Can We Think OUTSIDE The System

Via WeAreChange


Luke Rudkowski is an independent journalist, activist, live streamer and founder of

75 Comments on "Can We Think OUTSIDE The System"

  1. VaudeVillain | Jan 27, 2014 at 8:16 pm |

    Oh for fuck’s sake… because the basic necessities of life have to fucking come from somewhere. That’s why, that’s your answer. If it sounds stupid and inane, well, with questions like that what the fuck did you expect?

    Food doesn’t just spring into existence on your dinner plate, houses don’t erect themselves, shit doesn’t just happen on its own. Somebody has to make it all GO, but nobody wants to make it all GO on your behalf just because they’re nice. It just doesn’t happen.

    So instead, we cobbled together a system whereby some people do some things, and other people do other things, and everyone gets some of the resulting things. If you don’t like what things people are doing, or who gets what things as a result, or how we make those decisions, then I’m happy to talk solutions. Just keep in mind, that discussion will have to be in the context of “the system” because that’s all that “the system” really is.

    If you don’t want to work inside the system, fine, don’t. Move to Alaska or wherever and subsistence farm. Go nuts. I’m being serious, I have nothing but respect for people who opt out of civilization and go off the grid. Asking “deep” questions like “why does anyone need to do anything?” doesn’t fucking help, and won’t fix shit. Quit navel gazing and pick up a shovel.

    I hope you’re happy, because you are why communism doesn’t work. Fucking hippies…

    • astrofrog | Jan 27, 2014 at 9:24 pm |

      “If it sounds stupid and inane” (and it does) then you should put more thought, and less rage, into what you write.

      • VaudeVillain | Jan 27, 2014 at 10:14 pm |

        I’ll think about it.

        How’s this for a compromise: when people stop pretending that shit like this is “insightful” and start talking about how to actually get shit done, I’ll stop calling them idiots.

        Too hard? Alright, here’s one:

        Summarize what she just said over nearly 4 minutes without sounding like a damned idiot. If you can do it, I’ll take back every mean thing i said above.

        • Is the sky blue?

          Simple right? Sunlight reflected or absorbed at around 186k mps, through lens,retina, cones, flipped, optic nerve, visual cortex produce a subjective (to different individuals and cultures) image that we learn to recognize by a simple sound we call in english “blue”. We’re watching a light show inside our heads

          Then quantum mechanics puts a bee in the bonnet with the observer affecting the observed and other cranks come along to present new models that more accurately reflect the data. i.e. maybe “mind” exist outside the brain(Rupert Sheldrake’s “outside of the box” ideas, or literally outside the skull.)

          The “is” of “is the sky blue?”, comes from Aristotle’s “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”, which while practical seems like a metaphysical explanation…Should we discuss the skies blueness..ness?

          I think we need new models and “outside the box” ideas about “work”, like Bucky Fuller’s in the discussion. Maybe our present “system”, derived from 16th century protestantism needs a competing platform.

          ***I admittedly cobbled some of this stuff from R.A.Wilson’s “work” and haven’t read this ladies e-book “work”.

          • the sky isn’t really blue, by the way…I forgot the specifics, but if our eyes weren’t receiving the information in a particular way, it should appear more violet…

          • Jonas Planck | Feb 3, 2014 at 2:12 am |

            It’s all a matter of perception and timing. The question, “Is the sky blue?” may appear simple on it’s face, but the answer is always changing, never constant, and depends entirely on the observer. Even during those times where it DOES appear blue, it’s a gradient, almost white at the horizon, but deep cerulean at apogee, provided the sun isn’t positioned in such a way to blind the observer. Thousands of miles away, at that exact moment, the sky may be an explosion of colors in the sunset, oranges and purples and greys, and farther away still, it’s almost black and flecked with stars. If you travel strait UP a thousand miles, you have to look DOWN to see it, and it just looks like the Earth below, all green and brown. And that’s just if you take for granted that observed reality is shared, constant, and genuinely real.
            Stuff like that is why shallow pundits piss me off so much when they ask a “simple yes or no question,” and then badger the living hell out of their guest until the guest- unable to explain the nuances of the situation without being interrupted by the host- reluctantly chooses either yes or no, both of which are wrong answers. A variant of that has recently become commonplace, the “Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?” non-question that every talking head on TV seems so eager to ask about everything. That one’s so loaded with perceptual subjectivity I can’t even start to tear it apart here, or this’ll wind up being a novella instead of a comment post. To the credit of the human race, the person who is asked this question usually responds with, “it depends,” although they rarely take into account all the dependencies affecting the issue’s relative “goodness” or “badness.”

        • Rhoid Rager | Jan 28, 2014 at 4:59 am |

          How about this? Looking for a homogenous answer presented neatly-packaged from others is precisely the problem she is delicately trying to make us realize. It’s the Socratic method she’s employing–to spur the reconciling of inner thoughts, desires and doubts with the external world as it appears so troubled right now. This method is effective because it speaks in a tacit manner to human agency by encouraging the listener to entertain these questions to begin with and act upon the answer that eventually manifests after deliberate pensivity. However, for this approach to work smoothly it requires humility in the one to which the question is posed. If no such humility is present, then this method takes more time to spur thought in the listener and, thus, more time for the listener to produce their own answers and actions accordingly. When such humility is not present, the initial response is almost without fail invective in nature. Unfortunately, the ‘just another wide-eyed hippie’ invective is all-too-common of the self-deceptive nature of Western culture to discount what is being said or asked in all sincerity by one’s fellow humans. Sadly, the dynamic of the Socratic method must be explicitly revealed–thus ruining the implicit aesthetic quality of personal transformation through reflection–to Westerners to shake them from their slumber. It’s an ugly process.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 28, 2014 at 10:27 am |

            Indeed, there appears to me in the invective more ageism than understanding. She’s intelligent & articulate and certainly not asking stupid questions. If such questioning can be guided or in itself leads to the discovery that the wheel not totally be reinvented, persons at her stage in life are well suited for study of critical theory.

          • Simon Valentine | Jan 28, 2014 at 11:58 am |

            there it is
            was hoping to see it
            the reference to modulus

            what is it people acquire when they mistake simplicity for stupidity? what is it they reference? why does it occur? somehow considerations involving “no immediate food chain threat that is not (at the most equivalent in rank to) human”.

            so concerned with fairness and equality that knowing not what either is, occurs. when there are less answers, there are more facts. given all the facts, i still prefer the death of a traveling salesman and integer factoring.

            some have mobius, others have landing strip or genus. none of them shave some off when they can steal. so many ideas that will not separate, they. advantaged, none.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 28, 2014 at 1:27 pm |

            modulus turned me around
            it’s when i final broke through the maths

          • Simon Valentine | Jan 28, 2014 at 2:24 pm |

            my recent endeavors with modular principles involve considerations of large (stellar, galactic, universal) proportions. in terms of bears leaving traces in woods and trees soundlessness falling but instead one does not know how many times the clock has been round. there is of course the normal form and the extreme/ultimate form. anyhow, in terms of simulation, i seek a way to simply and most efficiently update modules of information that had been arbitrary disconnected from the simulation for some amount of time yet still had been going through their events … the problem isn’t so much as that it is at least as hard as n-body as it is my lack of time spent working as i should, with such as it!

            i suppose the point in all that is to say the title made me think again of modulus, in that OUTSIDE is .. err .. the entire title is as to say “we need to compute the areas we have not been computing – update them to concurrent vision”.

            it’s a false time travel is what it is, used in computer simulation.

            sorry for the belabored explanations, i hope they are not more bothersome than tolerance shall manage.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 30, 2014 at 10:20 pm |

            Hardly a labor and I am curious if these endeavors are of algorithmic abstraction or working on a problem in a particular development environment.

          • Simon Valentine | Jan 30, 2014 at 11:06 pm |

            i prefer abstraction given current daily routine. it started as a consideration of video game development. how to simply “multiply” (w/e simple operation) a matrix/data structure/complex number/etc to update locality/events. basically save time on simulation calculations by modular technique. that reminds me of barnes-hut actually. only i wasn’t just looking for what time it is or how many things had occurred so much as procedurally leap-and-bound updating a previously known (or beginning) state to current events (because suddenly someone was there to see them). it really started clicking into the way my mind works/thinks today, so like most generalized abstract math ideas … well 🙂

          • Jonas Planck | Feb 2, 2014 at 4:46 pm |

            Simplicity is simple. I aspire not to mere simplicity alone, but elegance, and that kind of simplicity must be reached through complexity, followed by refinement after refinement. For me, at least. Some people seem to just have a knack for it, they can hit the bullseye on the first attempt, but that might be an illusion caused by not seeing all the failed attempts, just the success. That’s why my art and writing are so damn convoluted and unfocused. Refinement takes time, which is money, and reducing your creations to their ideal forms require sacrificing things about them that you are reluctant to sacrifice because what creator does not love his creations at least a little bit, even when they’re severely flawed?
            I think writers call that “killing your darling.”

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 29, 2014 at 1:16 am |

            Ageism? Perhaps a little, I suppose. I do find that the young and partially educated are somewhat more prone to this sort of sophistic psychobabble than those who have had to manage their own well-being for a time. I also know plenty of people of all ages who subscribe to the same category of nonsense, so I’m not inclined to believe that age is the best correlation.

            You’re right though, she is intelligent and articulate: alas, she has mistaken this for wisdom.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 29, 2014 at 11:18 am |

            The path to wisdom is a constant refinement of misidentities. The notion of ageism only came to mind because, at this stage of life, a person’s ideation should be accorded a latitude that is appropriate to both experience and the dynamics of a growing mind.
            I read through her ebook and it far surpasses the level of effort and organizational thought that most persons would ever put forth to formulate the state of their ideas.
            I have doubt, given this level of effort and self-presentation that one can qualify such a person as having reached a stasis point in their development.

          • what’s your opinion on Russell Brand?

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 29, 2014 at 11:58 pm |

            My opinion on Russell Brand is that he is usually funny and almost always annoying, which I appreciate as a part of the schtick, but sometimes grates a bit.

            Or did you not mean my opinion of his comedic style?

          • what comedic style?

            i was referring to his political rants. what do you think of his point-of-view?

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 31, 2014 at 1:12 am |

            I was referring to the comedic style he uses in his career as a very famous and successful stand up comedian. It is, in fact, why anyone cares at all what he has to say.

            As for his political opinions… meh. He’s a lot like anyone else, right some times, wrong many others. I can’t say that I’m intimately familiar enough with the full scope of his views to assess all of them as a coherent body. I’m also not a huge fan of that practice in general, as I find it leads to a lot of false dilemmas and being forced to defend or oppose positions simply because somebody else has adopted them and you have defined yourself as either for or against them. That’s bullshit, and it annoys me when I get sucked in.

            That said, from what I’ve seen of his rants, I agree with about 75% of what he says, at least in principle. That’s a fairly high rate for me. I do find some of positions regarding the rich and privileged to be rather odd and hypocritical, given how rich and privileged he is, but that doesn’t necessarily make him wrong… just a bit self-unaware.


          • He doesn’t tell jokes. He just talks about himself, flamboyantly. He’s a terrible stand-up.

            As for why? Oh…no reason. 😐

          • VaudeVillain | Feb 1, 2014 at 1:19 pm |

            “He doesn’t tell jokes. He just talks about himself, flamboyantly. He’s a terrible stand-up.”

            That pretty accurately describes all contemporary observational comedians. Apparently it’s not your thing.

            “Oh…no reason. :|”

            Seems like a very specific line of questions to make without a reason. I’ll just assume it’s some sort of subtle personal jab that I don’t get.

          • Jonas Planck | Feb 2, 2014 at 4:08 pm |


            Lately, Mr. Brand has been trying to popularize messianic shamanism, with a small amount of success, stemming from the fact that there are basically no spiritual shaman type figures in popular media anymore: our cultural mythology has been confined to fools/jesters, heroes, villains, victims, and fertility goddesses for decades now. Wizards and oracles are woefully under-represented, probably by design, since Washington/Wall-Street occultism (by which I mean, the obscuring of knowledge and the suppression of wisdom) fills the role of the authoritarian church. and churches have always hated wizards. They tend to undermine authoritarian power by deftly cutting through the bullshit.
            Case in point, his observation that nobody listened to his complaints about the rich until he WAS rich, and then they just called him a hypocrite, revealing that they aren’t actually critics, they just don’t want to talk about it.
            That’s wizard talk right there.

          • VaudeVillain | Feb 3, 2014 at 12:12 am |

            I’ll have to take your word for it, because rich or not I still don’t particularly care what Mr. Brand has to say.

          • Jonas Planck | Feb 3, 2014 at 1:53 am |

            Well, I didn’t say he was very good at it… it comes off as a Jesus imitation, a form of shtick. It’s just kind of weird to me that western culture which claims to be predominantly Christian doesn’t have more wizards and shamanic wannabe messiahs in the limelight. Practically every hero in the Bible was a wizard or an iconoclast or had prophetic visions at least, with the one notable exception being the warrior archetype Samson. All leading up to the life and martyring of the greatest wizard/shaman ever, Christ hisself. If Jesus walked the streets of America today, however, He’d probably just be considered another whacked-out acid casualty and treated with the same inhumanity we treat every homeless bum.

          • Enderdog | Feb 4, 2014 at 9:22 am |

            Gotta start somewhere though. Without that, wisdom won’t be achieved, because the mistakes that bring it are rooted in actions and consequences.

          • Enderdog | Feb 4, 2014 at 9:19 am |

            Not to mention, she is, as a young person herself, seeking to communicate to a demographic that has largely never been forced to think about most of this at all. So, it’s somewhat introductory level. But, that is a good thing for many younger people.

          • Simon Valentine | Jan 28, 2014 at 11:30 am |

            the process of elimination can solve difficult problems, but not if the problem requires solution in a time frame. to determine the reasonable time frame, gauge what should be, employ tech, etc is like the “replacing planks on a ship” & some other classics. the discipline and praxis associated with P.o.E. and Socratic should be more prevalent in such cases as involve problems without solutions until the next/new praxis is shared, spreads, or is revealed. IF … IF humans are even capable of it.

            it seems what becomes apparent is that there’s a direct approach to government and an indirect approach, but both of them “want to know it’s right or not have to think about it/pay for it/work at it, unless it’s otherwise reasonable”. reason and vision are the problems of culture. and there is no culture. no vision. no one who can give an accurate state of the union, and no one who’s proving this statement false. there is no reason. there is no justification. there is no logic. there is no therefore.

            a union of people who are never going agree isn’t a union, isn’t a culture, isn’t a people, isn’t a state, country, nation, or fact of life. the heart muscles do not receive the same commands as the calf.

            that humans are devolving into ‘their ideas’ of ‘base animal’ ‘inhuman’ ‘non-sentient’ entities is no mere coincidence, and quite a deal more simple than some might see credence for.

            what is inertia save another Socratic “i’ve never been out of the shire”?

          • emperorreagan | Jan 28, 2014 at 1:34 pm |

            Isn’t the quality of personal transformation the most important bit? If you wake someone from their slumber but they don’t put in the work for understanding, could you just be priming them to accept whatever comes along next? Maybe it’s curbing a few egregious excesses of a system, maybe it’s aesthetic change, or maybe it’s towards something altogether less pleasant.

          • Simon Valentine | Jan 28, 2014 at 2:43 pm |


          • VaudeVillain | Jan 29, 2014 at 1:11 am |

            That’s an awful lot of SAT words amounting to, well, not a lot.

            I get it, she’s trying to think about the nature of what is happening and trying to see if there is some way to break through the mold of current behavior to blah blah blah.

            That’s great, good for her.

            Unfortunately, people still need to eat, and the food needs to come from somewhere. That’s the problem in a nut shell. No amount of thinking can get around our inability to spontaneously create matter, nor the necessity of our material existence.

            It isn’t hard to understand, it isn’t novel, it isn’t even that complicated.

          • Enderdog | Feb 4, 2014 at 9:26 am |

            The necessity will not go away, that’s true. However the means of obtaining the necessities can be seriously streamlined, by removing the desperation and shame factors. Turbulence in a system wastes the energy of that system.

        • Enderdog | Feb 4, 2014 at 9:14 am |

          Sure! Stop letting all the benefits of automation and progress accrue to corporations. Distribute the dividends to the stakeholders, without which no economy can flow. We need money to flow so that the various goods and services can be circulated. Take the top 20% or so of profits, off the top and give every single adult a Basic Minimum Income. No means testing. No requirements for what it can be spent on, or any sort of restriction by Govco or anyone else. Remove the shame factor and the hoop jumping factor from it.

          There is no practical difference between Welfare, Social Security, or Unemployment payments. They are all, at base, paying people for not working, in order to keep money flowing. About half the cost of providing around 20K a year to every adult, would be paid for by the discontinuance of the very spotty and ill-formed “Social Safety Net” we currently have. And power of politicians and bureaucrats would be removed….along with the need for all the UNproductive make work, we currently have. The other half would just be taxes on profit….not earnings….profits.

          When Home Depot replaces half it’s cashier force with automated checkout, and I do my own work, why do they get all the benefit of my work?

          Basically, in modern society, we are out of enough productive work to make it function. Instead of having desperate people whose “labor” value has been tremendously devalued by progress, fighting each other for enough to simply exist, let us all just have our shareholder returns. We will spend it. I promise! Then people who want to live above the minimum level can work if they want to, to earn more. Many will. I know I will. But, all the productive but uncompensated work will be worthwhile. Mothers can raise their own children. People can volunteer at something they enjoy. No one starves. No one freezes. No one goes to some crappy job, that has been subdivided into tiny slices so small it’s essentially make-work, just to survive.

          Then a true market for what people want, can actually re-emerge. No people forced to stay in an abusive household, because they can’t afford to leave. Employment at will on both the employer side and the employee side. Unions become unnecessary. Social workers/police become obsolete.

          Will people still waste that money on crap you or I wouldn’t buy? Sure! Who cares? They do that now. The gap between being on Welfare and being meaningfully employed is so large, that those who simply refuse to work are actually MORE rational, than those who struggle to make ends meet as working poor. And I bet even some of them would work a little, if they could without penalty. Some would go to school to learn to do something that is worth compensation to society.

          I know this sounds counter-intuitive to most people who were raised in a society where the work ethic has been ingrained, because during the industrial age that was a necessary mindset. But, we are past that. We are out of enough work, for everyone to have a job. The waste of resources we have now, through trying to keep enough non-productive and relatively meaningless work available, is simply no longer a viable model.

    • Rhoid Rager | Jan 28, 2014 at 4:42 am |

      She addresses the primary question of your post about 1:30. Listen carefully. “this will sound stupid to most people on the planet…”

      • VaudeVillain | Jan 29, 2014 at 1:19 am |

        I listened. She was right about a few things, that was one of them. I hope she spends a bit more time reflecting on precisely why that is, and goes to the step of assuming, for the sake of argument, *why some of those people might be right* and seeing what comes about.

        • Jonas Planck | Feb 3, 2014 at 2:34 am |

          The discussion is what’s important. After all, nobody is EVER 100% right. Everybody has an opinion, no matter how hard they try to be objective or impartial, and that’s always going to affect what they assume to be a given fact. I prefer dealing in premise rather than “fact” because even the idea of a true fact is in itself questionable. Were you there to see it yourself, or did you hear it on the news? Have you personally tested that scientific theory, or did you read it in a book? Everybody takes a lot of things for granted without realizing they’re even doing it.

    • maybe you forgot what happened to all of the (non-whites) who didn’t want to be part of civilization. subsistence farming only became the only other option after your ancestors fucked up the whole game for everyone else.

      there were hard times and there were early deaths, but no one was dependent on anyone they didn’t already have reason to trust; i.e. family.

      this system keeps breaking because the “winners” look around and realize that they have NO *real* incentive or reason to help the “losers”.

      • VaudeVillain | Jan 30, 2014 at 12:13 am |

        “maybe you forgot what happened to all of the (non-whites) who didn’t
        want to be part of civilization. subsistence farming only became the
        only other option after our ancestors fucked up the whole game for
        everyone else.”

        I never said it was easy, or even a particularly desirable way to live. I sure as fuck don’t want to be a subsistence farmer; I can’t even keep house plants alive.

        “this system keeps breaking because the “winners” look around and realize that they have NO *real* incentive or reason to help the “losers”.”

        That’s the way it’s built to work, I wouldn’t exactly say it’s “breaking” when that happens. I’m not saying that’s how it OUGHT to work, or even how it HAS to work, but you can’t change those parameters over night, and you definitely can’t change them by sticking your head in the clouds and refusing to participate. As it turns out, the world is challenging, but relatively simple.

        • It isn’t any smarter to say “it can’t be done” without explaining why. My point was that there *were* other options. They existed. Other options can exist again. You didn’t read very carefully–I said there were once other options *besides* subsistence farming.

          For example, hunting and gathering was a real thing. The earth itself provided for small groups of humans, just like it did for all of the other animals…we’ll never get that back now (unless there is a massive population decline and/or we begin colonizing other worlds and/or upload into the internet and/or fill-in-sci-fi-plot-here), but try to remember that it WAS NOT that long ago. 150 years ago, or so, for some groups in the USA, alone.

          That’s not nearly enough time to just throw your hands up in the air and say “this system is the only way things can be done!”

          “That’s the way it’s built to work, I wouldn’t exactly say it’s “breaking” when that happens.”

          Yeah, that’s–fucked up. You are a-okay with a system *designed* to create starving, AIDS-infected, environment-poisoned, prostituted, slave children.

          Those stupid whore babies should have worked harder! Then maybe they could have been one of the 85 people controlling half of the world’s wealth!

          Let me be clear: THIS IS NOT AN EXAGGERATION. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS SYSTEM. You’re right, it *is* designed this way…so why are you supporting it?

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 31, 2014 at 1:27 am |

            I’m not supporting “the system”, I’m opposing the bullshit notion that if you just ignore it all and pretend you don’t need to do anything everything might just get magically better.

            I oppose it because it is pseudo-intellectual drivel that serves only as an opiate to make you feel like changing the world for the better can be an easy process full of just thinking earnestly about how great it would be if all of your needs were just magically met.

            That shit doesn’t fly, and playing it just serves those who would have you complacent or ineffectual. People need to wake the fuck up and get shit done, not try to dream harder.

            As to the bulk of your point, you clearly haven’t read what I’ve said, at all. You seem to think I believe “the system” needs to or should look and work like it does. I don’t. I DO believe that, given the world’s population and expectations of consumption, the only viable solutions will bear at least a passing resemblance to what we’ve got now. Actually, I think it will be almost identical, because most of our problems come from a tiny minority of what really happens… people just blow it out of proportion because they get tunnel vision and refuse to see everything that works just fine.

            To quote MYSELF from the comment you replied to but must not have read:

            “I’m not saying that’s how it OUGHT to work, or even how it HAS to work,
            but you can’t change those parameters over night, and you definitely
            can’t change them by sticking your head in the clouds and refusing to
            participate. As it turns out, the world is challenging, but relatively

            If you’d rather get all riled up about who else to blame or what may or may not have been possible at some point in the past, go nuts, but don’t expect me to give a shit. At the end of the day, you either do what is in your power, which is almost always more than what you believe, to fix what’s broke… or you don’t.

          • *shrugs* And you didn’t read mine.

            Just offering a less “fluffy” approach to the urgency of the situation…

            “At the end of the day, you either do what is in your power, which is almost always more than what you believe, to fix what’s broke… or you don’t.”

            Now who’s the hippy? Sheesh…

          • VaudeVillain | Feb 1, 2014 at 1:13 pm |

            I read it: you ascribed opinions to me which were in direct contradiction to the ones I have stated, then blew them up.

            What, exactly, was I supposed to respond to?

        • Enderdog | Feb 4, 2014 at 9:30 am |

          If we eliminate the “losers” completely, by making us all shareholders, then the “winners” can compete among themselves, to sell us what we want. Good for everyone,

    • Jonas Planck | Feb 2, 2014 at 3:16 pm |

      Ah, like a Sith, dealing in absolutes.
      You say below (or above, it’s all relative) that your credulity is dependent on people discussing not abstractions, but getting shit done, or pragmatic solutions, if you will. But a big part of the big problem is evident in your first post: posing an absolutist choice between total acceptance of the system or total rejection of the system is so narrow-minded it can’t even be called one-dimensional thinking. One dimension is a line, and thinking one-dimensionally involves perceiving the possible ways of running a civilization as a gradient spectrum stretching BETWEEN the two extremes of absolute tyranny (order) and absolute anarchy (chaos), or whichever two extremes you prefer, communism vs. capitalism, spirituality vs. materialism, etc.
      approaching the problem two-dimensionally involves adding another dichotomy line rotated 90 degrees, and now your possible choices are multiplied into a grid on a plane, allowing a much greater range of options. Thinking three-dimensionally, a third dichotomy is added, multiplying your available options again, into a cube, allowing exponentially more options than before. This is “the box” that people talk about “thinking outside of.” Almost everything inside that box has already been tried, and failed in some way or another. To avoid repeating those historical failiures, we’re going to have to learn to think in four dimensions, extruding that cube into a tesseract, and taking risky chances in ways that can minimize the damege caused by failure. The pragmatic solutions you seek lie outside the box.
      But nobody’s ever escaping that box if they can’t even escape the first LINE. There’s little point in proposing creative, unique ideas if they’re going to be instantly shot down as soon as you suggest them. The primary obstacle faced by any would-be reformers is the pandemic refusal to even entertain the thought of say, for instance, altering the way money functions as a system of universal exchange, or using subtle social manipulation to regulate people’s behavior instead direct enforcement. No, these ideas aren’t exactly gems, but they ARE examples of the kind of thing that our society emphatically refuses to even consider. And it’s a bit tragic, considering that the U.S.A., with its 50 quasi-autonomous states, is in an ideal position to do the kind of experimentation needed to find out if any new ideas will actually WORK or not. But even that isn’t even an option, because anyone in authority will simply dismiss it outright, saying, “but that’s social experimentation! You can’t do THAT!”… not realizing that EVERYTHING WE ALREADY DO is social experimentation, and one can’t understand the results of an experiment without having a control group or any metric to measure your results by.
      This is why we have to start asking deep questions before we can fix anything. Without any understanding of what the hell we’re doing, then nobody’s ever going to be able to even know HOW to fix shit, much less be ABLE to fix shit.

  2. jasonpaulhayes | Jan 27, 2014 at 10:29 pm |

    Luke got a boner for a halfwit and gave her a soapbox?

    • Rhoid Rager | Jan 28, 2014 at 4:43 am |

      If she had a voice one octave lower, shorter hair and a 5 o’clock shadow, would you have paid attention? She’s written a book. Have you?

      • jasonpaulhayes | Jan 28, 2014 at 2:45 pm |

        It’s a Propaganda Pamphlet not a book and trying to paint what I said as misogyny is sad, nice try though. Did the quotation from a 12 yr old (plagiarism from Fight Flub speech) get you in Hero mode?

        • Simon Valentine | Jan 28, 2014 at 2:48 pm |

          i want to know more about the interleaving of fame and government as concerns the american grinder & your vision

        • jasonpaulhayes | Jan 28, 2014 at 3:06 pm |

          Hit that down vote button a million times and it doesn’t change a thing, this is bullshite!

          “You lookin at my girl? I’ll delete you from my myspace friends” Doug Stanhope

      • American Cannibal | Feb 4, 2014 at 3:00 pm |

        “She’s written a book. Have you?”

        Super weak, dude.

    • Jonas Planck | Feb 3, 2014 at 2:41 am |

      Oh, are we trying to shoot the messenger here? Maybe a valid shooting, maybe not. But the thing is, I still support people’s right to pack heat and their right to march on Washington and their right to have ignorant ideas about genetic stereotypes, and yes, also their right to speak freely even when their words are an insult to the very idea of words. If I didn’t support those rights, I would be a serious hypocrite in almost all walks of life. The idea is that one mans right to say stupid things is offset by other men’s right to call them out on their bullshit. For instance, I can call you a troll with a certain degree of confidence, because all my instincts are telling me you are. You and I may have very different ideas about what a “troll” is, so to clarify, your endorphin fix (the reason we’re all here) comes from enraging people, insulting them, and insisting that you’re smarter than they are without demonstrating any real insight of any kind. While none of those things really bother me (usually I’d just feed on you, but I’m not hungry right now), the inherent lack of insight represents a waste of time and resources. The discussion is about finding new ways of approaching the world’s problems, and you’re essentially implying that we can’t HAVE that discussion, because the person who started it is a big dumb jerk.
      NOPE. Not gonna happen, Hayes. This is bigger than all of us, and nobody has a monopoly on thought.

      • jasonpaulhayes | Feb 4, 2014 at 2:12 pm |

        Save your thinly veiled threats, we all know you want to arm this girl and march her on the capitol… go join these meatheads bullshit agenda, march on the capitol and see what happens Jonas Planck.

        Yeah it’s true I’m guilty of dropping weapons grade reality on empty heads just commenting how intellectually vacuous libertarians are… but this is your reality tunnel.

        You don’t respect freedom of speech or thought and you have no argument, you just want to save a “damsel in distress” whose opinion (Libertarian Ronulan Agenda) you only respect because shes impressionable, has a pretty face and can be shaped to think just like the rest of the useful idiots in this Libertarian Mercenary Troll Army.

        “Your reLOVEution is over, the bums lost”

      • American Cannibal | Feb 4, 2014 at 2:59 pm |


  3. Craig Bickford | Jan 28, 2014 at 4:28 am |

    This is some inane bullshit, and Vaude you are perpetuating that bull shit as well. We don’t’ need to endlessly run around in circle trying fix something that can’t be fixed, and we don’t need to move to Alaska (as if that is some no mans land with out laws or something, LOL). What we have t do is get our heads straight, admit that natural Law is real and mans law is make believe and just start taking responsibility for our selves and stop relying on this man made monstrosity called government. That’s all, it is really that simple. We don’t need to beat this change thing to death we need to grow the fuck up. Abdicating responsibility to a government, a religion or a messed up philosophy to run our lives is irresponsible and frankly idiotic. It’s a trick, and we all fall for it every day.

    • Rhoid Rager | Jan 28, 2014 at 5:04 am |

      The most real thing about government, religion and Western philosophy that you likely have access to on a daily basis is money, no? It’s the most tangible form of governance that reaches every corner of the State–even Alaska. So what’s inane about questioning the necessity of that?

      • Simon Valentine | Jan 28, 2014 at 12:01 pm |

        money’s the excuse to lie cheat and steal, and where that would be the end, some attach corollaries. thus beings lying, cheating, and stealing.

        death is inane and should be handed out as such.

        • Money is a resource. Nothing less, nothing more.

          • Simon Valentine | Jan 28, 2014 at 12:40 pm |

            :/ >.<

          • Money is a game rule.

          • Rhoid Rager | Jan 28, 2014 at 4:18 pm |

            Money is symbol of trust. People that actualize the trust are the resource, imo.

          • To me it’s a symbol that can facilitate procurement and trade. A means to an end. Blaming lying and cheating on money is like saying the devil made me do it, or blaming the gun for killing. Or saying money is the root of all evil. When in reality, people are the root of all evil.

          • Jonas Planck | Feb 3, 2014 at 3:02 am |

            Money – or more precisely, economics – is just another force of nature, like fire or water or wind. To say that it naturally collects in the accounts of the worthy is to completely misunderstand that principle. Fire can cook your food and warm your home, but does that mean you have to worship it? That you have to stand idly by and allow the fire to consume an entire city because it’s too useful a thing to “get rid of”? That if you extinguish a fire that burns out of control, you will never again be able to light another fire? I would prefer to think that kind of superstitious idiocy stayed in the trees with our Lemurian forebears, but everywhere, we see people saying the same thing about market forces… we must allow those forces to destroy everything we’ve built, because to stop that destruction would be to make market forces magically go away forever and never return. That is total nonsense.

          • I feel that you are projecting.

          • Jonas Planck | Feb 3, 2014 at 12:08 pm |

            No, that would be this:
            “Well, of course you feel that. You took umbrage at the idea that I might not worship at the altar of your particular ism, therefore I must be superstitiously worshiping at the altar of some OTHER ism (egotism, perhaps), because only superstitious fools would reject your wisdom and say something you disagree with. So, NYAAAH!!!”
            There, see? THAT was projection. I took some of my own shortcomings and ascribed them to you personally, without considering what it revealed about me. What I said above, before that attack in quotation marks, about money being a force of nature, not a benign loving god, was a response to the popular meme that the wealthy are inherently superior, that global market forces need no safeguards or regulation since they can never do wrong (except for “a few bad apples” *dismissive hand wave*), and most importantly, the idea that the acquisition of money trumps all morality, ethics, and sense of fair play that goes along with it. You might note, as I have, that the dismissal of morality in favor of making a killing in business directly contradicts the idea that the wealthy are more ethical and morally superior and harder working and all that jazz. I’m not projecting that onto the popular media, I’m OBSERVING it as it comes FROM them. There are entire channels on cable tv devoted to promoting those myths.
            …And I’m not projecting that onto you, either, since you don’t appear to have expressed any allegiance to those memes so far… Perhaps you THOUGHT I was talking about you, but no, I was merely using your statement as a springboard for my tirade. Remember, the original saying was never “money is the root of all evil.” The ACTUAL saying was phrased, ” the LOVE OF money is the root of all evil.” Money is no mere resource, it is POWER. Power can be abused. A gun has only one purpose, to kill, so the power it grants is severely limited compared to the versatility of extreme wealth. A gun can’t grant you total behavioral control over a group of senators… not for much longer than a dog day afternoon, anyway. But if you have extremely deep pockets and no qualms against usurping democracy itself to achieve your goals, well… you don’t need a gun at all. Such power should not be left unchecked… not because corruption is inherent to the idea of property and wealth (that’s equally as dumb as saying purity and nobility is inherent to it) … but because the power that comes with extreme wealth is easily abused, and corrupt men do not hesitate to abuse it.

          • I feel that people give too much power to money.

          • Enderdog | Feb 4, 2014 at 9:38 am |

            The only way to return to any semblance of a true market, is to return the choice of goods and services to the consumers of them. Central planning and control never work. Damming all the cash behind giant reservoirs of wealth, serves no one….not even the owners of the reservoirs. Even Henry Ford realized that paying his workers enough to afford the cars they were building, was good for his company. We can do that across the entire spectrum of society and get the streams running again.

    • Damien Quinn | Jan 28, 2014 at 10:56 am |

      I spoke to my Guru and he said you were on the right track but my local representative wasn’t so sure, now I’m just confused. If no-one is going to tell me how to think, how will I know I’m doing it right?

      Can you tell me?

      • Calypso_1 | Jan 28, 2014 at 11:10 am |

        Try your shrink ; )

        • Damien Quinn | Jan 28, 2014 at 12:56 pm |

          He looked up some big book and told me I have all the symptoms of “self induced information disassociation syndrome”, or SIIDS. He’s prescribed a number of medications with absolutely no clinical effect other than instant crushing addiction and weight gain.

          It’s great, I mean I’m still confused, but at least i don’t have the energy left to do anything about it.

          Takes the pressure off, know what I mean?

    • VaudeVillain | Jan 29, 2014 at 1:27 am |

      I certainly do perpetuate a great deal of bullshit, but I contend that it isn’t her brand.

      As for Alaska being a no-man’s-land without laws… well, no, it’s certainly not as simple as that. Alaska does, however, possess some of the last frontier left in this country; there are people who set out to the remote areas and live apart from anyone else. I have no beef with that.

      As to the rest of your point… welcome to the bullshit party! Anarchism sounds great, but if you really think everyone can just get along if we all agree to be nice and take responsibility for ourselves rather than “abdicate” that authority to a government, that’s some pretty intense bullshit. If you don’t believe me, look at what happens in places where government is so weak as to be effectively non-existent. Sorry dude, it doesn’t really work.

      • Jonas Planck | Feb 3, 2014 at 3:19 am |

        Ah, yes, the libertarian paradise that is Somalia… but no, the utopian ideal of people getting their shit together for a change is actually the key to finding a real solution, I suspect. Most of our problems arise from the superstitious, mystical awe people have when considering the magical powers of their respective ISMs… We tell ourselves that if only these principles were practiced PROPERLY, then everything would work like it’s supposed to, going so far as to invoke the old “no true Scotsman” fallacy thus: If so-and-soism failed to achieve its stated goals in some historical instance, then, well, that wasn’t REAL so-and-soism, it was just something else and they called it so-and-soism. They insist that all the other ISMs are the source of all the evil and death and halitosis in the world, and if only they were stamped out and obliterated, then OUR ism could finally start to work properly! This leads to the prosecution of thoughts as a type of crime, and it all goes to hell from there.
        If an overwhelming majority of people could actually get their shit together and live in a state of wisdom and higher understanding, it would almost completely negate the capacity of these ISMs to trick people into behaving like Nazis. Rather than mistaking ISMs for causal entities, we would recognize them for what they are… excuses for human behavior. And once you stop making or accepting excuses, then you have found the key to that elusive thing called RESPONSIBILITY.

Comments are closed.