Worksheet opposite adjectives pdf
Fort Ko'Var Briefing (Northern Mountains Front)
2024.05.14 22:13 Thatsidechara_ter Fort Ko'Var Briefing (Northern Mountains Front)
 | [This post will function as the primary info-dump and planning post for the Siege of Fort Ko'Var. Let's get to it!] submitted by Thatsidechara_ter to war_for_Gryllus [link] [comments] Colenel Jethro Arvin looked around the Taronian 8th Regimental Headquarters at Waycross Road, surveying the plethora of attendees both junior and senior. It was a hell of a crowd; he hoped he didn't dissapoint. First, there was of course his own senior staff, all in physical attendence now that Major Quoke had rejoined them. Also present in-person was Lieutenant Lenore McPherson, Intelligence Officer of the Praetorian 27th, and the Valyrran Major Zero, who arrived with Major Quoke and now stood silently off to the opposite side of the room from the Taronians. There were also a plethora of attendees tuning in via hololith; Colonel Braithwaite and General Redlina herself plus a number of other Valyrran officers, presumably representing other elements to be allocated to the siege. There was also the lone small figure of a woman in a Minthelian jumpsuit; Arvin recognized her as the young aide who had guided him when he received orders from General Redlina to detain the Minthelian Lieutenant Sophy. It felt so long ago now. The final hololith attendee, however, Arvin did not recognize: he wore a long white coat adorned with various bits of webbing and equipment over knee-high leather boots, and a simple steel helmet with a gold Aquila on it atop his head. The man introduced himself as Colonel Lilzton, commander of Task Force Liberation, the loyalist PDF remnants to the north of the fort. Arvin hoped he would get to meet him in person some time. But now, everyone was assembled, and it was time for Colonel Arvin to begin his briefing. "Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for attending this briefing. We have a lot to get through, so I'll begin without delay..." INTRODUCTION: Covering an surface area of about 12.5 square kilometers, Fort Ko'Var, previously known as "Saint's Gate", serves as the primary bastion of resistance for the entirety of the northern mountains. It is carved directly out of the rock in many places, and as it's Imperial name suggests, it controls all passage along the north-south mountain road. Both the town of Kan'Shae and the base of operations for Task Force Liberation are nominally cut off to the north of the fort; for these reasons, the position must be captured if we are to secure victory in this region. THE TERRAIN: The geography surrounding Fort Ko'Var only makes it's capture more important. To the east and southeast lays an expanse of high peaks, jagged cliffs, and all manner of other hazardous terrain, such that getting a cohesive fighting force over it is all but impossible. To the east and northeast lies a river which continues uninterrupted to Westbridge Lake. It is believed to have been artificially-made by the fortress's builders to achieve 2 goals: 1) to prevent the bypassing of the fort by any kind of vehicular foe simply by driving around it, and 2) to supply the defenders with a ready source of clean drinking water, as the river ends in a large pool enclosed within the fortress itself. Thus, strategically-speaking, Fort Ko'Var is a natural chokepoint which provides the only way past these obstacles, both natural and man-made. Tactically-speaking, the ground surrounding the fort is wide open, providing little cover except for a handfull of foothills that could be used as staging grounds and observation posts. THE ROAD: The road which makes Fort Ko'Var so vital runs directly through the mountain in a tunnel just to the west of the bulk of the defenses; this tunnel is capped on both ends by reinforced blast doors rated to withstand at least some punishment from anything we have at our disposal, and is furthermore enclosed by 2 of the 3 defensive tiers of the fort. We can also assume the tunnel is rigged to blow at the defenders' discretion. Should this happen, the only road connection will be through the heart of the fortress itself, as there are connections on either side of the tunnel, winding up and then down an extensive series of switchback roads that would expose any vehicle to near-endless plunging fire from above. Needless to say, simply ignoring the fort and it's occupants is not an option if we wish to use this highway. THE TIERS: Fort Ko'Var is comprised of 3 main defensive tiers, each partitioned by 3 heavily-fortified walls. all of these are complete with bunkers, observation towers, and massive defensive hardpoints that make them formidable obstacles for any attacker, but each also has its quirks and weaknesses that might be exploited. The outer wall is comparable to a hive city's curtain wall, at least in construction if not in sheer thickness. It rises above the 1st, lowest defensive tier on a gentle slope; this tier is largely home to Fort Ko'Var's rank and file barracks, commodities and maintenence facilities. The inner wall is less a true wall, and more of a permacrete-reinforced cliff that rings around the 2nd Defensive Tier. The only way up without climbing is a handful of personnel entrances and the 2 roadways, one north and one south. This tier houses the primary vehicle and equipment storage facilities, additional support infrastructure, the secondary artillery batteries, the commoner prison facilities, as well several passageways leading to the road tunnel and beyond. Lastly, the Final Citadel is not a wall at all, but is instead a massive, adamantine-sheathed, armored plateau that sits at the very top of Fort Ko'Var, complete with countless weapons portholes, pillboxes, a partial mote, and a miniature voidshield enveloping it. Inside this last bastion is the fortress's command center, essential supplies storage, the VIP prison facilities, the majority of the fort's munitions storage capacity, and on top of it is positioned a ring of anti-aircraft emplacements as well as Fort Ko'Var's pride and joy: her primary artillery batteries. THE ARTILLERY: Aside from the countless other weapons systems protecting the fort, her main method of reaching out and touching her foes with extreme prejudice is, was, and always has been her artillery. These systems come in batteries of 4 weapons each, and every gun is housed in it's own 360-degree turreted bunker. For air cover, 8 Imperial-era Hydra Flak Batteries still play a key role in protecting the fortress, but these have been further supplemented by 2 batteries of T'au-made SAM launchers. These long-range munitions are deadly to any pilot who strays anywhere near the fort's airspace, and should not be tested lightly. The Hydra batteries, meanwhile, can also be turned towards anti-personnel duties easily enough, as well. Onto the ground-to-ground weapon systems, the local auxilia garrison will of course deploy light artillery such as mortars, but for precise, in-close bombardments that can pack real punch, Fort Ko'Var relies on it's 5 batteries of Bombast Field Cannons; I'm sure you're all familiar with that platform by now. But for more long-range needs, Fort Ko'Var relies on its primary armament of 4 batteries of "Earthquaker" Cannons, as the locals call them. These weapons are T'au-modified, extended-range variants of the venerable Earthshaker Cannon, and rebel reports have clocked it's maximum range with a standard powder charge at about 22 kilometers, increasing to 30 when supercharged. They pack the same firepower as an Earthshaker and, from what reports we have, roughly the same accuracy margins, as well. Put together, all of these weapons give Fort Ko'Var a potent array of long-range fires, with which it can engage both land and air targets with ease. However, there are some hints that at least 1 or 2 of the above-mentioned systems do not have the neccesary ammunition to operate optimally. The SAMs, in particular, most likely do not have a large number of missile reloads; thus, the xenos gunners may be less willing to fire valuable missiles at something they don't perceive as a threat. Pilots, take note. OTHER INFO: Based on rebel reports, Fort Ko'Var is normally home to about 20,000 personnel, with 15,000 in garrison and 5,000 patrolling the mountains at any given time. However, based again on the rebel intel we have, this force has a far-larger ratio of Fire Warriors to Auxilia, something like 2 T'au for every 3 Auxilia. From this we can infer that the T'au value this installation just as much as we do, and are invested in defending it. Unfortunately I can't get much more detailed than that; with the recent retreat of T'au troops all across the north, it could be that Fort Ko'Var is operating on a skeleton crew as manpower is transferred to other sectors, or it could be that it has been heavily reinforced by units retreating there. Therefore, be on your guard and ready to respond to any possible threat, battlesuits, tanks, superheavies, you get the idea. OTHER DETAILS: There are a few more things of note that I must make mention of. First off, back to that water pool. It is located right at the easternmost point of the fort in the 1st Defensive Tier; this might be a tactical weakness in their ability to get fresh water if they were pushed back to the upper tiers, but the estern tip of the Citadel also hangs out past the 2nd Tier, over this pool and extends downward [OOC: think something like the top tier Minas Tirith], enclosing a portion of the water for the final defensive tier's personal usage. Second, there is the main landing area. While a few smaller landing pads are scattered around the 2nd and 3rd Tiers, Fort Ko'Var's primary landing area is on the northern side of the 1st Tier, both bulging outwards and making a massive indent in the 2nd tier and the Citadel. Originally being designed for Tetrarch Heavy landers, this area is big enough to land a whole squadron of Mantas simultaneously. Lastly, there is the escape tunnel. As shown by Imperial records, Fort Ko'Var possesses a single passageway buried deep in the mountain, leading to a secret exit somewhere west or south of the fort. However, I am informed that our new-found local allies may hold the answer to it's location, in which case I believe immediate efforts should be made to cut off this last avenure for reinforcement or evacuation. THE PLAN: Fort Ko'Var is a stronge defensive position, but not impregnable if approached in the correct manner. Our basic battle plan is simple enough: Task Force Liberation attack from the north, while the Taronian 8th, Praetorian 27th, and elements of the Valyrran 1st attack from the south. We crush the xenos and the traitors between us, and meet in the middle. But that is, of course, more of an outline than an actual plan, and so I'd like to offer my own thoughts on the tactics to be employed. Fort Ko'Var's 3 defensive Tiers are very different from eachother, and thus will each require a different approach. The 1st Tier has the longest perimeter to coved, and also the least defenses; therefore, we should make our first strike fast and hard, overunning this first obstacle with haste and superior firepower. This has the added benefit of showing the enemy what we are capable of; with the traitor human Auxilia's morale breaking all across Gryllus, we may yet open up further weakpoints by forcing them to accept their inevitable defeat. The 2nd tier is... somewhat different. Carved from the rocky cliffs themselves, it will not be possible to simply breach it as you would a traditional wall, but this particular facet opens up... another avenue of attack which myself and Major Baxton have been discussing for some time. It is risky, and as of yet we are not completely sure it is pheasible, but I believe we should consider the option of tunneling into the second tier rather assaulting up it. The Final Citadel, quite frankly, will not be possible to capture quickly, not without a significant commitment of Astartes or other specialist forces. Therefore, unless one of the above is aquired and as much as it pains me to admit it, this final stage, at least, will most likely come to a plain and simple siege. I would recommend attempts be made to negotiate the remaining garrison's surrender and attempt to avoid needlessly wasting Guardsmen lives, but I do not think that this will bear much fruit considering the likelihood of the remaining troops by this stage being predominantly T'au. "That concludes my briefing on Fort Ko'Var; I hope to see all of you again for our inevitable victory toast in that fortress's command center." Colonel Arvin finished up. "I would also like to give my personal thanks to Colonel Lilzton and TF Liberation, as well Captains Pekala and Vanian's Rebel Companies for providing much of this information." "Now, with all of that said, I assume you all have questions or comments to make. The floor is now open..." |
2024.05.14 21:33 pronoia123 The Astrology of Kendrick and Drake
[I shared this in girls and gays but wanted to share here as well for those of you not in that sub]
With Kendrick Lamar and Drake’s rap feud raging over the last month, I got curious about what their natal charts say about each of them as rappers, and how the astrological synastry between the two has fueled this chart-topping fight. Luckily we have an accurate birth time for both Drake and Kendrick, so we can see exactly how their charts overlap.
Here’s Drake’s chart:
And here’s Kendrick’s chart:
Inconjunct Suns
Kendrick has a Gemini sun, like many of hip hop’s greatest rappers, including Notorious B.I.G., Tupac, Lauryn Hill and Outkast’s Andre 3000. Geminis are well-suited to rap as the wordsmiths of the zodiac, one of the two signs ruled by Mercury, the planet of communication. Virgo, the other sign ruled by Mercury, expresses the analytical, practical, pragmatic side of the mind, the so-called “left brain” which sorts the wheat from the chaff (and, fittingly, Virgo season aligns with the harvest season of late summer).
Gemini expresses the more playful, self-expressive, hyper-curious “right brain” side of the mind - the monkey mind that swings from branch to branch, seeing connections as it goes. “Curious to a fault, Geminis have a finger in every pie. Solar Geminis are flexible and changeable people. Usually quite clever and witty, Geminis enjoy intellectual conversations and they are easily bored if they are not getting enough mental stimulation.”
Drake is a Scorpio sun, bringing a very different energy to the table. Scorpios seek power above all, and they live life intensely. If Gemini is the court jester, taking life lightly and poking fun at it all, Scorpio is the dark knight plotting and positioning himself for a coup. As one of the two signs ruled by Mars, the planet of war and competition, Scorpios don’t back down from competition, and as a fixed modality sign, they can struggle to let go–even of what hurts them. Scorpios are drawn to the darker sides of life - they know that secrets hold power, so they tend toward privacy, as shown in Drake’s last rap beef, when Pusha T revealed that he had secretly fathered a son with a porn star.
Gemini and Scorpio have a tricky inter-dynamic, with an aspect between them known as a quincunx, or an inconjunct. Quincunxes occur when planets are 150 degrees apart, and therefore share neither an element (water, fire, earth, or air) nor a modality (cardinal, fixed, or mutable). They are at odds in a very fundamental way, and though they can teach each other a lot, in order to get along they will have to make some serious adjustments.
“When these signs get together, they just can’t understand each other. They have almost nothing in common, so it’s hard to find common ground. When a quincunx shows up in a synastry or relationship reading, this can make for a tense or difficult relationship.” This natural repelling dynamic is expressed in Kendrick’s diss song Euphoria (“I hate the way that you walk, the way that you talk/I hate the way that you dress/I hate the way you sneak diss, if I catch flight, it's gon' be direct”).
Drake’s ascendant is placed at 29 degrees Leo, exactly conjunct the royal fixed star Regulus. Regulus is one of the luckiest stars in the zodiac, and it is often seen in the charts of celebrities. “On the Ascendant, it will give a courageous and frank character. A splendid and illustrious life; glorious, mighty and commanding nature; fame, busy with many activities, bountiful resources, well known or feared in cities and regions.” But with Regulus on the ascendant, expanding the already narcissistic tendencies of Leo, there is a risk for an over-expansion of the ego and a lack of humility. Drake wants to be the best by all accounts - not just the biggest commercial superstar, which he is, but also the most critically acclaimed rapper, like Pulitzer Prize-winning Kendrick.
Mercury and Mars vs. Mercury and Venus
When it comes to analyzing writers of any sort, I like to look at their Mercuries, and here we see a fascinating contrast. Kendrick’s Mercury is located in intuitive, emotional Cancer (just like Lana del Rey, who I analyzed last week), and it is conjoined with Mars, the planet of war, which is what makes him such a formidable opponent in a rap battle. “Mercury conjunct Mars natal gives a quick mind, rapid reflexes, and a sharp tongue. These attributes are ideal for making quick decisions in the heat of the moment while others hesitate. Excellent debating skills allow you to stand up not only for yourself but for the rights of others. Your enthusiastic, direct and courageous way of expressing yourself can win admiration in politics, business, and the military.”
I think Mercury in combination with Mars is the ideal aspect for the competitive sport of rap, and interestingly enough, Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G., who famously feuded and are considered by many to be the all-time greatest rappers, both had these planets tightly combined (Tupac had Mercury trine Mars with a 1 degree orb, and Biggie had Mercury septile Mars with a 0 degree orb).
Drake, by contrast, has his Mercury conjoined with Mars’ planetary opposite, Venus. Mercury conjoined with creative Venus is a great aspect for a musician, but it lacks the teeth of competitive Mars. “Mercury conjunct Venus natal makes you a lovable, handsome, neat, refined, romantic, and courteous person. You may tend to be passive and submissive, but this is a means by which you achieve peace in your life. You can lovingly communicate things; a melodic, poetic, and relaxing voice often helps this. Mercury rules trade, and Venus rules money, so you could do well in business and enjoy buying and selling.”
Many of Drake’s biggest hits show this melodic Mercury-Venus aspect - like the no-rapping, all-singing “Hold On, We’re Going Home,” “Hotline Bling” and “One Dance,” or the purported feminist anthem “Nice for What.” Many think Drake is best as a pop star rather than a rapper, which Kendrick references in Euphoria (“I like Drake with the melodies, I don't like Drake when he act tough” “Keep makin' me dance, wavin' my hand and it won't be no threat”).
Mercury conjunct Venus should be a very positive aspect for Drake, and in many ways it is – as two of the planets that rule over money (Mercury the marketplace, and Venus the possessions), this aspect is part of why he’s had such incredible financial success. However, a few factors complicate it. For one thing, they are located together in Scorpio, ruled by Mars. His Mercury is expressed in a Venusian way, but it wants to be expressed in a Martian way. I think this is why Drake returns regularly to gangster rap despite his success in pop and R&B. He wants to be a Mercury-Mars rap powerhouse like Kendrick, Biggie, and Tupac, but he’s fundamentally different. From the beginning of his career he’s been taunted as soft, weak, feminine, privileged–all very Venusian adjectives.
Another complicating factor is that Drake’s Venus is doubly challenged - it is both in detriment in Scorpio, as well as retrograde. Venus is in detriment in Scorpio because it rules over Scorpio’s opposite, Taurus, and so the planet is not at ease in suspicious, jealous Scorpio. “Fears of being too vulnerable or of giving up their own power to others is strong. Scorpio is an “all or nothing” energy, and relationships tend to be somewhat of a rollercoaster ride as a result. Disdain for mediocrity and superficiality can compel them to create crises in order to feel alive and vital.”
Venus retrograde in the natal chart “suggests you have some difficulty in giving and receiving love and affection. You may experience sadness in love or have to endure hardship or delay. Natal Venus in retrograde can also show as excessive use of makeup and jewelry or even disfigurement from cosmetic surgery.” It’s interesting how some of the allegations against Drake in Kendrick’s songs have included a nose job and a Brazilian butt lift. After Drake told Metro Boomin to “shut up and make some drums” in his initial Kendrick diss Push Ups, the producer responded with “BBL Drizzy.”
Drake has never been married or had a public long-term relationship. His highest profile one with Rihanna was on-again, off-again, and at times seemed more like unrequited love than true commitment. When interviewed about the relationship, he said “As life takes shape and teaches you#Personal_life) your own lessons, I end up in this situation where I don't have the fairy tale [of] 'Drake started a family with Rihanna, [it's] so perfect.' It looks so good on paper [and] I wanted it too at one time.” Two years ago Drake had jeweler Alex Moss create a necklace worth $12.5 million dollars built from dozens of engagement rings he had made but never used: ““New piece titled ‘Previous Engagements’ for all the times he thought about it but never did it,” Moss wrote over a video showcasing the stunning necklace, which is made up of “42 engagement rings” totaling “351.38 carats in diamonds.”” It’s quite the testament to a challenged natal Venus.
Lilith Synastry
Here is Drake and Kendrick’s synastry (Drake is on the outer circle):
The most interesting thing I found digging into Drake and Kendrick’s charts was the presence of Lilith in their synastry. Lilith is an asteroid associated with the “angry woman” figure as well as female liberation. In some Jewish folklore Lilith was the first wife of Adam, but she was banished from the Garden of Eden for not obeying him and replaced with Eve.
“In the intricacies of a birth chart, Black Moon Lilith symbolizes the raw essence of femininity, the primal urges, and the suppressed parts of our psyche that lie in the shadows. This point, not a planet but a mathematical point, reveals where one might feel estranged, challenged, or empowered to go against the grain of societal norms. It unveils deep-seated desires, innate instincts, and perhaps the areas where one feels the need to challenge established roles or expectations. It's a place of power, mystique, and, occasionally, friction – pinpointing where one's true nature might clash with the conventional, leading to feelings of marginalization or rebellion.”
The allegations Drake and Kendrick threw at each other both had to do with mistreatment of women - Drake said that Kendrick abused his fiancée, and Kendrick said Drake was a pedophile who shouldn’t be trusted around young women.
Both Drake and Kendrick’s Liliths make tight aspects with the other’s chart. “Whenever Lilith is around, you can expect to feel a wild, intense, deep, and sometimes obsessive energy. If you have Lilith aspects in synastry then this energy will show up in your relationship. Whenever your Lilith touches one of your partner’s planets or vice-versa, you can expect to see your deepest fears revealed. You might also see glimpses of things you desire but can’t have. Ultimately, Lilith aspects in synastry give both partners a chance to work on their shadow sides.”
Kendrick’s sun exactly conjoins Drake’s Lilith at 26 degrees Gemini. “Often, the sun person [Kendrick] represents all that the Lilith person [Drake] wants but can never quite “catch.” There is an illusive vibe to this relationship. The Lilith person may feel somewhat less-than or “bad.” Lilith conjunct sun in synastry is a test for the Lilith person because their most taboo qualities such as obsession and anger will be activated, but it’s also a test for the sun person. The lesson is for the sun individual to stand their ground and follow their inner voice. Lilith is neither good nor bad, and the sun person can share in some of the Lilith partner’s activities without merging.”
This resonates with the fact that despite Drake’s huge commercial success, he is deeply jealous of Kendrick’s critical success. In Family Matters Drake took a jab at Kendrick’s acclaim (“Kendrick just opened his mouth, someone go hand him a Grammy right now”), and the beef between them played out similarly, with many rap fans deciding that Kendrick won before even listening to Drake. I think it’s obvious that Kendrick is a stronger rapper, but it’s also clear that Drake wasn’t given a fair shake.
Drake’s Lilith makes a tight trine to Kendrick’s Mercury. “Both the Lilith person and the Mercury person help each other to bring unhealed deeper wounds and unconscious emotion to the surface and articulate deeper, wild instincts. Mercury person [Kendrick] helps Lilith person [Drake] make sense of their inner restlessness and insecurities, sexual passions and unresolved rage. Mercury person may find Lilith person to be highly emotional but is also intrigued by Lilith person’s edgy and unique perspective.” It’s remarkable that both of their Liliths are interlocked with each other’s inner planets, creating a push-pull, love-hate, shadow-enlightening dynamic between the two.
I think the obsession goes both ways, and that part of the reason Kendrick fought back so viciously was because Drake triggers something in him shown through the Lilith synastry. Drake shows Kendrick what he could be–a charismatic playboy enjoying his fame and money to the fullest. And in engaging with the feud he stooped to a lower level, making unsupported claims about Drake’s supposed secret daughter, and writing a rap song (Meet the Grahams) addressed to Drake’s 5 year old son opening with “Dear Adonis, I’m sorry that man is your father.” All is fair in rap battles–or is it? Questlove called it out, saying on Instagram: “Nobody won the war. This wasn’t about skill. This was a wrestling match level mudslinging and takedown by any means necessary — women & children (& actual facts) be damned.”
Kendrick’s latest diss track Not Like Us has just debuted at number one on the Billboard Top 100, and it’s clear this battle has propelled him to another level of stardom. Drake’s Regulus ascendant arrogance and Scorpionic desire to fight to the death drove him to attack the strongest living rapper, and now he’s dealing with the fallout. Kendrick’s streams of his back catalog are up 50%, while Drake’s are down 5% and his reputation has taken a massive knock. But Kendrick has taken a hit as well. Having rap’s two biggest stars accusing each other of heinous crimes might drive up streams in the short run, but it’s a dangerous game. Astrology helps us understand why these two polar opposites are so intertwined, and why their mutual dislike has spurred on such a captivating firestorm.
submitted by pronoia123 to rspod [link] [comments]
With Kendrick Lamar and Drake’s rap feud raging over the last month, I got curious about what their natal charts say about each of them as rappers, and how the astrological synastry between the two has fueled this chart-topping fight. Luckily we have an accurate birth time for both Drake and Kendrick, so we can see exactly how their charts overlap.
Here’s Drake’s chart:
And here’s Kendrick’s chart:
Inconjunct Suns
Kendrick has a Gemini sun, like many of hip hop’s greatest rappers, including Notorious B.I.G., Tupac, Lauryn Hill and Outkast’s Andre 3000. Geminis are well-suited to rap as the wordsmiths of the zodiac, one of the two signs ruled by Mercury, the planet of communication. Virgo, the other sign ruled by Mercury, expresses the analytical, practical, pragmatic side of the mind, the so-called “left brain” which sorts the wheat from the chaff (and, fittingly, Virgo season aligns with the harvest season of late summer).
Gemini expresses the more playful, self-expressive, hyper-curious “right brain” side of the mind - the monkey mind that swings from branch to branch, seeing connections as it goes. “Curious to a fault, Geminis have a finger in every pie. Solar Geminis are flexible and changeable people. Usually quite clever and witty, Geminis enjoy intellectual conversations and they are easily bored if they are not getting enough mental stimulation.”
Drake is a Scorpio sun, bringing a very different energy to the table. Scorpios seek power above all, and they live life intensely. If Gemini is the court jester, taking life lightly and poking fun at it all, Scorpio is the dark knight plotting and positioning himself for a coup. As one of the two signs ruled by Mars, the planet of war and competition, Scorpios don’t back down from competition, and as a fixed modality sign, they can struggle to let go–even of what hurts them. Scorpios are drawn to the darker sides of life - they know that secrets hold power, so they tend toward privacy, as shown in Drake’s last rap beef, when Pusha T revealed that he had secretly fathered a son with a porn star.
Gemini and Scorpio have a tricky inter-dynamic, with an aspect between them known as a quincunx, or an inconjunct. Quincunxes occur when planets are 150 degrees apart, and therefore share neither an element (water, fire, earth, or air) nor a modality (cardinal, fixed, or mutable). They are at odds in a very fundamental way, and though they can teach each other a lot, in order to get along they will have to make some serious adjustments.
“When these signs get together, they just can’t understand each other. They have almost nothing in common, so it’s hard to find common ground. When a quincunx shows up in a synastry or relationship reading, this can make for a tense or difficult relationship.” This natural repelling dynamic is expressed in Kendrick’s diss song Euphoria (“I hate the way that you walk, the way that you talk/I hate the way that you dress/I hate the way you sneak diss, if I catch flight, it's gon' be direct”).
Drake’s ascendant is placed at 29 degrees Leo, exactly conjunct the royal fixed star Regulus. Regulus is one of the luckiest stars in the zodiac, and it is often seen in the charts of celebrities. “On the Ascendant, it will give a courageous and frank character. A splendid and illustrious life; glorious, mighty and commanding nature; fame, busy with many activities, bountiful resources, well known or feared in cities and regions.” But with Regulus on the ascendant, expanding the already narcissistic tendencies of Leo, there is a risk for an over-expansion of the ego and a lack of humility. Drake wants to be the best by all accounts - not just the biggest commercial superstar, which he is, but also the most critically acclaimed rapper, like Pulitzer Prize-winning Kendrick.
Mercury and Mars vs. Mercury and Venus
When it comes to analyzing writers of any sort, I like to look at their Mercuries, and here we see a fascinating contrast. Kendrick’s Mercury is located in intuitive, emotional Cancer (just like Lana del Rey, who I analyzed last week), and it is conjoined with Mars, the planet of war, which is what makes him such a formidable opponent in a rap battle. “Mercury conjunct Mars natal gives a quick mind, rapid reflexes, and a sharp tongue. These attributes are ideal for making quick decisions in the heat of the moment while others hesitate. Excellent debating skills allow you to stand up not only for yourself but for the rights of others. Your enthusiastic, direct and courageous way of expressing yourself can win admiration in politics, business, and the military.”
I think Mercury in combination with Mars is the ideal aspect for the competitive sport of rap, and interestingly enough, Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G., who famously feuded and are considered by many to be the all-time greatest rappers, both had these planets tightly combined (Tupac had Mercury trine Mars with a 1 degree orb, and Biggie had Mercury septile Mars with a 0 degree orb).
Drake, by contrast, has his Mercury conjoined with Mars’ planetary opposite, Venus. Mercury conjoined with creative Venus is a great aspect for a musician, but it lacks the teeth of competitive Mars. “Mercury conjunct Venus natal makes you a lovable, handsome, neat, refined, romantic, and courteous person. You may tend to be passive and submissive, but this is a means by which you achieve peace in your life. You can lovingly communicate things; a melodic, poetic, and relaxing voice often helps this. Mercury rules trade, and Venus rules money, so you could do well in business and enjoy buying and selling.”
Many of Drake’s biggest hits show this melodic Mercury-Venus aspect - like the no-rapping, all-singing “Hold On, We’re Going Home,” “Hotline Bling” and “One Dance,” or the purported feminist anthem “Nice for What.” Many think Drake is best as a pop star rather than a rapper, which Kendrick references in Euphoria (“I like Drake with the melodies, I don't like Drake when he act tough” “Keep makin' me dance, wavin' my hand and it won't be no threat”).
Mercury conjunct Venus should be a very positive aspect for Drake, and in many ways it is – as two of the planets that rule over money (Mercury the marketplace, and Venus the possessions), this aspect is part of why he’s had such incredible financial success. However, a few factors complicate it. For one thing, they are located together in Scorpio, ruled by Mars. His Mercury is expressed in a Venusian way, but it wants to be expressed in a Martian way. I think this is why Drake returns regularly to gangster rap despite his success in pop and R&B. He wants to be a Mercury-Mars rap powerhouse like Kendrick, Biggie, and Tupac, but he’s fundamentally different. From the beginning of his career he’s been taunted as soft, weak, feminine, privileged–all very Venusian adjectives.
Another complicating factor is that Drake’s Venus is doubly challenged - it is both in detriment in Scorpio, as well as retrograde. Venus is in detriment in Scorpio because it rules over Scorpio’s opposite, Taurus, and so the planet is not at ease in suspicious, jealous Scorpio. “Fears of being too vulnerable or of giving up their own power to others is strong. Scorpio is an “all or nothing” energy, and relationships tend to be somewhat of a rollercoaster ride as a result. Disdain for mediocrity and superficiality can compel them to create crises in order to feel alive and vital.”
Venus retrograde in the natal chart “suggests you have some difficulty in giving and receiving love and affection. You may experience sadness in love or have to endure hardship or delay. Natal Venus in retrograde can also show as excessive use of makeup and jewelry or even disfigurement from cosmetic surgery.” It’s interesting how some of the allegations against Drake in Kendrick’s songs have included a nose job and a Brazilian butt lift. After Drake told Metro Boomin to “shut up and make some drums” in his initial Kendrick diss Push Ups, the producer responded with “BBL Drizzy.”
Drake has never been married or had a public long-term relationship. His highest profile one with Rihanna was on-again, off-again, and at times seemed more like unrequited love than true commitment. When interviewed about the relationship, he said “As life takes shape and teaches you#Personal_life) your own lessons, I end up in this situation where I don't have the fairy tale [of] 'Drake started a family with Rihanna, [it's] so perfect.' It looks so good on paper [and] I wanted it too at one time.” Two years ago Drake had jeweler Alex Moss create a necklace worth $12.5 million dollars built from dozens of engagement rings he had made but never used: ““New piece titled ‘Previous Engagements’ for all the times he thought about it but never did it,” Moss wrote over a video showcasing the stunning necklace, which is made up of “42 engagement rings” totaling “351.38 carats in diamonds.”” It’s quite the testament to a challenged natal Venus.
Lilith Synastry
Here is Drake and Kendrick’s synastry (Drake is on the outer circle):
The most interesting thing I found digging into Drake and Kendrick’s charts was the presence of Lilith in their synastry. Lilith is an asteroid associated with the “angry woman” figure as well as female liberation. In some Jewish folklore Lilith was the first wife of Adam, but she was banished from the Garden of Eden for not obeying him and replaced with Eve.
“In the intricacies of a birth chart, Black Moon Lilith symbolizes the raw essence of femininity, the primal urges, and the suppressed parts of our psyche that lie in the shadows. This point, not a planet but a mathematical point, reveals where one might feel estranged, challenged, or empowered to go against the grain of societal norms. It unveils deep-seated desires, innate instincts, and perhaps the areas where one feels the need to challenge established roles or expectations. It's a place of power, mystique, and, occasionally, friction – pinpointing where one's true nature might clash with the conventional, leading to feelings of marginalization or rebellion.”
The allegations Drake and Kendrick threw at each other both had to do with mistreatment of women - Drake said that Kendrick abused his fiancée, and Kendrick said Drake was a pedophile who shouldn’t be trusted around young women.
Both Drake and Kendrick’s Liliths make tight aspects with the other’s chart. “Whenever Lilith is around, you can expect to feel a wild, intense, deep, and sometimes obsessive energy. If you have Lilith aspects in synastry then this energy will show up in your relationship. Whenever your Lilith touches one of your partner’s planets or vice-versa, you can expect to see your deepest fears revealed. You might also see glimpses of things you desire but can’t have. Ultimately, Lilith aspects in synastry give both partners a chance to work on their shadow sides.”
Kendrick’s sun exactly conjoins Drake’s Lilith at 26 degrees Gemini. “Often, the sun person [Kendrick] represents all that the Lilith person [Drake] wants but can never quite “catch.” There is an illusive vibe to this relationship. The Lilith person may feel somewhat less-than or “bad.” Lilith conjunct sun in synastry is a test for the Lilith person because their most taboo qualities such as obsession and anger will be activated, but it’s also a test for the sun person. The lesson is for the sun individual to stand their ground and follow their inner voice. Lilith is neither good nor bad, and the sun person can share in some of the Lilith partner’s activities without merging.”
This resonates with the fact that despite Drake’s huge commercial success, he is deeply jealous of Kendrick’s critical success. In Family Matters Drake took a jab at Kendrick’s acclaim (“Kendrick just opened his mouth, someone go hand him a Grammy right now”), and the beef between them played out similarly, with many rap fans deciding that Kendrick won before even listening to Drake. I think it’s obvious that Kendrick is a stronger rapper, but it’s also clear that Drake wasn’t given a fair shake.
Drake’s Lilith makes a tight trine to Kendrick’s Mercury. “Both the Lilith person and the Mercury person help each other to bring unhealed deeper wounds and unconscious emotion to the surface and articulate deeper, wild instincts. Mercury person [Kendrick] helps Lilith person [Drake] make sense of their inner restlessness and insecurities, sexual passions and unresolved rage. Mercury person may find Lilith person to be highly emotional but is also intrigued by Lilith person’s edgy and unique perspective.” It’s remarkable that both of their Liliths are interlocked with each other’s inner planets, creating a push-pull, love-hate, shadow-enlightening dynamic between the two.
I think the obsession goes both ways, and that part of the reason Kendrick fought back so viciously was because Drake triggers something in him shown through the Lilith synastry. Drake shows Kendrick what he could be–a charismatic playboy enjoying his fame and money to the fullest. And in engaging with the feud he stooped to a lower level, making unsupported claims about Drake’s supposed secret daughter, and writing a rap song (Meet the Grahams) addressed to Drake’s 5 year old son opening with “Dear Adonis, I’m sorry that man is your father.” All is fair in rap battles–or is it? Questlove called it out, saying on Instagram: “Nobody won the war. This wasn’t about skill. This was a wrestling match level mudslinging and takedown by any means necessary — women & children (& actual facts) be damned.”
Kendrick’s latest diss track Not Like Us has just debuted at number one on the Billboard Top 100, and it’s clear this battle has propelled him to another level of stardom. Drake’s Regulus ascendant arrogance and Scorpionic desire to fight to the death drove him to attack the strongest living rapper, and now he’s dealing with the fallout. Kendrick’s streams of his back catalog are up 50%, while Drake’s are down 5% and his reputation has taken a massive knock. But Kendrick has taken a hit as well. Having rap’s two biggest stars accusing each other of heinous crimes might drive up streams in the short run, but it’s a dangerous game. Astrology helps us understand why these two polar opposites are so intertwined, and why their mutual dislike has spurred on such a captivating firestorm.
2024.05.14 21:32 pronoia123 The Astrology of Kendrick and Drake
[I shared this in girls and gays but wanted to share here as well for those of you not in that sub]
With Kendrick Lamar and Drake’s rap feud raging over the last month, I got curious about what their natal charts say about each of them as rappers, and how the astrological synastry between the two has fueled this chart-topping fight. Luckily we have an accurate birth time for both Drake and Kendrick, so we can see exactly how their charts overlap.
Here’s Drake’s chart:
And here’s Kendrick’s chart:
Inconjunct Suns
Kendrick has a Gemini sun, like many of hip hop’s greatest rappers, including Notorious B.I.G., Tupac, Lauryn Hill and Outkast’s Andre 3000. Geminis are well-suited to rap as the wordsmiths of the zodiac, one of the two signs ruled by Mercury, the planet of communication. Virgo, the other sign ruled by Mercury, expresses the analytical, practical, pragmatic side of the mind, the so-called “left brain” which sorts the wheat from the chaff (and, fittingly, Virgo season aligns with the harvest season of late summer).
Gemini expresses the more playful, self-expressive, hyper-curious “right brain” side of the mind - the monkey mind that swings from branch to branch, seeing connections as it goes. “Curious to a fault, Geminis have a finger in every pie. Solar Geminis are flexible and changeable people. Usually quite clever and witty, Geminis enjoy intellectual conversations and they are easily bored if they are not getting enough mental stimulation.”
Drake is a Scorpio sun, bringing a very different energy to the table. Scorpios seek power above all, and they live life intensely. If Gemini is the court jester, taking life lightly and poking fun at it all, Scorpio is the dark knight plotting and positioning himself for a coup. As one of the two signs ruled by Mars, the planet of war and competition, Scorpios don’t back down from competition, and as a fixed modality sign, they can struggle to let go–even of what hurts them. Scorpios are drawn to the darker sides of life - they know that secrets hold power, so they tend toward privacy, as shown in Drake’s last rap beef, when Pusha T revealed that he had secretly fathered a son with a porn star.
Gemini and Scorpio have a tricky inter-dynamic, with an aspect between them known as a quincunx, or an inconjunct. Quincunxes occur when planets are 150 degrees apart, and therefore share neither an element (water, fire, earth, or air) nor a modality (cardinal, fixed, or mutable). They are at odds in a very fundamental way, and though they can teach each other a lot, in order to get along they will have to make some serious adjustments.
“When these signs get together, they just can’t understand each other. They have almost nothing in common, so it’s hard to find common ground. When a quincunx shows up in a synastry or relationship reading, this can make for a tense or difficult relationship.” This natural repelling dynamic is expressed in Kendrick’s diss song Euphoria (“I hate the way that you walk, the way that you talk/I hate the way that you dress/I hate the way you sneak diss, if I catch flight, it's gon' be direct”).
Drake’s ascendant is placed at 29 degrees Leo, exactly conjunct the royal fixed star Regulus. Regulus is one of the luckiest stars in the zodiac, and it is often seen in the charts of celebrities. “On the Ascendant, it will give a courageous and frank character. A splendid and illustrious life; glorious, mighty and commanding nature; fame, busy with many activities, bountiful resources, well known or feared in cities and regions.” But with Regulus on the ascendant, expanding the already narcissistic tendencies of Leo, there is a risk for an over-expansion of the ego and a lack of humility. Drake wants to be the best by all accounts - not just the biggest commercial superstar, which he is, but also the most critically acclaimed rapper, like Pulitzer Prize-winning Kendrick.
Mercury and Mars vs. Mercury and Venus
When it comes to analyzing writers of any sort, I like to look at their Mercuries, and here we see a fascinating contrast. Kendrick’s Mercury is located in intuitive, emotional Cancer (just like Lana del Rey, who I analyzed last week), and it is conjoined with Mars, the planet of war, which is what makes him such a formidable opponent in a rap battle. “Mercury conjunct Mars natal gives a quick mind, rapid reflexes, and a sharp tongue. These attributes are ideal for making quick decisions in the heat of the moment while others hesitate. Excellent debating skills allow you to stand up not only for yourself but for the rights of others. Your enthusiastic, direct and courageous way of expressing yourself can win admiration in politics, business, and the military.”
I think Mercury in combination with Mars is the ideal aspect for the competitive sport of rap, and interestingly enough, Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G., who famously feuded and are considered by many to be the all-time greatest rappers, both had these planets tightly combined (Tupac had Mercury trine Mars with a 1 degree orb, and Biggie had Mercury septile Mars with a 0 degree orb).
Drake, by contrast, has his Mercury conjoined with Mars’ planetary opposite, Venus. Mercury conjoined with creative Venus is a great aspect for a musician, but it lacks the teeth of competitive Mars. “Mercury conjunct Venus natal makes you a lovable, handsome, neat, refined, romantic, and courteous person. You may tend to be passive and submissive, but this is a means by which you achieve peace in your life. You can lovingly communicate things; a melodic, poetic, and relaxing voice often helps this. Mercury rules trade, and Venus rules money, so you could do well in business and enjoy buying and selling.”
Many of Drake’s biggest hits show this melodic Mercury-Venus aspect - like the no-rapping, all-singing “Hold On, We’re Going Home,” “Hotline Bling” and “One Dance,” or the purported feminist anthem “Nice for What.” Many think Drake is best as a pop star rather than a rapper, which Kendrick references in Euphoria (“I like Drake with the melodies, I don't like Drake when he act tough” “Keep makin' me dance, wavin' my hand and it won't be no threat”).
Mercury conjunct Venus should be a very positive aspect for Drake, and in many ways it is – as two of the planets that rule over money (Mercury the marketplace, and Venus the possessions), this aspect is part of why he’s had such incredible financial success. However, a few factors complicate it. For one thing, they are located together in Scorpio, ruled by Mars. His Mercury is expressed in a Venusian way, but it wants to be expressed in a Martian way. I think this is why Drake returns regularly to gangster rap despite his success in pop and R&B. He wants to be a Mercury-Mars rap powerhouse like Kendrick, Biggie, and Tupac, but he’s fundamentally different. From the beginning of his career he’s been taunted as soft, weak, feminine, privileged–all very Venusian adjectives.
Another complicating factor is that Drake’s Venus is doubly challenged - it is both in detriment in Scorpio, as well as retrograde. Venus is in detriment in Scorpio because it rules over Scorpio’s opposite, Taurus, and so the planet is not at ease in suspicious, jealous Scorpio. “Fears of being too vulnerable or of giving up their own power to others is strong. Scorpio is an “all or nothing” energy, and relationships tend to be somewhat of a rollercoaster ride as a result. Disdain for mediocrity and superficiality can compel them to create crises in order to feel alive and vital.”
Venus retrograde in the natal chart “suggests you have some difficulty in giving and receiving love and affection. You may experience sadness in love or have to endure hardship or delay. Natal Venus in retrograde can also show as excessive use of makeup and jewelry or even disfigurement from cosmetic surgery.” It’s interesting how some of the allegations against Drake in Kendrick’s songs have included a nose job and a Brazilian butt lift. After Drake told Metro Boomin to “shut up and make some drums” in his initial Kendrick diss Push Ups, the producer responded with “BBL Drizzy.”
Drake has never been married or had a public long-term relationship. His highest profile one with Rihanna was on-again, off-again, and at times seemed more like unrequited love than true commitment. When interviewed about the relationship, he said “As life takes shape and teaches you#Personal_life) your own lessons, I end up in this situation where I don't have the fairy tale [of] 'Drake started a family with Rihanna, [it's] so perfect.' It looks so good on paper [and] I wanted it too at one time.” Two years ago Drake had jeweler Alex Moss create a necklace worth $12.5 million dollars built from dozens of engagement rings he had made but never used: ““New piece titled ‘Previous Engagements’ for all the times he thought about it but never did it,” Moss wrote over a video showcasing the stunning necklace, which is made up of “42 engagement rings” totaling “351.38 carats in diamonds.”” It’s quite the testament to a challenged natal Venus.
Lilith Synastry
Here is Drake and Kendrick’s synastry (Drake is on the outer circle):
The most interesting thing I found digging into Drake and Kendrick’s charts was the presence of Lilith in their synastry. Lilith is an asteroid associated with the “angry woman” figure as well as female liberation. In some Jewish folklore Lilith was the first wife of Adam, but she was banished from the Garden of Eden for not obeying him and replaced with Eve.
“In the intricacies of a birth chart, Black Moon Lilith symbolizes the raw essence of femininity, the primal urges, and the suppressed parts of our psyche that lie in the shadows. This point, not a planet but a mathematical point, reveals where one might feel estranged, challenged, or empowered to go against the grain of societal norms. It unveils deep-seated desires, innate instincts, and perhaps the areas where one feels the need to challenge established roles or expectations. It's a place of power, mystique, and, occasionally, friction – pinpointing where one's true nature might clash with the conventional, leading to feelings of marginalization or rebellion.”
The allegations Drake and Kendrick threw at each other both had to do with mistreatment of women - Drake said that Kendrick abused his fiancée, and Kendrick said Drake was a pedophile who shouldn’t be trusted around young women.
Both Drake and Kendrick’s Liliths make tight aspects with the other’s chart. “Whenever Lilith is around, you can expect to feel a wild, intense, deep, and sometimes obsessive energy. If you have Lilith aspects in synastry then this energy will show up in your relationship. Whenever your Lilith touches one of your partner’s planets or vice-versa, you can expect to see your deepest fears revealed. You might also see glimpses of things you desire but can’t have. Ultimately, Lilith aspects in synastry give both partners a chance to work on their shadow sides.”
Kendrick’s sun exactly conjoins Drake’s Lilith at 26 degrees Gemini. “Often, the sun person [Kendrick] represents all that the Lilith person [Drake] wants but can never quite “catch.” There is an illusive vibe to this relationship. The Lilith person may feel somewhat less-than or “bad.” Lilith conjunct sun in synastry is a test for the Lilith person because their most taboo qualities such as obsession and anger will be activated, but it’s also a test for the sun person. The lesson is for the sun individual to stand their ground and follow their inner voice. Lilith is neither good nor bad, and the sun person can share in some of the Lilith partner’s activities without merging.”
This resonates with the fact that despite Drake’s huge commercial success, he is deeply jealous of Kendrick’s critical success. In Family Matters Drake took a jab at Kendrick’s acclaim (“Kendrick just opened his mouth, someone go hand him a Grammy right now”), and the beef between them played out similarly, with many rap fans deciding that Kendrick won before even listening to Drake. I think it’s obvious that Kendrick is a stronger rapper, but it’s also clear that Drake wasn’t given a fair shake.
Drake’s Lilith makes a tight trine to Kendrick’s Mercury. “Both the Lilith person and the Mercury person help each other to bring unhealed deeper wounds and unconscious emotion to the surface and articulate deeper, wild instincts. Mercury person [Kendrick] helps Lilith person [Drake] make sense of their inner restlessness and insecurities, sexual passions and unresolved rage. Mercury person may find Lilith person to be highly emotional but is also intrigued by Lilith person’s edgy and unique perspective.” It’s remarkable that both of their Liliths are interlocked with each other’s inner planets, creating a push-pull, love-hate, shadow-enlightening dynamic between the two.
I think the obsession goes both ways, and that part of the reason Kendrick fought back so viciously was because Drake triggers something in him shown through the Lilith synastry. Drake shows Kendrick what he could be–a charismatic playboy enjoying his fame and money to the fullest. And in engaging with the feud he stooped to a lower level, making unsupported claims about Drake’s supposed secret daughter, and writing a rap song (Meet the Grahams) addressed to Drake’s 5 year old son opening with “Dear Adonis, I’m sorry that man is your father.” All is fair in rap battles–or is it? Questlove called it out, saying on Instagram: “Nobody won the war. This wasn’t about skill. This was a wrestling match level mudslinging and takedown by any means necessary — women & children (& actual facts) be damned.”
Kendrick’s latest diss track Not Like Us has just debuted at number one on the Billboard Top 100, and it’s clear this battle has propelled him to another level of stardom. Drake’s Regulus ascendant arrogance and Scorpionic desire to fight to the death drove him to attack the strongest living rapper, and now he’s dealing with the fallout. Kendrick’s streams of his back catalog are up 50%, while Drake’s are down 5% and his reputation has taken a massive knock. But Kendrick has taken a hit as well. Having rap’s two biggest stars accusing each other of heinous crimes might drive up streams in the short run, but it’s a dangerous game. Astrology helps us understand why these two polar opposites are so intertwined, and why their mutual dislike has spurred on such a captivating firestorm.
submitted by pronoia123 to redscarepod [link] [comments]
With Kendrick Lamar and Drake’s rap feud raging over the last month, I got curious about what their natal charts say about each of them as rappers, and how the astrological synastry between the two has fueled this chart-topping fight. Luckily we have an accurate birth time for both Drake and Kendrick, so we can see exactly how their charts overlap.
Here’s Drake’s chart:
And here’s Kendrick’s chart:
Inconjunct Suns
Kendrick has a Gemini sun, like many of hip hop’s greatest rappers, including Notorious B.I.G., Tupac, Lauryn Hill and Outkast’s Andre 3000. Geminis are well-suited to rap as the wordsmiths of the zodiac, one of the two signs ruled by Mercury, the planet of communication. Virgo, the other sign ruled by Mercury, expresses the analytical, practical, pragmatic side of the mind, the so-called “left brain” which sorts the wheat from the chaff (and, fittingly, Virgo season aligns with the harvest season of late summer).
Gemini expresses the more playful, self-expressive, hyper-curious “right brain” side of the mind - the monkey mind that swings from branch to branch, seeing connections as it goes. “Curious to a fault, Geminis have a finger in every pie. Solar Geminis are flexible and changeable people. Usually quite clever and witty, Geminis enjoy intellectual conversations and they are easily bored if they are not getting enough mental stimulation.”
Drake is a Scorpio sun, bringing a very different energy to the table. Scorpios seek power above all, and they live life intensely. If Gemini is the court jester, taking life lightly and poking fun at it all, Scorpio is the dark knight plotting and positioning himself for a coup. As one of the two signs ruled by Mars, the planet of war and competition, Scorpios don’t back down from competition, and as a fixed modality sign, they can struggle to let go–even of what hurts them. Scorpios are drawn to the darker sides of life - they know that secrets hold power, so they tend toward privacy, as shown in Drake’s last rap beef, when Pusha T revealed that he had secretly fathered a son with a porn star.
Gemini and Scorpio have a tricky inter-dynamic, with an aspect between them known as a quincunx, or an inconjunct. Quincunxes occur when planets are 150 degrees apart, and therefore share neither an element (water, fire, earth, or air) nor a modality (cardinal, fixed, or mutable). They are at odds in a very fundamental way, and though they can teach each other a lot, in order to get along they will have to make some serious adjustments.
“When these signs get together, they just can’t understand each other. They have almost nothing in common, so it’s hard to find common ground. When a quincunx shows up in a synastry or relationship reading, this can make for a tense or difficult relationship.” This natural repelling dynamic is expressed in Kendrick’s diss song Euphoria (“I hate the way that you walk, the way that you talk/I hate the way that you dress/I hate the way you sneak diss, if I catch flight, it's gon' be direct”).
Drake’s ascendant is placed at 29 degrees Leo, exactly conjunct the royal fixed star Regulus. Regulus is one of the luckiest stars in the zodiac, and it is often seen in the charts of celebrities. “On the Ascendant, it will give a courageous and frank character. A splendid and illustrious life; glorious, mighty and commanding nature; fame, busy with many activities, bountiful resources, well known or feared in cities and regions.” But with Regulus on the ascendant, expanding the already narcissistic tendencies of Leo, there is a risk for an over-expansion of the ego and a lack of humility. Drake wants to be the best by all accounts - not just the biggest commercial superstar, which he is, but also the most critically acclaimed rapper, like Pulitzer Prize-winning Kendrick.
Mercury and Mars vs. Mercury and Venus
When it comes to analyzing writers of any sort, I like to look at their Mercuries, and here we see a fascinating contrast. Kendrick’s Mercury is located in intuitive, emotional Cancer (just like Lana del Rey, who I analyzed last week), and it is conjoined with Mars, the planet of war, which is what makes him such a formidable opponent in a rap battle. “Mercury conjunct Mars natal gives a quick mind, rapid reflexes, and a sharp tongue. These attributes are ideal for making quick decisions in the heat of the moment while others hesitate. Excellent debating skills allow you to stand up not only for yourself but for the rights of others. Your enthusiastic, direct and courageous way of expressing yourself can win admiration in politics, business, and the military.”
I think Mercury in combination with Mars is the ideal aspect for the competitive sport of rap, and interestingly enough, Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G., who famously feuded and are considered by many to be the all-time greatest rappers, both had these planets tightly combined (Tupac had Mercury trine Mars with a 1 degree orb, and Biggie had Mercury septile Mars with a 0 degree orb).
Drake, by contrast, has his Mercury conjoined with Mars’ planetary opposite, Venus. Mercury conjoined with creative Venus is a great aspect for a musician, but it lacks the teeth of competitive Mars. “Mercury conjunct Venus natal makes you a lovable, handsome, neat, refined, romantic, and courteous person. You may tend to be passive and submissive, but this is a means by which you achieve peace in your life. You can lovingly communicate things; a melodic, poetic, and relaxing voice often helps this. Mercury rules trade, and Venus rules money, so you could do well in business and enjoy buying and selling.”
Many of Drake’s biggest hits show this melodic Mercury-Venus aspect - like the no-rapping, all-singing “Hold On, We’re Going Home,” “Hotline Bling” and “One Dance,” or the purported feminist anthem “Nice for What.” Many think Drake is best as a pop star rather than a rapper, which Kendrick references in Euphoria (“I like Drake with the melodies, I don't like Drake when he act tough” “Keep makin' me dance, wavin' my hand and it won't be no threat”).
Mercury conjunct Venus should be a very positive aspect for Drake, and in many ways it is – as two of the planets that rule over money (Mercury the marketplace, and Venus the possessions), this aspect is part of why he’s had such incredible financial success. However, a few factors complicate it. For one thing, they are located together in Scorpio, ruled by Mars. His Mercury is expressed in a Venusian way, but it wants to be expressed in a Martian way. I think this is why Drake returns regularly to gangster rap despite his success in pop and R&B. He wants to be a Mercury-Mars rap powerhouse like Kendrick, Biggie, and Tupac, but he’s fundamentally different. From the beginning of his career he’s been taunted as soft, weak, feminine, privileged–all very Venusian adjectives.
Another complicating factor is that Drake’s Venus is doubly challenged - it is both in detriment in Scorpio, as well as retrograde. Venus is in detriment in Scorpio because it rules over Scorpio’s opposite, Taurus, and so the planet is not at ease in suspicious, jealous Scorpio. “Fears of being too vulnerable or of giving up their own power to others is strong. Scorpio is an “all or nothing” energy, and relationships tend to be somewhat of a rollercoaster ride as a result. Disdain for mediocrity and superficiality can compel them to create crises in order to feel alive and vital.”
Venus retrograde in the natal chart “suggests you have some difficulty in giving and receiving love and affection. You may experience sadness in love or have to endure hardship or delay. Natal Venus in retrograde can also show as excessive use of makeup and jewelry or even disfigurement from cosmetic surgery.” It’s interesting how some of the allegations against Drake in Kendrick’s songs have included a nose job and a Brazilian butt lift. After Drake told Metro Boomin to “shut up and make some drums” in his initial Kendrick diss Push Ups, the producer responded with “BBL Drizzy.”
Drake has never been married or had a public long-term relationship. His highest profile one with Rihanna was on-again, off-again, and at times seemed more like unrequited love than true commitment. When interviewed about the relationship, he said “As life takes shape and teaches you#Personal_life) your own lessons, I end up in this situation where I don't have the fairy tale [of] 'Drake started a family with Rihanna, [it's] so perfect.' It looks so good on paper [and] I wanted it too at one time.” Two years ago Drake had jeweler Alex Moss create a necklace worth $12.5 million dollars built from dozens of engagement rings he had made but never used: ““New piece titled ‘Previous Engagements’ for all the times he thought about it but never did it,” Moss wrote over a video showcasing the stunning necklace, which is made up of “42 engagement rings” totaling “351.38 carats in diamonds.”” It’s quite the testament to a challenged natal Venus.
Lilith Synastry
Here is Drake and Kendrick’s synastry (Drake is on the outer circle):
The most interesting thing I found digging into Drake and Kendrick’s charts was the presence of Lilith in their synastry. Lilith is an asteroid associated with the “angry woman” figure as well as female liberation. In some Jewish folklore Lilith was the first wife of Adam, but she was banished from the Garden of Eden for not obeying him and replaced with Eve.
“In the intricacies of a birth chart, Black Moon Lilith symbolizes the raw essence of femininity, the primal urges, and the suppressed parts of our psyche that lie in the shadows. This point, not a planet but a mathematical point, reveals where one might feel estranged, challenged, or empowered to go against the grain of societal norms. It unveils deep-seated desires, innate instincts, and perhaps the areas where one feels the need to challenge established roles or expectations. It's a place of power, mystique, and, occasionally, friction – pinpointing where one's true nature might clash with the conventional, leading to feelings of marginalization or rebellion.”
The allegations Drake and Kendrick threw at each other both had to do with mistreatment of women - Drake said that Kendrick abused his fiancée, and Kendrick said Drake was a pedophile who shouldn’t be trusted around young women.
Both Drake and Kendrick’s Liliths make tight aspects with the other’s chart. “Whenever Lilith is around, you can expect to feel a wild, intense, deep, and sometimes obsessive energy. If you have Lilith aspects in synastry then this energy will show up in your relationship. Whenever your Lilith touches one of your partner’s planets or vice-versa, you can expect to see your deepest fears revealed. You might also see glimpses of things you desire but can’t have. Ultimately, Lilith aspects in synastry give both partners a chance to work on their shadow sides.”
Kendrick’s sun exactly conjoins Drake’s Lilith at 26 degrees Gemini. “Often, the sun person [Kendrick] represents all that the Lilith person [Drake] wants but can never quite “catch.” There is an illusive vibe to this relationship. The Lilith person may feel somewhat less-than or “bad.” Lilith conjunct sun in synastry is a test for the Lilith person because their most taboo qualities such as obsession and anger will be activated, but it’s also a test for the sun person. The lesson is for the sun individual to stand their ground and follow their inner voice. Lilith is neither good nor bad, and the sun person can share in some of the Lilith partner’s activities without merging.”
This resonates with the fact that despite Drake’s huge commercial success, he is deeply jealous of Kendrick’s critical success. In Family Matters Drake took a jab at Kendrick’s acclaim (“Kendrick just opened his mouth, someone go hand him a Grammy right now”), and the beef between them played out similarly, with many rap fans deciding that Kendrick won before even listening to Drake. I think it’s obvious that Kendrick is a stronger rapper, but it’s also clear that Drake wasn’t given a fair shake.
Drake’s Lilith makes a tight trine to Kendrick’s Mercury. “Both the Lilith person and the Mercury person help each other to bring unhealed deeper wounds and unconscious emotion to the surface and articulate deeper, wild instincts. Mercury person [Kendrick] helps Lilith person [Drake] make sense of their inner restlessness and insecurities, sexual passions and unresolved rage. Mercury person may find Lilith person to be highly emotional but is also intrigued by Lilith person’s edgy and unique perspective.” It’s remarkable that both of their Liliths are interlocked with each other’s inner planets, creating a push-pull, love-hate, shadow-enlightening dynamic between the two.
I think the obsession goes both ways, and that part of the reason Kendrick fought back so viciously was because Drake triggers something in him shown through the Lilith synastry. Drake shows Kendrick what he could be–a charismatic playboy enjoying his fame and money to the fullest. And in engaging with the feud he stooped to a lower level, making unsupported claims about Drake’s supposed secret daughter, and writing a rap song (Meet the Grahams) addressed to Drake’s 5 year old son opening with “Dear Adonis, I’m sorry that man is your father.” All is fair in rap battles–or is it? Questlove called it out, saying on Instagram: “Nobody won the war. This wasn’t about skill. This was a wrestling match level mudslinging and takedown by any means necessary — women & children (& actual facts) be damned.”
Kendrick’s latest diss track Not Like Us has just debuted at number one on the Billboard Top 100, and it’s clear this battle has propelled him to another level of stardom. Drake’s Regulus ascendant arrogance and Scorpionic desire to fight to the death drove him to attack the strongest living rapper, and now he’s dealing with the fallout. Kendrick’s streams of his back catalog are up 50%, while Drake’s are down 5% and his reputation has taken a massive knock. But Kendrick has taken a hit as well. Having rap’s two biggest stars accusing each other of heinous crimes might drive up streams in the short run, but it’s a dangerous game. Astrology helps us understand why these two polar opposites are so intertwined, and why their mutual dislike has spurred on such a captivating firestorm.
2024.05.14 16:31 thinkingstranger May 13, 2024
Today illustrated that the Democrats have become America’s cheerleaders, emphasizing how investment in the nation’s infrastructure has created jobs and rebuilt the country. This week, the Biden-Harris administration is touting its investments in rebuilding roads and bridges, making sure Americans have clean water, getting rid of pollution, expanding access to high-speed internet, and building a clean energy economy, contrasting that success with Trump’s eternal announcements of an “Infrastructure Week” that never came.
The White House today announced that it has awarded nearly $454 billion in funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, including more than 56,000 projects across more than 4,500 communities across the nation. Those include fixing more than 165,000 miles of roads and more than 9,400 bridges and improving more than 450 ports and 300 airport terminals. It has funded more than 1,400 drinking water and wastewater projects and projects to replace up to 1.7 million toxic lead pipes, as well as more than 8,000 low- and zero-emission buses. It has funded 95 previously unfunded Superfund projects to clean up contaminated sites. It has improved the electrical grid and funded 12,000 miles of high-speed internet infrastructure, and exposed internet junk fees.
The White House explained that this investment is making it cheaper to install clean energy technology and lowering families’ monthly energy bills, and highlighted today the available rebates to enable people to take advantage of the new technologies.
On Wednesday, May 8, a report from the Semiconductor Industry Association and the Boston Consulting Group explored the “breathtaking speed,” as the president of the semiconductor organization put it, at which the industry is growing. In the Financial Times on May 9, John Thornhill reported that the CHIPS and Science Act, which provided a $39 billion investment in the semiconductor industry, has “primed a torrent of private sector investment.” With the influx of both federal money and an additional $447 billion of private investment in 83 projects in 25 states, the report forecasts that the U.S. will increase its share of global manufacturing capacity for leading-edge chips from today’s rate of 0% to 28% by 2032. Thornhill compared this investment to that spurred by Russia’s 1957 launch of the Sputnik satellite.
The Economist yesterday announced that the U.S. “is in the midst of an extraordinary startup boom,” and explored “[h]ow the country revived its “go-getting spirit.”
In contrast to the Democrats’ confidence in America, the Republicans are all-in on the idea that the country is an apocalyptic wasteland. At a rally in New Jersey Saturday, Trump announced: “On day one we will throw out Bidenomics and reinstate MAGAnomics.” He promised to extend his 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
But the gist of his speech was an angry, vitriolic picture of a failing nation full of “enemies” that are “more dangerous” than China and Russia and who are “going to destroy our country.” In his telling, the criminal case against him in Manhattan is “bullsh*t,” and President Biden has done more damage than the “ten worst presidents in the history of our country” combined: “[h]e’s a fool; he’s not a smart man…[h]e’s a bad guy…the worst president ever, of any country. The whole world is laughing at him.”
Trump lied that other countries are “emptying out their mental institutions into the United States, our beautiful country. And now the prison populations all over the world are down. They don’t want to report that the mental-institution population is down because they’re taking people from insane asylums and from mental institutions.” Then he riffed into “the late great Hannibal Lecter,” the fictional murderer and cannibal in the film The Silence of the Lambs, apparently to suggest that similar individuals are migrating to the U.S.
House Republicans this week are working to pass a nonbinding resolution to condemn Biden’s immigration policies, although it was Republicans, under orders from Trump, who killed a strong bipartisan immigration bill earlier this year.
The only way to turn back this apocalypse, Trump and his supporters insist, is to put Trump and his team back into the White House. From there, Republicans will return those they consider “real” Americans to power.
The last few days have added new information about what that means. On Thursday, May 9, Senators Katie Britt (R-AL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) introduced the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) act. Britt—who is best known for her disastrous response to Biden’s State of the Union speech from her kitchen—said the measure would provide a federal database of resources for pregnant women and women parenting young children, but that information excludes anything that touches on abortion.
The measure is clear that it enlists the government in opposition to abortion, but more than that, it establishes that the government will create a database of the names and contact information of pregnant women, which the government can then use “to follow up with users on additional resources that would be helpful for the users to review.”
A government database of pregnant women would give the federal government unprecedented control over individuals, and it is especially chilling after the story Caroline Kitchener broke in the Washington Post on May 3, that a Texas man, Collin Davis, filed a petition to stop his ex-partner from traveling to Colorado, where abortion is legal, to obtain an abortion. Should she do so, his lawyer wrote, he would “pursue wrongful-death claims against anyone involved in the killing of his unborn child.” Now Davis wants to be able to depose his former partner along with others he says are “complicit” in the abortion.
Antiabortion activists are also seeking to make mifepristone and misoprostol, drugs used in many abortions, hard to obtain. In Louisiana, state lawmakers are considering classifying the drugs as “controlled dangerous substances,” which would make possessing them carry penalties of up to ten years in prison and fines of up to $75,000.
More than 240 Louisiana doctors wrote to lawmakers saying that the drugs have none of the addictive characteristics associated with dangerous controlled substances and warning that the drugs are crucial for inducing routine labor and preventing catastrophic hemorrhage after delivery, in addition to their use in abortions. “Given its historically poor maternal health outcomes, Louisiana should prioritize safe and evidence-based care for pregnant women,” the doctors wrote.
Louisiana lawmakers also rejected a bill that would have allowed anyone under age 17, the age of consent in Louisiana, to have an abortion if they became pregnant after rape or incest. Passionate testimony from those who suffered such attacks or who treated pregnant girls as young as 8 failed to convince the Republican lawmakers to support the measure. “That baby [in the womb] is innocent.… We have to hang on to that,” said Republican state representative Dodie Horton.
Today, at the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization promoting Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander participation and representation at all levels of the political process, Vice President Kamala Harris encouraged young people to innovate and to move into spaces from which they have been traditionally excluded.
“So here’s the thing about breaking barriers,” she said. “Breaking barriers does not mean you start on one side of the barrier and you end up on the other side. There’s breaking involved. And when you break things you get cut. And you may bleed. And it is worth it every time…. We have to know that sometimes people will open the door for you and leave it open. Sometimes they won’t. And then you need to kick that f*cking door down.”
Harris’s advice reflects the history that happened on this date in 1862, when the enslaved mariners on board the shallow-draft C.S.S. Planter gathered up their families, fired up the ship’s boilers, and sailed out of the Charleston, South Carolina, harbor. The three white officers of the ship had gone ashore, leaving enslaved 23-year-old pilot Robert Smalls to take control. Smalls knew how to steer the ship and give the proper signals to the Confederates at Fort Sumter, Fort Moultrie, and three other checkpoints.
Smalls piloted the Planter, the sixteen formerly enslaved people on it, and a head full of intelligence about the Confederate fortifications at Charleston to the U.S. Navy. In Confederate hands, the Planter had surveyed waterways and laid mines; now that information was in U.S. hands. Smalls went on to pilot naval vessels during the war, and in 1864 he bought the house formerly owned by the man who had enslaved him.
A natural leader, Smalls went on to become a businessman, politician, and strong advocate for education. After serving in the 1868 South Carolina Constitutional Convention that made school attendance compulsory and provided for universal male suffrage, he went on to serve in the South Carolina legislature from 1868 to 1874, when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served until 1887. When President Barack Obama signed an executive order establishing the nation’s first national monument concerning Reconstruction, he cited the life of Robert Smalls.
—
Notes:
https://newjerseymonitor.com/2024/05/12/trump-brings-2024-campaign-to-the-jersey-shore/
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a60774814/trump-rally-new-jersey-weird-speech/
https://www.britt.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MOMS-Act_FINAL-Britt_Rubio_Cramer1.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/11/katie-britt-proposes-federal-database-to-collect-data-on-pregnant-people
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/05/03/texas-abortion-investigations/
https://lailluminator.com/2024/05/08/rape-incest/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/05/13/abortion-pills-louisiana-controlled-substance/
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/05/12/america-is-in-the-midst-of-an-extraordinary-startup-boom
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/13/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-kicks-off-infrastructure-week-by-highlighting-historic-results-spurred-by-president-bidens-investing-in-america-agenda/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/13/fact-sheet-president-bidens-investing-in-america-agenda-is-helping-american-families-across-the-country-save-money/
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/icymi-the-great-american-innovation-engine-firing-again
https://www.ft.com/content/0d39e8f0-38ba-40aa-8ec8-d04e82afb690
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/politics/chips-grants-fuel-industry-growth.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/11/trump-rally-new-jersey-trial-fascists-00157482
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/12/presidential-proclamations-establishment-reconstruction-era-national
https://www.nps.gov/people/robert-smalls.htm
Twitter (X):
cspan/status/1790048826440503495
Fritschnestatus/1790051154887340473
rosiewestwood/status/1788291766866567439
CecileRichards/status/1789020452855140723
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/may-13-2024
submitted by thinkingstranger to HeatherCoxRichardson [link] [comments]
The White House today announced that it has awarded nearly $454 billion in funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, including more than 56,000 projects across more than 4,500 communities across the nation. Those include fixing more than 165,000 miles of roads and more than 9,400 bridges and improving more than 450 ports and 300 airport terminals. It has funded more than 1,400 drinking water and wastewater projects and projects to replace up to 1.7 million toxic lead pipes, as well as more than 8,000 low- and zero-emission buses. It has funded 95 previously unfunded Superfund projects to clean up contaminated sites. It has improved the electrical grid and funded 12,000 miles of high-speed internet infrastructure, and exposed internet junk fees.
The White House explained that this investment is making it cheaper to install clean energy technology and lowering families’ monthly energy bills, and highlighted today the available rebates to enable people to take advantage of the new technologies.
On Wednesday, May 8, a report from the Semiconductor Industry Association and the Boston Consulting Group explored the “breathtaking speed,” as the president of the semiconductor organization put it, at which the industry is growing. In the Financial Times on May 9, John Thornhill reported that the CHIPS and Science Act, which provided a $39 billion investment in the semiconductor industry, has “primed a torrent of private sector investment.” With the influx of both federal money and an additional $447 billion of private investment in 83 projects in 25 states, the report forecasts that the U.S. will increase its share of global manufacturing capacity for leading-edge chips from today’s rate of 0% to 28% by 2032. Thornhill compared this investment to that spurred by Russia’s 1957 launch of the Sputnik satellite.
The Economist yesterday announced that the U.S. “is in the midst of an extraordinary startup boom,” and explored “[h]ow the country revived its “go-getting spirit.”
In contrast to the Democrats’ confidence in America, the Republicans are all-in on the idea that the country is an apocalyptic wasteland. At a rally in New Jersey Saturday, Trump announced: “On day one we will throw out Bidenomics and reinstate MAGAnomics.” He promised to extend his 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
But the gist of his speech was an angry, vitriolic picture of a failing nation full of “enemies” that are “more dangerous” than China and Russia and who are “going to destroy our country.” In his telling, the criminal case against him in Manhattan is “bullsh*t,” and President Biden has done more damage than the “ten worst presidents in the history of our country” combined: “[h]e’s a fool; he’s not a smart man…[h]e’s a bad guy…the worst president ever, of any country. The whole world is laughing at him.”
Trump lied that other countries are “emptying out their mental institutions into the United States, our beautiful country. And now the prison populations all over the world are down. They don’t want to report that the mental-institution population is down because they’re taking people from insane asylums and from mental institutions.” Then he riffed into “the late great Hannibal Lecter,” the fictional murderer and cannibal in the film The Silence of the Lambs, apparently to suggest that similar individuals are migrating to the U.S.
House Republicans this week are working to pass a nonbinding resolution to condemn Biden’s immigration policies, although it was Republicans, under orders from Trump, who killed a strong bipartisan immigration bill earlier this year.
The only way to turn back this apocalypse, Trump and his supporters insist, is to put Trump and his team back into the White House. From there, Republicans will return those they consider “real” Americans to power.
The last few days have added new information about what that means. On Thursday, May 9, Senators Katie Britt (R-AL), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) introduced the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) act. Britt—who is best known for her disastrous response to Biden’s State of the Union speech from her kitchen—said the measure would provide a federal database of resources for pregnant women and women parenting young children, but that information excludes anything that touches on abortion.
The measure is clear that it enlists the government in opposition to abortion, but more than that, it establishes that the government will create a database of the names and contact information of pregnant women, which the government can then use “to follow up with users on additional resources that would be helpful for the users to review.”
A government database of pregnant women would give the federal government unprecedented control over individuals, and it is especially chilling after the story Caroline Kitchener broke in the Washington Post on May 3, that a Texas man, Collin Davis, filed a petition to stop his ex-partner from traveling to Colorado, where abortion is legal, to obtain an abortion. Should she do so, his lawyer wrote, he would “pursue wrongful-death claims against anyone involved in the killing of his unborn child.” Now Davis wants to be able to depose his former partner along with others he says are “complicit” in the abortion.
Antiabortion activists are also seeking to make mifepristone and misoprostol, drugs used in many abortions, hard to obtain. In Louisiana, state lawmakers are considering classifying the drugs as “controlled dangerous substances,” which would make possessing them carry penalties of up to ten years in prison and fines of up to $75,000.
More than 240 Louisiana doctors wrote to lawmakers saying that the drugs have none of the addictive characteristics associated with dangerous controlled substances and warning that the drugs are crucial for inducing routine labor and preventing catastrophic hemorrhage after delivery, in addition to their use in abortions. “Given its historically poor maternal health outcomes, Louisiana should prioritize safe and evidence-based care for pregnant women,” the doctors wrote.
Louisiana lawmakers also rejected a bill that would have allowed anyone under age 17, the age of consent in Louisiana, to have an abortion if they became pregnant after rape or incest. Passionate testimony from those who suffered such attacks or who treated pregnant girls as young as 8 failed to convince the Republican lawmakers to support the measure. “That baby [in the womb] is innocent.… We have to hang on to that,” said Republican state representative Dodie Horton.
Today, at the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization promoting Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander participation and representation at all levels of the political process, Vice President Kamala Harris encouraged young people to innovate and to move into spaces from which they have been traditionally excluded.
“So here’s the thing about breaking barriers,” she said. “Breaking barriers does not mean you start on one side of the barrier and you end up on the other side. There’s breaking involved. And when you break things you get cut. And you may bleed. And it is worth it every time…. We have to know that sometimes people will open the door for you and leave it open. Sometimes they won’t. And then you need to kick that f*cking door down.”
Harris’s advice reflects the history that happened on this date in 1862, when the enslaved mariners on board the shallow-draft C.S.S. Planter gathered up their families, fired up the ship’s boilers, and sailed out of the Charleston, South Carolina, harbor. The three white officers of the ship had gone ashore, leaving enslaved 23-year-old pilot Robert Smalls to take control. Smalls knew how to steer the ship and give the proper signals to the Confederates at Fort Sumter, Fort Moultrie, and three other checkpoints.
Smalls piloted the Planter, the sixteen formerly enslaved people on it, and a head full of intelligence about the Confederate fortifications at Charleston to the U.S. Navy. In Confederate hands, the Planter had surveyed waterways and laid mines; now that information was in U.S. hands. Smalls went on to pilot naval vessels during the war, and in 1864 he bought the house formerly owned by the man who had enslaved him.
A natural leader, Smalls went on to become a businessman, politician, and strong advocate for education. After serving in the 1868 South Carolina Constitutional Convention that made school attendance compulsory and provided for universal male suffrage, he went on to serve in the South Carolina legislature from 1868 to 1874, when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served until 1887. When President Barack Obama signed an executive order establishing the nation’s first national monument concerning Reconstruction, he cited the life of Robert Smalls.
—
Notes:
https://newjerseymonitor.com/2024/05/12/trump-brings-2024-campaign-to-the-jersey-shore/
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a60774814/trump-rally-new-jersey-weird-speech/
https://www.britt.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MOMS-Act_FINAL-Britt_Rubio_Cramer1.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/11/katie-britt-proposes-federal-database-to-collect-data-on-pregnant-people
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/05/03/texas-abortion-investigations/
https://lailluminator.com/2024/05/08/rape-incest/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/05/13/abortion-pills-louisiana-controlled-substance/
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/05/12/america-is-in-the-midst-of-an-extraordinary-startup-boom
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/13/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-kicks-off-infrastructure-week-by-highlighting-historic-results-spurred-by-president-bidens-investing-in-america-agenda/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/13/fact-sheet-president-bidens-investing-in-america-agenda-is-helping-american-families-across-the-country-save-money/
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/icymi-the-great-american-innovation-engine-firing-again
https://www.ft.com/content/0d39e8f0-38ba-40aa-8ec8-d04e82afb690
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/politics/chips-grants-fuel-industry-growth.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/11/trump-rally-new-jersey-trial-fascists-00157482
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/12/presidential-proclamations-establishment-reconstruction-era-national
https://www.nps.gov/people/robert-smalls.htm
Twitter (X):
cspan/status/1790048826440503495
Fritschnestatus/1790051154887340473
rosiewestwood/status/1788291766866567439
CecileRichards/status/1789020452855140723
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/may-13-2024
2024.05.14 16:25 mlke Clearing up what "niche" means for everyone
I've seen a lot of situations recently where people think the term “niche” represents a company that only makes perfumes. This isn’t correct and I think a more nuanced discussion is needed, especially since the term is thrown around so much. I’ve expanded on the actual definitions below, but here are some cliff notes:
Further, houses like Dior and Chanel are best called “designer” brands but labeling the entire fragrance output as either mainstream or niche isn’t useful. Chanel may release a stinky animalic incense fragrance priced at $450 that’s only sold at one of its boutiques. This could very easily be called a niche fragrance. Calling it a high end luxury fragrance is another possibility. The point being that unique, polarizing scents still come out of high end design houses and they defy easy categorization.
The point of all this is that the term niche and designer are essentially just not that useful in describing a perfume. They don't describe the quality of the ingredients, they don't necessarily describe the smell, and they leave open many other questions about the product in question. Because the term also describes the overall size of the target audience, a growing fragrance market and increasingly popular brands may shift the balance of what that actually means. Stores like Le Labo are almost ubiquitous in large cities now, although some of their scent profiles and prices are still somewhat unique and out of reach compared to something more mainstream like Dior Homme or Versace Eros. Because of that the definition seems to have become more rigid and easily applied at the expense of its real meaning. One of the other problems is that describing a brand in terms of what type of product they make also says nothing inherently useful.
Now, onto the actual definitions that some people may cite to support this “single producer” idea:
noun - a specialized segment of the market for a particular kind of product or service
Note that this is meant to represent a segment of the market- not the company itself. In context you would say "A niche exists for people who love animalic notes." or "I am going to exploit this niche and produce products that service it". If you take a company, and your only way to describe that company is to say "they only produce perfumes" you are saying exactly nothing about the niche they fill in the fragrance market as a whole. They could be trying to capture a large segment of that market through mainstream scent profiles distributed through Sephora, or they could be focusing on novel ideas like the brand Scents of Wood.
adjective - denoting products, services, or interests that appeal to a small, specialized section of the population
This is the version most people use in discussions. Consider the fact that it again says nothing at all about the amount of products a company produces- it describes a quality of the products themselves. For instance, a single company can produce products that simultaneously appeal to a very small segment of the fragrance community, while also selling products that appeal to a very small segment of the incense community. Or maybe they also sell hand-crafted wooden moccasins lined with rare peruvian wool that cost $600 each. Just because they cater to two niche markets, does not exclude either of the products they make from being "niche". In this way the company has found two niches to cater to.
submitted by mlke to fragrance [link] [comments]
- Niche simply means that the fragrance has a small target audience. This can either be through availability (highly limited edition, a small indie distributor), unique smell, or to a lesser degree an extremely high price.
- The opposite of “niche” is not “designer”, it is “mainstream”. The term designer fragrance is typically meant to indicate a fashion house that produces fragrances. Think Dior, Chanel, Prada, etc. This is where there exists a grey area in nomenclature and the limits of these terms begin to reveal themselves.
Further, houses like Dior and Chanel are best called “designer” brands but labeling the entire fragrance output as either mainstream or niche isn’t useful. Chanel may release a stinky animalic incense fragrance priced at $450 that’s only sold at one of its boutiques. This could very easily be called a niche fragrance. Calling it a high end luxury fragrance is another possibility. The point being that unique, polarizing scents still come out of high end design houses and they defy easy categorization.
The point of all this is that the term niche and designer are essentially just not that useful in describing a perfume. They don't describe the quality of the ingredients, they don't necessarily describe the smell, and they leave open many other questions about the product in question. Because the term also describes the overall size of the target audience, a growing fragrance market and increasingly popular brands may shift the balance of what that actually means. Stores like Le Labo are almost ubiquitous in large cities now, although some of their scent profiles and prices are still somewhat unique and out of reach compared to something more mainstream like Dior Homme or Versace Eros. Because of that the definition seems to have become more rigid and easily applied at the expense of its real meaning. One of the other problems is that describing a brand in terms of what type of product they make also says nothing inherently useful.
Now, onto the actual definitions that some people may cite to support this “single producer” idea:
noun - a specialized segment of the market for a particular kind of product or service
Note that this is meant to represent a segment of the market- not the company itself. In context you would say "A niche exists for people who love animalic notes." or "I am going to exploit this niche and produce products that service it". If you take a company, and your only way to describe that company is to say "they only produce perfumes" you are saying exactly nothing about the niche they fill in the fragrance market as a whole. They could be trying to capture a large segment of that market through mainstream scent profiles distributed through Sephora, or they could be focusing on novel ideas like the brand Scents of Wood.
adjective - denoting products, services, or interests that appeal to a small, specialized section of the population
This is the version most people use in discussions. Consider the fact that it again says nothing at all about the amount of products a company produces- it describes a quality of the products themselves. For instance, a single company can produce products that simultaneously appeal to a very small segment of the fragrance community, while also selling products that appeal to a very small segment of the incense community. Or maybe they also sell hand-crafted wooden moccasins lined with rare peruvian wool that cost $600 each. Just because they cater to two niche markets, does not exclude either of the products they make from being "niche". In this way the company has found two niches to cater to.
2024.05.14 06:31 Anenome5 Society without a State
https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.
[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]
submitted by Anenome5 to Libertarian [link] [comments]
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that
Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,
It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:
If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:
Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.
[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]
2024.05.14 06:30 Anenome5 Society without a State - Rothbard
https://mises.org/mises-daily/society-without-state
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.
[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]
submitted by Anenome5 to unacracy [link] [comments]
In attempting to outline how a “society without a state” — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not “really” anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way “coercive.” Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term “coercion” can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it “physical violence or the threat thereof,” with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, “claims and exercises a monopoly of crime” over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists “assume that all people are good” and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are “good” in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the “nature of man,” given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a “necessary evil” instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
One important caveat before we begin the body of this paper: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
A final caveat: the anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.
One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.
Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes — in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property — would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.
An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.
In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.
Thus, William C. Wooldridge has written that
Wooldridge adds the important point that, in addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-à-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. “In other words,” states Wooldridge, “the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral “law,” has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has cease to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. Wooldridge concludes that “if an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the statute of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law….”2
It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. Wooldridge points out, however, that arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. He points, furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. He might have added the private courts of shippers which developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.
How then did these private, “anarchistic,” and voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary “enforcement,” indeed proved highly successful. Wooldridge writes that “the merchants’ courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail…. Nevertheless, it is apparent that … [their] decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place…. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows … proved if anything more effective than physical coercion.”3 Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. Wooldridge writes that it was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts,
It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people’s credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.
How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.
Thus, the Tannehills emphasize:
If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators:
Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?
In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be “vertically integrated,” for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out less benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.
Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man’s person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In my view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society (on which see further below) is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.
Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.
Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty — unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.
No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. “Two” is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.
If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force — force in defense of person and property — by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.
It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no “district attorney” to press charges on behalf of “society.” Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.
What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy’s heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows from the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion.
Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation — not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby’s murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all.
Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the “Prudential Police Agency” should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the “Mutual” or “Equitable” Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine “checks and balances” of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged “balancing” agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly “protection service” of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of “protection.” It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty “protection racket” on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: “Pay us for your ‘protection’ or else.” In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a “protection racket” emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.
Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should “Prudential” become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. “Prudential” would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed “sovereigns” bent on promoting the “common good” or the “general welfare.” And lacking such legitimacy, “Prudential” would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.
Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another.7 But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones’s court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.
But again I see no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.
In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.
There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders — though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well.8 The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason.9 The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.
Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.
[Murray Rothbard delivered this talk 32 years ago today at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), Washington, DC: December 28, 1974. It was first published in The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January 1975, available in PDF and ePub.]
2024.05.14 01:27 Certain-Woodpecker63 Breaking Through the Simp Phase: The Good, the Bad, and the Lovely
29M - USA - 2.5 Months
One concern that I had with the idea of SR when I first began contemplating the topic was that once "charged up" I would begin to behave foolishly concerning my dating prospects, and that the buildup of sexual energy would cause me to simp after women more heavily than if I was depleted, where I perceived I would be able to "play it cool" with girls. This was certainly the case to a significant extent during my initial streaks, and these types of outcomes were an impediment for me to realizing the advantages of SR in my early twenties.
The reason this was initially an issue for me is that the beginning of the beginning, as in, before any streaks longer than a month were accomplished my brain was highly sexualized causing me to behave in a deranged way once the buildup began. This still occurs, and is why in my opinion SR can be detrimental to a successful dating life because it oftentimes pedestalizes the act of sex, which can create a loop of Oxytocin deficiency which I believe is what causes people to enter their 'loner' phase.
I believe the cure for this is to break through successfully in personal endeavors unrelated to sex, which creates positive dopamine associated with elements outside of scoring with the opposite gender. My current realization is that before you're able to see improvements in behavior, there's going to be a dip and your behavior is actually going to get worse in many cases. This is of course referred to as a flatline, the longer you're able to go without O, the less extended flatlines will become with each subsequent streak. I also believe in the elasticity of streaks, for several years ago when I first began this journey I accomplished a 5 month streak, and my overall demeanor became pretty negative. That first 5 month streak was probably the most depressive period of my life, but it was a culmination of reaping what I had sewed for upwards of 10 years prior to that. Therefore, I can't blame the streak itself for this depressive time.
However, it did create some antisocial behaviors that I'm still unlearning and that I didn't have an issue with as much prior to that great streak. For one thing, my internet behavior became far more anonymous, and to this day my social media habits have shifted from representing my real identity through instagram/facebook, to browsing anonymously through reddit, youtube. This shift I believe created a psychological dissociation from my real world social media profiles, and now I have a l higher evel of anxiety about going on Instagram as myself that I consider to be an impediment. Of course, Social Media is generally considered harmful overall, but if the reason I'm not going on it is because of an anxiety, I consider that just as harmful. So that's something I'm working on.
When one goes 'monk mode' for too long, one may begin to cultivate the desire to begin forming attachments to girls again in the future, but find it more challenging to ride that bicycle compared to if they had not allowed the muscle of PUA to atrophy. That being said, re-integrating socially is definitely possible after a long SR streak, and in doing so you'll still possess any SR benefits that you cultivated during a lonersome period. Overall, I'd say the effort to change behaviors and re-invent yourself is more valuable than the loss of social calibration that can occur. I'm speaking on this topic from the experience of being unemployed for 8 months and then being thrust back into a job that required a high volume of person-to-person interactions.
Benefits on this streak:
So far, this streak I've been mainly focused on interpersonal dynamics, but today for the first time in a while I was able to go deeper into my own world once again. I grabbed that bull by the horns & wrote this post, and focused on a side hustle.
submitted by Certain-Woodpecker63 to Semenretention [link] [comments]
One concern that I had with the idea of SR when I first began contemplating the topic was that once "charged up" I would begin to behave foolishly concerning my dating prospects, and that the buildup of sexual energy would cause me to simp after women more heavily than if I was depleted, where I perceived I would be able to "play it cool" with girls. This was certainly the case to a significant extent during my initial streaks, and these types of outcomes were an impediment for me to realizing the advantages of SR in my early twenties.
The reason this was initially an issue for me is that the beginning of the beginning, as in, before any streaks longer than a month were accomplished my brain was highly sexualized causing me to behave in a deranged way once the buildup began. This still occurs, and is why in my opinion SR can be detrimental to a successful dating life because it oftentimes pedestalizes the act of sex, which can create a loop of Oxytocin deficiency which I believe is what causes people to enter their 'loner' phase.
I believe the cure for this is to break through successfully in personal endeavors unrelated to sex, which creates positive dopamine associated with elements outside of scoring with the opposite gender. My current realization is that before you're able to see improvements in behavior, there's going to be a dip and your behavior is actually going to get worse in many cases. This is of course referred to as a flatline, the longer you're able to go without O, the less extended flatlines will become with each subsequent streak. I also believe in the elasticity of streaks, for several years ago when I first began this journey I accomplished a 5 month streak, and my overall demeanor became pretty negative. That first 5 month streak was probably the most depressive period of my life, but it was a culmination of reaping what I had sewed for upwards of 10 years prior to that. Therefore, I can't blame the streak itself for this depressive time.
However, it did create some antisocial behaviors that I'm still unlearning and that I didn't have an issue with as much prior to that great streak. For one thing, my internet behavior became far more anonymous, and to this day my social media habits have shifted from representing my real identity through instagram/facebook, to browsing anonymously through reddit, youtube. This shift I believe created a psychological dissociation from my real world social media profiles, and now I have a l higher evel of anxiety about going on Instagram as myself that I consider to be an impediment. Of course, Social Media is generally considered harmful overall, but if the reason I'm not going on it is because of an anxiety, I consider that just as harmful. So that's something I'm working on.
When one goes 'monk mode' for too long, one may begin to cultivate the desire to begin forming attachments to girls again in the future, but find it more challenging to ride that bicycle compared to if they had not allowed the muscle of PUA to atrophy. That being said, re-integrating socially is definitely possible after a long SR streak, and in doing so you'll still possess any SR benefits that you cultivated during a lonersome period. Overall, I'd say the effort to change behaviors and re-invent yourself is more valuable than the loss of social calibration that can occur. I'm speaking on this topic from the experience of being unemployed for 8 months and then being thrust back into a job that required a high volume of person-to-person interactions.
Benefits on this streak:
- Found a new better higher paying job. I've been barbacking at a prominent restaurant for the last 4 months but I finally received a bartending offer at a different quality downtown establishment. I'm using all these adjectives because many restaurants are trash to bartend at, but the new spot is a place I am actually blessed to be working at.
- Reconnected with a childhood friend. They're doing quite well in their career and the wellness gained from my SR streak definitely leveled any psychological issues this would have otherwise caused between our friendship.
- Polarization with coworkers. Even though I'm sometimes overly aggressive / moody at work, SR positions me to be the person people are talking about rather than a sideline gossiper (this could be in my head, I'm not sure).
- Overall sense of optimism and deeper sense of purpose, even if that purpose is struggling to find an outlet.
- Physical: muscle growth, low body fat, Improvement in muscle tone, I'm lean af, my hairline is rock solid, teeth haven't been in pain once.
- Attraction from females at work, one extremely hot girl put her face right by mine the other day and told her friend who I knew from high school 'yep this guy is good vibes'. Still not cold approaching people outside of work as much as I would like, but people can tell I've got an energy to me
- This one girl at work hit me with a pullback and I've overall been handling it like a boss, even though these situations cause a greater sense of despair when on a decent streak, I've gained increased resilience to rejection and have maintained a strong demeanor, and I'm slowly become better at 'spinning plates' than I otherwise would be.
- This other girl at work has defended me in multiple instances and generally been supportive of my turbulent period of SR and in over-pursuing this other girl. This bartender was giving me a hard time and I eventually told her to 'chill tf out', she informed the manager. The other girl fist bumped me after she heard about it, and more recently when a manager snapped at me, she later defended me and said she "got my back".
- Haven't checked my T levels but I would estimate they have likely doubled based off how I feel.
- Resting chad face, the first physical changes that come with longer-term consistent streaks of at least a month over 2 years have certainly caused my jawline to improve and my face to widen. Natural 'mewing'
- Disassociation from past identity and sense of self. SR lets me feel that real change is possible. This sometimes manifests as a decrease in tasks/side hustles pursued in a day, but that is because I am consolidated and more conscious of avoiding spreading myself thin in too many directions, the way I would do in the past.
- Become capable of saying 'I love you' to my parents, something that we were never able to do for years. Overcame certain mental blocks.
- Decreased programming from YouTube & Social Media, I've found myself questioning some of the self-improvement content / general content I consume more than I probably would otherwise. Without SR, I would just be using this type of content to cope & clinging to every word. Greater critical thinking skills & self awareness.
So far, this streak I've been mainly focused on interpersonal dynamics, but today for the first time in a while I was able to go deeper into my own world once again. I grabbed that bull by the horns & wrote this post, and focused on a side hustle.
2024.05.13 17:43 ranc1 Broken Looking-Glass Self is Social anxiety
What is Looking-Glass Self? This is concept in sociology, discovered in 1902 by Cooley - and his theory states that we form our own identity based on what we think other people think who we are. In fact, the whole sociology is based on social anxiety- the very same social anxiety that psychiatry (CBT and DSM) are pathologizing and trying to cure and destroy and present as mental illness.
Without social anxiety, without ability to worry what other people think about us - we would lose social skills, empathy and civilization norms - such as not eating others.
"If it weren't for the nervous people in the world, we'd all still be eating each other." The Misfits (1961) https://youtu.be/h56iL7vK5Y0
When people consume chicken - they eat the flesh of animals because there is no ability to connect with the slaughtered animals as conscious beings who are able to think and perceive us. So when we destroy social anxiety- our ability to worry what other people think - we will become psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists. This also provide us with important information of self expression and holding toxic people accountable - by stating the facts and truth. Toxic people learn to suppress social anxiety - and this gives them ability to be cruel. And the only way to probe their delusions is to speak the truth to them. And that is why toxic people mock and go into hysteria mode - because their suppressed conscience and morality and ethics are eating them from inside.
Dolphins are not caught with smiles but cruelly with hooks, Michele. One day you will learn to be cruel. Caravaggio (1986) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF12uM_GK74
Sociology is based on social anxiety - that we form our own identity based on society. We need other people to provide us information who we are and how to express ourselves. The language is the very first thing that society gives us to define who we are - by using the very words that society is using.
Theories of the Self
William James (1890): A person has "as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry and image of him in their minds"
Charles Cooley (1902): Views of self reflect the standpoints of significant others in our lives ("looking-glass self")
George Herbert Mead (1934): We imagine the perspectives of others and incorporate these into our self views - and that this occurs continuously as we interact with others on an ongoing, moment to moment basis.
Having a distorted looking glass (incorrectly imagining others’ opinions of us) can cause bad feelings, or a negative self-image. https://wa01001786.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/WA01001786/Centricity/Domain/70/Socialization%20Notes.pdf
What happens when we are around toxic people - is that our identity is deformed as well. CBT claims, along with DSM, that our worry what other people think - is personality disorder, called Borderline:
Reality testing is ability to perceive reality properly. Without too much deviation from facts. Borderline refer to you if want to know anything about reality. “Do you think so too?” Narcissist will tell you "am I not genius". YT Richard Grannon & Prof. Sam Vaknin about Fantasy
Borderline personality disorder is a mental health condition that affects the way people feel about themselves and others, making it hard to function in everyday life. It includes a pattern of unstable, intense relationships, as well as impulsiveness and an unhealthy way of seeing themselves. (Mayo Clinic)
The truth is - if we are around toxic people, their criticism will affect our self worth. Their constant nagging, constant nitpicking, constant error finding and constant drama about anything that moves - will have an effect on our sense of stability and security in the world. This is not disorder. This is simply how society works. In order to heal our mental health issues - we need to repair connections with other people - which may include minimizing exposure to toxic people or cutting toxic people completely off from our lives.
We will never feel secure, confident, worthy - if there are toxic people around us who are criticizing us and others all the time.
Improving our relationships is improving our mental health. William Glasser
Interpersonal strife with those close to us leads to rifts and resentments that produce symptoms of mental illness; these problems are, in fact, the logical consequence of troubled relationships. Glasser emphasizes that lasting psychological problems are usually caused by problems in our personal relationships (rather than signifying a biochemical abnormality in the brain), and distress can be remedied through repairing these relationships without recourse to psych drugs. DK psychology book, WILLIAM GLASSER
Being able to feel safe with other people is probably the single most important aspect of mental health; safe connections are fundamental to meaningful and satisfying lives. Dr. Bessel van der Kolk
In another words: feel safe with other people = mental health
The single most important issue for traumatized people is to find a sense of safety in their own bodies. 🟦 Bessel A. van der Kolk
Toxic people cause social anxiety. That is why social anxiety is called social+anxiety. There is social element that is causing the anxiety. There is social factor contributing to anxiety. It is not called self-anxiety. We did not catch social anxiety by walking randomly in the street when it was rainy, so we caught a common cold. It is not like we felt bored in our lives so we invented neuroticism to keep us active and occupied. Social anxiety must start in childhood with ACE and ACoA where we learned from early on - that life is dangerous, that people are not safe, that we must worry to be hyper-vigilant and that we are unworthy if we make any kind of mistakes. We learned that our flaws, imperfections and mistakes are our core personality - abnormal and inept.
Society attacks early, when the individual is helpless. B. F. Skinner
This is how we end up with Broken Looking Glass Self. Distorted Looking Glass Self. We end up with operant conditioning - to worry what other people think in such way that we attempt to think for the other person ahead of time, so that they do not get mad of us - and then attempt, we try hard not to make other people mad. And how we execute this operant conditioning - depends on our background, people around us and punishments to which we were exposed as kids. Most socially anxious learn to keep quiet. To shut up. To self censor. And to self blame. If the other person is angry or hysterical - we will feel responsible for their mood swings and we will try hard to fix their emotions and their problems. Soon - we spread this fixing on other people, who are not angry - and we create fake social mask that is always pleasant and nice and helpful to anyone, especially if they are angry and rude and intrusive. We learned to interpret their anger as our fault and our abnormality. Looking glass self is broken - because it does not reflect any more - now we imagine how to please other people without using looking glass (mirror) - as all people use it.
Other people are there as information post. They broadcast who they are, many of them mask their true Self and present fake version of themselves, their social mask. Our brain will naturally form opinion about us through the words and opinions and non-verbal gestures from other people, strangers or our acquaintances. This part is totally normal. This is not disorder. This is not illness. The disorder starts when we try hard to fix other people's conclusions about us by making ourselves small and by changing our routine so that we soothe the other person. Instead of CBT techniques - all that we need to do here is to allow other people to think whatever they choose to think about us. Simply allow other people to hate us and leave it at that.
We really have to work very hard at changing our programming because we don't understand we're upset because someone else has a perception of us that we're uncomfortable with. And we challenge this person's perception of us. We're upset that people think this about us. Something amazing happens when you begin to accept that other people are allowed to have their own faulty perception of you. 🟥 Lisa A. Romano Breakthrough Life coach Inc.
For the next step, sociology will also help us. CBT and DSM, psychiatry is telling us concrete steps which we must take - and morally and ethically speaking - this is illegal. When someone orders us what we must do - this is called manipulation and coercive control. This way anyone who is psychopathic and narcissistic can climb, grab and push their way to powerful position of ordering others what to do - and then evil people can easily manipulate and control the masses. This is what happens with psychiatry. Psychology on the other hand explains concepts - psychology does not order us what to do in life and how to react. That is why Humanistic psychology is healthy.
It is the client who knows what hurts, what directions to go, what problems are crucial, what experiences have been deeply buried. Carl Rogers
In the same manner as Humanistic Psychology and IFS Model - sociology also has the similar term that allows clients freedom in own choices - which is called Thomas theorem.
The Thomas theorem is a theory of sociology which was formulated in 1928 by William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. In other words, the interpretation of a situation causes the action. This interpretation is not objective. (wiki)
If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. - formulated in 1928 by William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas
This means - that no other person can objectively tell us what is the best way to go in life. We need our inner GPS, our intuition, our common sense, other people as well - to form our reality and our construct of the future where we are headed. With CBT and DSM - we do not have this freedom. With CBT and DSM - we are pathologized instead - and all our focus is spent on fixing our symptoms - we are literally self consuming ourselves with CBT.
In real life- real life situations will not allow us to form rigid mindset. Any other person, any other situation in life - good or bad - is always unique and different. Sometimes it is great that we shut up and that we self censor ourselves - especially if we are tired and we don't want to harm other people with our nagging and complaints that will go off as soon as we get to sleep and rest. On the other hand - many situations in life that are triggering our social anxiety require from us to self express, that we talk out our truth - no matter how much manipulative people attempt to shut us up with mocking and shaming.
So when we allow other people to form toxic conclusions about us - we need to know that we can rely on our brain, on our intuition to tell us how to react and what to do and how to behave. We have this mechanism inside us. We do not need to pathologize ourselves with CBT. CBT will tell us that we must be assertive in order to handle toxic people. This is horrible advice because:
"If you have been the scapegoat in a narcissistic family system, the concept of setting a boundary is laughable. You would be telling them exactly how to hurt you, and they would happily oblige. Also, trying to set a boundary in a calm and tactful way would be met by resistance in the form of mocking and ridicule, attempting to bait the scapegoat into anger, which would prove you are the problem." YT kingbee9778
"I feel gaslighted by the therapy mantras of “ you have to teach people how to treat you “ ,(setting boundaries). No you don’t and no you can’t. First of all, it’s not my job to teach an adult how to behave like one and quite frankly, it’s a trap and a drain hole. Secondly, I DON’T CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE. They will do what they want, especially if they have the tiniest ounce of power over you." YT gertrudewest4535
When we follow CBT - we will repeat the broken Looking Glass Self when we exposure ourselves to social situations - and social anxiety will not go away - because we will continually process the same ways reality and other people in a manner that is toxic to us - through seeking approval from other people, through self flagellation, through harsh inner critic and internalized toxic shame.
To fix broken Looking-Glass Self means fixing social anxiety: when we are afraid of what other people think about us. With CBT we self pathologize our normal reaction to worry what other people think about us. This is not disorder, it is totally normal to have awareness that other people are thinking about us.
Many social anxiety coaches will use "Spotlight effect" as proof that other people do not worry about us:
"The spotlight effect is the psychological phenomenon by which people tend to believe they are being noticed more than they really are."
In toxic contact - toxic people - those same ones who trigger our social anxiety - do notice anything about us. In normal population - other people will think about us and we will define each other - through the process called The Michelangelo phenomenon - where we chisel each other into better version, where we change our toxic habits that hurt us as much as they hurt other people. In unhealthy, toxic social dynamics there will be the opposite: Golem Effect and Crab mentality. Where there is competition and where other person is perceived as threat and someone to pull down.
A lot of content on mental health in mainstream media does not cover the unique corner that survivors of narcissistic abuse live in. Not one mention of being in any kind of toxic relationship. “Avoid your triggers” is not easy in narcissistic relationships. When the discomfort is living in your house or down the street or in the next office. It was not even rumination, but reality. And the constant exposure means you don't get a break. 🟥 DoctorRamani https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uusKWmjUk6k
I'm not setting boundary with these people. “Don't do this with me”. “Don't say this with me”. It's all internal. Because if you try to set a boundary with someone who's narcissistic or antagonistic – it's never going to work. And I think it's unsafe guidance to give.
With this dangerous person no. But what are you willing to tolerate. How can you protect yourself emotionally. What access can you remove. Move these people from VIP section.
🟥 Dr. Ramani - Terri Cole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSHI5N-w5sk
With broken Looking-Glass Self - we end up being trapped in toxic people's minds. Similar to horror movie / book The Cell from 2000. Even when we develop Who cares attitude, and when we consciously try to block and build walls away from toxic people, when we try hard to push down and suppress toxic people - we are still trapped in their reality of what they potentially might think about us. This is why CBT is not working - because CBT tries hard to convince us to use suppression as method to block social anxiety. And we cannot block other people - we need other people for our identity and our self worth - where there is healthy interaction called Interdependence. Toxic people behave in codependent way - they see other people as competition and this creates codependency. They need other people like vampires need blood - to exploit someone's attention, someone's focus, money, time and or resources of any kind. It is like give me, give me, give me - and provide nothing in return. With social anxiety we end up giving others without observing if the other person is emotionally invested in us at all. It ends up and one side interaction, exploitation really. Social anxiety means suppress anger as well. We learned to push our anger away - and this attracts toxic people who count on our silence and understanding and toxic empathy - knowing that they can cross boundaries of social interaction in their favor and we won't make any kind of protest. Then our own only protection - is avoidance. Therefore - social anxiety is natural defense mechanism against dangerous criminally insane psychopaths who are abusing their power position against ourselves.
In our teen years we experiences bully experience - after years of exposure to ACoA and ACE (constant criticism and constant drama at home) - so we generalized the belief that we cannot trust other people - and we learned that we process reality through broken Looking Glass Self - where we appease other people with our decisions - by being afraid what other people may think badly of us - since we were pressed and pushed into equating social rejection and our self worth as if they are one of the same. And psychiatry - instead of explaining us that it is totally normal to worry what other people think - CBT explains us that this is abnormality. This faulty explanation from medical industry is adding more trauma and more toxic shame and it gives our inner critic free reign to self abuse us - because we believe we are abnormal and ill if we worry what other people thin about us. In reality - all people worry about others. Even psychopaths worry what other people will think, along with narcissists - because they know that they need to form fake social mask of charm in order to seduce new victims into their agenda of exploiting and manipulating others.
Looking-Glass Self tells us - that we simply allow toxic people to form bad opinion about us in their heads - and that we absolutely do nothing to change this image that toxic people freely choose to believe about us in their heads.
You're no longer going to play the game of what can I do differently to get them to behave differently – because the answer is to that is nothing. That's radical acceptance. It takes long time. And it's not just accepting their behavior is not going to change, it's also the way it affects you is also not going to change. Just because you radically accept doesn't mean that somebody screaming at you is going to hurt any less- it does,it hurts a lot 🟥 Dr. Ramani - Terri Cole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSHI5N-w5sk
Other people will hurt us. They will say mean and untrue things about us. They will attack us - this has nothing to do with who we are. Their choice to harm and hurt other person - is abnormality in their brain. Normal healthy sane people do not attack others. Normal healthy sane people have ability to emotionally regulate themselves. Person who does not have this ability - is sick and mentally ill. And this has nothing to do with us. We are not the ones who can cure them by changing our behavior.
Lundy Bancroft: "Abuse is NOT caused by bad relationship dynamics. You can't manage your partner's abusiveness by changing your behaviour. But he wants you to think you can."
The pain that we feel when toxic people attack us, verbally or physically - is normal pain, we need this pain as the instruction for us what to do with severely damaged people around us.
If you are not feeling pain, anger and sadness while you are taking in psychological abuse or something similar – you are going to end up in those situations over and over again –because you are not logging information that your body telling 🟥Heidi Priebe https://youtube.com/watch?v=GTQohPaGnSY
People say it bothers me when they say these things. I say, because they say bothersome things. I don't want you to lose that part of you. That part is good index what is okay, what's not. From that point – excavation. A person pulling their true self out of their relationships. If you grew up with narcissistic parent, it was a true self that never even got to develop. It's how much your identity got co-opted. What do I like, what do I stand for. 🟥 Dr. Ramani - Terri Cole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSHI5N-w5sk
The core of narcissistic person is very fragile. That's why they lose it when you critique them. Or give them feedback. Or don't read their mind. Or don't do exactly what they want. And that's why they use all kinds of tactics like manipulation, gaslighting, invalidation, dismissiveness, competitiveness, betrayal. Some of them are tactics, some are unemphatic behavior. And it gives them the upper hand in relationship. Control, power gives them supply. 🟥 Dr. Ramani - Cole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSHI5N-w5sk
With social anxiety - we do not need psychiatry. Socially anxious need sociology. It is after all social issue. Social anxiety is anxiety that is connected to society - the name itself reveals this crucial aspect: society, social, societal. Psychiatry will only leave us lacking and with belief that something is horribly wrong with us, when we are around toxic people:
DSM doesn't explain anything. So many therapies and particularly CBT and others are just so focused on extinguishing symptoms which were once strategies of survival. And it doesn't make sense that you want to extinguish – we want eventually to move away from these symptoms and these strategies but I certainly don't want to pathologize them or look at them as somehow defective because they have saved our lives. 🟥 Transforming Trauma Episode 21 IFS & NARM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRTHacVAwdk
When we stop self pathologizing our social anxiety - we will unburden ourselves with toxic idea that feeling pain is abnormal and sick. And it will give us energy to start looking what is causing this pain - instead of focusing ourselves on chasing the symptoms. Without the stigma and labels - we will have much more resources at our disposal to handle difficult people in life who are causing our social anxiety in the first place.
With social anxiety - we need to learn about the Cooley's concept Looking-Glass Self and other terms from sociology. Instead of pathologizing our social reactions - we simply need information to confirm us that we are not abnormal and inept as CBT paints the socially anxious. We need information to learn what our rights are.
Five themes of microaggression against people with mental illnesses
1. Invalidation
When other people dismiss their illness or symptoms through minimizing their experience, symptomizing their normal experiences, and patronizing
2. Assumption of inferiority
When other people assume that people with mental illness have lower intelligence, are incompetent, and that they do not have control
3. Fear of mental illness
When other people fear them because they believe that they may be dangerous or unpredictable
4. Shaming of mental illness
When other people tell them that they shouldn't let others know about their mental illness
5. Second class citizen attitudes
When other people treat them as if they don't have the same rights as the dominant group of society.
Mental Health Forum, 2016
Diagnosis is not an excuse to be selective about their rights. Autistic not weird
Healing the Broken Looking-Glass Self means learning about the mentality - which we never had chance to learn in our developmental years. Other children learned this concept via keeping connections with other people. We - started to avoid people. Even when we were around other people - we pulled our investment emotionally with other people - and this way we never learned that other people are safe. We developed the stump growth - that is being stuck in age 12, when we started to avoid people. Similar to the plant that cannot grow roots in small basin or tree/plant that is stumped in growing due to some kind of obstacle to grow upright. Our growth was shaped from the perspective of not trusting other people - because they harmed us. Other people learned to develop certain amount of trust. They learned to filter out the bad people. And they learned that they are safe to express themselves - without being punished for it. This is why their social anxiety is in normal threshold. They will experience stress and then behave in anti-social manner, they will express their anger without problems - because they were never pushed into forming their self worth through worry what their tormentors might think about them. So it is not like social anxiety is abnormality or sickness - it is simply that non-socially anxious people were lucky enough to grow in healthy ambient, and that is their secret. They were not stronger. They were not more competent. They were not better or superior to the socially anxious. They simply had privilege and entitlement that helped them over-pass developmental years without fearing other people. Their mechanisms how to handle triggers - are mostly unhealthy (lacking empathy) - but their Looking glass self was not broken. With interaction with other people, with other children, they learned naturally to allow difficult people to hate them. Instead of worry - that is found in social anxiety - they simply turned their focus onto other people. With social anxiety - we do not have other people, we have no one to turn to, since we learned that other people are painful and traumatic. We never learned that hanging around with other people is enjoyable experience - and if someone is rude, toxic and abnormal - that we are allowed to focus and place our attention to better, healthier people around us.
In shame culture ambient - we will learn that other people criticism is reflection of our worth - and that is Broken Looking-Glass Self. That we cannot feel good about ourselves until other person reflects positive words about us to us:
Young American explained why she left Croatia:
"In Croatia people constantly express intrusive opinion about matters which are none of their business. The most irritating things were rude people."
https://www.poslovni.hlifestyle/amerikanka-napusta-hrvatsku-neucinkovitost-i-birokracija-te-ljudi-koji-nemaju-motiva-za-napredovanjem-u-poslu-358422
Young American explained why she escaped from Croatia:
"Often I heard Croats intruding why am I eating something, or commenting about what I wore. There is no such thing in America, we allow people to be what they want to be. People here are strange as if I am inside toxic relationship."
https://www.vecernji.hshowbiz/amerikanka-u-hrvatskoj-iznenadila-objavom-ljudi-su-ovdje-cudni-kao-da-sam-u-losoj-vezi-1351757
Don't look to the approval of others for your mental stability. 🟦 Karl Lagerfeld
We will heal social anxiety trauma with healing our choice to stay stuck around toxic people. We can cut toxic people - even when we are unable to leave them physically - by severing the trauma bonding in our mind - that is broken Looking-Glass Self.
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. Eleanor Roosevelt
Yes, toxic people are pathological liars, They spread gossip. They create drama and hysteria. Toxic people do not have word toxic stuck on their forehead. Toxic people will not behave toxically in front of others - because they depend to look good in the eyes of other people - so they also have Looking-Glass Self no matter how much they said that they do not care what other people think about them. Therefore - social anxiety is clear indication that we are around toxic people. Toxic people do not allow us to express ourselves - and they use various methods of coercive control to manipulate their targets. The first step is to sever this trauma bonding - by allowing them to hate us.
That we basically stop impressing others.
Don't try to impress others. ✝️ Bible, Philippians 2-3
Cooley said our sense of Self comes from how we think other people see us. “I am not what I think I am. I am not what you think I am; I am what I think you think I am.” Other people's reflections of us and how we think about those images they have of us help create our sense of Self. Grades from teachers can reflect back to us an image of ourselves that we then internalize and becomes our self-perception. They effect self-image. 🟥 The Looking glass self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X1wwTCuZBo
We imagine we are seen by others. And that imagination forms our identity. Our identity is being shaped by others. Others is agent which influences who we are in society. You begin to believe that and you begin to see as your identity, what other people think of you. Intelligent, high self esteem, outgoing – you believe what people say about you, it becomes your identity. Our identity is formed through the way we imagine people see us.
🟥 Looking-glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UWOflUXKUQ
That imagination comes from interaction with these people. In the process of interaction they tell you this is what we think about you. And then you go off believe in that. You don't control what people think about you. Front Stage Behavior: Familiarity breeds content-With front stage they behave nicely. It's in subconsciousness of individuals that they have to behave a certain way in public. At interview- they smile, but is this who they are?
🟥 Looking-glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UWOflUXKUQ
It is often said that American Beauty is a film about identity. Each character seems to go through a very personal identity crisis. But I would argue that this crisis are not personal at all. They are products of wider social forces. We may define ourselves based on prevailing attitudes towards sexuality, beauty and material success. Sense of self strongly influences by social world.
🟥 American Beauty Film Analysis: The Sociology of Identity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6youJFbEgQ
Ricky shows Jane that he likes her as she is. Eventually this leads her abandoning the idea of surgery and gain enough confidence and self-esteem to tell Angela what she really thinks of her. Freed from idea that everyone looks down on he because of her physical appearance, Jane's sense of self is no longer defined how she looks, how she looks to others.
🟥 American Beauty Film Analysis: The Sociology of Identity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6youJFbEgQ
An individual realize its self by reflecting others' perceptions about him. They use social interactions as a mirror. A Person grows and develop due to interpersonal interactions of the Society. When one interacts socially, one completely considers how one looks in the eyes of others. Negative response leads to depression and anxiety.
🟥 Looking Glass Self Theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAzsBj6yTpw
Looking Glass Self where you see yourself the way you think others see you. You can't see the way others truly see you. So you're seeing yourself they way you think others think they see you. You can see how much is lost in the translation. You're much more beautiful than you think. You attract so much more than you know. There's more going on with you than you care to acknowledge. Beauty is not about what you see. It's about what you reflect. 🟥 Looking Glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFEkq8uDiJU
Mirror in front of you, and you are looking at yourself in the mirror, the way it is – is mirror in reality. As Masha labels you, tells you, comments on you, provides you all kinds of feedback, your self continues to develop. The way society perceives you and gives feedback about you. It is considered important to yourself and you have that impression that is how I should be. Their significance or importance makes you proud.
🟥 Looking Glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa-PD1YVxj4
There is something you have never understood, Joe. These people at the top, they are the same as anybody else. But you had it inside of you to be so much bigger than any of them. You just had to be yourself. That was all. With me you were yourself. Only with me. Room at the Top (1958) https://youtu.be/Cs1C_Tu2crI
submitted by ranc1 to SocialAnxiety_Ideas [link] [comments]
Without social anxiety, without ability to worry what other people think about us - we would lose social skills, empathy and civilization norms - such as not eating others.
"If it weren't for the nervous people in the world, we'd all still be eating each other." The Misfits (1961) https://youtu.be/h56iL7vK5Y0
When people consume chicken - they eat the flesh of animals because there is no ability to connect with the slaughtered animals as conscious beings who are able to think and perceive us. So when we destroy social anxiety- our ability to worry what other people think - we will become psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists. This also provide us with important information of self expression and holding toxic people accountable - by stating the facts and truth. Toxic people learn to suppress social anxiety - and this gives them ability to be cruel. And the only way to probe their delusions is to speak the truth to them. And that is why toxic people mock and go into hysteria mode - because their suppressed conscience and morality and ethics are eating them from inside.
Dolphins are not caught with smiles but cruelly with hooks, Michele. One day you will learn to be cruel. Caravaggio (1986) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF12uM_GK74
Sociology is based on social anxiety - that we form our own identity based on society. We need other people to provide us information who we are and how to express ourselves. The language is the very first thing that society gives us to define who we are - by using the very words that society is using.
Theories of the Self
William James (1890): A person has "as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry and image of him in their minds"
Charles Cooley (1902): Views of self reflect the standpoints of significant others in our lives ("looking-glass self")
George Herbert Mead (1934): We imagine the perspectives of others and incorporate these into our self views - and that this occurs continuously as we interact with others on an ongoing, moment to moment basis.
Having a distorted looking glass (incorrectly imagining others’ opinions of us) can cause bad feelings, or a negative self-image. https://wa01001786.schoolwires.net/cms/lib/WA01001786/Centricity/Domain/70/Socialization%20Notes.pdf
What happens when we are around toxic people - is that our identity is deformed as well. CBT claims, along with DSM, that our worry what other people think - is personality disorder, called Borderline:
Reality testing is ability to perceive reality properly. Without too much deviation from facts. Borderline refer to you if want to know anything about reality. “Do you think so too?” Narcissist will tell you "am I not genius". YT Richard Grannon & Prof. Sam Vaknin about Fantasy
Borderline personality disorder is a mental health condition that affects the way people feel about themselves and others, making it hard to function in everyday life. It includes a pattern of unstable, intense relationships, as well as impulsiveness and an unhealthy way of seeing themselves. (Mayo Clinic)
The truth is - if we are around toxic people, their criticism will affect our self worth. Their constant nagging, constant nitpicking, constant error finding and constant drama about anything that moves - will have an effect on our sense of stability and security in the world. This is not disorder. This is simply how society works. In order to heal our mental health issues - we need to repair connections with other people - which may include minimizing exposure to toxic people or cutting toxic people completely off from our lives.
We will never feel secure, confident, worthy - if there are toxic people around us who are criticizing us and others all the time.
Improving our relationships is improving our mental health. William Glasser
Interpersonal strife with those close to us leads to rifts and resentments that produce symptoms of mental illness; these problems are, in fact, the logical consequence of troubled relationships. Glasser emphasizes that lasting psychological problems are usually caused by problems in our personal relationships (rather than signifying a biochemical abnormality in the brain), and distress can be remedied through repairing these relationships without recourse to psych drugs. DK psychology book, WILLIAM GLASSER
Being able to feel safe with other people is probably the single most important aspect of mental health; safe connections are fundamental to meaningful and satisfying lives. Dr. Bessel van der Kolk
In another words: feel safe with other people = mental health
The single most important issue for traumatized people is to find a sense of safety in their own bodies. 🟦 Bessel A. van der Kolk
Toxic people cause social anxiety. That is why social anxiety is called social+anxiety. There is social element that is causing the anxiety. There is social factor contributing to anxiety. It is not called self-anxiety. We did not catch social anxiety by walking randomly in the street when it was rainy, so we caught a common cold. It is not like we felt bored in our lives so we invented neuroticism to keep us active and occupied. Social anxiety must start in childhood with ACE and ACoA where we learned from early on - that life is dangerous, that people are not safe, that we must worry to be hyper-vigilant and that we are unworthy if we make any kind of mistakes. We learned that our flaws, imperfections and mistakes are our core personality - abnormal and inept.
Society attacks early, when the individual is helpless. B. F. Skinner
This is how we end up with Broken Looking Glass Self. Distorted Looking Glass Self. We end up with operant conditioning - to worry what other people think in such way that we attempt to think for the other person ahead of time, so that they do not get mad of us - and then attempt, we try hard not to make other people mad. And how we execute this operant conditioning - depends on our background, people around us and punishments to which we were exposed as kids. Most socially anxious learn to keep quiet. To shut up. To self censor. And to self blame. If the other person is angry or hysterical - we will feel responsible for their mood swings and we will try hard to fix their emotions and their problems. Soon - we spread this fixing on other people, who are not angry - and we create fake social mask that is always pleasant and nice and helpful to anyone, especially if they are angry and rude and intrusive. We learned to interpret their anger as our fault and our abnormality. Looking glass self is broken - because it does not reflect any more - now we imagine how to please other people without using looking glass (mirror) - as all people use it.
Other people are there as information post. They broadcast who they are, many of them mask their true Self and present fake version of themselves, their social mask. Our brain will naturally form opinion about us through the words and opinions and non-verbal gestures from other people, strangers or our acquaintances. This part is totally normal. This is not disorder. This is not illness. The disorder starts when we try hard to fix other people's conclusions about us by making ourselves small and by changing our routine so that we soothe the other person. Instead of CBT techniques - all that we need to do here is to allow other people to think whatever they choose to think about us. Simply allow other people to hate us and leave it at that.
We really have to work very hard at changing our programming because we don't understand we're upset because someone else has a perception of us that we're uncomfortable with. And we challenge this person's perception of us. We're upset that people think this about us. Something amazing happens when you begin to accept that other people are allowed to have their own faulty perception of you. 🟥 Lisa A. Romano Breakthrough Life coach Inc.
For the next step, sociology will also help us. CBT and DSM, psychiatry is telling us concrete steps which we must take - and morally and ethically speaking - this is illegal. When someone orders us what we must do - this is called manipulation and coercive control. This way anyone who is psychopathic and narcissistic can climb, grab and push their way to powerful position of ordering others what to do - and then evil people can easily manipulate and control the masses. This is what happens with psychiatry. Psychology on the other hand explains concepts - psychology does not order us what to do in life and how to react. That is why Humanistic psychology is healthy.
It is the client who knows what hurts, what directions to go, what problems are crucial, what experiences have been deeply buried. Carl Rogers
In the same manner as Humanistic Psychology and IFS Model - sociology also has the similar term that allows clients freedom in own choices - which is called Thomas theorem.
The Thomas theorem is a theory of sociology which was formulated in 1928 by William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. In other words, the interpretation of a situation causes the action. This interpretation is not objective. (wiki)
If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. - formulated in 1928 by William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas
This means - that no other person can objectively tell us what is the best way to go in life. We need our inner GPS, our intuition, our common sense, other people as well - to form our reality and our construct of the future where we are headed. With CBT and DSM - we do not have this freedom. With CBT and DSM - we are pathologized instead - and all our focus is spent on fixing our symptoms - we are literally self consuming ourselves with CBT.
In real life- real life situations will not allow us to form rigid mindset. Any other person, any other situation in life - good or bad - is always unique and different. Sometimes it is great that we shut up and that we self censor ourselves - especially if we are tired and we don't want to harm other people with our nagging and complaints that will go off as soon as we get to sleep and rest. On the other hand - many situations in life that are triggering our social anxiety require from us to self express, that we talk out our truth - no matter how much manipulative people attempt to shut us up with mocking and shaming.
So when we allow other people to form toxic conclusions about us - we need to know that we can rely on our brain, on our intuition to tell us how to react and what to do and how to behave. We have this mechanism inside us. We do not need to pathologize ourselves with CBT. CBT will tell us that we must be assertive in order to handle toxic people. This is horrible advice because:
"If you have been the scapegoat in a narcissistic family system, the concept of setting a boundary is laughable. You would be telling them exactly how to hurt you, and they would happily oblige. Also, trying to set a boundary in a calm and tactful way would be met by resistance in the form of mocking and ridicule, attempting to bait the scapegoat into anger, which would prove you are the problem." YT kingbee9778
"I feel gaslighted by the therapy mantras of “ you have to teach people how to treat you “ ,(setting boundaries). No you don’t and no you can’t. First of all, it’s not my job to teach an adult how to behave like one and quite frankly, it’s a trap and a drain hole. Secondly, I DON’T CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE. They will do what they want, especially if they have the tiniest ounce of power over you." YT gertrudewest4535
When we follow CBT - we will repeat the broken Looking Glass Self when we exposure ourselves to social situations - and social anxiety will not go away - because we will continually process the same ways reality and other people in a manner that is toxic to us - through seeking approval from other people, through self flagellation, through harsh inner critic and internalized toxic shame.
To fix broken Looking-Glass Self means fixing social anxiety: when we are afraid of what other people think about us. With CBT we self pathologize our normal reaction to worry what other people think about us. This is not disorder, it is totally normal to have awareness that other people are thinking about us.
Many social anxiety coaches will use "Spotlight effect" as proof that other people do not worry about us:
"The spotlight effect is the psychological phenomenon by which people tend to believe they are being noticed more than they really are."
In toxic contact - toxic people - those same ones who trigger our social anxiety - do notice anything about us. In normal population - other people will think about us and we will define each other - through the process called The Michelangelo phenomenon - where we chisel each other into better version, where we change our toxic habits that hurt us as much as they hurt other people. In unhealthy, toxic social dynamics there will be the opposite: Golem Effect and Crab mentality. Where there is competition and where other person is perceived as threat and someone to pull down.
A lot of content on mental health in mainstream media does not cover the unique corner that survivors of narcissistic abuse live in. Not one mention of being in any kind of toxic relationship. “Avoid your triggers” is not easy in narcissistic relationships. When the discomfort is living in your house or down the street or in the next office. It was not even rumination, but reality. And the constant exposure means you don't get a break. 🟥 DoctorRamani https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uusKWmjUk6k
I'm not setting boundary with these people. “Don't do this with me”. “Don't say this with me”. It's all internal. Because if you try to set a boundary with someone who's narcissistic or antagonistic – it's never going to work. And I think it's unsafe guidance to give.
With this dangerous person no. But what are you willing to tolerate. How can you protect yourself emotionally. What access can you remove. Move these people from VIP section.
🟥 Dr. Ramani - Terri Cole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSHI5N-w5sk
With broken Looking-Glass Self - we end up being trapped in toxic people's minds. Similar to horror movie / book The Cell from 2000. Even when we develop Who cares attitude, and when we consciously try to block and build walls away from toxic people, when we try hard to push down and suppress toxic people - we are still trapped in their reality of what they potentially might think about us. This is why CBT is not working - because CBT tries hard to convince us to use suppression as method to block social anxiety. And we cannot block other people - we need other people for our identity and our self worth - where there is healthy interaction called Interdependence. Toxic people behave in codependent way - they see other people as competition and this creates codependency. They need other people like vampires need blood - to exploit someone's attention, someone's focus, money, time and or resources of any kind. It is like give me, give me, give me - and provide nothing in return. With social anxiety we end up giving others without observing if the other person is emotionally invested in us at all. It ends up and one side interaction, exploitation really. Social anxiety means suppress anger as well. We learned to push our anger away - and this attracts toxic people who count on our silence and understanding and toxic empathy - knowing that they can cross boundaries of social interaction in their favor and we won't make any kind of protest. Then our own only protection - is avoidance. Therefore - social anxiety is natural defense mechanism against dangerous criminally insane psychopaths who are abusing their power position against ourselves.
In our teen years we experiences bully experience - after years of exposure to ACoA and ACE (constant criticism and constant drama at home) - so we generalized the belief that we cannot trust other people - and we learned that we process reality through broken Looking Glass Self - where we appease other people with our decisions - by being afraid what other people may think badly of us - since we were pressed and pushed into equating social rejection and our self worth as if they are one of the same. And psychiatry - instead of explaining us that it is totally normal to worry what other people think - CBT explains us that this is abnormality. This faulty explanation from medical industry is adding more trauma and more toxic shame and it gives our inner critic free reign to self abuse us - because we believe we are abnormal and ill if we worry what other people thin about us. In reality - all people worry about others. Even psychopaths worry what other people will think, along with narcissists - because they know that they need to form fake social mask of charm in order to seduce new victims into their agenda of exploiting and manipulating others.
Looking-Glass Self tells us - that we simply allow toxic people to form bad opinion about us in their heads - and that we absolutely do nothing to change this image that toxic people freely choose to believe about us in their heads.
You're no longer going to play the game of what can I do differently to get them to behave differently – because the answer is to that is nothing. That's radical acceptance. It takes long time. And it's not just accepting their behavior is not going to change, it's also the way it affects you is also not going to change. Just because you radically accept doesn't mean that somebody screaming at you is going to hurt any less- it does,it hurts a lot 🟥 Dr. Ramani - Terri Cole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSHI5N-w5sk
Other people will hurt us. They will say mean and untrue things about us. They will attack us - this has nothing to do with who we are. Their choice to harm and hurt other person - is abnormality in their brain. Normal healthy sane people do not attack others. Normal healthy sane people have ability to emotionally regulate themselves. Person who does not have this ability - is sick and mentally ill. And this has nothing to do with us. We are not the ones who can cure them by changing our behavior.
Lundy Bancroft: "Abuse is NOT caused by bad relationship dynamics. You can't manage your partner's abusiveness by changing your behaviour. But he wants you to think you can."
The pain that we feel when toxic people attack us, verbally or physically - is normal pain, we need this pain as the instruction for us what to do with severely damaged people around us.
If you are not feeling pain, anger and sadness while you are taking in psychological abuse or something similar – you are going to end up in those situations over and over again –because you are not logging information that your body telling 🟥Heidi Priebe https://youtube.com/watch?v=GTQohPaGnSY
People say it bothers me when they say these things. I say, because they say bothersome things. I don't want you to lose that part of you. That part is good index what is okay, what's not. From that point – excavation. A person pulling their true self out of their relationships. If you grew up with narcissistic parent, it was a true self that never even got to develop. It's how much your identity got co-opted. What do I like, what do I stand for. 🟥 Dr. Ramani - Terri Cole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSHI5N-w5sk
The core of narcissistic person is very fragile. That's why they lose it when you critique them. Or give them feedback. Or don't read their mind. Or don't do exactly what they want. And that's why they use all kinds of tactics like manipulation, gaslighting, invalidation, dismissiveness, competitiveness, betrayal. Some of them are tactics, some are unemphatic behavior. And it gives them the upper hand in relationship. Control, power gives them supply. 🟥 Dr. Ramani - Cole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSHI5N-w5sk
With social anxiety - we do not need psychiatry. Socially anxious need sociology. It is after all social issue. Social anxiety is anxiety that is connected to society - the name itself reveals this crucial aspect: society, social, societal. Psychiatry will only leave us lacking and with belief that something is horribly wrong with us, when we are around toxic people:
DSM doesn't explain anything. So many therapies and particularly CBT and others are just so focused on extinguishing symptoms which were once strategies of survival. And it doesn't make sense that you want to extinguish – we want eventually to move away from these symptoms and these strategies but I certainly don't want to pathologize them or look at them as somehow defective because they have saved our lives. 🟥 Transforming Trauma Episode 21 IFS & NARM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRTHacVAwdk
When we stop self pathologizing our social anxiety - we will unburden ourselves with toxic idea that feeling pain is abnormal and sick. And it will give us energy to start looking what is causing this pain - instead of focusing ourselves on chasing the symptoms. Without the stigma and labels - we will have much more resources at our disposal to handle difficult people in life who are causing our social anxiety in the first place.
With social anxiety - we need to learn about the Cooley's concept Looking-Glass Self and other terms from sociology. Instead of pathologizing our social reactions - we simply need information to confirm us that we are not abnormal and inept as CBT paints the socially anxious. We need information to learn what our rights are.
Five themes of microaggression against people with mental illnesses
1. Invalidation
When other people dismiss their illness or symptoms through minimizing their experience, symptomizing their normal experiences, and patronizing
2. Assumption of inferiority
When other people assume that people with mental illness have lower intelligence, are incompetent, and that they do not have control
3. Fear of mental illness
When other people fear them because they believe that they may be dangerous or unpredictable
4. Shaming of mental illness
When other people tell them that they shouldn't let others know about their mental illness
5. Second class citizen attitudes
When other people treat them as if they don't have the same rights as the dominant group of society.
Mental Health Forum, 2016
Diagnosis is not an excuse to be selective about their rights. Autistic not weird
Healing the Broken Looking-Glass Self means learning about the mentality - which we never had chance to learn in our developmental years. Other children learned this concept via keeping connections with other people. We - started to avoid people. Even when we were around other people - we pulled our investment emotionally with other people - and this way we never learned that other people are safe. We developed the stump growth - that is being stuck in age 12, when we started to avoid people. Similar to the plant that cannot grow roots in small basin or tree/plant that is stumped in growing due to some kind of obstacle to grow upright. Our growth was shaped from the perspective of not trusting other people - because they harmed us. Other people learned to develop certain amount of trust. They learned to filter out the bad people. And they learned that they are safe to express themselves - without being punished for it. This is why their social anxiety is in normal threshold. They will experience stress and then behave in anti-social manner, they will express their anger without problems - because they were never pushed into forming their self worth through worry what their tormentors might think about them. So it is not like social anxiety is abnormality or sickness - it is simply that non-socially anxious people were lucky enough to grow in healthy ambient, and that is their secret. They were not stronger. They were not more competent. They were not better or superior to the socially anxious. They simply had privilege and entitlement that helped them over-pass developmental years without fearing other people. Their mechanisms how to handle triggers - are mostly unhealthy (lacking empathy) - but their Looking glass self was not broken. With interaction with other people, with other children, they learned naturally to allow difficult people to hate them. Instead of worry - that is found in social anxiety - they simply turned their focus onto other people. With social anxiety - we do not have other people, we have no one to turn to, since we learned that other people are painful and traumatic. We never learned that hanging around with other people is enjoyable experience - and if someone is rude, toxic and abnormal - that we are allowed to focus and place our attention to better, healthier people around us.
In shame culture ambient - we will learn that other people criticism is reflection of our worth - and that is Broken Looking-Glass Self. That we cannot feel good about ourselves until other person reflects positive words about us to us:
Young American explained why she left Croatia:
"In Croatia people constantly express intrusive opinion about matters which are none of their business. The most irritating things were rude people."
https://www.poslovni.hlifestyle/amerikanka-napusta-hrvatsku-neucinkovitost-i-birokracija-te-ljudi-koji-nemaju-motiva-za-napredovanjem-u-poslu-358422
Young American explained why she escaped from Croatia:
"Often I heard Croats intruding why am I eating something, or commenting about what I wore. There is no such thing in America, we allow people to be what they want to be. People here are strange as if I am inside toxic relationship."
https://www.vecernji.hshowbiz/amerikanka-u-hrvatskoj-iznenadila-objavom-ljudi-su-ovdje-cudni-kao-da-sam-u-losoj-vezi-1351757
Don't look to the approval of others for your mental stability. 🟦 Karl Lagerfeld
We will heal social anxiety trauma with healing our choice to stay stuck around toxic people. We can cut toxic people - even when we are unable to leave them physically - by severing the trauma bonding in our mind - that is broken Looking-Glass Self.
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. Eleanor Roosevelt
Yes, toxic people are pathological liars, They spread gossip. They create drama and hysteria. Toxic people do not have word toxic stuck on their forehead. Toxic people will not behave toxically in front of others - because they depend to look good in the eyes of other people - so they also have Looking-Glass Self no matter how much they said that they do not care what other people think about them. Therefore - social anxiety is clear indication that we are around toxic people. Toxic people do not allow us to express ourselves - and they use various methods of coercive control to manipulate their targets. The first step is to sever this trauma bonding - by allowing them to hate us.
That we basically stop impressing others.
Don't try to impress others. ✝️ Bible, Philippians 2-3
Cooley said our sense of Self comes from how we think other people see us. “I am not what I think I am. I am not what you think I am; I am what I think you think I am.” Other people's reflections of us and how we think about those images they have of us help create our sense of Self. Grades from teachers can reflect back to us an image of ourselves that we then internalize and becomes our self-perception. They effect self-image. 🟥 The Looking glass self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X1wwTCuZBo
We imagine we are seen by others. And that imagination forms our identity. Our identity is being shaped by others. Others is agent which influences who we are in society. You begin to believe that and you begin to see as your identity, what other people think of you. Intelligent, high self esteem, outgoing – you believe what people say about you, it becomes your identity. Our identity is formed through the way we imagine people see us.
🟥 Looking-glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UWOflUXKUQ
That imagination comes from interaction with these people. In the process of interaction they tell you this is what we think about you. And then you go off believe in that. You don't control what people think about you. Front Stage Behavior: Familiarity breeds content-With front stage they behave nicely. It's in subconsciousness of individuals that they have to behave a certain way in public. At interview- they smile, but is this who they are?
🟥 Looking-glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UWOflUXKUQ
It is often said that American Beauty is a film about identity. Each character seems to go through a very personal identity crisis. But I would argue that this crisis are not personal at all. They are products of wider social forces. We may define ourselves based on prevailing attitudes towards sexuality, beauty and material success. Sense of self strongly influences by social world.
🟥 American Beauty Film Analysis: The Sociology of Identity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6youJFbEgQ
Ricky shows Jane that he likes her as she is. Eventually this leads her abandoning the idea of surgery and gain enough confidence and self-esteem to tell Angela what she really thinks of her. Freed from idea that everyone looks down on he because of her physical appearance, Jane's sense of self is no longer defined how she looks, how she looks to others.
🟥 American Beauty Film Analysis: The Sociology of Identity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6youJFbEgQ
An individual realize its self by reflecting others' perceptions about him. They use social interactions as a mirror. A Person grows and develop due to interpersonal interactions of the Society. When one interacts socially, one completely considers how one looks in the eyes of others. Negative response leads to depression and anxiety.
🟥 Looking Glass Self Theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAzsBj6yTpw
Looking Glass Self where you see yourself the way you think others see you. You can't see the way others truly see you. So you're seeing yourself they way you think others think they see you. You can see how much is lost in the translation. You're much more beautiful than you think. You attract so much more than you know. There's more going on with you than you care to acknowledge. Beauty is not about what you see. It's about what you reflect. 🟥 Looking Glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFEkq8uDiJU
Mirror in front of you, and you are looking at yourself in the mirror, the way it is – is mirror in reality. As Masha labels you, tells you, comments on you, provides you all kinds of feedback, your self continues to develop. The way society perceives you and gives feedback about you. It is considered important to yourself and you have that impression that is how I should be. Their significance or importance makes you proud.
🟥 Looking Glass Self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa-PD1YVxj4
There is something you have never understood, Joe. These people at the top, they are the same as anybody else. But you had it inside of you to be so much bigger than any of them. You just had to be yourself. That was all. With me you were yourself. Only with me. Room at the Top (1958) https://youtu.be/Cs1C_Tu2crI
2024.05.13 11:24 BorkingCorgi Genki II Textbook and Workbook PDF
Hello! I've been having difficulty finding the Kindle/PDF Version for Genki II. I've tried creating an Amazon JP Account but I can't seem to complete my purchase. I'm willing to pay, I really do want to use it on my iPad so I can study and do worksheets while I am on the go.
Thank you so much!
submitted by BorkingCorgi to genki [link] [comments]
Thank you so much!
2024.05.13 10:15 Handshoe100 Can I get some help with this question please?
 | I’m having a hard time understanding quadratics in chemistry. I’m good at ice tables and simpler questions but the ones that require quadratics just really confuse me. In the second photo is the ICE table and my Keq equation. I’m in module 5 chemistry of the Australian higher school certificate curriculum. Apologies for the bad handwriting. submitted by Handshoe100 to chemhelp [link] [comments] |
2024.05.13 07:53 robotwizard_9009 RH 24 hour trading means tokenized stock...
Tinfoil time...
My research has shown that 24/7 settlements means tokenized securities.. aka. Crypto.
Previous sub post confirmed with RH that vendors halted trades. This would likely be a crypto OTC settlement system for institutional companies.
Guess who was RH's top MM before getting heat from SEC and was involved in tokenizing our stocks into FTX and terra during the original event, before they all collapsed? https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/08/29/robinhood-and-jump-trading-no-longer-have-crypto-partnership-source/
Now RH's top MM is citadel. Per their 606 report.
https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20SEC%20Rule%20606%20and%20607%20Disclosure.pdf
Citadel recently started EDXM. A 24/7 "crypto asset" OTC settlement company for institutions. Just like FTX. Tokenized securities are a crypto asset.
This was 5 days ago...
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240507178717/en/EDX-Markets-Launches-Singapore-Based-EDXM-Global
"EDX Markets Launches Singapore-Based EDXM Global EDXM Global platform to provide members with the most competitive and efficient settlement process. GSR and Virtu Financial are among the first adopters of EDXM Global. May 07, 2024 11:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time SINGAPORE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--EDXM Global (EDXMG), a fast-growing digital asset company for institutional customers, announced today the launch of its settlement platform. EDXM Global sets a new standard in the digital asset landscape, streamlining OTC transaction settlements with remarkable speed and reliability. Marking a significant milestone, industry giants GSR and Virtu Financial were the first firms to use the new platform for trade settlement.
“We are pleased to support the launch of EDXM Global. Being able to mitigate settlement risks for OTC transactions represents a significant advantage for us and our clients, and we are proud to align with a partner that mirrors our dedication to excellence and innovation.”
Post this The launch of EDXM Global comes after its parent, EDX Markets Holdings LLC (EDX), closed its Series B funding round late last year. Pantera Capital co-led the round with Sequoia Capital, a founding consortium member. Other founding members participating in the Series B include Citadel Securities, Fidelity Digital AssetsSM, and Virtu Financial.
Jamil Nazarali, CEO of EDX, commented, "The launch of EDXM Global is the first step in the international expansion of our digital asset business. We are thrilled to introduce our settlement service, built on cutting-edge technology, rigorous compliance, and an unwavering commitment to customer service. By mitigating counterparty risks, EDXM Global empowers our Members to navigate the complexities of trade settlement while reducing counterparty risks."
Rich Rosenblum, Co-founder and President of GSR, said, "We are pleased to support the launch of EDXM Global. Being able to mitigate settlement risks for OTC transactions represents a significant advantage for us and our clients, and we are proud to align with a partner that mirrors our dedication to excellence and innovation.”
Douglas Cifu, CEO of Virtu Financial, said, “Virtu is excited to support another strategic innovation by the talented team at EDX. EDX continues to lead the way with solutions to efficiently mitigate counterparty risk and streamline settlement processes, further reducing risk and operational barriers to enable greater adoption of digital assets around the globe.”
Series B funding by virtu, Fidelity digital, and Sequoia.
Reports on this sub confirming rh vendors aren't letting orders through. That would be the MMs listed on the 606 report.. Citadel, virtu, ect.
Halted in the states and South Korea.
Sequoia Capital... one of the major creditors of FTX(but they claim they knew nothing about FTX crimes) and funding EDXM... also funding crypto businesses in South Korea.
https://www.sequoiacap.com/scge/
"SCGE’s private portfolio includes emerging leaders in the United States, Brazil, China, India, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. "
Check the charts...
Notice the inverse correlation to all crypto... GME and crypto also stalled and stabilized precisely the same time...
This wreaks of tokenized securities all over again. This time I suspect Citadel's EDXM, possibly Coinbase. Known to have routed RH/Jump trading orders in 21.
SEC vs Coinbase... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67478179/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-coinbase-inc/?order_by=desc
This was filed 2 days ago...
May 10, 2024
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 109 MOTION for Leave to Appeal Pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b). Document filed by Securities and Exchange Commission..(Mancuso, Peter) (Entered: 05/10/2024)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67478179/125/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-coinbase-inc/
Just my two cents.
Edit: RH is claiming Blue Ocean ATS is the responsible AH vendor ...(see comment below to sub link)
Blue Ocean just partnered with MEMX(checks investors).. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/blue-ocean-technologies-selects-memx-as-technology-partner-to-power-blue-ocean-ats-302044198.html
MEMX also powers EDXM.
https://www.marketsmedia.com/digital-asset-exchange-edx-markets-launches/
Blue ocean was caught up in the SEC investigation of tZero.. another tokenization platform with a vocal character known here.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191111005659/en/Blue-Ocean-Management-Partners-Assumes-Management-Control-of-Blue-Ocean-Technologies
submitted by robotwizard_9009 to Superstonk [link] [comments]
My research has shown that 24/7 settlements means tokenized securities.. aka. Crypto.
Previous sub post confirmed with RH that vendors halted trades. This would likely be a crypto OTC settlement system for institutional companies.
Guess who was RH's top MM before getting heat from SEC and was involved in tokenizing our stocks into FTX and terra during the original event, before they all collapsed? https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/08/29/robinhood-and-jump-trading-no-longer-have-crypto-partnership-source/
Now RH's top MM is citadel. Per their 606 report.
https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20SEC%20Rule%20606%20and%20607%20Disclosure.pdf
Citadel recently started EDXM. A 24/7 "crypto asset" OTC settlement company for institutions. Just like FTX. Tokenized securities are a crypto asset.
This was 5 days ago...
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240507178717/en/EDX-Markets-Launches-Singapore-Based-EDXM-Global
"EDX Markets Launches Singapore-Based EDXM Global EDXM Global platform to provide members with the most competitive and efficient settlement process. GSR and Virtu Financial are among the first adopters of EDXM Global. May 07, 2024 11:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time SINGAPORE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--EDXM Global (EDXMG), a fast-growing digital asset company for institutional customers, announced today the launch of its settlement platform. EDXM Global sets a new standard in the digital asset landscape, streamlining OTC transaction settlements with remarkable speed and reliability. Marking a significant milestone, industry giants GSR and Virtu Financial were the first firms to use the new platform for trade settlement.
“We are pleased to support the launch of EDXM Global. Being able to mitigate settlement risks for OTC transactions represents a significant advantage for us and our clients, and we are proud to align with a partner that mirrors our dedication to excellence and innovation.”
Post this The launch of EDXM Global comes after its parent, EDX Markets Holdings LLC (EDX), closed its Series B funding round late last year. Pantera Capital co-led the round with Sequoia Capital, a founding consortium member. Other founding members participating in the Series B include Citadel Securities, Fidelity Digital AssetsSM, and Virtu Financial.
Jamil Nazarali, CEO of EDX, commented, "The launch of EDXM Global is the first step in the international expansion of our digital asset business. We are thrilled to introduce our settlement service, built on cutting-edge technology, rigorous compliance, and an unwavering commitment to customer service. By mitigating counterparty risks, EDXM Global empowers our Members to navigate the complexities of trade settlement while reducing counterparty risks."
Rich Rosenblum, Co-founder and President of GSR, said, "We are pleased to support the launch of EDXM Global. Being able to mitigate settlement risks for OTC transactions represents a significant advantage for us and our clients, and we are proud to align with a partner that mirrors our dedication to excellence and innovation.”
Douglas Cifu, CEO of Virtu Financial, said, “Virtu is excited to support another strategic innovation by the talented team at EDX. EDX continues to lead the way with solutions to efficiently mitigate counterparty risk and streamline settlement processes, further reducing risk and operational barriers to enable greater adoption of digital assets around the globe.”
Series B funding by virtu, Fidelity digital, and Sequoia.
Reports on this sub confirming rh vendors aren't letting orders through. That would be the MMs listed on the 606 report.. Citadel, virtu, ect.
Halted in the states and South Korea.
Sequoia Capital... one of the major creditors of FTX(but they claim they knew nothing about FTX crimes) and funding EDXM... also funding crypto businesses in South Korea.
https://www.sequoiacap.com/scge/
"SCGE’s private portfolio includes emerging leaders in the United States, Brazil, China, India, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. "
Check the charts...
Notice the inverse correlation to all crypto... GME and crypto also stalled and stabilized precisely the same time...
This wreaks of tokenized securities all over again. This time I suspect Citadel's EDXM, possibly Coinbase. Known to have routed RH/Jump trading orders in 21.
SEC vs Coinbase... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67478179/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-coinbase-inc/?order_by=desc
This was filed 2 days ago...
May 10, 2024
MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 109 MOTION for Leave to Appeal Pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b). Document filed by Securities and Exchange Commission..(Mancuso, Peter) (Entered: 05/10/2024)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67478179/125/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-coinbase-inc/
Just my two cents.
Edit: RH is claiming Blue Ocean ATS is the responsible AH vendor ...(see comment below to sub link)
Blue Ocean just partnered with MEMX(checks investors).. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/blue-ocean-technologies-selects-memx-as-technology-partner-to-power-blue-ocean-ats-302044198.html
MEMX also powers EDXM.
https://www.marketsmedia.com/digital-asset-exchange-edx-markets-launches/
Blue ocean was caught up in the SEC investigation of tZero.. another tokenization platform with a vocal character known here.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191111005659/en/Blue-Ocean-Management-Partners-Assumes-Management-Control-of-Blue-Ocean-Technologies
2024.05.13 07:17 Express_Key1389 [Precalculus] limits
![[Precalculus] limits](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/18gzY0wshQsV1FtVvBJBl-U2Mk5b4fQkLgkV_vbk2CU.jpg "[Precalculus] limits") | This is the question and below is my work so far. How do I know when it exists or when it is continuous?? That is mainly what i do not understand. submitted by Express_Key1389 to HomeworkHelp [link] [comments] |
2024.05.13 04:42 Little-Bug-797 could someone please grade my synthesis essay? TIA
the prompt is 2021 Q1
https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap21-frq-english-language.pdf?course=ap-english-language-and-composition
For centuries handwriting has been our primary source of documenting data, but is it still currently? With digital technology reaching into everyones' back pockets the decline of handwriting is evident. Email's have replaced letters, Word has replaced note taking, powerpoint has replaced posters, and many more. Even though handwriting is a great skill to have, and can help you with other aspects in life, its pragmatic uses are continuously declining. Thus it should not be focused on in school as a mandated class but rather as an elective.
Undoubtably, handwriting has major benefits, more than just the physical writing it self. Cursive script is proven to develop fine motor skills and improve mental organization (SOURCE D). Even though cursive handwriting has such benefits, the uses it posses in the everyday world are exponentially declining. What would be the point of focusing valuable education time on forcing every student to learn cursive? It would be absurd, if they want to do it, they can choose to in the form of an elective. It would be deranged to force woodworking kids to join the band, same applies here. Or it would be the same thing as forcing every student to learn French, Japanese, Spanish, and Arabic, indisputably learning many languages has great benefits to one's mind, but it should be a choice especially since it is not used in everyday life. Or as SOURCE E states, Super Mario Bros can develop better motor skills. Another important factor to consider on WHY we should make it optional is its [handwriting and cursives] roots. The real reason we adopted such writing habits in the 19th century was to make our national identity and our sense of uniqueness. We differed from other scripts not limited too but including the Gothic script, or the Palmer method because they were connoted to different cultures (SOURCE C), we adopted this so we can show we are different, however in todays world that matters very little because everyone has the same Sans Serif font in their inboxes (font gmail uses). Vouching the fact that we should not make it a necessity at school for children to learn at school.
Even though mandating such a dying subject could potentially revive it, there is no practical need to do so. Doing so would most likely do more harm than good. SOURCE B portrays one of the thousands of worksheets teachers would have to print for every student to strenuously practice their cursive writing. We all know that deforestation is hurting our climate. Badly. So why waste even more paper, especially on children who have no interest in learning the skill as well. It is like buying a $100,000 racecar for a student who has no interest in racing. What will it lead to? Immense waste. To reiterate. The printing of worksheets should be encouraged for children who want to learn the skill of cursive handwriting, but shouldn't be forced upon everyone. There would be no point in encouraging penmanship in school since post-school the focus is towards technology, after all school is meant to prepare us for the future (SOURCE A). Schools that are focusing on it should reconsider and put more effort into preparing the children for the future. In 2013, writing on paper was on average 2x than writing with technology (SOURCE F), that is however 11 years ago and if numbers like that are still prominent, school administration should reconsider.
The point of school is to be prepared for the future. In today's world penmanship is almost extinct, and in tomorrow's world it will be extinct. Technology is more efficient to use, saves the environment, and is the standard for today. So why force children in learning something that will not have technical use to everyone. It [cursive handwriting] should be more of an optional elective, like woodworking or coding.
submitted by Little-Bug-797 to APLang [link] [comments]
https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap21-frq-english-language.pdf?course=ap-english-language-and-composition
For centuries handwriting has been our primary source of documenting data, but is it still currently? With digital technology reaching into everyones' back pockets the decline of handwriting is evident. Email's have replaced letters, Word has replaced note taking, powerpoint has replaced posters, and many more. Even though handwriting is a great skill to have, and can help you with other aspects in life, its pragmatic uses are continuously declining. Thus it should not be focused on in school as a mandated class but rather as an elective.
Undoubtably, handwriting has major benefits, more than just the physical writing it self. Cursive script is proven to develop fine motor skills and improve mental organization (SOURCE D). Even though cursive handwriting has such benefits, the uses it posses in the everyday world are exponentially declining. What would be the point of focusing valuable education time on forcing every student to learn cursive? It would be absurd, if they want to do it, they can choose to in the form of an elective. It would be deranged to force woodworking kids to join the band, same applies here. Or it would be the same thing as forcing every student to learn French, Japanese, Spanish, and Arabic, indisputably learning many languages has great benefits to one's mind, but it should be a choice especially since it is not used in everyday life. Or as SOURCE E states, Super Mario Bros can develop better motor skills. Another important factor to consider on WHY we should make it optional is its [handwriting and cursives] roots. The real reason we adopted such writing habits in the 19th century was to make our national identity and our sense of uniqueness. We differed from other scripts not limited too but including the Gothic script, or the Palmer method because they were connoted to different cultures (SOURCE C), we adopted this so we can show we are different, however in todays world that matters very little because everyone has the same Sans Serif font in their inboxes (font gmail uses). Vouching the fact that we should not make it a necessity at school for children to learn at school.
Even though mandating such a dying subject could potentially revive it, there is no practical need to do so. Doing so would most likely do more harm than good. SOURCE B portrays one of the thousands of worksheets teachers would have to print for every student to strenuously practice their cursive writing. We all know that deforestation is hurting our climate. Badly. So why waste even more paper, especially on children who have no interest in learning the skill as well. It is like buying a $100,000 racecar for a student who has no interest in racing. What will it lead to? Immense waste. To reiterate. The printing of worksheets should be encouraged for children who want to learn the skill of cursive handwriting, but shouldn't be forced upon everyone. There would be no point in encouraging penmanship in school since post-school the focus is towards technology, after all school is meant to prepare us for the future (SOURCE A). Schools that are focusing on it should reconsider and put more effort into preparing the children for the future. In 2013, writing on paper was on average 2x than writing with technology (SOURCE F), that is however 11 years ago and if numbers like that are still prominent, school administration should reconsider.
The point of school is to be prepared for the future. In today's world penmanship is almost extinct, and in tomorrow's world it will be extinct. Technology is more efficient to use, saves the environment, and is the standard for today. So why force children in learning something that will not have technical use to everyone. It [cursive handwriting] should be more of an optional elective, like woodworking or coding.
2024.05.13 02:35 Untrannery I promised to post months ago...
13 members but 0 online.. so I won't even edit it. I will simply repost a recent comment since I don't know if any of you will be reading it. And no, I have not done at least 3 consecutive hormone panels to verify that it works flawlessly. But this was the plan:
... I stick with bioidentical testosterone for a few reasons. One, I was testing out what it's like to inhale it from a nebulizer, I made it wearable while working out. I assume factoring in bioavailability that for a couple minutes my blood levels would rise 50 fold of what's normal. It's obvious that muscles soon inflated and would stay large for multiple days following one dose. There's probably a cascade of myokines and shit that persists even if steroids are dosed briefly, while allowing the liver and other organs to recover as opposed to keeping blood levels high 24/7.
Here are the studies I mentioneloin my previous reply, (that AAS hugely increase endorphins in the brain, and enclomiphene works by lowering endorphins in hypothalamus.)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168010296011418
https://europepmc.org/article/MED/2139451
It is possible that:
↑Sex steroid agonism → ↑Endorphin activity → ↓Gonadotropin secretion
If so, then a steroid cycle without being suppressed might be:
Exogenous testosterone + Naloxone coadministration = no suppression of gonadotropin secretion -> at the end, single dose of opioid agonist to desensitize back
Two studies gave healthy men AAS, and separate group endorphin blockade with it, in whom LH did not get suppressed.
https://zero.sci-hub.st/4651/30c8451800f76b5c4bc5b233cb7cab12/kletter1992.pdf
https://www.jci.org/articles/view/111417/version/1/pdf/render.pdf
But then studies show in animals that after naloxone is ceased, testosterone goes below what is in control.
https://karger.com/nen/article-abstract/55/4/405/223795/Restraint-Inhibits-Luteinizing-Hormone-and
I myself felt overly high afterward, never did opioids but it definitely matched the description of mu-opioid agonists.
This study shows that the rebound after opioids works in the opposite direction too, a dramatic increase in testosterone after a single opioid dose wears off and endorphin receptors are desensitized:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306452206002776
Kratom is a legal mu opioid receptor agonist, so, likely after a steroid cycle with naloxone ended, a single dose of kratom might make you even weaker for a day or two, but then desensitize endorphin receptors enough that normal testosterone levels are swiftly restored without allowing the pituitary or balls to atrophy.
Additionally I included cyproheptadine during the cycle to offset potential cortisol spike from naloxone use, but I realise such a hypothetical cortisol spike wouldn't harm much if exogenous steroids are high. But the other benefit of it is, while the dopamine antagonism of cyproheptadine is made bearable with the steroids, the prolactin doesn't spike once cypro also blocks serotonin. And after the cycle when cyproheptadine is ceased, serotonin stays low because the serotonin autoreceptor that is sensitive is not the one that causes prolactin secretion, but the dopamine receptor that got hypersensitive is the one that inhibits prolactin secretion. So, with overabundance of dopamine post cycle it is less problematic that the endorphin receptors are overly sensitive, prolactin won't really spike up.
While it is true that in the exogenous DHT study, combining DHT with naltrexone elevated LH above baseline, the one with exogenous testosterone wasn't as straightforward.
There, I should correct that I read it wrong the first time, as the abstract did not clarify which number js the starting point, it said testosterone + naloxone caused the LH to go 6.9->7.3.
To clarify, administration of testosterone lowered LH from 7.6 to 6.9. Naloxone raised it back up to 7.3. Which means almost half of the suppression still happened.
That still keeps it open that naloxone coadministration might prevent the further suppression below 7.3 in this scenario, if dosing is repeated daily?
It's certainly worked in the DHT study, that already is a potent regimen where they increased DHT over 300% of baseline for 4.5 days. All while increasing mean luteinizing hormone levels. Literally steroids without shrinking your balls. No liver toxicity like the silly SARMs.
submitted by Untrannery to HighTestNoSides [link] [comments]
... I stick with bioidentical testosterone for a few reasons. One, I was testing out what it's like to inhale it from a nebulizer, I made it wearable while working out. I assume factoring in bioavailability that for a couple minutes my blood levels would rise 50 fold of what's normal. It's obvious that muscles soon inflated and would stay large for multiple days following one dose. There's probably a cascade of myokines and shit that persists even if steroids are dosed briefly, while allowing the liver and other organs to recover as opposed to keeping blood levels high 24/7.
Here are the studies I mentioneloin my previous reply, (that AAS hugely increase endorphins in the brain, and enclomiphene works by lowering endorphins in hypothalamus.)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168010296011418
https://europepmc.org/article/MED/2139451
It is possible that:
↑Sex steroid agonism → ↑Endorphin activity → ↓Gonadotropin secretion
If so, then a steroid cycle without being suppressed might be:
Exogenous testosterone + Naloxone coadministration = no suppression of gonadotropin secretion -> at the end, single dose of opioid agonist to desensitize back
Two studies gave healthy men AAS, and separate group endorphin blockade with it, in whom LH did not get suppressed.
https://zero.sci-hub.st/4651/30c8451800f76b5c4bc5b233cb7cab12/kletter1992.pdf
https://www.jci.org/articles/view/111417/version/1/pdf/render.pdf
But then studies show in animals that after naloxone is ceased, testosterone goes below what is in control.
https://karger.com/nen/article-abstract/55/4/405/223795/Restraint-Inhibits-Luteinizing-Hormone-and
I myself felt overly high afterward, never did opioids but it definitely matched the description of mu-opioid agonists.
This study shows that the rebound after opioids works in the opposite direction too, a dramatic increase in testosterone after a single opioid dose wears off and endorphin receptors are desensitized:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306452206002776
Kratom is a legal mu opioid receptor agonist, so, likely after a steroid cycle with naloxone ended, a single dose of kratom might make you even weaker for a day or two, but then desensitize endorphin receptors enough that normal testosterone levels are swiftly restored without allowing the pituitary or balls to atrophy.
Additionally I included cyproheptadine during the cycle to offset potential cortisol spike from naloxone use, but I realise such a hypothetical cortisol spike wouldn't harm much if exogenous steroids are high. But the other benefit of it is, while the dopamine antagonism of cyproheptadine is made bearable with the steroids, the prolactin doesn't spike once cypro also blocks serotonin. And after the cycle when cyproheptadine is ceased, serotonin stays low because the serotonin autoreceptor that is sensitive is not the one that causes prolactin secretion, but the dopamine receptor that got hypersensitive is the one that inhibits prolactin secretion. So, with overabundance of dopamine post cycle it is less problematic that the endorphin receptors are overly sensitive, prolactin won't really spike up.
While it is true that in the exogenous DHT study, combining DHT with naltrexone elevated LH above baseline, the one with exogenous testosterone wasn't as straightforward.
There, I should correct that I read it wrong the first time, as the abstract did not clarify which number js the starting point, it said testosterone + naloxone caused the LH to go 6.9->7.3.
To clarify, administration of testosterone lowered LH from 7.6 to 6.9. Naloxone raised it back up to 7.3. Which means almost half of the suppression still happened.
That still keeps it open that naloxone coadministration might prevent the further suppression below 7.3 in this scenario, if dosing is repeated daily?
It's certainly worked in the DHT study, that already is a potent regimen where they increased DHT over 300% of baseline for 4.5 days. All while increasing mean luteinizing hormone levels. Literally steroids without shrinking your balls. No liver toxicity like the silly SARMs.
2024.05.13 02:12 mareck_ 2050th Just Used 5 Minutes of Your Day
"It seems he is in his office."
—Modal Adverbs and Predicative Modal Adjectives in Akan (pg. 6)Sentence submission form!
Feel free to comment on other people's langs!
2024.05.12 23:23 miss5533 What are 7 year olds learning in school, english wise?
My aunt has given me the responsibility (or honor?) of her 7 year old this summer about once or twice a week. Not full time or anything, so remove if this isn't allowed, but I have been tasked with teaching the kid some English while school's out for the summer. I don't know any 7 year olds so I can't ask them what they're learning in school. From some online research I've come up with worksheets about adjectives, nouns, sentence structure including action words, present and past tense...
parents: What approaches work best for kids? Do you have book suggestions I can buy online?
I'm not really that close with my aunt, but at this point I don't even know what I'm supposed to ask her to get more information.
Thank you!
submitted by miss5533 to Parenting [link] [comments]
parents: What approaches work best for kids? Do you have book suggestions I can buy online?
I'm not really that close with my aunt, but at this point I don't even know what I'm supposed to ask her to get more information.
Thank you!
2024.05.12 20:31 approachenglish English Grammar Class 6 Topics Syllabus CBSE ICSE (2025)
 | English Grammar Class 6 Topics Syllabus CBSE ICSE (2025) submitted by approachenglish to u/approachenglish [link] [comments] In the academic year 2025, Class 6 students across various educational boards will delve into the intricacies of English Grammar. Understanding the syllabus is crucial for students to excel in language proficiency and academic performance. Importance of Understanding English Grammar at an Early AgeGrasping English Grammar concepts at a young age lays a strong foundation for effective communication and academic success. Early exposure to grammar aids students in writing coherent essays, improving comprehension skills, and achieving higher grades in exams.Topics Covered in Class 6 English Grammar CBSE, ICSE, Other State Boards (2025)In Class 6 English Grammar syllabi for 2025, CBSE, ICSE, and other State Boards cover the following grammar topics:1: The Sentences 2: Subject and Predicate 3: Nouns 4: Singular Plural Nouns 5: Gender 6: Nominative Accusative Possessive Case 7: Pronouns 8: Verbs 9: Modal Auxiliaries 10: Adjectives 11: Degrees of Comparison 12: Adverbs 13: The Simple Tense 14: The Continuous Tense 15: The Perfect Tense 16: Phrases and Clauses 17: Prepositions 18: Conjunctions 19: Articles 20: Subject Verb Agreement 21: Active and Passive Voice 22: Direct and Indirect Speech 23: Punctuation Marks and Capital Letters Overview of CBSE and ICSE Syllabus for Class 6 English GrammarComparing the syllabi provided by CBSE and ICSE reveals similarities and differences in the focus and structure of English Grammar education. While both boards emphasize language skills development, CBSE tends to have a broader approach, covering reading, writing, and grammar, whereas ICSE places more emphasis on language proficiency and composition.Detailed Breakdown of CBSE SyllabusCBSE's syllabus for Class 6 English Grammar includes comprehensive coverage of reading skills, writing skills, and grammar concepts. Students engage in activities such as comprehension passages, essay writing, and grammar exercises to enhance their language proficiency.Detailed Breakdown of ICSE SyllabusIn contrast, ICSE's syllabus focuses on language proficiency and composition, with an emphasis on literary analysis and creative writing. Students explore various literary genres, practice writing different types of compositions, and delve into advanced grammar concepts.Key Topics Covered in Class 6 English GrammarKey topics covered in Class 6 English Grammar include parts of speech, sentence structure, tenses, punctuation, and comprehension skills. Mastering these topics is essential for effective communication and academic success.Tips for Effective Learning of English GrammarStudents can enhance their grammar skills through regular practice, active reading, writing exercises, and seeking feedback from teachers or peers. Utilizing online resources, grammar apps, and participating in grammar games can also facilitate learning.Resources for Further PracticeAdditional resources such as websites like approachenglish.com, grammar books like "Wren & Martin," and online platforms like Grammarly provide students with opportunities for further practice and consolidation of English Grammar skills.ConclusionIn conclusion, understanding the English Grammar Class 6 Topics Syllabus CBSE ICSE (2025) is paramount for students' language development and academic success. By mastering grammar concepts, students can communicate effectively, excel in exams, and prepare for future opportunities.Get the Class 6 English Grammar Book |
2024.05.12 18:54 Effort-Natural Repost - How to spot fud - COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
I am an older ape and I have read countless hours of DD since the sneeze. One of the biggest achievements of this sub was to educate people on techniques being used to subvert us and our stock.
A main piece is this:
https://www.reddit.com/Superstonk/s/a6Ju1N8XpM by another ape
Enjoy the read :) I don’t take any credit for this work.
You may remember that a few days back, u/[redacted] put up this post about shills infiltrating /BIZ/ https://www.reddit.com/Superstonk/comments/mscsb5/putting_shills_on_blast_a_concerned_biznessman/
In that post, there was a HUGE image on:
SUPPOSED**methods used by banks and the hedgefunds to dismantle online communities
I had trouble reading that image (definitely NOT phone or text-to-speech friendly), and tried to find the original text version. It turns out that it can be found here: https://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5. I copy-pasta it here for your convenience, and included some markup to make it easier to read. I take no credit for this work.
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..
There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.'
Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.
Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'
A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'
Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.
Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION'
Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.
Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'
Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.
Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'
It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.
CONCLUSION
Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.
Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo.
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?
1) The message doesn't get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.
FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.
Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.
Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.
The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.
This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.
It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.
In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:
"You're dividing the movement."
[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]
This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.
The agent will tell the activist:
"You're a leader!"
This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.
This is "malignant pseudoidentification." It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist's identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.
Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.
The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.
The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.
The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them.
The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch with reality."
Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.
Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist's narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.
The agent's expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.
It can usually be identified by two events, however:
First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.
As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.
The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste of time.
A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.
Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:
1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.
Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.
Saboteurs
Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....
1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
8) Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.
Provocateurs
1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.
Informants
1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.
Recruiting
Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.
Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.
Surveillance
ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.
At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!
Scare Tactics
They use them.
Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.
This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists.
If an agent is "exposed," he or she will be transferred or replaced.
COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.
The FBI counterintelligence program's stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. "National Security" means the FBI's security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people's civil liberties.
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.
submitted by Effort-Natural to Superstonk [link] [comments]
A main piece is this:
https://www.reddit.com/Superstonk/s/a6Ju1N8XpM by another ape
Enjoy the read :) I don’t take any credit for this work.
You may remember that a few days back, u/[redacted] put up this post about shills infiltrating /BIZ/ https://www.reddit.com/Superstonk/comments/mscsb5/putting_shills_on_blast_a_concerned_biznessman/
In that post, there was a HUGE image on:
SUPPOSED**methods used by banks and the hedgefunds to dismantle online communities
I had trouble reading that image (definitely NOT phone or text-to-speech friendly), and tried to find the original text version. It turns out that it can be found here: https://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5. I copy-pasta it here for your convenience, and included some markup to make it easier to read. I take no credit for this work.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.'
Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.
Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'
A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'
Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.
Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION'
Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.
Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'
Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.
Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'
It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.
CONCLUSION
Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
- Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
- Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
- Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
- Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
- Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
- Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
- Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
- Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
- Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
- Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
- Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
- Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
- Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
- Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
- Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
- Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
- Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
- Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
- Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
- False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
- Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
- Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
- Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
- Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
- Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.
Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo.
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?
1) The message doesn't get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.
FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.
Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.
Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.
The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.
This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.
It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.
In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:
"You're dividing the movement."
[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]
This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.
The agent will tell the activist:
"You're a leader!"
This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.
This is "malignant pseudoidentification." It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist's identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.
Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.
The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.
The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.
The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them.
The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch with reality."
Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.
Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist's narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.
The agent's expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.
It can usually be identified by two events, however:
First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.
As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.
The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste of time.
A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.
Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:
1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.
Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.
Saboteurs
Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....
1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
8) Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.
Provocateurs
1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.
Informants
1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.
Recruiting
Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.
Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.
Surveillance
ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.
At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!
Scare Tactics
They use them.
Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.
This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists.
If an agent is "exposed," he or she will be transferred or replaced.
COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.
The FBI counterintelligence program's stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. "National Security" means the FBI's security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people's civil liberties.
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.
- Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
- Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.
- Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")
- Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
- Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.
- Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
- Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
- Dismiss the charges as "old news."
- Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
- Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
- Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
- Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
- Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
- Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.
- Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
- Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
- Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
2024.05.12 18:49 Ricosss Epithelial-mesenchymal transition-related signaling pathways in gastric Cancer cells distinctively respond to long-term experimental ketosis. (Pub Date: 2024-05-10)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-024-09571-w
https://pubpeer.com/search?q=10.1007/s11033-024-09571-w
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38727798
Open Access: False
------------------------------------------ Open Access ------------------------------------------
If the paper is behind paywall, please consider uploading it to our google drive anonymously.
You'll have to log on to Google but none of your personal data is stored. I will manually add a link to the file in this post when received.
Upload PDF
submitted by Ricosss to ketoscience [link] [comments]
https://pubpeer.com/search?q=10.1007/s11033-024-09571-w
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38727798
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The interrelationship between cellular metabolism and the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) process has made it an interesting topic to investigate the adjuvant effect of therapeutic diets in the treatment of cancers. However, the findings are controversial. In this study, the effects of glucose limitation along and with the addition of beta-hydroxybutyrate (bHB) were examined on the expression of specific genes and proteins of EMT, Wnt, Hedgehog, and Hippo signaling pathways, and also on cellular behavior of gastric cancer stem-like (MKN-45) and non-stem-like (KATO III) cells.METHODS AND RESULTS
The expression levels of chosen genes and proteins studied in cancer cells gradually adopted a low-glucose condition of one-fourth, along and with the addition of bHB, and compared to the unconditioned control cells. The long-term switching of the metabolic fuels successfully altered the expression profiles and behaviors of both gastric cancer cells. However, the results for some changes were the opposite. Glucose limitation along and with the addition of bHB reduced the CD44 population in MKN-45 cells. In KATO III cells, glucose restriction increased the CD44 population. Glucose deprivation alleviated EMT-related signaling pathways in MKN-45 cells but stimulated EMT in KATO III cells. Interestingly, bHB enrichment reduced the beneficial effect of glucose starvation in MKN-45 cells, but also alleviated the adverse effects of glucose restriction in KATO III cells.CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this research clearly showed that some controversial results in clinical trials for ketogenic diet in cancer patients stemmed from the different signaling responses of various cells to the metabolic changes in a heterogeneous cancer mass.Authors:
- Tahmori H
- Ghahremani H
- Nabati S
- Mehdikhani F
- Mirlohi M
- Salami S
- Sirati-Sabet M
Open Access: False
------------------------------------------ Open Access ------------------------------------------
If the paper is behind paywall, please consider uploading it to our google drive anonymously.
You'll have to log on to Google but none of your personal data is stored. I will manually add a link to the file in this post when received.
Upload PDF
2024.05.12 16:15 PoisonedWhispers [Part 2] An analysis of the behaviour that leads to misinformation on the subreddit and in general; methods to curb this; and other malarkey.
The Short Version can be found here.
Part 1 can be found here.Example 5 - There's more to a BBC YouTube title
Returning to this dastardly subreddit, for my next example, points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are relevant. OP provided a screenshot of a BBC YouTube title, stating: "Israeli hit squad dressed as doctors kill Palestinians in hospital." Per point 2, by failing to immediately link to the video, or immediately mention what the video contains, folk could come away with the conclusion that the BBC never reports that these were militants. In other words, some might believe that the misreporting here extends past the video title, when it does not, and this could be avoided by providing salient details sooner rather than later. This submission was made during the temporary ban, and I thought it was interesting enough as a case study to come back to.Example 6 - Oxfam's full position
For this submission/meme, points 1, 2, and 6 are relevant. I saw that we weren’t going to get good-faith engagement with the entirety of Oxfam’s position here on why they initially opposed airdrops, and I attempted to outline the full extent of their views so that it can be critiqued appropriately. This meme is not too dissimilar from some Twitter leftist fixating on one short clip of Destiny during one of his heated gamer moments; his actual positions aren’t being engaged with, and it’s intellectually dull. There’s more to Destiny’s positions than a twenty-second clip; there’s more to Oxfam’s position than the one tweet. The fact of the matter is that there’s a long series of tweets here, and while the tweet OP chose to highlight is risible, is dumb, and is insufferable, we are more than capable on this subreddit in being more nuanced and fair when it comes to our criticism.As I highlight, there were some concerns here that were not entirely unreasonable. At the time of my comment, there weren’t yet any reports on injuries due to airdrops. These reports appeared in the following days and weeks, where Gazans were killed when a parachute in an airdrop failed to deploy, and some drowned in their attempts to retrieve parcels that landed in the sea. Retrospectively, I wouldn't say that aid should not have been airdropped merely because it would result in these deaths, but a fair assessment of Oxfam here at the time should have taken these concerns into account.
Oxfam’s associate director also endorses a Twitter thread where some prescriptions are given on how ought this aid delivery be facilitated. He recommends that the Gaza port be reopened, and to open more crossings. The Biden administration recognized that airdrops would not sufficiently alleviate the problem of being unable to get sufficient quantities of aid distributed, and while the port was not reopened, Biden did announce that a temporary port would be built. Further, Israel approved the reopening of the Erez crossing.
The misinformation in OP’s post stems from the fact that folk will be disinterested in reading the twitter thread or any additional threads where they might have elaborated on views. Out of the thousands that interact with the post, a significant chunk will come away with the incorrect belief that Oxfam’s opposition to airdrops was merely due to what was stated in the meme. That is misinformation being propagated — not the most egregious, Hamas-esqe level of misinformation in the world, but misinformation nonetheless.
Example 7 - NYT: Bananas, or Cool as a Cucumber?
For our final example points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are relevant; it’s the whole shebang. To give a quick recounting here, Hobbitfollower isn’t the only masochist that might, occasionally, choose to exclusively sort by new. When I saw the submission, I read the article, and I was a bit annoyed that the Jerusalem Post article doesn’t even link to the mission report that I was interested in reading. I searched for it, posted a link to the report in the very first comment of the thread as surely my fellow dggas would also like to read the report, and then I, well, read the report.When I returned back to the thread, I quoted favourably from the mission report to support another individual's comment. (I would again quote from it in another thread the next day to highlight why Israel struggled to acquire forensic evidence.)
But as I scrolled down the thread I came across the subject of our example; 50 upvotes, no article linked, and clearly a charged comment. Consider the steps involved to truly engage with this comment; one would need to:
- Click and read the article.
- Search for the mission report.
- Read the mission report (as some folk probably won’t wanna read 20 pages right off the bat).
- Search for the NYT article; bypass the paywall (which is trivially easy nowadays but is still a barrier, and people are lazy); and read the article.
When a misleading tweet goes viral, the damage has already been done, as a considerable amount of people won’t see the subsequent Community Notes that might be slapped on it. Likewise, some of the thousands who see OP’s highly upvoted comment will think, “Oh, this has a lot of upvotes, I guess it must be true. How horrible of the NYT to frame this as a both sides issue”, and thus misinformation has spread. This incorrect belief will mold their perceptions of the NYT. When they encounter more reporting by the NYT on I-P in the future, they might even think back to this moment: “Ah, I remember when these bozos tried to say that the Israeli accusations were the same as the Palestinian accusations.”
I also referred to OP’s comment as disinformation. In every example discussed so far, I don't assume malicious intent. I just begin with the foundation that a mistake was made, and I don’t enmesh myself by throwing out accusations of lying. In this case, however, OP has indirectly acknowledged that I was correct, but they still haven’t bothered to edit their original comment. Once again, this comment is a really good example of point 1. I obviously also disagree with their conclusion, and the process by which they’re arriving at their conclusion is still very flawed — and other people are simply going to adopt their conclusion while not even attempting to reach there by their own independent assessment. If you see someone quote from an article, and they don’t even link it, and the comment is very charged, I would encourage y’all to seek out the article yourself; you may come away with a different interpretation.
I'm sure you've seen this meme before: "I'm just waiting for Destiny to comment on this so that I know what to think 😎." We meme about it, but there is, of course, an undercurrent of truth here, as we have confidence in Destiny's ability to research, and thus we feel comfortable adopting his beliefs and opinions. It's nice not having to do the research ourselves. Lazy fucks.
This applies to Reddit comments you see as well. Don't just adopt the conclusion of someone else because their beliefs align with yours and they're speaking with authority. Do the legwork yourself; be mindful of The Six Points; and you might find that someone on your own side is actually spreading misinformation, or is espousing an opinion that you disagree with.
Purgatory
I was perma-banned some time after my previous comment for a comment I made in a different thread. Before I get to that in the next fuck-me-who-knows-how-I'm-gonna-write-that-I'm-so-fucked section, I did want to bring up two final examples.Example A - Haaretz and Amputations
For Example A, points 1, 3, 4, and 5 are relevant. Obviously, I can’t attempt point 6 because I was banned. Now, I actually agree with OP as I share their skepticism towards the notion that these amputations are “routine”, but referring to the article as a "fake story" is too strong, and, as always, their process here is flawed. The claims they make here about the Haaretz article and CNN article are misleading, but it is immediately upvoted because it feels right, particularly because the first reply just poisons the well. Haaretz did not speak to an anonymous person, they are reporting on a letter they have seen written by a doctor and sent to senior Israeli officials; the doctor did not justify the claim that the event is routine based on having seen only two amputations, that's merely the amputations they saw in the week they wrote the letter (but the phrasing here is ambiguous, as the doctor could be referring to the handcuff injuries as being the "routine" event); and the IDF did not confirm or deny all the claims, but gave a fairly standard, boilerplate response instead. The misleading claims in this comment was eventually addressed — and, as I’m sure you’re irritated by the repetition by now, the goal of this post is to turn this “eventually” into an “immediately.”Example B - Wikipedia and Devious Editing
For Example B, points 1 and 5 are relevant. I want to be very careful with this one as I don't want to be misconstrued. Similar to the previous example, I mostly agree with their conclusion that these Wikipedia pages can be very flawed, and partisan editors can tarnish the objectivity that we wish could be maintained across all articles. However, you know the drill by now, point 1. There’s much to be said about the infamous “24-hour window” debacle, and I made a submission a while ago on this. I think there are parts of this story that both the pro-Palestine and pro-Israel crowd get wrong — but the latter is generally more correct, and I would agree with OP here that the information here is, at the very least, incomplete.However, per point 5, the articles they are critiquing are not linked. How many people here actually sought out the two articles referenced here? As I’ve already demonstrated, we know how many misleading or false claims you can get away with before they’re finally addressed. A user in that thread made some edits to the contentious lines in question in the Wikipedia article. This was the Wikipedia article at the time OP’s comment was made. OP quotes this section:
Prior to the raids, Israel had called for the more than a million people living in the north half of the Gaza Strip to evacuate during a 24-hour window, while Hamas instructed those residents to stay put.The two citations here are a Reuters article and a Politico article. The Politico article is arguably redundant, but it’s not being cited because it’s supposed to make a statement about a 24-hour window; it’s being cited to support the statement about Hamas:
Hamas is complicating the situation, urging residents to stay in their homes.The Reuters article also mentions this:
“We tell the people of northern Gaza and from Gaza City, stay put in your homes, and your places," Eyad Al-Bozom, spokesman for the Hamas Interior Ministry, told a news conference.Contrary to what OP said, both articles use the word “evacuation” at some point. The first part of the quote from the Wikipedia page is supported by this statement in the Reuters article:
On Friday Israel gave more than a million residents of the northern half of Gaza 24 hours to flee to the south to avoid an onslaught.In a follow-up comment OP claims that the archived link, which pulled the earliest version of the Reuters article available, does not support the line. This seems to have been an error on the part of whoever chose this hyperlink. When the Wikipedia article first mentions calls for evacuation, this was how the Reuters article cited looked like at the time; regardless of the veracity of the claim, the article did support what the Wikipedia page mentions.
To reiterate, OP is completely correct about this pernicious problem with Wikipedia. It’s just that in this example, I don’t think it qualifies as a case of those darn pro-Palestine editors back at it again. The nuanced position here is pretty difficult to get to, and I don’t think the editors wrote this line in the interest of distorting the truth to serve their own side.
Example B.5: A better yet slightly flawed post on Wikipedia and Euro-Med Monitor
This post about how Hamas supporters are influencing Wikipedia does better in terms of substantiating their claims — but there are issues here that I would have loved to address, and there is a good critique on OP’s prescriptions that was buried at the bottom. Unfortunately, OP has been suspended from Reddit. If you’re reading this mate, call me 🥺.There are a lot of hyperlinks in OP’s post (lol, sez fucking me), and it’s completely reasonable that someone won’t feel inclined to click every single one; that’s not an expectation I would ever demand. From going through the post, there are several small critiques I would have made (e.g., while I don’t believe the Mondo article should have been cited, OP claims that in the article, “The only people criticizing Wiesel here is the author of the opinion piece.” FWIW, the article does reference and cite a Haaretz article, and a Foreign policy article, both of which levy criticism against Wiesel), but I’m just going to focus on this line:
In fact, it is owned by a man named Ramy Abdu, who is a literal Hamas lobbyist.If you’re going to call someone a literal Hamas lobbyist, that is definitely a link I’m clicking. What I know about Abdu is simply what I can assume about his beliefs from various tweets I’ve seen by him over the past several months; but I’ve never looked into their background other than being aware of their position at EMM. Upon opening the link I see… a 2013 article about Clare Short. From reading the article, it looks like OP missed some steps in outlining how they arrived at their conclusion, and I saw only a few people inquiring about this. To fill in the steps on what I presume OP wanted to say, from the article they linked:
Moshe Ya’alon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) – a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government – using emergency defence regulations.I haven’t looked into CEPR, and they obviously disputed the lobbying charge; I’m just going to take the claim at face-value. In 2011, Abdu was assistant director of the CEPR, and still held a position there for several years. They've since left the organization, but per point 1, if this is how OP arrived at the conclusion that Abdu is a “literal Hamas lobbyist”, I think it could use a bit more work, with additional clarification on what they mean by lobbyist here. I’m sure they can do it, it just happened to not be in this post.
I'm not going to harp on about point 5 here as I only apply that to incidents where a claim is made; one or two articles are linked; and then no one reads them, assuming the claim must be true as long as articles are provided. I would literally never make the prescription that if someone writes an effort-post, we must click every hyperlink to fact-check. I mean, it's not like I would have any other motivation for saying that... sweats profusely 🙄
Just to make one final point on EMM, it is a rubbish outlet, and any time I encounter one of their articles, I roll my eyes knowing I’m going to get some outlandish claim where I can find fuck-all for corroboration from other outlets. However, sometimes there is corroboration, where EMM was the first to notice that the IDF labelled a bicycle as an RPG in the drone footage they published, and then the NYT confirmed the finding (except for the other stupid claim made in the tweet.) But anyways, these moments are astronomically rare.
Example C - A Mysterious Royal Website (What a weaselly little --)
Okay, I lied, one final example as it’s interesting to see how people here parse articles and headlines, but before I address the example, let me talk about Reuters headlines.Reuters headlines
They’re not always consistent on this front, but I generally like how Reuters writes their headlines. A Reuters headline will often contain the phrase “US says”. [30] [31] [32] What I’m expecting in the article when I see a headline containing this phrase is some official representing the Biden administration outlining what their particular policy, position, belief, etc., is on whatever the subject matter may be, or some action they took which makes it clear what their position is. In the given examples, we have statements from Biden, Blinken, the US military, and so on. Sometimes the US officials remain anonymous, sharing information in private briefings.If there isn’t an official statement by the US available on a matter, the headline might use the phrase “source says” to talk about ongoing developments. [33] [34] “Reuters will use unnamed sources where necessary when they provide information of market or public interest that is not available on the record. We alone are responsible for the accuracy of such information.” [35]
Relevant to Example C, Reuters uses the same guidelines for “Saudi Arabia says” [36] [37] and “sources say” for information relevant to Saudi Arabia. [38]
Israeli outlets, A royal family website, and Saudi sources: An amusing chain of events
Keeping the previous section in mind, when I came across this version of a Jerusalem Post article posted to this subreddit, you can imagine what I’m expecting here — particularly because this would be momentous news to see Saudi Arabia make a public statement that they helped defend Israel. Instead, we get reporting on what Saudi Arabia’s royal family said on their website, and what a source connected to the Saudi royal family told KAN, another Israeli outlet — and we don’t get links to either of them. If there was no statement on the royal family’s website, this would have been a bad headline to write based on what this source said. Unfortunately for the JP, there is no official website for Saudi Arabia’s royal family. You’ll see in the current version, they remove the reference to that website, and also add the following line:The Al Arabiya news site said sources had informed it that Saudi Arabia had not participated in the interception of Iranian drones and missiles.Here’s the article by the Saudi state-owned outlet, which is essentially their mouthpiece to deny the ongoing report. I24news, however, didn’t get the memo:
Saudi Arabia publicly acknowledges role in defending Israel against Iranian attackWhen I first saw the JP submission on this subreddit, I bookmarked it for later to come back to and find the sources, as it’s not the first time I’ve seen dubious reporting from KAN news. I was also curious if anyone in the thread was going to highlight some of the discrepancies in the article, and, well, shoutout to this keen reader! Fact-checking the JP article slipped my mind, but thanks to a comment I saw on another subreddit, they correctly pointed out that the website referenced was not affiliated with the Saudi royal family, and thus the article the JP and other Israeli outlets had presumably read should not have been taken as an official statement. Christ, this is obvious from the very first line:
While Jordan had openly disclosed its role in the defensive maneuver, Saudi Arabia's acknowledgment came in the form of a summary on its official website
A source from the Saudi royal family, who prefers anonymity, converses with the Kan public broadcaster. The individual subtly acknowledges Saudi Arabia’s supposed involvement in thwarting Iranian attack drones bound for Israel the previous evening, citing that Saudi Arabian airspace automatically intercepts “any suspicious entity”.Why would the official Saudi royal website use an anonymous source within the royal family to make their public announcement, and why would they quote what the official said to an Israeli outlet?!
The same figure takes a swing at Iran, accusing them of instigating a conflict in Gaza. This, they suggest, is a deliberate attempt to unravel the progress established towards normalizing relations with Israel, as per Kan’s report.
In the words of the official, as put forth by Kan, “Iran is a nation that endorses terrorism, and the world should have curtailed it much earlier.”
It’s fascinating to see this play out: the supposed source spoke to Kan News; Houseofsaud presumably sees this and makes an article on the Kan segment; the JP sees this article and the segment, poorly reads it, and then cites it and the original Kan segment; outlets like the Daily Wire pick up on the story from the JP; and then on it goes, spreading like wildefire, before the Saudis take note (“oh fuck, oh fuck, where are these reports coming from?”) and disseminate a message denying that any “official” website publicly confirmed their involvement. The Saudis are involved, and they’re keeping tight-lipped about the extent of their involvement.
Just to quote one more line from the i24news article because it’s shockingly poor:
The post subtly hinted at Saudi Arabia's involvement in intercepting suspicious entities in its airspace, highlighting the kingdom's proactive stance in safeguarding regional stability.This is written based on this line from the HouseofSaud article:
A source from the Saudi royal family, who prefers anonymity, converses with the Kan public broadcaster. The individual subtly acknowledges Saudi Arabia’s supposed involvement in thwarting Iranian attack drones bound for Israel the previous evening, citing that Saudi Arabian airspace automatically intercepts “any suspicious entity”.It’s the individual/source who is being subtle, not the post itself as i24 news mentions.
Anyways, this is not a case of misinformation by the subreddit. There's nothing wrong with posting a JP article, and this is easily the least offensive Example, but point 5 is nicely relevant here. I thought y'all might find this to be interesting, particularly because some people probably still believe that Saudi Arabia has publicly acknowledged their involvement, and maybe that could be someone reading this section. It's also another example where, because I’m banned, I can’t offer a bit of nuance. stares intently at 4THOT
It’s a shame Destiny didn’t finish reading the article, I’m curious what he would have said. He speculates that the report was from intelligence or monitoring, but moves on before finishing the article; it’s also the updated version of the article, without the tidbit about the Saudi royal family website.
Finito
I'm going to close out this section here. There's always more to include, more examples that demonstrate the aforementioned points, but I'd rather focus on my own comments instead of threads where I was unable to contribute my thoughts. There's been a plethora of discourse here surrounding the campus protests, and maybe those are still ongoing if I manage to post this at a sooner date. For completely legitimate and fair justifications, all of these threads are going to be very charged; and maybe upon reading this post some of y'all might feel more inclined to analyze these situations dispassionately, mindful of cases where the reporting might not be the greatest.Example D - A Late Fact-check (Still lying, dude!)
I fucking lied again, there’s more. Literally the day after I finished writing the above paragraph, a new example popped up that I can’t resist the temptation to include. Stop giving me material! As I spoke of above, the campus protests have resulted in a charged atmosphere on the subreddit, which means that this post stating that a “Jewish-Israeli family’s restaurant was targeted in a hate crime” is immediately catapulted to the front page. The biggest problem here is that, per point 2, the presentation of the post led folk to believe that this was a recent event because OP had omitted the date this took place, and this led to one user to thoughtfully suggest that it might be worth setting up a GoFundMe to help the owners with the repairs.To reemphasize the point I’ve made throughout this post, I’m looking to incentivise better behaviour to occur sooner. It took nearly 10 hours before one jolly chap came along to do the fact-check. Naturally, had I seen this post while browsing arnew, I would have done the same, and so would a couple other users here as well who are good for this sort of thing — and that's unfortunate that I’m saying a “couple” instead of “many.” There is no curiosity amongst everyone who interacted with this post to inquire into the event; not even something simple as requesting OP for an article. So folks, always ask for a source if OP doesn’t provide one just so you have a bit more context. (Also, I am fascinated with the anecdote OP attached to this post. Did they just make up their credentials?)
Example E - Hebrew Sources and False Confidence
This is a wonderful example to close out this section because it exemplifies so many of the problematic behaviours that I have demonstrated in this post. I was only made aware of this thread because a user here DM'd me a link to the thread. I will refer to the individual posting misinformation in the comments as "OP", and I'll refer to the submitter of the post by their username, Sylmd. The rebuttals to OP are excellent, and I will focus more on the behaviour here.Sylmd posted a submission doing a quick lil' fact-check on a Destiny tweet, noting the fact that he seemed to have misread or misremembered a particular report. I say "seemed" here in case Destiny was referring to some other report or article he had read, but that seems unlikely as he has referenced this report in several of his debates, and the report was the subject of his previous tweets. Regardless, it was a small mistake, and apart from failing to immediately link the tweet and the report (link your sources you silly goose), Sylmd's post is civil, calm, and makes no accusations of malicious intent.
According to OP, Destiny was actually right, and 300+ IDF soldiers were in fact injured. Now, there's so much that is astonishingly problematic with OP's comment, and I gotta... mention it all! Sorry!
Naturally, they don't ever quote from their sources, which means it's on us to try and find the relevant sections. OP claims that the articles linked will demonstrate that 380 Israelis were injured -- despite the fact that Sylmd is obviously doing a fact-check on how many Israeli soldiers were injured, and that's literally the subject of Destiny's tweet.
Whatever, I'm sure the articles at least "discusses around 380 injuries"? Fuck no they don't! There's no mention of this figure anywhere, and OP somehow racks up 50 upvotes when they accuse Sylmd of lying after they correctly point this out. Did these people actually read the articles, find this magical 380 figure, and think, "Grrr, Sylmd you mendacious scumbag, I see through your Hamas propaganda." Sylmd was sitting at -31, one hour after the thread was made. (If you refer back to Example 2, you'll see that I felt compelled to make a submission when I saw a user was being downvoted for correctly pointing out that an article did not prove a particular claim.)
It gets worse. Apparently, you have to "click through all the links in these articles buddy." Well, okay, that's pretty elaborate, how silly of us not to realize this. OP wants us to open up nine Hebrew articles, translate them, and then tally up the number of casualties. Problem? Surely we get to the 380 figure if we click through all the hyperlinks in the article? Fuck no we don't! And even if we did, this is the most blisteringly cumbersome way to prove a claim. The sheer condescension in OP's comment is equivalent to that of a Twitter leftist: "It's not my job to educate you honey, you must read the literature."
So where does this mysterious figure come from? Well, as Sylmd correctly pointed out (before OP mentioned it), they are grabbing this figure from Hebrew Wikipedia. Sylmd doesn't provide a link to the article in question, so I will provide it here, and as you can see, the two articles that OP linked came from this Wikipedia page. I'm not convinced OP actually read either of these articles.
That's not all. They then linked a report in Hebrew in their edit. Where did they get this report from? It's not on the Wikipedia page, maybe this is something they have bookmarked? Nope, they got it from another user in the thread! After all is said and done, they still somehow racked up 270 upvotes for this awful rebuttal, and they were, "Proud to take a blast for defending the truth."
Do I even need to mention the points here? It's an authoritative comment; the linked articles give an "aura" of being correct; and there's confidence in all their comments.
To quote from Example 1:
Anyways, since I began this post it looks like the upvotes and downvotes on the original comment have since shifted. Mashallah. It's the behaviour I was describing before: all the low-effort garbage gets upvoted first, and then other people break the circlejerk and try to add nuance. But it would be nice if the nuance was added first and foremost without the need for tedious fact-checks.That still holds true today.
Consistency and Principles
Do I only address misinformation from the pro-Israel side? Not that it should matter, but no, I will address misinformation from the pro-Palestine on this subreddit if I see it and I feel like addressing it. I was irritated to see muppets like Rob Rousseau spread conspiracies about a "suspicious link" between ISIS and Mossad, and I encountered a user here who was sprouting similar conspiratorial nonsense. You’ll notice that (1) I was blessed to be called a “Reddit pseudo intellectual libtard” (not wrong, not false, this hurts bro); and (2) I apply the exact same methodology here as I do for the examples of misinformation I've addressed elsewhere — which isn’t to say I’m doing anything commendable here. I just read the articles, trying to find the primary sources where relevant, and then see if the “reporting” accurately conveys what was said or written.However, digging up the original source can be a time-consuming endeavour, and compounded by the fact that I might not speak the relevant language — which means that there was a case where I inadvertently made a comment containing misinformation. A couple months ago someone requested a steelman of the argument that Israel is conducting a genocide against Gazans; I offered one, and to support the case I used a misquote taken from a Bloomberg video which omitted a crucial part of Yoev Gallant’s statement: the reference to Hamas, and thus radically changing the context of the statement. I hold myself to the same principle when it comes to curbing misinformation, and I was more than content to edit my comment to ensure it did not propagate further than it already had.
Some of you eagle-eyed readers might recognize this Gallant quote, as it made a very marked appearance within… South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Here, that salient reference to Hamas is also omitted, and the accompanying footnote cites the same Bloomberg video that I did. As I wished in another reply, Bloomberg did indeed take the video down eventually. Now, I can be excused for my mistake as I’m not making the positive case outside of my steelman. For South Africa, this is unbelievably shoddy work when you're officially bringing a genocide case against another state.
Anyways, I've gone through many examples in this schizo-post, and it's entirely possible that I've made an error at some point; the irony is not lost on me. Feel free to point these errors out. I might not agree with your assessment, but I'm always willing to hear the arguments.
Prescriptions: The Six Points (Déjà vu)
I'm going to end with The Six Points because that's the focus of Part 1 and Part 2. As previously mentioned, this post is not intended to demonstrate that the misinformation the pro-Israel crowd spreads is as egregious as the misinformation the pro-Palestine spreads, whether in general or on this subreddit. While misinformation from the pro-Palestine crowd slips by every now and then on the subreddit, I would make the case that, generally speaking, it is quickly addressed. In my experience, however, I was finding quite a few cases of misinformation from the pro-Israel crowd were taking a concerning amount of time to be addressed; and in the interest of ensuring that it does get addressed in a more timely manner, I believe the following prescriptions would be helpful to keep in mind when browsing the subreddit:- Value the process just as much — if not, more — than the conclusion.
- Be wary of how the presentation of information or the omission of pertinent information can lead to the inadvertent spread of misinformation.
- Be aware of how “charged” topics/threads lead to poor reasoning that lacks dispassionate analysis.
- Be aware of how pre-existing beliefs about an individual or organization alongside the usual biases leads to a reluctance to fact-check, where claims are taken at face-value because they feel right.
- Link the article. Read the article. (Thoroughly.)
- Redirect criticism to areas where it will be the strongest.
Click here for Part 3. Warning: you might get stung by a bee 🐝
2024.05.12 15:00 MGK_2 Cutting Off the Snake's Head
I pick up where the press releases and SEC statements leave off.
Mission Statement
CytoDyn still needs to attract that partnership. They seem to be focusing on a certain area with greater than normal interest. Seems that what is going on is more of a "hunt" than it is an aggressive motivation to "let's get in there, let's get it going and blow the top off this clinical trial." Raising the appropriate $10M funds could possibly be at the top of the list as to what the problem is. Therefore, a logical assumption might be that long haulers, (PASC) takes center stage.
Maybe the hunt for the snake's head is a concerted action to reach the hope of winning an NIH award towards a sponsored PASC trial. CytoDyn is more than familiar with Long COVID; it recently published this paper in the Journal of Infection 2024 on the PASC Phase II trial it did. Here is an excerpt:
As such, an NIH grant endorsing CytoDyn's participation into an NIH sponsored Long COVID trial is not unreasonable. Therefore, given the quiet, I ask, Is CytoDyn more focused on the "scatter"? What makes up that scatter? GlioBlastoma Multiforme Study. Alzheimer's Study, Long Hauler's NIH trial and MASH trial.
From the most recent Webcast on 3/5/24.
This enlightenment finally made its way to upper eschelon of management. Either it is that, or they are more aware of the results of releasing information. The way they are handling the situation along with their style of management against it is via pure silence. They made the decision to maintain pure silence, and work to keep quiet, therefore, the attacks against their efforts are minimized. I'll take it, that since there has not been really any mention of or recent reference to the Inflammation and Immune Activation Trial but given that there has been some reference to Long Haulers/Long COVID, maybe, then, in this approach, they are indirectly pointing us towards the PASC direction. However, even with the recent flags and signs which have been offered that do point to Long COVID, there is still no talk at all on the subject aside from what Dr. Lalezari had said at the last Webcast. Much of what I stand on are my considerations and expectations.
CytoDyn heads towards these scattered goals. The Phase II Clinical Trial, a GBM study, an Alzheimer's study, and apparently, an NIH grant towards Long COVID. Now, with the recent website addition of this paper, with the experience that Dr. Lalezari has at the NIH, and with the comments he has made recently in the Webcast of 3/5/24 regarding Long COVID, it can be postulated that CytoDyn might be making the scatter to be the current priority, that is, until sufficient funds are raised which would allow them to pursue the overall main priority of the Phase II trial in Inflammation and Immune Activation. After all, given that there are no holds remaining upon leronlimab, and given the tremendous quantity and quality of research publications which have been released of late and also of old, revolving about the modulation of the CCR5/CCL5 axis and given the pristine safety record profile that leronlimab has, why wouldn't the drug make rapid headway down every one of these scattered paths? Unless of course, there are still plans in play planting roadblocks and obstacles meant to induce harm, which there very well may be.
Seems to me, an NIH award would be a fantastic means by which amends for prior wrongs might be offered. If any one of these scattered goals are met prior to the commencement of the Phase II trial, then, that would introduce a win CytoDyn could take to the bank. Whether this happens or not remains unclear, as CytoDyn remains silent; however, CytoDyn shall manifest a win, but from where? I'm of the opinion that the win comes from the scatter, and that then leads back to the enactment of the overall main goal. Maybe they are intending it all to be presented as a surprise. Maybe they want to show themselves, as those who speak softly, but carry a big stick.
Considering the actual timing of these events, it might even make more sense that the GBM study be resulted before anything else. After all, that could happen first as it may already be underway. An excellent result in that GlioBlastoma Multiforme study solidifies leronlimab as a viable treatment for this horrible brain cancer. So many brain-related questions regarding leronlimab's crossing of the blood brain barrier and leronlimab's capacity to treat brain disease would be brought to the forefront and likely answered. If the answers provided by this study are tremendously positive, yes, then, regardless of the fact that it is a murine study, funds towards the main goal are readily raised.
Or if CytoDyn's heading is focused first towards Long COVID, the recently published paper discusses that the drug is effective against the disease. The NIH seeks a treating solution for the disease. An NIH award results in a trial, and a trial would take time to finally result, but the award itself is all that would be necessary to raise share price, thereby making funds that much easier to raise, especially since we know that the white paper shows leronlimab effective against Long COVID. Which one comes first? PASC or GBM? Which does CytoDyn pursue first?
Something comes soon. It has to. Too much time has gone by, and an announcement is more than due. I mean, how much longer can it be? It has to break soon. Assuming CytoDyn has not found funding, there is no reason for any other opposition. That would be sufficient enough. However, once CytoDyn does garner the necessary funds to initiate the Phase II trial, what/who else might get in the way? Is that what is happening right now, but just not discussed? We see no evidence of this just yet, possibly because there is no funding or possibly because there is no opposition or possibly because CytoDyn is quiet. Personally, my thought is that the funding is there, but not quite enough to get the party started. If you know me, you know that I believe CytoDyn always has enemies, so the notion for me that there is no opposition is out of the question. It cannot be denied that CytoDyn is quiet, so, they are opting right now not to speak, for whatever reason, but I'm also thinking they want to conceal from all, what it is that they are up to because they have been burned in the past by their disclosure.
CytoDyn has been and is currently in a hunt. One of the scattered goals is targeted. One comes to the forefront. They have a good idea of which one materializes first. They protect this goal away from any who might wish to interfere. I make postulation and then let go so I can watch what they shall bring. I'm not involved in their work. When I was a kid, my dad worked in his office and when he came out, he told me what he would do. I did not enter that office while he was not present, to search his files. No, he told me, and I took his word because I trusted his work and believed in him. So, I base what I've written today on what I know already about this company and this molecule, and I thank the company for pursuing their mission and for all the supporters of this work and for all the confirmatory journal articles written on this CCR5-CCL5 axis and the advantages of its blockade.
I hope this helps many who remain trapped here. I continue waiting for however long becomes necessary because I know that a new era is about to begin. Once control over the CCR5/CCL5 axis is accepted as a legitimate means of disease control, the world immediately transforms. We are on the verge of that transformation right now.
A really happy Mother's Day to All of You. Go out and enjoy the day!
submitted by MGK_2 to Livimmune [link] [comments]
Mission Statement
"CytoDyn’s purpose is to help enhance the lives of patients with life-threatening diseases. Our mission is to alleviate human suffering and improve patients' quality of life through innovation and collaboration. We are committed to performing our duties with respect, integrity, and a unified vision of serving humanity."CytoDyn finds a way to fulfill that mission regardless of the obstacles. My purpose is to find out how. I'm looking for those elements that when properly pieced together creates a feasible scenario pointing towards the satisfaction of that mission. I take that mission statement at face value because I understand the power of the molecule. Every day that goes by, yet another article is published in well-known Journals about the effects of the CCR5-CCL5 axis, and the wide-spread advantages in human health that are gained by the blockade of that axis. With every article that is published on this axis, and the blockade of it, that should cause all here to be more and more assured that we are in the right place. Certainly, all of us realize that no greater CCR5 blockade exists on Earth, and no better one will. So, in my writing, I take the "will happen" as a given and do not give much credence to what the twatwaffles offer. Because of what I know about CytoDyn's mission and what I know about leronlimab, I therefore take their words at face value and assume the positive and then ask pertinent questions as to how it occurs persisting in the assumption that what they said will, in fact happen. And, when it does finally happen, that is when this CCR5 blockade becomes accepted in medicine as a viable alternative in disease management, it revolutionizes medicine as we know it. To do so, however, CytoDyn requires a partnership.
CytoDyn still needs to attract that partnership. They seem to be focusing on a certain area with greater than normal interest. Seems that what is going on is more of a "hunt" than it is an aggressive motivation to "let's get in there, let's get it going and blow the top off this clinical trial." Raising the appropriate $10M funds could possibly be at the top of the list as to what the problem is. Therefore, a logical assumption might be that long haulers, (PASC) takes center stage.
Maybe the hunt for the snake's head is a concerted action to reach the hope of winning an NIH award towards a sponsored PASC trial. CytoDyn is more than familiar with Long COVID; it recently published this paper in the Journal of Infection 2024 on the PASC Phase II trial it did. Here is an excerpt:
"Clearly the results of our trial are intriguing and suggest that immune dysregulation is a consistent factor in PASC. Our results, and those of others, strongly suggest that more efforts are needed to understand the role of the immune system in PASC and to explore the potential role of immunomodulators in the treatment of PASC.While the results of our trial are certainly encouraging what is less encouraging is the apparent lack of mobilization of the wider scientific community to find an effective treatment for PASC."
As such, an NIH grant endorsing CytoDyn's participation into an NIH sponsored Long COVID trial is not unreasonable. Therefore, given the quiet, I ask, Is CytoDyn more focused on the "scatter"? What makes up that scatter? GlioBlastoma Multiforme Study. Alzheimer's Study, Long Hauler's NIH trial and MASH trial.
From the most recent Webcast on 3/5/24.
"12:08: In terms of Partnerships, I'd like to affirm our ongoing commitment, to pursue partnerships and give leronlimab multiple shots on goal, to prove itself. The Board and Managment are currently evaluating several options on how to proceed as to obtain to oncology, MASH*, and other potential indications. For example: we are acutely aware of the continuing and even growing interest in* long Covid and will continue our efforts to bring attention to leronlimab and to possible partner in the long Covid treatment strategies*.*As I've been saying ever since the holds were lifted, the re-start resumes quite slowly. It happens along a gradual and progressive curve, that begins ever so slowly, cautiously, but ramps up, increasingly faster and faster over time as stability is gained. Unfortunately, CytoDyn projects the necessity to maintain matters of its activity undercover and hidden in its pursuit of these scattered goals. It must do this. It has no choice. CytoDyn has come to the realization that they may no longer freely announce and disclose to the world exactly what it is which they plan for, nor can they inform of what they do currently. It has been exceedingly obvious, that immediately following every single announcement of their plans, the share price takes a massive hit by a synchronized short attack.
12:48: I would also like to note, the growing body of evidence implicating the role of Inflammation and specifically CCR5 in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease*. This is obviously an area of enormous and urgent unmet need and given the long safety profile of leronlimab to date, together, with data, from a recent pre-clinical study, suggesting that blocking CCR5 might rescue memory deficit, I believe* pilot studies in patient Alzheimer's disease is now justified*."*
This enlightenment finally made its way to upper eschelon of management. Either it is that, or they are more aware of the results of releasing information. The way they are handling the situation along with their style of management against it is via pure silence. They made the decision to maintain pure silence, and work to keep quiet, therefore, the attacks against their efforts are minimized. I'll take it, that since there has not been really any mention of or recent reference to the Inflammation and Immune Activation Trial but given that there has been some reference to Long Haulers/Long COVID, maybe, then, in this approach, they are indirectly pointing us towards the PASC direction. However, even with the recent flags and signs which have been offered that do point to Long COVID, there is still no talk at all on the subject aside from what Dr. Lalezari had said at the last Webcast. Much of what I stand on are my considerations and expectations.
CytoDyn heads towards these scattered goals. The Phase II Clinical Trial, a GBM study, an Alzheimer's study, and apparently, an NIH grant towards Long COVID. Now, with the recent website addition of this paper, with the experience that Dr. Lalezari has at the NIH, and with the comments he has made recently in the Webcast of 3/5/24 regarding Long COVID, it can be postulated that CytoDyn might be making the scatter to be the current priority, that is, until sufficient funds are raised which would allow them to pursue the overall main priority of the Phase II trial in Inflammation and Immune Activation. After all, given that there are no holds remaining upon leronlimab, and given the tremendous quantity and quality of research publications which have been released of late and also of old, revolving about the modulation of the CCR5/CCL5 axis and given the pristine safety record profile that leronlimab has, why wouldn't the drug make rapid headway down every one of these scattered paths? Unless of course, there are still plans in play planting roadblocks and obstacles meant to induce harm, which there very well may be.
Seems to me, an NIH award would be a fantastic means by which amends for prior wrongs might be offered. If any one of these scattered goals are met prior to the commencement of the Phase II trial, then, that would introduce a win CytoDyn could take to the bank. Whether this happens or not remains unclear, as CytoDyn remains silent; however, CytoDyn shall manifest a win, but from where? I'm of the opinion that the win comes from the scatter, and that then leads back to the enactment of the overall main goal. Maybe they are intending it all to be presented as a surprise. Maybe they want to show themselves, as those who speak softly, but carry a big stick.
Considering the actual timing of these events, it might even make more sense that the GBM study be resulted before anything else. After all, that could happen first as it may already be underway. An excellent result in that GlioBlastoma Multiforme study solidifies leronlimab as a viable treatment for this horrible brain cancer. So many brain-related questions regarding leronlimab's crossing of the blood brain barrier and leronlimab's capacity to treat brain disease would be brought to the forefront and likely answered. If the answers provided by this study are tremendously positive, yes, then, regardless of the fact that it is a murine study, funds towards the main goal are readily raised.
Or if CytoDyn's heading is focused first towards Long COVID, the recently published paper discusses that the drug is effective against the disease. The NIH seeks a treating solution for the disease. An NIH award results in a trial, and a trial would take time to finally result, but the award itself is all that would be necessary to raise share price, thereby making funds that much easier to raise, especially since we know that the white paper shows leronlimab effective against Long COVID. Which one comes first? PASC or GBM? Which does CytoDyn pursue first?
Something comes soon. It has to. Too much time has gone by, and an announcement is more than due. I mean, how much longer can it be? It has to break soon. Assuming CytoDyn has not found funding, there is no reason for any other opposition. That would be sufficient enough. However, once CytoDyn does garner the necessary funds to initiate the Phase II trial, what/who else might get in the way? Is that what is happening right now, but just not discussed? We see no evidence of this just yet, possibly because there is no funding or possibly because there is no opposition or possibly because CytoDyn is quiet. Personally, my thought is that the funding is there, but not quite enough to get the party started. If you know me, you know that I believe CytoDyn always has enemies, so the notion for me that there is no opposition is out of the question. It cannot be denied that CytoDyn is quiet, so, they are opting right now not to speak, for whatever reason, but I'm also thinking they want to conceal from all, what it is that they are up to because they have been burned in the past by their disclosure.
CytoDyn has been and is currently in a hunt. One of the scattered goals is targeted. One comes to the forefront. They have a good idea of which one materializes first. They protect this goal away from any who might wish to interfere. I make postulation and then let go so I can watch what they shall bring. I'm not involved in their work. When I was a kid, my dad worked in his office and when he came out, he told me what he would do. I did not enter that office while he was not present, to search his files. No, he told me, and I took his word because I trusted his work and believed in him. So, I base what I've written today on what I know already about this company and this molecule, and I thank the company for pursuing their mission and for all the supporters of this work and for all the confirmatory journal articles written on this CCR5-CCL5 axis and the advantages of its blockade.
I hope this helps many who remain trapped here. I continue waiting for however long becomes necessary because I know that a new era is about to begin. Once control over the CCR5/CCL5 axis is accepted as a legitimate means of disease control, the world immediately transforms. We are on the verge of that transformation right now.
A really happy Mother's Day to All of You. Go out and enjoy the day!