Wednesday, February 26, 2014

The Argument for Panarchism

Panarchism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism

This essay will focus on the two largest philosophical movements, American libertarianism (or the libertarian right) and European libertarianism (or the libertarian left). This essay will not address any movement to centralize power further, such as Maoism or minarchist capitalism. The importance of solidarity between these movements cannot be emphasized enough. Aside from both philosophies logically necessitating unity, the pragmatic potential for further ensuring the liberty of future generations is also too great to ignore. Panarchism is the movement that seeks to combine all anarchist movements, as the one true anarchist movement. Panarchism seeks to prove to anarchists that both camps are better off uniting rather than shrugging and accepting statist allies.

The first step to decent and civilized discussion between the camps is always proper communication. Consider the following example, suppose an ordinary citizen encounters someone in support of the drug war. Which of the following options would you say is more likely to bring positive results in changing the opinion of the drug war supporter?

Option 1: "The drug war is the modern day holocaust. People don't do drugs because they are undisciplined, it's because they come for horrid childhoods living in impoverished conditions that often leads to them seeking escape in the form of drugs when they're older. Kids suffering from child abuse, neglect, and living in constant fear rather than nourishment become mentally scarred as adults, never trusting or letting their guard down. As a result, drugs are their only escape from reality. To punish a heroin addict is to brutalize someone who as already been brutalized all their life. It's time we use compassion instead of punishment to heal these people. These people are sick, not criminals."

Option 2: "You have no idea what you're talking about. The drug war is the modern day holocaust. If you had an ounce of compassion you'd realize the drug war does nothing to help addicts and is only there to help cops kidnap people for the prison-industrial complex. TV is making you a mindless Fox News drone, how about reading some alternative media sometime?"

Obviously, option 1 was nonviolent communication, and option 2 was violent, aggressive communication. Using aggressive communication immediately creates the wrong sort of reaction in the listener's mind, causing them to get defensive and making the debate personal rather than allowing their mind to become open and trusting of the speaker. Before philosophy can even begin, the speaker must use nonviolent communication as specified by Marshall Rosenberg, as detailed here (please take the time to watch, it's short and vital to understanding the essay):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwHBD7Ihy5U

Of course, speaking this way all the time requires the speaker to understand people in a different way. We are not shills, drones, robots, or puppets of anyone. We are simply beings with needs, and every expression in aggressive communication is a tragic expression of an unmet need (in the first example, it would be a need for compassion to drug addicts). Details concerning what is a real need and what specifically constitutes violent communication can be found easily here and on his website.

" I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves."
- Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game

Secondly, there are several misconceptions about various anarchistic philosophies that must be cleared in order to prove the case for panarchism, and a philosopher by the name of Kevin Carson has already covered this topic in depth. In the following quotation, he uses the word capitalism to mean the system which the United States and most of western world uses currently. Most right libertarians would call this crony-capitalism. He writes:


"...industrial capitalism, to the same extent as manorialism or slavery, was founded on force. Like its predecessors, (crony) capitalism could not have survived at any point in its history without state intervention. Coercive state measures at every step have denied workers access to capital, forced them to sell their labor in a buyer's market, and protected the centers of economic power from the dangers of the free market. To quote Benjamin Tucker again, landlords and capitalists cannot extract surplus value from labor without help of the state. The modern worker, like the slave or the serf, is the victim of ongoing robbery; he works in an enterprise built from past stolen labor."
- Kevin Carson, 

The state has indisputably been guaranteeing privilege for those with enough wealth to bribe it, as humorously shown by South Park. This leads to centralized producers, which has the effect of higher prices for consumers and forcing wages for all down for all workers by creating a market with an artificially low number of employers. This phenomena of market behavior that occurs when the number of buyers (for labor) are small and the number of sellers (workers) are large is called oligopsony. Given the shocking state of most Prussian style state monopolized education, it would not even be controversial to say the entire system is set up to try to create obedient and helpless workers which are the product, and not the consumer of this system. The corporate-state society survives on breaking the souls of individuals, herding them into controlled environments like cattle and then pretends their poverty is an unfortunate accident caused by the free market, and their only option is generally to rent away their lifespan for subsistence so that at least their children have a remote chance at middle class success through college (which often involves enormous debt for many). Many libertarians though (and particularly objectivists) express support for the economic model and business leaders created by a government that auctions away rights and privileges, as well as deride many of the chronically unemployed poor as lazy. There is no such thing as lazy though. People only react to their perceived incentives.

In essence, libertarian capitalist philosophy itself dictates that injustice has been done upon working people in the United States and abroad by states and their partners. Restitution has to be done by the ruling class to the people that have been under relentless attack by the state for centuries, yet capitalist libertarians contradict their own philosophy by not advocating corporate equity be handed back to the working people. This attitude of defending the crony capitalist ruling class indicates to other movements that capitalist libertarians are mislead or not serious about changing society. Restoring justice by examining many of the Fortune 500 companies for attempting to employ the state to use violence to attempt to make competition more difficult or alter markets through coercive means in any other way is the same as saying the mob must be prosecuted for racketeering. Each large corporation deserves to be examined in a case-by-case basis, and where it is deemed that the controlling interests are owners of criminal property, the equity should be restored to the workers. Without a time machine, it is impossible to know exactly who should be controlling what property after all of this coercion. However in the absence of a verifiable true owner of the capital, turning the capital over to the workers will likely be the best course of action in the interests of efficiency and incentive for growing the company.

Without establishing justice prior to establishing a free market, the ruling class has been effectively been encouraged to do it again, and there is no reason to believe the same corporate ruling class wouldn't. Cries for competition to save the day will land on deaf ears if the corporate cronies ally themselves with a new mafia, and the cycle starts again.

American libertarianism is not a philosophy offering a get-out-of-jail free card to corporate cronies.

The libertarian left also suffers from misconceptions of their own philosophy. Despite bearing the label of anarchism, many anarchists on the left feel comfortable making demands from the state along with liberals for universal healthcare, economic controls, and state-mandated education. The left is misinformed though, on where the state gets its wealth from. The common intent behind all of the left's demands is to shift wealth and economic power from the ultra wealthy ruling class to the proletariat, but this never happens. All government pressure the left attempts to apply on the ruling class is always used against other members of the proletariat, and hence the wealth gap continues to grow despite many liberal reform successes.

By advocating reform through the state, all of the left appears to the libertarian right as Obama's puppets clamoring for redistribution in a zero-sum game in exchange for all of their liberties. For there to be true progress for the proletariat, the anarchists must recognize that the state and ruling elite would never truly yield any substantial reform and that instead they should join the libertarian right in condemning the entire ruling class.

The last major objection to panarchism involves the following theoretical example: A group of anarcho-socialists are travelling down a road in the woods, and it's getting dark. The socialists spot a building with light, and find that it's a motel. The motel owner demands $1,000 (or any arbitrary sum) and the anarcho-socialists are broke. If the anarcho-socialists attempt to occupy the empty room, something similar to this would happen, as the anarcho-socialists don't recognize ownership of means of production and the anarcho-capitalist views occupation as aggression.

The core problem with this scenario isn't that there isn't a solution which is immediately obvious, but that both camps have already implicitly agreed that the other camp is utterly devoid of empathy and wants to do the other side harm. When we assume that the majority of people are good and want to peacefully contribute to the well-being of others, the need for labels one way or the other disappear. If the anarcho-socialists had no where else to go, it isn't likely that an ordinary person would turn them away to be eaten by wolves. On the other hand, it also isn't fair to the motel owner for the socialists to be able to use a room for the night, use amenities like lights, TV, and bathrooms, and not have to contribute back in some way. For the socialists, if they are unable to pay, can still potentially repay the motel owner through work or some identification or electronic means to contact their commune to settle the balance.

The driving force behind the argument for panarchy is that for a society based on honesty and empathy, anything is possible and a society in which people believe the others are trying to harm them naturally causes disorder. The common thought between all brands of anarchism though, is that societies in which people are free naturally tend to produce more virtuous, happy people.

These misconceptions are just a few examples of how in reality, the practical difference between both philosophies aren't that dissimilar, and that all forms of anarchism (including resource-based economies, or any other arbitrary "formula" for people to self-govern with) would actually enhance the total health of society by counter-balancing each other's weaknesses. For example, if an anarcho-socialist community were taken over by a Stalin figure, people could escape to the capitalist societies and easily find jobs there. If the capitalist society were taken over by oligopolies that were somehow enslaving everyone, people could seek help from the anarcho-socialist communities. In the end, competition would ensure that people have maximum choice and liberty.

This sort of society would have no reason for war, and the next problems to face humanity in this paradigm will likely be issues that occur from over-production and planetary health. However, it will be up to the people living in such a utopia to ensure that space travel and terraforming are made possible before any ecological calamity occurs. If it is actually in the interests of all anarchists to work towards a society in which all philosophies are welcome to compete, why do the anarchists remain divided? Why do the anarchists ally themselves with the inconsistent statists? It's time for anarchists to find a new, higher grade of comrades to assist them in making a society possible that obsoletes the current power structures. The statist libertarians will inevitably betray the anarchists on both sides, as the Bolshieviks betrayed the Russian anarchists. Let us remember, true freedom is always illegal.

The future is imminent.

Monday, February 17, 2014

Defeating the Alpha Male

Anarchism as a philosophy in varying contexts has existed since before the Civil War. The idea that all people should be completely free to do as they wish with no interference from anyone else as long as no aggression or fraud is committed is understandably appealing. Many philosophers on the right and the left have tried to analyze how this can be implemented, how states can be defeated, and more importantly, how to protect the precious jewel of freedom once it's attained. They all miss one important detail though, how and why states came to power to begin with, and why there are almost no truly free societies today. For an ideology to have any chance at succeeding, the first step is to be humble and admit where the followers failed and why the philosophy hasn't been implemented already. There is no progress without exposing and treating weakness.

There are many anthropological views on the matter of how states rose to power. Most people believe in a voluntary social contract theory-- that states arose by people needing protection in early cities from gangs of looters that came to steal and enslave. Government provided protection, and religion helped keep order and give people guidance once the city was protected. Given the other option people had to go back to being easy meat, the choice to use state and religion to establish peace seemed obvious to people. 

Most anarchists have an opposing view-- that states were never voluntarily implemented. Anarchists believe there were marauding groups of thieves and slave traders that basically promised to provide security in exchange for goods, but were in fact simply looking to "automate" their practice of stealing. The fearful people gave up their resources, but not their freedom. The freedom was lost at the beginning of religion, where people began to use gods to endorse governments. In the ancient world, the "mandate of heaven" argument was common, and this is why states exist. Religion was the tool used to twist morality and turn the citizens against each other.

The truth is likely somewhere in between, and depends on individual views and circumstances. However, there is another unlikely place we can look to for the existence of states, and understand why they exist. Our evolutionary cousins, chimpanzees are a great place to look to understand human relations. Chimps exist in tribes, defend territory, and mating rights. There is an alpha male that is stronger than all the other males who is able to claim total freedom and sovereignty, while the other males must live lives serving the alpha male's commands and give up their mating rights. In essence, the tribe is the city and the alpha male is the state. 

Scientists observed this phenomena. Many times, there were many males that lived under horrid conditions beneath cruel alpha males. The males could have united to kill the oppressor, but continually chose not to. Scientists were baffled. Had the chimpanzees understood the mandate of heaven? Unlikely, considering upon old age, alpha males were routinely disposed of. A mandate of heaven would have allowed an alpha male to rule well into old age, by tricking the other chimps into believing that attempting to kill him was a sin and would unleash the wrath of the gods. The real reason involves a flipping of perspective. The beta-chimps can kill the alpha chimp anytime by uniting, but don't because of how useful the alpha chimp is in case of attack by another tribe. The alpha male isn't popular, but he's useful in emergencies. Alpha males even go so far as to provoke conflicts with other tribes, to continue to keep tension and fear within their own tribe to make sure they're never seen as unnecessary. Many anarchists know this sounds familiar to the United States' "War on Terror".

This is the real reason people want government. Government is an evil, but an evil which protects its own wealth (the citizens). Therefore, to convince the citizens to unite against against the state, anarchists must acknowledge this need from the common citizen and address it in a thorough extent. For anarchists, this means there is a monumental task ahead of them: a successful anarchist nation must be able to successfully defend itself against every state in the world to show people that the "alpha male" is no longer necessary.

There are a number of easy fixes that can make this task far easier, many of which were already outlined in Stefan Molyneux's "Practical Anarchy". Molyneux's arguments rest on simply making it irrational for a state or states to invade. Most of the time when states invade an area they must destroy an army or forces, and then set up their own tax structure for extracting a return on investment. Every time a state invades another state though, most of the work is already done. The previous state already had a tax structure complete with identity information of the citizens, bank logs detailing current wealth, buildings, and the labor force to organize the taxes and accounts. In other words, a state invading another state is similar to a farmer killing another farmer, and then finding that the chicken coop is already set up to give a steady amount of eggs, the dangerous animals are penned, and the house is ready for someone to move into. It's similar to cracking an egg; once the shell (or army) is broken, the contents inside are easy to get.

Anarchic settlements would be different, though. Even assuming no organized defense movement were started, anarchic settlements would be difficult to conquer and costly. Citizens would have ample access to guns and their markets would shift in anticipation of an invasion, there is no existing tax structure or means to established means to rob wealth, and citizens can also use things like digital money to hide their wealth in case of military defeat. There is no national treasury to loot or any government treasures either. This is similar to a farmer trying to go into a wild forest and attempting to set up a farm within it, by building it from scratch. If the state wanted to loot real items like iPods or computers, they would only crash the price of these items in their own countries and render their domestic producers bankrupt, reducing their own tax base. Even shipping off citizens of a free society for slave labor is unlikely, as slave labor can't be taxed and would only grow unemployment domestically. Existing labor which is taxable is always preferable. Finally, if the invading country was completely led by bafoons who wanted to invade a free society because of some racial cleansing motive, Molyneux writes that nuclear weapons would be the ultimate deterrent, as they push the costs of war back onto the politicians, who can't keep their families safe in nuclear attack like they can in a normal war that progresses slowly. Ordinary wars and the most vile statist initiatives are always at the expense of people other than the ones pushing for them.

"
The first thing that I would note is that nuclear weapons have been the single most effective 
deterrent to invasion that has ever been invented. Not one single nuclear power has ever been invaded, or threatened with invasion – and so, in a very real sense, there is no bigger “bang for the buck” in terms of defense than a few well-placed nuclear weapons. 

If we assume that a million subscribers are willing to pay for a few nuclear weapons as a deterrent to invasion, and that those nuclear weapons cost about $30 million to purchase and maintain every year, then we are talking about $30 a year per subscriber – or less than a dime a day. 
" - Stefan Molyneux, Practical Anarchy

Molyneux's analysis misses two important details though. Not just one state but every state has an incentive to destroy the anarchist settlement before it succeeds, or else their own citizens may follow suit. This was witnessed by George Orwell in Catalonia, and he wrote about it in Animal Farm.
"
On my return from Spain I thought of exposing the Soviet myth in a story that could be easily understood by almost anyone and which could be easily translated into other languages. However, the actual details of the story did not come to me for some time until one day (I was then living in a small village) I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge cart-horse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat.

I proceeded to analyse Marx's theory from the animals' point of view. To them it was clear that the concept of a class struggle between humans was pure illusion, since whenever it was necessary to exploit animals, all humans united against them: the true struggle is between animals and humans. 
" - George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm

There is no reason to assume all the nation states of the world, or at least the UN, wouldn't make an attack against a truly free society. Not to loot, but to squash the dream back into history books or worse, erase it from history books entirely. Any number of false excuses can be used for this, such as accusing it of being a lair for drug manufacturing (which will inevitably happen in a free society if it is illegal everywhere else), calling it a black market for dangerous weapons, or declaring for some reason or another it "needs democracy" and should be liberated. To make matters worse, such an event could be used to "refute" the idea of freedom and later libertarians of all stripes will spend years debating fabricated points of data by the state and other criticisms about the "failed anarchic settlement". It would not be an exaggeration to say that a rash failure of freedom would set the freedom movement back even further than it is today.

Secondly, the use of nuclear weapons is extremely against everything anarchists stand for. Nuclear weapons do not discriminate between statist and infant, and there would be many causalities and lasting genetic damage that would bring hatred against anarchists forever. There is probably no better way to solidify the "anarchist terrorist" label forever, and this would be exactly what the rulers want, even if it means sacrificing their own tax cattle.

The situation painted may make the struggle for freedom look hopeless, but this is because most people only look at the struggle to obsolete the alpha-male from one direction. They look to remove the alpha male from power by defeating him (or should I say, all of them) in battle because battle appears to most to be the only way rights can truly be won. The other option is to simply change the battle, though. Instead of playing the game, anarchists can defeat the ruling classes everywhere by changing the rules of the game. In the same way bitcoin changed the rules of finance forever, anyone can change the rules of war. Coming out with a military breakthrough so fundamental it crushes the need for armies and protection from the alpha male. If guns had been 3-d printable and accessible by any peasant in the early part of the age of gunpowder, any civilian would have been able to buy one. If suddenly there were a distributed network of advanced weaponry the state still doesn't know much about, the state can potentially collapse within minutes. Humans would simply feel no obligation to obey the police, if none of the police were better armed than the average citizen.

This is what we need today. An advanced weapon which can be quickly and cheaply made, available to all which makes riot police armor, tanks, guns, navies, and air forces irrelevant within just weeks or months of time for distribution. If today, everyone got hold of powerful magnetic manipulators that could twist and destroy guns, tanks, and all metal devices of the military rendering them all useless, ruling classes everywhere would likely give up without a fight. If we had government building infiltrators who fired "awakening bullets" that injected enemy officials with a chemical that triggered subconscious virtue processes to override their orders, no politician would dare start a war, fearful of high ranking officials suddenly switching sides in secret. This future can arrive sooner by the invention of other ideas which obsolete non-military functions of the state. For example, a trustless open source justice system any private group can use would shake the faith of the idea that the state is necessary to establish rule of law and justice. Robotic cops could even be programmed alongside open source justice systems to enforce these laws or assist the poor with robotic slave labor. Such moves by innovators would cause tremors throughout the globe, as individual citizens frantically scramble to avoid ever having to deal with the painful process of state courts again to settle disputes, and the poor are finally freed of their bonds to the state.

The most desirable outcome would be that the government simply embraces inevitable change and the same officials take their seats in the open source government, complete with safety for the officials and accountability for all. The corrupt will not be killed but removed from office, and those somewhere in between virtue and corruption may have "awakenings" that bring them back to serving the interests of their people. There is no reason for a dictatorship of the proletariat or use of any guillotine. The ultimate sign of victory would be that the innovators never fired a bullet or hurt anyone to defeat those that did.

The future is imminent.

Friday, February 14, 2014

The Evolution of the Self

Few among the masses know just how different the modern western citizen is from the rest of humanity. This is part of a great process that's been going on since at least the early 1900s to shape the ideal citizen. It would not be an exaggeration to say the sense of self many westerners perceive today was entirely an accident and the ruling class could do little to stop it though. Culture can be controlled and guided to some extent, but genuine creativity can't, and the average mind normally has too many locks to allow for dishonesty in self analysis and expression (when the proper intentions exist, of course). The sense of self people perceive is also greatly influenced by science. Someone that believes humans are all fundamentally wicked, undeserving and treacherous will certainly have a different sense of self than someone who believes humans are fundamentally kind and good, thanks to how both arrived to their conclusions continually being re-affirmed by personal experience. As scientific data about personalities and minds came in, our culture shifted to adapt around these findings and we began to experience life from a way that reflects newer metaphysical views. Establishments often attempt to try to control scientific publishing for this reason sometimes, but these attempts largely fail after extended international scrutiny. The sense of self people experience today is therefore completely different from the sense of self our great grandfathers experienced.

Before the 20th century, people lived lives mostly as that described by Freud. Many people today still live like this, unaware of how far psychological data has come. Freud believed beneath everyone's personalities were dark and powerful forces for sex and violence which unless constantly repressed, would wreck havoc upon society and cause all order to collapse. For the most part, the ruling classes also believed in this view as well. Corporations used Freudian analysis during the 1920s to try to identify ways to sell products to people that they didn't actually need. They employed Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays who assisted companies in doing this for a price. For example, cigarette companies needed a way to make it acceptable for women to smoke. Cigarette companies have always been highly profitable, but now they felt they were only using half of their potential market. At this time, the women's suffrage movement was also in full swing. Bernays took advantage of this, and felt he could give women "their own penises" by mixing cigarette smoking with their movement. During a rally, he staged several women in front of cameras at a highly public event at which he showed several women smoking "Torches of Freedom". After that event, cigarette sales shot up among women in the US. The cigarettes became figurative penises in the minds of women thanks to how Bernays associated them with something else already important to the expression of their personalities.

Incidences such as this were confirming Freud's views of the self, and this reinforced how wealthy educated individuals in the western world began to see themselves. They too began to fear their sex and violence desires, and spent their lives repressing these feelings. For a few decades, this became the dominant view, until it was discovered Freud's views on psychotherapy weren't achieving many noteworthy accomplishments in healing the psychologically ill, despite having followed his advice on trying to repress their "darker" instincts. This led to the development of new, more baroque views on how the self operates. The new "consumerist" self became the paradigm after the Freudian views. Psychology at this time fundamentally flipped and people began to experiment with expressing their deepest urges, instead of repressing them. This was done through what the individuals buys. It became common place in culture for people to start mixing their sense of self with their consumption habits.

This set the stage for the consumerist economy prevalent in America today. People were told to try to express who they were through their clothing, car, house, and art. People had previously been buying strictly based on utilitarian need of a good, and this change was reflected in advertising campaigns. Prior to Bernays and his ideas, advertisements only listed utilitarian benefits to investing in a certain product. Now, it became more profitable to sell goods which were made to prove a point, or to evoke a certain image a person wanted to be associated with. Common modern examples of this happening today are still rife in the alcohol, car, and even real estate markets. These industries attempt to sell not only their products, but also lifestyles and perceptions by others for the consumer.This shifted the economy's development, and after World War II, the all-consuming American self was living its dreams. As the economy boomed and corruption grew along with it, many began to notice that the all-consuming self was also not the ideal and many people living it were still fundamentally not happy. During the Vietnam war's escalation and scandals, LSD and other psychedelic drugs entered the history of the conception of self in America, and creating the groundwork for a new "self aware" self, also being spearheaded by intellectuals such as Carl Jung.

Jung's views of the unconscious mind were that consumerism was unnecessary, and that it was far more important for the self to become self-aware about its own nature and reasons for believing what it does. This normally meant large amounts of analysis into the past experiences of people, and attempting to understand what caused certain fears, worries, or other ailments. This further evolved over time with the addition of trends such as yoga, mindfulness, and other forms of self mastery such as weight control and drug abuse control. The central view of this new self-aware self was to repress as little as possible, and face psychological problems directly to learn and accept. The change of view the ruling class had about this led to great changes in society as well. After this point, culturally uniting factors such as race, religion, and government began to fade in their power over the new self aware selves. These people were of course, occasionally influenced by these views despite holding offices and jobs completely incompatible with this worldview. They felt contempt for all forms of unwanted influences on their psyches, and wanted to be completely freed and responsible for themselves which led to the endlessly selfish ruling class. After this entered the cultural zeitgeist, establishments changed by forgetting the old "duty bound" selves they once were and began to live as self interested individuals, entitled to total freedom and choice as everyone else was. The new view of self led to the destruction of the philosophical consistency between personal and institutional many people had, and instead of collectives such as countries there were only individuals now, all attempting to look after themselves and their families.

Widespread corruption resulted from the newly freed self. Corruption and self interest in public office or private institution became seen as obvious opportunities for advancement. The self-aware self came to society with strengths and benefits, but one of the major effects was that the self aware self was a danger to institutions. During this time, the marketing departments of companies were classifying all people into certain personalities, and self aware people were no longer consumers as the corporations of Freud's time would have preferred. Various attempts were made to avoid mass adoption of this view of psychology. LSD and other psychedelics were made illegal, public schools continued to degrade, and campaigns such as the drug war also were used to propagate a Freudian view of the sense of self, by attempting to make people feel the characteristics which institutions didn't approve about them should be repressed instead of questioned and explored.

As of today, progress in this area has made even authoritarian empires such as China much more open to individuality and self expression. Masturbation is considered normal, and even though this may not seem significant, as late as in 1994, the surgeon general Joyceln Elders was forced to resign for publicly advocating sex education about masturbation as a means to reduce teen pregnancies. Millennials question traditional stances on questions such as marriage and sexuality, psychedelic exploration has re-entered the zeitgeist with the rise of online anonymity thanks to bitcoin, and it is considered more important than ever to look for fulfillment rather than materialism.

To ignore this truth on the reality of how the sense of self is transforming life is to be left behind in evolution. Self aware selves of the modern world do not seek dependence on any external source, and knowingly or unknowingly are always pushing the world towards anarchy. In anarchy, the only type of person that can survive is one that can take responsibility for themselves. Millennials align themselves with many philosophical factions today but all see problems with the modern system and seek fulfillment through the realization of various goals for society's improvement. Unable to "repress" the growth of this personality, institutions had to fundamentally change to adapt to these conditions. The self awareness of millennials became mainstream as almost all institutions of higher learning sought the most critically thinking and aware personalities attending their classes. The market (both public and private sector portions) demanded the new self. Thus instead of attempting to encourage people to repress their innate desires and feelings, institutions have now adopted a "tai-chi" approach to dealing with the self of the 21st century.

No longer ashamed and repressive, the self of the 21st century makes relentless attacks on all attempts to control the mind. With the advent of super-technologies such as quantum computing, genetic modification, 3-d printing, and the internet, many fields hold the potential to make paradigm-shifting discoveries which could potentially be disruptive to the plans of the leaders of institutions. Instead of attempting to control the self any longer, establishments are now attempting to guide these powerful forces to their doom instead of directly oppose them. Major examples would include the de-railed plans of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, which were spun and and twisted as they were gathering attention into mediocrity. Many philosophical groups have had similar complaints. Vegetarians are unhappy with PETA, communists and socialists are unhappy with unions, libertarians are unhappy with the libertarian party and human rights advocates are unhappy with NGOs. Religion was corrupted long before the 20th century but the principle is the same. Each of these groups are failing to achieve their originally intended visions thanks to financial perversions at the top of these organizations.This change of tactics marks however, the first sign of weakness establishments have shown against the evolving self. Controlled opposition tactics attempting to hide the radical roots of these groups are the equivalent of attempting to hide a burning tree with a blanket.

The future is imminent.