Orwellian Agent-Smithism | How Control Freaks, God Complexes, And Violent Nanny Statism Attack Freedom and Diversity

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is a discussion forum topic for the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.



In my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All, I talk a lot about how I believe the beauty of freedom is the diversity and free-spirited creativity it engenders.

So, you might ask, what is the opposite of freedom? In other words, you might ask, what is the opposite of the peaceful loving non-violent principle of live and let live?

Sometimes I like to think of that freedom-rejecting thing as Agent-Smithism.

Or, to blend fictions, perhaps we can call it, Orwellian Agent-Smithism.

Whatever you call it, it is indeed the opposite of free-spirited creativity and beautiful diversity. It's hard to sufficiently describe it succinctly even with appropriate words like "violent nanny statism" or "god complex" or "control freak".

So I really like the label Orwellian Agent-Smithism.

In my other earlier topic, Whether you are looking for a savior or someone to save, or both, look into a mirror, I wrote, in part, "There's no shortage of unhappy people wanting to give you advice, if not put a literal or metaphorical gun to your head and force you to take their literally miserable advice and live by their literally miserable standards. Many would rule the world because they cannot rule themselves, at least not in a way that lets them be truly happy with inner peace."

Like a naturally evolved computer virus, or really any kind of destructive self-copying runaway process, Agent Smith is a cancerous emotional wreak, a miserable robot lacking true free-spiritedness, and arguably lacking a true spirit at all. He is a cancerous control freak who is himself unfree. He is the opposite of a free-spirited self-disciplined stoic. He is not someone who appreciates the beauty of free-spirited creativity and the diversity that freedom engenders. He is a miserable self-copying cancerous thing that destroys diversity. Misery loves company. Miserable people find comfort in blaming the world for their misery and then seeking to conquer it and make it conform to their miserable standards.

Miserably violent Orwellian nanny-staters would likely say they are saving the world, making it better, and doing good. And they would likely say they are unhappy because the world is not yet saved, not yet made good enough, and not yet conformed enough to their literally miserable unaccepting standards. Instead of addressing the state of their own proverbial backyard as a cause of their misery, they seek to copy their backyard-style to everyone else's by imposition or outright violent force. Somehow the miserable seem to convince themselves that they would finally be happy if only through world domination they could get the outer world to be more like them and follow their rules. It's not their own rules making them unhappy, they think, but instead they think they'd finally be happy if only they got the outer world to conform enough to their literally miserable standards. Even Hitler thought he himself was the good guy. Ironically, miserable people tend to most think that the world would be a better happier place if everyone was more like them, so miserably so that they tend to want to make such conformity to their standard happen by force. Violent power makes tyrants of all humans charged with wielding it, but those most willing to rule--most convinced by their own misery that they or those like them could uniquely be the benevolent dictator the world allegedly needs--are definitely most prone to using that violent power to spread misery and destruction.

In contrast, those with the loving true happiness of inner peace and spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) find beauty in diversity, in freedom, and in free-spirited creativity. It's much easier for them to turn the other cheek, or to at least live and let live. Those with happy spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) don't feel compelled to dominate the world and imposingly trespass on everyone else's proverbial backyards.

But the miserable make a false idol of conformity. Those who lack self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom) overcompensate with a god complex, meaning an Orwellian desire to control and discipline the whole world instead of themselves. When they can't manage to find the self-responsibility to clean their own proverbial backyard, they instead trespass on everyone else's backyards, blaming their own misery on the fact that every other yard in the entire world doesn't yet blandly conform to their miserable diversity-hating standards.

Long story short, I choose to not be like Agent Smith. I choose to live and let live. I choose freedom. I choose to support freedom and peace, and oppose all non-consensual non-defensive violence, even when it's done legally by some giant Orwellian nanny state and even when it's done by violent utilitarians allegedly doing the violence "for the greater good". When it comes to non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.), you will never ever hear me say anything like the ends 'justify' the means. I don't trust the alleged ends of a miserable person who claims they want to save the world with violence, but that's moot because no matter how glorious the ends I would never endorse or use the means of non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.). In narrow little politics, and more importantly in the much broader and more meaningful sense of spirituality and life itself, I embrace free-spirited creativity and freedom of all kinds, and I love the beautiful diversity that emerges from freedom.

I choose the opposite of a control freak's god complex: I choose self-discipline, a.k.a. free-spiritedness.

What do you choose?

[Cristina Corui Mihailescu]

I have heard, throughout my married life, a loud song..."Live and let die". My husband used to like it, I didn't like the words, the ideas...Finally, the way he lived made me die inside so I put an end to my so-called marriage.
However, as a teacher, I am a kind of control freak. In my country, education is much stricter than in the USA. I was educated in Communism, so without any freedom of speech- which, by the way, I consider the greatest thing we won through the revolution. We were told to keep our mouths shut, and our ideas to ourselves. Now I can be told anything without me yelling or punishing the speaker. The kids confide in me and, even when all I can do is listen, this is a sort of help. So I would say " Live and help others live better" because education can make one able to live better.
I know my post is not philosophical at all, but I felt like writing this.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Cristina Corui Mihailescu,

In my country, education is much stricter than in the USA. I was educated in Communism, so without any freedom of speech- which, by the way, I consider the greatest thing we won through the revolution. We were told to keep our mouths shut, and our ideas to ourselves. Now I can be told anything without me yelling or punishing the speaker. The kids confide in me and, even when all I can do is listen, this is a sort of help. So I would say " Live and help others live better" because education can make one able to live better.

I love and share your attitude about free speech! I apply it to all peaceful behavior, including all interactions between consenting adults, such that I would not only say, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," but also I would equally say the broader principle from which that one is derived: "I strongly dislike what you peacefully do, but I will defend to the death your right to peacefully do it."

To me that is summed in the phrase "live and let live".

I love your sentiment about helping others, I generally share that impulse. I enjoy helping others too.

However, merely as a matter of semantics and wording, I would not replace the "let live" with "help others live" in the phrase "live and let live".

Because to do so suggests that one following the advice would then would be willing to murder or use other non-defensive violence as the means to helping others. In other words, taking the "let live" out of the phrase "live and let live" can make it sound as if the speaker is saying, "help others live even if you have to commit murder or other non-defensive violence to do it"[/i].

I'm sure that's not what you mean, since you are a kind person.

So instead I think what you are describing could be more clearly worded as this: "Live and let live; and, within do your best to help others without infringing on their freedom (i.e. without committing non-consensual non-defensive violence)".

In short, I love your addition to the statement. I think it's nonetheless important to see it as an addition to the principle of "letting live", not a replacement. That's because to replace the "letting live" is to endorse murder and/or other non-defensive violence.


Thank you,
Scott

[Cristina Corui Mihailescu]

I see what you mean. Of course, I did not refer to doing anything in order to help others, I only meant educating the kids so that they could have a better life. But I am no philosopher, I am just getting older, not wiser.

[Stoppelmann]

In my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All, I talk a lot about how I believe the beauty of freedom is the diversity and free-spirited creativity it engenders.

So, you might ask, what is the opposite of freedom? In other words, you might ask, what is the opposite of the peaceful loving non-violent principle of live and let live?

Sometimes I like to think of that freedom-rejecting thing as Agent-Smithism.

Or, to blend fictions, perhaps we can call it, Orwellian Agent-Smithism.

Whatever you call it, it is indeed the opposite of free-spirited creativity and beautiful diversity. It's hard to sufficiently describe it succinctly even with appropriate words like "violent nanny statism" or "god complex" or "control freak".

So I really like the label Orwellian Agent-Smithism.

The thing about Agent Smith is that he is free agent protecting the cohesion of the Matrix, but also preventing those who recognise the nature of the system from using their knowledge. In a way, the story seems to be about postmodernism deconstructing modernism in a science fiction story, and it imagines violent countermeasures, which are only marginal in our society, which is why postmodernism has been so influential. Agent Smith would be the agent of modernism trying to keep everybody in the pods, with no other free agents than himself.

George Orwell, on the other hand, is a man who was emotionally close to poor people, and was a socialist, but saw how the extreme form of socialism worked out in communism. He realised the flaw in the ideals of socialism was its ideological methodology, which starts as a mind experiment that is purely theoretical, as well as, of course, the fact that power corrupts human beings. We see this even in arenas where we wouldn’t expect it like in group dynamics of well-meaning people. Power corrupts, because it can’t accept criticism.

What I find interesting is that socialism emerged as a response to the perceived limitations and injustices of modernism, particularly in the areas of politics and economics, and sought to challenge the existing social and economic hierarchies and promote greater social and economic equality by advocating for collective ownership and management of the means of production. It was among many other movements and philosophies that emerged during the 19th and 20th centuries that critiqued modernism in various ways, including anarchism, feminism, environmentalism, and postcolonialism. Ironically, and well portrayed by Orwell in his books, socialism/communism built its own hierarchy, restrictions, and injustices, which has me asking how a true extension of the Matrix would have played out.

I also have the feeling that postmodernism is pushing a deconstruction that goes so far, that in the end free-spirited creativity and diversity will take on absurd forms, and prevent forming a stable environment. It already calls into question the very basics of security, the family, and promotes the free expression of children over nurture, and do-as-you-wish policies over the established means of providing for the needs of people. When it comes to attending to the needs of millions of people, it isn’t advisable to break down the supply system.

In my other earlier topic, Whether you are looking for a savior or someone to save, or both, look into a mirror, I wrote, in part, "There's no shortage of unhappy people wanting to give you advice, if not put a literal or metaphorical gun to your head and force you to take their literally miserable advice and live by their literally miserable standards. Many would rule the world because they cannot rule themselves, at least not in a way that lets them be truly happy with inner peace."

Like a naturally evolved computer virus, or really any kind of destructive self-copying runaway process, Agent Smith is a cancerous emotional wreak, a miserable robot lacking true free-spiritedness, and arguably lacking a true spirit at all. He is a cancerous control freak who is himself unfree. He is the opposite of a free-spirited self-disciplined stoic. He is not someone who appreciates the beauty of free-spirited creativity and the diversity that freedom engenders. He is a miserable self-copying cancerous thing that destroys diversity. Misery loves company. Miserable people find comfort in blaming the world for their misery and then seeking to conquer it and make it conform to their miserable standards.

Rather than being cancerous, he is conceived as part of the immune system, like your body’s defence mechanism, which usually protects the body from the harmful effects of pathogens or abnormal cells, including cancer cells. Unfortunately, there is also the auto-immune-illness, which is a condition arising from an abnormal immune response to a functioning body part, which Agent Smith might be compared with.

Miserably violent Orwellian nanny-staters would likely say they are saving the world, making it better, and doing good. And they would likely say they are unhappy because the world is not yet saved, not yet made good enough, and not yet conformed enough to their literally miserable unaccepting standards. Instead of addressing the state of their own proverbial backyard as a cause of their misery, they seek to copy their backyard-style to everyone else's by imposition or outright violent force. Somehow the miserable seem to convince themselves that they would finally be happy if only through world domination they could get the outer world to be more like them and follow their rules. It's not their own rules making them unhappy, they think, but instead they think they'd finally be happy if only they got the outer world to conform enough to their literally miserable standards. Even Hitler thought he himself was the good guy. Ironically, miserable people tend to most think that the world would be a better happier place if everyone was more like them, so miserably so that they tend to want to make such conformity to their standard happen by force. Violent power makes tyrants of all humans charged with wielding it, but those most willing to rule--most convinced by their own misery that they or those like them could uniquely be the benevolent dictator the world allegedly needs--are definitely most prone to using that violent power to spread misery and destruction.

The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the fact that we human beings are leaving a gigantic footprint on the planet. Many people expressing concerns are pointing out that the way countries are exploiting its resources, they will run out, including the most basic: Fresh water. There are already people on the move away from where they were born because there is a lack of water and the land doesn’t grow anything. They are being met with animosity and rejection, although it is the modern world that prevented their traditional life-style of nomadism. It is oppression by imposing standards that do not fit the biological and environmental reality that has caused the problem. The West has been the main cause of this, and America in particular with its vision of globalism. It is only natural that people will say that this needs correcting and are unhappy with the present level of suffering, which will probably increase.

Your comparisons do not fit because you are conflating violence with pushing back against the oppression of globalism, which is in many cases is an attempt to survive. People in the West have seen the problem and have identified measures that could help, but people in the West consider their life-style as the minimum they can accept, disregarding the suffering the measures could prevent. These people then use the political system to form majorities, form governments and make laws to push through their measures. To bring this in any way close to Orwell in the way you do, is to make a mockery of what they are trying to achieve.

In contrast, those with the loving true happiness of inner peace and spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) find beauty in diversity, in freedom, and in free-spirited creativity. It's much easier for them to turn the other cheek, or to at least live and let live. Those with happy spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) don't feel compelled to dominate the world and imposingly trespass on everyone else's proverbial backyards.

But the miserable make a false idol of conformity. Those who lack self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom) overcompensate with a god complex, meaning an Orwellian desire to control and discipline the whole world instead of themselves. When they can't manage to find the self-responsibility to clean their own proverbial backyard, they instead trespass on everyone else's backyards, blaming their own misery on the fact that every other yard in the entire world doesn't yet blandly conform to their miserable diversity-hating standards.

The problem here is that the people you are taking about are already in a position of domination. They live in states where they are out of reach of many people struggling to survive. So it is easy to say “live and let live” when you are not affected. The conformity you dislike is a re-adaption to include those people whose conditions have rapidly declined. They attempt to compensate for the lack of resources that some people have, and which are measure to enable people to help themselves. We have already trespassed on other people’s backyards, and taken them over in many cases. Which indigenous people used to live where you are now living? Where did they go?

Long story short, I choose to not be like Agent Smith. I choose to live and let live. I choose freedom. I choose to support freedom and peace, and oppose all non-consensual non-defensive violence, even when it's done legally by some giant Orwellian nanny state and even when it's done by violent utilitarians allegedly doing the violence "for the greater good". When it comes to non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.), you will never ever hear me say anything like the ends 'justify' the means. I don't trust the alleged ends of a miserable person who claims they want to save the world with violence, but that's moot because no matter how glorious the ends I would never endorse or use the means of non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.). In narrow little politics, and more importantly in the much broader and more meaningful sense of spirituality and life itself, I embrace free-spirited creativity and freedom of all kinds, and I love the beautiful diversity that emerges from freedom.

I choose the opposite of a control freak's god complex: I choose self-discipline, a.k.a. free-spiritedness.

What do you choose?

I choose a world in which all people can live as they wish, and who do not have to compete for natural resources, or who see their natural resources bottled and sold overseas. I want to see us value each and every human being, whatever colour, whatever religion, whatever sexual orientation, and understand that it is only by pulling together and foregoing some of my privileges that we will achieve this.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Stoppelmann,

Thank you for your reply.

Unfortunately, if I cannot communicate with someone using simple 5-6 word sentences about coffee, I won't expect or have hope to be able to communicate with them about other more complex or philosophical topics.

Thus, to understand you, or have any hope of being understood by you, I would first need your direct yes or no answer to this direct yes or no question that I asked you in my topic, Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man:

Let's look at the following four sentences, all four of which I believe to be true:

1. I, Scott, do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to drink coffee tomorrow morning.

2. I, Scott, do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to not drink coffee tomorrow morning.

3. I, Scott, will drink coffee tomorrow morning.

4. I, Scott, don't know if you will drink coffee tomorrow morning or not, and I, Scott, lovingly don't care if you do drink coffee tomorrow or not.


I don't believe any of the above four statements contradict any of the other ones. Do you?

Thank you,
Scott

[Onyango Victor]

This is a discussion forum topic for the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.



In my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All, I talk a lot about how I believe the beauty of freedom is the diversity and free-spirited creativity it engenders.

So, you might ask, what is the opposite of freedom? In other words, you might ask, what is the opposite of the peaceful loving non-violent principle of live and let live?

Sometimes I like to think of that freedom-rejecting thing as Agent-Smithism.

Or, to blend fictions, perhaps we can call it, Orwellian Agent-Smithism.

Whatever you call it, it is indeed the opposite of free-spirited creativity and beautiful diversity. It's hard to sufficiently describe it succinctly even with appropriate words like "violent nanny statism" or "god complex" or "control freak".

So I really like the label Orwellian Agent-Smithism.

In my other earlier topic, Whether you are looking for a savior or someone to save, or both, look into a mirror, I wrote, in part, "There's no shortage of unhappy people wanting to give you advice, if not put a literal or metaphorical gun to your head and force you to take their literally miserable advice and live by their literally miserable standards. Many would rule the world because they cannot rule themselves, at least not in a way that lets them be truly happy with inner peace."

Like a naturally evolved computer virus, or really any kind of destructive self-copying runaway process, Agent Smith is a cancerous emotional wreak, a miserable robot lacking true free-spiritedness, and arguably lacking a true spirit at all. He is a cancerous control freak who is himself unfree. He is the opposite of a free-spirited self-disciplined stoic. He is not someone who appreciates the beauty of free-spirited creativity and the diversity that freedom engenders. He is a miserable self-copying cancerous thing that destroys diversity. Misery loves company. Miserable people find comfort in blaming the world for their misery and then seeking to conquer it and make it conform to their miserable standards.

Miserably violent Orwellian nanny-staters would likely say they are saving the world, making it better, and doing good. And they would likely say they are unhappy because the world is not yet saved, not yet made good enough, and not yet conformed enough to their literally miserable unaccepting standards. Instead of addressing the state of their own proverbial backyard as a cause of their misery, they seek to copy their backyard-style to everyone else's by imposition or outright violent force. Somehow the miserable seem to convince themselves that they would finally be happy if only through world domination they could get the outer world to be more like them and follow their rules. It's not their own rules making them unhappy, they think, but instead they think they'd finally be happy if only they got the outer world to conform enough to their literally miserable standards. Even Hitler thought he himself was the good guy. Ironically, miserable people tend to most think that the world would be a better happier place if everyone was more like them, so miserably so that they tend to want to make such conformity to their standard happen by force. Violent power makes tyrants of all humans charged with wielding it, but those most willing to rule--most convinced by their own misery that they or those like them could uniquely be the benevolent dictator the world allegedly needs--are definitely most prone to using that violent power to spread misery and destruction.

In contrast, those with the loving true happiness of inner peace and spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) find beauty in diversity, in freedom, and in free-spirited creativity. It's much easier for them to turn the other cheek, or to at least live and let live. Those with happy spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) don't feel compelled to dominate the world and imposingly trespass on everyone else's proverbial backyards.

But the miserable make a false idol of conformity. Those who lack self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom) overcompensate with a god complex, meaning an Orwellian desire to control and discipline the whole world instead of themselves. When they can't manage to find the self-responsibility to clean their own proverbial backyard, they instead trespass on everyone else's backyards, blaming their own misery on the fact that every other yard in the entire world doesn't yet blandly conform to their miserable diversity-hating standards.

Long story short, I choose to not be like Agent Smith. I choose to live and let live. I choose freedom. I choose to support freedom and peace, and oppose all non-consensual non-defensive violence, even when it's done legally by some giant Orwellian nanny state and even when it's done by violent utilitarians allegedly doing the violence "for the greater good". When it comes to non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.), you will never ever hear me say anything like the ends 'justify' the means. I don't trust the alleged ends of a miserable person who claims they want to save the world with violence, but that's moot because no matter how glorious the ends I would never endorse or use the means of non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.). In narrow little politics, and more importantly in the much broader and more meaningful sense of spirituality and life itself, I embrace free-spirited creativity and freedom of all kinds, and I love the beautiful diversity that emerges from freedom.

I choose the opposite of a control freak's god complex: I choose self-discipline, a.k.a. free-spiritedness.

What do you choose?






agent-smithism.jpg

In such a scenario, individuals with a desire for control, a god-like belief in their authority, and a tendency towards authoritarianism collaborate to suppress diversity of thought and personal freedom. The result is a society marked by surveillance, censorship, and the imposition of a singular worldview.

[Devis Ombeto]

This could be related to various aspects of life, such as societal norms, rigid structures, or perhaps specific environments that stifle individuality and imaginative expression. Understanding the specific context or example you have in mind would help explore this further.