Posted by Elizabeth from Toronto-HSE-ppp3669028.sympatico.ca (65.95.178.35) on Monday, October 28, 2002 at 0:33AM :
Tree of Destruction - A synthetic analysis of human societal problems since the agrarian age.
by Nakived, 1996-2000
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 (http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/ophion.shtml) and Cruxtoid and the Brain Damaged (http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/cruxtoid.shtml) 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:
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:
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 call
[snip - maximum size exceeded]
-- Elizabeth
-- signature .