HOME ~ SEARCH ~ GUEST BOOK ~ CONTACT ~ WHAT'S NEW ~ DISCLAIMER ~ SOURCE AREA

NSPIC DEBATE

© Copyright 1997 By Frederick Mann, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[Compiled and edited by David T. Freeman.]

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.

(NSPIC relates to a dimension of freedom unknown to practically all freedom lovers and freedom activists -- anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, conservatives, extropians, libertarians, neo-tech owners, objectivists, patriots, voluntaryists, etc.)

I started becoming aware of NSPIC in 1976 after reading Lysander Spooner's 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 impostors and liars. The supposed "constitution" under whose "authority" they act, are all invalid. The notion that these impostors 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. (Significant progress has been made here; one individual did almost instantaneously what took me many years of "mindbreaking" work!)

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

PRELUDE TO DRH DEBATE

The DRH debate was preceded by a John de Rivaz article in which he 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..."

As editor I commented as follows to the de Rivaz article:
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 Rivaz -- 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 and scribbles that emanate from the mouths and pens of some of the terrocrats (terrorist bureaucrats or coercive political agents) 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, impostors, 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, impostors, 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.

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 Rivaz 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 gullibility and hallucination in the minds of suckers.

THE DE RIVAZ HALLUCINATION

It is really unfair of me to call it the "De Rivaz 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 Rivaz Hallucination" because Mr. De Rivaz 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 Rivaz Response
Mr. John de Rivaz 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 Rivaz responded as follows to my hallucination assertion:

"...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 Rivaz's first sentence:

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 Rivaz'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 Rivaz -- 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 Rivaz. 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 Rivaz Hallucination."

Sometimes the first step in solving a problem -- or curing a disease -- is to give it a name. To start transcending the De Rivaz 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.

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 Rivaz Hallucination. See the article: How To Increase Your Consciousness, and Report #11: How to Increase Your Intelligence. The "government" phenomenon is a form of bicameral hallucination.

If you're interested in overcoming the De Rivaz Hallucination, you may want to study the following treatises and Reports:

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 Rivaz Hallucination. This is crucial to the development of human sanity.

However, 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 Rivaz above -- I have to write more to point out that I never wrote what he accused me of.

COMMENTARIES ON THE DE RIVAZ 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 already possessed, to the notion of "government," I was able to increase my personal power tremendously...

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, #50A: 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 report, you may be sitting in something which 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. But 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 earlier articles: "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 stand up to such a "government" as that? 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.

FICTION AND MASS HALLUCINATION

by Frederick Mann

Politics is a Theatrical Tragicomedy
My Webster's defines tragicomedy as "a drama or a situation blending tragic and comic elements." The theme that politics is theater is expounded by Ferdinand Mount's book The Theater of Politics - in the Introduction Max Lerner writes:
"Politics is shot through with the theatric, and can be understood best only if we view the exchange between political actor and political audience as theater... the element of theater on the American scene has gone beyond politics and pervaded the entire society. It has become history-as-theater."

Let me suggest that when you watch TV, listen to the radio, or read the newspaper and the topic is politics, either people are getting hurt or killed (tragedy), or some political actor is openly joking or pretending to be serious (comedy). Alexis de Tocqueville in his Recollections wrote about the 1848 French Revolution:

"The whole time I had the feeling that we had staged a play about the French Revolution... Though I foresaw the terrible end to the piece well enough, I could not take the actors very seriously; the whole thing seemed a vile tragedy played by a provincial troupe."

Some quotes from Mount's The Theater of Politics follow:

Consider the possibility that all political systems are fictional plays in theaters, and have been such from the outset -- or, simply, hoaxes for terrocrats to subjugate, control, and live off the production of gullible suckers.

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 much 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.

Statist Fraud-Words Have Stupefying and Debilitating Effects
In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal Ayn Rand discusses what she calls "anti-concepts." As far as I'm concerned, concepts make it easier for us to understand and deal with reality; while anti-concepts cause us to misunderstand and fail to deal with reality. According to Rand:

"The purpose of "anti-concepts" is to obliterate certain concepts without public discussion; and, as a means to that end, to induce the same disintegration in the mind of any man who accepts them, rendering him incapable of clear thinking or rational judgment. No mind is better than the precision of its concepts." [emphasis added]

I contend that the statist fraud-concepts are all anti-concepts. They misrepresent reality. They have a stupefying and debilitating effect on those who accept them as valid. This is one of the main reasons for the slow results produced so far by most freedom advocates.

In his book The Ideas of Ayn Rand, Ronald E. Merrill discusses Rand's essay "The Nature of Government" (from her book The Virtue of Selfishness). Rand did not question anti-concepts like "state," "government," "society," etc. - did she blindly accept them, like a trained animal? Merrill makes the following points:

The above raise some questions:

Statist fraud-concepts like "government," "state," "law," etc. tend to have a debilitating effect. People who cling to these concepts can't think straight on the subject of political systems, they generally feel helpless and impotent because they see themselves as small and insignificant compared to the enormous monolithic monster they call "government" or "state" - collectivist thinking.

On the other hand, when you ditch the statist fraud-concepts, you think in terms of individuals. You are almost never faced with a "huge unbeatable enemy"; instead you are faced with individuals - individual bureaucrats (including police) with much of their behavior fairly predictable - making it relatively easy to organize your life and affairs so they are least likely to bother you - individualistic thinking.

You'll be amazed by how much more powerful and capable you'll become when you ditch statist fraud-concepts and think individualistically. Operating this way also gives you a much more powerful attitude. You'll be amazed at the additional options that become available to you. So take off your blinkers and ditch the statist fraud-concepts!

OBSTACLES TO OVERCOMING THE DE RIVAZ HALLUCINATION

[Snippets from John de Rivaz (JDR) / Frederick Mann (FM) debates:]

JDR: "Frederick Mann would have us believe that governments do not exist."

FM: This is your error, misunderstanding, and/or hallucination. If I wanted people to believe that "governments do not exist," then I would say so. In fact, I think the notion that "governments do not exist" is oxymoronic and absurd. [This point will no doubt be covered in future debates.]

I am trying to develop a cure for the De Rivaz Hallucination -- including its stupefaction element -- one of the root causes of the problem of the "government" phenomenon. In order to solve this problem, a critical number of individuals will have to cure themselves of and transcend the De Rivaz Hallucination.

In my opinion, one of the greatest advances an individual can make in life is to transcend the De Rivaz Hallucination. Even if John de Rivaz himself never transcends the De Rivaz Hallucination, a continuing debate will result in more people eventually curing themselves of this debilitating mental illness.

JDR: "I would suggest that your time may be more usefully employed... than arguments about the nature of government which even you concede that 99% of the population can't understand..."

FM: You still don't know what this debate is about. It's not really about the "nature of government" -- it's about your hallucination: the De Rivaz Hallucination -- DRH.

DRH is at the root of the "government" problem. If even 0.1 percent (one in a thousand) of freedom-lovers were to cure themselves of DRH and learn to communicate about it effectively, the cure would start spreading more rapidly. This would greatly accelerate the solution of the "government" problem.

Even if only one percent of readers could fairly quickly understand this debate, it will probably induce a further 5-10 percent to start thinking and questioning. Some will also realize the profound increase in personal power that comes with transcending DRH.

JDR quoting Shakespeare: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." - Henry VI

FM: No, John/Shakespeare. You got it horribly wrong. The first thing we do, let's kill all the hallucinations in our heads -- particularly the hallucination that the lawyers' noises and scribbles constitute "the law."

Before some people can overcome DRH, they first need to overcome some of the more basic related problems. In many of John de Rivaz's articles (not included here), he unwittingly demonstrated that he suffers from psychological reversal, victim-mentality, slave-mentality, and deathism -- all of which are aspects of the DEBILITY element of DRH. Some recommended Reports covering most of these topics are: #13F: The Millionaire's Secret (VI), and #04: How to Find Out Who You Are.

Transcending DRH can require a considerable mental and intellectual effort. Many people need to read, analyze, think about, and re-read a number of the Reports many times before they can grasp the subject matter and apply it. A few readers wrote to me to say that they had read some Reports ten times, and more! -- and benefitted significantly from each reading. Each time you re-read something, you can pick up additional points which you might have missed previously.

A clear indicator that you need to re-read something will typically be realized by those Reports which you have difficulty understanding one or more parts of. You might find it useful to make a list of the Reports which you've read, and mark off against each one whether you understood it all, or mostly, or only partly -- and come back to those which you had difficulty with in a few days time -- or shortly after reading one of the other related Reports which you haven't read yet.

Several readers also wrote about the great joy they experienced, and continued to experience, when they finally overcame their hallucinations! (Also, see David Smith's letter: The Experience of Personal Power, Freedom, and Prosperity, for an example from a few years ago of similar things.)

David Solomon wrote to me about how he benefitted greatly from engaging himself in an intense and persistent reading program to overcome his hallucinations. As he recognized himself making considerable progress, he also began to wake up and realize what was going on... he wrote:

"...And like all progress, there was a price to pay for the giant step. Being in the Polaris Submarine Force for more than twenty years, there was more than one occasion when I almost gave my life away -- for NOTHING! That realization made me very very angry. And I was also very very angry for having been a sucker for all those years.

I had been reading those reports for more than a year when I felt the anger starting to grow. The anger came as I started to break the hallucination and sanity started to take hold. That anger could only be controlled by the new thinking skills that were growing. The anger seemed to grow for about two months. Then the anger seemed to fade and in about two weeks it was gone.

I had started my intensive reading program in November of 1994 and it was about mid March of 1996 when I knew the hallucination was broken. And now I am fully awake and continuing to grow. I cannot put into words what this feeling is like!

IT IS INDEED A GRAND FEELING! AND EACH DAY THIS FEELING GROWS AND GROWS AND GROWS AND GROWS..."

One of the greatest obstacles to overcoming DRH is the anger Mr. Solomon writes about. He had to recognize and admit to himself that he had been a sucker all his life. He had been taken for a 22-year ride by the hucksters and suckers masquerading as "the US Navy." He had been conned all his life by everyone around him on the subject of "government." And he had fallen for it completely and totally. Not only did he waste 22 years of his life that he could have spent productively, he also risked losing his life, not for his "glorious country," but for NOTHING!

On top of which, most people have been obediently paying "their taxes" to the conmen and conwomen who masquerade as "government" for years or even decades -- thousands upon thousands of dollars, pounds, etc. Now they have to face up to the fact that the entire political system has been a hoax from day one, from beginning to end, from top to bottom. They've been pathetically gullible all their lives in swallowing all the political claptrap. And, worst of all, most Libertarians, Objectivists, Neo-Techers, Anarchists, Patriots, etc., continue to swallow the basic political concepts -- even after they've read some of these Reports!

That's another major obstacle to overcoming DRH. If you try to discuss DRH with any of your family, friends, or associates -- even if they're highly freedom oriented -- chances are they'll probably find that the whole idea is stupid and that you must be crazy for wanting to discuss such idiocy! For some this is a shattering experience. To cure yourself from DRH, you have to become politically sane in a world of the politically insane. You have to be able to live in a world where all your family, friends, and associates are politically insane! For most people it's easier to simply continue to be politically insane.

Of course, an additional reason why terrocrats do what they do [i.e. besides their purpose of living off the production of others] is because they hallucinate themselves as "the government" -- and 99.999...percent of humans share this hallucination. If only the terrocrats hallucinated themselves as "the government," and everybody else had cured themselves of DRH, the terrocrats would be accurately perceived as insane bureaucrazies in a madhouse. However, as long as 99.999...percent of humans share the same hallucination, it all seems quite sane -- and the only people who seem crazy are those who try to point out the insanity!

By the way, Chris Tame is one of the leading Libertarians in the UK. We used to be buddies and I knew him quite well. When I last had contact with Chris [1988] he was involved in a freedom movement to educate people and change "the system". In terms of Report #05B: Freedom Steps, he has taken very few freedom steps.

Getting someone like Chris Tame who's stuck in such ways to recognize the validity of DRH is virtually impossible. You see, much of his life is about changing "the system," which is very real and solid to him. The idea that he might be hallucinating "the system" has the frightening implication that he's been wrong all his life, trying to chase wild geese with his feet chained to the ground. DRH, if valid, would virtually destroy his life as presently constructed.

DRH is very threatening to some. About 10 years ago, I had dinner with my friend Tony, also a close Libertarian associate of Chris Tame, in the Atomium restaurant in Brussels. We discussed economics and politics. I tried an experiment. Every time Tony said anything representing an element of DRH, I questioned it vigorously. After about 30 minutes he became physically sick, ran to the restroom, and puked his guts out! He couldn't continue his meal and wasn't very happy. So I understand why some people find DRH unpalatable!

A further problem is that most people simply haven't developed the thinking skills to deal with this subject, or to process self-referencing syntax like "falsely-called "government".". For these reasons alone, many people will probably be confused by the debate -- I expect over 90%. They also haven't sufficiently developed the ability to question concepts. They may have the ability to question beliefs, but not the more basic concepts. When some people try to read about DRH, their minds automatically twist the words into forms that accord with their habitual ways of thinking. That's why John de Rivaz still uses distortions like "correspondence on government being an hallucination." [Eventually, we'll identify all the thinking skills necessary to cure DRH.]

I want to make a distinction here between "concept" as a unit of knowledge and "belief" as a combination of concepts. Concept is like a brick and belief like a wall (of bricks)! You can change your belief without changing your concept, as illustrated by the "Emperor" concept in Report #50C: Bought-Into-The-System. Note that the Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians all share the unquestioned "Emperor" concept. Anarcho-Capitalists -- at least those who have transcended the De Rivaz Hallucination (DRH) -- think the commonly-held "Emperor" concept is absurd.

I suggest that to the extent that you change your basic political concepts, you can become vastly more effective at beating terrocrats. Not only can you enjoy a level of freedom regarded as impossible by most Libertarians, Objectivists, Neo-Techers, Anarchists, Patriots, etc., you can also make a fortune practicing real free enterprise, sharing practical freedom information, and inspiring others to apply it.

The ability to examine concepts is helpful in transcending DRH. Here is a basic exercise. Consider the concept of "shadow." What is the referent of the word "shadow?" Does a "shadow" exist? How do you define a "shadow?" If a "shadow" is the absence of light in a defined area, then how can a "shadow" exist? How can the absence of something exist? Does a "shadow" exist if there is no one to see it? With what senses can you perceive a "shadow?"

What about a "flock" (of birds)? Suppose you called the "flock" an "entity"; what kind of "entity" is a "flock?" How do you define it? Can you perceive a "flock" with your senses? If a "flock" exists, can you tell me in concrete terms what actually exists?

What about the notion of "government" (John de Rivaz: "governments are entities which comprise individual human beings")? What kind of "entity" is a "government?" How do you define it? Can you perceive a "government" with your senses? If a "government" exists, can you tell me in concrete terms what actually exists?

As kinds of "entities," what fundamental similarities and differences are there between "flocks" and "governments?"

DRH AND THE "PERENNIAL JDR DISTORTION"

[The "perennial JDR distortion" is JDR's false accusation that FM thinks or says "government is a(n) hallucination."]

Before we advance, we need some repetition. There are some things we have to address over and over dozens of times before they get through to the more obtuse and obdurate -- anybody at home?

Recently, Mr. De Rivaz wrote to me about, "Your concept that governments are an hallucination..." To which I responded: "This isn't my concept. It's your distortion. We've covered this point many times. It's your act of allegedly "perceiving" what you call "government" that is the hallucination. As I've indicated, you still don't know what the DRH debate is about."

Mr. De Rivaz also wrote to SB, referring to: "...[D]ebates as to whether government is hallucinatory or not..." To which SB responded [in part and edited]:

"You still don't seem to get it. The issue is NOT "whether government is hallucinatory or not." This is describing a supposed entity as a hallucination, which makes little sense... This way of thinking does not get at the real issue we intend to communicate.

The issue is about how 99.99999% of people are effectively hallucinating when they think they "perceive" a "government!" This refers to the thought-processes going on within the mind of each individual (perception).

Now, because such a huge majority share the same false perception -- it's far too easy to receive false confirmation of your hallucination as being reality!

Not long ago most people believed "the world is flat." Frederick Mann, myself, and everyone else who has transcended, or who never suffered from, a hallucination that there is a "government," are the equivalent of those few people at the time who were convincing everyone else that the world is spherical!

...There is an immense difference here! The most unfortunate aspect of this seems to be that no one has found an effective method (that anyone will easily comprehend) of communicating how important this fundamental realization is."

John, for the umpteenth time, hallucination is what occurs inside your dense skull!

Jon Galt wrote:

"John de Rivaz wrote: "Frederick Mann... says that government is a hallucination, and does not accept the concept that it can be regarded as a sentient creature using humans as its cells and organs. He has posed a number of questions which I have answered to the best of my ability."

I used to make fun of what I called "the society animal" because I felt (I believe) exactly the same way as Frederick does. However I have for a couple of years now started believing differently."

FM: Jon Galt quotes the nonsense John de Rivaz falsely ascribes to me. Then Jon Galt says, "I felt (I believe) exactly the same way as Frederick does." What arrogance! He doesn't have a clue what I think or feel. This is pure hallucination!

Jon Galt: "I definitely like Frederick's assertion that government is a hallucination."

FM: You're hallucinating again. I've never made such an absurd assertion.

Jon Galt: "I think it can be extremely useful to model government as an organism. If we can gain some insight of it at the societal level, that may help us to stop supporting its continued existence. I see a great battle between two "organisms" that operate on somewhat the same level. Government, and the free market. Government is a parasite that acts to preserve itself by attempting to ensure that it can go on sucking the blood of the free market."

FM: You're hallucinating an organism where there isn't any. Modeling the terrocrats as an organism is counterproductive because it creates the false impression that I as "little individual" have to deal with this "giant organism" in order to be free. It's a formula for helplessness.

Modeling the free market as an organism is also a form of hallucination, particularly if you regard it as a volitional entity, and you say things like, "the free market is better at doing certain things than the government is." You're hallucinating organisms and volitional entities where there aren't any -- except for individual human beings.

We're talking here about collectivism vs. individualism. People who believe in "society," "government," "the free market," etc. as organisms and/or volitional entities suffer from epistemological collectivism.

On the surface, the battle is between pro-freedom individuals and anti-freedom individuals.

At the deepest level, the battle is between the few who have transcended DRH and all the rest.

At the deepest level, the epistemological collectivists are enemies of freedom, because they reinforce and perpetuate the basic thought patterns on which the power of terrocrats, lawyers, etc. depends.

John de Rivaz wrote:

"We seek to find an alliterative way of living that separates us from collectives such as government or the professions. Only if we have a true understanding of what government etc really is can we seek to achieve this. Saying that we are hallucinating or whatever I feel does not add to this understating. Undoubtedly Frederick Mann has started us discussing it, and equally undoubtedly many people have a false understanding of it. Probably we all do, even, may I say, FM himself!"

To which JW responded:

"Your false understanding lies in comparing "government" to a model of the human body. The human body is composed of unique and distinctive units of individual consciousness that have power within their own scope (freedom) and are not constrained by other factors (liberty) they aren't capable of. From the smallest of these building blocks, other units take up other unfulfilled actions they are capable of performing, building up to whatever you consider the uproots example of consciousness as a whole. What makes it work is voluntary co-operation arising from that same source of "Nature's Laws" as does the common law. A full-fledged free market in actual practice!

There is no any evidence that "government" follows this same system. On the contrary, "government" is really a parasitical tyrant that uses coercion to achieve their means. An exact opposite of how the human body is organized. Coercion includes, but not limited to, the means of using hallucinations to defraud suckers. Just because "government" promotes the Big Lie that it is a model of voluntary co-operation, or the only "legitimate" avenue for redress of grievances, DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. If you stop trying to rationalize what "government" is not, you'll accept what it really is much easier. I am humored to inform you the religious "cult" of Jehovah Witness's considers "government" to be "Satan's Kingdom" and evil to the utmost. If you consider that "Satan" appears as an "angel of light" to the unwary, its an apt match.

It is quite simple to see the dichotomy and once you understand what "government" really is. It is a small bunch of elites that profit off of suckers that believe their lies, en masse. Lawyers, international banksters, cabals... It doesn't matter who they are specifically as long as you believe "government" is something other than what it really is (a hallucination) and continue to support it. It's a zero-sum game and you are the loser. Therefore whoever milks the "government" teat... wins."

FM: The phrase, ""government" is really a parasitical tyrant that uses coercion to achieve their means," is indicative of the first element of DRH: the false notion that there is a volitional entity capable of being "a parasitical tyrant." On the contrary, there are individual terrocrats who are the tyrants.

As soon as you try to think "what "government" is" or "what "government" is not," you fall into the DRH trap. To escape the DRH trap, you need to think in terms of individual terrocrats.

JW's, "you believe "government" is something other than what it really is (a hallucination)," is a version of the "perennial JDR distortion." It is the act of "seeing" a supposed "government" where there is nothing, which is the hallucination. The hallucination is a process that occurs in the head of the hallucinator.

DRH DEBATE CONTINUES

John de Rivaz (JDR) wrote:

"Frederick Mann... says that government is a hallucination... I have copied this to <richard.dawkins@zoo.ox.ac.uk> and hope that Dr Dawkins will enter into the debate."

FM: Having denounced John's false accusation, "Frederick Mann... says that government is a hallucination," at least half-a-dozen times, we must ask why he persists with his misrepresentation. Again and again, I get the impression that either you haven't read, or you've only half read, what you're responding to.

In my previous post I wrote: "A problem to me during the debate was that John often wrote distortions of what I (and others) had written, and then criticized his own distortions, instead of responding to what was originally written. On occasion I asked him to quote what was written and to then respond to exactly that, otherwise I have to expend considerable effort to demonstrate that his distortion was different from the original.

Some of his contribution, above, I consider to be such distortion. John, I ask you again, please respond to exactly what I wrote, not your "version."

So why does John continue his gross misrepresentation? Is he simply too unconscious to know what he's doing? Has he been too unconscious (or too obtuse?) to read all the posts where SB and I have pointed out his misrepresentation? Or is he simply a deliberate liar?

Or is he trying to deliberately mislead Richard Dawkins? Or is he trying to embarrass Dawkins and make him look foolish? Had Dawkins foolishly responded to John's distortions, then I would have had to respond back to Dawkins, indicating that John had essentially lied to him about what I had said. All of this would only have wasted more time and made us look to Dawkins like silly throwbacks.

There is of course a further possibility. From his perspective, John is telling the truth about what I said. He's not misrepresenting anything. Because, you see, he can't tell the difference between reality and his own hallucinations. He obsessively hallucinates something different from what was said, and then criticizes his own hallucinations.

JDR: "...To consider that the only form of intelligent life is human beings is a narrow definition..."

FM: I haven't said anything about "humans being the only form of intelligent life." Is this a deliberate lie or misrepresentation on John's part? Or an unconscious hallucination, to him identical to reality?

JDR: "I agree that Frederick Mann is making points about government, but to simply say it does not exist or it is invalid..."

FM: These are more lies, misrepresentations or hallucinations. In this debate I haven't "made any points about government," I haven't said "it does not exist," and I haven't said "it is invalid."

[Eventually, after being asked a second time, John replied to the initial seven questions:]

FM: 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.")

JDR: "No. Neither do most animals. I am assuming that you mean intelligent communications (i.e., discussing something), not telling a dog to "sit," when it is merely reacting to a stimulus. Nevertheless, a wild dog is capable of killing you just like a government. Governments do react to stimuli such as rioting in the streets, labour strikes and buyers strikes."

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. Most animals do have eyes and ears with which they receive communications. Where there are individual human beings with guns killing others, you're hallucinating falsely-called "governments."

JDR: "In the UK the government attempted to regulate the letting of real estate by freezing rents, increasing charges, denying landlords and tenants the freedom to enter into contracts other than rigidly defined contracts that denied the landlord re-possession after notice..."

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. In reality what happened is that certain terrocrats masquerading as "government" (falsely-called) made some scribbles you and 99.999...% of your fellow suckers hallucinated as "the rental laws."

JDR: "The withdrawal of rentable property and the risk of tax riots were a form of communication with government, albeit of a coarse and unintelligent variety."

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. The withdrawal of rentable property is the withdrawal of rentable property; period. The risk of tax riots is the risk of tax riots; period. (Of course, individual terrocrats, having eyes, can observe property being withdrawn and tax riots occurring. They could regard these events as messages.)

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

JDR: "It has a brain which can react to situations (like a dog being told to "sit"), and one can observe this brain in action (e.g., debates in legislatures)."

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. Some terrocrats get together in a room to talk nonsense, and you not only hallucinate them as a "legislature," but also as a "brain!" Have you ever seen a picture of a brain? Have you ever opened the skull of an animal and seen its brain? Have you ever eaten a brain? Do you know what a brain typically looks like?

FM: 3. Can this "government" read or write?

JDR: "It can write (laws) but not read text."

FM: Oh, woe! John, your hallucinations are getting curioser and curioser! So your "government" "can write (laws)" but can "not read text." You're not serious are you?! How does a creature learn to write without learning to read?

And, of course, I've indicated many times that the second most important element of DRH is to hallucinate the scribbles of terrocrats as falsely-called "laws."

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

JDR: "It can speak but not through a mouth. "Reading the riot act" is as near actual speech as you can get. It is still just a reaction to the situation of a riotous crowd like a dog growling if you try to take its bone rather than speech in the form of two way debate."

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. Of course, an individual human, a volitional entity, with a mouth, can utter the noises you hallucinate as "the riot act." Furthermore, some terrocrats with guns are likely to hallucinate the noises the same way you do. So, nevertheless, take heed; you don't want to get shot!

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

JDR: "It is too diffuse, but in the UK you can write to your MP at the House of Commons. Similar mechanisms exist in most democracies and even some dictatorships. The USSR had a well developed system of input from its citizens. If you are lucky, your MP may "raise the matter in the house," it could be said that your letter has "aroused thought processes in government's brain." These processes can be observed by reading or listening to the ensuing debate among the people who are the "neurons" of the government's "brain.""

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. You hallucinate a fraudulent impostor-huckster as "your MP." You hallucinate the madhouse where such impostors meet as "the House of Commons." As a result of your hallucinations, you are the moron-slave of the hallucinated ""neurons" of the government's "brain"."

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

JDR: "How about blowing up government offices in Oklahoma? Rioting in Los Angeles (although this was more against lawyers who told the populace that what they saw on their TV screens and many people saw in person didn't happen.)"

FM: Oh, woe! You're hallucinating, John. Blowing up a building is blowing up a building; period. Rioting in Los Angeles is rioting in Los Angeles; period. What you add to that is "addition" or hallucination.

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

JDR: "If legislation changes as a result."

FM: Oh, woe! John, you're hallucinating. You hallucinate some of the noises and scribbles of certain terrocrats as "legislation" (falsely-called). Suppose you send some noises and scribbles to certain terrocrats, and as a result they change some of their scribbles you hallucinate as "legislation." This could properly be regarded as having successfully communicated with those terrocrats.

JDR: "Or it doesn't like what you have said and has you killed."

FM: Oh, woe! John, when you are dead, do you know anything? Is having been killed your criterion for successful communication? Seriously, if you are to be killed in this context, you will be killed by one or more individual terrocrats.

What answer 7 demonstrates is how the DRH victim is the slave of the terrocrat noises and scribbles he hallucinates as "legislation" or "the law." On the surface he campaigns for the terrocrats to "change the law" so he can be free in some respect.

It is often useful to have DRH victims to so campaign, because it can bring short-term benefits, in that in some respects it may reduce the extent to which terrocrats attempt to interfere with our lives.

In the long term, however, this hallucination that terrocrat noises and scribbles constitute "the law" -- and campaigns in accordance -- reinforce and perpetuate the master-slave relationship between terrocrats and DRH victims like John de Rivaz.

"GOVERNMENT" VS. OTHER COLLECTIVES

GH asked:

"Where do you draw the line between "hallucination" and the ordinary use of collective terms? What is particularly different about using the word "government" from other terms designating collectives or organizational units, such as "company," "association," "family," "corporation," "club," "trust", "foundation," "mafia," etc.? When I write a letter offering a bid for my company, I say "XYZ company is pleased to offer..." Should all such convenient abstractions be abandoned or only the "government" one?"

One of the main differences here is between recognizing those organized through voluntary co-operation versus those organized coercively. In one of his earlier responses, John de Rivaz included the following:

"I believe that a better form of communication should be developed... 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."
He writes about the "Life Extension Foundation," "government," and "FDA," as if they are volitional entities capable of mailing, realizing, or killing. It's individuals who do the mailing, realizing, or killing.

However, the Life Extension Foundation (providing that it's funded voluntarily -- not through robbery such as "taxes") is an example of a legitimate organization, due to the voluntary co-operation between the individual members. Whereas the falsely-called "government" and "FDA" are examples of illegitimate collectives due to the coercive practices of the terrocrats who fraudulently operate under these names.

A company is usually another example of a legitimate organization. In the case of your example above, you may actually find it useful to write in an individualistic manner such as: "Joe Blow, Manager of XYZ company, is pleased to offer...", because it also eliminates the vagueness of the former. But for a large company where many people are involved, the collective method is probably better. In the case of legitimate organizations, projecting them as volitional entities may not cause any problems.

The key criterion for using a word or not using it, or the way you use it, is the effects it may have on both you and your audience. This is covered in considerable detail in Report #07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak.

Where you draw the line depends on who you're talking to and what effect you're trying to create. When talking to people who know little or nothing about freedom, it's easiest to use the term "government" the same way they do -- of course, you do it tongue-in-cheek! When talking to more advanced people, I never use the noun "government" as if valid. I sometimes use the adjective "government" as if valid -- with my fingers figuratively crossed.

This is where legitimacy comes in. When you use the word "government" the same way you use "company," you're hiding the illegitimacy of the former, you're communicating "legitimacy" where there is none -- you're in fact helping to spread the lie of "legitimacy!" By using the word "government" as if valid, you're helping keep the political system in place.

THE FREE ENTERPRISE SHIFT

[The "Free Enterprise Shift" is shifting yourself, your assets, and your economic activities away from supporting terrocrats and into the free-enterprise sector -- See Report #01.]

Brenda Goodwin recently wrote to me about achieving freedom by using a "loophole in the law"; and she said that whilst people "in the U.S." had no problem, it was apparently "impossible in Europe" because, as she wrote:

"... In the U.K. the subject of the loophole definitely needs more research, but a number of my contacts, who are more legally clued-up than I am, are convinced that, along with other provisions of common law, this one [loophole] was overtaken by statutory law(s) many years ago. If the loophole existed in the U.K., would it not be used?

Instead the affluent are using offshore trusts, at horrendous cost to set up and maintain, and not always completely effective."

At any given time, in practically every situation, each individual has a large number of options available to him or her.

To the extent that you regard the hallucinated "political/legal system" as real or solid, you reduce the range of options available to you.

To think that there is this one loophole is being blind and stuck. "If you find this one loophole and you have enough money to exploit it, then everything is perfectly OK; if you can't find this one loophole, or if you don't have the money to exploit it, you're doomed to eternal slavery." This kind of thinking is absurd.

Freedom essentially comes from personal development; personal power; the practical knowledge, methods, and skills to beat the system. But if you're stuck in the system, because you've been brainwashed into buying into the system, and you're hypnotized by the system, and you regard the system as your jail you can only escape from if you find the one loophole, and you regard yourself as a poor, helpless victim, then I say you suffer from the De Rivaz Hallucination (DRH).

When you discover that you are free and sovereign by nature, and that "the system" is a function of hallucination, and you acquire some practical freedom skills, then "the system" becomes laughably easy to beat -- practically everywhere in the world.

In fact, you don't even have to know anything about freedom, and understand very little about the system, in order to implement the Free Enterprise Shift. Right now there are millions of people in Europe who know little or nothing about freedom and only crudely how the terrocrats in the system operate -- people who beat the system big-time every day. They operate in the so-called "underground economy" -- which is the free-enterprise sector.

Many of these people have general IQs well below those of John de Rivaz and Brenda Goodwin. But in the area of beating the system, they are geniuses by comparison. So why do John and Brenda seem so stuck in the system? Because they are particularly subject to the stupefying and debilitating elements of DRH. It's almost as if they use their high general intelligence against themselves to stupefy and debilitate themselves in the area of practical action in the political/legal/economic sphere.

They are HYPNOTIZED by "the system" they hallucinate. They cannot step outside "the system" and look at the real world. They wear "the system" like distorting lenses over their eyes. So they cannot see their own real natures, nor can they see "the system" because to them "the system" permeates their entire universe.

They also cannot see that they cannot see. Blindness hides itself. The hypnotized subject does not know that he or she is stuck in a hypnotic trance.

They look for solutions outside themselves, instead of inside. They look for the one magical "loophole" out there that will set them free.

One of the most important knowledge abilities is the ability to see yourself as an objective phenomenon. This is also the area where many of us are most blind.

Another element of DRH (or slave-mentality in general -- see Report #04: How to Find Out Who You Are) is masochism. It seems to me that most people are masochists - suckers for punishment! Secretly, masochist-slaves don't want to make the Free Enterprise Shift. They would rather suffer in their hallucinated lawyer-terrocrat world. That's also why they say it's difficult or impossible to make the Free Enterprise Shift. That's why they come up with endless excuses why they can't make the Free Enterprise Shift.

TOWARD A DRH/NSPIC SOLUTION

Let's recap the major elements of DRH we've covered in this debate so far:

  1. Hallucinating a volitional entity called "government" that has magical powers to do what ordinary people can't do.
  2. Hallucinating some of the noises and scribbles that emanate from the mouths and pens of the terrocrats who masquerade as "government" as "the law" (so-called).
  3. DRH tends to have a stupefying and debilitating effect on its victims in the political/legal/economic arena.
  4. DRH sufferers tend to act as if hypnotized in the political/legal/economic arena.

Around 1984 I started asking the question: "If freedom is so good, and so many people want it, and so many great minds have promoted it, then why are there so many people who enjoy so little freedom compared to what they want?"

Since 1972 I have studied the writings of literally hundreds of leading freedom-promoters. I found that, with two notable exceptions, all of them suffered from one or more of the DRH elements. The two exceptions are:

  1. Ettienne de la Boetie when he wrote Discourse on Voluntary Servitude in 1552.
  2. Lysander Spooner when he wrote The Constitution of No Authority in 1869.

Many freedom-promoters have identified some of the elements of DRH and written about them. But as far as I know I'm the first one to attempt to integrate all of them and communicate them in a way that at least some people will be able to grasp them and transcend them.

Our organization is essentially a means to communicate Freedom Technology -- which includes the cure for DRH. Because DRH is at the root of statism, it's by far the most important aspect of Freedom Technology.

DRH constitutes LEARNED BEHAVIOR -- LEARNED THINKING AND LEARNED COMMUNICATION. Every element of DRH is something you learned.

To cure DRH, you have to UNLEARN what you've learned.

The next step is to identify, define, and develop a set of UNLEARNING SKILLS. We need to develop an UNLEARNING COURSE that teaches people how to UNLEARN anything they've learned in the past.

A particular level of literacy is required to overcome DRH. I distinguish between four levels of literacy:

People have to be at level 3 to be able to overcome DRH. My guess is that about 99.999...% of humans are currently at level 2 or lower -- hence stuck in DRH.

Ayn Rand's analysis of the concept/word "selfishness" is a level 3 activity.

This is a level 2 statement: Government exists.

Level 3: The notion that "government" (so-called) exists is silly.

The person stuck at level 2 [the Identifier] can't read a level 3 statement as it's written. So he compulsively distorts it into a level 2 statement: Government doesn't exist.

Does this explain why apparently it's very difficult for John de Rivaz -- if at all possible -- to quote one of my DRH level 3 statements and then respond to it? Is this why, time and time again, even after it's been pointed out to him many times, he comes up with a silly level 2 statement -- like "government is an hallucination"; falsely accuses me of having written it -- and then critiques his own silly nonsense?

Level 2 statements are essentially about physical reality or have the form and syntax of statements about physical reality.

Level 3 statements are essentially about verbal reality, the relationships between verbal reality and physical reality, the weaknesses, strengths, and consequences of verbal forms, and the improvement of verbal forms. Level 3 statements are about the effects words have on the way we perceive the world, the way we think about the world, the way we communicate, and the way we act. All these can be greatly influenced by the words we use.

Level 3 is also the level addressed by General Semantics and Slavespeak -- see Report #07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak.

Bentham's, "Look to the letter, you find nonsense; look beyond the letter, you find nothing" is an example of a level 3 statement.

People stuck at level 2 can't make a distinction between a thing and the word for that thing in any workable way. If you discuss it with them they might say, "Sure, I know the difference between the word "table" and the table. But immediately afterward they will continue thinking and talking in a manner that indicates they can't really make the distinction. Korzybski of General Semantics called this "identification."

It reminds me about a conversation I had a few months ago with someone about DRH. I told him about some people who claim they understand DRH, then within a minute or so they say, "Government does this, that, and the other" -- demonstrating that they don't understand DRH at all. This person responded, "Well I'm not like that; I really understand DRH." Within about two minutes this person starts telling me about how... can you guess?!... how, "Government does this, that, and the other!"

All this indicates that people can learn the learned behavior that constitutes DRH, but they can't unlearn it until they develop the necessary level 3 literacy skills. So our challenge includes identifying the specific required skills and develop the means whereby others can acquire them.

As for overcoming DRH, we'll have to do something so they feel the need to do what's required to acquire level 3 literacy skills, and then to implement those skills.

Above I also identified "the ability to see yourself as an objective phenomenon." I think this needs to be extended to "the ability to see yourself and the results you produce as objective phenomena." This ability may be extremely important and acquiring it may be a key to overcoming DRH/NSPIC.


HOME ~ SEARCH ~ GUEST BOOK ~ CONTACT ~ WHAT'S NEW ~ DISCLAIMER ~ SOURCE AREA

Downloaded from the Personal Empowerment Resources Web-Site: http://www.mind-trek.com/