also suffer from its stupefaction element and never notice the above dirty trick -- which I call the "sillygism" -- when used in politics.

The first thing to notice about John de Rock's article is that not once did he quote anything that I had said or written. In his article he uses the "sillygism" form of argument extensively, as well as other dirty tricks, as indicated below. In my response, I will quote the exact words John de Rock used, then I will respond to those words. I will never claim that he wrote anything other than what he wrote. With one exception, I will also not claim that his "X" means "Y," and then criticize "Y" rather than "X."

"Frederick Mann and the staff of Build Freedom took me to task for using the concept of government in various articles." We never did this. The above quote is an error, a misunderstanding -- and/or hallucination -- "seeing" or "perceiving" what isn't there -- stupefaction. We have no objection to anyone using the concept or word "government" and we have never taken anyone to task for using it. In fact, when communicating to the general public, the word "government" should be used the way John de Rock habitually uses it, otherwise people will indeed get confused.

"I agree that any government has no intrinsic right to existence." Who is John de Rock agreeing with? He doesn't say. Some readers could be misled by the above sentence into believing that John de Rock agrees with me on that point, in which case there is an implication that I have stated (or agree with) the statement, "no government has an intrinsic right to existence." I categorically reject both this statement -- and its contrary, "a government has an intrinsic right to existence."

"Legal laws are not the same as the laws of physics. [It has been suggested that Frederick Mann lost the support of David Devor and his Project Mind Foundation for insisting that they were the same...]" Who suggested it? Exactly what did I say to David Devor? Presumably David Devor wrote something to John de Rock about communication between Devor and myself. To be honest, John de Rock should have indicated who "suggested" and that he hadn't checked with me what had occurred. What typically happens in a case like this is that a communication takes place between persons A and B. Person A reports to person C. But the report is one-sided and distorted. Person C -- John de Rock -- then further distorts the report and publishes it, omitting the source. This is a dishonest dirty trick.

"I also agree that the government isn't unstoppably powerful... Furthermore I agree that the government cannot utter the right noises to solve problems." Who is John de Rock agreeing with? He doesn't say. Because his article is a response to my article, readers could be misled into believing that he is agreeing with me, implying that I expressed those ideas, which I haven't. Typically I would say that "government bureaucrats aren't unstoppably powerful" and "government bureaucrats cannot utter the right noises to solve problems."

In responding to Mark Lindsay, Melissa, and Elizabeth, John de Rock should respond to the exact words they used.

"But if we are denied the shorthand in how we write about government it makes life that much more complicated." Neither I, Mark, Melissa, nor Elizabeth has suggested that you not use "the shorthand in how we write about government." The implication that we want to deny you your shorthand is an error, misunderstanding -- and/or hallucination.

"If Build Freedom dogmatically has to regard governments as an hallucination..." John de Rock also seems to hallucinate Build Freedom as a volitional entity capable of "regarding..." Certain individuals in Build Freedom have transcended the De Rock Hallucination, or are in the process of doing so. I don't know of anyone in Build Freedom who "regard(s) governments as an hallucination." John de Rock's statement is an error, misunderstanding -- and/or hallucination.

"If we have to write in Build Freedom News without using the collective noun "government," then it is difficult and requires more words... [Long story about teachers, God, and the entire universe!] ...If you have to go through all that every time you write an article, then the article will get tedious." If John de Rock had gone out of his way to demonstrate the depths of stupefaction, he couldn't have done a better job! Firstly, it is extremely unlikely that anyone has ever suggested that he not use the ollective noun "government" when writing in Build Freedom News -- I certainly haven't. But, secondly, that's nothing compared to the form of argument he uses: "If I can't do X, then I must do Y." This, of course is absurd. In addition to Y, he has an infinite number of other choices. Instead of doing X, he could do A, B, C, D, E, etc., ad infinitum. His form of argument is a favorite of the most despicable politicians.

"Frederick Mann would have us believe that governments do not exist." This is another error, misunderstanding -- and/or hallucination. If I wanted people to believe that "governments don't exist," I would say so. In fact, I think the notion that "governments don't exist" is oxymoronic and absurd. [This point will no doubt be covered in future debates.]

"I wonder if ants in an ant colony have any concept of what is happening to them when a human walks over one of their trails and squashes a few. Maybe some of them conceive of larger animals, but they rest would say "don't be silly, such things could or do not exist." Frederick Mann did not answer this in his article." This is the kind of dirty trick you would expect from the most evil politician. Firstly, it has nothing to do with the topic of the debate. I have never suggested that "larger animals" don't exist. Secondly, it is disgustingly dishonest to accuse someone of not having answered in an earlier article an argument raised in a later argument. Am I supposed to answer ahead of time all the silly and stupid arguments John de Rock might raise in future? Here we see the stupefaction element of the De Rock Hallucination at its worst! ...

"Frederick Mann refers to the "de Rock Hallucination"... to represent something he does not like. Little wonder that he is getting anonymous letters signed by "correspondent," etc. in his newsletter. I do not think this is wise, it creates schisms in the movement where none need exist, and also confuses people. Why not just say "the government hallucination?" I have never received even one "anonymous letters signed by "correspondent," etc." I merely use the term "correspondent" to protect people's privacy. This is another error, misunderstanding -- and/or hallucination -- on the part of John de Rock.

In order to solve the problem of the "government" phenomenon, a critical number of individuals will have to cure themselves of and transcend the De Rock Hallucination. In order to induce people to do the necessary thinking, I need someone with considerable intellect to debate the issue. One of the reasons for calling it the De Rock Hallucination, is that it makes it more likely that the debate will continue -- and it will reveal some further elements of the De Rock Hallucination.

I think "schisms in the movement" are beneficial. The more groups who use different approaches to solve the problem of the "government" phenomenon, the better our chances of eventual success. The more groups and organizations there are that promote freedom, the more difficult it is for the government bureaucrats to stop us.

Even if John de Rock himself never transcends the De Rock Hallucination, a continuing debate will result in more people eventually curing themselves of these debilitating thought patterns. It is true that many people will be confused by the debate -- I expect over 90%. Most people simply haven't developed the thinking skills to deal with this subject. However, some of those who get involved in the debate will develop the thinking skills necessary to transcend the De Rock Hallucination.

"Frederick Mann obviously doesn't like government -- hardly surprising as I think he is German, and that country was almost totally destroyed by its government at one point in history. He deals with his dislike of government by trying to create the concept that it does not exist..." All this is untrue. I don't "not like government" -- nor do I "like government." I have lived as a sovereign individual for about 25 years. During that time I've had significant contact with fewer than 25 government bureaucrats -- less than one per year. I don't even dislike government bureaucrats. I do dislike some of their actions. I do dislike the De Rock Hallucination -- just like I dislike cancer. I am not German. I am not "trying to create the concept that it [government] does not exist." I am trying to develop a cure for the De Rock Hallucination -- including its stupefaction element -- one of the root causes of the problem of the "government" phenomenon.

The destructive actions in Germany were taken by individual human beings. I speculate that if of the order of 5% of Germans, Americans, Brits, Russians, Italians, and Japanese had transcended the De Rock Hallucination, neither WWI nor WWII would have occurred. Voltaire said that people who believe absurdities will commit atrocities. The De Rock Hallucination includes belief in a constellation of absurdities. Some of them have been touched on here; others will be revealed as this debate continues. Meanwhile, we can ask the question: To what extent do John de Rock's "sillygistic" arguments constitute intellectual atrocities?

"Frederick Mann himself is reported to have said it is too dangerous to have a Build Freedom office in the UK and Build Freedom freedom technologies which are within the laws of many countries would not work in the UK. You can only protect yourself by using false identities and similar methods which are outside the law (and incidentally outside the BF Code -- members are exhorted to obey all known laws). Why does this situation exist in the UK? Because of an hallucination?" Who reported this? Exactly what was reported? How might the report differ from what I actually said? How does John de Rock's statement differ from what was reported to him?

I have never suggested that anyone use "false identities." [There is a common law principle that anyone can use whatever name(s) they like, provided they don't do so to defraud anyone.] There is nothing in the Build Freedom Code on the issue of what name(s) anyone might want to use.

The situation is different between the US and the UK. The US has a pretended "constitution" that severely limits what government bureaucrats may do. The "legal system" contains extensive means individuals can use to effectively stop bureaucrats who attack them. Individuals can openly confront bureaucrats and win. In the UK there is no such pretended "constitution." The best strategy for freedom-lovers in the UK is to practice being effectively invisible, or having compartments of their lives and activities be invisible to bureaucrats. I don't know of anyone in the UK who is skilled enough in Freedom Technology and business to safely operate a profitable Build Freedom office.

The general situation in the UK is indeed due to an hallucination: the De Rock Hallucination, from which about 99.999...% of humans suffer. If enough of them were to transcend the De Rock Hallucination, the government bureaucrats would be laughed out of power -- a sufficient number of people would stop taking their noises and scribbles seriously.

In our current world there are sometimes threats from individual human beings (government thugs, sometimes wearing uniforms, sometimes carrying clubs and/or guns), who hallucinate themselves as "the government" (falsely-called). The more skilled you become at practicing Freedom Technology, the more you reduce these threats.

Conclusion
I hope John de Rock will have the courage to continue this debate. I also hope that others will have the courage to do the same. If you want to remain anonymous to protect your privacy, I will respect that. Whatever you write is likely to be useful in helping others to transcend the De Rock Hallucination.

One thing I would like to emphasize is that if you decide to criticize what I have written, please criticize my exact words. If you "paraphrase" what I wrote, chances are that your version will be a distortion; and you'll criticize your own distortion, rather than what I wrote -- the "sillygism" form of argument. Then -- as in my response to John de Rock above -- I have to write many pages to point out that I never wrote what he accused me of.

In my opinion, one of the greatest advances an individual can make in life is to transcend the De Rock Hallucination. As this debate continues, there will be reports from more and more people who have transcended the De Rock Hallucination, or are in the process of doing so. I hope we can all learn from these reports.

Curing yourself from the De Rock Hallucination may be a daunting task. My own cure started in 1976 after I read Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority -- see Build Freedom Report #TL07. It took me seven years to complete the cure and transcend all the elements of the De Rock Hallucination. It took me a further ten years to learn how to communicate reasonably effectively on the subject. Of course, it my be much easier for others to cure themselves because they don't have to do it by themselves as I had to.

Though I think it is extremely unlikely, it is remotely conceivable and possible that John de Rock will be able to convince me that I am mistaken. I will then apologize and cease using the term "De Rock Hallucination." Of course, this will require vastly superior arguments compared to those John de Rock has produced so far. Also, I invite anyone so inclined to assist John de Rock in strengthening his case.

CORRESPONDENCE

RE: De Rock Hallucination

Dear Mr. Mann,

I really don't know where to start when telling you how I overcame the "De Rock Hallucination." I can give you an approximate time table and how I got there. I have only just begun. I am only a baby compared to you when it comes to realizing government is no more real than the tooth fairy. I still have my nagging doubts that government is real.

I guess you can say that in many respects the government never seemed real to me.

Politicians have always been just some middle-aged guys on TV. I never understood why their speeches were important to adults. They don't look or seem special.

When I was growing up, people certainly weren't happy about a lot of things government did, whether it was Vietnam, taxes, Watergate, or parking tickets, etc.

I have always wondered, "Why do people take this crap?", "Why don't things seem to change?", "Why do people believe in God? Church is so boring?" Technological change is happening rapidly, but in many ways, things remain the same.

A lot of my parents' decisions did not help me at all. Like bureaucrats, they insisted they had my best interest in mind. My mother even went so far as to say, "I own you."

A lot of things my mother worried about never came to pass. I got pretty tired of hearing about them.

Practically all freedom groups don't seem to realize the government is fake. They can have the finest strategies in the world. It will make no difference till they are willing to stop believing government is real.

It has gradually dawned on me over the past two years since originally reading the reports from the May, 1994 Build Freedom Catalog on the topic that government is fake.

I have almost always known government does bad things that can't be rationalized away.

One day in 1986 it occurred to me as I was driving that if all laws were obeyed, society would come to s standstill.

It was after I read The Probability Broach [by L. Neil Smith] that I realized government itself was a bad thing, not just the things it did. Up until about two years ago, it did not occur to me that government was a fiction. I don't think this occurred to L. Neil Smith when he wrote his book. Voyage From Yesteryear by James P. Hogan is the only work of fiction I know of that shows what a society that has never even heard of government may look like.

If more people woke up, there would be no need to keep the government genie in the bottle since the genie would die because a critical mass of people no longer believed in it.

I thing when I was very little, I didn't think people in authority were supposed to be special. As I got older, I assumed the government was real because everyone around me believed it was real.

It does not give me peace of mind when people are willing to do almost anything they're told by those in authority.

I'm perfectly willing to drop out of any institution that is not serving me, regardless of how well established.

In many respects, government has just been people on television. Those certainly aren't real or very entertaining. I have always wondered what their big draw was. It's quicker and easier to get information about them from the printed media.

I have rambled on and on and haven't given you specific steps as to how I overcame the De Rock Hallucination. I don't know. A lot of people who are considered special just aren't special to me. Many institutions people consider important just aren't important enough for me to want to preserve them.

I tend to be more angry at those around me for believing that "government" is real than "government" itself. There would be no "government" without their support. I find it amazing that people want to put their energies into this. It is as sad and stupid as the "NO DRUGS" flags along El Camino.

Editor's Comments - Frederick Mann
The above correspondent has made a key realization: "I am only a baby compared to you when it comes to realizing government is no more real than the tooth fairy." The fact is that 99.999...% of the human race are babies or infants in the area of politics.

FICTION AND MASS HALLUCINATION

by Former De-Rock-Hallucination Hallucinator

When I think of fiction, I think of something that is not real. But very possibly enjoyable, if in the form of a good Star Trek science fiction movie. In fiction, I am the observer and I know it.

My dictionary definition of fiction is: a story, account, explanation, or conception which is an invention of the human mind.

When I think of hallucination, I also think of something that is not real. And very possibly not enjoyable because the person having the hallucination does not know that what is being experienced is not real.

My thesaurus entry for hallucination is: Perception of objects or events that are not real. Something accepted as true that is actually false or unreal.

When watching a fiction movie or reading a fiction book, it is easy to suspend objective reality and enjoy the fiction. Especially if you enjoy science fictions like The Star Wars Trilogy and Star Trek. But when fiction spills over into what most people think is real, the fiction becomes hallucination. The observer becomes the observed without being aware of it.

And that is a problem that is almost impossible to solve. It could be said that the person is now in the movie. But doesn't know that it is a movie. And it is no longer a science fiction movie, it is a horror movie and that person is trapped. That person is hallucinating!

And what makes the problem almost impossible to solve is: most people are unaware that this problem exists. A very large percentage of the people on earth (maybe 99 percent) may suffer from this mass hallucination.

Most people know something is wrong. And they see many symptoms of what appears to be the problem. Many people are trying very hard to fix what they see as the problem. But, the thing they are trying to fix does not exist. The thing they talk about or discuss is a false concept. "It" does not exist. But, "it" is talked about as if "it" is some kind of living entity or concrete thing that can be touched, talked to, or heard when "it" talks. "It" is really a nothing that most people think is a something. Therein lies a great part of why the problem is so difficult to solve. Thinking a nothing is a something creates a problem that seems to have no symptoms.

Let's go back and just touch on how something like this might occur. In a world where information is controlled, twisted and then force-fed as false concepts, things can be turned upside down and no one is aware of it.

For as long as people have gotten together and called themselves "government," they have controlled, twisted, and force-fed to others, false concepts, until very few people understand what is really going on. Most of the people who now call themselves "government" are unaware of what is really happening.

To understand the real problem. The origin and nature of "so called government" has to be studied and understood. So special books and reading material have to be obtained. To truly understand the problem, special thinking skills have to be developed. That's where the special reading material comes in.

The reading material that is needed to develop these special thinking skills is not readily available at your friendly neighborhood corner bookstore. You have to make a special effort to locate, obtain, and then study this material until the big picture comes in crystal clear. Only then can the real problem be seen and solved.

The easiest way I know of to begin to solve the problem of hallucination is to obtain the Build Freedom reports: TL7B: THE NATURE OF GOVERNMENT; TL50A: SEMANTIC RIGIDITY, FLEXIBILITY, AND FREEDOM; TL50C: BOUGHT-INTO-THE-SYSTEM.

By reading and thoroughly studying these reports, reading the reference material and other books, you can start to awaken from the sleep that most of us have been forced into. These reports must be read, re-read, and analyzed until you shake yourself and start to awaken.

You can believe me when I say, you will experience terrific days when you awaken, stand up, and look around. You will be surprised at what you see and what you don't see. But, this is too good to take someone else's word. You have to try it. "Try it, you'll like it."

The most obvious thing about watching a debate between two people who have different thinking skills is: one person knows what the debate is about; the other person has no idea what the debate is about. And that has nothing to do with the other person's thinking capacity. Both people are very intelligent. But, it has a lot to do with how that other person uses that thinking capacity.

It's like teaching everyone on earth that in directions: right is right; left is wrong. Don't ever go wrong. Abide by the "law." Then designing all cities with only right hand turns so that no one ever gets outside of their city. They are all controlled.

When one person in the debate thinks that words and events don't have meanings and that people have meanings for words and events, and the other person thinks that words and events do have meanings; again only one person knows what the debate is about.

I would also say that anyone who truly sees what this debate is about has already acquired some special thinking skills and is awake or is stirring and could waken at any time.

It may also be important to note that I have read each of the three reports mentioned above more than 40 times. And I was on my 8th or 9th reading before even one of the pieces of the hallucination puzzle became clear.

Now as I go through my daily activities of working, reading, talking to other people, I always have a very special feeling as another one of the hallucination puzzle pieces starts to come into focus and then becomes crystal clear ...It makes me smile.

Frederick Mann's Comments
Ferdinand Mount has written an interesting book called The Theatre of Politics.

Consider the possibility that all political systems are fictional plays in theaters, and have been such from the outset -- or, simply, hoaxes to subjugate, control, and live off the production of gullible suckers. The freemasons and lawyers who fraudulently called themselves "We the People of the United States of America" and signed the pretended "U.S. Constitution," were hucksters, liars, and imposters -- see Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. The same applies to all the other pretended "countries" of the world with their supposed "constitutions."

However, the political charades differ in a very important respect from the local play or movie: 99.999...percent of humans believe the play or movie is real. They hallucinate it as real. And some of them carry clubs and guns which they use to beat up, shoot, or jail those who don't want to play the game according to their liking.

So you can watch the local play or movie, enjoy it, go home, and forget about it. Practically nobody regards the play or movie as anything but fiction -- even if it is based on real-life events. The play or movie may make you think, it may even change your thinking about certain things; it may move you emotionally in that you laugh or cry. Exceptionally, it may influence you to the point that it changes your behavior. But, otherwise, it has no real consequences.

The political plays are different. Because practically everyone hallucinates them as real, they can have profound physical consequences. If you don't play along in accordance with the hallucinated "law," you can get fined, jailed, shot, or killed. This is probably one of the most important reasons why so few people can see that all the political plays are hoaxes perpetrated by actors who "legislate" ACTS -- Acts of Congress, Acts of Parliament.

Of course, the discerning person who recognizes the political hoaxes for what they are, behaves prudently so as to minimize the risk of being fined, jailed, shot, or killed. And, because he tends to have a superior understanding of political hoax systems, his behavior in respect of these systems tends to be more effective. In any given situation affected by the people trapped in these systems, he tends to have many more options available than the typical political hallucinator.

[The DRH/NSPIC debate continues in 'Report #TL07F: NSPIC Debate #2.']

Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact

Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com