From: Freespeak (f-prime@activist.com)
Date: Sat Mar 14 1998 - 11:09:04 MST
[Note: Earlier parts of the debate -- including the "peme rules"
-- can be found at <http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl075.htm>,
which will be periodically updated.]
Pemes and Scientology
---------------------
At 07:22 PM 3/12/98 -0500, "Karl R. Peters" <u1006057@warwick.net> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, padilla12@juno.com (victor D. D. Padilla) wrote:
>
>> This sounds suspiciously likes L.Ron Hubbard and his "engrams," that one
>> has to pay thousands of dollards for in order to be "cleared." There is
>> no way conceivable--short of a CIA "mindwash" that one will unprogram
>> oneself from mainstream ideas-nor should one even desire to, in my view.
>> Anarchists live in a world; they may not like it, and certainly the
>> struggle should continue. Yet, what are anarchists for if they cannot
>> say what they are against? I don't know, maybe I'm not getting this, but
>> I do not really know just what is being said here on an intellectual
>> level
>
>I skipped the 10,000 line paper on how to "clean your mind of all
>pemes"... the whole idea just sounds silly. We are very much products
>of our social environment, and to believe we can break "free" of
>this and still be normal, functioning humans is insane.
>
>In fact, breaking completely with commonly assumed notions (like
>identity, time, space, money, cause & effect, logic, etc.) is a
>good definition of insanity. From a mystical perspective desiring
>a break with socially constructed reality can make sense, but from
>a political and 'rational' perspective it's just absurd.
>
>So... well, Victor, I do agree with you--anarchists need to at least
>be in touch with their society enough to know what they're rebelling
>against.
>
The above list -- "identity, time, space, money, cause & effect,
logic, etc." -- does not contain any pemes -- neither shallow pemes
nor deep pemes. They're not specifically *political* memes. They
are very basic ontological/epistemological *memes* without which
it would be difficult to function as human beings. So, the use of
these memes increases the power of all human beings. They don't
fall within the scope of my definitions:
>Pemes are political memes. They consist of ideas, concepts,
>phrases, and terms, the use of which increases the power of
>the "masters" who operate coercive political systems; while
>their use reduces the power of the "subjects" of coercive
>political systems.
>
>There are surface pemes and deep pemes. Surface pemes are
>relatively easy to identify and invalidate. An example of
>a surface peme is "mandate from the people." This is used
>by politicians and bureaucrats to "justify" their coercive
>actions. It increases their power. "Subjects" who accept
>the "mandate from the people" peme, effectively reduce their
>own power because they "authorize" politicians and bureaucrats
>to take coercive actions against "subjects."
>
>Deep pemes are much more difficult to identify as such and
>to invalidate. Deep pemes are generally accepted as valid
>by practically all people, including freedom lovers. If you
>try to question, attack, or invalidate a deep peme, most
>people will think you're crazy.
>Two questions may help us identify pemes:
>
>(1) Which words/concepts -- if I accept and use
>them the way most people habitually do -- place
>me at a disadvantage in relation to the political
>"masters?" (Which words tend to increase the power
>of politicians and bureaucrats, while reducing the
>power of their victims?)
>
>(2) Which words, if the political "masters" didn't
>have them nor any equivalents for them, would
>dramatically reduce the power of politicians and
>bureaucrats?
>
At 05:34 AM 3/13/98 EST, Meririm <Meririm@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Not that I am a fan of The Scientology Church, but I don't
>believe that L. Ron Hubbard intended to have his ideas
>transformed into a money-making engine for any organisation.
>His concepts have some validity and are worth reading about.
>Unfortunately he is dead and can't tell us one way or the
>other. In some lectures that I listened to from the 1960's
>he stated that the government was trying to surpress the
>release of "Dianetics" because of mind-control techniques
>they were using on Vietnam Veterans. Apparently, his method
>of clearing (called Auditing) engrams would have also
>removed any Pemes inplanted in the soldiers at that time.
I personally knew Hubbard. As far as I know, he may
have cleared a few surface pemes from his mind, but
he never became aware of any deep pemes as such. Most
scientologists I've met are not politically freedom
oriented -- Hubbard certainly wasn't. I don't know of
any scientologist who has cleared even one deep peme
from his or her mind. It's extremely unlikely that
there's any process in "official Scientology" for
eradicating pemes.
Below, I illustrate the "basic peme creation mechanism."
Many cult-like organizations use the same mechanism to
gain control over their members. Not having had any
contact with "official Scientology" for more than 20
years, I don't know whether they use this mechanism
or not.
Many scientologists have broken away from "official
Scientology" and operate in what some of them call
the "free zone." They call themselves "free zoners."
See <http://fza.org/> and <http://www.freezone.org/>.
One of my next steps will be to present the peme
material to some free zoners. Maybe we'll even
develop some kind of "self-auditing process" to help
people eliminate their deep pemes. People need to
be able to run this process on themselves without
necessarily needing outside assistance.
The Evolution of Pemes
----------------------
At 03:24 AM 3/14/98 GMT, rick.rabbit@elmos.com wrote:
>
>f-prime wrote:
>
> >Pemes are not "political genes." They are political
> >*memes*. See the definitions and the two questions
> >above. Another term for the combination of harmful
> >pemes and the peme rules is NSPIC = Neuro-Semantic
> >Political Illusion Complex -- see
> ><http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07e.htm>.
>
>Hmm. Ok, I guess my unstated assumption is that the most effective
>political memes, probably those being referred to in this discussion
>as "deep pemes", are likely closely related/connected to many of
>"our" (those with a human genome) small-group instinctive tendancies.
>
>This probably happens, according to my understanding, because they are
>gradually evolved by largely blind trial and error, by what works and
>what doesn't as the politically inclined cliques and hierarchists
>gradually develop their skills and techniques at manipulating the rest
>of us. As they try this incantation and that, they discover that some
>words, symbols and phrases work better than others. It's my contention
>that these are probably the "deep pemes," and are hard to dislodge
>because what makes them effective is that they are associated with and
>held in place by our small-group instincts -- or for that matter, other
>instincts. BUT I believe there are many "social navigation" genetic
>tendancies which were selected by the process of evolution which shaped
>our ancestors as "social animals," and that these are thus the most
>likely anchors for these "pemes."
>
>How about some speculation on the specific content of some of these
>"pemes"/hijacked genes. I know Frederick has presented a general set
>of "rules," but how about more specific content.
>
>Let me start this off by suggesting one of the strongest and most
>over-used: "We must protect the children."
>
"Protecting the children" is a surface peme more
or less at the same level as "mandate from the
people." Most libertarians, anarchists, egoists,
etc. have no problem recognizing surface pemes.
Some peme rules:
"6. Surface pemes shall induce mild soporific,
stupefying, and debilitating effects in human
brains.
7. Deep pemes shall induce severe soporific,
stupefying, and debilitating effects in human
brains.
8. Some humans shall attack and even expose
certain surface pemes -- such as "national
security," "public interest," "gun control,"
etc. -- while others shall justify and defend
these surface pemes.
9. Under no circumstances shall any human be
allowed to question, attack, or expose any deep
pemes."
The Basic Peme Creation Mechanism -- 'Two Tribes' Example
---------------------------------------------------------
Consider two different isolated tribes somewhere in the jungles of South
America. Call them Tribe 1 and Tribe 2. Each has its unique language
with its own structure. The language of Tribe 1 (Language 1) tends to be
very literal. A man who fishes, for example, is called "man-who-fishes."
The same man, while sleeping, is called "man-who-sleeps"; while talking,
"man-who-talks"; while running, "man-who-runs"; while eating,
man-who-eats"; while writing, "man-who-writes"; while making a chair,
"man-who-makes-chair"; while giving orders, "man-who-gives-orders"; etc.
In Language 1, distinctions are made between different kinds of words:
"Thing-words," "Do-words," "How-words," "Story-words," "Funny-words,"
"Order-words," "Panic-words," "What-words," "Who-words," "Why-words,"
"When-words," "Where-words," etc. High-level abstractions are rare in
language 1. To the people of Tribe 1, any word that doesn't refer to
something physically perceivable, is highly suspect. Their test for
reality is *physical*.
The language of Tribe 2 (Language 2) is very different. A man who obtains
his wherewithal mostly by fishing, is called "fisherman." (This system of
nomenclature would seem absurd to the people of Tribe 1 -- how can you
call someone a "fisherman" when he is not fishing, but sleeping?)
Language 2 contains many high-level abstractions -- like "happiness."
People from Tribe 2 can talk for hours about "happiness." (To someone
from Tribe 1, this would be incomprehensible -- they only talk about
"woman-who-is-happy" while she is happy, and "woman-who-is-sad" while
she is sad. The notion that you could separate "happiness" from a real
person being happy, and talk about "happiness" as if it existed by itself,
would be completely unthinkable to someone from Tribe 1.)
To the people from Tribe 2, any word being used is automatically assumed
to be part of existence, otherwise people wouldn't use it. (To someone
from Tribe 1, the word "existence" would be a meaningless absurdity,
because in their mentality only particular objects exist.) In Tribe 2,
the test for reality is *agreement*. If other people agree with a word
and the way it seems to be used, then that word is automatically accepted
as valid and useful.
One day a strange man arrives at the place where the people of Tribe 1
live. They ask him: "Who you?" He: "I King." They: "Your name King?"
He: "No; my name John." They: "Why call self King if name John?" He: "I
special person, agent of God." They: "You look different but not special;
who God?" He: "God creator of world." They: "Where God?; How create
world?" He: "God everywhere; God all-powerful." They: "How we see God?"
He: "Can't see God." They: "You speak crazy." He: "No; I special; I show
you." Whereupon the stranger performs various tricks like apparently
making objects appear and disappear. They: "You clever man-who-tricks."
He: "I special; I King." They: "You speak funny; you clever John-who-tricks."
He: "I King; my word law." They: "What law? -- special word?" He: "Yes;
my word law -- you must obey." They: "Ah! You mean order-word!" He:
"Yes; I King; I make law." They: "No; you speak order-word?" He: "Yes;
I special." They: "What special? -- Anybody speak order-word?" He:
"You not understand." They: "No."
Eventually John-the-stranger gives up trying to convince the people of
Tribe 1 that he has a "special status" and that his words are different
from the words of anyone else -- so he leaves, to search for more gullible
and impressionable victims elsewhere...
For many days and nights he trudges through the jungle before discovering
the people of Tribe 2. They: "Who you?" He: "I King." They: "Your name
King?" He: "No, my name John." They: "Why call self King if name John?"
He: "I special person, agent of God." They: "You look different; what
God?" He: "God creator of world." They: Where God?; How create world?"
He "God everywhere; God all-powerful." They: "Show special?" Whereupon
the stranger performs various tricks like apparently making objects appear
and disappear. They: "You King, agent of God." He: "Yes, my word law."
They: "What law?" He: "Law special word of God through me; you must
obey." Whereupon the people of Tribe 2 bow down and kiss the feet of John
-- they do not habitually test abstractions against reality, so they
readily accept John-the-stranger as their "King" and his word as "law."
Thereafter all he has to do to subjugate, control, and dominate them, is
open his mouth...
"Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us."
-- Robert Anton Wilson , Introduction to 'The Tree of Lies'
(by Christopher S. Hyatt. Ph.D.)
The people from Tribe 1 reject the pemes of John the would-be-tyrant --
making them impossible to subjugate, control, and dominate. To them the
would-be-tyrant is merely a clever liar and trickster.
The Tribe 2 people accept John's word "King" to describe himself. They
believe that "King" John has special powers because of the tricks he
performs and because of his supposed connection to "God." By accepting
John's pemes they automatically place him in a superior position and
themselves in inferior positions. Just by accepting, believing, and
using the peme "King," they yield their power to the tyrant -- they
subjugate themselves.
It's worth emphasizing that just by accepting the pemes of the would-be
tyrant, you place yourself at a huge disadvantage. By doing so, you
relinquish your power, enabling the would-be tyrant to become an actual
tyrant. Instead of laughing at his silly notions, you'll probably end
up begging him to "change the law" so you can be free. And guess who
has the last laugh!
Attacking Deep Pemes
--------------------
At 10:55 AM 3/12/98 +0000, "Svein Olav G. Nyberg"
<solan@maths.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>To Frederick Mann ...
>
<snip>
>
>>"The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."
>>-- Steve Biko
>
>Indeed! A wonderful quote. As an egoist, I also see this as an opportunity
>to turn things around: For most people, the most potent weapon against them
>is their mind. Can we not use such an insight to widen our freedom space?
>
This brings us back to pemes and Deep Anarchy.
The Deep Anarchist seeks to remove from his
mind *everything* that might put him at a
disadvantage, everything that might contribute
to others having coercive power over him.
And, because, at bottom, the power of certain
coercive people depends on the mind-content
of a multitude of victims, the Deep Anarchist
seeks to find others interested in cleansing
their minds and offers to assist them in doing
so.
At 08:41 AM 3/14/98 EST, AnarcoCap1 <AnarcoCap1@aol.com> wrote:
>
>In a message dated 98-03-12 14:16:47 EST, Frederick Mann writes:
>
>> The notion of being "personally powerless compared
>> to the overwhelming power of "the state" or "the
>> government"" is a near-surface peme many subject
>> themselves to needlessly.
>
>I thought I would share two anecdotes on this subject. Last June, I had the
>chance to visit part of the geographical region refered to as "The People's
>Republic of China." Before entering, I wondered what it would feel like
being
>in an area subject to people perpetraring "government" of the self-described
>communist variety. I had never been in an area before, subject to the
>communist variety of government delusion. I think many people who value
>freedom tend to regard such "governments" as the worst kind of "state."
>During my visit, I found that I felt exactly like I do anywhere else I am.
>The existenec of people who claimed to represent the so called "People's
>Republic of China," didn't seem to cause me any problems during my trip.
>
>My second anecdote takes me back to the late 80s, before i realized that "the
>government" doesn't exist. I was filling out a form purporting to be form
the
>"federal government." It asked me for some information which I realized that
>some people who claimed to represent "the government" would use against me.
>The document stated that to give a false answer to the question would subject
>me to a $10,000 fine or a $40,000 fine, I can't remember which, now, but
>either one was scary enough. So I did what most people do, I answered
>truthfully and people who claimed to represent the "government" did use this
>information to harm me. Years later, I realized what a fool I had been. I
>should have just lied. I now realize there was virtually no way that thhe
lie
>could have been detected, without intensive investigation, which the issue
>wasn't important enough to warrant. I have suffered from this stupid
>assistance I gave the "terrocrats" [coercive political agents or terrorist
>bureaucrats] for 10 years now. I have a plan that may enable me to undo
>the effects one day, but it will cost me a lot and, so far, I don't have
>the wealth to be able to afford it.
>
>One final point. I have noticed, on several occassions, that police
officers,
>testifying in court, routinely lie. Alan Derschawitz called this
>"testilying." When defending mysely in these "courts," I also lie in my
>favor, as I don't think I owe these people the truth. I have prevailed in
>some minor traffic cases by lying. Also, I have routinely passed polygraph
>tests while lying. So much for the accuracy of THAT device. At the same
>time, I am exceptionally honest with most people, who are not trying to harm
>me.
>
>One of the things I enjoy doing is driving faster than the "authorities"
>demand. As this has been a long time pleasure for me, I have invested a lot
>of time figuring out ways to get away with doing so, while suffering minimal
>harm from people claimng to represent the "government." When I was in high
>school, a police officer came to speak to my driver's ed class. I remember
>him pointing out how few traffic patrol cops there were vs how many drivers,
>and how low the odds were of getting enough tickets to lose your license.
>There are so few of them and so many of us that it's neat how much you can
get
>away with, especially if you keep a low profile. Basically, I find that I
can
>speed as much as I want, as long as I don't speed in front of any cops.
>
>Joseph
>
Welcome to the ranks of the Deep Anarchists!
Frederick Mann
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The [one] who knows what freedom is will find a way to be free."
-- Robert LeFevre
"We are free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it."
-- William Faulkner
"The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."
-- Steve Biko
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIVE FREE AND FLOURISH | ADVANCED FREEDOM SOLUTIONS LIST
Practical Freedom - Live free. | Ideal meeting place to network & brain-
Practical knowledge, methods, | storm new, creative, and innovative
skills - Millionaire Reports. | freedom ideas & initiatives. Subscribe:
Expertise at your fingertips: | E-mail afs-request@maillist.dundee.net
http://www.buildfreedom.com/ | with SUBSCRIBE in the message body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:44 MST