Digital Underground - uXu - Underground eXperts United #uxu-390

### ### ### ### ### #### ### ### ### #### ### ### ##### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ##### ### ### ########## ### ### ########## ### ### ### ### Underground eXperts United Presents... ####### ## ## ####### # # ####### ####### ####### ## ## ## ## ##### # ## ## ## ## ## #### ## ## #### # # #### ####### ## ## ## ## ## ## ##### # ## ## ## ## ## ## ####### ####### # # ####### ####### ####### [ Encounter With The Populace ] [ By Joseph & The GNN ] ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ENCOUNTER WITH THE POPULACE endured and written by Joseph and The GNN This is a transcript of an actual conversation. It took place at the Indian Palace pub in Gothenburg (Sweden), February 15 (1997), during a minimalistic, but charming, uXu-gathering. [A pleasant evening in a crowded and smoky bar turned into a living nightmare as the attention of some poor uXu members was suddenly called upon by yet another bragging ignorant slave of the system. The slave in question was a drunk woman in her mid-thirties. Her interest was our political standpoint. Obviously, she did not know whom she dealt with. If she had, she would never ever had confronted us with the ridiculous question:] "Are you right- or left-winged?" [Needless to say, this question was not intended as an invitation to a political discussion, but more as an embarrassing attempt to get laid. However, members of the uXu do not copulate with pseudointellectual and frivolous barflies.] "We find the question in itself annoying. You expect us to choose between two alternatives, none of them appealing. Our main principle in life is to develop ourselves and others. Therefore, we cannot walk left or right; because that implies no progress. The only way to go if one want to get somewhere, is the most underestimated road of them all; namely, the one that leads _forward_." [A puzzled expression spread over the face of the woman.] "I see..." [Note how the above statement is completely inconsistent with her follow-up question:] "Eh... now what the hell does that mean?" "Practically speaking, it means that we do not descend ourselves to choose between right or left. Neither do we vote, nor do we accept the institution of voting. We do not accept 'democracy', on the basis of it being inherently oppressive by its very nature - thus a threat to human fulfilment. We oppose this inadequate system. Political labels are the work of less intelligent people, but in spite of better words we call ourselves anarchists." [This humble fact clearly upset the woman. She cleared her throat and leaned over to our side of the table, as if she was about to share something of great importance and wit with us. That, however, was not the case:] "Anarchists? So you want anarchy, yes? That's horrible! A society that's based upon anarchy would be completely chaotic! Everyone would kill each other, drugs would flood the streets, no one would feel safe!" "Please do not speak if your only aim is to expose your lack of knowledge. You are clearly confused concerning the basic principles of anarchism." [Short pause. A fuse burned in the head of the woman.] "Oh... oh, really? Well, uh, what's anarchism, to you, then?" "Anarchy is a state of affairs that involves the most complete and total freedom that is conceptually possible." [Using the filter of ignorance that interprets everything said into nice newspeech (most modern people are equipped with this feature), the woman managed to misunderstand the whole statement.] "So? I mean, was that it? I mean, that's just the way our society is constituted today. Democracy! Freedom! No dictatorship. Simple as that." "'Democracy' does not imply freedom. It only says that the people in a society are personally involved in choosing the ones who rule. Of course, the rulers are also supposed to make decisions that adhere to the public interest. Needless to say, the latter is not the case in our world. This is because it is impossible to make decisions that will satisfy all interests. Therefore, democracy can only exist in a pseudo-form, hence it is inadequate as a pragmatic political system. You connect 'freedom' with 'democracy' because you have been taught that 'democracy', like 'freedom', is a concept that contains positive value. 'Democracy', however, includes _more_ intrinsic value, according to you, and can thus override 'freedom'. Nothing could be more wrong. While 'freedom' is, by definition', positive, 'democracy' is strictly neutral. It only _describes_ a state of affairs, it does not _judge_ this state of affairs. If it was not the case that you, and people like you, applied positive value to 'democracy', it would not work. Democracy only works if people falsely believe that it works. Tyranny (as we will find in a dictatorship), on the other hand, does not require that the masses incorporate false beliefs into their minds. A tyrant can fight all opposition with force, but a 'democratic ruler' cannot do that. He must convince the masses, with lies and soft force, that his position is for the best. You believe that this is the case, you are fooled. Order is high, but the truth is even higher. Therefore, an honest dictatorship is more true than a false democracy. But anarchism, on the other hand, requires no deception and no tyrant. It is a state of affairs that is judged positive, since it includes no neutral concepts but only positive ones - as 'freedom'. Dare not say that it includes negative values like 'chaos', because chaos is also a neutral value. It becomes negative in relation to other values that you _falsely_ believe to be positive, that is all. Hence, we ought to bring forward a state of affairs that is 1) true, 2) carrier of positive value, and 3) possible. The only state of affairs that make this happen (bearing in mind that we seek what is good for the humans, not the abstract 'state') is anarchism." [Now it was time for the woman to present a good con-argument. As expected, she failed big time:] "Everything you say _sounds_ good. But that's all. You paint a picture of a world that doesn't exist, and cannot exist. Our world is, and will always be, ruled by the free market. This is the hard reality. You are childish illusionists. I'm a realist. Your ideas doesn't fit with the real world." "Let us make one thing perfectly sparkling clear: the thing you refer to as 'the hard and unchangeable reality' is not any form of 'reality'. You confuse the meaning of 'realism' with 'dogmatism'. You are convinced that something is the matter (market rule) but you do not stop there. You also believe that this is, by necessity, some kind of eternal fact; likewise, the hard-core Christian believes in God, but do not stop there. Instead, he continues to make up certain rules and eternal 'facts' from this belief. And suddenly, the Christian does not only believe that he believe in God, he believe that God (and all principles that follows from that concept) is a matter of unchangeable fact. Nothing could be more wrong. The only thing that one could for certain refer to as 'the hard reality' is the concept 'anything goes'. To deny this obvious fact is to be mentally insane - like you. 'Anything goes' is, ceteris paribus, a true normative ethical standpoint. All standpoints that are incompatible with this truism (like 'anything goes not') are by necessity false. Since morality is made for man, not man for morality, we ought, for the sake of humanity, not spread or accept false ideas. However, 'the state' is not interested in the human good, only its own good. Therefore 'anything goes' has been removed from the public sphere, thanks to millenniums of state propaganda. 'Anything goes not' is what the state wants you to believe, 'anything goes' is what common (which unfortunately is not so common nowadays) sense says." "Okay then, now explain to me: how would it look if you got the power in our society?" [The statement above is interesting because the woman assumes that she herself cannot play any active role in changing anything. This is, except for the obvious ignorance, the most scary part. Only after talking to us for a couple of minutes she is ready accept us as the 'new leaders'.] "There is no such thing as 'power' in such a society. In fact, it is hardly a 'society' at all. The reason why you ask such a question is because you are conceptually confused. This confusion stems from the fact that you have been brought up with these terms, like 'power', in an indoctrinative manner. You 'know' that 'society' needs someone in 'power', i.e. you connect the very concept of 'society' with 'power'. However, you do not really know what the concepts mean. You only repeat things you have been taught, but you have never questioned the things themselves." [The woman tried to save her own face by a classical argumentum ad hominem:] "My God, what a load of bullshit... You just talk. You just produce words. You don't know what you are saying." "On the contrary. _You_ are using words without meaning. We, on the other hand, use them perfectly correct. That is the difference between you and us. We understand the full meaning of the words we are using, while you shamelessly - without really knowing about it - merely abuse them." [Kindergarten semantics and basic human psychology was not the woman's strongest side, so she decided to quickly change the subject:] "Yeah, yeah. Whatever. Tell me, how's all this supposed to be carried out in _practice_? By which means will you create your... world?" "By all means necessary: terrorism, that is." [We find it rather strange that the woman did not react more emotionally than she actually did:] "What?! But that's... outrageous!" "A person can live his whole life with a bad tooth. He can live with that pain. He does it because he knows that if he pulled out the tooth, he would for a short moment experience a pain that is far greater than the pain he now experiences. But if he actually removes the tooth, his life will become much better - there will be no pain at all. People like you are only aware of feelings like pleasure and pain. When you feel pain, you run away. Those things that give you pleasure you stick to. The society of today offers you a drug that gives you a nice and drowsy pleasure; and that drug is ignorance. You fear knowledge, because that will make you experience pain. Therefore, we must give you your needed pain. We must kill you, so that you can be born again." [By this stage, the woman had nothing better to say than:] "I still don't buy your arguments! I don't find 'em good at all." "We know. We did not expect that either. You see, people like you are beyond any kind of help. You are, and will always be, the populace, the plebs, the mob. You have been programmed to uphold the existing system; that is your only task in life. We cannot convince you - but that is no problem, because we do not have to. It is in your nature to be ruled. You know no better, because you do not _want_ to know any better. If you wanted to know better, you would be like us. But you are not. Our mission is not to convince you that you are wrong. Our noble mission is to save you from yourself. It is wrong and inappropriate of you to say that you do not 'buy' our arguments. Because the real truth is not that you do not accept them, the real truth is that you do not _understand_ them." [The lights turned on, and you could clearly see that the woman felt quite relieved from that. She quickly left the table and headed for the exit. But before that, she said goodbye. And so did we, in the most correct and suitable manner of them all.] "Oh, well, it has been a nice chat. But they are closing now, so I ought to get going. Thank you and good night!" "Suck our cocks, bitch." [End of transcript.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- uXu #390 Underground eXperts United 1997 uXu #390 Call SOTH'S DOMAIN -> +1-401-463-8889 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

← Svenska e-zines (1990-2008)