Read if you want

Over the past 200 years we have become, more than ever, slaves to consumerism. Middle class people driving themselves in to poverty and debt because they must have the latest lounge suite or a $10,000 handbag because it has a label. Why? Because you want a wealthy image. Can you not live without a handbag? Thousands of Australians are in huge debts before they are 30. These days we are all slaves to consumerism and technology.

How many of you people would be able to put away your computer and the Internet after 10 years of using it and never need it again? That’s a big ask. Especially if you put in with it television, mobile phones, mp3 players etc. But to us we don’t just need all these things, we need the best of these things, or should I say, the one with the best name to it and we crave them. How many of us have bought an iPod simply because it was an iPod. I know I was attracted to mine for that reason. How many of you wear Adidas shoes where a pair of Pumas would do? Or bought Billabong because you wanted people to think you were ‘surfy’? I buy Billabong all the time when best and less would be fine.

No longer do we buy things for our survival, but rather because we have been trained to think that we need them, that we cannot survive without a television or a Rolex. Clothing A will suit survival purposes just as much as clothing B. But, we feel we need to pay $100 for a t-shirt rather than $10.

Now, I understand that we all live comfortable lives as we are! Personally I do not want to give away the computer or television. But next time I go shopping, I sure as hell am going to think as to why I am buying the Adidas shoes for $200 more than another pair. If it is because of quality and fit then sure, I’ll buy them. But why pay that much more for a brand if a cheaper version would do just fine?

In our modern world we are built around image, the image you create for yourself by what you wear, drive, drink, listen to, even what we eat. Instead of thinking “what actions will help others, be useful and create a good reputation for myself” we think “what brand will make me popular, in style, and look good”. And whilst we hate to think it, we are paying brand names to advertise them. When you buy a Nike shirt, you pay them money to show everyone else their logo! Shouldn’t they be paying us?

What we need is an anarchists revolution. What is that you say? Anarchy is bad? Lawless? Every man for himself? No. Not at all. Anarchy simply means without dominance. It is a state of being free. Basically it means living free with mutual co-operation and aid, working together and not being exploitative or authoritative. Unlike what our governments have taught us, it is not a state of chaos and it is not an economic or political platform. In the simplest way put anarchy is thinking for yourself. Not giving in to the ‘band wagon’ or following what everyone else is doing.
We wouldn’t have the need to give in to brand names that are ‘superior’ to others, as they say anyway.
Even better than anarchy, green anarchy! Basically it is not just believing that we are slaves to government, but also what I have been saying above! Marketing, consumerism, materialism, technology, all these things that bind our lives!
I wont go in to any more detail, if you want more information on anarchy visit

Whilst we do not want to believe it, we are slaves to consumerism and technology. Brainwashed by advertising, brainwashed to think that we need these things. Perhaps, if you see sense in what i have written, you should test yourself. I know I am a slave, I am trying to break that piece by piece. For the next few days I will be sleeping on the floor. Why do I need my $500 bed? I’m happy on the floor. A simple test to see if I can survive without the level of comfort I am accustomed to. Maybe you should try it, think up of something to test yourself, help break you from this consumerism.

Next time you go to spend money, think about it, do you need the product? Is there a cheaper option? Are you just buying it for the brand name? 

Our forefathers fought war, depression and disease. Our fight is a different one. One much closer to home, and much more frightening. We face a fight against ourselves. We fight against weapons you cannot see and do not feel. We fight the companies, faceless brands consuming our lives. In an age where a child will recognise the McDonald’s arches but not quality or practicality, we must stand up and fight in this silent war.

Fight back.

AKA Gloria The Camel
AKA TraceurCamel


2 responses to “Read if you want

  1. Okay, i tracked down an internets.

    I like…some of it. The start and the end is very reminiscent of fight club, for your emboldened last paragraph, it seemed like you were quoting it. “Now, I understand that we all live comfortable lives as we are!” That doesn’t really make grammatical sense, it took me a few read-through’s to get it out.

    Now the content.

    I like the start; yes, we (as in you and I) do not need those things. Some people may. Some people have no self-esteem, and have the need to be accepted through the clothes they where, the things they buy, etc. Last time i wore a suit, i did so in my 5-10s cause i didn’t have any suit shoes. I do not need suit shoes. I do not need a suit; except that it was a formal. But i did not need to go the formal either. And so there are all these layers of needs and wants and preferences that all exist in some tangled matrix of ‘value.’ But that, I think, is moot; no we don’t need those things from a survivalist perspective. But we don’t need much from a survivalist perspective, and, although valid, survivalist is quite pessimistic. It does not take much to survive; warmth, food/water, and shelter. But we have so many other things, which bring countless other experiences, that make us stronger, happier, healthier human beings. We do not need electricity, but the state of health care would be atrocious without it.

    Here is where I think your wrong. Completely and utterly.
    “What we need is an anarchists revolution. What is that you say? Anarchy is bad? Lawless? Every man for himself? No. Not at all. Anarchy simply means without dominance.”

    You are talking about…humans? This is ideal communism, and that has been proven to fail. Remember, big wall came down in Germany? Mass celebrations? End of the 60 year cold war?

    Firstly, You are asking for a society without dominance. Lets rewind back to the good ol tribal days. Survivalist days, because that would appeal to you. The biggest, strongest male was always the leader. Everyone else, followed him, until someone thought they were better. Then if they one the challenge, they would become the leader, and the tribe would become stronger, through stronger leadership. This is how things have worked since antiquity, the systems have just become more refined. Throwing the entire system out the window is a huge leap backward.

    Secondly, anarchy is lawless. Anarchy is what is in Iraq right now. With no government accepted by the people, there are just tribal factions duking it out for their own agendas. That is anarchy. That is lawless, bad, and is, more or less, every man for himself. And, ironically, with no one in power, it is, without dominance. But eventually, one fish will emerge that will be bigger than all the others, and he will take over, and we have the first stage of tribalist government: despotism, with family members in the important cabinets of government. Without dominance, humans cannot be lead. Dominance exists in all stable states, only the level of that dominance varies. Push the people too hard, and you have revolution; not hard enough and you have too much crime and delinquency. It is striking a balance. Laws, in a working democracy, are created for the good of the majority of the people, because politicians want to keep their jobs, and they do so by making the people happy. Without a bureaucracy, cumbersome, expensive, and unweildly as it may be, there is no structure for society. Instead, you are relying on the essential goodness of the human spirit. Which is complete trash. Optimism is good, but when it crashes with realism it has a bad habit of getting steamrollered; and in an anarchic system (oxymoron?) immediately someone will take control of their pond, and spread their sphere of influence until they have all the oceans, and can start squeezing.

    Apart from your contention, I kinda liked it. Any extreme has a bad habit of being, uh, bad. The middle is also bad, because you stagnate; but a little either way keeps things interesting, and keeps some form of progress being made.


  2. I see why you like sleeping on floors now then =]

    I agree with a lot of these things, and put a lot of it in to practise. Friends call me stingy and stupid for NOT buying the expensive shirt or shoes, when I am only going to dirty them or destroy them whilst training. They don’t understand yet, but they soon will I hope, when they can’t afford to live. when they stop depending on their parents.

    I’d like to have a good chat with you about these thingies soon =]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s