| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
| |||||||
 Ego Death Justadropofwater   Registered: 04/27/03 Posts: 10,447 Loc: The War Machine |
| ||||||
|
That is truly one amazing read!
He puts into words many things I have thought of but never been able to say. He has also taken them to a greater clarity and detail, good stuff! -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Quote: your thinking resonates with my own, NiamhNyx. thank you for your energy and effort. it looks like some trolling going on here and you handle it with patience and aplomb. kudos.  i shall find Sahlins' essay and read it. thanks.
| |||||||
 NiamhNyx I'm NOT a 'he'   Registered: 09/01/02 Posts: 3,198 Last seen: 14 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
divided sky, you really misunderstand the authors perspective if that is your response, I agree with much of what you have to say in your response, but it isn't reall a criticism of the essay since it isn't criticising how the author actually feels.
I sure as well wouldn't be happy with an eco friendly lefty government because I'm not a lefty and I don't want any government, both the author and myself are anarchists (green anarchists.) I find, quite often, that when criticising anarchist thought most people (who aren't radicals themselves) get anarchist theory seriously confused with a mainstream "progressive" leftist mentality. I'm also really tired of having to argue the point that all emotions are valid and that it's really unhealthy to repress any of them because of some false sense of purity or morality. It's a lot more condusive to sanity and freedom to be able to recognize and appropriately express all of our emotions, and to direct this expression with intelligent, ciritical analysis of what our desires really are, what is healthy for our community, and what will be truly effective. A healthy anger exists because of a far greater love. Love for all of life and the appropriate anger towards that which would torture, brutalise and abuse living beings for the abstraction of profit. I would also like to agree with the fact that if all we do is fight for material change, even if we get it we still will have lost since there is a lot of internal work that must be done in order get rid of our fucked up socializations. We all need to learn to interact in healthy and non coercive ways, to really communicate with one another. There certainly is a lot of work that needs to be done internally, in our own beings and in our communities, but that doesnt negate the fact that there also needs to be exterior work done too. For the majority of the world's population it isn't really possible to do the internal work. It's hard to be concerned about that stuff when you can't find enough to eat, and when your life's energy is devoted to avoiding being beaten up every day. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." Fucking right. That is so incredibly true, I don't know why you're stating it as an argument against the essay. Neither myself nor the author are authoritarian communists.
| |||||||
|
NiamhNyx I'm NOT a 'he' Registered: 09/01/02 Posts: 3,198 Last seen: 14 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
For anyone who has been really inspired by the essay I would highly recommend reading one or several of his books, there are also a ton more essays up on his website which is www.derrickjensen.org
He has a list up on his website of books that inspired him, and I would agree on many of them and still need to read the rest. Some of you may also enjoy the authors Chellis Glendinning and Hakim Bey (aka Peter Lamborn Wilson)
| |||||||
|
Divided_Sky Ten ThousandThin  Registered: 11/02/03 Posts: 3,171 Loc: The Shining Void Last seen: 15 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
NimhNyx,I think you made your point well. I have to admit, although I lived with an anarchist for a year I don't entirely understand that philosphy as well as I should.
I think there is definately some value in expressing emotions and not repressing them, but as a Buddhist I believe there is no constructive or useful role for anger. That may sound kind of crazy to you, but we believe anger is just something we manufacture within ourselves which makes us unhappy with our life and can poison our best intentions. I'm not talking about repressing the emotion, just refusing to endulge it and let it build. I'm not saying that one must be apolitical either, however I think action can go very wrong if one is overcome with passion. I believe that when choosing a course of action for some kind of change we should at least try to be impartial and rational. Even though a have some disagreance over the above issue, I think it was definately an interesting post.
| |||||||
|
kaiowas lest we baguette  Registered: 07/14/03 Posts: 5,501 Loc: oz |
| ||||||
|
great essay, definately got the wheels turning a bit, I do have a bunch of questions though so I can better understand the ideas you are trying to put forth, and how that coincides with the authors essay, not to mention some thoughts of my own
 so here we go  you wrote "I would also like to agree with the fact that if all we do is fight for material change, even if we get it we still will have lost since there is a lot of internal work that must be done in order get rid of our fucked up socializations. " it would be helpful to display some of these socializations you speak of. I have a couple of ideas of what I deem as "fucked up" but I'm not going to make assumptions here "We all need to learn to interact in healthy and non coercive ways, to really communicate with one another." agreed!  "There certainly is a lot of work that needs to be done internally, in our own beings and in our communities, but that doesnt negate the fact that there also needs to be exterior work done too. " I agree with the first part, but with the second part I'm confused. you see the author pointed out damns, and even put in the quote "We can have cardboard boxes or we can have living forests. We can have electricity and a world devastated by mining, or we can have neither: even solar electricity still requires an industrial infrastructure." so what are we getting at here? does this mean to do away with our technology? our advancements? or can we possibly use these advancements so we can work with nature rather than against it? again, just trying to see what you think here. the reason I ask is because the author says, even solar electricity still requires and industrial infastructure? does this action you speak of mean to do away with it? The idea here for external change in my view isnt going to go well if humans are going to die or suffer as a result. let me put it this way, you speak of taking actual action vs internal work...what would you think needs to be done first? "For the majority of the world's population it isn't really possible to do the internal work. It's hard to be concerned about that stuff when you can't find enough to eat, and when your life's energy is devoted to avoiding being beaten up every day." that is why it is up to us who can do the internal work, to DO the internal work, this way we can DO something about those that are hungry and starving in other countries. and I believe that many of us can do this internal work, it jsut hasn't been displayed in our conscious minds enough yet. "both the author and myself are anarchists (green anarchists.) I find, quite often, that when criticising anarchist thought most people (who aren't radicals themselves) get anarchist theory seriously confused with a mainstream "progressive" leftist mentality" it would be awesome if you could explain your point of view then. not so we can debate about it, but so that we can clear up these many misconceptions that people have of your politcal (or lack thereof) standing. Remember what you said above about really communicating with one another. "I sure as well wouldn't be happy with an eco friendly lefty government because I'm not a lefty " ok now lets take this from a logical stanpoint...you might not be happy, but some other poeple would. are you saying your way is the only way? would you be willing to "compromise diplomacy" with other people so we can create a better world FOR one another? if you aren't then how can you possibly preach about communicating in healthy ways? what I am referring to is conpromise. are anarchists willing to work with those that want somewhat of a government? or are you guys planning on sticking with the label of "radicals" btw, i know it may be hard but try not to get so frustrated when you ahve to explain your point of view over and over, especially if you really want to make a change. I know it's hard, but keep it up, I really feel what you guys are striving for, jsut want to know "how" you guys are thinking about it. now for the author's point of view... "We all face choices. On the largest scale, we can have automobiles or we can have ice caps and polar bears. We can have dams and paper and wood products, or we can have salmon. We can have cardboard boxes or we can have living forests. We can have electricity and a world devastated by mining, or we can have neither: even solar electricity still requires an industrial infrastructure. We can have imported fruits, vegetables, meat, and coffee or we can have at least somewhat intact human and nonhuman communities in Latin America." I don't think it's so cut and dry. the reason is this, we can use the technology so that we can use something else than cardboard boxes. this way we can still do what we are goona do and keep the salmon, we can use technology. WE can make fruits and vegetables without importing them can we not? can we use technology in order to make a healthier form of using energy without destroying the planet. This is the ideas of using technology to flow with nature, just because we haven't seen a whole lot of it, doesn't mean it can't happen. this is the internal stuff that I refer to, because it is really important. "Does this mean we should despair? Maybe. Despair is certainly an appropriate response to a desperate situation. But even more than this, we should simply recognize that these choices aren?t really choices anyway: for more than ninety-nine percent of our existence, humans have lived quite happily without destroying their communities or the planet. These choices are the result of an aberrant and frankly bizarre way of living" no...dispair doesn't do anything but worsen the mind of people. how can this lead to a much more efficient human way of life on this planet? and that 99% idea does sit well with me either...humans have for the longest time destroyed each other. from the natives, to the vikings, humans have for the most part been about dividing and conquering. this is not to say to give up and tnot think we can be different, but I'm getting a feel that his perosn wants us to delve back in the way we lived in the past, which I feel doesn't help...why?? look at the situation we have here. we are dependant of the system, if we jsut decided to abolish everything, we already don't have clean water, most of us don't know how to farm effectively, most of us don't know how to make our own clothes. a radical shift like that would like many people because of the initial conditions that we have. I like how the author puts forth the ideas of happiness and the work force, and that most people aren't happy with what they do. the authosr should have went further and asked them, what they would rather do than work... what kind of response would you think he's get from most people? -------------------- Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.
| |||||||
|
NiamhNyx I'm NOT a 'he' Registered: 09/01/02 Posts: 3,198 Last seen: 14 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Thanks for your reply divided, I respect your position. I disagree with the buddhist's view on emotions, however. This author I posted once wrote something on the topic that I really appreciated, he said something to the affect of "I allow my anger to inform me but not control me, just as I let my joy, passion, rationality do the same." I agree strongly with that, being fully aware of and respecting one's emotions and allowing them to be expressed. Not allowing them to own you and control you and cause you to do things that will have no positive effect and end up being bad for you. There's a delicate balance I strive for in allowing, understanding and expression my emotions and channeling them in such ways that the outcome of my action will fulfill the needs my emotions exposed to me. Anger (joy, frustration, elation, sorrow, etc) doesn't come from nowhere, something causes it and getting to the bottom of it is really important if we want to get through it. If we don't appropriately respond to our emotions and instead ignore them or refuse to satisfy thier needs they will simply sit there and build and eventually explode most likely in an unhealthy way.
I also think that it is beautiful and spiritually necessary to allow oneself to be overcome with passions, however, again, it is important to be concious of how one is expressing that overwhelming release of letting oneself be taken into a passion. I believe that is what transcendance is, spiritual ecstacy- letting oneself dive head on into the passion of living and recognizing the utter beauty of every moment. Letting oneself be filled with the universe. Emotions are not cut and dry, no two emotional experiences are exactly alike as each situation will inspired different "combinations" if you will, of emotions. The labels and boxes we have for them are misleading which is why I think there is so much misunderstanding and confusion regarding the subject. I think that one thing we've gotta always remember is that we're all just human, and we all have to take life as it comes and trust ourselves to live up to our best intentions. For me, allowing my emotions to fill me and inform me is absolutely necessary and I believe that if we all were a lot more honest with ourselves about this stuff, and trusted ourselves we'd be a lot less pathological and a lot more communicative.
| |||||||
|
NiamhNyx I'm NOT a 'he' Registered: 09/01/02 Posts: 3,198 Last seen: 14 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
kaiowas said:
***first of all, these are some great questions. Thanks for that! Secondly I want to say right now before answering any of them that as an anarchist I speak only for myself and I don't represent anyone else. There are plently of anarchists who would probably disagree with me on a whole lot of my ideas and thats totally ok. The joke goes, if you ask 3 anarchists the same question you'll get 4 answers. We are all completely autonomous individuals with different analysis, priorities, desires and opinions. Having said that I'll begin to represent my own line of thought now. *** you wrote "I would also like to agree with the fact that if all we do is fight for material change, even if we get it we still will have lost since there is a lot of internal work that must be done in order get rid of our fucked up socializations. " it would be helpful to display some of these socializations you speak of. I have a couple of ideas of what I deem as "fucked up" but I'm not going to make assumptions here *** a few examples of what i mean by "fucked up socializations" inlude stuff like gender roles. Women are socialized to be passive, good listeners, emotionally oriented, "feminine", soft, etc. and men are socialized to be aggressive, authoritarian, hard, intellectually oriented, unemotional etc. I reject that such roles completely. We are socialized to have really uncommunicative interactions with other human beings and are from birth taught to get used to being coerced or to coerce others or both. We are taught to either sacrafice ourselves or to take advantage of others. We are taught to be domesticated creatures living with the pen of our prefabricated society and to not have any concept or desire to create our own communities. We are taught to be uncomfortable in our own skin and to deny ourselves our own dreams and desires in exchange for the security of surviving in an unliveable culture.*** "We all need to learn to interact in healthy and non coercive ways, to really communicate with one another." agreed! ***It's harder to really look at oneself and recognize our own unhealthy patterns and work to stop them. It's definitly not easy to experiment with completely restructuring how we interact with people we know, love, dislike, whoever... but its definitly necessary. We need to work on directly speaking to our personal needs and being observant and responsive to the needs of others rather than playing passive aggressive (or straight up aggressive) power games which don't even satisfy our needs to begin with.*** "There certainly is a lot of work that needs to be done internally, in our own beings and in our communities, but that doesnt negate the fact that there also needs to be exterior work done too. " I agree with the first part, but with the second part I'm confused. you see the author pointed out damns, and even put in the quote ***The point that I was making is that, although there is all this internal work to do on figuring out how to identify and express our needs and reevaluate and fix our social relationships there is also the external work of dismantling structures that make this internal stuff difficult or impossible. The external work of stopping oppression, exploitation and control coming from the ruling elite. It's not enough to have better personal relationships if our land is still being desimated and people are still the slave labour of the upper class.*** "We can have cardboard boxes or we can have living forests. We can have electricity and a world devastated by mining, or we can have neither: even solar electricity still requires an industrial infrastructure." so what are we getting at here? does this mean to do away with our technology? our advancements? or can we possibly use these advancements so we can work with nature rather than against it? again, just trying to see what you think here. the reason I ask is because the author says, even solar electricity still requires and industrial infastructure? does this action you speak of mean to do away with it? ***This author could be labelled an anarcho-primitivist (although he doesn't specifically call himself anything) because he does believe that we need to do away with technology, that it is inherently destructive, coercive and alienating. In order to maintain the vast majority of our higher technologies we require a massive system in which people are just tools of production. The earth still gets raped, people are still pawns and we are still driving ourselves into oblivion. There is a vast body of writing and analysis on this specific subject which I can't really get into here and now but I'd be willing to discuss anarcho primitivism specifically, later.*** The idea here for external change in my view isnt going to go well if humans are going to die or suffer as a result. let me put it this way, you speak of taking actual action vs internal work...what would you think needs to be done first? ***The problem is, at the rate we're going, humans are going to die, and it probably won't be too pretty. Look at all the different apocalypse theories out there. The fact that they don't seem at all ludicrous is scary. There is a very real threat of ecological collapse starting us in the face right now. For the earth to be sustainable we do need a drop in human population. I'm not willing to be the cause of human death, but our own utter waste of the planet will almost definitly cause it itself. I am not looking forward to it, and I want to do everything I can to lighten the blow. To me that includes learning primitive survival skills now, learning how to have egalitarian communities and healthy social interactions, protecting all remaining ecosystems, restoring damaged ecosystems, utilizing sustainable methods of agriculture like "permaculture", etc. We need to learn how to survive without this massive system we've created and that means learning how to survive autonomously, or within a small group of people. I suppose you could look at is as a new tribalism.*** "For the majority of the world's population it isn't really possible to do the internal work. It's hard to be concerned about that stuff when you can't find enough to eat, and when your life's energy is devoted to avoiding being beaten up every day." that is why it is up to us who can do the internal work, to DO the internal work, this way we can DO something about those that are hungry and starving in other countries. and I believe that many of us can do this internal work, it jsut hasn't been displayed in our conscious minds enough yet. ***totally. We've got the privlege as westerners to be able to do the internal work, so we dan well should. But we have to be careful of hiding within our privlege and using it as an excuse to avoid taking direct action. A lot of people in poor countries are doing the internal stuff, are figuring out the social relationship issues and at the same time struggling directly for what they need. Look at the Zapatistas for example.*** "both the author and myself are anarchists (green anarchists.) I find, quite often, that when criticising anarchist thought most people (who aren't radicals themselves) get anarchist theory seriously confused with a mainstream "progressive" leftist mentality" it would be awesome if you could explain your point of view then. not so we can debate about it, but so that we can clear up these many misconceptions that people have of your politcal (or lack thereof) standing. Remember what you said above about really communicating with one another. ***Anarchists in general are opposed to any form of authority and coercive force. We believe that humans are capable (and naturally inclined) to living in an egalitarian way without controlling one another and that we can, within our own communities, make our own decisions on how we should live. We are usually strongly community oriented, but the community does not come before the individual, the community owes every member the freedom to persue thier own needs and desires. There is a mutual exchange of energies between people. "progressive" lefties are often just as coercive and imposing as right wingers, just having a different agenda. They are also consumed with visions of controlling the course society takes and generally have a very watered down analysis of where our systems problems stem from and what needs to be done about it. I will give them credit for having thier heart in the right place because a lot of them do.... but so do most people in general.*** "I sure as well wouldn't be happy with an eco friendly lefty government because I'm not a lefty " ok now lets take this from a logical stanpoint...you might not be happy, but some other poeple would. are you saying your way is the only way? would you be willing to "compromise diplomacy" with other people so we can create a better world FOR one another? if you aren't then how can you possibly preach about communicating in healthy ways? what I am referring to is conpromise. are anarchists willing to work with those that want somewhat of a government? or are you guys planning on sticking with the label of "radicals" ***Every anarchist makes thier own decision about who thier willing to work with and to what extent. I will work with people so far as we have an affinity, but I'm not going to put my goals on the back burner and fight for something I don't believe in. Being radical isn't a label so much as it is the reality of what we feel is the extent of what needs to be done. We generally believe that society needs to be changed a whole lot more than some other people do. I'm not willing to compromise on a lot of points, but I also don't expect someone to work with me on something they don't feel affinity with. Everyone is free to decide thier level of involvement and I will do nothing to coerce someone into being on my level.*** btw, i know it may be hard but try not to get so frustrated when you ahve to explain your point of view over and over, especially if you really want to make a change. I know it's hard, but keep it up, I really feel what you guys are striving for, jsut want to know "how" you guys are thinking about it. **Again, I can only really tell you how I think about it, although a bunch of anarchists will hold similar opinions as me, not all of us feel the same about everything. There are even some anarchists that believe we need socialist government before we can transition to anarchy. To each thier own, but I'll debate what I disagree with and work for the results I wish to achieve.*** now for the author's point of view... "We all face choices. On the largest scale, we can have automobiles or we can have ice caps and polar bears. We can have dams and paper and wood products, or we can have salmon. We can have cardboard boxes or we can have living forests. We can have electricity and a world devastated by mining, or we can have neither: even solar electricity still requires an industrial infrastructure. We can have imported fruits, vegetables, meat, and coffee or we can have at least somewhat intact human and nonhuman communities in Latin America." I don't think it's so cut and dry. the reason is this, we can use the technology so that we can use something else than cardboard boxes. this way we can still do what we are goona do and keep the salmon, we can use technology. WE can make fruits and vegetables without importing them can we not? can we use technology in order to make a healthier form of using energy without destroying the planet. This is the ideas of using technology to flow with nature, just because we haven't seen a whole lot of it, doesn't mean it can't happen. this is the internal stuff that I refer to, because it is really important. ***There is better technology than we use now, stuff that is *less* bad for the earth and *less*alienating to humans, however the MOST sustainable, the only purely sustainable lifestyle is technically hunter/gatherer tribalism. At this stage of the game I'm not fully opposed to utilizing technology, we can't just destroy it all right now and expect everything to be wonderful all of the sudden. The author himself feels similarily since he uses the internet, has recorded cd's of his discussions, writes books and prints them on dead trees and has them distributed around the world. Right now we can use a minimum level of tech as a positive tool, but we need to keep in mind that there is practically no level of technological advancement that is sustainable.*** "Does this mean we should despair? Maybe. Despair is certainly an appropriate response to a desperate situation. But even more than this, we should simply recognize that these choices aren?t really choices anyway: for more than ninety-nine percent of our existence, humans have lived quite happily without destroying their communities or the planet. These choices are the result of an aberrant and frankly bizarre way of living" no...dispair doesn't do anything but worsen the mind of people. how can this lead to a much more efficient human way of life on this planet? and that 99% idea does sit well with me either...humans have for the longest time destroyed each other. from the natives, to the vikings, humans have for the most part been about dividing and conquering. this is not to say to give up and tnot think we can be different, but I'm getting a feel that his perosn wants us to delve back in the way we lived in the past, which I feel doesn't help...why?? *** Humans have only been about dividing and conquering for about 10,000 years (less in some regions) which is a relatively tiny portion of our history as a species. He is accurate about the 99% thing, if you look at anthropology. It's only civilized humans that divide and conquer and coerce to the ludicrous extent and with the foul motivations we have.*** look at the situation we have here. we are dependant of the system, if we jsut decided to abolish everything, we already don't have clean water, most of us don't know how to farm effectively, most of us don't know how to make our own clothes. a radical shift like that would like many people because of the initial conditions that we have. ***thats reality right now, which is why I don't advocate the total destruction of everything over night. We need to relearn a lot of skills, restore a lot of ecosystems and recover healthy social relationships. We are currently dependant on the system but that doesn't mean we have to continue to be. The great thing about being alive and human is that we can learn, remember, reclaim and change so longas we have an earnest desire to live in a better way. We don't have to stay stuck and despair in our dependancy. We can learn to be independant again.*** I like how the author puts forth the ideas of happiness and the work force, and that most people aren't happy with what they do. the authosr should have went further and asked them, what they would rather do than work... what kind of response would you think he's get from most people? ***Good question. I have a feeling people would say stuff like "spend quality time with my friends and family, go fishing, hunting, go hiking, lounge on the beach, dance and play and sing, create art, knit and sew, follow spiritual pursuits, take psychedelics, talk to strangers, make friends, grow gardens, learn new skills....etc." The funny thing is, we can do that. We don't have to waste away at shitty jobs. Survival never has required wasting away doing tasks that have no direct effect on our own lives. We can live in decentralized communities that take care of themselves and fulfill thier own needs. We have a lot to learn, and a lot to reclaim. At this point that takes both the internal work and the external work, and I believe that we need to pursue both equally, or perhaps cease to consider the duality at all. Resistance and Reclaiming areone and the same.***
| |||||||
|
Strumpling Neuronaut Registered: 10/11/02 Posts: 7,571 Loc: Hyperspace Last seen: 12 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Pinky I will never understand you.
I've grown to understand that. -------------------- Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me. In addition: SHPONGLE
| |||||||
|
Strumpling Neuronaut Registered: 10/11/02 Posts: 7,571 Loc: Hyperspace Last seen: 12 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
I posted this on another forum and figured I would post my last response to several responses here:
ok this is really cool "So all that we can really do is to sit back and look at humanity screwing up." I agree with Feathers here when he says that this is simply more conditioning coming out of you. They'd love for us to believe that there is no way to stop this. "educate the sleeping masses about the destruction that takes place." Right - why do you think I posted this article heh I fully agree - INFORMATION IS POWER."We can never avoid the ultimate stop in the world when there is no more gas or oil." With that attitude, of course not I mean I understand you don't want to get your hopes up, but come ON!"the fact that so many are in favour of this, and will never betray their overlord means that there will never be real economic growth in the world and there will never be peace." Economic growth? rofl what the fuck? We're talking about a revolution here man, fuck economic growth!! "The most important thing is not to show the conservative leaders we hate them. The most important thing is to turn everyone else against them, including their trusted voters." This has nothing to do with consertatives or liberals or whatever, man. Its like that psycho Alex Jones says in Waking Life: "liberal democrat, republican conservative: what a bunch of garbage! Its all there to control you; two sides of the same coin! Two MANAGEMENT TEAMS, bidding for ..the CEO job of SLAVERY INCORPORATED!" I think we not only have to turn everybody against our "leaders." The harder part is turning people against THEMSELVES and their own ways of life. I've been struggling trying to turn against my own lifestyle; the way I was raised to believe life is has turned out to be a scam, and I am having great difficulty turning away from it, especially when the majority is still so stuck in the web they don't even know the web's THERE... I think it is all about informaiton - we need to get the hidden information out to the masses. I mean its not necessarily hidden, but its not on the news every day and its not on SpikeTV's 52 Most Irresistable Women, either.. "What the corrupt fear more than anything else is that the masses will wake up and see what's going on around them." I fully agree - information is KEY "Still, if mr.kerry would win this election, little will change." Right. But at least Kerry doesn't SEEM to want to get my country into any more fights.. "our aggressiveness and corrupt nature." I feel this is more conditioning on your end... If you truely believe that mankind is naturally aggressive and corrupt, study tribal life all over the world. There are tribes that have lived in perfect peace for tens of thousands of years - WITHOUT MONEY. Sure its not as fun and they don't get to play Tony Hawk's UnderGround, but hey fuck it man! It was fun while it lasted, hmm? If the masses had absorbed the same information that I have been discovering over the past few years, things would already be different. It is all about INFORMATION! SPREAD THE RIGHT INFORMATION, because "they" sure are spreading the "right" information for THEIR causes.... and they're spreading it way faster and way LOUDER than I can. But you know what? We have loud voices too. The more of us there are that talk more and more about this to more and more people, the more people we will touch who will wake up and go out and tell even MORE, and who knows some of these people might be way louder than me. There are already plenty out there who have been working way longer than I have and have gotten much louder, and this is fantastic! Its nice to know that there already IS an information war happening, and I am proud to join in!! You should be too! Guys, the revolution is already happening. It is not being faught with guns. It is being faught with INFORMATION. This is why they want to keep the media so under control, because IT IS ALL ABOUT INFORMATION. We don't need to knock down a single microwave mast; we just need to spread the word loudly enough. Look at the kind folks at The Media Foundation, raising funds to put ads on national television that basically say "WAKE THE FUCK UP!! WE ARE BEING USED!!" You wouldn't believe the trouble they have to go through to get some of these ads in the places they somehow reach... www.adbusters.org by the way - adbusters = media foundation - they're the guys who created Internaltional Buy Nothing Day, and they get CNN to air ads for it every year - hehe its brilliant stuff. This is how it is being faught. It is all right there in front of you- You saw "The Matrix." Did you realize that it was a major attack on our conditioning, or were you zoning out on the nice special effects? There are plenty of memes out there waiting to be swallowed and spread - its just that we can't put them on television without a shitload of money, so just spread the word on a personal level, and advise to those you spread information to that they spread it as well. The revolution is not being televised, but it is already happening. Are you going to sit on the sidelines and root for the power-player, or are you going to join the underdog and help kick this Meme War into full gear? -------------------- Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me. In addition: SHPONGLE
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Internal Conflict and the search for peace... (  1 2 all ) |
 lucid |
3,184 | 27 | 12/15/03 12:22 PM by Sclorch |
|
 |
Anarchist Society *DELETED* ( 1 2 all ) |
 0toxic0 |
3,921 | 34 | 07/28/03 09:31 PM by fireworks_god |
|
|
Salvia VS internal dialog ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Icelander |
6,582 | 72 | 10/31/06 01:41 PM by Icelander |
|
|
Can all emotions be either "Love" or "Fear"? ( 1 2 all ) |
 dblaney |
5,122 | 21 | 11/15/05 10:43 PM by nunciate |
|
|
Fear of death ( 1 2 all ) |
 unlikelyhero |
4,088 | 31 | 09/25/03 03:37 PM by Alan Stone |
|
 |
Facing your fears? What if fear afraid of facing me? |  cleaner |
808 | 11 | 09/28/04 11:37 AM by Moonshoe |
|
|
"Fear" & "Instinct" as two DIFFERENT "Senses".....(?) ( 1 2 all ) |
 eMotionALLmotion |
2,545 | 30 | 05/04/05 11:06 PM by Psychoactive1984 |
|
|
Internal Dialogue, peace, 3 diff mind patterns | lucid |
803 | 5 | 10/11/03 11:22 PM by enotake2 |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 4,292 topic views. 0 members, 11 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
