Whenever I see a trivial story hyped incessantly, my gut reaction now is "Where's the fnord?"
Plaxico Burress is an NFL player on the NY Giants, with a history of problems. Most recently, he accidentally shot himself while in a nightclub. His contract with the NY Giants may be terminated. He is facing criminal charges for illegally owning and a gun.
What's the fnord?
The fnord is "The State ban on private gun ownership is legitimate." There is nothing wrong with owning a gun. Mishandling a gun and shooting yourself is obviously stupid, but you can't outlaw stupidity.
As a private organization, the NFL has the right to make up its own rules. However, the NFL has a State-licensed monopoly, which limits the moral authority it has over its players. If NFL players are unsatisfied with the league's rules, then they may not easily form a competing league. As mentioned here before, the State protects established businesses from competition, and the NFL is no exception.
As a private organization, a nightclub has the right to make up its own rules. Most sensible nightclubs would have a "no guns allowed" policy, to cater to most customers. However, some nightclubs should be allowed to choose a "guns allowed" policy, if that's what their customers desire. Paradoxically, if everyone is openly carrying a gun, things could be safer. In such a circumstance, someone could politely say "You're too drunk to be carrying a gun, fool!"
Whenever you see a trivial story hyped incessantly, the fnord usually is "The law the victim is accused of breaking is legitimate." Usually, the law cited in such cases is an invalid law. The most common fnords are "The ban on private gun ownership is legitimate.", "The ban on certain drugs is legitimate.", and "The ban on gambling and prostitution is legitimate."
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Plaxico Burress Fnord
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think you should take it easier, FSK, and don't worry so much about seeing fnords. I don't think it is related to your history of MI at all.
I see them all the time, and if you pay attention to the media of the past, say 1940-1950-ies, then you will see than almost 50% of all said and shown was fnords.
People communicate with fnords more commonly than not. While some people cannot see fnords, others cannot see or hear anything but fnords. Direct language has no meaning to those kind of people.
In fact, I think I don't see them fnords good enough. As you know, direct recommendations that our society gives to young people are designed to ruin them. This is understandable, since in parasitic society majority have to be hosts.
But, I noticed, that there is an alternative set of directions, that shows the direct way for becoming a successive parasite. This set is communicated trough fnords and is placated everywhere.
While all this certainly explains the origins of ( alien / reptilian ) society component theories, in my mind, it simply confirms that in any host/parasite society, there must be open and hidden language duality. Or, if you wish, then the existence of the duality of language presupposes the parasite nature of our society.
Good fnords, such as Visotsky / Aesop / Matrix, are created by hosts trying to raise the awareness of parasites among other hosts. The reason the have to wrap their message in fnords is because the parasite government makes it impossible or highly unlikely for any host to publish such warning in open language. Publishing it in fnordish, on the other hand reaches very few, as the majority does not speak fnordish.
This is why Soviet Union had a phenomenon of "SamIzdat" (Self-Publis[hing]). This is because SamIzdat allows the distribution of knowledge in open language, and therefore benefits hosts, and not mostly parasites, as does fnordish.
I very much liked (loved?) your explanation of how brainwashing is important in keeping the status quo. True, proper education will easily disable the power of open/fnordish duality of language trough opennes to ideas and lack of unquestionable authorities / axioms.
I think if you want to break this, the good place to start is to secretly educate your children in a proper way, while keeping the appearance of approved curriculum.
If this can be dome on a somewhat wide basis, this would be the strongest weapon, as there is nothing you can do against millions of young people who where taught that you're the enemy.
This article by Gary North could have been called "Gary North on Fnords".
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north667.html
"The reason the have to wrap their message in fnords is because the parasite government makes it impossible or highly unlikely for any host to publish such warning in open language."
Isn't this blog a counter-example to that idea?
No, it isn't, I think. This blog serves what 0.01% of the population, maybe?
Try to go on CNN and speak openly. Even Ron Paul did not speak openly about what really is going on.
I think if you even try to speak openly to an audience wide enough, they will simply get scared, and authorities will use that to remove you.
Of course, you can always try to be Kennedy, if you wish.
Valuable resource of Plaxico Burress news summaries...
So Dan, if FSK's blog gets too popular, then what? He's going to jail, or worse? If that's true then why bother writing it?
You can't speak openly on CNN because they'd consider you a crackpot not worth listening to. FSK would certainly be considered a crackpot by CNN.
Where is the evidence that one can't publish openly? FSK is doing it right here!
You are either young or eager to prove something (or both). And that is fine. Of course you have a right to be.
But in that case, what are you doing here? I am not calling you a troll, but I am wondering.
Still, this is a bad way to answer a question or a challenge. And yet there are questions and challenges that ought to be answered in this way. Think about it... How can I prove it to you? Get myself jailed?
Even then you probably would say that I just did something else wrong, since I will be accused of something else, we don't remove people for speaking openly, do we?
So, I have considered everything and here is what: You're right, or probably right. There might be no problem shouting this aloud. Alex Jones is just an idiot for doing his best to keep the appearance of a cook, so that he can keep the forum.
I was wrong, I am only a human. I still wouldn't talk about this on CNN, and think that if Ron Paul did, then he would be shot by CIA.
This is how crazy I am, I believe these things.
Does it really worth your time to talk to folks like me? Why don't you instead try to repair the intentionally good, but slightly misaligned system? Fight the national debt (is a worthy cause)? Just a suggestion...
"But in that case, what are you doing here? I am not calling you a troll, but I am wondering."
I am confused as to why it doesn't cross your mind that I'm honestly wondering what reason you have for believing in a conspiracy to silence dissent. Personally I find that people in general are confused enough to account for lack of it. I have no need for an additional hypothesis beyond that, although if someone alleges conspiracy, I am quite open to hearing their case.
But you evidently aren't interested in presenting it. I mean, if you can't present your facts, your reasons for believing in a conspiracy to silence dissent, to an honest person, what do you expect you look like to them? If all you can do is call them "troll" or "naive", well what does that mean? It can only mean to me that you believe what you do beyond any facts or reasons. If there really is a conspiracy like you allege, I want to know about it, I'm open to knowing about it, but you're pretending that it should be obvious, "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary; to those who don't, none is possible."--Is that your credo?
"To those who understand, no explanation is necessary; to those who don't, none is possible."
Not in all matters. Even this one I have been attempting to explain before. I just don't think it is possible anymore, meanings, that when I was younger, I believed the explanation for this matter is possible. Turned out, I just misunderstood the matter at hand.
I am not trying to hide behind this. Everyone will see that as far as public discourse goes, - I have not been able to support my theory.
Instead, what I am trying to do is to pile up as much wording as possible to cover up my slip up.
As you read this last phrase, you have probably lost all doubts that I am insane. Which, incidentally, is the whole point.
This refusal to teach a particular point doesn't come from an intent to isolate you from knowledge.
It comes from a recognition of oneself, now presented by you, and knowing that no explanation would suffice. You may or may not come to a similar degree of paranoia, on your own, in the future. But I, can not bring it about.
There was a point in my life, when I suddenly realized that the one talking to me is telling me everything I need to know, while appearing that he is telling me nothing. It was up to me, how deeply I wanted to believe it. At first it looked like if I believe deeper, then it gets crazier. But then, it become clear, that the deeper I went in my belief, the crazier I had to behave myself, since now it made perfect sense.
It is no different than jumping off a tall building straight down, onto a pavement in Matrix. It just makes no sence, until it does.
Post a Comment