Sociability, Self Reliance, and the Demonization of Gear...

[Harleymarleybone]

When I state and promote being a nonconformist, it is in relation to the cultural imagery that is created by the elitist media that gear use is destructive, leads to aggressive behavior, and is morally wrong. I don't want to conform and be subjugated to this type of ideology which promotes a specific mindset that is being culturally marketed to the mass audience. I'm not cool with the disinformation that is currently being promoted to the general public. I'm being a nonconformist to the selling of this mind set or belief system that educated, responsible, balanced gear use is destructive and morally wrong.

What is culture, culture is the power to define reality... who has the active power to shape reality? The agenda setting media controlled by a minority of wealthy, 'enlightened' individuals who believe that the masses are ignorant and incapable of making important decisions concerning the welfare of society. The elite or agenda setting media such as the New York Times, ABC, USA Today are all owned by private corporations such as the transnational conglomerates Disney or AOL Time Warner and they are just part of corporations that are run by the elite individuals at the top this hierarchical structure. These elite individuals are able to set the agendas or policies that shape culture. This is what I am trying communicate that I'm a nonconformist to the mindset that is being advanced to the mass audience as truth.

.

Okay, if you just disagree with the scare tactics involving gear, why not just say that? It would have saved you a lot of time, and you would not have had to make lots of generalizations about conformity

But even responsible gear use is somewhat destructive and that is not hype. For example, my current cycle of test, tren and winny is kicking the ass out of my HDL, and there is nothing much I can do about it, no matter how much fish oil, policonasol, and red yeast I consume. The effect on lipids itself is enough to define the responsible use of steroids as short term use. If you use steroids over a good many years, you are missing the benefit of HDL at the very least, and that ain't good. I recently posted a study of long term users with a dramatically higher level of artery calcification than the control group. Further, you can do everything right (and responsibly) by taking the necessary precautions, and still get gyno. That ain't hype. Higher blood pressure? How long do you want that? Plus, do you only use pharma grade gear? I doubt it. Great, so you are injecting who knows what cooked up in someone's kitchen. I saw on one board a chemical analysis of testosterone powder from China, which included all sorts of toxic heavy metals - shit you really do not want to be putting into your body. That's in the powder itself, not the oil. So taking gear is somewhat destructive and certainly risky behavior, and I can at least see the side of the argument that such destructive and risky behavior for the sake of vanity is somewhat unwise. I grapple with that dilemma personally, every time I do a cycle.


Making people aggressive? Well, gear makes some people aggressive. Many guys on this board have admitted Tren makes them dicks. Is it all hype?

As far as the media is concerned. I don't think there is any concerted explicit effort by the elitist media to demonize gear. The controversy about gear in the media is largely centered around sports, and the concept of fair play, and what is good for a sport. This is a reasonable controversy. Finding good information about the actual risks of steroids is pretty easy to do, with a little research. Even your average misguided conformist can do it if he is interested Aren't you being an elitist, when you say the average Joe is just brainwashed by the elitist media hype, implying he is too dumb or lazy to do a little research to find out the truth?

Your image of a top/down hierarchical elitist media setting the agenda is just a little too simple for me. First, those who you think are at the top, are really at the mercy of their boards, and board members answer to stockholders - a stock holder might be your aunt Bessie who has a pension, some of which is composed of investments of media stock. And there are millions and millions of people who own such funds. So top down is also bottom up. Of course, profit for stockholders is the motive, and if it were discovered that steroids are really good for you and make you live longer and healthier, well, that would be a rather sensational story, and you can be sure the "media elite" would print it to make money. The problem is there just really isn't much great news about steroids, other than the fact that they make you more muscular - not real newsworthy. It is the consumers of media who also set the agenda, since they choose which stories to consume, sending up the ratings that the providers in turn respond to. Top down or bottom up?

Of course, if the profit grubbing elitists were really setting the agenda of culture as you seem to think they are, then they would simply push to make gear legal - with all other drugs - and be the first in line to manufacture and distribute them, since they could make a lot more money doing that than selling an occasional scare tactic about steroids.

 

[-Ariel-]

Okay, if you just disagree with the scare tactics involving gear, why not just say that? It would have saved you a lot of time, and you would not have had to make lots of generalizations about conformity

But even responsible gear use is somewhat destructive and that is not hype. For example, my current cycle of test, trenbolone and Winstrol - stanozolol is kicking the ass out of my HDL, and there is nothing much I can do about it, no matter how much fish oil, policonasol, and red yeast I consume. The effect on lipids itself is enough to define the responsible use of steroids as short term use. If you use steroids over a good many years, you are missing the benefit of HDL at the very least, and that ain't good. I recently posted a study of long term users with a dramatically higher level of artery calcification than the control group. Further, you can do everything right (and responsibly) by taking the necessary precautions, and still get gynecomastia. That ain't hype. Higher blood pressure? How long do you want that? Plus, do you only use pharma grade gear? I doubt it. Great, so you are injecting who knows what cooked up in someone's kitchen. I saw on one board a chemical analysis of testosterone powder from China, which included all sorts of toxic heavy metals - shit you really do not want to be putting into your body. That's in the powder itself, not the oil. So taking gear is somewhat destructive and certainly risky behavior, and I can at least see the side of the argument that such destructive and risky behavior for the sake of vanity is somewhat unwise. I grapple with that dilemma personally, every time I do a cycle.


Making people aggressive? Well, gear makes some people aggressive. Many guys on this board have admitted trenbolone makes them dicks. Is it all hype?

As far as the media is concerned. I don't think there is any concerted explicit effort by the elitist media to demonize gear. The controversy about gear in the media is largely centered around sports, and the concept of fair play, and what is good for a sport. This is a reasonable controversy. Finding good information about the actual risks of steroids is pretty easy to do, with a little research. Even your average misguided conformist can do it if he is interested Aren't you being an elitist, when you say the average Joe is just brainwashed by the elitist media hype, implying he is too dumb or lazy to do a little research to find out the truth?

Your image of a top/down hierarchical elitist media setting the agenda is just a little too simple for me. First, those who you think are at the top, are really at the mercy of their boards, and board members answer to stockholders - a stock holder might be your aunt Bessie who has a pension, some of which is composed of investments of media stock. And there are millions and millions of people who own such funds. So top down is also bottom up. Of course, profit for stockholders is the motive, and if it were discovered that steroids are really good for you and make you live longer and healthier, well, that would be a rather sensational story, and you can be sure the "media elite" would print it to make money. The problem is there just really isn't much great news about steroids, other than the fact that they make you more muscular - not real newsworthy. It is the consumers of media who also set the agenda, since they choose which stories to consume, sending up the ratings that the providers in turn respond to. Top down or bottom up?

Of course, if the profit grubbing elitists were really setting the agenda of culture as you seem to think they are, then they would simply push to make gear legal - with all other drugs - and be the first in line to manufacture and distribute them, since they could make a lot more money doing that than selling an occasional scare tactic about steroids.

Again, Harley you have articulated your points extremely well, and have made me really think... and thats a good thing...
Can't beat a good dialogue...

First of all, you have demonstrated that you have a far superior knowledge of gear use, mechanisms, long term health effects than I do... I'm only a newb, who has made a great deal of newb mistakes. One example is that my first cycle was on trenbolone a ,without test, at 75mg 4 days a week, I put on considerable size, increased my definition, and was a hell of a lot stronger, but yeah you are right, it made me feel a little irritable, nothing noticeable to others, but then again thats just due to my own personal nature of being about as threatening as a bunny on xyrem. I even used nolvadex as my PCT - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - , and luckily I didn't lose too much or have any progestin related side effects. I do have to concede that trenbolone does increase aggression in some people. I have yet to read anything about the mythicized roid rage, but yes, I have read several posts indicating that it does make some feel more aggressive.
You are right on that point, no doubt about it.

Second, the gear I have used in the past was from a well known lab that recently got busted and your reports on the tests that indicate the toxicity of powders from China is a bit scary and that does make me cringe at the thought of injecting that shit into my body. Well stated, and that does give me something to reflect on.

You make a strong argument with illuminating examples in your top down vs bottom up argument. I still remain entrenched in my position that it is from the top of this hierarchical structure that policy making power resides. It appears to me more of a private economy, I do not beileve the minority of board members who reside at the highest level within the power structure of the transnational conglomerates answer to the millions of shareholders who own stock in their corporations.

In order to expand on the idea of how through the media owned by private conglomerates shape polices or mindsets to the mass audience, bear with me, and lets examine the internal institutional structure of the media and how it relates to society. The two divisions of media that I want to examine are the entertainment media and news media both shape culture through different mechanisms. Both forms of media are owned by one of the seven previously mentioned conglomerates: AOL Time Warner, Sony, Bertelsman, News Corporation, Vivendi Universal, Disney, and Viacom. As an example, News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch's baby owns Fox Television, 20th century Fox Films, Harper Collins Publishers, they are the largest owners of news rags all over the world, they own Sky Television, which broadcasts over the world, and they even own more media that I'm not going to list. Now all these conglomerates now usurp unprecedented power in all our culture industries, TV, movies, radio, music, book publishing, and the internet. While it seems that we enjoy more choices than ever than any generation has in history, I don't believe this is the case. While there seems to be a multiplicity of options contained within the vast range of choice, its really an ostensible diversity... a handful of owners selling their products through Walmart, Barnes and Noble, on cable, or through the web with the same commercial imperative at work: to make as much money as possible. These are private corporations shaping culture through TV, radio, internet, movies, and newspapers to keep people with the opinion that consumption of commodities is the only way to live.

Again, am I consumer, of course, one way my personality has been 'commodified' and this is maybe total folderol, is that since joining EF, I have become entranced with the concept of K. As a result I have become totally addicted to Karma Bookie, and fervently await the beginning of the Lakers Celtics series. I think it makes sports so much more fun to watch and I don't understand why more people don't use Karma Bookie. Again, I digress...

Bear with me, and let me return to my agenda setting media, the one's with the big Sources, such as ABC, USA Today, or the New York Times, which is owned by GE. On the surface it appear that their product is newspapers, this is an ostensibility, their real product is selling audiences to advertisers. Who are their audiences? The constituents are the privileged in society, the people who actually help shape the political process, they are the managers of society, they can be managers of political organizations, business managers, doctoral managers at universities... these elite media sources influence this class of people who have the power to organize and shape the way people under them think and look at things. So their product is their audience the 'political manager class' of society, and who is the market, or buyers? The advertisers. So the question is what kind of media product is going to be produced? The nature of the product, what appears newsworthy, what doesn't appear, the spin or point of view the product influences culture with, will reflect the desires or intent of the buyers -advertisers- and sellers -New York Times in this case-, and other large institutions of power. So in this example it is obvious that it is private interests of corporations who want to sell specific ideas to the 'political class managers' or their audience on how to live their life and what will make them happy.

What does this have to with gear, well while there is no direct concerted effort by a corporation in order to make a profit off of the prohibition of gear, it is mythicized as being an agent of self destruction, moral evil, and unnatural... The Chris Benoit tragedy has made this only worse. The media perpetuates this myth because steroids are already culturally misunderstood and it is easy to entertain the audience and distract them from critical thought by advancing the viewpoint that steroids use was a primary factor in the Benoit tragedy. The media has no desire in encouraging critical thought, self awareness, or even extreme emotions of happiness or sadness. It wants people to not think, but merely react to the stimulus. It simply wants to subjugate the mass audience to commodity consumption. A good example of this is way back in the 50s, one cigarette company, and I don't remember which one, was the sponsor of the show I Love Lucy, well they found out that the show was so funny, made people laugh so hard, that they weren't paying attention to the commercials... so at the very peak of the show, they pulled it. Successful shows recently, like Friends or Seinfeld are much more subdued due to this phenomena. The whole point is to avoid critical thought or extreme emotion because it makes advertising appear as it really is... which is trivial. Again, this thread of how nondisclosure affects one socially within a culture that demonizes it did preoccupy me with extreme curiosity, but advancing my own positions may have been nocuous, well because bringing attention to this is like yelling fire in a crowded theatre... its something I have no solution for.

In regard to de-conditioning people to the idea that responsible gear use can be used in the short term as an adjunct to the divine laws of train, eat , sleep in order to cross the threshold once your natural limit has been attained... I agree with Swole who wisely articulated that happens one conversation at a time. I think that approach is pragmatic and can be a reality.

Finally I would like to clarify my position. I'm an average Joe... I'm just a dude who goes to school and works... and thats fine with me, the wisest people I have met in my life are not university professors, CEOs, or Eastern Sages, but rather Average Joes. Furthermore, I have encountered people here at EF who I can already tell are infinitely wiser than myself because I can already discern that they have a clear big picture what is important in life... I'm not going to go into -Tuesday with Morrie mode-, don't worry, but yeah the wisest people I've met display their genius through relying on common sense and planning in order to create their desired future through actively solving the dilemma's that face us day to day.

Your feedback has made me think Harvey... and again that is a good thing.

 

[eddymerckx]

bump because he makes us all look smart in case any lurkers pop in

 

[sensational]

bump because he makes us all look smart in case any lurkers pop in

Great thread, but reading emersonian type arguments wears my nerves thin!

 

[eddymerckx]

Great thread, but reading emersonian type arguments wears my nerves thin!

yea, but his poll has more votes than one involving noods

 

[Harleymarleybone]

"I do not beileve the minority of board members who reside at the highest level within the power structure of the transnational conglomerates answer to the millions of shareholders who own stock in their corporations...."


"a handful of owners selling their products through Walmart, Barnes and Noble, on cable, or through the web with the same commercial imperative at work: to make as much money as possible. These are private corporations shaping culture through TV, radio, internet, movies, and newspapers to keep people with the opinion that consumption of commodities is the only way to live."

I just wanted to briefly address this.

I think you are making my point here. Board members answer to shareholders, at then minimum, - and that's all I need for my argument- in the sense that they must make a profit. Companies make a profit by selling things people want to buy. So, one can argue it is the average consumer's choices that shape what is being sold to them. This would be a bottom up dynamic of "shaping culture." Now one could counter that the elite media corporate structure influences these choices through advertising and other means of persuasion. And that is true, too. But I think you are overstating the top down influence. Take for example the fashion industry. Marketers go out in the streets and see what the latest fashions young people have cooked up. They take those fashions, mass reproduce them and persuade more people to buy them through advertising, etc. So the direction of influence is more a circular one of bottom up and top down, and then next year bottom up, top down, etc. Consumers shape what they are sold, just as much as the corporate elite. I did not say your top down argument was wrong, I said it was too simple, in my view.

Okay, let's assume our society is too consumer oriented. Is that a result of the corporate elite selling us a false bill of goods? Or is it the result of our basic human nature when faced with an abundance of resources, creating a society that can provide us many of the things we need and want? (That would be the bottom up influence)

Finally, as I asked before, if it is the corporate elite who is really in control of creating our desires, and then selling us the things that satisfy them to make a profit, why haven't they made steroids legal, convinced us we should use them and manufacture and sell them? There must be something else going on, right?

 

[Harleymarleybone]

Again, Harley you have articulated your points extremely well, and have made me really think... and thats a good thing...
Can't beat a good dialogue...

First of all, you have demonstrated that you have a far superior knowledge of gear use, mechanisms, long term health effects than I do... I'm only a newb, who has made a great deal of newb mistakes. One example is that my first cycle was on trenbolone a ,without test, at 75mg 4 days a week, I put on considerable size, increased my definition, and was a hell of a lot stronger, but yeah you are right, it made me feel a little irritable, nothing noticeable to others, but then again thats just due to my own personal nature of being about as threatening as a bunny on xyrem. I even used nolvadex as my PCT - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - - post cycle therapy - , and luckily I didn't lose too much or have any progestin related side effects. I do have to concede that trenbolone does increase aggression in some people. I have yet to read anything about the mythicized roid rage, but yes, I have read several posts indicating that it does make some feel more aggressive.
You are right on that point, no doubt about it.

Second, the gear I have used in the past was from a well known lab that recently got busted and your reports on the tests that indicate the toxicity of powders from China is a bit scary and that does make me cringe at the thought of injecting that shit into my body. Well stated, and that does give me something to reflect on.

You make a strong argument with illuminating examples in your top down vs bottom up argument. I still remain entrenched in my position that it is from the top of this hierarchical structure that policy making power resides. It appears to me more of a private economy, I do not beileve the minority of board members who reside at the highest level within the power structure of the transnational conglomerates answer to the millions of shareholders who own stock in their corporations.

In order to expand on the idea of how through the media owned by private conglomerates shape polices or mindsets to the mass audience, bear with me, and lets examine the internal institutional structure of the media and how it relates to society. The two divisions of media that I want to examine are the entertainment media and news media both shape culture through different mechanisms. Both forms of media are owned by one of the seven previously mentioned conglomerates: AOL Time Warner, Sony, Bertelsman, News Corporation, Vivendi Universal, Disney, and Viacom. As an example, News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch's baby owns Fox Television, 20th century Fox Films, Harper Collins Publishers, they are the largest owners of news rags all over the world, they own Sky Television, which broadcasts over the world, and they even own more media that I'm not going to list. Now all these conglomerates now usurp unprecedented power in all our culture industries, TV, movies, radio, music, book publishing, and the internet. While it seems that we enjoy more choices than ever than any generation has in history, I don't believe this is the case. While there seems to be a multiplicity of options contained within the vast range of choice, its really an ostensible diversity... a handful of owners selling their products through Walmart, Barnes and Noble, on cable, or through the web with the same commercial imperative at work: to make as much money as possible. These are private corporations shaping culture through TV, radio, internet, movies, and newspapers to keep people with the opinion that consumption of commodities is the only way to live.

Again, am I consumer, of course, one way my personality has been 'commodified' and this is maybe total folderol, is that since joining EF, I have become entranced with the concept of K. As a result I have become totally addicted to Karma Bookie, and fervently await the beginning of the Lakers Celtics series. I think it makes sports so much more fun to watch and I don't understand why more people don't use Karma Bookie. Again, I digress...

Bear with me, and let me return to my agenda setting media, the one's with the big Sources, such as ABC, USA Today, or the New York Times, which is owned by GE. On the surface it appear that their product is newspapers, this is an ostensibility, their real product is selling audiences to advertisers. Who are their audiences? The constituents are the privileged in society, the people who actually help shape the political process, they are the managers of society, they can be managers of political organizations, business managers, doctoral managers at universities... these elite media sources influence this class of people who have the power to organize and shape the way people under them think and look at things. So their product is their audience the 'political manager class' of society, and who is the market, or buyers? The advertisers. So the question is what kind of media product is going to be produced? The nature of the product, what appears newsworthy, what doesn't appear, the spin or point of view the product influences culture with, will reflect the desires or intent of the buyers -advertisers- and sellers -New York Times in this case-, and other large institutions of power. So in this example it is obvious that it is private interests of corporations who want to sell specific ideas to the 'political class managers' or their audience on how to live their life and what will make them happy.

What does this have to with gear, well while there is no direct concerted effort by a corporation in order to make a profit off of the prohibition of gear, it is mythicized as being an agent of self destruction, moral evil, and unnatural... The Chris Benoit tragedy has made this only worse. The media perpetuates this myth because steroids are already culturally misunderstood and it is easy to entertain the audience and distract them from critical thought by advancing the viewpoint that steroids use was a primary factor in the Benoit tragedy. The media has no desire in encouraging critical thought, self awareness, or even extreme emotions of happiness or sadness. It wants people to not think, but merely react to the stimulus. It simply wants to subjugate the mass audience to commodity consumption. A good example of this is way back in the 50s, one cigarette company, and I don't remember which one, was the sponsor of the show I Love Lucy, well they found out that the show was so funny, made people laugh so hard, that they weren't paying attention to the commercials... so at the very peak of the show, they pulled it. Successful shows recently, like Friends or Seinfeld are much more subdued due to this phenomena. The whole point is to avoid critical thought or extreme emotion because it makes advertising appear as it really is... which is trivial. Again, this thread of how nondisclosure affects one socially within a culture that demonizes it did preoccupy me with extreme curiosity, but advancing my own positions may have been nocuous, well because bringing attention to this is like yelling fire in a crowded theatre... its something I have no solution for.

In regard to de-conditioning people to the idea that responsible gear use can be used in the short term as an adjunct to the divine laws of train, eat , sleep in order to cross the threshold once your natural limit has been attained... I agree with Swole who wisely articulated that happens one conversation at a time. I think that approach is pragmatic and can be a reality.

Finally I would like to clarify my position. I'm an average Joe... I'm just a dude who goes to school and works... and thats fine with me, the wisest people I have met in my life are not university professors, CEOs, or Eastern Sages, but rather Average Joes. Furthermore, I have encountered people here at EF who I can already tell are infinitely wiser than myself because I can already discern that they have a clear big picture what is important in life... I'm not going to go into -Tuesday with Morrie mode-, don't worry, but yeah the wisest people I've met display their genius through relying on common sense and planning in order to create their desired future through actively solving the dilemma's that face us day to day.

Your feedback has made me think Harvey... and again that is a good thing.

Oh, and I apologize for my original whiny freshman remark. It turns out ariel is good bro, and a lot smarter than I thought

 

[nickster#1]

bump because he makes us all look smart in case any lurkers pop in

 

[nickster#1]

Oh, and I apologize for my original whiny freshman remark. It turns out ariel is good bro, and a lot smarter than I thought

Sharp young kat is he not?

 

[GUARDIAN]

has not affected me sociability