Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Freedoian Monologue on Anti-Philosophy

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 1:10:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Completely uncensored. That is, the furthest degree to which I can express these sort of thoughts without simplifying them for easy understanding, while still remaining, by some sense of the word, coherent.

The material here is dense but the subject most at the center of it is linguistic understanding. More specifically, intentional deconstruction of it. It occurs to me that this may in fact be, by definition, the trickiest possible thing to write or talk about. After-all, I must use, in some way, the very principles I am trying to explain how to overcome. I am making a futile effort to communicate what is, by it's very essence, the unexplainable. With every paragraph, I am gently easing into it.

Look around you. Not just physically but at everything. Your life. Your memories. The people and the events that have shaped it all. What is it? What defines it all? And, in a question that may seem unrelated to you, what is it to be human? There is no right way to answer to any of these questions but I'd like to focus on what I find that I can construe to be at the center of my own answers. Language. It's something we don't pay very much attention to or might think of right away when confronted with these questions. It is easy to forget that all of our questions; all of our thoughts, are all under the strict guidance of our language.

Even now, confronted with this questioning of language, we are not confronting ourselves with what it really is. Probably what comes to your mind is English vs Spanish vs German, or things of the sort. But I am not talking about different forms of grammar. I am talking about the very function of language in our mental processes. I am talking about the method of prescribing sense and meaning to things. It occurs to me that humans are not very much different from other creatures on Earth in the degree of skills our mental faculties possess. But human mental faculties have reached such a point as to be able organize our thoughts through language, whereas other creatures have not. With this occurrence, there follows a sort of supernova over mental effects, giving birth to the human experience as set apart from the rest of Earth life.

I am here to tell you that there is a second supernova possible. It is achieved through the ability to deconstruct your linguistic understanding and build it back up again. However, in this thread, I will not be telling you how to do this. That would be entirely redundant. Though, you know I have no problem with redundancy. Rather, this thread is going to be describing conscious experience through the eyes of deconstructed linguistic understanding. I call this my "channel".

We posses concepts like "exist" and "non-exist". It seems evident to some of even the most skeptical of people that these are "objective" things that can be used to understand "reality". It would seem to them to that any such statement like "reality doesn't exist" is completely nonsensical and would require some radical insanity to adhere to. However, such a mindset concerning this thing is, I see, a profound misunderstanding of sense itself. And utilization of sense, in-fact, relies strictly upon such misunderstandings. So it is forgivable. I'm actually utilizing the misunderstanding right now.

Before I continue, I'd like to point out how all your beliefs, values and everything you hold near and dear to your heart is complete bullshit. If you're the kind of person who has the ability to eventually find out what I'm talking about, this statement should help persuade you of my case. If not, you'll find it offensive and inconceivable. Which is perfect.

We walk through life constantly acting on some sort of belief. Without any sense of conviction, our mental activity would evaporate into a vegetable state. These beliefs are not always "chosen". The vast majority of them arise out of the primordial chaos of the concept-cloud that makes up what we perceive as the consciousness of an individual being. The cloud is structured according to our perception of language. It is language which creates the "ego" or the "self" and draws lines for such things as a conscious, sub-conscious or any other conceptualization of a mind. You might say, by your standards, that a more primitive lifeform possesses an individual consciousness. Yet, they, themselves, wouldn't know the difference. You could say, if you were perceiving through them, but thinking of such with your own mind, that they posses a consciousness by the standards of which you conclude you, yourself, have one as well. But without your thoughts being used to judge the experience--only by their own--there could be no such drawn conclusion. It means nothing without the organization of thought through language.

Like-wise, as it can be applied to "consciousness", it can be applied to "existence". By our self-manifested standards that we impose outward, the universe does exist. But a concept is a concept is a concept and it is not an "object". Our standards do not actually exist anywhere outside ourselves. The universe is not contingent on our perceptions. It is entirely the other way around. We develop sense to impose on the world for what we can understand as an evolutionary survival tool.

Now, lets do something a bit crazy. Lets change the channel.
**over-use of comma alert**

Now, that thing which is, through it's own method, as the perceptions of standards through an outside standard looking in, dissecting any comprehension of that which is unwillingly imposed upon understanding over those standards, is now the very thing being understood without such. It becomes, not nonsense, but metasense. Our understanding of what, before, could be organized through thought as being a perception of consciousness, can now be set upon any sort of new tangent arising out of what would be called, upon that same previous standard, an act of will, shot off into an entirely new world of understanding. For it is no longer limited by those standards which I have just used to explain it. It becomes only comprehensible, by the former's standards, imposed looking out from the latter's on to itself, as being used to understand the latter, by departing to the latter's standards, as it is being used to commentary on the former's skewed perception of what the latter could even entail.

Even if that sphere of newly perceiving experience that, by the former standards, thoughts would organize into calling "yourself", can get past the deconstruction, there is still required a sort of metalanguage to reorganize those seemingly shapeless thoughts into, what, from the former channel, was described as the "latter channel". Even by standards conceived using both channels, that next step is extremely tricky. But this seems to be getting more and more inaccurate the more I type. How do I demonstrate the latter channel using the former? So, so, so futile.

But, of course, communication is not the only thing effected by it. Indeed, once, what by the original standards that was used to describe the newer standards there has been a shift in perception of thought according to those newer standards, has occurred, there follows a complete transformation in, again, by the original standards, perception. Now, using the latter standard looking in on the former rather than, what by the first standard, was the other way around, let it be known the difference in experience. You could say, from that odd vantage point, that the seeming reality is one of walls, like it were, a normal room around you, with edges that meet on the outside. Whereas, the room, by this very standard describing it in relative to the other room, is one of edges that go towards what could be called a center, not in relation to the former standards of geometry at all, with a point at the bottom that the room rests upon, teetering above the plain associate with the other.

Out of room! Yay! :D Pointless
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 1:59:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"You could say, if you were perceiving through them, but thinking of such with your own mind, that they posses a consciousness by the standards of which you conclude you, yourself, have one as well. But without your thoughts being used to judge the experience--only by their own--there could be no such drawn conclusion. It means nothing without the organization of thought through language."

Can you explain this? or rephrase it?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Platypus666
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 1:59:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
dafuq I just read..
NEVER LOGGING IN UNLESS I AM HIGH

Official "The (Weed) Aquatic (Weed) and (Weed) Egg (Weed) Laying (Weed) Mammalian (Weed) Enforceress (Weed) of (Weed) Liberty (Weed), Cuddliness (Weed), and (Weed) Involuntary (Weed) Administration (Weed) of (POT) Psychoactive (Weed) Substances (Weed) To (Weed) All (Weed) The (Weed) Masses (Weed) Under (Weed?) The (Weed!) Control (Weed) of (Weed) The (Weed) All (Weed) High (Weed) FREEDO (Weed) and (Weed) Yyyyyyyyyyyyeah (WEED)" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:02:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 1:59:20 AM, Oryus wrote:
"You could say, if you were perceiving through them, but thinking of such with your own mind, that they posses a consciousness by the standards of which you conclude you, yourself, have one as well. But without your thoughts being used to judge the experience--only by their own--there could be no such drawn conclusion. It means nothing without the organization of thought through language."

Can you explain this? or rephrase it?

An animal only has an ego by the standards of a human. The animal has no way of organizing a concept of ego because it has no language. All an ego is is a concept of itself.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:04:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 2:02:47 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/20/2012 1:59:20 AM, Oryus wrote:
"You could say, if you were perceiving through them, but thinking of such with your own mind, that they posses a consciousness by the standards of which you conclude you, yourself, have one as well. But without your thoughts being used to judge the experience--only by their own--there could be no such drawn conclusion. It means nothing without the organization of thought through language."

Can you explain this? or rephrase it?

An animal only has an ego by the standards of a human. The animal has no way of organizing a concept of ego because it has no language. All an ego is is a concept of itself.

hehe egos are cute ^_^
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:06:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 2:04:28 AM, Oryus wrote:
hehe egos are cute ^_^

*whispers: ...they watch you while you sleep...*
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:07:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I wouldn't expect anything less meta from you freedo.

I saw a few points I agreed with and a few points I don't know about. Other than that... what's to comment on? The nature of being human, man.

*wanders to stoner thread*
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Platypus666
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:10:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Are you like...the smartest person on Earth or just completely schizophrenic?
NEVER LOGGING IN UNLESS I AM HIGH

Official "The (Weed) Aquatic (Weed) and (Weed) Egg (Weed) Laying (Weed) Mammalian (Weed) Enforceress (Weed) of (Weed) Liberty (Weed), Cuddliness (Weed), and (Weed) Involuntary (Weed) Administration (Weed) of (POT) Psychoactive (Weed) Substances (Weed) To (Weed) All (Weed) The (Weed) Masses (Weed) Under (Weed?) The (Weed!) Control (Weed) of (Weed) The (Weed) All (Weed) High (Weed) FREEDO (Weed) and (Weed) Yyyyyyyyyyyyeah (WEED)" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:11:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 2:10:18 AM, Platypus666 wrote:
Are you like...the smartest person on Earth or just completely schizophrenic?

Both.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:11:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 2:10:18 AM, Platypus666 wrote:
Are you like...the smartest person on Earth or just completely schizophrenic?

Yes.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:11:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 2:11:04 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 5/20/2012 2:10:18 AM, Platypus666 wrote:
Are you like...the smartest person on Earth or just completely schizophrenic?

Both.

He is The Mad Genius.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 5:44:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 1:10:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Before I continue, I'd like to point out how all your beliefs, values and everything you hold near and dear to your heart is complete bullshit.

Before I respond to the entire post, I'm going to apologize for cutting it off, but I did leave what I think is the most important line of it. Consequently, it's also my favorite, but yeah...

If you haven't looked into the study of philosophy of mind, you should. It's right up your alley. Also, I'm guessing that you have read some Wittgenstein, or even if you haven't, that you're familiar with his ideas. Props for that. He's sort of an anti-philosopher too, and a personal hero of mine.

And yes. I agree with nearly everything in that delightful rant of yours. Very good. Keep up the good work.
Tsar of DDO
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 7:53:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's the same thing I've been talking about for like the last year. Course, as you acknowledged, communicating it is a futile endeavor. You kind of already have to be aware of it. This is all related to the duality of the human cognitive process.

It's straight up Discordian/Taoist/Zen philosophy.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 8:48:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 2:02:47 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/20/2012 1:59:20 AM, Oryus wrote:
"You could say, if you were perceiving through them, but thinking of such with your own mind, that they posses a consciousness by the standards of which you conclude you, yourself, have one as well. But without your thoughts being used to judge the experience--only by their own--there could be no such drawn conclusion. It means nothing without the organization of thought through language."

Can you explain this? or rephrase it?

An animal only has an ego by the standards of a human. The animal has no way of organizing a concept of ego because it has no language. All an ego is is a concept of itself.

So language is needed for an ego to be present?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:11:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 8:48:15 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/20/2012 2:02:47 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/20/2012 1:59:20 AM, Oryus wrote:
"You could say, if you were perceiving through them, but thinking of such with your own mind, that they posses a consciousness by the standards of which you conclude you, yourself, have one as well. But without your thoughts being used to judge the experience--only by their own--there could be no such drawn conclusion. It means nothing without the organization of thought through language."

Can you explain this? or rephrase it?

An animal only has an ego by the standards of a human. The animal has no way of organizing a concept of ego because it has no language. All an ego is is a concept of itself.

So language is needed for an ego to be present?

An ego is never present. Language creates a misunderstanding.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 2:13:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 5:44:24 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2012 1:10:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Before I continue, I'd like to point out how all your beliefs, values and everything you hold near and dear to your heart is complete bullshit.

Before I respond to the entire post, I'm going to apologize for cutting it off, but I did leave what I think is the most important line of it. Consequently, it's also my favorite, but yeah...

If you haven't looked into the study of philosophy of mind, you should. It's right up your alley. Also, I'm guessing that you have read some Wittgenstein, or even if you haven't, that you're familiar with his ideas. Props for that. He's sort of an anti-philosopher too, and a personal hero of mine.

And yes. I agree with nearly everything in that delightful rant of yours. Very good. Keep up the good work.

You know, I actually haven't read much Wittgenstein. I'm mostly influenced by Robert Anton Wilson.
But I'll check him out.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 12:40:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 2:13:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/20/2012 5:44:24 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2012 1:10:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Before I continue, I'd like to point out how all your beliefs, values and everything you hold near and dear to your heart is complete bullshit.

Before I respond to the entire post, I'm going to apologize for cutting it off, but I did leave what I think is the most important line of it. Consequently, it's also my favorite, but yeah...

If you haven't looked into the study of philosophy of mind, you should. It's right up your alley. Also, I'm guessing that you have read some Wittgenstein, or even if you haven't, that you're familiar with his ideas. Props for that. He's sort of an anti-philosopher too, and a personal hero of mine.

And yes. I agree with nearly everything in that delightful rant of yours. Very good. Keep up the good work.

You know, I actually haven't read much Wittgenstein. I'm mostly influenced by Robert Anton Wilson.
But I'll check him out.

Interesting, but that does explain some of your posting. I like the outside the box/f-ck beliefs/question everything perspective. It's refreshingly not free of dogmatism, ideological nonsense and the general nonsense/bombast that I read on here.
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:33:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 2:11:42 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/20/2012 8:48:15 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/20/2012 2:02:47 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/20/2012 1:59:20 AM, Oryus wrote:
"You could say, if you were perceiving through them, but thinking of such with your own mind, that they posses a consciousness by the standards of which you conclude you, yourself, have one as well. But without your thoughts being used to judge the experience--only by their own--there could be no such drawn conclusion. It means nothing without the organization of thought through language."

Can you explain this? or rephrase it?

An animal only has an ego by the standards of a human. The animal has no way of organizing a concept of ego because it has no language. All an ego is is a concept of itself.

So language is needed for an ego to be present?

An ego is never present. Language creates a misunderstanding.

1 - Irony
2 - You state that an animal has no ego because an animal has no language. Does an animal still not have an ego without language? This seems muddling.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:38:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:33:04 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1 - Irony
2 - You state that an animal has no ego because an animal has no language. Does an animal still not have an ego without language? This seems muddling.

Answering this with complete coherence requires a static standard. Yet, what I am precisely trying to get around is static standards.

Yes, the animal has an ego with language.

And NO, the animal does not have an ego without language.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:38:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you mind if posted on debateorg blog?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:45:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 12:40:48 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2012 2:13:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/20/2012 5:44:24 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2012 1:10:04 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Before I continue, I'd like to point out how all your beliefs, values and everything you hold near and dear to your heart is complete bullshit.

Before I respond to the entire post, I'm going to apologize for cutting it off, but I did leave what I think is the most important line of it. Consequently, it's also my favorite, but yeah...

If you haven't looked into the study of philosophy of mind, you should. It's right up your alley. Also, I'm guessing that you have read some Wittgenstein, or even if you haven't, that you're familiar with his ideas. Props for that. He's sort of an anti-philosopher too, and a personal hero of mine.

And yes. I agree with nearly everything in that delightful rant of yours. Very good. Keep up the good work.

You know, I actually haven't read much Wittgenstein. I'm mostly influenced by Robert Anton Wilson.
But I'll check him out.

Interesting, but that does explain some of your posting. I like the outside the box/f-ck beliefs/question everything perspective. It's refreshingly not free of dogmatism, ideological nonsense and the general nonsense/bombast that I read on here.

In-case you have a super-human attention span, you might like:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

I have lots like those but I can't remember what they all are.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:51:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:38:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:33:04 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1 - Irony
2 - You state that an animal has no ego because an animal has no language. Does an animal still not have an ego without language? This seems muddling.

Answering this with complete coherence requires a static standard. Yet, what I am precisely trying to get around is static standards.

Yes, the animal has an ego with language.

And NO, the animal does not have an ego without language.

So an ego is required to form language? Just to confirm? (change made is cause/effect flip)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 1:58:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:51:59 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:38:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/21/2012 1:33:04 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
1 - Irony
2 - You state that an animal has no ego because an animal has no language. Does an animal still not have an ego without language? This seems muddling.

Answering this with complete coherence requires a static standard. Yet, what I am precisely trying to get around is static standards.

Yes, the animal has an ego with language.

And NO, the animal does not have an ego without language.

So an ego is required to form language? Just to confirm? (change made is cause/effect flip)

From the perspective of, what by the established lingual standards being used in this conversation, is an individual consciousness which does not posses a language structure, but understood through the standards of what is, by the very same, an individual consciousness that does have a language structure, there exists an "ego".
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Platypus666
Posts: 262
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 2:02:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 1:58:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:
From the perspective of, what by the established lingual standards being used in this conversation, is an individual consciousness which does not posses a language structure, but understood through the standards of what is, by the very same, an individual consciousness that does have a language structure, there exists an "ego".

Really now...what the hell did you just say?
NEVER LOGGING IN UNLESS I AM HIGH

Official "The (Weed) Aquatic (Weed) and (Weed) Egg (Weed) Laying (Weed) Mammalian (Weed) Enforceress (Weed) of (Weed) Liberty (Weed), Cuddliness (Weed), and (Weed) Involuntary (Weed) Administration (Weed) of (POT) Psychoactive (Weed) Substances (Weed) To (Weed) All (Weed) The (Weed) Masses (Weed) Under (Weed?) The (Weed!) Control (Weed) of (Weed) The (Weed) All (Weed) High (Weed) FREEDO (Weed) and (Weed) Yyyyyyyyyyyyeah (WEED)" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.