Tree of Destruction - A synthetic analysis of human societal problems since the agrarian age.
by Tani Jantsang
The Historical Facts: there was an DRASTIC ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AROUND 10,000
YEARS AGO which brought about a NEED to seek new conditions BY WHICH and IN
WHICH to live. The agrarian age began 10,000 years ago: FOR SOME. People in
certain areas could no longer survive and therefore either abandoned those areas
or abandoned their old ways. The old ways are what, without a doubt, allowed
humans to biologically evolve into the H. Sapiens they were at this time. Modern
humans are no different from these early H. sapiens - biologically speaking.
Those seeking conditions IN WHICH to live biologically adapted but culturally
have stayed the same or stable since the old ways worked (hunter gatherers still
on the planet to this day).
But those seeking conditions BY WHICH to live culturally evolved but biologically
degenerated into a "norm" of unhealthiness (mental and physical), malnutrition,
allergies such as to gluten, tooth decay, back deformities and arthritic joints
due to the backbreaking work, and of sick sexualities, fear of such desires
and supreme repression finally with there coming into being a state of gender
WAR common to them and even the demonification of the female gender, i.e., monotheistic
religion and patriarchy. Overpopulation, health problems, hygiene problems and
diseases, massive sewage and all the rest of the ills which amount to a public
health disaster resulted from the agrarian way of life. The prime directive
is to mate and make more of the self. Those who cannot do this (for WHATEVER
reason, including "free choice" or "preference") are genetically dead. This
is highly unusual.
Genders can not remain at war too long and a species thrive. What happens when
the electrical field around the ova REFUSES to let healthy sperm in for fertilization?
We are now seeing this strange phenomena. That's what I'd call "REALLY saying
'NO'!" LONG is how long hominids were around and even this is short in real
terms of evolution. Hominids (not just H. sapiens) were around only about 2
million years. That's not long compared to other species. Long is NOT measured
by "civilizations" that rose and fell. It is "civilization" and such cultural
evolution that people (FROM them) hold so high and consider so important. This
is definitely akin to trying to analyze patriarchy and feminism when you are
FROM such patriarchal people and living IN such a society yourself. It is as
if you are a fish - INSIDE the fish tank. You can not ask "what is a NOT-fish"
from outside the tank where you never go or see. ONLY a NOT-fish, outside it,
CAN TELL YOU what is NOT IN that fish tank. Few not-fish talk or tell and almost
NONE have writing or ever needed it. THIS not-fish talks and writes having been
taught how to do such in the USA.
This article is about a tree, and to know about trees, branches, leaves and
fruit you must know what the SEED is and next what the ROOTS are like to determine
if it's viable, healthy, etc. and see clearly WHAT IT REALLY IS. And this is
how we think and analyze: very unlike the fish! We think and see things synthetically.
That's what E.O. Wilson is calling for: a synthesis. He'll have to stop analyzing
modern humans teleologically, however, and see that SOMETHING went very WRONG
since agriculture. Stop focusing on the presumed "intelligence" and wonder if
it IS intelligent at all to doom one's own species to extinction by poisoning
it's own habitat. Bacteria did that long ago: they poisoned their ecosystem
with oxygen and it caused a ..... Revolution.....
This following is represented as a tree with a seed and branches, growth AND
development:
SEED: ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE. Need for humans to change in some way, or perish.
(The same do or die necessity occurred which FORCED ape to eventually evolve
into man; FORCED fish to eventually evolve into amphibian. Keep in mind, all
members of One Species go their own ways when such is necessary and they SPECIATE
into more than one species.)
ROOT: AGRICULTURE chosen as means BY WHICH to seek continuance as a means to
survive. What was NOT chosen? Physical, biological evolution. Agrarian life
forced humans to eat things they were not fully biologically evolved to eat.
It forced humans to work far more than they were evolved to work. CULTURAL evolution,
with all its ramifications, was chosen as they self-sang the praises of their
own ruination of life, their own drudge-filled lives (one group even called
agriculture, gender war and birth problems a CURSE and imagined their god put
it on their GENErations), and they praised it all as they pushed out, absorbed
or wiped out all of the others who were nomadic.
THE ROOT THE RESULTS: ">" means "it became"
| Defense of land > walled in area > soldiers
| > nations > property and land owning.
Stationary | Labor division > castes > unequal distribution
settlers | replacing equal due to presence of soldiers now
doing | in power to demand more, better, higher > class
agriculture. | oppression: hierarchies.
| Priests and armies to keep classes in their place >
| imperialist godist patriarchy > man killing man.
LEADS TO: ->Need to move to newer lands due to land erosion from agriculture.
Need for more room, due to overpopulation fostered by any
agrarian society, always need more farm hands.
->The lowest classes always have larger families than higher
classes. Women are breeding property.
->Ends in the lowest classes knowing nothing or being kept
uneducated, give them education and they immediately seek to
"rise up" in the class system. Lowest classes are property
and slaves. Women and children are property.
COMBINE the these above: leads to humans conquering other humans, the "might
is right" mentality, and warlike nations subduing anyone in the way by absorption
or extermination. Priestly dictates emerge with fairy tales about manifest destiny
to justify genocide. Of course there is oppression. Life in agrarian societies
is always so hellish for the average person that people are constantly trying
to find ways to live off the work of others! This can take the form of classism
or imperialism. Such societies run on oppression and can't run any other way.
Even if all members of one such nation are free ("given" freedom by the rulers!),
their freedom is bought on the backs of some "other" nation that is exploited
as a colony of "inferiors." The only thing ever able to utterly defeat and replace
such a society was another identical society with more might; or one such society
split apart and became two such societies. Temporary defeats occurred where
the slaves rose up en masse and overthrew their rulers. That didn't last long.
Doing an analysis of the current ethics (from inside the fish tank, so to speak)
and moralities and then trying to find some justification for the "behavior"
in the ancestral human, is teleological. Ancestral humans behaved NOTHING like
moderns; if they did, they'd never have evolved! (See Cavalli-Sforza "The Great
Human Diasporas" for information on a modern-day primitive society that retains
ancestral ways: they are the first affluent society but they are nothing like
what civilized people imagine "jungle dwellers" to be like.) Understanding that
something WARPED the underlying hunter/gatherer urges is a better idea. Trying
to squeeze "religion," especially organized religion, into some kind of animist/shamanist
developmental phenomena is also wrong. It is FACTUALLY incorrect; the two are
not the same nor are they congruent.
There exist/ed/s genders in all sexually dimorphic species, including man,
long before this happened. Being gendered is NOT the problem. Genders exist
in nomadic communalistic societies too. There was division of labor according
to ability and the fruits of all labors went back into the society to be shared
equally. There was no need to defend land because no one was stationary. Overpopulation
NEVER occurs in nomad societies. Such primitive societies are all communalistic
in one form or another, but the WHOLE FOUNDATION of these societies is utterly
unlike that of the agrarian societies. Their entire way of thinking regarding
relations to their labor and relations with each other, are completely different.
Agrarian societies pushed out the nomad ones, they are almost all gone now.
At the same time agrarian societies have eaten up almost the entire planet.
THEY don't have anywhere to go, to find a new habitat. They now threaten to
"eat up" our air supply. They have rendered many rivers anoxic or hypoxic and
oxygen-based life as we know it is being replaced by other life that is able
to tolerate these new conditions. These new life forms are in our food chain!
This is the situation NOW. But this situation had a ROOT back in time, and not
all that long ago: 10,000 years ago is not long ago.
View this (the following diagram below) as a tree, not as separate categories,
but as how one thing grew into and developed into another at the same time AS
all other parts of the tree were growing. E.g., Walls around a protected area
(i.e., with a given set of protectors) necessitates a grouping of who is going
to do which chores. This simple division of labor with the fruits of ALL labor
pooling back into the whole group begins to change with certain groups getting
a bigger share than others. Warrior castes, which arise from those chosen to
be protectors, go hand in hand with unequal ownership, now of privatized portions
of land. Warriors are in a position to demand more and claim patches of land
simply by using brute force. These protector/warriors continue to exist even
when they are NO LONGER REQUIRED to protect anything! Next, the castes become
static, they become set AS CLASSES and they'd vie for favoritism from the strongest
class, i.e., the warriors. This, in itself, would alter the gene pool: warriors
are usually quite dumb but smarter folks are usually not warriors! Females choosing
their mates would be replaced by rape. The warriors would elect a King. The
priests (wimpy and lazy, usually also male, but cunning deceivers able to pull
off a few tricks) would declare him a God King or claim he ruled by Divine Decree
since the warriors are in a position to destroy these priests if they don't
serve them. This is how it starts and ends up every single time.
By the time this formerly small group overpopulates and ruins the land, they
are strong enough, as a nation now, to conquer and/or push out all other people.
Nomads were once the majority. Now they are almost extinct or absorbed. The
New World Order is one HUGE Empire with the classes still in place, slaves and
all. It's just HUGE now. The revolt against Altar and Throne is a revolt against
THIS "TREE." (This is what is behind the anti-Adamite mythopoetry of those [Masons,
Hiram Rite] who regard this all as "The Assassins" who regard "us" against it
as Anti-Christs, THEIR Enemy.)
Prior to this agrarianism, there were a few million years of human hunter gatherers
living with a stable but primitive communism. They were also nomads and spread
themselves all over the world prior to agriculture. The ENTIRETY of our physical,
biological, including neurological, evolution into H.sapiens happened during
those few million years - and it STOPPED COLD since agriculture.
The ESOTERIC implications of calling this a Tree of Destruction is that it
means these people divorced themselves from a Tree of LIFE - which is what existed
prior to their turning to agriculture. Both the left and right captions shown
on the ToD developed simultaneously and these all fed into each other.
The ToD does not show a "revolutionary vehicle" (as some Reds complain). It
was never intended TO show that. It simply shows how it all started and grew
- and it shows WHAT we have to fight against, now, in its almost final stage
(the Tree is HUGE now, it's not just somewhere in the Middle East or China or
MesoAmerica!). And I feel it's not so much "nations" or "some group" we have
to fight per se (defeat them and another nation or group arises and continues
on the same road), but this entire BALL that's just rolling like a juggernaut
needs to be stopped or it will doom us all and not too far off in our future.
It is as if humans are incapable of STOPPING. Why? Because underlying their
behaviors are ancestral instincts, drives, urges even possibly hard-wired into
our genes - and these biological things, I feel, are WARPED due to the things
we eat, the agricultural base, perhaps the metabolism, parasites in us, viruses
including neurological viruses - the WHOLE THING we've been doing since agriculture
- it has warped the underlying hunter gatherer cooperative nature of humans.
It has turned the hunter into a cancer, a genocidal (overt or covert, direct
or indirect) monster, it has turned the gatherer into a greed-filled thing that
wants and wants when NOTHING is ever enough! He hoards things he doesn't even
need (like 30 cars, or 20 billion dollars and the insatiable desire to make
one billion more).
When you read this chart, you have to figure out yourself, the social relations,
the relations of workers to their labor, and the NEW modes of production, technologies
and people's relation TO that technology and the other people around them, that
came with growing food on static patches of land. You have to figure out yourself,
what happened when "area protectors" became "The Warrior Caste" and how they
related to the rest of the society. You'll have to have a firm grasp of our
ancestral nature, the Primate Nature which is hard-wired into us (GENETICALLY!)
(Look at the Bonobo, the primate genetically closest to humans). Why they GOT
religion (implied is that they were mentally messed up enough to FALL FOR religion
and WANT it because it filled some sick "emotional" need) is explained by two
internet articles: Akathartic and Ophionic
States explains, in neurologist Antonio Damasio's words, what such skewed
people are like: they are considered normal in THIS society. No one can understand
a living organism by looking at it outside of its biological nature and environment.
To do so would be abiological. Humans, like any other animal, can be conditioned
to BE this way or that way within the LIMITS or "norms of" their biological
natures - i.e., they can't be conditioned to breathe water.
Reader: You'll need to print this page out in order to SEE IT as it is meant
to be seen.
SET COMPUTER L/R MARGINS TO 1-79 or windows to 1" LR margins.
TREE OF DESTRUCTION: View this as a tree, from bottom to top.
END RESULT
Empires, (NEED MORE SPACE, SPREAD OUT AND)
imperialism, (ENGULF THE WORLD, MORE STRIFE//WAR)
colonialism. See later diagram.
|| ...//
|| Manifest Destiny
||... God ordains it.
Might is right, Holy Wars and
take and push Elitism racism
out all others. //
|| ...//
||... EFFECT: Priestly caste
Need more room (OVERPOPULATION) supports military
powerful army can (LAND DEPLETION) & pacifies others.
war and take more (NEED TO SPREAD) //
|| (FIND MORE LAND) //
|| ...//
||... Classes, vying
Nation states against each
warrior caste other for more.
||... ...//
Walls around Unequal ownership.
protected area ...//
with protectors. Castes assigned to
|| specific chores.
||..................//
||....TREE ROOT...//
Stationary Settlers farming a patch of land CAUSE:
CAUSE:
CLIMATE CHANGE
Please note that ...// and ||... means that what came underneath
on the page, developed into and interacted with the next things
up on the page - these things grew like a tree grows.
The later trade routes were not developed by these agrarians. For a long while,
later in history, agrarians were preyed on by roving nomads who were like bandits.
Eventually, they reached an agreement and the roving nomads became new, oftentimes
stationary, protectors against OTHER nomad-bandits (usually their own related
tribesmen; e.g., Jenghis Khan and the Tatars). It was THESE who knew where this
or that could be gotten and from whom; and who needed this or that: THEY developed
all the trade routes. Agrarians originally drove nomads out (in Euro-Asia they
ended up in the colder northern regions where other humans already were), but
they later came back as the most fearsome warriors of all and RULED these agrarians
from time to time until they, too, got absorbed into the more populous agrarian
societies (Kublai Khan and China, good example of this). True to form, as soon
as they were absorbed into the societies they ruled, they set to war against
each other. See internet article Turania
(http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/turania.html) for an in depth look and
history of Turanian nomads and China at war with each other, which includes
some geographical facts about the USSR (the land of the Turanians). When these
agrarian lands were conquered by these nomads, their knowledge was not destroyed
but leapt ahead not just due to the import of goods from nomad-held trade routes,
but due to the initial TOLERANCE of these nomads when it came to such war-making
notions as religion and race: Shah Jahan, Kublai, and the so-called "great"
Arabian civilization - were not Semitic or Arabian or even Chinese - these were
the products of people CONQUERED by Turanian peoples whose input and organization
(synthetic, diverse and cooperative) made them great. A lot of knowledge from
many places was gathered into their lands.
Specifically, WHAT did these stationary, agrarian settlers with their own hierarchies
DO when they were invaded by these roving, unbeatable nomads? They did what
proletarians do in relation to the rich and powerful rulers in THEIR lands:
they dealed! They do what small nation rulers do when confronted by larger imperialist
nations making demands on them: they compromised! This, now, is pretty much
a separate cultural evolution showing HOW other kinds of "classes" developed
amidst Feudalism; a class that got for themselves some BIG privileges, and the
class of merchants. Not everyone got filthy rich from the opened trade routes
- only the privileged got rich and they were WHOLLY dependent for about 1,500
years on these roving nomads! Only VERY recently are they now independent of
them - but now these people themselves are AKIN to roving nomads. They are called
imperialists. :) Spelled out, well known example: Bill Gates was a nobody but
he roved around and found a little of this and borrowed a little of that - he
was a bandit of a type at times, too - then he joined it all together and SOLD
IT to buyers. Then he made it so that no one can just share it, they have to
go through him and HIS company and PAY A TOLL to get it. That's EXACTLY what
nomads did with trade routes and/or passes from this place to that place, or
rivers - made people pay a toll. LIKE the nomad rulers of old, the imperialists
have all the leisure time in the world and everything in the world they want.
Unlike the agrarians, these cold-adapted evolved nomads were a tad more predatory,
BY NATURE. ALL animals and plants from that region ARE more ferocious and predatory.
If you doubt that the USA is a hunter gatherer nation, just think of how they
HUNT for markets and GATHER buyers, how they HUNT for resources and get very
predatory about getting them to gather into their own nation. They have even
learned the art of war, Chinese expert style - they get groups within nations
(that have something they want) to kill EACH OTHER - then they come in and keep
the peace for them - and take what they want. Pure hunter gatherer. They even
preach the new religion - "humanism," to get the uninitiated citizens in their
own countries to back them up: "so and so is doing a genocide; WE, the 'Moral
Democracy' (chosen of god?) have to stop him for the sake of those POOR people
- so we have to BOMB them - it's our moral duty... We have to do it 'for Democracy'
(for God)." Few Americans see clearly enough to predict that we will soon witness
a "Drive to the East for goodies" similar to the earlier Drive to the West,
which wiped out almost all the American Indians... Same show, different channel.
The trick to keeping the status quo is to make sure they keep the citizens of
their own nations HAPPY AND CONTENT (not overworked and underpaid!).
So, the underlying hunter instinct becomes warped: produces genocide whether
that genocide be by direct use of weapons or by "normal capitalism" which preys
on workers in other places such as we see today. The underlying gatherer instinct
becomes warped: produces people seemingly empty of all compassion or feeling
who are insatiably greedy and who prey on the planet's resources as if they
are infinite, and who are unable to use reason when they SEE what this is doing
to the entire planet. The interaction results in a set up where the norm is
to step on fellow man, murder fellow man, rape the earth, destroy habitats,
etc. There is a definite in-built, hard-wired genetic or ancestral predisposition
for these behaviors. Scientists seem to focus on MALES adapting, as if there
are no females. It seems more as if males were warped the most. What accounts
for the distortion of the sexual urge and obsession with unwholesome practices
(a politically incorrect idea but hell...whole pseudocultures for the genetically
dead are now built on one's sexual deviations). I think it's what people eat,
or centuries of people eating garbage which produced garbage cultures, no matter
how "great" people IN the system think these cultures are. They are garbage.
What accounts for religion? Is it extreme repression due to a split in emotional
input and disassociative state becoming insanity when the repression breaks
lose? Perhaps it is Borna virus! How many slaves had to starve, suffer, die
to make a tomb for a crazed Pharaoh? And what for? So he could "rise from the
dead? Wherefrom in nature would any normal human get the notion that a dead
thing could wake up and walk around again? NOT from seeing people sleep. Primitives
would also see people "sleeping" then start to rot and stink. They'd have a
clear understanding of death. They, like any other animal, would come to accept
death as a normal part of life. THAT is rational! Why do so many researchers
justify irrationality by trying to find "good things" that came of it? NOTHING
good comes of it. Consider what H. sapiens COULD HAVE BEEN, but never became.
Animals are very practical. Humans are not and have NOT BEEN since agriculture.
Again, using some kind of correlation or congruence to try to explain modern
human behavior by understanding the ancestral human design is teleological.
Animism is nothing like religion. Eg, attributing a "manitu" to all objects
animate or inanimate is sort of like having a rudimentary feel for "what matter
is." All these objects are atomic matter, all have electrons, etc. Wind would
be an object that was felt strongly, but unseen. They'd call it by a name that
would be sort of like calling it a force. The sun would be worshipped or at
least loved as an in-general life giver, as would be rain. This is nothing like
religion.
SET MARGINS L/R 1-79 or in MS Word 1" LR margins
Print it out if necessary to see it all as a tree that's growing.
MODERN TREE OF DESTRUCTION: THIS IS WHAT IT IS NOW.
END RESULT:
END RESULT:
Empires, (NEED MORE SPACE, MORE RESOURCES, SPREAD OUT AND)
imperialism, (ENGULF THE WORLD, MORE STRIFE/WAR OVER RESOURCES)
colonialism.
Socialism tries its hand Socialism tries its hand when
with united labor BUT <<---WAR--->> workers unite in other places or
workers are bought off, etc. WITHIN the imperialist places.
Inter-imperialist rivalry, etc. ...//
|| Manifest Destiny.
||... Create dictatorships
Might is right: in small developing
protect the profits at countries:
ANY cost, by ANY means, disguised as "protecting
demonize any threat. democracy." Incite racism.
|| nationalism and conflict.
|| ...//
||... Priestly caste and ruling class
Need more and more supports military efforts
resources. Armies make & pacifies or silences others.
war and take more. Labor the slaves of ruling class.
|| //
|| ...//
||... Classes within the ruling nations
Ruling Nation States unite; vie against each other but unite
warrior caste: NATO etc. against all other nations.
||... ...//
Walls around Unequal ownership reigns supreme.
protected area ...//
with protectors. Castes assigned to specific chores. The
Protect PROFITS. oppressed make it all; oppressors benefit.
||...........Mental versus physical labor.
|| //
||...TREE ROOT...//
Incoming Settlers taking over a country, by any means.
Eliminating or enslaving indigenous population.
CAUSE*:
NEED MORE SPACE, NEED TO SPREAD OUT
*Note, this CAUSE here is what the original tree grew into so long ago.
Is there a biological evolutionary explanation for such horrendously AWFUL
behavior? Well, I'll give that a try: other primates are not genetically predisposed
to this or that static or fixed social system. They also can't be accused of
having priests, morals, ethics or books with rules in them, or written laws!
Other primates try various social systems; the social systems are themselves
subject to natural selection. The ones that work best IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL NICHE
THEY ARE IN are they ones they keep.
Put any primate in an ecological niche where there is scarcity and you'll end
up, guaranteed, with alpha dominant male structure as social strategy (culture)
where they TAKE ALL and no one can stop them, females that do not band together,
and weaker males and all females terrorized by the strongest brutes (whether
they wield fist, club or atomic bomb....). Most APE species have this social
strategy, including chimps.
Put any primate in an ecological niche where there is abundance, but not of
the long-lasting or permanent type, and you'll end up with cliques of females
dominating the foraging areas and a kind of bartering between males and females
for food/favors. Bonobo chimps have this social strategy (culture). Note that
they are the SAME species as other chimps, they are cross-fertile, but they
do NOT choose to mate with them. (Is that racism?) The Bonobo is genetically
the closest to humans.
Put any primate in an ecological niche where there is abundance and it lasts
long or is renewable or permanent (whether that be vegetation that doesn't rot
fast, lots and various kinds of eatable fruits, easily hunted animals to eat,
or refrigerators to store TV dinners and easy-access supermarkets with cheap
food...) and you'll end up with equalitarian social strategies (at least within
each tribe or nation), no gender-specific work duties and all-around harmony,
or at least a tendency to strive for that. Some monkeys have this. I know of
no APE species that has this. Some humans have it - I doubt they want to give
it up.
The trick, then, to "making a utopia" is not to preach doctrines or dogmas,
but to CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGICAL NICHE. How can you do this when another
group, a TINY group, has all it needs for now and is also MEGA RICH, and is
hell bent on keeping what they have is against any efforts to FIX the world?
Have a revolution. THEN make things right. Can humans do that - just ONE TIME?
I don't have high hopes. There would have to be more than just a balance of
people to resources. There'd have to be a potential for resources to outnumber
people using them, for there to be MORE than "just enough" for everyone in the
niche. They'd have to control their tendency to overpopulate. They'd have to
consciously make up new rules and laws, by "Divine Decree" if necessary. Would
such content and happy people even need religion anymore? Basically, humans
would have to start putting PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS!
For agricultural problems check out NEANDERTHIN
on internet (http://neanderthin.com/). Lots of literature exists on this, hard
science references. See "Meat Three Times a Day," a book by F.J. Schlink and
M.C. Phillips. Humans are able to eat 98% of all meat stuffs on the planet,
but only about 2% of vegetable stuffs. As humans changed the foods they planted,
grew, bred and ate, the plants changed humans - like co-evolution - it works
TWO ways. Metabolism can be said to be all: you ARE what you eat! Check on some
semi-classified neurological data (especially on neuro viruses and toxins).
Check on what parasites can do to you and MAKE YOU DO (despite the notion that
you have a free will!) It is also well known that many American Indians went
from being totally healthy hunter gatherers to creating a public health disaster
when they turned to agriculture. Question is, why did they CONTINUE to do this
and not stop? Perhaps they lost the ability to "reason," which would have told
them to STOP. Perhaps they were infected with parasites that literally MADE
THEM continue. But aside from outside agents, what could cause humans to do
such a thing? Pain could, mental confusion could - lots of things could, even
addiction in some way, perhaps barely detectable (unlike with opium).
A FEW COMMENTS:
Man "advanced" in a WRONG WAY, way back about the time he had to start doing
agriculture, due to a (presumed?) climate change where he had to change the
way he lived or perish. The whole imperialist, theocratic, patriarchal (woman
hating, woman fearing), dung heap of history since then is one long stream of
occurrences where simple division of labor BECAME castes and then classes (with
the ultimate same end: revolution and overthrow with another imperialist theocracy
taking over). It is ONLY BECAUSE these divisions of labor existed INSIDE OF
boundaried and OVER POPULATED (key event) nation-states, that came into being
due to them living and planting on a PATCH of land, that caste/class arose from
division of labor! In turn, nation-states needed armies of "the strongest" to
"protect" from "the others, out there" without realizing that armies of bullies
do not go away: they turn against those they were created to protect in the
first place. That's how it happens, simple as that: they elect their Ruler,
or "God King" as of old, and this Ruler has his army and his Priests backing
him (usually). Altar and throne!: something the Founding Father MASONS of the
USA were dead against, and something the Bolsheviks were also against.
ALL of such societies went patriarchal, and the OLDEST ones of this type, long
standing and formerly Great Civilizations, are all NOW called the Third World,
with the WORST anti-woman, outright sadism, practiced as the norm. One should
draw the line when people (half the gender) get tortured and mutilated and even
crippled for the sex pleasures of men. If such things were being done by Islamics
or Hindus - or by Christian Americans - on ANOTHER RACE you'd see the U.N. having
a shit-fit over it.....maybe.
A note on what amounts to politics and imperialism and gender problems - and
these are PROBLEMS and they need to be addressed if our biological nature (or
unnature) is to be understood. If you are a prude or shy, don't read this paragraph:
it's BLUNT. What First World Feminism seems to REALLY WANT to say to men is:
"Hell no, there is no way in hell that you males who want penis rule will EVER
turn our U.S.A. into an Islamic or Hindu or Chinese society where you cut off
clitorises and sew up vaginas, where you set women you are tired of on fire,
or where you bind the feet of women for your sexual pleasure; we are not masochists
and we will not allow you to be sadists - not with us. We don't need you men,
we can get pregnant from ANYONE and wander away with the man never even knowing
he is a father. Fuck fatherhood: motherhood is real. Mothers do all the work
and, as such, men have NO SAY in what we birth (or don't birth). There is already
something wrong when power of a NON-sexual type focused on material objects,
fetishes, or non-sexual acts are eroticized, but there is no way in hell you
will make us into slaves/masochists, no way in hell. There is no way we will
TOLERATE sadism. It's NOT a 'dick thing' after all. No: it's WOMB thing! There
is NO WAY this society will become like that. And, oh yes, we can do that job
as well as any male can...... And we want equal pay..... And housework is work
and we should be paid for it....."
Does this speech sound wrong? These women put the labor and wage issue in the
forefront because that's all "clean and white," it's all so proper; they bring
blatant abuse to the forefront but they shy away from being brutally graphic.
But they settle for unpleasureable sex, lie to their mates or husbands and do
a LOT of complaining to other women behind the backs of the men - usually about
how much they hate oral sex and how lousy the men are at sex, cum too fast,
not big enough, etc. etc. Elaine Morgan (the lady with the Aquatic Ape Theory)
found, in interviewing women who were brutally honest (and wholly anonymous!),
that she could forget about suggesting or finding out how to make sex "more
pleasurable" for them - they'd be happy if it was "less disgusting." What's
wrong here? LOTS. Fundamentalist "Jesus freak" Christian women have found a
way to keep the husband and avoid the sex altogether; they say: "It's a sin
to have sex unless we plan to have a child - and we DO NOT plan to have a child."
They are also doctrinally against the "oral thing." Smart ladies! How do I know
this? I asked a whole bunch of them and when they felt they COULD be open with
me, they TOLD me. That the same reason why the first Nun, Melanie, became a
nun and why so many ladies joined her, long before men had any juristiction
over these Nunnish ladies. (One libertine male asked me: "What's in Christianity
for women that they can identify with or which can aid them as women? There
is only Jesus who is celibate and Mary who is a Virgin -plus God." Answer: Yes.
I explained it all to him. Silence. He was one of those guys who could NEVER
manage to keep a girlfriend after she experienced sex with him - he had no idea
why. Well? Now he knew why. And the Truth does not always set people free.)
:( In this society where women can work for themselves and can easily get divorced,
THEY DO. The first chance they get, THEY DO. HALF of all American marriages
fail within their first four years.
Making up a "reason," after the fact, to "justify" the behavior-as-it-is, eg,
"he who has the best car gets the women and has offspring, this is the GENES
at work" is BULLSHIT, it's teleological pseudo-science!
First World Feminism! They set up abuse centers, rally, and even rally men
and the law, to harsher treatment against abusers and so forth. They divorce
the men and get the First World courts to force these men to PAY for it and
to PAY for children that happen to be around. But what many women do not realize
is that the crime, lousy education, all of the CRAP out there is forcing a grass
roots white-Christian movement to arise in one of the MAJOR political parties.
What these First World Christian women and most of their enemies (left-wing
feminists) do not realize is that these right-wing Christian people are acting
out of immediate necessity (just like it was done long ago) and they are setting
up the SAME EXACT CONDITIONS for the SAME EXACT patriarchal theocracy.
History shows that such patriarchal theocracies were ancient and very long
standing, big, "Great Civilizations," long ago when Europe was a nothing place
with nothing there and long before Christianity existed. If you grade or rank
patriarchal practices in terms of brutality against women, sadistic or degrading
perversion, and the age of the civilization, you find that the OLDEST patriarchal
societies, India, China, and the Afro-Semitic Middle East, are the WORST patriarchies
and theocracies even though they are no longer powerful or big (or civilized
in some cases)! Next oldest are Greece and Rome. Their patriarchy and theocracy
is less, but more than in the NEWEST imperialist societies. The latest imperialists
are the English (British Empire) and Americans (New World Order); one can't
even really say Germany ever had a real imperial empire, although they tried
it a few times, Hitler being the last try. However the most primitive peoples
and the latest to get civilization are the Scandinavians and then the Slavs
(real Slavs, not Slavic-speaking Europeans). They are the LEAST patriarchal,
some groups of them are STILL MATRILINEAL and they are the most peaceful, and
what theology they have is little more than shamanism - even E. Slavic Christianity
is mother goddess worship akin to shamanism as they practice it.
I don't have to explain that the Afro-Semitic Middle East, Hindu India or China
(at least, before Mao put a forced end to it) are the most sadistic and degrading
toward women (See Marilyn French: "War Against Women" for details. And consider
and understand - when these men see what would probably make an American man
puke in disgust and flee in terror, THEY get HARD ONS!).
In post Maoist China, if a man merely talks to a woman in a grocery store,
asking her the price of an item, she is ruined, considered a whore. Don't these
people have any revolutionary rebelliousness in them to say "FUCK YOU, we guys
and gals are going to congregate?" No, it took Mao to enforce this and outlaw
male practices against women. But Mao is gone and so are the bans and no sooner
were his wife and the Communists deposed and male rule reinstated that they
called Mrs. Mao a WITCH! Small wonder so many feminists are into witchcraft!
So: women who wield power are WITCHES. They are evil, of Satan. Same old shit!
Obviously, forcing males and females to wear the same clothing didn't do anything
(no kidding) and this "outer change" amounts to people dressing up like clowns
and then imagining they'll BE funny and give birth to funny kids.
One would have to get at the INNER to cure this gender war. What do I mean
by INNER? Evolutionary biology, neurology, brain development especially inutero
and during first 7 or 8 years of life, maybe genes too. Inner: the HIDDEN stuff
that MAKES things what they are - the stuff that's not obvious immediately on
sight. Attributing this to Confucius or whoever is nonsense. WHY would they
CHOOSE Confucius and not Lao Tse? For the same reason that certain TYPES of
people would CHOOSE Protestantism over Catholicism.
In India the only time the men hold back and stop their brutality against a
whole gender is when some Western news reporter is there to watch. In the Afro-Semitic
Middle East they don't seem to give a shit who's watching when they throw acid
on women without veils or mutilate their genitals.
Are these people human beings? I could easily be persuaded to think they are
NOT human beings. I could be persuaded to treat them as if they are mad dogs
and BOMB them. In fact: I'm already persuaded. They are pretas, klippoths, bhutas,
MONSTERS, things out of control, destroyers, etc. etc. Now, I FEEL this. I feel
it first - then I think it. I feel it STRONGLY.
But in Greece and less in Italy (and Greece is older than Italy as far as civilization/culture
is concerned) there is the sexual double standard where a woman is either a
virgin or a whore. This is very Catholic. This double standard is slightly in
the Anglo-American lands, but it hardly exists in Germany and does not exist
in Scandinavia or the Slavic lands. If spreading genes around is the prime directive,
why would males "think up" such ideas and label females "bad" when they obviously
had DESIRE for them (which is supposed to be positive)? When a female gives
a male an erection, the male is supposed to LIKE the female, at least feel some
kind of positive thing toward the female: friendship, even love. These men have
sex with what they HATE? That's SICK! FINDING some possible ancestral biological
trait that is possibly "transformed" to explain this behavior is BULLSHIT -
it's teleological! Let's LOOK at other primates then. THERE IS the ancestral
behavior! Other primates are not demented!
That the sperm itself has types - some seek ova, some attack OTHER sperm!,
and some block OTHER sperm, proves that females were MEANT to be "sexually free"
(a cultural word). Well - like chimp females! Chimp females are that way due
to biology and genes - that's for sure. Humans are not pair-bonding animals.
Pair-bonding is a biological term. Monogamy is a non-scientific word.
There is inequality in equality just as there is difference within sameness
- even within the SAME "THING." Also, you can NOT take out one human trait or
behavior (even if it's BIG - a "Culture") and look at it - it's not possible
since all of life, our niches and our evolution (biological), the ancestral
urges - all of it, is INTERWOVEN into a picture: is it "normal" or not? THAT
humans DO a "human" behavior doesn't necessarily mean that it evolved AND that
it IS ALSO determined by HUMAN biology. Parasites can make animals alter their
thinking and behavior and do things that are entirely UNnatural! (Discovery
August, 2000 "Do parasites rule the world?" and Science News, August 12, 2000,
p 109 "Parasite deludes rats into liking cats." "Wasp redesigns web of doomed
spider")
Sometimes, people's biology gets WARPED AND BENT! The instinct to hunt animals
becomes the behavior of hunting humans for slaves. Kin bonds in tribes becomes
xenophobia and demonization of "all others" with attendant genocide. The Aryan
Nation perceived the Jewish segment of the Semite Nation as a demonic evil:
that wasn't rational! That was LUNACY, yet a whole technological nation of civilized
people believed it (see Goldhagan, "Hitler's Willing Executioners" for proof.)
Environment, which is the ecological NICHE an animal (human) is in, plus genetic
heritage (Primate in our case) is CO-evolved. All this involves a two-way (dialectical)
interchange/interaction in specific ways. But something went WRONG! OBVIOUSLY
so. Or else we are a species biologically determined to go extinct!? What you
see today are broken people, and heaps of broken people make a broken society,
a broken nation. Observing the abnormal and finding a correlation with NORMAL
ancestral urges, and then saying "it's all OK" is a teleological error and a
pretty pathetic excuse.
Someone needs to take biological evolution, merge that with neurology (see
Antonio Damasio especially: "Descartes' Error"), merge that with neurovirology
and parasitology and then merge that with the PUBLIC HEALTH DISASTER that agricultural
living brought on, the WORK people had to endure, the overpopulation way out
of balance with resources, and come to the RIGHT conclusion: that the dogmatic
types of woman hating patriarchy and religion we have had since then is NOT
a normal thing at all. We are hunter gatherers at base: what do we hunt and
gather now? Someone needs to understand what some "esoteric" doctrines have
been saying - which is SPELLED OUT in Wilhelm Reich's works - and merge that
with Antonio Damasio's work. It seems that E. O. Wilson, an expert entomologist,
is suggesting this too. He has done a lot of it already or at least hinted at
some of it in a book "Consilience" - BUT - he has failed to mention the public
health disaster brought on by agrarian life - there is FORENSIC PROOF of that
statement; he has failed to reason what humans would BECOME and what they'd
"think up" when they felt pain all day long from back breaking agrarian work,
when their lives became constant drudgery; or what some of those people would
do to GET OUT OF the drudgery - at the expense of all others of course! He has
failed to reason PENT UP instinct, upbringing designed to bury instinct and
condition the child to IGNORE the 5 senses, sensual impacts, somatic markers.
He has failed to conclude that such a human is NOT CAPABLE of logic - but neurologists
could explain it - Damasio has explained it: they are anosognosic - alexithymic.
He has failed to factor in the fact that we are DOOMING ourselves and there
is NOTHING "animal" about this - nothing "normal" about it - it's insane. Humans
are SUPPOSED TO have logic and the ability to STOP DOING such things to themselves
and each other: do they have logic? Can they stop? I think NOT.) Perhaps one
should look into something other than humans: WHAT BENEFITS in the animal world
from the actions of humans destroying a human habitat? Let us look THERE for
the answer.
Also, one has to fully understand that animism and shamanism are NOTHING LIKE
monotheism, and monotheism is NOT some mental advancement at all. It is either
the con job work of ruthless rulers, or heaps of morons believing in the delusional
ravings of schizophrenics or humans with a viral infection of the brain (such
as Borna). In this, Richard Dawkins is 100% right when he says: religion is
a DISEASE. But he is 100% wrong on selfish genes, for if genes were as he said,
we'd be walking tumors: oncogenes are the ONLY genes that behave as he claims.
Animism is NOT religion, not at all. Animism is a wrong explanation of why things
in nature work - or it's right but Westerners can't understand what's being
said. After all, Australian Aborigines can MAKE boomerangs and hit moving targets
with them. They never studied Newton. Why do THEY say the weapon works that
way; what made THEM "think of" making it in that particular shape? Who can understand
their words? FACT: they make them and use them! It took an aerodynamics expert
to figure out HOW these boomerangs worked! Are the Aborigines aerodynamics experts?
NO? They make boomerangs and use them! Knowing what Newton knew, could Newton
use one as efficiently? There is knowing with the head and then there is KNOWING
with the body. Without the direct input of healthy somatic markers that have
been allowed to grow and develop, guided by the instinct, there is NO logic
possible! That is a fact Damasio proved. (It's a fact some of us KNEW by mere
observation of the FRUITS of actions).
Imperialism and its attendant colonialism is new to the Europeans. Egyptians
did it long ago, they colonized people. So did the Romans. So did the Chinese.
They all had slavery, too, nothing has changed. But in the West there have been
violent revolutions: American, French, Bolshevik (Russian, Communist). China
had revolutions when bands of Turanians (Ural-Altaic, North and Central Asian
peoples) had enough of Chinese colonialization and went into China and kicked
their royal butts - and then took them over. So there was a big change in China
for a very short while until it reverted back; as it has done post- Mao. Similar
incursions of Turanians into Mid-East Semite lands resulted in the same things
with some BIG civilizations resulting from it and mass migrations of people
INTO Europe resulting from it. Incursions of barbarian Germanic tribes, allied
with Turanian Huns, into Rome caused chaos, but the Holy Roman Empire (The First
Reich in Germany) came from these actions.
It doesn't matter what items get produced or mass produced. That's not the
issue except in terms of labor, capital, slave-wages, etc. It's also an issue
that now the First World exploits the hell out of the Third World - but it used
to be the other way around with the peoples of the Third World having the power
when the peoples of the First World mere barbarian savages, primitive as ever.
(How did the Anglos get to England? The Huns came and pushed populations West
and these peoples bumped into the Anglos who also got pushed. Why did the Anglos
come to America? Because Tamerlane cut the East-West trade route and the East,
at the time, was BIG CIVILIZATION while Europe was a cess pool.) So the Crown
of Imperialism has changed many hands in history: now the Anglo Americans have
it, they have it ALL and they are having a party at the expense of the Third
World which they exploit to have their party. But things are NOT O.K. There
is trouble in the Realm. But it's the same old trouble: are humans incapable
of learning from history?
The Empire (I mean the U.S.A.) is in BIG trouble with warring nations inside
of it (ethnic groups, including gays since they seem like a big ethnic group).
There has to be a way to fix this. What the right-wing Republicans want to do
sounds VERY GOOD, even to some hard-line Reds. ISOLATION - IGNORE the world,
PULL OUT of the world - USA FOR USA. US FIRST. Like: SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY?
Oh, they can call it capitalism but Roosevelt, whom everyone loved and who was
elected 4 terms in a row, put into policy 8 of Marx's points and called it "The
New Deal." Also if the rulers in the USA continue to overwork and underpay their
own workers, or trash them out of jobs, and erode the New Deal benefits, there
is only so long that the masses of Americans will stand for it! So, if the Christians
took over, there'd have to be a kind of socialism mixed with some capitalism,
probably not mega-mega-profit capitalism, with Christian values stuck in it.
Christian values can go both ways: warlike fascism or peaceful communalism.
They might not go for the New Deal or any of that "Leftist" stuff because the
social programs were abused, predominantly by a very noticeably different ethnic
group/race. In this case corporations will rule and they WILL NOT CARE which
nation they get workers from - the cheaper the better. The profits will continue
to be made, for real, by the toiling hands that slave away while the owners
of these corporations will move the goods around: provided anyone can afford
to buy them! Do they ever learn? Everyone praises human intelligence. I ask:
where is it? SHOW ME REAL intelligence - with FORESIGHT. Hindsight is too late,
buster!
But still, this is how the Third World BECAME the Third World: through imperial
empires that became simultaneously more patriarchal and theocratic, with a closed-unit
kind of theocratic self-help rule, at first with an army (male warriors) to
defend the realm. Women have the RIGHT to vote. Who gave them the right? MEN!
Armed men could just as easily take the rights away and they ARE bigger and
stronger than women. The most brutal of them would end up being in power because
what they want to do, aside from "to hell with the world, USA FOR USA, isolation"
is GET RID of gays, blacks, and others they regard as a parasitic danger to
their safety or way of life, to their QUALITY of life (which they want to keep
high)! This is no news; they are open about the gay issue and not all that secretive
on the blacks; just read their "Bell Curve" book or Michael Levin to see. So,
the type of man who could wipe people out or enslave/imprison them would be
in power, be in their army, but who'd put them in power and want them there
to keep them safe? THE WOMEN!! And it's a checkmate situation here. Blacks can
protest this idea because what I'm saying has been VOICED lately in "respectable
Republican-type" books! Gays can protest it, too. The checkmate is that the
more they protest, and with big shows of numbers, the more of a THREAT they
appear to be, as seen by these right-wing Republicans whose numbers are growing
bigger every single day. All the paper wasted on the IQ issue, notice it? Who
cares what a person's IQ is - is the person a good citizen, nice person and
good at SOME job? If all stupid people are prone to criminality, why are there
no Down's syndromes in the jails? Jeffrey Dahmer was smart, not a moron. He
was a criminal. Smart criminals are smart enough not to get caught, or they
are very hard to catch! All this paper wasted is nothing but a preparatory justification
for what AGENDA someone plans to implement! (Warning: do you smell gas?)
Why would such methods sound good to a Red? Well, what would STALIN or MAO
do to, example: blacks having a riot and tearing up a city, ruining property
that was built FOR them by taxpayer's money, ruining a neighborhood forcing
everyone non-black to flee out of there and then struggle to make a life all
over again, in some other niche, or making public school a hell hole? What would
Stalin or Mao do to gays going to bath-houses and spreading deadly diseases
around? What would Stalin or Mao do to solve the drug problem that's poisoning
our youth who, in turn, grow up to commit crimes and destroy neighborhoods (ecological
niches of a type) and then get jailed where "we have to PAY for the upkeep."??
I KNOW what they'd do. SOLVE IT. CLEAN HOUSE! Who is paying for the upkeep of
all those babies born with crack brain damage? Surely, not THEIR FATHERS and
not THEIR MOTHERS either. Well: I don't want to be their GUARDIAN, I don't want
to be a collective guardian of such babies who will grow up to be WHAT? (I don't
like cuckoo birds... give that some thought as analogy.) I don't mind being
part of a collective guardianship of all babies whose parents are also WORKING
PEOPLE and who also pay into the tax-base for social programs we can ALL use,
for children, for the elderly, for health care etc. But I EMPHATICALLY DO NOT
want to let people literally eat the food out of my refrigerator or take the
medicine from me when I'm sick when the ONLY THING they give me back in return
is TROUBLE, when the ONLY thing they give back to tax-paying society that builds
houses for them is destroyed houses and ruined neighborhoods. I would be willing
to JOIN ANY group and have a revolution, genocidal if necessary, over this issue!
Now: that's not hunter or gatherer. That's just refusing to be PREY! PREYED
UPON. Not only preyed upon, but PAYING to be preyed upon! I refuse to have vampires
drink my blood and then say "thank you" to them. Or pay for baby vampires to
grow up strong so that they can drink MORE of my blood. Think about that analogy.
It is true that these people ancestors were once preyed upon in the past and
feel rage over it: GET OVER IT.
But all of this, to really understand it without blaming this or that group,
takes long thinking and understanding of a large and conflicting group of conditions
and a multifaceted situation; it takes a LOT to figure out how the place GOT
so messed up starting from scratch and not just from the industrial revolution
onwards. And solving it would take a lot of thinking too, a lot of really exact
"hard" science. Theories aren't going to solve it nor are political ideas which
merely predict or legislate behavior. Take away the laws and cops and the situation
starts up all over again. I don't think that our ancestors, prior to agriculture,
had cops or jails. They had behaviors or, to be exact: WORKABLE social strategies.
Right-wing republican methods, like similar methods used long ago by others,
are simple but IMMEDIATE solutions to problems they see and FEEL plaguing them
RIGHT NOW; the problem is that they utterly lack foresight, they ARE simpleton.
They want simple jobs, example. They manage to see foreign speaking people taking
the jobs. They don't care if Big Companies brings them here as slave-wage workers;
that's too abstract and they can't see an immediate way to stop Big Companies
from doing this especially if these American companies aren't IN the USA. They
see these people, and these people WILL NOT learn English and more, they are
making demands these days about language. This makes the right-wing Republicans
grow in numbers daily and it also ticks off other ethnics who DID learn English.
This is what they see and, more immediate and importantly, what they FEEL: "He
takes the jobs from me and also wants me to speak his language?" They see crime,
black inner cities, their solution is to build more jails and lock them up -
throw out the key. What happens when taxpaying workers don't want to pay for
prison inmate upkeep anymore? The prisoners will find Big Companies building
plants near the jails - where they'll "work" for their upkeep. That's slavery
all over again.
On the other hand, some other more permanent solution will be arrived at which
eliminates the criminals altogether and "solves the overpopulation problem"
at the same time. It would be presented as "moral" to the American dupes. Genocide.
Oh horrors! Oh shock! HA! Do you know how EASY it is to GET humans to go and
do such a thing? We already have, hard-wired into our GENES, the tribal instinct
- and it IS an instinct! The only thing stopping it is some moral injunction
that halts what people feel, the "civilized veneer" that can vanish in a second
- just let the going get REALLY tough and see. This bracing and pausing to "feel
guilty about such thoughts" - pents people up if conditions in society exist
that stress people out. Eventually, pent-up dams break. If you don't believe
this, then you are a pipe-dreaming, wishful thinker living in fantasyland, who
knows NOTHING of human nature (or HISTORY).
What one must grasp is this: MOST human beings can't think and/or will not
bother to think when their emotions get in a boil against an IMMEDIATE THING
that they can concretely see; especially if the flames are fanned. They can
SEE, example, the Hispanic speaking newcomer, legal or illegal, on a job, crossing
a border, etc. They can not easily see the Company. Most folks are DUMB. But
then humans were evolved to respond to a situation of threat IMMEDIATELY and
history shows they do it in a predictable way: they get the strongest men to
be their warriors, they get the warriors to hunt and kill or exile "the others"
and then they END UP with a patriarchy with repressive penis-laws and anti-female
theocracies to back up the men. If this happened in the USA, the USA would be
on the sure road to being just one more Third World country. After all, those
male warriors "fought and died" FOR the women and their children. That's how
the men SEE this.
Well, maybe there wouldn't be anything so wrong about all this if it weren't
for the fact that most of these men are BROKEN beings, they are twisted and
sexually sick; they don't have animal-power of the kind that would make women
tend to CHOOSE MATES along more carnal/animal lines as Wilhelm Reich and many
others suggested, as we suggest and even as honest sexology studies show. I.e.,:
"if he can't fuck, if there's no pleasure, then DUMP him." What if 99% of the
men "can't fuck?" Well then the white Christian Western women will be back to
the days when they had to be married, had to open their legs on demand and had
to put up with this without having any pleasure of their own: which is why they
are so neurotic today and don't even KNOW how to find a mate that can get them
off (except those few who DO find one and then abandon husband and kids to BE
with that man - it's common!). But then, this would still be just more Third
World without the physical torture or mutilation, at least NOT YET. Two very
important words: NOT YET. So goes gender war.
Another real problem is that this "mess" goes on BECAUSE the modern First World
has been exploiting the hell out of that modern Third World! But people tend
to get selective amnesia about such technicalities. They tune that statement
out and override it with their "might makes right" rhetoric as if this will
make the "mess" go way. They are also unable to see that these now large groups
of dissatisfied ethnics, having BEEN exploited, ARE BECOMING a might. Some of
their Third World countries even have nuclear bombs now. Doesn't their might
make right too? Result: WAR WAR WAR, more war. Predictable.
Solution? Some new way has to be found, some NEW MEANS OF PRODUCTION of FOOD
(since a food issue is what caused the snowballing of this mess 10,000 years
ago), has to be invented or discovered to STOP that snowball once and for all.
We have to find new energy sources because fossil fuels won't last forever and
nuclear energy is a non-feasible method. We have to do a LOT and FAST because
right now two people work in a family and it's never enough, they're always
in debt. Cars are polluters and money eaters. More fossil fuel crap. Ecological
issues, you know the story... Some alternate form of fuel and MASSIVE public
transit would do, but we can't have the public transportation end up being dangerous
to ride on. That has to stop, one way or the other some one is going to come
to power to MAKE it stop. Right now, the only ones out to do this are the right-wing
Christians. Also, J. Sakai, author of "Settlers, Myth of the White Proletariat,"
pointed out how the left-wing and Communist Parties in the USA have gotten workers
rights and all that good stuff, but ended up being First World Parties not exactly
out to help the Hispanic non-English speakers or Chinese coolies, or the blacks
who were also HERE and working HERE. Right now we need labor unions and we need
to stop those companies from moving out of here and from hiring slave-wage foreign
labor which exploits the Third World AND messes us up here. But how? More and
more, battle lines are being drawn; you'd have to be BLIND not to know this.
And there is overpopulation - too many people are even denying this!
Some think violent armed revolution is the answer either like the American
one or the Bolshevik (Russian) one, but we already tried that and it failed.
Also the CIA wrecked every single non-capitalist government that got legally
VOTED in, such as Allende's in Chile. Of course, no one knows the CIA is doing
this at the time; they know it on hindsight after the CIA members admit it on
documentaries or evidence comes forth. Whenever someone, anyone, comes forth
with some GOOD idea for freedom and prosperity, the nay-sayers manage to mess
it up, obstruct it, sabotage it or corporations buy it out and bury it. WHY?
I think they do it because they are schizoid, alexithymic, unable to REASON.
Perhaps the answer is that they LOVE STRIFE and hate the world and their own
inner beings so much that strife feels better to them than peace and quiet.
It's hard to fathom this. Big Capital, oil companies and such aren't going to
do anything to allow us to STOP using fossil fuel and perhaps try fuel-cell
technology (non combustion engines, non polluting - fuel is hydrogen) - Big
Capital might try to stop it from being done. But it HAS TO BE done. And it
WILL BE done and not too far off - humans will have NO choice in this. (Update
BALLARD FUEL CELL: IT IS HERE! WE HAVE the technology NOW, FDA approved! CHECK
THIS OUT!)
Wouldn't it be nice if the Earth had Gene Roddenberry's dream of a Star Trek
society as he conceived of the Earth, people living on the Earth, in that time
period? Wouldn't it be nice (to break this down to the naked reality), if humans
eating and overpopulating out of balance and shitting didn't cause such strife
and trouble? Yes it would; but society as it is now would have to be turned
back RIGHT-SIDE UP; the "house" has been upside-down for far too long.
Gender conflicts can not be solved, or even objectively looked at, WITHIN patriarchy.
Certainly, using the teleological argument to explain "that our noses are the
way they are so that we can hold eye-glasses up" is rubbish. By the same token,
the "means of food production" cannot be looked at within a world subsistent,
for the most part, on agriculture. Communal Nomadic populations are very SPARSELY
populated and they NEVER overpopulate! They remain in balance. When an animal
(say, agrarian man) eats up his own habitat and ends up with ruined land and
TEN TIMES the numbers of people, he has to migrate and take over another, bigger
habitat. That is how, by the way, those still-nomadic ice-dwellers got to where
they are now: PUSHED OUT by agrarians long ago. (See: Cavalli-Sforza "The Great
Human Diasporas") Example: China is agrarian and has been for centuries now,
their patriarchal imperialism is stamped in tight now. What if they DID NOT
control birth by putting restrictions on it? They'd soon overpopulate the whole
planet. Well, the numbers of hungry mouths are growing and the amount of land
available is decreased: agriculture is in its end game (Cf. Smithsonian information
by Robert McC Adams). The problems ahead of us are SO BIG that even the best
analysts tend to "fuzz out" over it save to say they think the human species
is finished. And sure, there are the "immediate solutions" to the problems that
sound like the "final solution" of the Nazis: just wipe out a few billion people
and end their starvation! Then there will be LOTS of land and fossil fuel to
last "the survivors" a bit longer - a BIT longer. It WILL run out! And while
this is not a solution in the long term: IT IS A SOLUTION FOR THE SHORT TERM
- and consider that the most powerful countries surely have figured that out!
Experiments need to be done with balance in ecological niches in terms of population
numbers. Does something happen to animals (humans) when the population is too
high? Something "hidden" - maybe pheromonal? That would change their behavior
in a very direct way. Do they get crazy?
The problems of class and labor can be solved easily enough: pay everyone the
same wage across the board. Socialism would solve the problems of "services
for the people" but we'd have to find a "closed system" method of doing socialism
or it WILL NOT last. Everyone pooling into it would have to benefit from it
- and NO ONE ELSE. We'd have to either have nation isolationism or the whole
planet (which would be ideal!) would have to be involved in this. Right now,
we are nowhere near that dream. We have not even overcome war. Globalization
is going to spread and FORCE capitalism, the brutal kind, on everyone: dog eat
dog; don't cooperate; step on anyone to get ahead; trust no one; feel nothing
when you see the freezing and starving, even babies: that's a definition of
HELL! We'd have to find a way to keep the system in balance: we can't keep MAKING
hungry mouths and expanding when the land is finite and subject to ruination
so that there is LESS land to work with. That "people expansion, land erosion
and lessening" started with agriculture 10,000 years ago. Even the method of
animal husbandry in agrarian society is a land-gobbler. It's fine if you can
move to another habitat, but there is nowhere to go anymore - humans have eaten
up the whole planet and are now entering into DANGEROUS territory: the rain
forests. The problems are mind-boggling. Capitalist imperialists are SO STUPID
that they fight a war over who controls the oil but they don't lift a finger
against those destroying our future air supply! Many humans would survive without
electricity and other oil-petroleum-based life-supports and technology, but
we will ALL perish without air. The CPUSA has a good Environmental plan but
we would have to put people BEFORE profits. The problem is not for those that
would benefit from this: the problem is for those that would LOSE something
they have right now. No one is going to do that if they WOULD have to live in
hardship when they don't have TOO MUCH hardship NOW. Something is always better
than nothing! MORE is always better than LESS. No one will do it, if they have
SOME THING to lose.
Fuzz over that. No one REALLY hears it enough to DO something about it. In
one ear, out the other - go eat some dinner, go watch TV, go take a shit. Go
to sleep and forget you read this and the heaps of other similar warnings. This
is not an insult. This is exactly what people do when they have to WORRY about
next month's rent. And if they are no longer worrying about the rent they will
surely never do something that makes them have to worry about it! And what do
I do about this situation? I write this article. I go to work by driving a car,
I watch TV, and so forth. Nothing. Such is life: FOR NOW.
Copyright 1995-2003 Tani Jantsang Visit: Satanic Reds
|
