# Fight the power



## hypocritter (May 30, 2015)

Fight the power

 The blanket ban on legal highs is yet another terrifying example of the police state that has been taking root in this country since the crushing of the counter culture movements of the sixties and nineties.Why are tobacco,alcohol,gambling and all manner of legal over the counter pharmaceuticals still legal ? Because there's already massive corporate interest invested in these.They couldn't give a shit about your health and safety.

 Natural born adventurers ,thrill seekers, free birds ,artists of all description interested in little more than the freedom of expression, the most creative people of our and future generations have no place other than the outlaw realms to exist if they dare explore areas the powers that be would prefer you didn't.They don't want you to make your own decisions and learn to think independently ,they don't want you to create they want you to consume, they want you to get with their program, on their sole dictated terms or be cast from the society that they have so successfully divided,conquered and turned against its minorities and free spirits. They hope you'll be used,abused, or simply absorbed by the unscrupulous criminal elements that they'll force you to live alongside. Be brave, courageous and wise, find like minds and create a safe environment to live and fight back.


----------



## escorial (May 30, 2015)

nice compact read dude...enjoyed that


----------



## hypocritter (May 31, 2015)

Thanks, means a lot to hear that.


----------



## hhourani (May 31, 2015)

Hippie

But seriously that was a fun read. I don't mean to be a conformist, but comma after the space


----------



## hypocritter (Jun 1, 2015)

Haha, thanks hh, peace and love to all baby, except truly horrible c#*nts, I wish something altogether more unwholesome on those people, like Hitler, Peter Sutcliffe, the Bush Family and Simon Cowell .
 I, like in much I have done thus far have a tendency to play fast and loose with gramma, but I am for the first time making an effort to refine my writing skills, as mentioned in this thread: http://www.writingforums.com/threads/157393-Which-courses?p=1865865&highlight=
 Conformist or no, I recently heard it said that if you can't write properly you can't think properly and instinctively detected a profound truth there in.

Interesting related article somebody just shared to Facebook

http://reset.me/study/study-pharmaceuticals-kill-more-teens-than-illegal-substances-in-the-us/


----------



## John Oberon (Jun 9, 2015)

Amazing how two people can perceive the world so differently.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 9, 2015)

Yes, but what about a criticism regarding form or style? It's how the message is conveyed, not what the message is. If post #5 were the subject piece you could ask how the grouping of said names were linked. You might ask that some sort of foundation or basis be provided. As to whether the argument is true is irrelevant, but one might argue that in order for a piece like this to be properly written it should follow some sort of sequential logical argument. Or... you could say it's fine to simply spew. Anyway,  this is a writing forum, not a philosopher's forum. 

The comma spacing grates, bigtime. 

You mention 'blanket ban' on legal highs, which is confusing. If they're legal how are they banned? Make sure you use precise description, where ever possible... 

and where? Where exactly are you talking about in general?
*
since the crushing of* --- where and how? Just curious... some sort description might help interest or entertain.  
*
counter culture movements of the sixties and nineties. - *nineties? no eighties, seventies?*

They don't want you* - might want to mention who,  as in who 'they' are. 'They' seems sort of cliché/paranoid(?) JMO

Overall, the piece seems a little short. It _is_ a start. Keep at it. Practice makes better and all that.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jun 9, 2015)

I think as a writer if you are going to be persuasive you need to expand on your statement.  This reads more as a editorial than as a rant.  While your feelings are valuable to you.  As a piece of non-fiction writing your piece should be full of examples that back up your statements so that both ask the question and answer it.  This would give your piece much more power and come across as an alternative view, as opposed to what your feelings are.  




hypocritter said:


> if they dare explore areas the powers that be would prefer you didn't.They don't want you to make your own decisions and learn to think independently ,they don't want you to create they want you to consume, they want you to get with their program, on their sole dictated terms or be cast from the society that they have so successfully divided,conquered and turned against its minorities and free spirits. They hope you'll be used,abused, or simply absorbed by the unscrupulous criminal elements that they'll force you to live alongside. Be brave, courageous and wise, find like minds and create a safe environment to live and fight back.


----------



## hypocritter (Jun 9, 2015)

Thanks Kevin and plastic

 Helpful points well made. Exactly the kind of feed back I as a novice writer, I mean seriously novice need.
  To be honest it does read a little higgledy piggledy, more passion than substance to be sure. I often feel the need to express or share such beliefs in writing but lack the technical skills or knowhow to satisfy the more discerning writer/reader .
 Come September I hope to be embarking on the English education, both language and literature that I neglected as a less focused younger man.

 I'll attempt to clear up some of your confusion Kevin.
The connection between the names in post 5 are a kind of sliding scale of evil from genocide to murder to political/war crimes to saturating modern pop culture with vapid meticulously manufactured boy and girl dolls. The last being so obviously out of context with the first three as to be utterly ridiculous and so hopefully amusing(obviously a jokes never funny once explained so there goes that ha).

 I'm in England and am referring to new laws being passed.
Legal highs is a very common term in our media. It refers to substances similar to illegal substances but with a tweak to the chemical composition and so not being a recognised illegal drug. It's been a cat and mouse game of peddlers of the substances creating new ones as quickly as authorities ban the old ones.

 Regard to cultural revolutions, youth in revolt. The sixties was huge in terms of the impact it had on the western world and the authorities took it VERY seriously, the American president naming Tim Leary, a huge figure in 60s counter culture as the most dangerous man in america. The seventies for me were a recovery period for crushed and scattered cultural revolutionaries, more and more people buying into western capitalist ideals, paving the way for the yuppie culture that would ever widen the gap between rich and poor, sure there was the punk scene and violent resistance from groups like the ira but the conservatives were winning for that time.
 Then came a new scene, the rave scene with a new drug ecstasy. All the lager swilling pub fighting hooligans of the eighties were either swept up into the scene or took a back seat. Your ecstasy loving raver just wanted to chat, bond, love and dance and if the authorities wanted to stick their oar in these guys stuck together and resisted vigorously. Again this phoney drug war really soured the party in the end, as long as drugs are illegal it'll attract the shadiest of characters looking to get rich quick at whatever price. Post 9/11/2001 authorities have created and maintained a world of fear and nonsense patriotism.
 The who the they ?. The authorities, and those with a paid for stake in the authorities.
 The crushing ?. As with most of this it is as subjective as it is factual. There's pressure through the drugs war, the more demand for illegal drugs the more unsavoury characters will appear, the authorities know this too well and I'm sure use it like any other piece on the board at some level. Events such as the Manson incidents could have been allowed to happen,or even encouraged to some extent, sometimes bad publicity is just bad publicity, certainly didn't do the hippy movement any favours. 

 There are insane methods of manipulating public opinion perfected by behind the scenes social engineers, for organizations like the CIA and Mi5.
 I've rambled long enough, especially as this was only intended to say thanks and answer to the confusion I seem to have created. Maybe I'll work on these things in the background for a few months, and stick to poetry on her until my technical skills have improved.


----------



## Phil Istine (Jun 9, 2015)

Thank you.  Some minor punctuation glitches have been noted so no need to rehash that.
I'm assuming that part of your post is "persuasive" writing.  Although you make a number of assertions (many that I agree with), I don't believe that a neutral reader would be persuaded.
One way around that can be to latch onto something that someone with an opposing view is likely to believe, and then gently show why that idea may be flawed.
For instance, something like: "While it is easy to understand that authorities like to keep order to maintain the status quo, is it really right to do this at the cost of personal freedoms - even if it is the freedom to get shitfaced?"


----------



## hypocritter (Jun 9, 2015)

Surely only someone with a seriously zealous world view could be surprised by such a thing.


----------

