Anarchy

[Scin]

Originally Posted by Uplift

I guess it depends on your definition of 'highly advanced'. Some mightn't consider having and needing ever more extreme weaponry, an increasing shortage of prisons, ever increasing crime rates, drug abuse, homelessness, depression, a huge pollution problem, 'enter at your own risk' neighbourhoods, and corruption by the highest powers ('I didn't have sex with her, she tricked me and I unwittingly stuck my you know what in her mouth while I was saving the world'... or 'weapons of mass destruction, they are there, they are just invisible and the idiots we hired to find them haven't got a clue, so lets have a war, and show what some good ol' boys from texas can do') as highly advanced.

Compare the survival rate and technology level in the United States with the survival rate and technology level of any African nation and get back to me on that "highly advanced" issue.

Also, compare Saddam Hussein to George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton. Are American leaders really that corrupt, relatively speaking? Hmm?

I'd absolutely LOVE to see how you consider anarchy a solution to any of these issues.

[ticktockclok]

Originally Posted by Scin

Compare the survival rate and technology level in the United States with the survival rate and technology level of any African nation and get back to me on that "highly advanced" issue.

Also, compare Saddam Hussein to George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton. Are American leaders really that corrupt, relatively speaking? Hmm?

I'd absolutely LOVE to see how you consider anarchy a solution to any of these issues.

Most African nations are relatively new. Last I heard, the United States wasn't doing too well eighty years down the road; most African nations aren't even that old. In addition, they've had to deal with heavy imperialist roots. Before imperialism, they were doing great.

Yeah, Bush/Clinton are that corrupt. Probably more so, because they have much more power than any other politician in the world.

Here's a nice quote

"Power is evil. Political power opposes Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Power’s very existence infringes the individual’s exercise of his right of self-ownership.

This article explains ways in which power comes to work its evil. One is that a ruler is never as careful with public money as with his own, which is true because the power to tax lowers the sovereign’s cost of making mistakes. The second is Lord Acton’s argument that power corrupts, which is true because power both induces a shift in the morality of the ruler and also lowers the cost of acting corruptly. The third explanation is that even when a powerful ruler tries to do what is good, he fails, because he has limited knowledge of the preferences and values of his subjects and less incentive to discover them than his subjects, even if he could."

What issues are you talking about?

[Scin]

Power is evil?

Well, if you believe that, there is zero hope for you. I'm out of this thread.

[Iksander]

A) If anyone values their own privacy with matters of a sexually explicit and personal nature they will stop name-calling Clinton 'corrupt'.

B) Uplift, stop bashing people it is detracting from the discussion. Please stop citing your University mumbo-jumbo too; if you are such a supporter of Anarchy why are you still inside the system?

C) Africans have nothing to do with Anarchy.

D) Texas has nothing to do with pitiful arguments trying to predicate the evil nature of 'power'. I think y'all are just jealous we got them hot chicas over n' there.

E) These hater posts of industrialized society surprise me. If you truly think Anarchy is the way to go - then please, be an example and live it. Stop driving your car, stop riding your bicycle, stop using your water tap, stop using your computer, stop doing all those things that you do that are apart of industrialized society (which, is, probably just about everything in your life).

F) Freedom has NOTHING to do with Anarchy. Freedom is a subjective state of any creature that receives sensory impressions of its external environment through the faculty of its physical vehicle.

Freedom is about releasing fear within you, allowing it to be what it is and therefore allowing your consciousness to blossom into full potential; freedom is felt - not taken or granted.

To think that you need something outside of yourself to exact freedom upon your experience of life IS the very nature of fear itself which is the anti-christ to freedom. What do you think the Dark Ages were all about? People thought they would be free through Civilized society, not by staying where they were.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

Perhaps we should give the world's anarchists their own island somewhere and see what happens. Maybe it'll remind us all of why we need our government.

See how long it takes for a country with an organized, warlike government to conquer them...

[Brutha]

You guys still do not understand anarchy.

Anarchy would not be pure chaos, or "bedlam" as Shamou put it.

It merely means there would be an absence of a monopoly on force. People could choose whatever system they wanted to live in.

How do you know what it would be like?
You can look at history, and find that their are no stable anarchies that have survied.

The problems begins when people choose different systems that can't coexist.
Some people might think that the risks that genmaniputed plants bear are worth the advantages they provide.
Other people might think that the risk that genmaniputed plants could destroy our ecosystem might be greater than the advantages.
You need some process to decide that dispute.
Burning fossil fuels is a similar example.

In our globalised world you need someone who has the power to make rules over such issues.
The 21st century will be an age where the risks of such actions could kill everyone on this planet.
States are better equiped to deal with those problems than individual citizins.

Another issue is that corporations tend to merge and built even larger corporations. You need a state to prevent those corporations from acquiring monopols.

The mafia is a very profitable business when thier isn't a state that makes it difficult for the mafia to operate.
Different mafia clans would battle each other till one mafia clan would rule like a goverment.

You need your goverment to prevent corporations and the mafia from getting a certain amount of power.
Even when you belief that power is evil, it is better to have a system with checks and balances, than having a system with no force that stops a mafia clan or a big corporation to gaining to much power.

If their the mafia clan or the corporation gets a certain amount of power it will be a goverment in itself.

In addition when different mafia clans and corporations compete in armed combat people who aren't involed suffer too.

[medaille]

There are two things that we can all agree on. We all want to be happier. We all would rather live in a world of higher consciousness than a world of lower consciousness (if for the only reason that we would be happier because of it.)

This begs the question, "How does nurture (The environment we live in, in this case societal structure, and opposed to nature) affect the likelihood of achieving higher levels of consciousness or of living in a world of higher consciousness (meaning other people have higher consciousness)?

Consciousness is gained by understanding yourself better. Some societies enhance the likelihood of knowing yourself better by increasing the amount of time people spend doing activities in which people are more likely to contemplate their own desires and motivations. For example, a society in which people are under the constant fear of mere survival, they are less likely to focus on internal desires of their soul (see Maslows hierarchy of needs). Compare this to a society in which there is no threat of death from lack of basic necessities. They spend more time getting to know themselves (better learning how to make themselves happy).

Similarly, a person who spends more time working to fulfill some external motivation (like almost every job does) will have less time to improve their own consciousness or learn the methods of making themselves happier.

A society in which people are reinforced to work towards superficial, material goals will also leave them with less energy and time to work towards more intrinsic conscious goals.

We live in a society in which every year we have less time, and our financial resources become less abundant on average. This is purely a result of monopoly capitalism. It is an inevitable effect. When you play monopoly, one person wins and everyone else gets less and less as time goes on. Our society, through our media increases the likelihood that people will spend their time on superficial pursuits. Technological advances on average have brought very few people more time or more security.

[medaille]

There is a tradeoff as you become increasingly more industrialized (decision-making is centralized). The epitome of industrialization is a monarchy or a dictatorship. You will often hear that our democracy is pretty much fascist. This is because the proletariat increasingly has less decision-making power.

I posted this in another thread about schools making people poor.

This is in reply to the topic and not the argument that dominated it.

Here's a page from John Taylor Gattos book, "The Underground History of American Education" which is available free online at:
Table of Contents - John Taylor Gatto

This page is located at:
Occasional Letter Number One - John Taylor Gatto

Occasional Letter Number One

Between 1896 and 1920, a small group of industrialists and financiers, together with their private charitable foundations, subsidized university chairs, university researchers, and school administrators, spent more money on forced schooling than the government itself did. Carnegie and Rockefeller, as late as 1915, were spending more themselves. In this laissez-faire fashion a system of modern schooling was constructed without public participation. The motives for this are undoubtedly mixed, but it will be useful for you to hear a few excerpts from the first mission statement of Rockefeller’s General Education Board as they occur in a document called Occasional Letter Number One (1906):

Quote:
In our dreams...people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [intellectual and character education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple...we will organize children...and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.
This mission statement will reward multiple rereadings.

When you centralize decision-making power, you have the inevitable side-effect that you can't make decisions that benefit each individual person. You have to blanket everybody with one decision. It is inevitable. This forces people to conform to society (as opposed to society serving the citizens). When Bush went to war and half the country disagreed, everyone has to face the consequences. Centralized decision-making means that each person has less control over their own life and as a result they have less ability to make themselves happy.

[Uplift]

Iksander, Bill Clinton had a chance to act honestly and decently, when he made a mistake. Instead he figured he could weasel his way out if it, and didn't hesitate to connive to let a young woman take the rap for him. This is just the observation of what happened, and I feel it's a reflection on the culture and direction it's heading. Just because other leaders are corrupt, which isn't good either, doesn't mean it's alright for our leaders to be corrupt. George Bush's 'good ol boys from texas' lines are a ridiculous joke. Fine if it was an episode of South Park, but not when war is an issue.

The University degree happened because I think any thing is possible. At the time I was living in a tiny remote town, and did it by correspondance. I am unashamedly stoked I passed with such recognition, under the most difficult circumstances. I'm not sorry if it makes you 'tremble', that's your problem. When I talk about University study, I now do so from genuine first hand experience. I studied Indigenous Australian studies because I live in a country brutally stolen from the world's oldest continual Culture, and I think the least I can do is fully understand and show some respect for that Culture. In the area that I live, I am in constant contact with Indigenous Australians, who are still subject to extreme racism. If Australia and the world is to prosper, the situation of Indigenous Peoples having their lands brutally stolen and Cultures brutally decimated needs to be put right. Thats what good people do. Cowards lie and connive, and that isn't the way forward.

Our countries are rightly appalled at terrorism and acts of war, yet are smugly reaping the spoils, and upholding the disposessions created by some of the most brutal wars ever. Iksander, people are appalled at observations about our cultures, such as your anger at the mention of your beloved texas, yet constantly decimate the Cultural Values of the people who's lands were brutally stolen. That doesn't sit well with me. Texas is just a creation, outside of you, separate from you, not you. No need to panic, change can be good. Technology can be a good thing. There are many good things in Indigenous Cultures lifestyles too. A way of life that is fair to all is desirable for me, and I see it as the only way that the countries and planet can be free of war. Stop automatically reacting from fear, automatacilly assuming hate. Examination can be difficult if there is a fear of change.

[mlc82]

I would think that in any "anarchy" based society, it would only be a short matter of time until the group with the most money, guns, thugs, and best organization would seize power and quickly turn it into a dictatorship...

[Keith]

My thoughts:
* The success or failure of Anarchy depends a lot on the calibre and culture of the people involved. Anarchy relies on a culture of personal responsibility.
* We have access to technologies and knowledge that our ancestors didn't. Just because large-scale Anarchy was unsuccessful in the past doesn't mean that it isn't possible now.
* Similarly, just because primitive tribes may have practiced Anarchy (though I'm not convinced of that) doesn't make the idea itself primitive. Was the USA being 'regressive' when it chose to be democratic like the ancient Greeks?

Aside: Temuchin (Genghis) Khan was feared by his enemies but was considered a great ruler by the Mongols, known for implementing meritocracy and religious tolerance.

Originally Posted by silicon toad2000

I don't know much about anarchy and I still get confused over right wing and left wing politics, I forget which is which. I still ask dumb questions like which end does socialism fit on, where does communism fit. If stalin was running for office today would he be labor(democrat) or liberal(republican).

Stalin is way left of Labor, Liberal, Democrat or Republican. Neither Australia or the US have a major Left party these days - just 'Right' and 'not quite as far Right'.

BTW, if Stalin was running for office today, he'd probably just have the politicians running against him killed. He was a nice guy like that...

[Brutha]

* The success or failure of Anarchy depends a lot on the calibre and culture of the people involved. Anarchy relies on a culture of personal responsibility.

The succes of any state relies on whether the people who live in it do good.
A goverment reduces the amount of evil that people can do. Intential evil as well as unintentional evil.

* We have access to technologies and knowledge that our ancestors didn't. Just because large-scale Anarchy was unsuccessful in the past doesn't mean that it isn't possible now.

Because we have techonogies that allow small groups of individuals to do a lot of damage, the need of goverment to control those technologies rises.

In addition you still owe my some answers from the other Anarchy thread (at least you promised them).

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The success of any state relies on whether the people who live in it do good.
A government reduces the amount of evil that people can do. Intentional evil as well as unintentional evil.

I don't know that this is true. Government responds to 'evil' on a very low level - by making laws against it and punishing people who break those laws. This does not address the reasons that people have for wanting to break those laws. People are being dictated to rather than listened to and will respond accordingly.

We've been living under a government for some time now. How are those crime figures looking?

Originally Posted by Brutha

Because we have technologies that allow small groups of individuals to do a lot of damage, the need of government to control those technologies rises.

Because we have technologies that allow small groups of individuals to do a lot of damage the need for a culture of personal responsibility rises and the ability of government to control technologies drops.

Originally Posted by Brutha

In addition you still owe my some answers from the other Anarchy thread (at least you promised them).

My apologies, I must've forgotten. I've responded now. I may or may not respond to a continuation of the thread as I have less free time these days.

[Uplift]

This is how Tony Robbins changed his life, in his own words.

'ROBBINS: I had one friend that came to see me I had not seen in years. I saw -- I didn't want to answer the door. I had bill collectors, you know, my phone was being shut off. That's why he came. And you know, I opened the door with a chain, he saw me, and I looked horrible. I didn't want to open the door. That was humiliating.

And I went for a run on the beach. I had not run in golly knows when. I was 38 pounds heavier than I am now, you know. And I put some music on, and I went on that beach and I ran as hard as I could until I thought I was going to spit blood. And then I sat down on the beach, and I wrote in this journal, and I wrote everything on one side of the page that I would no longer stand for in my life and I was dirt honest with myself.

Instead of saying, I'm a bit overweight -- I'm friggin' fat, you know, my butt is bigger than Chicago. This is -- I'm not going to put up with this one more minute, you know. And I looked at my relationships that were not happy. I looked at everything. And then I wrote everything I was committed to.

So now the standard was set and I had to figure out how to do it, and then I started looking for tools.'

We obviously have problems with our western styles of government. Whether anarchy is the answer or not, who knows. If the techniques offered by Robbins, his predessors, and a myriad of other successful transformation teachers work so well for the individual, why don't we just be bluntly honest about the true state, the outcomes of our countries and overall cultural lifestyles, the systems of government, and apply the same techniques. Why put up with growing corruption, crime, violence, homelessness, child abuse, depression, drugs and alchohol abuse, poverty, class, racism, WAR, etc? We are running out of bandaids. You can spray over rust, but if you don't cut it out, it just festers beneath the surface, until it bubbles out, worse than ever. Our countries could truly change, just like Robbin's and a myriad of others, and be a true, real inspiration and light to the world. We wouldn't have to resort to force to get others to listen. But first it takes the choice, truthfull choice, and truthfull, 'dirt honest' examination, and then the will and courage to follow through and accept and want change. All virtues. We all vote, we all have voices. I guess you could call it Utopia. Whether your slant on that is positive or negative is individual choice. But we are all in this world together. According to all the seminars and teachings, anything is possible. 'Utopia is possible'. Or do we really speak with forked tongues?

[Namaste]

Originally Posted by Iksander

A) If anyone values their own privacy with matters of a sexually explicit and personal nature they will stop name-calling Clinton 'corrupt'.

B) Uplift, stop bashing people it is detracting from the discussion. Please stop citing your University mumbo-jumbo too; if you are such a supporter of Anarchy why are you still inside the system?

C) Africans have nothing to do with Anarchy.

B) Texas has nothing to do with pitiful arguments trying to predicate the evil nature of 'power'. I think y'all are just jealous we got them hot chicas over n' there.

D) These hater posts of industrialized society surprise me. If you truly think Anarchy is the way to go - then please, be an example and live it. Stop driving your car, stop riding your bicycle, stop using your water tap, stop using your computer, stop doing all those things that you do that are apart of industrialized society (which, is, probably just about everything in your life).

E) Freedom has NOTHING to do with Anarchy. Freedom is a subjective state of any creature that receives sensory impressions of its external environment through the faculty of its physical vehicle.

Freedom is about releasing fear within you, allowing it to be what it is and therefore allowing your consciousness to blossom into full potential; freedom is felt - not taken or granted.

To think that you need something outside of yourself to exact freedom upon your experience of life IS the very nature of fear itself which is the anti-christ to freedom. What do you think the Dark Ages were all about? People thought they would be free through Civilized society, not by staying where they were.

Great post, Iskander.

[Scin]

Originally Posted by Keith

We've been living under a government for some time now. How are those crime figures looking?

I couldn't resist. I don't know about Australia, but the US has enjoyed decreased crime rates across the board:

Bureau of Justice Statistics Key Crime and Justice Facts at a Glance

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Scin

I couldn't resist. I don't know about Australia, but the US has enjoyed decreased crime rates across the board:

Bureau of Justice Statistics Key Crime and Justice Facts at a Glance

That's hilarious, yeh right, you or your wife or girlfriend can walk down any street in the US at any time of day or night, wallet in hand, no worries.

[silicon toad2000]

Originally Posted by ticktockclok

You guys still do not understand anarchy.

It merely means there would be an absence of a monopoly on force. People could choose whatever system they wanted to live in.


silicontoad: No, we're not against what government has become, we're against government. And you probably should be confused about right/left wing politics. It's a stupid idea; it's too black and white. I saw one of these "political maps" with a 3-d plane, if I find it, I'll show it to you.

Thanks to the rational people who are in this discussion- Scin, Iksander, silicontoad. Answering your doubts now will help me answer other's in the future.

So no governing body at all?
I mean I think most government have well overstepped their boundrys on what they can and cannot do. I just want to understand your ideology a bit better. I don't think anarchy can work, but then I don't know too much about it.
So lets say we get rid of the government, all government bodies, agencies and funding as it has been established, which is what I'm understanding you are putting forward as anarchy.
Let's say the water main in my street busts, who do I call to fix it?

[Scin]

Originally Posted by Uplift

That's hilarious, yeh right, you or your wife or girlfriend can walk down any street in the US at any time of day or night, wallet in hand, no worries.

I lived two blocks from the slums of Philadelphia a few years ago, mate. No problems at all. The only time I ever got mugged was when I was in Moscow.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Scin

I couldn't resist. I don't know about Australia, but the US has enjoyed decreased crime rates across the board:
Bureau of Justice Statistics Key Crime and Justice Facts at a Glance

Overall it's fairly good in Australia, but I think that has a lot to do with the low population density.

I'm glad to hear that crime has decreased in the US. However, given that Bruther's point was "we need a government to protect us from evil" the fact that there is still an awful lot of it is significant. My personal suspicion is that an awful lot of crime results directly or indirectly from the government imposing law on people. Just one example: Organised crime really took off in the US as a side-effect of prohibition.

I believe the Dao De Jing put it well:

Originally Posted by Dao De Jing, Chapter 19 - Stephen Mitchell translation

Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won't be any thieves.

If these three aren't enough,
just stay at the center of the circle
and let all things take their course.

The nature of government is to say "You are children. You do not know the right thing to do unless we tell you.". The nature of government is to say "We do not trust you to do the right thing on your own so we will enforce it. BTW, we will have a monopoly on defining 'the right thing'.

Is it any wonder that many of the governed find cause to rail against 'societal expectations' in various ways? Would there be rebellion if there was nothing to rebel against?

Originally Posted by Iksander

D) These hater posts of industrialized society surprise me. If you truly think Anarchy is the way to go - then please, be an example and live it. Stop driving your car, stop riding your bicycle, stop using your water tap, stop using your computer, stop doing all those things that you do that are apart of industrialized society (which, is, probably just about everything in your life).

Anarchy does not equal anti-industry, just anti-centralised-control.

BTW, I am not necessarily saying "We should engage in Anarchy, it'd be great!" I am saying we should open our minds a lot wider to the possibilities of what a successful society could be...

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Scin

I lived two blocks from the slums of Philadelphia a few years ago, mate. No problems at all. The only time I ever got mugged was when I was in Moscow.

I guess the prisons are full of backpackers, and they are actually demolishing them, not building new ones. My mate recently got back from the US. He said theres a radio broadcast devoted to announcing who got shot overnight. Great listening first thing in the morning. The girl he stayed with's dad was a security guard in a radical district. Got payed nothing to get shot at. Tell him about the 'stats'. You should have tried living in the 'slum'. Slum? Slum? Slum? In the most advanced society? Since when are 'slums' advanced and okay? Slum? There goes the worlds fittest guy...he's got a humungous 'gut' on him, but, whoa...he's a fit bugger!

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by mlc82

I would think that in any "anarchy" based society, it would only be a short matter of time until the group with the most money, guns, thugs, and best organization would seize power and quickly turn it into a dictatorship...

I'd have to agree with mic82. One primary reason to have a government is to prevent the spread of dictatorships and organized crime. Both are subsets of justice system, handling "those who harm others."

If you think that people hurt others solely because of nationalism why would shoplifting, or any other form of theft exist?

Anarchy isn't a valid system of government, its the lack of any system at all. I'll have to check out the PDF you linked to to see how they deal with that, because it seems oxymoronic to me to describe a "system of anarchy."

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Keith

My personal suspicion is that an awful lot of crime results directly or indirectly from the government imposing law on people. Just one example: Organised crime really took off in the US as a side-effect of prohibition.

I agree, and I support the libertarian party for that reason.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Scin

Power is evil?

Well, if you believe that, there is zero hope for you. I'm out of this thread.

I think its valid. Power is basically the capacity to enforce one's will onto another.

This is from an essay on anarchy, and I think it rings true.

All governments - from Iraq to Israel, from China to the U.S.A. - all governments, are based on coercion and force. If you don't want to do what the government says, they will either make you do it, lock you up, take your property, torture you, or kill you. Coercion is exercising force to bring about compliance. All governments do it. Whether the coercion is an effort to bring about things we agree with (e.g., reducing littering, stopping sexism or racism in hiring or housing) or things that we don't agree with (e.g., being taxed, drafted, driving 55 miles an hour). The point is that force - naked power - is used to bring about compliance. That's a given, and it seems to me an indisputable fact. Don't do what the government says. Pay the price. Period.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by ticktockclok

Here's an example of a possible anarchist society, though much is not known about it.

I read this PDF but have no idea what it has to do with anything we're talking about......

[Scin]

Generally speaking, while a person may be smart, people are stupid. To quote a movie, they're dumb, panicky animals when in groups. Control - the enforcing of one elite group's will over the rest - is necessary. I think most people will agree that protection from murder is a good thing.

Then again, I believe that people without restrictions are more likely to engage in dangerous deviant behavior - such as butchering others for food, to use an extreme example, or stealing from them. In an anarchist society, I imagine a lot of people would try and steal from me, and as a result a lot of people would have to die.

Government, law, and order is good. Anarchy and limitless freedom are bad. Freedom must be controlled or it is counterproductive. Anarchy will always lead to authoritarianism.

[medaille]

Originally Posted by Scin

Government, law, and order is good. Anarchy and limitless freedom are bad. Freedom must be controlled or it is counterproductive. Anarchy will always lead to authoritarianism.

This reminds me of the 1984's

"WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."

[medaille]

I agree with Scin. God made us naughty, evil people who can't be trusted. Thankfully, we have the few morally good people in control of our country and our corporations.

[Brien]

"What you resist persists."
I think the trouble with anarchism is the focuses on what is bad. It is treated like an anti-ideology. Anti-government, anti-capitalism, anti-centralization, etc. A lot of anarchists can't agree on what is good, on how things should be run (hence the unfortunate hyphenated anarchisms).

The aims of anarchism are rarely formulated in constructive manner. Rather than focusing on the coercive institutions we wish to destroy we should focus on the free world we want to create. If that means forgetting the word "anarchy" then fine.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by medaille

I agree with Scin. God made us naughty, evil people who can't be trusted. Thankfully, we have the few morally good people in control of our country and our corporations.

Thats hilarious! You are very funny!