#TL075: PEMES = POLITICAL MEMES

By Frederick Mann
© Copyright 1998 Build Freedom Holdings ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Notice: This report contains copyrighted material. This information is free for personal use only. No part of these materials may be reproduced in any form - except for personal use - without permission from the copyright holder.

[Note: The initial writings and debates on "peme-theory" are in reports #TL075 and #TL076. Since then I've made two major improvements to peme-theory: (1) Distinguishing between positive and negative pemes; (2) Subdividing peme-theory into three levels: basic, intermediate, and advanced. These improvements are reflected in report #TL074 and subsequent peme reports, #TL077, etc.]

MEMES
Richard Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene, with the theme that genes are in control and that human bodies are "gene machines" for the purpose of propagating genes.

At the end of his book Dawkins introduced the notion of "memes." A meme could be a concept, a phrase, or a tune that gets into a human brain and is then passed on from brain to brain, replicating itself, as it were. The term "selfish gene" is an example of a meme that has spread widely.

Memes are to the human brain as genes are to the human body.

Richard Brodie is the author of Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme. For more information see Brodie's website: http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie.

MIND PARASITES

At 11:34 PM 1/20/98, Freeman Craig Presson wrote:
>
>On 19 Jan 98 at 6:10, Damien Broderick wrote:
>
>> I wonder from time to time whether memetic meta-organisms
>> might not be running an entire slow, massively distributed
>> and time-sharing kind of ecology inside human brains/minds...
>>
>> Perhaps this is just a restatement of the basic meme postulate,
>> but I have a hunch that it might be more than that. But then
>> I can only suspect this while I'm being run by a mind-parasite
>> that wants me to think so ...
>
>In the early 80's, before he had heard of memes but while computer
>viruses were getting their first media exposure, my friend Steve
>Robsky at Data General (aka Dirty Genitals Corporation) came up
>with the following:
>
>Steve: "Suppose there were ideas that were like viruses, so that
>once you hear them, they take over your mental processes and you
>can't stop thinking of them?"
>
>Me: "I think there are plenty of ideas like that."
>
>Steve (conspiratorial whisper): "Right! And further suppose that
>the idea of a mental virus was one such ..."
>
<snip>
>
>...OK, suppose there are a number of diffuse computations
>that are timesharing our nervous systems, mostly at levels
>we're not conscious of ... Maybe a lot of our undirected,
>inexplicable behaviors are I/O operations in those
>computations. It is then also possible that as we expand
>our awareness and control of mental functioning, a side
>effect is that we disrupt a number of these parasites.
>Maybe those of us who eventually upload [will] shed all
>of the old organic ones ...
>
>... and find a new set of much more efficient parasite
>programs running around "up" there ... <evil grin>. This
>says I should definitely keep working on data security,
>I'll always have work! ...
>

I've identified a subset of memes I call "pemes" -- short for "political memes."

PEME RULES
(Note: These peme rules have been revised to distinguish between positive and negative pemes, and between surface, middle, and deep pemes -- see '#TL074: Peme-Theory - Basic, Intermediate & Advanced'.)

According to Richard Brodie -- Virus of the Mind:

"The meme is the secret code of human behavior, a Rosetta Stone finally giving us the key to understanding religion, politics, psychology, and cultural evolution."

"Biological Definition of Meme (from Dawkins): The 'meme' is the basic unit of cultural transmission, or imitation."

"Psychological Definition of Meme (from Plotkin): A 'meme' is the unit of cultural heredity analogous to the gene. It is the internal representation of knowledge."

"From a gene's point of view, a human being is just a way of making more genes."

"[Working] Definition of Meme: A 'meme' is a unit of information in a mind such that more copies of itself get created in other minds."

"A meme is a replicator that uses the medium of our minds to replicate. Meme evolution happens because our minds are good at copying and innovating -- ideas, behaviors, tunes, shapes, structures, and so on."

"The most interesting thing about memes is not whether they're true or false; it's that they are the building-blocks of your mind."

"Memes can and do run your life, probably to a far greater degree than you realize."

"Cognitive Definition of Meme (from Dennett): A 'meme' is an idea, the kind of complex idea that forms itself into a distinct memorable unit. It is spread by 'vehicles' that are physical manifestations of the meme."

"A virus of the mind is something out in the world that infects people with memes. Those memes, in turn, influence the infected people's behavior so that they help perpetuate and spread the virus."

A subset of memes: political memes or pemes. Pemes influence political behavior. If memes are the secret to understanding behavior, pemes are the secret to understanding political behavior.

The Peme Imperative

1. Peme survival and propagation shall be the ultimate imperative.

2. Pemes shall infect, pervade, and absolutely rule all human brains.

3. Pemes shall speak through the mouths and write through the pens and keyboards of humans at every opportunity.

4. There shall be surface pemes, middle pemes, and deep pemes; pemes shall be positive, neutral, or negative.

5. Pemes shall divide humans into opposing and conflicting political and economic factions -- such as "conservative" / "liberal," "capitalist" / "socialist," and "statist" / "anarchist" -- who shall endlessly argue, fight, and even kill... all in the name of pemes.

6. All humans shall be subjected to "compulsory education" (a negative surface peme) to ensure that their brains are thoroughly implanted with surface, middle, and deep pemes -- positive, neutral, or negative.

7. Negative surface pemes shall induce mild soporific, stupefying, and debilitating effects in human brains.

8. Negative middle pemes shall induce medium soporific, stupefying, and debilitating effects in human brains.

9. Negative deep pemes shall induce severe soporific, stupefying, and debilitating effects in human brains.

10. Some humans shall attack and even expose certain negative surface and middle pemes -- such as "national security," "public interest," "gun control," "society," "license," etc. -- while others shall justify and defend these pemes.

11. Under no circumstances shall any human be allowed to question, attack, or expose any negative deep pemes.

12. Any humans who have cleared a few negative surface and middle pemes from their brains shall deceive themselves into believing that they've cleared all negative pemes from their brains and that they're "politically enlightened."

13. Any humans who attempt to clear any negative deep pemes from their brains shall experience a strong and compelling inner voice telling them, "I've got to stop this or I'll go crazy!"

14. Any human who attempts to question, attack, or expose any negative deep peme shall be ignored, ridiculed, or vilified by other humans.

15. Pemes shall further divide humans into a political "master" class and a "citizen subject" class. The former shall rule the latter.

16. "Citizen subjects" shall pay "their taxes" (a negative surface peme) to their political "masters" -- to maximize the survival potential of the primary negative peme purveyors.

17. Negative surface pemes (to a small extent), negative middle pemes (to a greater extent), and negative deep pemes (to an extreme extent) shall increase the power of the political "master" class.

18. Negative surface pemes (to a small extent), negative middle pemes (to a greater extent), and negative deep pemes (to an extreme extent) shall reduce the power of the "citizen subject" class.

19. Pemes shall also divide humans into pro-freedom factions and anti-freedom factions.

20. Whenever anti-freedom humans (primary negative peme purveyors) communicate, they shall make a special effort to use negative surface, middle, and deep pemes in their language -- in order to maximize negative peme survival and propagation.

21. Whenever pro-freedom humans (secondary negative peme purveyors) communicate -- although they may question, attack, and expose a few negative surface and middle pemes -- they shall make a special effort to use negative deep pemes in their language -- in order to maximize negative peme survival and propagation.

22. At the deepest level, negative pemes shall operate through a special class of humans called "lawyers" as the most powerful negative peme purveyors of all.

23. At a broader level, negative pemes shall operate through "teachers," "preachers," "politicians," "bureaucrats," etc. as primary negative peme purveyors.

24. A special class of humans called "police" shall -- using violence if necessary -- protect some humans and attack or punish others, as directed by pemes (such as "justice," "law and order," etc.) in the brains of "lawyers" (sometimes called "judges"), "politicians," "bureaucrats," etc.

25. At a planetary level, negative deep pemes shall divide humans into sometimes opposing,conflicting, and fighting "countries" and "nations."

26. Under the direction of "politicians," a special kind of human called "soldiers" shall attack and kill, not only humans in opposing or conflicting "countries" and "nations," but sometimes also humans from their own "country" or "nation."

27. When activated by thought or communication, negative pemes shall induce in humans emotions and attitudes which shall include fear, blind obedience, idolatrous worship, resistance, resentment, rebelliousness, anger, hate, revenge, the urge to kill, etc.

28. In general, negative pemes shall direct humans to engage in all kinds of plots, conspiracies, betrayals, vicious infighting, dramatic legal battles, scandals, rebellions, revolutions, wars, etc. -- in order to create spectacles that keep human brains occupied, entertained, and/or traumatized, and to divert their attention from discovering negative pemes, particularly negative deep pemes.

29. No human shall be allowed to understand these peme rules -- in order to maximize negative peme survival and propagation.

30. All humans shall ignore, ridicule, or vilify anyone who attempts to communicate these peme rules -- in order to maximize negative peme survival and propagation.

(In accordance with peme rule 11 above, I may not reveal any negative deep pemes.)

PEME CORRESPONDENCE
The importance of this thread comes from the possibility that many people seem to operate as if they are subject to some kind of "peme program" implanted in their brains.

The peme program seems to consist of the "peme rules" -- or a similar set of rules (could also vary from person to person) -- together with a set of "surface pemes" and a set of "deep pemes" (definitions below).

I speculate that the power, survival, and expansion of coercive political systems depend on "subjects" acting more or less in blind obedience to their peme programs. To the extent that individuals free themselves from their peme programs, coercive political systems lose their power over these individuals.

I don't know the origin of peme programs. Maybe they stem from some kind of "spontaneous cultural or genetic conspiracy." Historically, the disobedient disbelievers had their heads chopped off or were burnt at the stake. The survivors were the ones who behaved in accordance with peme programs.

At 07:13 AM 3/5/98 -0500, "James Daugherty" <daugh@home.msen.com> wrote:
>
>Not!: Memes are to the human brain as genes are
>to the human body.
>
>Actually: Memes are to culture or social organisms
>as genes are to the human body!
>
At 01:15 PM 3/5/98 EST, CurtAdams <CurtAdams@aol.com> wrote:
>
>No, memes are to the human brain as genes are to the body. 
>
>Memes are to culture as genes are to human populations.
>
At 07:19 AM 3/5/98 -0500, "Lloyd Miller, Research Director" <lloyd@a-albionic.com> wrote:
>
>Memes are to culture or "social organism" as genes are
>to biological organisms.
>
At 10:30 AM 3/5/98 -0600, Thom Quinn <swo@execpc.com> wrote: 
>
>Ok, could we get a working definition if PEMES and KEMES.
>

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.

At 12:01 PM 1/23/98 +0000, Damien Broderick <damien@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> wrote: 
> 
>>I must have missed this earlier, what is a keme? 
> 
>A keme is a stupid typo of mine. I meant to write `kene', 
>which is a borrowing from Gregory Benford's Galactic Center 
>sequence of sf novels. In SAILING BRIGHT ETERNITY, we are
>told: 
> 
>`Memes evolved in turn far faster than genes. Brains are 
>easier to infest than DNA. 
> 
>`The organized constellation of information in computers
>were *kenes* - from *ken*, to know. 
> 
>`[...] Kenes evolved faster than memes. Soon, they learned 
>to leave even the substrate of silicon. Ordered, replicating
>data propagated beyond its *in silico* origins. Rather than 
>matter, it sought out fields - electric, magnetic, even 
>gravitational.' And so on ... 
>
At 10:10 AM 3/5/98 -0700, Mark Lindsay <ml@buildfreedom.com> wrote: 
> 
>When I read [your peme article], I was reminded of a 
>science fiction novel 'The Mind Parasites,' by Colin 
>Wilson.  He used the metaphor of parasites taking over 
>people's minds and controlling them.  Perhaps a science 
>fiction novel could also help express what you've written 
>about pemes. 
>

Is anyone out there interested in writing an SF novel on pemes. I would be happy to collaborate and ensure publication, if we can produce a worthwhile product.

At 11:50 AM 3/5/98 -0800, Yak Wax <yakwax@yahoo.com> wrote: 
>
>Frederick Mann wrote: 
> 
>> 2. Pemes shall infect, pervade, and absolutely
>> rule all human brains. 
> 
>Not this one. 
> 
>> 9. Under no circumstances shall any human be 
>> allowed to question, attack, or expose any deep
>> pemes. 
> 
>Been there, done that. 
> 
>> 11. Any humans who attempt to clear any deep 
>> pemes from their brains shall experience a 
>> strong and compelling inner voice telling them, 
>> "I've got to stop this or I'll go crazy!" 
> 
>Been there too - I enjoyed being crazy. 
> 
>I have not been infected by any "pemes" deep or 
>otherwise. I'm quite sure it's a genetic thing, 
>I've just never been able to adapt to centralist 
>thinking (which actually helps when dealing with 
>people who are infested with these ideas.) 
> 
>If you think that's impossible, go ahead and 
>prove me wrong. 
>

I don't think this thread should be about proving anyone "right" or "wrong." It should rather be about determining the validity or otherwise of my peme theory. If valid, then the next step would be to identify all the pemes and to discover how people can clear them from their brains. Maybe you could make a list of all the pemes you've either cleared from your brain, or were never infected by in the first place.

IDENTIFYING PEMES

At 10:58 PM 3/5/98 -0500, "John Fast" <jfast@fastindustries.com> wrote:
>
>Freespeak wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>I speculate that the power, survival, and expansion of
>>coercive political systems depend on "subjects" acting
>>more or less in blind obedience to their peme programs.
>>To the extent that individuals free themselves from their
>>peme programs, coercive political systems lose their
>>power over these individuals.
>
>I agree -- we need to free ourselves from coercion
>from both external and internal sources. Coercive
>memes -- political and otherwise -- are "false gods"
>that people worship, instead of using conscious,
>rational choice (a/k/a the Holy Spirit).
>>
>>I don't know the origin of peme programs. Maybe they
>>stem from some kind of "spontaneous cultural or genetic
>>conspiracy." Historically, the disobedient disbelievers
>>had their heads chopped off or were burnt at the stake.
>>The survivors were the ones who behaved in accordance
>>with peme programs.
>
>Remember Gurdjieff's comment, "Fairness?
>Decency? How can you have fairness and
>decency on a planet full of sleeping people?!"
>

Maybe the unwitting use of pemes in thought and communication stems from a form of sleep.

>>At 10:10 AM 3/5/98 -0700, Mark Lindsay <ml@buildfreedom.com> wrote: 
>>>
>>>When I read [your peme article], I was reminded of a 
>>>science fiction novel 'The Mind Parasites,' by Colin 
>>>Wilson. He used the metaphor of parasites taking over 
>>>people's minds and controlling them. Perhaps a science
>>>fiction novel could also help express what you've written 
>>>aboutpemes. 
>>> 
>>Is anyone out there interested in writing an SF novel
>>on pemes. I would be happy to collaborate and ensure 
>>publication, if we can produce a worthwhile product. 
> 
>I've been interested in this ever since I read
>Jaynes' _The Origin of Consciousness in the 
>Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_. 
>

I've extended the Jaynes paradigm to include what I call "bicameral stage 2" -- see "Wake Up America - Chapter 5". Maybe the inability to recognize pemes as such is an aspect of bicameral stage 2.

>>I don't think this thread should be about proving
>>anyone "right" or "wrong." It should rather be
>>about determining the validity or otherwise of
>>my peme theory. If valid, then the next step
>>would be to identify all the pemes and to discover
>>how people can clear them from their brains.
>
>"The problem with the Unconscious is that it's
>unconscious."

Yes! In general, just as in my areas of ignorance I tend to be ignorant of my ignorance, where I'm unconscious I'm also unconscious of my unconsciousness. Both ignorance and unconsciousness tend to hide themselves.

>>
>>Maybe you could make a list of all the pemes
>>you've either cleared from your brain, or were
>>never infected by in the first place.
>
>Easier said than done, of course. How do we
>know if there's something invisible out there,
>or nothing there at all? Hardest of all, how
>can we even start to look for what, by definition,
>we don't even realize is there?
>

Two questions may help us identify the 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?

>Fortunately there are cognitive techniques that
>work to let us know when we are "in the presence
>of the Unconscious." What alerted astronomers
>to look for the outer planets was the fact that
>they caused disturbances in the behavior
>of the already-known planets. So, we can look
>for disturbances in our own behavior or emotional
>reactions, in order to know whether and what to
>look for. The book _The Projection Principle_
>has a bunch of techniques for doing this.
>

I have that book somewhere; I'll check it out.

PEMES AND THE "GOD MODULE"

At 10:35 PM 3/5/98 -0500, "Karl R. Peters" <u1006057@warwick.net> wrote: 
>
>On the subject of Pemes, Memes, Kemes, and Zemes...
>
>Has anyone read, "The Origin of Consciousness in the
>Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind", by Julian Jaynes?
>I have become convinced that linguistic thought itself
>is a product of culture, not just the ideas thought in
>it.
>
>Obviously, I'm not a fan of Noam Chomsky ;->
>

The distinction between "linguistic thought itself" and "the ideas thought in it" is important. Deep pemes are inherent in "linguistic thought itself." To clear deep pemes from your brain, you not only have to change certain ideas, you have to question, attack, and destroy the "vessels that contain" the ideas, so to speak.

On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:09:53 -0800 nonlinear@iname.com wrote:
> 
>If you need some interesting food for thought with
>regard to how we are mentally wired and why we are
>so easily manipulated by statists, read the mid-70's
>classic by Princeton professor Julian Jaynes, with
>the ambitious title "The Origin of Consciousness in
>the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." His survey of
>both historical and psychological literature ties
>together some diverse threads in a most interesting
>way. The basic premise is that man was only "semi-
>conscious" until fairly recently in history; that
>we lived in a kind of hallucinatory illusion filled
>with voices of gods and were much more manipulable,
>similar to the hypnotic state. I have no idea if
>his theory ever achieved any serious stature but
>the diversity of disciplines he tried to draw from
>was impressive and very thought provoking.
>

As far as I know, most academics in related fields ignore Jaynes. Interestingly, the following article recently appeared:

Brain researchers find 'God module'

Los Angeles Times NEW ORLEANS -- No one knows why humanity felt its first religious stirrings, but researchers at University of California, San Diego, reported Tuesday that the human brain may be hard-wired to hear the voice of heaven.

In an experiment with patients suffering from an unusual form of epilepsy, researchers at the UC San Diego brain and perception laboratory determined that the parts of the brain's temporal lobe -- which the scientists dubbed the "God module" -- may affect how intensely a person responds to religious beliefs. The researchers said the experiment was the first effort to address the neural basis of religious expression.

People suffering this type of seizure have reported intense mystical and religious experiences as part of their attacks but also are ususually preoccupied with mystical thoughts between seizures. That led the researchers to use the patients as a way of investigating the relationship between the physical structure of the brain and spiritual experiences.

The researchers determined that one effect of the patients' seizures was to strengthen their brain's involuntary response to religious words, which led the scientists to suggest a portion of the brain was attuned to ideas about a supreme being.

"It is not clear why such dedicated neural machinery ... for religion may have evolved," the team reported Tuesday at a meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans. One possibility, the scientists suggested, was to encourage tribe loyalty or reinforce kinship ties or the stability of a closely knit clan.

The scientists emphasized that their findings in no way suggest that religion is simply a matter of brain chemistry. "These studies do not in any way negate the validity of religious experience or God," the team cautioned. "They merely provide an explanation in terms of brain regions that may be involved."

Until recently, most neuroscientists confined their inquiries to research aimed at alleviating the medical problems that affect the brain's health and to attempts to fathom its fundamental neural mechanisms.

Emboldened by their growing understanding of how the brain works, however, scientists now dare to investigate the relationship between the brain, human consciousness and intangible mental experiences.

Craig Kinsely, an expert in psychology and neuroscience at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said: "People have been tickling around the edges of consciousness, and this sort of research plunges in. There is the quandary of whether the mind created God or God created the mind. This is going to shake people up, but (any conclusion) is very premature."

Vilayanur Ramachandran, the senior scientist involved in the experiment and the director of the center for brain and cognition at UC San Diego, said, "We are skating on thin ice. We are only starting to look at this. The exciting thing is that you can even begin to contemplate scientific experiments on the neural basis of religion and God."

Maybe the "god module" has a companion called the "government module" -- or maybe they're both part of a larger "external-authority module." Maybe the phenomena of "god worship" and "government worship" have a great deal in common -- part of a general "master peme program?"

PEME CORRESPONDENCE -- "HOORAY!" TO MR. MANN

At 11:23 PM 3/5/98 -0700, Who Is John Galt? <johngalt@veil.net> wrote:
>
>Realize I'm coming into the middle of something here, but you mentioned 
>Julian Jaynes.
>
>First, I'd like to say "Hooray!" to Mr. Mann. I think he's hit the nail 
>on the head however tongue in cheek he may be. 
> 
>Yes, studied Mr. Jaynes' extraordinary manuscript in some detail 10 
>years ago or so. But I always had the feeling that it was a work in 
>progress; that his premise wasn't finished yet. The book ended with the 
>idea that he would be writing a sequel. And I anxiously awaited it for 
>several years. But I never saw it. Did you? I had the awkward feeling 
>that he kept on going until he talked himself out of his original 
>premise.
At 08:28 AM 3/6/98 GMT, Magnetic_Field@calunet.com (Magnetic Field) wrote:
>
>connection between epilepsy and so-called mystic experiences
>for some time. I have epilepsy myself and I'm usually seizure
>free but I have an abnormal brain wave pattern at all times.
>My brain kicks into an alpha state at the drop of a hat. I am
>a pretty mellow person by nature (most of the time) and I have
>a lot of what used to be called "women's intuition". I pick up
>on the feeling and moods of others quite easily (which is not
>always a good thing). Being able to feel the pain or joy of
>others can be too much of a good thing.
>It was for that reason the the ancient Romans called
>seizures "the sacred disease" because many of the temple people
>who made predictions suffered from seizures. History records
>that Julius Caesar suffered seizures and Vincent Van Gogh also.
>There is plenty of evidence that Vincent Van Gogh was in a
>mystic delusional state much of the time.
At 08:47 AM 3/6/98 -0600, kira@pobox.com wrote:
>
>Everyone take note:
>
>1) Chomsky was right in the aspect of his work in which he noted that
>there is some sort of inborn mechanism which directs the organism to
>learn language. This is akin to Piaget and Montessori's work on
>sensitive periods in which an organism is available to learn certain
>behaviors. Thee is a reason that human babies learn to walk at about
>12 months and to talk at about 24 months, etc. Their brains become
>avaiblable to the info and stimulate appropriate exploration. While the
>various stage theories of Piaget, Kohlberg, etc. are simplistic, the
>basic sequential approach to human development is logical and correct
>for a reason.
>
>2) Jaynes' hypothesis bears some reflection, but is not the answer to
>all -- the concept of "psychosis" to me does not fit the facts.
>
>3) The "god module" research turns out to be old -- at least as far back
>as the late '70's. The theory as I have read/assembled it is rather
>that there exists a previously very useful module in the lower cortex
>somewhere in the temporal lobe (derived from the epileptic connection)
>which allows for unreasoned beliefs -- hence god/government, whatever get
>their power from this module which may have protected our ancestors from
>the wort of mass suicides we saw recently in that cult -- if they
>bvelieved in higher power and authority, life could be explained.
>However, now that we know better, we are able to place a cortical
>overlay of knowledge over that process and develop reasoned
>understanding. Watch what happens to folks not only with epilepsy but
>anoxia and other types of cerebral trauma and those near-death
>experiences -- why do all these people suddenly get religion -- they lose
>the cognitive overlay to the "god module", the ability to fight instinct
>with fact, as it were.
>
>4) Michael Gazzaniga, using his own work and that of Leon Festinger, has
>done a very nice job of clarifying the brain/behavior relationship in
>his book "The Social Brain". Put this together with Axelrod's "Evolution
>of Cooperation" and you have a concise theory demonstrating why anarchy
>will, indeed, work given a population with intact, highly evolved brains.
>
>5) The above synthesis is part of an upcoming lecture I am developing for
>the objectivist community (C)1998 Center for Conscious Living.
At 12:04 AM 3/6/98 PST, desertrat@hotmail.com wrote: 
> 
>It would be interesting to see comparative studies 
>with animals other than humans to see whether there 
>is a parallel "alpha-male module." 
>

What relationship or connection might their be between the animal "pecking-order program" and the human peme-program?

Kira indicates that, "[T]here is some sort of inborn mechanism which directs the organism to learn language." This sounds "instinctive." Is it possible that aspects of our "standard language" are inborn and irrationally based on the "alpha-male modules" or "pecking-order programs" of our genetic/evolutionary ancestors? In other words, is the human peme-program a built-in part of "standard English?" -- In which case, to clear certain pemes from our brains, we have to destroy certain parts of "standard English?" -- and call this form of "cleansed English" "Freespeak" or "F-Prime" (short for "Free-Prime" or "Freedom-Prime). See report #TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak at this website for a detailed explanation of F-Prime.

At 10:49 AM 3/6/98 -0500, "Karl R. Peters" <u1006057@warwick.net> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Freespeak wrote:
>
>> The distinction between "linguistic thought itself"
>> and "the ideas thought in it" is important.
>>
>> Deep pemes are inherent in "linguistic thought itself."
>> To clear deep pemes from your brain, you not only have
>> to change certain ideas, you have to question, attack,
>> and destroy the "vessels that contain" the ideas, so to
>> speak.
>
>Well, yes, you're absolutely right... there are, ummm, zemes
>inherent in linguistic thought itself....
>
>This is exactly the point of Zen Buddhism--to recognize that
>choosing to think in linguistic terms implicitly limits the range
>of mental experience one can have. Through various paradoxes,
>"koans", and the like, one learns to question the whole idea
>of linguistic thinking...
>
>Or something like that ;->
At 11:04 AM 3/6/98 -0700, Dave Dawson <Selfgovern@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>In a message dated 98-03-06 01:55:44 EST, Frederick Mann writes: 
> 
>> "It is not clear why such dedicated neural machinery 
>> ... for religion may have evolved," the team reported 
>> Tuesday at a meeting of the Society for Neuroscience 
>> in New Orleans. One possibility, the scientists 
>> suggested, was to encourage tribe loyalty or reinforce 
>> kinship ties or the stability of a closely knit clan.
>> 
>I wonder if you have to be theistically inclined, as I am, 
>to see the humor in this. My understanding of evolutionary 
>theory is that it has/had no direction/planning (intelligence/ 
>God) behind it, and can pretty fairly be characterized as an 
>accident that is taking a very long time to happen. 
>
>Contrast that with "One possibility, the scientists suggested... 
>Who/what are they speculating wanted to encourage tribe loyalty, 
>etc? 
> 
>Based upon evolutionary theory, shouldn't they have said "had 
>the effect of encouraging...?" 
> 
>> Maybe the 
>> phenomena of "god worship" and "government worship" 
>> have a great deal in common -- part of a general 
>> "master peme program?" 
> 
>Was this *intended* to be an understatement? 8>) 
>

We could think of religious memes as "remes," and distinguish between "surface remes" and "deep remes." It seems to me that a significant number of people fairly easily dispense with irratinal surface remes, but that irrational deep remes aren't so easily dislodged. Maybe you have to become a Zen master...

At 08:48 AM 3/6/98 +0100, feguilaz@www.pelayo.com (feguilaz) wrote:
>
>I've been reading in the last days more and more discussions about Memes, 
>Pemes, Kenes... Ok, if you want, but at the beginning was the chaos. And... 
>What is chaos but unclassification? I'm not specialist on your investigation 
>areas, but it seems to be a 'speed problem': you have detected Memes (I'm 
>sure they exists!) and, suddenly, you feel you must classify in areas (i.e. 
>political, as Pemes). But you've loosed perspective. You don't know exactly 
>how Memes works. Without this information nobody is able to explain nor 
>Pemes, neither Kenes... or whatever you want. Imagine a human cell: are you 
>ready to explain how the nucleus works without a previous look at the
>general behavior? No way. You must go back and redefine in deep the Memes 
>concept. Anyway, the basic idea is amazing. Go ahead! Don't jump necessary 
>steps. 
>

I basically inferred the peme program from my own studies and experiences, and by observing the communication and behavior of of both pro- and anti-freedom people. Gurdjieff, Stirner, and Nietzsche helped me a great deal.

At 12:50 PM 3/6/98 +0000, colin <higginsc@tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
>If you want to read about mind parasites controlling the whole show, you 
>should read the first story in "Otherness" by David Brin. I can't remember 
>the name of it. Even if the concept is a tad silly, it's still fascinating. 
At 09:58 AM 3/6/98 -0500, Anonymous wrote:
> 
>>Posted by: <f-prime@buildfreedom.com>
> 
>>>"The problem with the Unconscious is that it's 
>>>unconscious." 
>> 
>>Yes! In general, just as in my areas of ignorance 
>>I tend to be ignorant of my ignorance, where I'm
>>unconscious I'm also unconscious of my unconsciousness. 
>>Both ignorance and unconsciousness tend to hide 
>>themselves. 
>>>> 
>>>>Maybe you could make a list of all the pemes 
>>>>you've either cleared from your brain, or were 
>>>>never infected by in the first place. 
> 
>have you looked at the 8 circuit model? 
>If not, I can mail you some info on it -- just 
>drop me a private mail and Ill attach it. 
>

In order to clear deep pemes from your brain, it may be necessary that you activate what Timothy Leary called, "Circuit 6: the Neuro-electric circuit -- brain consciousness." See also "NEURO-ELECTRIC -- (Metaprogramming, Psychotronic) (Psychic Intelligence) at http://www.connect.ie/emc/Aquaria/Brain.HTML.

>>>Easier said than done, of course. How do we 
>>>know if there's something invisible out there, 
>>>or nothing there at all? Hardest of all, how
>>>can we even start to look for what, by definition, 
>>>we don't even realize is there? 
> 
>The finger cant point at itself, but you _can_ step 
>outside of yourself (in a manner of speaking)and view 
>the situation. Again, easier said than done and it takes 
>years and years. It definitely takes a shift in your mode 
>of perception, which is not an intellectual exercise but 
>rather a very physical one. 
>

From the time that I started clearing deep pemes from my brain, it took seven years to complete the job -- as far as I'm aware. For an example of someone who did it virtually instantly, see report #TL07E: The NSPIC Debate #1.

At 12:30 PM 3/6/98 -0500, "John Fast" <jfast@fastindustries.com> wrote: 
> 
>Frederick Mann wrote: 
> 
<snip> 
> 
>>>>Is anyone out there interested in writing an SF novel
>>>>on pemes. I would be happy to collaborate and ensure
>>>>publication, if we can produce a worthwhile product. 
> 
>We ought to continue _that_ part of the discussion 
>on the LibFic list.

Good idea. This debate may generate much of the material we need, including much dialog. >>>

>>>I've been interested in this ever since I read 
>>>Jaynes' _The Origin of Consciousness in the 
>>>Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_. 
>>>
>>I've extended the Jaynes paradigm to include what I call 
>>"bicameral stage 2" -- see <http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/wua5.htm>. 
>>
>>Maybe the inability to recognize pemes as such is 
>>an aspect of bicameral stage 2. 
> 
>IOW, we understand that pemes exist, but we 
>don't know exactly which ones or where, right? 
> 

We know exactly what they are -- at least those of us who've been working in this area -- as far as we are aware. From past experience I've learned that it usually doesn't work to reveal them up front.

>> 
<snip> 
>
>>> 
>>Two questions may help us identify the 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? 
> 
>It sounds like you're talking about developing or
>applying consciousness techniques to political 
>philosophy. Sounds excellent to me.
>> 
>Also, have you ever done any consciousness workshops? 
>(Plug, plug . . . )
>

I've been working on my brain and consciousness for several decades, including many workshops, sensory isolation, etc.

At 08:18 AM 3/6/98 -0500, "James Daugherty" <daugh@home.msen.com> wrote:
>
>Collectives are real entities, conscious beings. They subsume individuals to
>the extent that individuals are unconscious. Memes are to collectives as genes
>are to biological organisms.
>

The peme program has spoken.

>As Gurdjieff pointed-out, most individuals fail to be individuals. They are
>cells in social organisms controlled by the collective's memetic >field....similar
to the Borg. 
> 

Reading Gurdjieff's "First Series" -- Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson with the stated objective, "To destroy, mercilessly, without any compromises whatever, in the mentation and feelings of the reader, the beliefs and views, by centuries rooted in him, about everything existing in the world" -- could help develop the thinking skills to clear from your brain pemes like, "Collectives are real entities, conscious beings."

THREE LEVELS OF FREEDOM
Three levels of freedom are relevant to this article:

  1. The freedom philosophy level;
  2. The practical living-free level;
  3. The complete peme-free level.

(Other freedom levels are beyond the scope of this article.)

1. The freedom philosophy level
The first level is that of the "typical" libertarian, anarchist, egoist, etc. Typically at this level, you change your belief system from believing in statism to believing in freedom. You discuss, debate, and argue freedom issues with others. You may work as an activist, promoting the Libertarian Party, writing letters to editors and politicians, etc. You probably live largely as an "obedient citizen" and you probably "pay your taxes."

At this level, you clear most or all surface pemes from your brain. You may believe that in order to enjoy the degree of freedom you desire, "the system has to be changed" -- a peme near the surface?

At this level, you probably follow peme rule 19: "Whenever pro-freedom humans (secondary peme purveyors) communicate -- although they may question, attack, and expose a few surface pemes -- they shall make a special effort to use deep pemes in their language -- in order to maximize peme survival and propagation."

I must emphasize that it's perfectly OK to operate at freedom level 1. Given the nature of "the system" and the relative difficulty of earning a living in level 2, at this time it's more appropriate for most freedom lovers to operate in level 1.

2. The practical living-free level
The second level is that of people who have decided to "exit the system" -- most notably the "tax system." At this level, you seek to not only talk freedom, but to also live freedom. You may have been influenced by Harry Browne's How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. You learn what I call "Freedom Technology": The practical knowledge, methods, and skills to live free; the street-smart know-how to outwit bureaucrats and their agents, running rings around them; etc.

Browne's How I Found Freedom is available from http://www.bookzone.com/bookzone/10001105.html. See also report #FFP05: Harry Browne's Freedom Principles, at this website.

To operate at this level, you need to overcome fear of "the system." You also disobey "the system" in practical and profitable ways. You may also take some risks that would be unacceptable to someone who decides to remain in level 1. You probably experience "the system" as far less powerful than the way it tends to be perceived by a level-1 person.

You may also learn a few "tricks" about stopping bureaucrats who attack you -- for a real-time example, see http://colossus.net/wepinsto/store/freetech/irscase/intro.html. This is a former "federal employee" who decided to "exit the tax system." The great merit of this example is that it's real-time -- as soon as any communication is received or sent, it's posted to the website.

You may also learn a great deal about typical bureaucrat behavior, and how to outwit them -- see report #TL10A: How Bureaucrats Think and How To Leap Across Them.

At this level you may discover that you are free by nature, by dint of the fact that you and only you control the energy that animates your body -- see The Discovery of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane and The Mainspring of Human Progress by Henry Grady Weaver.

You may also discover that you have power of choice and that this is an awesome power -- though it may require strengthening.

"PTs" also tend to operate at this level. PT = "permanent tourist," "prior taxpayer," etc. -- see http://www.britnet.co.uk/scope/.

People who operate at this level tend to invest considerable time and effort in improving their ability to assess relative risks.

At this level, you probably still follow peme rule 19: "Whenever pro-freedom humans (secondary peme purveyors) communicate -- although they may question, attack, and expose a few surface pemes -- they shall make a special effort to use deep pemes in their language -- in order to maximize peme survival and propagation."

[Warning: For some there could be what I call "patriot traps" in level 2. For some heroes it's appropriate to get rid of SSNs, driver's licences, car registration, etc. If they know what they're doing and they have the courage, skills, and support system to confront the bureaucrats head-on and win, I salute them. The trap is that such strategies can result in impoverishment and jail time for the ill-prepared.]

3. The complete peme-free level
The third level is that of people who have decided to "exit the system" at the deepest level of intellect. They have cleared the deepest pemes from their brains. At every appropriate opportunity, they question and attack the pemes that appear in the thought and communication of those they associate with.

The "appropriate" above must be stressed. Most of the time it's inappropriate to question or attack deep pemes -- it tends to destroy conversations and even friendships; and most of your audience will simply think you're crazy -- in accordance with peme rules: "11. Any humans who attempt to clear any deep pemes from their brains shall experience a strong and compelling inner voice telling them, "I've got to stop this or I'll go crazy!" 12. Any human who attempts to question, attack, or expose any deep peme shall be ignored, ridiculed, or vilified by other humans."

At this level, your perception of "the system" changes dramatically. The example of Simon Baker illustrates this -- see report #TL07E: The NSPIC Debate #1.

For another example, see David T. Freeman's http://www.mind-trek.com.

CASE STUDIES
The following are illustrations of individuals who operate at freedom level 1.

At 04:02 PM 3/6/98 -0700, Curmudgeon Corner <lawecon@swlink.net> wrote:
>
>The original idea
>
>[i.e., "The peme program seems to consist of the
>"peme rules" -- or a similar set of rules (could
>also vary from person to person) -- together with
>a set of "surface pemes" and a set of "deep
>pemes"]
>
>seemed to be a promising one - then one gets to the specifications. With
>the exception of # 14 and 24 these purported "rules" don't seem to have any
>substance, but that has been rather typical of the "magic formula"
>suggestions of Mr. Mann in the past. Let me just suggest what some of the
>substantive rules look like, at least in this society:
> 
>(1) Education requires public schools. Without such schools we would all be
>illiterate and there would be no social unity. Unfortunately, public
>schools today are sufferring from a short sighted policy of underinvestment
>and require significantly greater funding.
>
>(2) Our physical safety requires a strong government police force, the duty
>of which is to suppress, imprision or kill the "bad guys" who would rape,
>plunder and kill we good guys if allowed to run around unchecked.
>
>(3) The Judges who sit on our Courts invariably act in the public interest
>without regard to who issues their paycheck or their other personal
>interests. Hence, more control should be given to reliable Judges and taken
>away from unreliable lawyers and juries.
>
>(4) Lawyers are, in any case, vile and evil and out to plunder everyone.
>They are justifiably the most hated profession in the society. Probably
>lawyers should become public employees so that they would share the
>disinterested character of judges.
> 
>(5) Families, churches, business firms and all other sorts of associations
>or institutions that are not formed for the purpose of charity per se
>[preferably the currently trendy charity] are suspect, and should be
>closely monitored and controlled by the government.
> 
>(6) The government represents all of us, whether or not we voted for those
>currently in power or whether or not we agree with what those in power are
>doing. If we don't like what is being done, we should vote differently next
>time. [Yes, I know it's self-contradictory.]
> 
>(7) When discussing public matters the term "we" [or other appropriate
>royal plural] is always used to refer to views "we" like.
>
>I could go on for about another 40-50 points, but I'm late for work......
>Perhaps Mr. Mann will help with the list [NOT]......
>

From what I know about Curmudgeon Corner, he operates at freedom level 1; he has stated that it's too risky for him to operate at level 2; and he believes "you can't use paperwork to stop bureaucrats" -- in contrast to the example at http://colossus.net/wepinsto/store/freetech/irscase/intro.html.

Curmudgeon's rules are typical of the surface pemes someone in freedom level 1 has erased from his brain. Those familiar with deep pemes will recognize that Curmudgeon's rules are heavily infested with deep pemes -- in accordance with peme rule 19: "Whenever pro-freedom humans (secondary peme purveyors) communicate -- although they may question, attack, and expose a few surface pemes -- they shall make a special effort to use deep pemes in their language -- in order to maximize peme survival and propagation."

My peme communications are not aimed at persuading the "man in the street" to advance to freedom level 1. They are aimed at freedom lovers operating at levels 1 and 2. There is more you can do to expand your freedom. You may even discover something about the most basic factors on which the power of tyrants depends, and what needs to be done to collapse that power.

At 10:33 PM 3/6/98 +1100, billbartlett@saturn.vision.net.au wrote:
> 
<snip>
> 
>I may be missing something, but it is not apparant to me how an individual
>frees themself from a coercive political power situation merely by not 
>accepting the belief system which justifies the political power. 
> 
>The political power draws its strength from its acceptance by a sizeable 
>proportion of society, as well as from associated economic power. It can 
>only be resisted by the action of many people. An individual, no matter how 
>enlightened, is powerless without the co-operation of of a large group. 
> 
<snip> 

I suspect that Bill operates in freedom level 1.

Bill, you free yourself by changing certain belief systems (surface pemes), and by acquiring the knowledge and skills to live free -- see Harry Browne references above. Then you go beyond that by clearing deep pemes from your brain.

Power is often a two-way street. Consider a relationship between a strong person and a weak person. The strong person has a great deal of power over the weak person. The weak person can reduce that power in two ways: (1) Reducing the power of the strong person; (2) Increasing his own power. (Or both.) The same applies to any relationship you may have with any "powerful group" you feel oppressed by.

My wish is that you will increase your personal power to the point that you will regard the statement, "An individual, no matter how enlightened, is powerless without the co-operation of of a large group," as one of the silliest things you've ever said.

Part of the process of increasing your personal power will consist of clearing both surface and deep pemes from your brain. Maybe you can get some inspiration from David T. Freeman, who has developed some Freedom Technology material specifically for Australians. He knows at least one free sovereign individual living on Australia right now. See http://www.mind-trek.com/practicl/index.htm and http://www.mind-trek.com/writ-dtf/votehoax/index.htm.

MAX MORE & DEEP ANARCHY
In 1990, Max More, cofounder of the Extropy movement, wrote the article 'DEEP ANARCHY -- AN ELIMINATIVIST VIEW OF "THE STATE"' -- see report #TL07D: Deep Anarchy.

This article includes, in my opinion, some of the steps one might take in the early stages of clearing deep pemes from one's mind.

To me, "Deep Anarchists" are Anarchists who have cleared all or most deep pemes from their minds. They're always alert to the possibility that there might be more statist baggage at the deepest intellectual or conceptual levels that needs to be eliminated.

In The Ego & Its Own Max Stirner wrote: "The decision having once been made not to let oneself be imposed on any longer by the extant and palpable, little scruple was felt about revolting against the existing State or overturning the existing laws; but to sin against the idea of the State, not to submit to the idea of law, who would have dared that?"

Stirner pointed the way to becoming a Deep Anarchist.

At 01:08 PM 3/9/98, George Sherwood <steppen@LIGHTSPEED.NET> wrote:
[responding to the "god module" -- see above]
>
>Intersting stuff, and something I've long known. Another book that
>is relevant is _The Axmaker's Gift: Technology's Capture and
>Control of Our Minds and Culture_ by James Burke and Robert Ornstein.
>
At 01:46 AM 3/8/98, I-AFD_2@anarch.free.de (Nico MYOWNA) wrote:
>
>Hi Freespeak,
>
>> >>I speculate that the power, survival, and expansion of
>> >>coercive political systems depend on "subjects" acting
>> >>more or less in blind obedience to their peme programs.
>> >>To the extent that individuals free themselves from their
>> >>peme programs, coercive political systems lose their
>> >>power over these individuals.
>
>> >I agree --
>
>And I can't agree: if individuals free themselves from their 'peme' 
>programs, they receive their power to reject political systems. The 
>political systems don't lose their power over these individuals,
>because the other individuals don't free themselves from their 'peme' 
>programs. 'Let the king alone, and his power will leave him!' by
>La Boethie mean: if *all* individuals free themselves from their
>'peme'programs, coercive political systems lose their power over
>these individuals.
>

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.

Also relevant here is the theme expressed by Davidson & Rees-Mogg in their excellent book The Sovereign Individual: As a result of technological advance, the returns on violence by bureaucrats diminishes, reducing their power. Politicians and bureaucrats apply violence to earn returns in the forms of obedience, money ("taxes"), etc.

In my personal case, through the application of Freedom Technology, the returns politicians and bureaucrats get from me are negligible. The power they have over me is extremely limited, largely because of my understaning of their thinking and behavior, my ability to operate outside their systems, the advance of technology, and because I've cleared all the harmful pemes I've been able to find from my mind.

However, because of deeply-entrenched pemes, inertia, and tradition, many freedom lovers still grossly underestimate their own power while also grossly overestimating the power of politicians and bureaucrats.

Centuries after the so-called "Roman Empire" collapsed, many people continued to behave as if "it" still existed and continued to obey "it." Because of "belief inertia" and pemes, we can expect a similar phenomenon in our era.

At 09:39 AM 3/8/98 -0500, Alan Koontz <akoontz@borg.com> wrote:
>
>Actually just a core of individuals freed of 'peme' programs would be 
>sufficient to effect an unraveling of political power, at least 
>according to most theories of nonresistance and civil disobedience.
>
>There is a problem attending massive withdrawal of tacit consent and 
>that is the phenomenon of group-think which is part of the basis of 
>political power. The larger the group the greater the 
>potential power which by a few could be used against the rest--as 
>before the unraveling.
>
>It's a bit of a conundrum, this!
>

If the "withdrawing group" is largely unorganized, they maximize their power as individuals. Most of us need only relatively small support groups to live free to a considerable degree.

As far as I know, there are only about a dozen Deep Anarchists in the world. Most of them are subscribers to the Advanced Freedom Solutions list. To subscribe: send an e-mail message to: afs-request@maillist.dundee.net with the word "subscribe" in the message body. One of the best ways to increase the number of Deep Anarchists might be to publish a series of science-fiction books on the topic.

At 05:34 PM 3/8/98 -0500, "Kevin McLauchlan" <kevinmcl@river.netrover.com> wrote:
>
>Cali-Fast said:
>> >>>Is anyone out there interested in writing an SF novel
>> >>>on pemes. I would be happy to collaborate and ensure
>> >>>publication, if we can produce a worthwhile product.
>> 
>> We ought to continue _that_ part of the discussion
>> on the LibFic list.
>
>I can do dialogue, backgournd description, mood and action, 
>and I can brainstorm "where could this go next" with the 
>best of 'em, but I'm not much at end-to-end plotting... 
>i.e. the actual "story". 
>
>What is LibFic? Who owns it?
>

I guess it's "Libertarian Fiction." Does anyone have subscribe info?

At 04:27 AM 3/9/98 -0500, Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu> wrote:
>
>Your articles are memetic... and they're certainly political... but
>somehow you seem to think that you're clearing away pemes rather than
>replacing them with your own.
>
>Your meme, which happens to be political, has several traits which make it
>fairly adaptable. It appeals to other deep memes, notably freedom (in this
>case, from pemes), self-ownership, and levels of development. It
>circumvents serious criticism with Peme Rule 12: "Any human who attempts
>to question, attack, or expose any deep peme shall be ignored, ridiculed,
>or vilified by other humans." It emphasizes the malicious nature of pemes,
>thus harnessing the very deep meme of self-preservation.
>
>Consider this: if you were to erase all political memes from your mind
>tomorrow, you would have no political opinion, because you would have no
>ideas about politics. No freedom thoughts, no authoritarian thoughts, no
>thoughts at all about government and/or its value to society (if any).
>That's what it means to have no memes: you have no ideas.
>
>Freedom is a peme, too, ya know. It's especially adaptable because its
>meaning is so ambiguous, yet it seems to appeal to everyone. We get
>freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom from choice, peme-freedom,
>meme-freedom, free-markets, economic freedom (a term sadly appropriated by
>communists), degrees of freedom, and free energy... all from the same word.
>
>So I put it to you again: you're selling a meme, and it's political. I
>conclude that you're selling me a peme. You're not crazy... or even wrong,
>per se. But you aren't eliminating pemes... you're just replacing them
>with deeper ones which aren't open to criticism.
>
>(If you now go on to tell me that I operate at peme freedom level 1, you
>will have missed the point of this post.)
>

As "Who Is John Galt?" <johngalt@veil.net> indicated earlier, there is a tongue-in-cheek element in my "peme rules!"

Earlier I provided some 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. And: Two questions may help us identify the 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?

So it's not all political memes that need to be eliminated. It's those that satisfy the above definitions and questions. It's a matter of replacing pemes harmful to you with pemes more useful to you -- pemes that increase your personal power, while decreasing the power of "political systems" over you.

At 09:24 PM 3/10/98 GMT, Rick.Rabbit@ELMOS.COM wrote:
>
>I would suggest that the question of "pemes" be reframed. We have no
>"political genes" as such --- until approximately 10,000 years ago,
>our ancestors lived in VERY small groups -- 50 was probably a huge
>group until quite recently. And 10,000 years is a VERY short time
>for the process of evolution, and accounts for less than 2% of the
>time Homo Sapiens has been around. This means that any genetic basis
>for political manipulation must have evolved in the pre-history period
>and been designed for navigation in VERY small groups.
>
>Look to your own experiences in small family, etc. groups for clues
>to what these genetic tendancies might be.
>
>I would suggest that what has happened is that the political sub-groups,
>political cliques, and those individuals with "hierarchical tendancies,"
>easily kept under control in small groups, have hijacked these small-group
>tendancies and learned to manipulate the rest of us networkers using them.
>The most obious example is the constant excuse for everything from
>government agents killing kids at Waco to protect them from alleged
>molestation to FBI agents posing as 13 year-old girls in chat rooms:
>
> "Bob Dole says that if you listen to President Bill Clinton speak
> for five minutes, you will hear him use the word "children" at
> least fifteen times." -Nadine Strossen, President ACLU, July 5,
> 1996, addressing the Libertarian Party Presidential Nominating
> Convention, CSPAN I, ~12:30 EST A
>There are many other examples of the government cliques learning to
>hijack our small-group instincts to manipulate us. To the extent that
>the general population buys the con, we freedom lovers are going up
>against human hard-wired programming -- and that's usually a losing
>proposition.
>
>When you expose the deepest cons, not easy since they are intertwined
>with our deepest group instincts, people often recognize government 
>cliques as the enemies and parasites they are.
>
>One reason we freedom oriented folks get so frustrated is that we believe
>the version of the "common man" presented in the media, and toward which
>the media must, for economic reasons, direct their programming. I've rarely
>met such a "common man!" People are much better than that.
>
>At any rate, if you redefine "pemes" as mostly hijacked small-group instincts,
>I would suggest you will be more likely to be able to map what's really
>happening, and deal with it much more effectively.
>

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 report #TL07E: The NSPIC Debate #1.

Deep pemes are the most fundamental political enemies and mind parasites. As long as freedom lovers continue to perpetuate and spread pemes, they help to reinforce and perpetuate "political systems" at the deepest and most powerful level. Hence I formulated peme rule 19: "Whenever pro-freedom humans (secondary peme purveyors) communicate -- although they may question, attack, and expose a few surface pemes -- they shall make a special effort to use deep pemes in their language -- in order to maximize peme survival and propagation."

Robert Ringer, in Restoring the American Dream, in Chapter 8 -- "Keeping It All in Place" -- indicates how "political systems" are kept in place primarily by pemes. He exposes many surface pemes and a few deep pemes. But he doesn't go all the way to Deep Anarchy. He still communicates according to peme rule 19, above. Nevertheless, he does open the door to Deep Anarchy. Restoring the American Dream -- which I highly recommend -- is available from http://www.reliablehost.com/self-gov/product22.html.

At 04:54 PM 3/10/98, "Svein Olav G. Nyberg" <solan@maths.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>At 9:28 AM -0700 3/10/98, Freespeak wrote:
>>Three levels of freedom are relevant to
>>this article:
>>
>>1. The freedom philosophy level;
>>
>>2. The practical living-free level;
>>
>>3. The complete peme-free level.
>>
>>(Other freedom levels are beyond the
>>scope of this article.)
>
>Does this also include liberation from the illusions
>of morality and the constraints imposed by believing
>concepts can prescribe as well as describe?
>

In order to clear harmful pemes from your mind, it helps not only to clear from your mind the notion that concepts prescribe, but also the notion that they describe. This is related to the illusion that "words have meanings," as opposed to "people have meanings for words."

In themselves, concepts don't describe. However, people can use concepts to describe to others, provided they have similar meanings for the same concepts.

How much power to coerce and control would politicians and bureaucrats have, if a few more people realized that meanings reside in themselves, rather than in words?

PEMES AND SCIENTOLOGY

At 07:22 PM 3/12/98, "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 the 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!

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION

At 07:09 PM 3/14/98, "Svein Olav G. Nyberg" <solan@MATHS.ED.AC.UK> wrote:
>
>To Freespeak ...
>
>>"The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."
>>-- Steve Biko
>
>But can not also the mind of the oppressor be a potent weapon in the hands
>of the oppressed? Indeed, can not anyone's mind be a potent weapon in our
>hands if we know how to wield it?
>

This is a very important question. Before I attempt to address it, I want to examine some examples of how tyrants plant pemes in the minds of the oppressed and then effectively "use" these minds as weapons.

THE "SOCIETY" PEME

At 06:09 AM 3/15/98, "David G. McDivitt" <mcdivitt@IAMERICA.NET> wrote:
>
>I wholehearted agree with the premise of pemes.
>I feel it serves the purpose of introspection,
>as an analysis tool to aid in determining whatever
>course of action. However, we must still go to
>the store and buy food, interacting with the store
>clerk and whatever aspects of society. I do not
>feel society shall ever go away, nor do I feel
>a handful of people shall ever effectively sway
>it very much with regard to their own brand of
>individualism. Whether I wish it to be so, or
>not, makes no difference. I just don't see how
>it can. If you tell me it could, if only enough
>people would jump on the bandwagon, you might as
>well try and sell me on multimarketing. As I said
>however, it serves as a good analysis tool in
>determining how *I* will interact with society.
>

After observation and introspection you may realize that you've never interacted with any so-called "society." You have interacted with individual human beings (and their computers).

"Society" is a moderately deep peme.

Murray Rothbard:

"..."[S]ociety," which is an abstraction that does not actually exist."

"...[O]ne of the prime errors in social theory is to treat "society" as if it were an actually existing entity. "Society" is sometimes treated as a superior or quasi-divine figure with overriding "rights" of its own; at other times as an existing evil which can be blamed for all the ills of the world. The individualist holds that only individuals exist, think, feel, choose, and act..." (For a New Liberty)

Harry Browne:

"The gigantic myth called "society" that rules so many lives doesn't even exist." (How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World)

Was the "society" peme planted in your brain? Did you buy it? Have you been helping to perpetuate
and spread it in accordance with peme rule 19: "Whenever pro-freedom humans (secondary peme purveyors) communicate -- although they may question, attack, and expose a few surface pemes -- they shall make a special effort to use deep pemes in their language -- in order to maximize peme survival and propagation?"

Tyrants use the "society" peme in various ways: "It's in the best interest of society"; "It's a crime against society"; "The will of society"; "Society is the cause of his criminality"; "Society has a right to define what marriage is and what it is not"; etc.

By perpetuating and spreading the "society" peme, does your mind serve as a weapon for tyrants?

What I'm trying to sell you on is clearing deep pemes from your mind, and assisting others to do the same.

At 01:33 PM 3/14/98, "Cynthia Allingham" <allingham@ioc.net> wrote:
>
>Pemes are amusing but we already have a way
>of dealing with them, it is called analytical
>thinking. Politics is a battle of the wits.
>Politicians try to fools us, and we try not
>to be fooled.
>
>How long would pemes survive, if political
>speeches were followed up by real analysis?
>
> Mike: Well folks, what do you think of
> tonight's speech?
>
> Sara: It was quite a display of demagoguery.
>
> Bob: It certainly was, it would take hours
> to expose all the misleading statements,
> much less cover all the appeals to class
> hatred and other emotions.
>
> Mike: How could that be, it was only a
> half hour speech.
>
> Sara: That easy Mike. It is much easier
> to make a false statement, than to provide
> evidence to the contrary. For instance,
> it only takes a second to claim that the
> earth is flat. But whole books could be
> written to explain how we know that the
> world is round.
>
> Mike: Ok, ok. The president appeared to
> be very concerned about our children
> and education tonight, didn't he.
>
> Bob: He sure did. That was one of the
> most emotional and confusing parts of
> his whole speech. The president thinks
> that by getting the taxpayers to pony
> up more money for our failing educational
> system, that people will think that 'he'
> is the one who is being generous. Ha, it
> is hardly a virtue to be generous with
> other peoples money.
>
> Sara: Right. Then he thinks people will
> still fall for the idea that pumping more
> money into the educational system will
> improve it. Like we are supposed to forget
> about all the money we pumped into the
> educational system in the last 30 years?
>
> Mike: So you don't believe that the
> President really cares?
>
> Bob: I have no idea if he cares about
> children. But I know he cares about
> his political image, and about the 60
> million he got from the NEA.
>--
>Check out my web page: http://www.ioc.net/~allingham
>

Thanks, I did and I found under "Things that I like," item #1: "Anything New & Different." Well,
I hope you find some of the peme material new and/or different. Please don't be offended as a result of what follows.

Your analytical thinking can certainly expose a surface peme such as "caring for children." But have you also been communicating in accordance with peme rule 19: "Whenever pro-freedom humans (secondary peme purveyors) communicate -- although they may question, attack, and expose a few surface pemes -- they shall make a special effort to use deep pemes in their language -- in order to maximize peme survival and propagation?"

Do you really believe that a certain clever, lying trickster is "president" (so-called)? You even spell it with a capital "P" in one place!

I agree with you that at a surface level the politicians have failed to fool you. Are you willing to consider the possibility that at a deeper level they may have succeeded in fooling you in some respects?

Was the "president" deep peme perhaps planted in your brain? Did you buy it? Have you been perpetuating and spreading it? In this respect, has your mind been serving as a weapon for the tyrants?

"Man in the street": "The Emperor is wonderful!"
Violent anarchist: "Kill the Emperor!"
Typical libertarian: "The Emperor has no clothes!"
Deep anarchist: "Why do you hallucinate an ordinary naked man as "Emperor" (so-called)?"

Did you read the story of the "Two Tribes" in the previous peme post?

"How long would pemes survive, if political speeches were followed up by real analysis?" Are you willing to consider the possibility that, if followed by your past level of "real analysis," deep pemes will survive forever?

THE OTHER'S MIND AS A WEAPON
There are several ways to "utilize" the minds of others as weapons to expand freedom. The first is simply to persuade others to clear deep pemes from their minds.

In the previous peme post, Joseph <AnarcoCap1@aol.com> demonstrated that he has cleared all or most deep pemes from his mind. He will never again think of "political systems" in the same way, as he did before clearing out his deep pemes. In some cases, he will act more effectively in relation to "political systems." Most likely, he will also communicate differently -- he will only use deep pemes if he thinks it's necessary and appropriate (depends on the nature of his audience, in specific cases). Most likely, whenever appropriate, he will question and challenge deep pemes. This may encourage others to also start clearing deep pemes from their minds. Thus Joseph will be using his mind to expand freedom in a way that could snowball. He could activate the minds of others into becoming more potent freedom weapons.

Similarly, "David G. McDivitt" <mcdivitt@IAMERICA.NET> and "Cynthia Allingham" <allingham@ioc.net> could make their minds more potent freedom weapons if they were to clear out their deep pemes -- the political "wheels in their heads" (as Max Stirner said).

The second way to "utilize" the minds of others as potent weapons to expand freedom is to help spread the meme "terrocrat." A "terrocrat" is a coercive political agent or terrorist bureaucrat.
The word should always be used to refer to an individual human being -- or several individuals in its plural form "terrocrats."

"Terrocrat" is a powerful meme that has started to spread and migrate. Do a search of the WWW, using HotBot, for the word "terrocrat" to see how it's spreading to websites besides Buildfreedom.com.

For a greater appreciation of what can be achieved with memes, see Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme by Richard Brodie <richard@brodietech.com> -- see his website at http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie.

Imagine the day a politician or bureaucrat writes an article: "Why I'm not a Terrocrat!" The terrocrat
would be helping us spread the "terrocrat" meme. To that extent we would be using his mind as a potent weapon in our cause.

The word "peme" could also become a powerful meme. A third way to "utilize" the minds of others is to spread the "peme" meme. Ask a friend if she knows what a "peme" is. If she doesn't, explain to her. Refer her to this report.

Any further suggestions for "utilizing" the minds of others as potent weapons to expand freedom will be appreciated.

IS "SOCIETY" A DEEP PEME?
In writing my previous peme post, I vacillated between calling "society" a near-surface peme and calling it a moderately deep peme.

My experience is that most libertarians relatively easily see the fraudulent ways in which "society" is used by political "masters" against their "subjects." For this reason I should call it a near-surface peme.

However, I thought a few people might not see it so easily, so I decided on "moderately deep peme."

It now seems that for some people it's a surface peme; for some, near-surface; for some, moderately deep; for some, deep; and maybe for a few, extremely deep.

A thought process that will help some to recognize and clear pemes from their minds is to make a distinction between the word and the reality (or non-reality) the word is usually used to represent. Next focus on the word and all the ways it's habitually used by political "masters." Then consider the likely consequences typically produced in the minds of most "subjects" by such use of the word.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all." [emphasis added]

-- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

If the word in question does indeed represent some reality, then it might be better to use some other word. For example, you could use "terrocrat" instead of "government official." (Terrocrat = terrorist bureaucrat or coercive political agent.) "The question is, which is to be master -- that's all."

A correspondent privately wrote to me that for certain purposes it's necessary to look at a higher level than that of individual. For example, we can predict fairly accurately that out of a million people x% will die from cancer; whereas we can't predict with much accuracy how a specific individual will die.

In clearing the "society" peme from your mind, nothing prevents -- nor is there any suggestion stopping -- you from considering higher levels, such as "people in general..."

At 06:35 AM 3/16/98, "Lloyd Miller, Research Director" <lloyd@a-albionic.com> wrote:
>
>There is much in the ... [peme material] that is useful
>and valid. However, the claim that "society" and by
>implication other sub-collectives do not exist is clearly
>in error. Pemes (political memes) are to "power collectives",
>"political systems", or "social organisms" as genes are
>to biological organisms. One could just as well say that
>biological organisms don't exist [actually some extreme
>materialist reductionists actually say this!].
>
>In generating propaganda favoring the individualism that
>is trying to be promoted ... [in the peme material], I
>would not attempt to deny reality, but warn what little
>is left of "individuals" infected by pemes that they
>are being subsumed by a collective or power organism....
>wouldn't they rather be an individual? As pemes operate
>below the level of rational analysis in most individuals
>such individuals still attempt to view themselves as
>individuals...so there is something to work with there.
>
>Denial doesn't work. One of Ron Hubbard's valid
>contributions was:
>
> Not Is ->> Maintains a "reality"
> Alter is ->> Changes a "reality"
> As is ->> Obliterates a "reality"
>

It will help to make a distinction between the peme as a word as separate from any reality (or non-reality) the word is supposed to represent.

In a sense, when the word is viewed "as is" ("as it is"), together with all the ways in which it is habitually used, as well as the consequences produced by such use, then the validity of the word is obliterated -- leaving the reality (or non-reality), the word is supposed to represent, unchanged.

At 03:32 AM 3/16/98 GMT, "David G. McDivitt" <mcdivitt@IAMERICA.NET> wrote:
>
>>After observation and introspection you may realize
>>that you've never interacted with any so-called
>>"society." You have interacted with *individual*
>>human beings (and their computers).
>>
>No, I'm sorry. I don't come to that conclusion. When I relate
>to an individual representing some company, I only relate to
>the individual superficially, but relate to manner of training
>and corporate policies much more. If he does not represent those things, he may deserve to be fired.
>
>>"Society" is a moderately deep peme.
>>
>>Murray Rothbard:
>>"..."[S]ociety," which is an abstraction that does not
>>actually exist."
>
>I do not agree with Brother Rothbard.
>
>>"...[O]ne of the prime errors in social theory is to
>>treat "society" as if it were an actually existing
>>entity. "Society" is sometimes treated as a superior
>>or quasi-divine figure with overriding "rights" of its
>>own; at other times as an existing evil which can be
>>blamed for all the ills of the world. The individualist
>>holds that only individuals exist, think, feel, choose,
>>and act..." ('For a New Liberty')
>
>To view society as an encompassing entity serves many
>purposes. One explicit purpose is, I can berate, chastise,
>and even withstand society, without necessarily doing so
>with one individual in the process.
>
>>Harry Browne:
>>"The gigantic myth called "society" that rules so many
>>lives doesn't even exist." ('How I Found Freedom...')
>
>The fact is, society shall continue to exist. The degree
>to which we individually allow it to rule us is a personal decision. Society is not a myth.
>
>When I spent a year in Korea, I went to Seoul a few times.
>Upon looking down a street, what did I see but thousands
>of black heads. Koreans have black hair. Did I see a sea
>of individuals, whereby I could intimately respect each
>of their personalities? No, I saw a see of black heads.
>That's all I saw. That was society. When I go to the fair
>or a football game, I see the same thing. Please, explain
>to me in straightforward terms, how am I supposed to
>relate to all those people individually?
>>
>>Was the "society" peme planted in your brain? Did
>>you buy it? Have you been helping to perpetuate
>>and spread it in accordance with peme rule 19:
>>"Whenever pro-freedom humans (secondary
>>peme purveyors) communicate -- although
>>they may question, attack, and expose a
>>few surface pemes -- they shall make a
>>special effort to use deep pemes in their
>>language -- in order to maximize peme
>>survival and propagation?"
>
>I'm sorry, but you have failed to make me feel insecure
>about who I am.
>

This isn't personal. I can't make you feel. You are in control of your feelings; they're your responsibility.

>>
>>Tyrants use the "society" peme in various ways: "It's
>>in the best interest of society"; "It's a crime against
>>society"; "The will of society"; "Society is the cause
>>of his criminality"; "Society has a right to define what
>>marriage is and what it is not"; etc.
>>
>>By perpetuating and spreading the "society" peme, does
>>your mind serve as a weapon for tyrants?
>>
>>What I'm trying to sell you on is clearing
>>deep pemes from your mind, and assisting
>>others to do the same.
>>
>You sold me on the premise of pemes. I like it. It is a
>good analysis tool. I will make great use of it. Thank
>you very much.
>

You're welcome!

At 09:18 PM 3/15/98 -0500, "Karl R. Peters" <u1006057@warwick.net> wrote:
>
>Do I really want to get involved in this debate?
>
>Well, I just had a drink, so I think I will, just for the bloody
>absurdity of it.
>
>On Sun, 15 Mar 1998, Freespeak wrote:
>
>> After observation and introspection you may realize
>> that you've never interacted with any so-called
>> "society." You have interacted with *individual*
>> human beings (and their computers).
>> 
>> "Society" is a moderately deep peme.
>
>Both "society" and "individual" are memes... and I completely
>disagree with your notion that some memes can be labeled "pemes",
>that is, "memes which are used by the powerful elite to oppress
>the masses", or whatever absurd notion you have...
>
>No, I'm not being civil. Oh well. Anyway, I have a quote that
>I picked up somewhere which I go by when analyzing things like 
>this. "Never ascribe to malice what can more easily be explained
>by human stupidity". I do not believe that there is some conspiracy
>by people in power to control the ideas and thoughts of the masses
>for the sole purpose of keeping themselves in power. I don't even
>believe the Communists did this. Rather, I believe that the avarage
>"person in charge" believes in the ideas he is indoctrinating others
>with, and the negative consequences of this are the result of of
>stupidity, not malice.
>
>But I'm drunk, so what do I know?
>

Check out what "L. Reichard White" <rick.rabbit@elmos.com> suggested concerning the possible evolution of pemes through trial and error earlier in this discussion. No "malicious conspiracy" has been suggested.

THE "LIBERTY" DOCUMENTARY
Note how the way Mike Stallings now perceives certain political events and how he reacts to them emotionally has changed as a result of greater awareness of pemes.

At 11:19 PM 3/17/98 -0500, Mike Stallings <mstall@clover.net> wrote:
>
>Did anyone see the recent PBS documentary series
>called "Liberty - The American Revolution"?
>
>It was an excellently produced program using the
>actual words from letters of the people involved
>with a minimum of commentary - a la Ken Burns'
>"Civil War".
>
>What struck me was the episode which covered the
>creation of the constitution. Having just read
>Spooner's "No Treason: the Constitution of No
>Authority" just a month or so ago, I was really
>shocked by my reaction to the documentary at this
>point. The commentators were visibly elated and
>waxing patriotic on this incredible achievement
>of mankind, and where previously I would have
>joined in the chorus of angelic voices, I found
>myself saying to the TV: "No, No, don't do it!
>You'll ruin everything!" - like I was watching
>a movie where the victim is walking into the
>predator's trap but doesn't know it. You've
>watched the movie intently and then you find
>yourself wanting to shout, "Don't go in there!
>He's got a gun!"
>
>I saw the constitutional convention with new eyes.
>The arguments of the anti-federalists were so
>prophetic. They warned against the tyranny of
>the democratic mob while the federalists countered
>with "what, are we going to enslave _ourselves_?"
>One conventioneer said, regarding the bill of
>rights, to the effect: "We don't need a piece of
>paper to tell us our rights, and no piece of paper
>can protect our rights should someone chose to
>violate them." And this guy was a federalist,
>and _against_ the addition of the bill of rights
>for this very reason!
>
>The contradictions in this piece of history are
>glaring. The colonists had just fought a long
>and bloody war against tyranny, and almost
>immediately set about the construction of an
>all-comsuming federal monolith to take the place
>of the king. Replacing a capricious monarch with
>a capricious mob - to be staffed and run by....
>who else? ...the conventioneers themselves! The
>convention was carried on in strict secrecy so
>that the public would not know what was being
>considered before the delegates had a chance
>to return home and get a head start on greasing
>the wheels of public opinion with carefully
>crafted arguments. The final contradiction on
>the "birth of Democracy" was the fact that this
>"democratic vote" that would be taken to usher
>it in would be restricted to the "representatives"
>of a fraction of the non-slave, wealthy, white
>land owners! (i.e., "We The People")
>
>My point in bringing this up within the peme
>discussion is this: The facts were presented well,
>but the underpinning of the whole presentation
>was the glorification of the submerged collective
>peme of "Democracy". I felt the tug of "national
>pride" and heard the violins playing in my head,
>but it didn't work this time. In times past I
>would have welled up with a few patriotic tears
>and looked for the nearest flag so as to pledge
>my allegiance to it. Amazing what a little reading
>and critical thinking can do, eh?
>
>There is an interesting discussion to be had in
>analyzing the history of the revolution, the
>players involved, and the commencement of the
>building of the national "peme infrastructure"
>that followed in America.
>

"Democracy" is certainly an important peme used extensively by politicians to increase their power.

Many people have strong emotions attached to their deepest pemes, notably the "patriotic" ones.

You've started the process of clearing pemes from your mind. I hope you'll continue it.

In my own case, it was also after reading Spooner's No Treason that I got going.

At 01:23 PM 1/22/98 GMT, "L. Reichard White" <Rick.Rabbit@ELMOS.COM> wrote:
>
>> Posted by: "Martin Lindstedt" <mlindste@clandjop.com>:
>> 
>> At 11:56 AM 1/18/98 -0500, Dick wrote:
>>
>>>Martin, I'm relatively new on this list, but you seem
>>>to be conveying the message the U.S. Constitution was
>>>NEVER for the benefit of the citizens of the States of
>>>the Union. I don't understand that. What are some of
>>>the major problems with our Constitution?
>>>
>>>The problem that does exist is Congress is using it for
>>>toilet paper and we sit by and let them do it. 
>>>
>>The CONstitution was never made for the benefit of the
>>common people in mind, regardless of what you were told
>>to the contrary. After all, it was formed by a bunch
>>of lawyers getting together in secret to cut a deal by
>>which they all would get gubbnmint jobs and special
>>privileges. I mean what do you expect to result from 
>>such a coven of the rascals?
>
>I'm NOT a particularly ardent fan of the US Constitution
>-- but the current problems here ARE NOT because of that
>document. Read the ninth & tenth Amendments.
>
>If the pond-scum that lives in Washington merely obeyed
>their oaths of office to uphold said Constitution,
>particularly these two amendments, at least 95% of the
>Federal Government, not to mention the so-called "income
>tax," would be instantly gone. Not perfect, but a definite
>improvement.
>
>Don't waste time attacking the US Constitution --- more
>extreme measures are required.
>

You're right that more extreme measures are required. For starters, you can clear the "constitution" peme from your mind. You need to attack the very notion of a so-called "constitution."

Some 70+ "fleecing fathers" (James Hazel's term -- see '#TL070: The "Constitutional" Delusion') got together in secrecy and called themselves "We The People..." The entire proceedings were a fraudulent hoax. And what they produced -- the pretended or falsely-called "constitution" was and is no less a fraudulent document, a hoax, a sham.

How much power would terrocrats (coercive political agents or terrorist bureaucrats) have in the absence of the word/peme "constitution" or any equivalent?

The word/peme "constitution" is a lie in itself. Read '#TL07: The Constitution of No Authority' and '#TL070: The "Constitutional" Delusion'.

What Lysander Spooner and others have essentially indicated is that the entire political system is a hoax, a fraud, a sham. Spooner also indicated that all the pretended "presidents," "ambassadors,"
etc. were then and are now liars and imposters -- "a secret band of robbers and murderers."

The hucksters call themselves "president," etc. and the suckers believe them.

At 10:10 PM 3/15/98, "Anton Sherwood" <dasher@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Frederick Mann wrote:
>
>> Do you really believe that a certain clever,
>> lying trickster is "president" (so-called)?
> [...]
>> Was the "president" deep peme perhaps planted
>> in your brain? Did you buy it? Have you been
>> perpetuating and spreading it? In this respect,
>> has your mind been serving as a weapon for the
>> tyrants?
>> 
>> "Man in the street": "The Emperor is wonderful!"
>> Violent anarchist: "Kill the Emperor!"
>> Typical libertarian: "The Emperor has no clothes!"
>> Deep anarchist: "Why do you hallucinate
>> an ordinary naked man as
>> "Emperor" (so-called)?"
>
[[At 07:00 PM 3/16/98, "Svein Olav G. Nyberg" <solan@MATHS.ED.AC.UK> wrote:
>
>Egoist: It was I who nicked his clothes.
>

This is a profound observation. In the tradition of Stirner, Nietzsche, and Gurdjieff, the Complete Egoist has developed the ability to question and challenge everything. The "clothes" of the
falsely-called "Emperor" are his pemes -- literally (his "uniform") and figuratively (the words used to dupe his "subjects" into thinking that he's "special"). The egoist strips off the "clothes."]]

>
>Because that ordinary naked man is surrounded by
>goons, he is different from you and me.
>

Maybe he appears different, primarily because of the pemes in your head, the pemes in the heads of the "masses," and the pemes in the heads of the goons; and secondarily because of the guns they carry.

In the absence of the pemes, how many guns could he command?

>The words "president" and "emperor" are job-titles
>for leaders of particular types of gangs. If I say
>so-and-so is a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan,
>does that mean I buy into the Klan's racist memes?
>

They are commonly used very differently from job-titles -- among other things to imply superiority and inferiority: "master" and "subject."

If you're a member of the KKKK and you call another member "Grand Dragon," you position yourself as inferior to him: "subject" and "master."

If you call yourself "citizen" and you call someone "president," then you position yourself as a "subject" in relation to a "master."

>When the FBI - excuse me, a certain set of terrocrats
>who call themselves "FBI" - gave a certain other
>terrorist the title "Unabomber", what did that imply
>about their memes?
>

He who places the label and can make it stick has the power. (But when the gun's stronger than the label, it's time to run!)

>If a certain "clever, lying trickster" has power to
>interfere with my life in ways that other "clever,
>lying tricksters" cannot, it seems to me that's
>sufficient reason to give him a distinctive label.
>

I suggest "the terrocrat trickster in the white house" or some such. "Slick Willie" also seems appropriate at this time.

>(As if "trickster" isn't itself a special label!)
>

He who places the label and can make it stick has the power.

Maybe many humans have a psychological need for an "emperor" in the same way that lesser baboons need an alpha-male to guide and protect them. Maybe we should call it the "Emperor Norton Syndrome" -- see http://www.zpub.com/sf/history/nort.html and http://www.discordia.org/~keeper/norton.html.

[Home] [Report Directory]

http://www.buildfreedom.com