We are the crack dealers and prostitutes

 Are we all game? Who is this we? The Socialist movement has gained recognition even amongst Communists and the hippie rebels. They believe, as they must, that man is a collective destined for greatness or the eradication of superficiality. They conform onto the notion that man is a being saluting, or must salute, his kind. Yet how can one assume that reality presupposes our ideas and crafts as a direct solution to our experience of consciousness and the lives beyond?  

The reality of man is that his worth is not found in his welfare or salvation, but rather in his confinement stuck in this we. Trouble brews when there is no distinction or difference. One can assume this leads to Fascism or Apartheid, but no discrimination is necessary to identity, and that is exactly why the revolutionary becomes the dictator to assume that man is, or must be, free, and open to consent of similarity, when it is not found completely, solely for our upbringing, or lives. 

 

The dilemma found in Socialism, or the assumption, and requirement, found within the ideal and idea of Neo-Liberalism, where governance salutes citizenship as independence, and placates freedom through expenditure in consumer (consumption) choices, is that our freedom becomes for granted a prison, defining how we ought to behave, and that if we behave correctly, we are free, and conscious, responsible, or socially adequate. When we are not. Socialism or Neo-Liberalism does not equate to happiness and contentment, just as religion through the practice of the pious does not remove cancer and death in the here and now. It does not guarantee what is required of us as a being with its own science. It ought not to expect, but to allow. 

 

To allow equals freedom, to not condone equates to imprisonment. How can a law, and the assumption of law, not be only in the welfare of us all, you may ask? It does not for life has its laws, even created by God, not to protect us, or control us, but rather to liberate us. Knowledge equals to power only insofar as the act of being free is justified only when it is not limited to freedom. There is no destiny, there is only the end of existence, or all things imaginable. 

 

In Western Europe, for example, the Muslim, and African, is considered 2nd class for the tolerance of peace or the super-domesticated state called sophistication. The perversion of a numbed down personhood solely to motivate consumerism, even through the consumption of art, the devil in disguise claiming human perfection. But we all know nothing is perfect, which may allow us to believe, that through that we are instantly (constantly) forgiven for being so pathetically boring, which we are only through coercion and control, even though we may be oblivious of it. Hence the ban of the burqa in some countries or states. Like the consumption of marijuana, that used to be illegal, one day the burqa will be tolerated, but at what cost is it not now? And even so, law or the assumption of law, should not discard leniency only done by the oppressor or the validator of experience, found inside psychology or any other social or anti-social sciences like Anarchism. 

 

Basically, control is subordination, and subordination is technically not allowance or tolerance of supposed activities practiced by man if only to protect him for what it is worth. Law or the jurisdiction of law, the creation of liberty does not create utopia, it only created the assumption of utopia, expressed clearly by the UN under their (our) slogan: Peace, dignity, and equality on a healthy planet (or cosmos). Why I ask, is it required for humans to have laws, goals, and a history, if all that matters to this being (alive) is the assumption that it is conscious, mature, and capable (technologically, socially) already for the majority of almost a century since the defeat of Hitler, or the Nazi-regime? 

 

Why do we have any foundation set out by us when we are the only ones to uphold it? Who gives us this power and responsibility if that is already our power and responsibility? The belief in humanity as a being meant for greatness does not even give us the power or responsibility as we see fit to be the deciding factor for this thing, we temporarily inhabit called a planet. Whether it is healthy or not, is irrelevant for it is us that needs laws, regulations, limitations, bans, and fast foods, due to our excessive consumption of ourselves. Maybe we should rather tolerate the ignorance of our assumption that we even exist for us to even be free. Instinct is a quaint word found required in this realization of a possible reality, that does exist quite clearly for other beings found on this planet, which is healthy and unhealthy, like a cancer about to erupt. Where does the UN guarantee success if only through its allowance (with us) to control ourselves and be moral through this immoral landscape called the assumption of ethics, which may be the only thing worth considering? It is like a religion, our politics. It is similar also to a fad or trend upheld through marketing firms like Hollywood exposing actors and artists for what they wear and do. Who are we to even acknowledge that if we have our own lives to live already in our own way? 

 

Why have a drivers license if you cannot drive? And why have a license if this even does not prove if you can drive properly or responsibly? The people driving on our roads also cause accidents and forget to service their cars or place enough fuel in it for the road ahead. What I am saying is that a drivers license is not needed if you can drive. Why need something that is meant only for those that can drive, but the amount of people found without a license on the road, does not surely mean that their driving does not matter. A license is only there for us to pay to use the roads we drive upon. But the capitalization or privatization of our roads has made a license not adequate to utilize this service created and upheld by ourselves, only to service a levy upon the governing body in charge of this highway for its own tax benefits and profit margins shared secretly, if at all, with the government that sold out land and space, and freedom for the sake of the pretence of freedom. 

 

Car insurance is a requirement for all drivers of automobiles only to protect themselves and others when in an accident or breakdown. If you have car insurance, then you must drive your vehicle only to make use of this expenditure which you may never need if you are lucky. In Western countries (which is not a geographical phenom) insurance companies have differing prices for the same thing, only to create the idea of better and more willing to assist. It is a bank account that pays out with the consent of the traffic department and local government just to protect the laws set out to limit our freedom for the sake of our realization that we have vehicle insurance which we technically only have if it is utilized. You only need insurance because of your own protection and those of others, remember that. It’s like having a firearm that you never need to use, but maybe know how to use.