Friday, 30 January 2009

Tuesday, 27 January 2009

Monday, 26 January 2009


I hear that they are making weed a higher classification. The reason the corporate media gave was the rise of skunk. bullshit. the reason that this apparently "dangerous" form of weed has appeared is because it is illegal. It's a fact, for example, that a lot of street heroin , cocaine or ecstasy (although obviously weed is not a bad thing, whereas those substances are) are mixed with all sorts of harmful crap . it is the illegality of it which is the reason that drugs are generally a problem. if it were legal for people to grow their own or buy it from a shop there may not be a problem. Sure some people might still grow skunk but that would be up to them. Obviously, as an anarchist, I don't want drugs to be regulated at all. It's up to the individual what they do with their body. as long as they're not harming anyone and they are aware of the consequences, then they should be able to take what they want. you are responsible for what you ingest. not me. you. Not some twat
in London either. It's a matter of personal choice.


this above image is a screen shot of what I found when I googled "humanity". It certainly made me double take. I disagree with most of the sentiments in it, but it made me laugh slightly.

Sunday, 25 January 2009

climate change,volentary human extinction and the carbon tax (the inconveniant fart)

A while back, I posted a link to an interesting documentary on how the whole global warming/cooling/climate change thing is bunkum on my poetry blog. the fact is that not only is there only a small amount of C02 in our environment (compared to other gasses), there is no proof whatsoever that is is harming our atmosphere. It is actually a necessary substance. More volcanoes let it out then factory chimneys. the ocean is one of the major sources of it. Even if it were harmful, you would have to kill all animals with lungs (including us), drain all the oceans, come up with a way to stop plant matter from rotting and eradicate volcano's. This planet has been around for a very,very,very long time. Humans have only been here for a blink of an eye compared to that And only a very very infinitesimal amount of that time have we been industrial. Does that mean I am not for taking care of the environment? Of course not. I am all for finding solutions to environmental problems. It's just I'd like to solve ones that actually exist. Yes the climate is changing, but it is not unnatural and is not generated one iota by us. it has been changing in cycles for millennia. In the 19Th century the Thames froze over and people would regularly hold markets there. In medieval England there were vineyards in the centre of London. and it's not just earth. Mars's icecaps are melting. Are there factories there? land rovers? aeroplanes? nope. what is causing climate change then? the sun. That's right. the sun.

scientists have been finding direct correlations between the sun's behaviour (sunspots etc) and weather change.

Now this raises the question as to WHY Governments and the media are SO keen to promote this bollocks?

The answer is simple but twofold: Money and control.

Loads of people's livelyhoods rely on it. there are people called environmental journalists for example.

Also, a lot of these climate change nuts want a carbon tax. And here is one of the main roots of the thing.

Governments love stealing off us through tax. They would love a carbon tax. It is essentially a tax on breathing. and because it is based on fictional science, they can have unlimited leeway with it.
I hear that in some parts of the US for example, farmers may end up being taxed for their animal's flatulence because it lets out methane into the atmosphere.

this is despite the fact that whales release more methane Then they do. and we let it out too.
animals have been farting for years.
Al Gore is one person who wants this tax. Do you know where he originally got his first wealth from? oil.
that's right he was an oil man. And he is preaching to us about the environment? Come.on.

it is an industry. a money making scheme turned into a religion. If you don't believe me try criticising it in a public forum. you won't get far. People have had their careers ruined for it.

the second reason is control.

as long as the masses are scared of something, they are more easily controlled.

They can now prosecute you if your wheelie bin is too full, or tax you more on you cars co2 emissions. its a con.

I recently published a load of quotes off the anarcho-blog check your premises.
The reason I don't have a link to it on my link list is because I can't morally justify his support for the VHEMT (Voluntary human extinction movement). These People want the human race to die out. I kid you not. These people make me sick.

The fact it that humans are not separate from nature and the only environmental damage we cause could be stopped by doing two things. Want to know what they are?


wait for it...

get rid of the state and capitalism.

there you go.


most of the environmental problems in this world are caused by the capitalist big business corporations. they own the factories. they subjugate the workers and decide policies. and who props them up? the state. the state starts the wars. the state is in bed with the capitalists, and in some cases the politicians are capitalists.

get rid of those two, institute an anarchist system and the planet would be a whole lot better off.
It is the state that has the WMDs (all except those states that the "international community" rattle sabres at, even though the US put most of them in power anyway), It is the state that props up most of the terrible things in the world. Humans are not the problem. It is the system that enslaves us which is the problem. if the world was run along anarchist lines I really don't think there would be starvation and environmental problems (at least not human caused ones anyway). Anarchism is a fundamentally pro-human ideology (except for anarcho-primitivism, which would require mass extermination to come even close to working.). This is why I cannot understand why anyone calling themselves anarchists would support this poisonous and ridiculous organisation of cranks. Having said that there I do like a lot of stuff on his blog. It's just in certain areas his thinking is faulty. I'm not attacking him per se, more like I'm attacking this particular belief.

breed humans! Breed! Just make sure your children are anarchists!

Saturday, 24 January 2009

another quote

"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is it's justice; that is it's morality."
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon



Friday, 23 January 2009


quotes found on check your premises showing that "anarcho"-capitalism is NOT anarchism.

“There’s a good reason the poor are poor, they’re less intelligent than the wealthy.”

“As such, it follows that legitimacy is derived from the claim that the government can help the poor. The poor buy into this as a result of moral and intellectual weakness.”

“Nonetheless we do favour individuals with authority, in the form of a natural elite.”

“If the parents wish to use force, then so be it. The child consents by continuing to live off his parents.”

“Libertarianism doesn’t support equal negative rights, a child does not have the same rights as an adult.”

“This doesn’t imply equal negative rights for adults. Some adults, such as primitives, are not capable of rational argumentation and cannot be brought peacefully into the division of labour. Moreover, they have no conception of property rights nor any enforcable claim.”

“These people (tribal or less developed cultures) simply aren’t capable of rational argumentation, and therefore have no rights, whether this is biological or cultural makes no differences.”

“The fact is they often cannot be brought within the division of labour and without any concept of property rights it’s impossible that they own anything. Moreover they have no legitimate claim to any of this territory and as such it’s free to be homesteaded.”

“People incapable of moral choice must either abide by the decisions of those who are or they must be removed from free society.”

“Against people who have no law, the initiation of force is fully justified.”

“It was not wrong for the spanish to overthrow an empire that literally fed on its slaves in religious rituals and replace it with its much milder form of serfdom.”

“Childish rejection of a natural order and authority isn’t the opposite to subservience. It’s a bad trait that needs to be kept down until the youth have matured sufficiently.”

“A private ruler must respect property rights simply because his wealth depends on clearly defined laws explaining what is, and isn’t legitimate property and how people should act in regards to this.”

“Anarcho capitalism and anarchism are synonomous. Anything that can’t be subsumed under anarcho capitalism, is internally inconsistant, and needs to be thrown out.”

“So long as government commands a monopoly over all land, the closed border position is defensible.”

“It is only reasonable to expect the state to fulfill its duties as a land owner.”

“The only system that would have no borders would be a world government.”

“Seeing as towns would be owned by single entrepreneurs…”

“Why wouldn’t people sell their land to a single entrepreneur? The have no interest in owning land, only in being able to lease it from some owner.”

“There’s nothing new about left-libertarians. They are still the same anti-capitalist who hated big business when Lenin promised to keep control of the commanding heights of the economy.”

“Anybody can benefit from the state and anybody can become a part of it.”

“It’s necessary to remove bad elements from a movement. Which is exactly what the libertarian movement should be doing to non Austrians and the likes of Molyneux. Lenin was exactly right in this regard.”

“Opposition to the family and church sounds somewhat Marxist to me, any libertarian society will be founded upon those two institutions so in a sense yes, one does need to be a cultural conservative to be a libertarian.”

“The state by it’s very nature is egalitarian in the widest sense of the word.”

“The only unifying principle of a secular, multicultural society is the democratic state.”

“Feudalism is actually an entirely appropriate model for anarchist society, and my prediction is it’s coming whether the anarchists like it or not.”

“A system of feudal holdings all competing with each other for human and fiscal capital stacks up pretty good against a system whereby the parasitic majority lives off the productive minority.”

the quote about feudalism really justifies my calling them feudalists.

apparently these quotes are all from those wankers at



Thursday, 22 January 2009

Wednesday, 21 January 2009

Barack Bush

gimme the mermaid

obaaama! obaaama! (and other farm-yard bleats)

well, I watched some of the inauguration of America's new fuhrer and the disgusting pomp and idiotic braying of the poor fooled masses, once again taken in by the mass media . it started off with a bible bashing nut talking to his imaginary Friend. Any deity who would give approval to the imperialist war-and-money loving filth that is the American power elite isn't worth worship. The whole thing was a reiteration of the traditional capitalist imperialist vomit that has always been spewed by the american state. one thing I got from his speech is that there will be more big government. it was government this,government that. a lot of it was the same empty rhetoric. talking about American freedom. Americans aren't free. they have a government. they have an elitist, capitalist, hierarchical system on top of them. They are not free, no more then we in the UK are. I feel sorry for all those poor hoodwinked people, especially the black ones who are so filled with hope, hope that will ultimately be for nothing. Just more corporate slogans and false promises.
Just another prison without bars. Sorry this is not hope. this is just more tyranny with a diet pepsi hollywood smile.

Tuesday, 20 January 2009

obama,Bush,Brown (what's the difference?)

I see Obarfma is getting inaugurated today. What a crock. He's not going to change anything in a positive way. wake up. Don't fall for the media brainwashing. Don't be a sheep. just another leader.
another capitalist stooge suckling at the teat of the banker. grow up. If there any Americans reading this (I know there are), let me tell you this: get some guns,invest in gold and stock up on storable food. the economy is going down the toilet and no smiley black guy chanting "yes we can" while America burns is going to help. think for yourself. governments are bad. exchanging one for another is not going to change anything. Obama is simply another demagogue there to screw the people. Bush was so unpopular, with the left, the right and the liberals hating him. A new shiny mask had to be put on the sock-puppet, so they could put the liberals and the trendy left back to sleep. he's just another leader, another spokesman for illegitimate authority and the protection of capitalist private property. wake up sheeple. Wake up.

Friday, 16 January 2009

you want fries with that?

soicial anarchist

I while ago,You'll remember, that I was confused over whether I was an individualist anarchist or a social anarchist. I know that Mutualism in many ways is between the social and individualist schools. I have realised that I am primarily a social anarchist because I would prefer that mutualist banks (I will probably talk about this at some point) be collectively owned by the community to avoid the generation of a capitalist enterprise. I also lean more towards the original proudhonian mutualism rather then the more tuckerite strand. There are bits of individualist thoughts in my general philosophy, but large areas of social anarchism exist there too.

Wednesday, 14 January 2009

Monday, 12 January 2009

the Gaza situation

thought I'd better talk about this. Don't know why I didn't before. think it was because I was caught up in that debate about vulgar libertarians who call themselves anarchists.

I support neither government in this dispute, although I have extra bile for the state of Israel. There is never going to be any peace until this ridiculous sectarianism comes to an end. My condolences and sympathies go out to all the ordinary people of that area, both Arab and Jew alike. As usual it is the ordinary people who suffer when the state and the extremists fight. I did read somewhere that before this whole mess started, Palestinians and Jews lived together (don't know if that's true. This is one of the reasons that I hate organised religion. I have nothing against spirituality and personal beliefs, but its when they start thinking there particular mythology is in someway better then anyone Else's is when the problems start. just like the problems in Ireland religious arguments are based on stupidity and ignorance.

I am aware that the Israel situation is more about land, but even so.

the reason I dislike the state of Israel more then the Palestinian government (I'm against all governments and states) is that not only did they steal the land the Palestinians were using, but they have oppressed the Palestinian people, and are always looking for excuses to enlarge their illegitimate nation. Also they have the USA government as their lapdog. As the US is not going to be a powerful nation for much longer, due to the fact that the Dollar is going to cease to exist soon, it will be interesting to see how things change when Israel doesn't have uncle Sam to look after them. this problem in Gaza is part of the whole Israel/Zionist occupied Palestine problem and that is the fault of the Zionists. they are the reason there is an extremist organisation in the first place because persecuting and subjugating a nation is going to breed extremists.

It is my belief ( and there are Jews against Zionism and Israel) that Jews and gentiles alike would be better off without Zionism and this is a major source of the problems.

I am not anti-Semitic. I have no problems with the Jewish people. The history of the anarchist movement is filled with influential figures who happened to be of Jewish extraction. I want the people of the world to live in peace and that can't happen as long as there are nation-states and the spectre of government.

Saturday, 10 January 2009

definition twisting and the pernitiosness of rothbardian feudalism.

Though It's followers claim to be against the state, they are not. All through reading about this ideology, I've come to the same feature. Instead of using the actual definition of something, they change and twist it around to make it work the way they want. This is immature and unscientific. they do it with the whole government/state definition for example. The government and the state are two actually separate things, although they do overlap and are virtually joined at the hip. you cannot have one without other. The state is the monopoly of force. it is the coercive power, the enforcer of law. It is the controlling force of the police and military(although the police and the military are becoming more and more indistinguishable around the world) . The protector of private property. When I say I am against private property, I mean in the actually existing unjust system. I only support private property in the proudhonian sense of the term . The Government is the maker of policy, the brain if you will.

In a so-called anarcho-capitalist system, what I call rothbardian feudalism, the landlord/capitalist/entrepreneur/ whatever you want to call it, would hire "private protection companies" which would protect the stolen goods (i.e what capitalists call property,which is theft). these companies would, in their areas of territory, have a monopoly of force. this would make them a form of state, with their clients being the government ruling over their employees as they would need a workforce to get anything made. so you see, they do support there being governments and states, just as long as they are the government and they steer the state.

they are not anarchists. the state is the arm of the rich elite. The government hold a monopoly of power and that monopoly is the state. any positive social change that the government and the state accept is only allowed because it pacifies the broad mass of the people and makes them think that those in power actually care about them. centralisation of power breeds tyranny and capitalism is the ideal system through which to do this. as long as the people actually think they have a choice, they don't rebel. give them burger kings and a vote on which glove puppet to have as the face of their oppressor, and they'll kneel down and allow themselves to be raped by big business.

which brings me to a common misconception that they bring up when a real Anarchist actually tries to stick up for anarchism. Socialism.

when I watch debates between anarchists and these hypocrites, they constantly insist that anarchism is NOT socialist. This is bullshit (pardon my french there).

Socialism is not and has never been a single and uniform school. there is a whole spectrum of different types of socialism and anarchism is one of them. state socialism is not true socialism. it is simply the government and the state owning the means of production. this is tyranny. the people have no true control and become slaves to the state (even more then they are now). unions are controlled by the oppressors and do what the owners of the workforce tell them instead of the union being a legitimate way of getting the bosses to actually do things to benefit the worker's rights, which is what it should be. There are the multiple forms of state socialism and then there are the multiple forms of anarchism. these are two wings of the same bird.

Anarchism is a type of socialism. Even individualists like Tucker said so. Yeah, anarcho-communists and anarcho individualists agreeing.

Also the way they seem to monopolise the term "market anarchism", as if these 'narco-capitalists are the only market anarchist (when they are not even anarchists). Mutualism is the original form of market anarchism, in fact its the first type of anarchism full stop.

take away anarchocapitalism and it's pseudo-left wing little sister agorism, then mutualism becomes the only type of market anarchism (as far as I know).

These pseudo-anarchists are like baby cuckoos invading another bird's nest. They try to absorb anarchism. their insistence that they are anarchists, despite all arguments to the contrary, misleads those who are new to anarchism and is therefore bad for the movement.

reeeealy ill

majorly ill yesterday. As people who read the comments on my post will probably know I've been having a conversation with someone called freefarmgeek. interesting stuff.

Wednesday, 7 January 2009

capitalism and the state as fundamentally one and the same.

Government breeds hierarchy. It does. The second you centralise all power into the hands of a small group and get them to control the broad mass of people, you get hierarchy. Hierarchy is exploitative and oppressive. capitalism is a natural offshoot of the state. A small group live off the toil of the vast majority of people. It is a system that encourages selfishness and creates class systems.

Governments never truly represent the people and are not (by definition) equal to the rest of us due to the fact they have the power (armies, law making abilities etc) . They take half our incomes by force, start wars for money, using false threats and perpetuating hostile and petty notions such as nationalism(all the while doing things that are against the interests of the nation, such as joining organisations such as the UN or the EU. This steers us towards world government) .

Governments bring death and poverty. They bring inequality and tyranny. As does capitalism. you could say they are the same.

detournment 1


Tuesday, 6 January 2009


don't vote.

I kind of feel sorry for people in the states who have fallen for all the Obama hysteria. the American government has been owned by the central banks since 1913!

Obama is just another stooge. just another capitalist tool. If he does change anything, it'll be bad changes. He's a council on foreign relations member(same as bush and the rest of the old lot) who chose a bunch of former bush and Clinton regime people to make up "his" government. look at one guy he chose, Rahm Emmanuel. This is a man whose dad used to blow up hotels. come on. wake up.

Governments are evil and corrupt. voting changes NOTHING.

there is this almost messianic aura surrounding Obama, which is kind of frightening.

It was really obvious that he was going to get elected.
look at the bloke he ran against. the man looked like an albino hamster. He's a multiple cancer survivor with not long left live and his vice president was a brain-dead redneck. Its so obviously fixed, I'm amazed more people didn't notice.

there will be more false-flag terror. more wars (this time in Iran). more corruption and creeping dictatorship.

rothbardian feudalism leeching off anarchism

Monday, 5 January 2009

rothbardian pseudo-libertarian crypto-fascism

I've kind of been looking for an alternative term for "anarcho"-capitalism. The more I look at rothbard and read the anarchist FAQ (on my list of links) the more I believe it isn't even libertarianism, but more a sort of decentralised authoritarianism. In a society run along these lines, the means of production and property would be owned along Private lines and tenants would live on areas of land owned by the capitalist landlord and he/she would control things and this means that he/she would have power over his/her subjects. naturally the landlord would be thinking about his/her interests and would therefore be more concerned about how much profit could be raked in . this means tenants would be under the subjugation/power of the landlord and would be limited in there free speech or freedom of choice by constantly having to think about what the landlord would want.

Plus, the landlord could be free to kick the tenant out at ANY time, even if that tenant would then be homeless and facing serious problems. And there needn't be any regulations protecting the tenants, because a)the landlord makes the rules, being the overall mini-dictator and b) have you noticed company heads often need regulations to do stuff for their employees before they do it, even when you would think it's obvious, you know like health and safety and things like that.

these rothbardians do in actual fact support governments if you think about it. These landlords with there competing private protection companies (which I forgot to mention are another feature- basically there would be people with guns who would compete with other companies to be hired by different landlords to be their own personal army, and we can see where the problems here) are govenments, or rather dictatorships.

now what does this remind you of? Yes. feudalism. thats right. perhaps without a central king and split into parts and territories, but basically yes.



that could be my new term for these so-called anarchists.

wow. didn't expect to come up with a name as I was typeing this. Kind of shows what I ,meant yesterday when I said I use these posts as a thinking area.

Sunday, 4 January 2009


Yesterday I talked about whether I was an individualist anarchist or a social anarchist. I am a mutualist, so the confusion in me regarding that is understandable, due to the fact that mutualism is the meeting point between the two strands of the anarchist tradition. After thinking about it I cannot subscribe to the teachings of people like tucker because of this whole idea of private competing protection agencies. This is an awful idea. not only is it exploitative from lots of angles, it would lead to all sorts of armed conflicts and has capitalistic features. I see some REAL problems there. not good, not good at all. Which is why I have decided that when I refer to specifically what type of anarchist I am I will just say Mutualist.

I won't use the term "market anarchist", even though technically I am, because I don't want to be thought of as anywhere near those vulgar libertarians that call themselves "anarcho-capitalists". no way.

My individualism is not as radical as some, I must admit. I'm no egoist. I have aspects of individualist and social thought in my general philosophy.

what you have to realise about these posts is that it is essentially me thinking out loud. I'm figuring things out. So I seem to contradict myself it's just that I'm thinking matters over.

Saturday, 3 January 2009

never again 2009


turns out I might be an individualist anarchist, which surprised me because I thought I was a social anarchist. Not that it matters in the long run, but hey, we'll see if this proves true. I'm certainly pro-free-market, anti-capitalist,anti-rothbard,anti-konkin, anti-state, pro-mutualist, pro-freedom.

I would say I'm against the notion of collectives as the ideal. The rights of the individual are extremely important. I still maintain that social interaction is important, but individual rights are paramount.
Instead of people being bunched together in collectives, individuals, when needing to work with other individuals, should come together voluntarily to form co-operatives with no leaders, no higher authorities and therefore no hierarchies. decisions should be made when everyone in the co-operative has had a say and are in full agreement.

Does this make me an individualist? looks like it.

But I'm an anarchist first and foremost.

Friday, 2 January 2009

minarchism, markets and capitalism

I think minarchism is really naive. Governments are instruments of control and exploitation. they never stay small.

look at America. It started off with small government, constitutionalist libertarian ideals and look where it is now.

After a relatively short period, it has devolved into the mess it is now- A hostile capitalist society on the way to full tyranny. It dominates the world and is a major threat (that's the American government, not the citizens- I feel compassion towards them. I'd love America to truly be the land of the free. it isn't.) to the rest of the world. It arms countries, sets up dictatorships and then starts bloody wars to overthrow them when they get out of control.

Saddam was put into power by the US.

so was the current regime of Iran.

I'm willing to bet that Afghanistan was too.

saying you want a small government is like if I had a malignant tumour and the doctors wanted me to have it removed, But instead I tell them "no,no just shrink it. I'll be fine!".

Governments never stay small.

They grow and grow and grow. They dominate and bring tyranny (government itself is tyranny)
and next thing you know, you have cancer.

minarchism is naive.

Also, the state breeds capitalism. State socialism (what an oxymoron) can only ever postpone capitalism.

You cannot have true socialism (workers owning the means of production and controlling it democratically) when there is a state. The state is a class in and of itself. this simply whittles society down to two classes. The working class and the ruling class- the producers and the parasites.

Capitalism dominates the word market, even though it is perfectly possible to have the producers trading with each other in a voluntary,free,unregulated way without being capitalist. To me, the ideal society would be made up of self employed workers,artisans etc coming together and voluntarily forming co-operatives, in order to carry out projects with the community collectively owning the means of production. decisions should be made fairly and democratically. No authorities, just everyone on a level playing field. Having some sort of free market is fine.

I do not mean free market in the Marxist sense. I am not a Marxist (goodness no), though I am a socialist. The idea that the free market simply expresses the underlying long-term transition from feudalism to capitalism is nonsense. it's just that if we are to have a market, then we shouldn't have tax,tariffs and regulation. After all, the formation of a free society necessitates the abolition of the state and notions of authority,hierarchy etc. I don't see economics and history in that sort of Marxian transition notion, as if this is some sort of progression, an evolution if you will. no,no,no. To me an evolution indicates something positive. Feudalism is bad, I think we can all agree with that, but was the move from feudalism to capitalism that bigger a move? its just the move from battery to free-range. It's still a form of exploitation of labour. its still essentially human farming. that's what governments are in a way. It's people farming.

Simply having people trading ,exchanging items, is fine. Not sure you could suppress it without coercion anyway, even if you wanted. it's just that an autonomous structure based on voluntary co-operation, mutual aid and workers self ownership are needed to make it fair. agreement between producers is needed for things to function. you don't need big brother breathing down your neck.

common sense and reasonableness are not artificial concepts. Profit (as in the gaining and hoarding of money) should not be the important thing. The natural form of profit should be the product of ones labour. Money is fine as long as it is treated for what it is, a token of exchange. Nothing more, nothing less.

Property should be based on personal use. Buying a building of piece of land and then paying someone to use it is wrong. Capitalism encourages selfishness. it is a parasite that makes its victims parasites themselves. obviously we can't go straight into Anarchy. a lot of people are in this artificial state of the mememe mentality. They are dependant on the state and are manipulated into loving their manipulation. We must ease the crutch away. We must educate them.