For instance, Quantum theory predicts that a particle (such as a photon or neutron) can be physically separated from one of its properties, like its polarisation or its magnetic moment (i.e. the strength of its coupling to an external magnetic field). During this experiment, a neutron beam was passed through a silicon crystal, sending it down two different paths. By applying filters and a technique known as “post-selection”, it detected the physical separation of the neutrons from their magnetic moment, measured by the direction of their spin. In addition, to prove that the Cheshire Cat is not just a cute theory, the researchers involved used an experimental set-up known as an interferometer at the Institute Laue-Langevin (ILL) in Grenoble, France.
Composed in 2006
In loving memory of Walter G. Sulser
Back, when the world was big,
He lifted me up high, so I could see the hills.
Back, when he sat at the edge of my bed,
…When I had dreamt badly.
Yes, back then the world was big.
Back, when he talked me out, what she forbade me.
Back, when the night became day,
We believed, that it would never end.
Early in the morning they were just gone,
My sweaty clothes I stripped off.
It was still dark, when I got on the bus.
I was breathing hardly… Still.
After this, the world wasn’t the same,
Everything changed, though I stayed the same.
Every night I waited for the garage-door to creak,
I waited for him to sit on my bed and say goodnight one last night.
Back, when the world was big,
Every country seemed exciting.
Back then, somebody hid behind every door,
…Someone who knew the way to go.
Every time, when I think of it…
Of how much I miss him…
Another hour begins.
But she doesn’t understand it…
And never will…
When the world was little,
I lost the man,
Who lifted me up high,
When it was big.
What is life and who has the right to judge what should or shouldn’t be? Who has control over what can and can’t be? We may think the miracle of life as something sacred that must only be prevented in the case of physical harm to the mother or forced conception. We might occasionally imagine how precious moments of togetherness could foster a lasting bond...But there is a clear line when fantasy meets reality, which is birth…
We can ponder what could be until the rest of eternity, however, we cannot escape the consequences of our actions once we reach a certain point. The further along we are, the more our options are limited until only two remain. Up to the 8th week, chemical abortion through a small pill is offered at free clinics. Although there is mild discomfort and some bleeding, the procedure is considered to be physically harmless. Up to the 10th week, surgical removal of the foetus is permitted by scooping it out. Outside of Europe, there are often alternatives further along in the pregnancy. Personally, I would be uncomfortable exploring any option above the pill, unless I truly wanted to get “that thing” out of me. However, dependent on the circumstances, pregnancy can alter our perception not merely through sentimentality or hormones…Every woman must make her own decision. One that is right for her and her alone. Nobody else. Whether others approve of her decision should be irrelevant, as it is her body. If her personal philosophy cannot reconcile with the idea and move forward, then what is she to do? This is a decision many women face, who still believe in the importance of upholding their values…due to what most call a lapse of judgement… As a teenager, in my opinion, to make the choice is less complicated. With so much life unlived, we ought to not burden ourselves before collecting experiences. Yet, once we are close to thirty, we begin to wonder…when could we be in a bearable position financially? How old do we want to be when our kids leave home? Our answers are nothing compared to the real thing. When opportunity knocks, everything changes. If we are barely getting by, but can’t take the leap, then would choose would destroy herself…by the going against every inch of her faith or by the burden of becoming a single mother…either choice would destroy something within…by going against every inch of ourselves or by the burden of becoming a single mother… When we struggle for whatever reason before the pregnancy, our hardship won’t lessen. People around us will not ease off on their stressful interactions with us at appropriate as well as inappropriate times. In fact, they will persist further. When the odds are morally debatable, then others may act in ways toward the pregnant woman that are unethical, abusive or even life-threatening. She must accept the responsibility to protect her offspring, if she wishes to keep it. Sadly, nothing is guaranteed. We cannot shield ourselves or others, just from the consequences of our own choices after we have decided. Once we make either choice, we must commit completely and never waiver. After all, we are playing with death in the attempt to control life…for comfort ot even for all the right reasons, but always at a steep cost.
We must never give up believing in the potential for nurture to bring out the best in someone brought up in the most unfavourable circumstances. It can be the cliché of the only good thing to come out of a situation, but we must bear it mind, it might not be… It could be the catalyst for something else entirely…
Ultimately, our choice is all about what we can live with. What we desired before we conceived may not be what we want now. What we clung to in order to keep us going might no longer get us through this. Both decisions can be a sign of strength, when we are in full pursuit of our heart. When we “deal with” an unwanted or wanted pregnancy and move forward without psychological fallout, then we have coped in a way that was right for us. Conversely, when we choose to carry to term, because we simply cannot terminate for whatever reason, we are equally doing right by us. In truth, there is no right or wrong, when it comes to abortion. As long as we make a decision, we can commit to in the long run, we have chosen correctly. The worst thing we can do is allow ourselves to be pressured into something that we aren’t ready for. Under no circumstances, should we tolerate threats for how we deal with the situation or our final choice. These are merely means to coerce us into solving a perceived problem, which impacts you more than them, in a certain way that suits them…However, due to their egotistical nature, they could fail to acknowledge how the decision-making process weighs on you or how the added stress can prevent you from forming a conclusion with a clear head.
Click Here For More
Written in 2007
Hope is a belief in a positive outcome
Related to events and circumstances…
Hope implies we believe enough
To expect we may get our way.
The definition of dreams
Is to hope and imagine something
That might not come true
Maybe never, but we still visualize it.
The word home means so much more,
Than just a roof over our heads,
It’s a safe place, we can return to,
No matter what…
How do we define ourselves?
Our dreams or actions?
Through our home, our world?
Through all that we love…
The definition of time is fluid,
As everything changes,
Even if we stand still…
It ticks so fast and then so slow…
Rationality describes the explainable
But only superficially…
It demands all should make sense,
Even when mostly nothing does.
The term truth outlasts our opinions,
Transcending the relative…
From probability to formless potential, It proves everything and nothing.
Someday truth might bring us together,
Perhaps when the time is right,
Dreams may become reality
Just as we cannot stop time from flowing, we can’t halt the illusory cycle of the creation and destruction of matter.
What does it mean to be capable…to have our lives under control? When our lives are so disordered that seemingly unpredictable chaos engulfs our every waking moment, what shall we do? When our whole life falls apart while we are able to do nothing but watch, how can we persevere?
In those tiny moments of utter decimation, our identity crumbles and all conditional factors must give way for a new identity to form from the ashes of our former self. In many ways, thi)s is an inevitable part of the process of self-realisation as a cosmic whole. It cannot be halted under any circumstances. Ultimately, there’s nothing we can do to stop that which we can’t change. We may postpone it at great cost for a little while, but it’ll catch up with us sooner or later.
Working a soul-deadening 9/5 job to pay for a penny-pinching life is a waste of our potential as a human beings. When our parents worked menial jobs to provide us with a better future, they did not anticipate how many of us would be forced to do the same for our children…even though they received more extensive education than them… Most are caught in a repetitive cycle of living hand to mouth without an annual vacation abroad due to our global environment. However, we remain stuck as a byproduct of our own tendencies to wish for change, but never exert the will to strive for it.
In truth, we are capable of just about anything, but we choose to believe differently. A part of us may even relish feeling powerless, instead of bearing the responsibility of constant vigilance. To be a perfect example of an enlightened being is hard fucking work. At times, it is be compassionate. On occasion, it requires us to be assertive in our demeanour when we convey experiential knowledge. Yet, more often than not, it means to protect others as well as ourselves from the thrall of the ego…
When there is so much corruption, poverty and death in the world, it becomes second nature to solely think of oneself. As a form of defence mechanism, it is easier to do less than we should, even if we care deeply. The less we invest in others, the less we feel we have to lose… We are at war with ourselves, each other and the world. However, the stale heat of a drawn out battle clouds the judgement of any seasoned warrior, so our alliances are often temporary and our enemies ever-changing…There can be no end to such a fight. The longer any war continues, the more permanently we leave our former self behind the lines.
What is Indoctrination?
The term indoctrination is formed as though it stems from Latin, however, the word “endoctrinare” or similar does not exist in the language. Originally, indoct meant ‘to instruct’ and ‘to imbue with an idea or opinion’. In fact, 99% of teachings condition the mind to operate in a very particular manner. Conversely, the remaining 1% aim to expand the mind to the point, where it can no longer be conditioned.
If we assume that indoctrination implies a person is implanting certain types of beliefs by non-rational or illegitimate methods, we are probably correct…though we prematurely assume a sinisister purpose due to our own suspicious personality. Moreover, in making such an assumption, we intend to criticise the practice through the word ‘illegitimate’, as though we demonized all indoctrination in our lives.
Not all indoctrination is society frowned upon. For example, suppose that it is sometimes right to make children believe in certain myths in order to give them more security and to fulfil the ultimate objective of bringing them up to be free and independent adults. If this were the case, we might persuade a child to believe that ‘Daddy will protect you’, ‘Mummy will always be there’ or ‘Jesus will stop anything nasty from happening’… Suppose even that if we do not give the child any real evidence for these beliefs, just encourage their wishful thinking, it would make them feel temporarily safer…but at what cost? Sooner or later, the blinders will fall from their eyes unprepared for the pain, they’re about to experience.
As adults, we frequently make ourselves believe what we know in our hearts to be wrong. We live in state of voluntary cognitive dissonance, maintaining conflicting beliefs on different levels of consciousness. For some, it is as obvious as drinking, smoking or cursing too much. For others, it’s perceptible only as an inner restlessness that is barely recognisable from the surface. As hard as it may be to believe, we wage a constant war with ourselves, each other and the world in order to attain a state of peace…Nonetheless, the battle never ends. For every thought, which proves outdated, a new one arises. With each belief that perishes, another one takes it place. More importantly, for every problem we solve, more emerge.
Now, suppose we believe something for very misleading reasons. For instance, we ought to commit targeted violence to prompt the specific change for the greater good.
Every society is built on it’s own kind of indoctrination, so we instinctively know from childhood onwards, what views are tolerated inside our community. As a rule, there will always be a percentage that opposes the opinions of the mainstream. Often, instead of embracing a different perspective to build a higher communal unity, we inspire guilt, remorse or worse by judging them.
In the case of serious mistakes, this serves a vital purpose of provoking solemn introspection in the offender, even if our methods aren’t ideally rational. After all, is it indoctrination to aim someone in the direction of rationality in their actions? Child or adult alike?
The important point here, in my personal opinion, is not so much whether we call something ‘indoctrination’ or not, but whether a particular process increases or diminishes our capacity to reason. We believe the indoctrinated to stand on street corners speaking about the gods in rainbows while requesting us to join them with our credit card information. Life is rarely as blatant. There are too many good phenomenological accounts of indoctrination, involving rational or sane thinking in general as opposed to rationalized or compulsive thinking.
One reason why the line between indoctrination and other kinds of compulsive thinking is so hard to demarcate is that there are all sorts of ways in which we can compulsively direct our or another person’s thinking. Still, the inculcation of feeling and of beliefs is conditioning.
What are we to say, for instance, of the sets of verbal descriptions which we use and the built-in implications of value that parts of our language inevitably contain? Imagine how we as a society describe certain behaviour as ‘inappropriate’, ‘uncivilized’, or ‘inhumane’. We discourage sets of behaviour in order to prompt us to act in a socially correct fashion. In the end, it is we, or our environment, who teaches us to see things in a certain way via the descriptions and language we are offered. Is this indoctrination or not? Whatever the linguistic issue of indoctrination, it should be noted that the substantive question has partly to be settled, in any particular case, by empirical psychology, if there could be such a thing. For anything to be objectively observed, it must exist separate from the mind…yet as nothing is devoid of consciousness, the act of observation alters the outcome of anything we attempt to observe empirically. In the words of John Wilson, author of the Introduction to Moral Education, the question is “Does this way of seeing things, this sort of language, increase or diminish our rationality, in the sense of our appreciation of reality?”
Is All Indoctrination Wrong?
From a scientific stance, we have no clear concept of indoctrination as a part of our moral education. We may have enough common sense to rely on our conscience, but we lack a scientific framework that exceeds conservative, privately funded think tanks.
As Zuckerberg said to Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, lying is bad…and to police lying is an enormous undertaking of Orwellian proportions. More importantly, we cannot force the unadulterated truth on people, who have no desire for it. Although even white lies are a mere waste of breath, when a little compassion will do. Still, to live in such a world, we must open our minds to the one we currently inhabit as well as our fellow people.
The word ‘indoctrination’ is thrown around a lot these days. Less than the word Nazi but still…It carries with it pejorative implications, since we shall probably think that diminishing our rationale is for the most part to be deplored.
Furthermore, if we force or condition anyone child, by giving them feelings of guilt, for example, at least we have not tampered with their intelligence. They is still able to say ‘Well, I’ve got to perform Acion X’ and add ‘but I think it’s silly, and when I can, I shan’t do it anymore’. But if we deliberately indoctrinate somebody, knowing what we are doing, we are pretending that certain reasons, which are in fact bad reasons, are good ones which another ought to accept. Even if we indoctrinate without meaning to by following our own conditioning, (which happens on a daily basis), we remain morally responsible for how we influence as a consequence.
We do not merely influence others by our views, but also ourselves. Opinions cannot exist independently from us. We give them the power, they hold over our emotions as well as state of mind. Such as when we are unable to confront dark truths, when we know we are being lied to by those we love. So, we perpetuate the lie in a brilliant display of self-deception, while full well sensing the complete extent underneath.
Some things are not supposed to be shared. Sometimes, the content of our minds is better left unsaid, regardless of the aftermath. Eventually after not saying what we think for long enough, it becomes éphémère. A shadow of it’s own self, alive for only a split second in time, until it faces the inevitable…
When we harbour questions to which we do not have answers, what are we to do? We can ask, but it doubtful, we will be told the truth. We can investigate, however, it’d be unforgivable to be discovered, digging through someone elses life. So, we must carefully weigh our options. That’s life for us as a society now. We can never truly be ourselves with anyone. We can never speak about what we actually think in fear that others may be hurt or disapprove of our daring to ask.
There’s corpses in our closet and they’ll invariable come tumbling out. Why should it be any different for anyone else? We all have secrets. We all hide things from others in fear of rejection.
At times, I think we are conditioned to never question for a reason, but once we start we can’t turn it off. We lose the ability to trust or believe in the good-hearted qualities of people. Once you’re alone long enough…Once you’ve been hurt deeply enough…that part of you just plays dead. Although it feels like a form of physical death with all the pain and writhing, it simply lays dormant afterwards. In a way, it waits to be reawakened, to be reborn in another form of itself. Perhaps in this life, perhaps in the next…But the flame that is reignited is just a means to an end: the realisation of cosmic unity.
When we toss and turn, attempting not to ask those pesky questions, which won’t let go…If we cannot trust enough to ask, what will become of us? How can we live our lives, not looking for worthwhile answers to the questions that plague us? How can we be at peace with that? After all, what we have to lose is something fleeting, should we have the courage to dare question anything…After everything, it is in destroying our hopes, dreams and illusions that we grow into responsible adults, or so it seems…
Who we are goes so much deeper than the eye can see, but we are distracted by instant gratification to even notice the more long-term consequences of our actions. We are who we choose to be right now, despite our darker mistakes in the past. If anyone can find redemption, why not us? We simply need to act accordingly. We need to be deserving of truth in order to attain it, which means to assess how much we wish to sacrifice to obtain it. For what its worth, I’ve broken more times than I can count, but it has never been without purpose. Truth hurts. This is no excuse to detach ourselves from the simple pleasure of human connection. To shut ourselves away from the world in more ways than necessary. We must try, even if we know we might fail. We must persevere in the face of adversity, because we define who we are.
We are who we choose to be in the here and now in those small, defining moments, which shape everything about out personality.
It is up to us as a whole to make our miracle happen.
It is through the small things that other perceive us. More importantly, when we seek redemption, to perceive us differently. However, if we don’t mean it, we won’t be able to maintain a caring or even loving attitude. In fact, suppressing emotion generally causes us to spiral, so when we cannot get the answers we want, we channel our energies differently. Though we know, we can’t find closure this way. We procrastinate, subconsciously waiting for the opportunity…for absolute truth to surface in a relative universe.
“This earth is the effect of all beings, and all beings are the effect of this earth.”
Every day, I kneel down in prayer to the Great Spirit and I ask for the strength, the wisdom and the understanding to lead others away from suffering…to breaking their alliance with karma and thereby take their rightful place in themselves. Our world is but a fleeting thought in the cosmos that echoes in the far distance. We are eternal, prior to which we are infinite. Immortality is a word with too many limitations to describe the true nature of our consciousness. We are prior to the concept…
Our Spirit does not harbour vengeful or unethical thoughts. It does not kill and it is not killed. It is bliss that forges the peace, which permeates all. It is the knowledge upon all has been founded. It is Existence. It is everything that existed prior to the multiverse and everything that shall remain after the dissolution of the cosmos
At heart, the Spirit of Christmas is just as innocent, pure and imperishable. It is the same joyful spirit that pervades all. It is a happiness that is selfless as much as it is desireless. A happiness, which can only come from within. All the presents in all the worlds cannot bring joy or peace, unless the gift is the keys to irreversible, inner happiness.
1. Don’t Be Right, Be Kind, But Honest
“Would I rather be right, or would I rather be kind?” (Wayne Dyer)
Kindness is underrated in a society, where it is often interpreted as romantic interest or used for selfish ends. Our opinion is our opinion, regardless of whether we insist on being right. That cannot change, unless we are ready for it to. My thoughts may not be the same as your thoughts, but the truth shall always be the truth, even if we only acknowledge it to agree to disagree. The truth is the ultimate victor in the end, even when history is re-written to the exact opposite of what actually happened.
That which remains unsaid in Buddhist philosophy and psychology is that withholding factual information has a consequence, just as sharing information we know to be false. What we believe to be true may not be kind, but when it reflects the views we hold in modern society, then the fate that one suffers by withholding vital information can be worse than the fleeting moments of pain, in which we are forced to confront reality. If it is not necessary to share a painful truth that will only perpetuate suffering, then it is best to remain silent. If we attempt to open the minds of others and only meet resistance, then it is also best to remain silent. However, if there is only a fraction of a chance that our words or deeds can bring joy, peace or healing, then it is our responsibility to take the risk. We must give other the opportunity to decide for themselves, regardless of how hopeless the situation may seem. It is only temporary. One day, they may surprise us, as the seeds that we have been planting are finally taking root in their unconscious.
When it is unkind to speak the truth, ask yourself whether the consequences of your non-interference are worse than the consequences of saying nothing. Ask yourself whether you would wish to have your illusions shattered, if you were in their position…Only then can you know what it may take to warn others from a fate much worse than the truth.
Kindness hurts, when it is genuine. We often believe that when we are kind, we avoid spreading hatred or hurt others, which is partially accurate, but enlightenment can only come from truth…and truth hurts. So, to be kind, one has to be genuine. That does not mean forcing ones opinions on another at every turn about every subject under the sun, but speaking up when it is necessary…When it is kinder to inflict temporary psychological pain, (allowing the false layers of their self to fall off as they may), instead of patiently lying in wait until the time comes when they have no other choice than to accept a brutal truth, you know, they would have denied outright.
Moreover, never say “I told you so.” Apart from creating hostility and tension, that phrase fuels a sense of false superiority. You are not superior by knowing better, while others are suffering unnecessarily through your inaction or non-interference. You are a part of the cause, unless you act in the interest of their self-realisation… Pain is inevitable, whereas suffering is optional. Therefore, by witnessing the suffering of your fellow-man, you are duty-obliged to help cease their suffering
In conclusion, we can never truly know for certain what is right or wrong, but we can discern whether a specific viewpoint leads to or away from suffering. The Absolute Truth may create pain, but that pain cannot endure…It is but a temporary blip on the map of your life. For example, when I turned 15 after my fathers death, I attended a psychotherapy session, in which my counsellor advised me to accept that my mother will never love me in the way that I may want her to. After over four years of struggling to come to terms with this, I would still occasionally shed tears at what could be, but inevitably the pain stopped. My suffering would not cease for years to come, yet my journey would lead me to the true meaning of inner peace and happiness…to our natural state of being. So, my advice to you is this…Never be afraid to tell the truth, however inconvenient or torturous, it may lead those close to you to becoming who they were meant to be.
2. Let Go
“By letting it go it all gets done. The world is won by those who let it go. But when you try and try. The world is beyond winning.” Lao Tzu
Attain a state of desirelessness and you shall find Heaven, Nirvana or even Christ… Get to know the joy of your soul that burns brightly forevermore. When you feel overly confident, reflect. When you become too passionate or too attached, take a step back. Distance won’t stop the mind from desiring a particular object and/or subject, but it can assist you in putting things into perspective. It gives you time to contemplate how your desires drive you and thereby affect your behaviour.
As long as you are subject to desire, you are subject to the endless cycle of death and rebirth. Desire creates impressions and shapes the predispositions of the mind in every life. What gives us pleasure is not actually a mental or physical object, it is the aspect of the Universal Spirit that is present in all things. We rejoice at the sight of a Christmas tree, for example, because it brings back childhood memories of a time, when we couldn’t contain our excitement. A season of joy, togetherness and, of course, gifts. It is the Spirit that attracts us, not the form that is presented to us in.
Only in the absence of desire and attachment, there is freedom. Only when we truly let go, is there peace. Joy is our natural state of being, once we remove the conditions we require to experience it. As a child, these conditions are less stringent, yet as we grow into adulthood, more conditions accumulate. Our mind becomes less flexible, as it is preoccupied with the past with its eyes on the future. In such a state, the mind cannot appreciate the present moment. It becomes more and more difficult to feel joyful in the here and now.
When we detach, we begin to realise that things are never as they seem. What seemed extraordinarily important to us, may not be as important after we have had time to digress. Even after we have been the subject of wrongdoing or a loved one has made a grave error that has affected us negatively, we must ask ourselves, why this has happened and what we can do to forgive. We should not accept responsibility for their mistake, unless we are partly to responsible. We need not worry or entertain feeling of guilt. Whatever has occurred, it has happened for a reason. May it be the state of society, may it be poor self-control, or may it be that we were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time…There are causes that led to the effect that we are experiencing. Therefore, we must let go of what, we think, we know and strive to obtain more knowledge, regarding the situation. We must choose compassion, understanding and forgiveness over pain, anger and hatred.
3. Don’t Blame or Judge
How can know anyone in this life? How can we be a hundred percent certain that they are exactly who we think they are? Or that they are responsible for exactly what we think they are? We many hand out blame for events that they had no control over, or they may deliberate blame others for their shortcomings…
Allow everything and everyone to be just as it is. Allow people to be who they are. Whatever they think, say or do will have its consequences without your involvement. Do not waste your energies on blame, invest them in finding the truth beyond our physical senses or mental inclinations. Unless your assigned duty is discern whether they should be held responsible, blame will stagnate the process of letting go. Blaming them will create pain from reliving the experience repeatedly. Needless to mention, an experience from which you most likely can never find peace, unless you learn to move forward.
Only when we are in a position to rightfully shift blame and we desire not to, can we begin to understand the higher echelons of compassion. Once there is an admission of guilt and we voluntarily choose to help them understand as well as independently resolve the problems that led to the current situation, only then will they learn not to make the same mistake. “We must be capable of taking advantage of all the lower facilities of life, and yet renounce them voluntarily.” (Swami Ramakrishnananda) If anything we want, we must get, then we inevitably open ourselves to desire things that are inherently self-destructive, such as the nagging want/need to declare that we feel something or someone is responsible, even ourselves.
If you don’t blame others, why not extend the same curtesy to yourself? A declaration that you feel responsible does not resolve anything. Either we made a mistake, which can serve as a valuable lesson, for which we should be grateful, or karma has come back to haunt us.
We cannot wholly blame others for the sufferings of mankind or for the pains that we are undergoing in life. Every action has an equal and opposite reason. Every cause has its effect…and whatever we are inclined to shift blame on has its roots in a chain reaction that we are an intrinsic part of.
Understanding is the goal of our existence, since understanding gradually develops into self-realisation. Without any adversity, we can never hope to comprehend that which eludes us. Without any moral struggle, we cannot realise the nature of the minds around us. Without the cultivation of empathy or compassion, we may fail to learn that are mind are in a conditioned state, in which we are predisposed to certain behaviour.
4. Give Up Self-Defeat & Discard Limiting Beliefs
“You not only belong to your own self, but you belong to a large area of human society. It is not possible for any individual to totally dissociate oneself from social associations or social conditions. You know very well how much dependent anyone is on the structure of human society. No individual is complete by one’s own self. There are things which you can give to others, which others lack and do not have, but there are things which you would like to take from others, which you lack but others have.” (Swami Ramakrishnananda)
There will always be thoughts, opinions and beliefs that we carry with us through life. Everything and everyone in this world is deserving of our respect, especially ourselves. “We lose nothing by being humble. We lose everything by being proud and self-assertive, and wrongly imagining that we have all the power, while we have no power of any kind.” (Upanishads) Alone, we are nothing really, our power is limited, but in spirit, we are one and suddenly there are no more limitations. The only limitations that exist are the ones we place upon ourselves.
What you long for is not victory in the way that you imagine it. Victory is truth, peace and happiness in a war, in which you are your worst enemy. How can you aspire to greatness, if you do not believe that you deserve it or if you do not perceive it as an option? In other words, how can you attain a higher state of consciousness, if you do not allow yourself to? Faith without a reason behind it is blind, but when there is a reason (which is your very existence), lack of faith has disastrous consequences. You exist, so discard everything inside of you that makes you feel unworthy and start with self-respect. Become worthy of your own respect in the present moment by simply being as you are right now…by simply existing as the wondrous, brilliant being that you are.
Nobody knows how much time we are destined to spend on this Earth, so make the most of the time that is given to you. View it as an opportunity for growth. Use it as a chance to go where no man has gone before. Contemplate all that we cannot yet explain and find your true purpose.
If we are not in a position to do anything worthwhile for our own selves, what is the use of asking whether we can do some worthwhile thing for other people? People talk of service, social welfare, running about here and there on behalf of others, but does it do us or them any good in view of world affairs? What is worthwhile is often not what we do day-to-day, it is what we have stopped ourselves from doing… More often than not, it is what society deems to be disenfranchised to concentrate power and stagnate global development. So, choose your course of action wisely. Actions that may seem completely sane and reasonable can masquerade themselves as the least favour option. When uncertain, choose the path less travelled.
5. Don’t Complain
A complaint comes in many shapes. It can take the form of an explanation. It can be voiced calmly or even provide us with comfort. Although we should be distressed, when an individual that we are close to suffers the same as we do, it also bonds us. Shared pain makes us feel as if we are not alone, when in truth, beyond that pain is only oneness.
Beyond our suffering lies knowledge. The very knowledge that we require to understand our woes and complaints. The Gods have very little to do with it, as we have created the circumstances that led to our dissatisfaction or annoyance. However, its root goes far deeper than we imagine. We believe that money makes the world go round, when it is desire that turns our universe. The multiverse rests upon desire, it is that which brought it into existence, and its cessation marks the point of its dissolution.
We see but we don’t observe. We hear but we don’t listen. We touch but we don’t feel… The flames of our desires burn brighter, each time that we selfishly value ourselves above the world and everything in it. When we complain, we don’t seek to empathise or understand the views of others… Most of us simply wish ‘the problem’ went away, but it is never that simple. Unless we understand the root of that which we complain about, then the chance that matters will be resolved is slim.
A few winters ago, my body-temperature dropped below the average reading for hypothermia, but I did not care. My landlord did not care that his tenants spent one of the worst winters in the history of the United Kingdom without heating. My family would not even offer me a corner on the floor of their homes, as appearances are everything. They’d rather people didn’t know my situation, nor that they had refused to help… I understood. They didn’t need my forgiveness, since they already had it the moment I anticipated their response. I told them that I loved them and did what any good daughter would do…I kept silent. After a few years, the winters had carved out a new version of myself. One that was as cold as ice. One that would focus all the energy inward…All the hurt, the feelings of abandonment and fear of excruciating bone pain. Even when I lost sensation in my leg, I kept a brave face, when underneath everything was crumbling. I understood that it was my responsibility, my fate…and in the end, my burden to bear. Death appeared as a gift that would be welcomed each time the temperatures dropped dangerously and as they rose again, I would be reborn. Some say that I lost self-respect, others say that it would be a more merciful end than spreading my legs for warmth. They did not know that I was too sick to walk, to ill to move without pain, but in reality, it would have only made them feel guilty enough to blank out the conversation.
Now, another winter dawns and the temperatures are already close to zero…but there is no air left in me. No need to complain or feel emotionally wronged. Acceptance had finally taken ahold of me, and tears of joy were flowing down my cheeks as I began to feel truly indifferent. There are moments, in which I still voice some disdain but I can feel that the time is coming, when there will be no disagreement on any level of my being. I’m at peace with whatever may come.
So you see, the journey to a life without complaining comes in many forms…it is a day-to-day task, in which we have to restrain all of our natural impulses to understand that which would otherwise escape our understanding. When we experience the heights of physical, mental or emotional pain and we still maintain a non-judgemental attitude, then we probably won’t utter a single complaint ever again. In time, nothing will compare to those past experiences. Nothing will affect us as they did. Whereas others will complain about the simple things in life, none of that truly matters any longer. Their woes will seem so small that a single suggestion could remedy them, but many won’t feel joyful, when their reasons for complaining have vanished into thin air.
6. Don’t Criticise
Whatever reason others may have to act the way that they do, don’t judge them. If you were in their position, you may do the same. You cannot know for certain. It is easier to criticise than to imagine yourself in their shoes… Advise them constructively, if necessary, but do not criticise them and leave them to their own devices. All that creates is tension and hostility. You won’t relieve them of their problems, worries or inaccurate views, but add to them. They’ll feel worse, which makes them more likely to dwindle down the spiral of their already self-destructive behaviour.
Replace criticism with loving-kindness. Compassion serves as the key to gain common ground. In the absence of judgement, you can attain the wisdom to discover their reasoning… Judging them may make you feel better temporarily, but that bliss is a short-lived illusion manufactured by the ego. It stems from ignorance: the delusion that we exist as independent beings, separate from one another.
When we criticise another, we reveal much more about ourselves. Whatever we wish to judge them for has already spoken volumes about them, we needn’t add to that. Our criticism, unless it is compassionate and constructive, says more about us than if we were to be silent. It uncovers flaws in our perception that concern the current situation. More often than not, what we ask of them, we lack ourselves. For example, if we ask them to pay more attention or be more attentive, then we are often missing these qualities in ourselves.
Criticism mirrors our own unwholesome qualities that we still have to work through. Unless we are acutely aware how the present circumstances came to be with one or more solutions that may prevent their reoccurrence, then we should think carefully before voicing our disapproval.
Conversely, if we live in fear of blame or conflict, we are often easily persuaded into taking on the viewpoint of someone that we may not agree with. There is a thin line between non-judgement and self-assurance. As long as we don’t have confidence in ourselves, our lack of judgement means nothing. It simply reveals that we don’t have the confidence to speak our minds yet. Only when we can freely say what is on our minds, but choose a more compassionate route, then we can recognise the destructive nature of thoughtless, or even punitive, criticism. It fuels our own feelings of (false) superiority, as it perpetuates how strongly our egos influence us, which will make it more difficult to overcome the urge to criticise later on in life.
7. Stop Trying To Impress
There are many things that we do simply to fit it. Yet, as we bow to peer pressure to find social acceptance, we often fail to acknowledge that whoever we are attempting to impress would not accept us otherwise. People hide themselves for countless reasons…but it all goes back to the instinct for self-preservation that has allowed our ancestors to continue their line up to present day. To avoid pain, we do as is expected of us…Not because it is right or serves a higher purpose, but because it leads to some form of positive experience. It creates the short-lived pleasures that come with popularity. However, we should ask ourselves, whether it is worthwhile.
What good are friends, when they do not care for your problems or help you resolve them? What good is popularity, if you have to resort to extreme measure to achieve it? In truth, it is less painful to simply be yourself. If they do not accept you, then that is their loss. If they demean you, then eventually they’ll wreak the consequences of their actions. That should not concern you, nor should you go out of your way to be accepted by those that’ll drop you when the going get tough. It is better to face a thousand problems by yourself than to stand inside a crowd of people, who’d pretend to help but can’t be asked when the time comes.
Accept yourself by seeing how wonderful you are without the need to impress anyone, even yourself. Don’t lower your ethical standards, but don’t expect others to meet them, even if you raise the bar too high. Not everyone is a saint. Not everyone is a sinner. Sometimes people feel more comfortable floating in-between the two without conforming to either. Moreover, when we are trying to impress, two things generally happen: Firstly, we are pretending to be more than we perceive ourselves to be without becoming it. Secondly, we often become preoccupied with the opinions and quick judgement calls of others. In essence, we begin to value how we appear to others over who we actually are. With all that pressure, things are bound to escalate beyond our control eventually. Also, the higher we elevate ourselves (above our current state of development) the lower we shall fall… Pretence is never a suitable beginning for any relationship. As things progress, we will ultimately gather the courage to be ourselves in that relationship and that is often when the other person feels that they have been mislead. Worse comes to worst, they will feel as if they have been deceived and it will take some time to trust in that relationship again.
Nobody is perfect. However, who you are now will be enough to naturally impress the people that you are meant to surround yourself with. There is more to you than the eye can see. Although you may not notice, others do. What you consider as typically unimpressive can easily blow minds, if you allow yourself just to be you…without the social need to fit in or be accepted. In addition, you are generally more than you think you are. You are everything. If that is not ‘good enough’, then others have to re-examine their expectations. If their view of relationships or their expectation of you is unrealistic, moving entire mountains ranges does not change their perception of reality…Often only life-altering experiences can, but they may lose their mind a little beforehand, while they struggle to process the experience.
Conclusively, leaving a decent impression happens within seconds. We do not need to speak or even make eye-contact. It is all up to our preconceptions. It depends on how we perceive the world, which is rarely the way that it actually is. Don’t fall into that trap. Open your mind to the possibility that your senses can deceive you, as they probably have before. What you value in others may not lead to a positive end. If others wish to impress you by having a top-of-the-line car, apartment or high-paid job, then what does that say about them? What does it say about you, if you are that easily manipulated by appearances? Let yourself see another person for who they are deep inside, not what they say or what they own. It should be noted that what may impress some, generally achieves exactly the opposite with others. Whereas it is almost standard to have a basic set of things, such as work, shelter, TV and so on, countless members of society have been bereft of such opportunities. For example, the large number of veterans that live on the streets with severe forms of untreated PTSD. We often judge the homeless as drug-users, mentally ill or simply waste, although we know nothing about their history. We do not even take the time to investigate why so many men, woman and children live on the streets without any support to escape their situation, as the number continues to rise. What impresses them is a simple smile from a stranger or a kind word, when generally all they get from passers-by is evils shot in their direction. In other words, those that have nothing are more easily impressed by the simplest of things, which most take for granted. So, it is not important to portray a specific image as to leave a good impression, it is important to develop the courage to just be yourself. In our society, that is enough to shock, turn heads and blow minds.
8. Embrace Change
(Resistance Is Futile)
Nothing in this world is permanent. We may believe that our life shall remain the same forever, but that is a fallacy. Change happens every minute of every day, if we realise it or not. As soon as we understand that our way of adapting to change is more important than the change itself, we may come to see that beyond all this superficial change…Nothing ever changes. Leaders are still puppets led from behind the shadows. The currency exchange still short-changes us and has since Babylonian times. Enemies may change, but the hidden purpose behind warfare does not. Our history has not only been re-written to suit the victor, much of it has been deleted. Change is inevitable, but beneath the surface, little changes. When we realise this, we can embrace change as a challenge, however bad our situation may get. We may die tomorrow, but in truth not even death changes us. It may leave an impression on our consciousness. It may change our form in the next life, but who we were hasn’t changed. Our predispositions and predilections remain. We can only change by realising the changeless, timeless nature of all that is. Beyond what we carry with us this life or the following, we are infinite potential in a determined state of probability. What that means is, underneath all that which seems to be set in stone, nothing has been determined. Without consciousness, matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability…it becomes everything and nothing. The dice are rolling, but they will never fall. Our nature cannot change, because the nature of the multi-verse and that which it originates from cannot change. It exists prior to change.
In Sanskrit, the word for time is ‘kala’, which stands for both, time and change. In Indian psychology, the passage of time represents physical, psychological and emotional change. Without space-time, change is impossible. Where or when should it occur? Change is a phenomenon that is inherently connected to the concept of time as well as space. Without them, existence takes an entirely different shape. For example, each universe is dependent upon the one that came before it. Although some support life whereas other do not, one cannot manifest without the other. In a dualistic reality, everything manifests in opposites. On a larger scale, this is often depicted as many interconnected worlds. However, prior to this chain effect of worlds that we have coined the multi-verse, there is the source from which they all originate. So far, the only possible source of all these worlds is light. So far, it is the only theory that is mathematically plausible. However, what does that say about our ever-changing reality? It implies that everything we see is an illusion…A trick of light that fools our senses into perceiving the unreal as real.
When we attempt to question or define the nature of time and/or change, we rarely take into account that resistance is futile. We can scream, cry or aim to bend reality according to our will, but inevitably we have to reach a point of acceptance. Only by accepting that which we cannot change or have no control over may we find peace with how things appear to us right now. After that, we may eventually understand nothing is beyond our control, but only if we realise that there is nothing to control to begin with but ourselves. As difficult as it may be to reconcile these opposing viewpoints, we can only do so by getting to acquainted with our true self. The formless Self that existed prior to time.
So, back to the question, what is change? And how can we adapt to it more easily? Truth be told, by detaching from how its temporary nature affects our presence of mind. As long as our inner peace is dependent upon external factors, it is non-existent… Worse, it changes with the wind. Today, we may feel as if we are the king of the world. Tomorrow, we may become the beggar that has no choice, control or power about anything. Like the waves in the ocean, our life goes up and down. Therefore, resilience to change is not only beneficial to overcome how change can negatively influences us, it is essential. Furthermore, the moment, we accept, the impermanence of everything around us, we can free ourselves from all these time constraints. There is no time-limit to our existence. There is only the illusion of it that binds us.
When I first began to understand the true nature of Karma, I also learnt that time occurs simultaneously. Bear in mind that karma is cause and effect. It is not restricted to punishing you in this life for the actions committed in the last life. That is not how karma works. You are only reaping what you sowed in the last life, because it ended. Theoretically, if you lived for hundreds of years or had an infinite lifespan, you’d still suffer the effects of your actions. Simply with conscious knowledge of them. However, there is a catch. If time is simultaneous, as is karma. This means that without time, cause and effect equally exist as one. The cause becomes the effect and vice verse. Without meditation on the subject or some extraordinary experience, it can be difficult to understand, but it is worth exploring, if you have difficulty adapting to change.
By understanding the nature of cause and effect, it is slowly fathomed what space-time actually is. Although we perceive time as a physical measurement, it is a characteristic that can only take form in physical existence. Not existence in itself, which is inherently non-physical, but an existence that sprung forth from the source of all existences. I know what you must be thinking, she’s off her rocker. In any case, contemplate the reality behind what you have just read, even if you have to go back and re-read it multiple times. (I’ve been there with much weirder concepts lol) Reality is multi-faceted, as is truth, when everything is relative. However, as soon as we pass from the relative to the absolute, that is no longer the applicable. (Metaphysics, eh…) Prior to duality, there is non-duality. A state, in which change, space and/or time is non-existent. The properties of our consciousness are non-dual in essence, but that can be difficult to realise when we are drawn from one extreme to other. All aversions and attachments that seemingly shape our individual consciousness are mere impressions. They are footprints on the beach that will be swept away by the waves of time. The more we adapt to change, the less we are affected by things that would otherwise leave an impression. Our changeless nature prior to the multi-verse is acutely aware of all properties in all the worlds that is has created and/or destroyed. There is nothing that it is unfamiliar with or does not understand… Nothing is new to it and nothing can be hidden from it. Change is simply a point of realisation that we have yet to pass through, until we reach a level of being, where we can adapt to anything at a moments notice without hesitation.
9. Lose The Labels
“The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about.” Wayne Dyer
Labelling things may seem to make things easier, but it cannot lead to higher consciousness or true happiness. We cannot use language to describe that which exists prior to the mind. Language or thought cannot fathom the source of all existence. Obedience to social principles may lure us into a false sense of happiness, if we are the ones enforcing them, but as long as they are successfully enforced upon us, they inhibit our growth. As long as we use labels, we cannot see reality for what it is. Everything, if we focus on it long enough, leads to the that which exists beyond to reality. The reality that existed prior to all reality.
Labels are an expression of inequality. From a non-dual point of view, good and evil, for instance, are one. From a causal viewpoint, evil exists because good men fail to act. Be that as it may, opposites can only exist in a relativistic existence. Outside of that existence, they merge. When we label something, it once again reveals more about ourselves than it does about the object/subject in question. We don’t see things as they are. Understanding them is often too much time as well as effort. So, we use a few words at most to label it and file it away in our minds. This limits us more than it helps us, unless labels become a means to further explore the matter. The only use labels have is to train the mind into thinking ahead by discerning our perception toward the nature of a thing and where that will lead us.
Some people in this world don’t realise that we create our own suffering. As long as we view our reality in terms of labels…(or in terms of ownership for that matter) that will not change. When we begin to see things as either conducive or restrictive for your growth, we begin to see that labels are more restricting to our development than we previously thought.
Labels uncover our preferences. Our preferences, in turn, reveal our attachments, aversions and ignorance, which is often rooted in desire. What we views as good depends on our likes and dislikes, but only as long as our perception is clouded. When we see things clearly, we are beyond like and dislike for no reason other than like or dislike. We begin to use our minds to reason why we like or dislike something or someone. In doing so, we transform preference into self-knowledge, which is the only means overcome unhealthy habits that’ll cause more suffering than they are worth.
10. Give Up Fears, Insecurities & Anger
“There are fears of various types which keep us secretly unhappy, and many of the activities of life in the conscious level are attempts to brush aside these fears; and then we imagine that they do not exist at all. We occupy ourselves so busily with works of various types as a kind of outlet or counteracting power against these fears, usually known in the language of psychology as defence mechanisms. We protect ourselves by certain psychic mechanisms which we have formed within ourselves as a kind of self-deception, we may say, finally. This is the attitude of the ostrich which is said to bury its head in the sand when it is threatened with any kind of fear outside. It hides its head in the sand so that it cannot see things outside, and when nothing is seen outside, it thinks that nothing exists outside. This is not merely the ostrich’s way but, perhaps, the attitude of every human being when he is faced with insoluble difficulties. The problems are mostly in the unconscious level; they are not always on the conscious surface. It may not appear to us that they exist at all. We are comfortably placed in a sensory world wherein the senses are fed to surfeit, and they keep us completely ignorant of the dangerous abyss through which we may have to pass in the future stages of our life. We are brainwashed by the impetuous activities of the senses to such an extent that we cannot be aware of what is ahead of us, what may happen tomorrow, because if we can be awakened to the fact of all things that are to be faced in the future, we may perish just now with a fear of it, and Nature does not want anybody to die like that, as it would defeat its purpose. Nature keeps everything as a secret and lets the cat out of the bag only when necessary.”
Keep the desire, power and emotion at arms length… As long as we are too caught up in the ups and downs of life, we are not embracing the process of life. Everything has its reason, as do negative emotions. We cannot confront our fears, if we don’t know where to start. We cannot truly be secure in ourselves, if we do not believe in ourselves. Last but not least, we cannot calm our temper, if we don’t know what exactly it is that pushes our buttons. That notwithstanding, there are a few important things to note first. All emotions are temporary, when they are based in things that cannot last by their nature. True happiness is all-pervading and ever-present. It is the height of bliss and the foundation of peace. It is the source of all joy, even corrupted versions of itself. Moreover, the joy that we feel has its roots in spirit. Our fears, anger and insecurities do not. In spirit, we are calm, fearless and secure.
Our fears are revealing, when it comes to our aversions. For example, fears of water is often related to a fear of drowning, which inadvertently comes from a fear of pain and death. Most fears exist as a result of a negative experience that has left a deep impression. (In children, fears without apparent cause can be related to past life experiences) To lessen these impression, we must confront them. Let fear be your teacher. If we fear spiders or rats, then simply being with one on the other end of the room is a good place to start. Eventually, we may realise that our fear is unfounded or we may understand where that fear comes from. Beyond discomfort, our desire to avoid something often speaks to its negative potential. Certain spiders and snakes carry poisonous venom that kills, but the majority have become extinct as a result of our modern lifestyle. Unless you are reading this from some remote jungle, lugging around your own wifi emitter that connects straight to a satellite, (or live near one), then it is doubtful that you will be exposed to such a danger anytime soon. Fear clouds our judgement, and often makes exposure more likely. As long as we remain calm, we are in total control of our faculties, which makes us more adept at dealing with the situation at hand. In life, there is nothing to fear, as long as you know deep within yourself that you will survive whatever comes, even death. Our spirit existed prior to eternity… In other words, the eternal duration of all of time and space. Nothing can harm it. All fear does is inhibit peace, love and understanding, when the bliss that comes from general ignorance wears off.
We only feel truly secure in ourselves, when we free ourselves from fear, self-doubt and anger. The world could crumble around us, but that feeling of inner safety remains. We feel safe in spirit. More accurately, we feel safe when we are in contact with our own spirit, as it is the same spirit that pervades all things. It is the purest and holiest… Yet, it never takes form. We cannot touch it, we can only be absorbed by it. (But those are just words that can never compare to a fragment of an experience involving the Universal Spirit)
Anger, in the simplest of terms, is a buildup of energy. It accumulates and blows. The more it blows, the more it accumulates. Anger is a tool that serves a purpose, but not a wholesome one. It’s physiological effects are distructive and its poisonous effects on the mind are well documented. Without control, anger leads to verbal and physical violence that wreaks damage, which cannot be undone. The reason behind our anger is often cold and methodical. In the unconscious, our reasoning can be so simple and straightforward that we so easily overlook it. However, anger can just as easily be used as a means to distract from an issue. In any case, detaching is a necessary means to understanding its root. If our anger is rooted in a fear of confronting something or someone, then we must do so. If our anger is over wasted opportunities, then we must create new ones. As soon as we realise that we can deal with anger more creatively, our mind quickly gets the hang of it. It begins to adapt to situations without extreme emotion, but calm determination.
The concept of love predates mankind as a species. Some claim, it is even older than time itself. Whereas our ancestors knew mutual respect, comradeship and shared understanding is essential to the continued survival of their tribe, we believe we perceive love in a more sophisticated light…but do we, really?
“One result of the mysterious nature of love is that no one has ever,
to my knowledge, arrived at a truly satisfactory definition of love.”
However, nothing can restrain the curiosity of spirit. Over the epochs, we have attempted to fit love into various categories, such as eros, philia, agape; perfect love and imperfect love and so on…In a very real sense trying to understand love is attempting to examine the unexaminable and to know the unknowable. It is different every time and with every person in very apparent but also quite subtle ways. Overall, love is too large, too deep ever to be truly understood or measured or limited within the framework of words. Its versitable, adaptible nature makes it beyond the explainable.
Scott Peck defines love as the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of ones own and anothers spiritual growth. I, however, disagree slightly…It is the compulsion to do so…
By use of the word “will”, he tried to transcend the distinction between desire and action. Desire is not necessarily translated into action. Will is desire of sufficient intensity that it is translated into action. The difference between the two is equal to the difference between saying “I would like to…” and “I will….” Thefore, the want to love is not love itself. After all, love is as love does. We cannot choose who we converse well with on a platonic level, nor can we choose whom we fall in love with. By defining love as an of will, he inferred that it is an act of intention as well as action. He argues, he we dont have to love, as it is a choice. In my professional opinion, this is only partially true. What when we like someone very much, each day we see them but never pursue them because we have decided not to? We would continue to feel a great deal of affection toward them, there would simply be no desire translated into action, which is rather essential for the bonding process to begin.
Yet, before we continue as to the reason why, it must be noted that in many cases, we may be motivated by something other than love without conscious knowledge, and that what seems to be love is often not love at all. One of the major distinguishing features between what we perceive to be love and that which is real love is the conscious or unconscious purpose in the mind of the person. Furthermore, love is a strangely circular process, which we expand our consciousness in an evolutionary sense.
In other words, when we love, we extend our limits, give our all, or even learn to love parts of ourselves that we don’t.
The act of “loving” is an act of self-evolution even when the purpose of the act is someone else’s growth. It implies effort. We can only extend limits by exceeding them, but exceeding limits requires work. However, when we love someone, this exertion appears to make the connection demonstrably real. It can make any sacrifice worthwhile. Moreover, as a form of energy, love can power the extra step, we take for others, if we let it. Just beware, love is not effortless. To the contrary, love is effortful.
Falling in Love
“Of all the misconceptions about love the most powerful and pervasive is the belief that “falling in love” is love or at least one of the manifestations of love.”
It is a potent misconception, because falling in love is subjectively experienced in a very powerful fashion as an experience of love. While we are still wearing rose-coloured glasses, we perceive a romanticized image of the person rather than the person itself. When we fall in love what we certainly feels is “I love him” or “I love her.” More importantly, two complications become immediately apparent:
- The experience of falling in love is an intimate experience directly related to our sexual desires. We do not fall in love with just anyone. Even though we may love our family and friends very deeply, we do not fall in love with them on a whim. Often the attraction predates the decision to simply be friends. We typically fall in love only when we are consciously or unconsciously sexually motivated.
- The experience of falling in love is temporary. No matter whom we fall in love with, we sooner or later, we fall out of love should the relationship continue long enough. This is not to say that we ultimately cease loving the person, but the honeymoon phase ends and the rose-coloured glasses must be discarded.
To understand the nature of the phenomenon, it is necessary to examine the nature of our ego boundaries. As infants, we do not distinguish between ourselves and the rest of the universe. The animate and the inanimate are the same. There is no distinction yet between I and thou. We and the world are one. There are no boundaries, no separations. There is no identity, just personality traits in the early stages of development.
With experience, a sense of the “me” begins to develop. This interaction between the infant and the parents is believed to be the ground out of which the child’s sense of identity begins to grow. It has been observed that when the interaction between the infant and its parents is disturbed. For example, due to the breakdown of the family unit [i.e. when there is no parent, no satisfactory substitute or when because of their own mental illness, they are uncaring or uninterested, then the infant grows into a child or adult whose sense of identity is lacking in the most basic ways.]
The development of such boundaries is a process that continues through childhood into adolescence and even into adulthood. Generally, the boundaries established later in life are more mental than physical. For instance, at every stage of life, we typically come to terms with the limits of our power on various levels. For instance, it is namely known as the “terrible twos” because of this learning curb. It is the hope and feeling of immediate gratification that can make any twoyear-old usually attempts to act like a tyrant and autocrat, trying to give orders and respond with regal fury when they won’t be dictated to. By the age of three the child usually accepts the reality of its own relative powerlessness.
“Still, the possibility of omnipotence is such a sweet, sweet dream that it cannot be completely given up even after several years of very painful confrontation with one’s own impotence.”
Although we come to accept the reality of our boundaries, we will continue to escape occasionally for some years into late adulthood.
Falling in love is the world of Batman and Captain America. By the time of mid-adolescence, we have already been conditioned that we are individuals, confined to the boundaries of our bodies and the limits of our power…that each one of us is a relatively frail and impotent organism, existing only by cooperation within a group of fellow organisms called society. Within this group, most of us are not particularly distinguished, but we often separate ourselves from others through our individual identities, boundaries or limitations.
In truth, it is lonely within the socratean confines of the fractured self. Some, particularly those who’ve suffered traumatizing experiences, perceive the world outside of themselves as unredeemably dangerous, hostile and unnurturing. Such people feel their ego boundaries to be a protecting and comforting influence. Through them, they find a sense of safety in their loneliness. However, the majority feel our loneliness to be painful, so yearn to escape from behind the walls of our individual identities to a condition in which we can be more unified with the world outside of ourselves. The experience of falling in love allows us this escape temporarily. “The essence of the phenomenon of falling in love is a sudden collapse of a section of an individual’s ego boundaries, permitting one to merge his or her identity with that of another person.” We experience the sudden release of ourselves from ourselves. A surcease of loneliness accompanying this collapse of boundaries ensues and we feel freer than we did before.
In many respects, but certainly not all, the act of falling in love is an act of deep regression. The experience of merging with a loved one reminds us of a time when our identities were submerged in a unified state of universal consciousness. Along with the re-emergence of this microcosmic oneness, we also re-experience a sense of omnipotence which we had to give up in our journey to take form.
The unreality of these feelings when we fall in love is essentially the same as the illusion of separation. We feel the world at our fingertips with unlimited power at our disposal. However, just as reality intrudes upon the fantastical notion of omnipotence as an individual, so does reality intrude upon the fantastic unity of any couple in love. Sooner or later, in response to the problems or daily routine of life, our individuality reasserted itself. For example, he wants to have sex, she doesn’t. She wants to go out, he doesn’t etc.
Our desires are not always going to be in harmony with the wants of others. In the beginning, we can be who we are, pretending to accept and be accepted unconditionally, but honeymoon phase will ultimately pass. Over time, ego boundaries to snap back into place, which is when couples fall out of love. At this point they begin either to dissolve the ties of their relationship or initiate the process of real love.
Actual love often occurs in a context in which the feeling of love is often lacking [i.e. hen we act lovingly despite the fact that we don’t feel all that affectionate].
Falling in love is not an act of will. It is not a conscious choice. No matter how open to or eager we may be for it, the experience may still elude us. Contrarily, it may capture us at a time when we are not seeking it, when it is inconvenient or even undesirable. We are as likely to fall in love with someone with whom we are obviously ill-matched as with someone more suitable. Indeed, we may not truly like or admire the object of our passion, just as we may not be able to fall in love with a person whom we deeply respect and with whom a relationship would be a decent match in all ways. This is not to say that the experience of falling in love is immune to discipline. To be frank, we are usually able to abort the collapse of our ego boundaries and give up our romantic interest. The struggle involved can be enormous. Furthermore, such a strategy is frequently recommended by mental health professionals, when a liaison is dangerous, self’destructive or inappropriate for either person.
Only disciplined will can control the experience, but it cannot create it.
In other words, we can choose how to respond to the experience of falling in love, but we cannot choose the who, how or when. We can’t control the nature of the experience itself.
Whereas falling in love is a partial and temporary collapse of ego boundaries, love is permanently self-enlarging experience. The extension of our limits requires effort. Once the comparatively short moment of falling in love has passed, we are usually none the wiser for the experience. When limits are extended or stretched, however, they tend to stay stretched. While falling in love has little to do with purposively nurturing our spiritual development or that of others. If we have any purpose in mind when we fall in love, it is to escape our own loneliness. We are certainly not thinking of enlightenment. Perhaps, after we have fallen in love and before we have fallen out of love again…
It is through reaching toward evolution that we evolve .
Falling in love is in fact very close to real love. The misconception that falling in love is a type of love is so potent precisely because it contains a grain of truth.
The experience of real love also has to do with ego boundaries, since it involves an extension of one’s limits. One’s limits are one’s ego boundaries. When we extend our limits through love, we do so by reaching out, so to speak, toward people, whose growth we wish to nurture. For us to be able to do this, we must first be attracted toward, invested in and committed to an object outside of ourselves, beyond the boundaries of self.
When we bond with an object outside of ourselves, we also incorporate a representation of that object into ourselves. For example, let us consider any hobby. When we develop an interest in something, like cooking, we start small but before we know it, we “love” doing it. Preparing our own meals instead of microwaving pre-processed junk gradually means more to us. We invest in learning the skills involved in performing that particular activity in order to improve. We inadvertantly learn a great deal about our abilities [i.e. strengths, weaknesses, how to overcome the limitations of either…]. We also understand more about our environment as well as the people surrounding us. For instance, historical context, preferences, problems, future possibilities etc.
Despite the fact that the act happens outside of us, through our attention to it, it comes to exist within us. Our knowledge of it and the meaning it has for us are part of him, part of our identity, part of our history, part of our wisdom. In doing so, we have incorporated it in quite a real way within ourselves, and through this incorporation, we expand our consciousness.
What transpires then in the course of many years of “loving”, of extending our limits in the act, is a gradual but progressive enlargement of the self, an incorporation within of the world without, and a growth, a stretching and a thinning of our ego. In this way, the more and longer we extend ourselves, the more we love, the more blurred becomes the distinction between the self and the world. We become identified with the world. And as our ego boundaries become blurred and thinned, we begin more and more to experience the same sort of feeling of ecstasy that we have when our ego boundaries partially collapse and we “fall in love.” Only, instead of having merged temporarily and unrealistically with a single object, we have merged realistically and more permanently with much of the world.
Have you ever looked into someones eyes, wanting to believe them but just knew how badly it would end and tried anyway? Have you ever steered your chosen destiny off course, just because it felt right? Have you ever yearned for the presence of another person so intensely, you’ve felt disconnected from the world and all those within?
While you pursue your dreams,
Be mindful of the passage of time.
Persist against the odds.
Live to think freely…
When you wake up in the morning, what’s the first thought that echoes through the corridors of your mind? What’s your last thought, before drift sweetly into the endless night? When we think of specific people, objects or experiences, they merely represent what our heart longs for at its core. However, getting what we want can never still its desire completely. To live is to want the next best thing, or so it might seem…
In truth, there is a fickleness in our affection or loyalty toward what we desire. At each moment, what we want can change…and thereby our dreams.
Nevertheless, there are constant yearnings that are well hidden underneath our seemingly capricious nature. Each day, these dreams surface quietly and often unnoticed…Still, they are there for our entire lives.
If dreams perish slowly until that one fateful day, on which they inevitably die a violent death, they merely sink to the bottom of the conscious mind…They remain ever-biding their time for some form of ambiguous hope. In its absence, they tend to linger in a state, where they continue to draw energy from the body as well as the mind [to exist]. Should they surface prematurely, when they can be fulfilled in a way that will integrate them into the active aspects of the mind, then unprocessed wounds may heal and form barely noticable scars. Conversely, should they rise before their time, then the dream may die once more. At times, this can be less excruciating, but more often than not, the pain increases. Old wounds reopen as new ones are inflicted on top of them. Afterwards it is fairly natural for the dream to sink down even lower. Dependent on the intensity of the trauma, it can be fully/partially suppressed or it might just hover on the border between the conscious and the unconscious…
Denial differs from suppression in one significant aspect. Pretending a dream was never conceived or a series of events never took place isn’t the same as inhibiting memories of it.
So, when you ask yourself, what is that one secret flight of fancy, which will never relinquish its hold over me…How would you answer?
Let your mind grow silent and calm. Contemplate if there was nothing, what would I long to do most of all? After various ideas, perhaps the truth will reveal itself.
It should be noted that it takes years to unbury and contemplate each one. What every dream represents is a door to self-fulfilment in the form of self-realisation. Karma yoga, cosmic unity through action and therein resultant experiences. Now, the key is to uncover our innermost self in order to pursue a dream worth fighting for. Regardless of the struggle, we face along the way, we must pick something that we are able to persevere with. No dream is worth dying for unless it changes at least one other persons live for the better permanently…
Who are you undereath? What makes you tick? More importantly, what would it take for you to break?
We each have our particular weaknesses to be exploited by those for whom it is a strength. In other words, life is getting pissed on from a great height repeatedly, trying not to get wet.
As though, it actually mattered how much we suffer in the open or behind closed doors, we pretend to care for others. Yet, the majorty of us have more significant tasks to devote their attention to. For instance, satisfaction at any cost.
People will say or do whatever is necessary to get what they want. To them, there is little difference between doing the right thing and ensuring their self-interests are met above everyone elses. Truth be told, I sometimes wonder, if there still is anyone who doesn’t, except for me? The world turns, people are not committing suicide en masse, so there must be plenty, right? Wrong! They are too rare…
Compassion is few and far between in this world, but we should never deny its healing potential. Its effects on the mind have the power to attribute less meaning to memories with a high impact on our presence of mind. In a way, compassion serves as a form of collective self-protection. Conversely, when we are denied it for a prolonged period of time, the want for protection is often overridden by the desire for self-destruction.
“Safety is an illusion”
On the surface, we are conditioned never to look too deep. It is the safest way to avoid painful realisations or the horrible truths about the world or ourselves. As a survival and coping mechanism, this serves to prolong life while making it more difficult for us to break our preconceptions. The deeper, we stare into ourselves, the more the question becomes “how long can we stand the pain?” In general, it depends on how resilient and resistant, we are…but our time is limited. Nobody can cope forever. Eventually, we are forced to ask ourselves, if we can continue until irreperably breaking (i.e. breaking while others watch and do nothing) or if we wish to take back control.
At the very precipes of self-destruction, we have already been destroyed in that we have already made the decision to go forward. However, such a choice is only as inevitable as our committment to do what needs to be done for the right reasons. If we believe, we are worthy of mercy, we must be the first to be benevolent to ourselves. If we are convinced, we are deserving of another chance, we must be the first to give it…Lastly, if we are down and out, then we should not hesistate to put ourselves out of our mysery by any non-violent means available to us.
When picking up the broken pieces of ourselves on the floor, we should truly contemplate how many other times, the exact same thing has happened in order to draw a conclusion. If it has happened too often, the underlying cause should be removed from the equation to guarantee success. However, if the underlying problem is a person, we cant detach from, then the process of resolution becomes a tad more ethically tainted…if we wish to persist regardless of the consequences.
In my case, when the disasterous factor is always you, then it is best to cut as many ties as possible. After all, alone is what people like us do best, simply because we have to…simply because it will never change. Some of us make it through to the bitter end, while others take the preferable options of cutting their suffering short. In all fairness, they might definitely be the lucky ones. Hell, even in the worlds worst dump with the most severe case of spiritual amensia, they are more fortunate than the rest. They need no longer be trapped in world, in which their heart is treated as though it does not exist at all. In any eventuality, who would even notice ther absence? Others impose their perception upon them and they are supposed to agree without question or hesitation. They will simply find someone else to fulfill the same role time after time, no matter the damage, they inflict. Worst thing is, more often than not, the next person will actually play along. They do this for a very simple reason: They know no different.
In our world,
The more you care,
The more vulternable you become.
On a personal note, the concept behind relationships has never been difficult for me to grasp. It is a simple matter of loyalty, respect and empathy in order to build a lasting raport. Yet, in practice, the truly real people, we meet in life are very few. They are the ones, we can turn to, when we are in depserate need of a shoulder to cry on and they’ll always be there. They are the ones, who will believe in us, when no one else can. They are the ones, who’ll take us in, when we have nowhere to go.
As may be easily ascertained, such generosity no longer exists for a small percentage of the mainstream population. After a while, it becomes simpler to just detach from the idea instead to be continuously taunted by it.
People like me are those, who sit on an empty bench by themselves and observe people passing by. We watch their interactions and keep wondering, “Is that even a possibility for me?”. Although we have learnt through many years of experience that it isnt, the thought keeps popping up. Hope refuses to perish. The notion, we may belong, cannot be banished from the mind indefinitely. As a deeply embedded part of our survival instinct, it requires extreme measures to be rid of such a notion permanently. By the time, we reach mid-adulthood, unfulilled desires such as that tend to surface far more intensely. They may create a level of inner upheaval but will disappear soon enough, before reappearing during the mid-life crisis.
In any scenario, belonging is a state of mind. To feel as though we belong can either be delusional or factual, but the feeling itself cannot be forced. For instance, if someone doesn’t feel that they belong, they cannot be made to feel more comfortable by other people overcompensating for past behaviour. It simply creates paranoia and angst.
In truth, as a species, we are beginning to lack the very qualities that define lasting relationships of any kind, from friendship to marriage. The loyal are used for their dedication. Respect is perceived as a weakness. Empathy requires more than a few seconds of thinking about another person without thinking “Me First”.
To remove yourself from the equation of life is just this easy. It is an untangling of our attachments and aversions. It is a process through which we let go completely. We do not cease to feel the relevant emotions associated with strong affinity or dislike toward something/someone, we merely cease to react to them externally as well as internally. In essence, the key is to display compassion, but never get psychologically involved or emotionally entangled.
It can be achieved without much effort, if one has very little ties to the social foundations of our modern civilisation. Off-Grid living would be ideal, of course, but few manage work and attain such a goal without solemn determination to succeed at every cost.
- Public speeches
- Letters of opposition or support
- Declarations by organizations and institutions
- Signed public declarations
- Declarations of indictment and intention
- Group or mass petitions
COMMUNICATIONS WITH A WIDER AUDIENCE
- Slogans, caricatures, and symbols
- Banners, posters, and displayed communications
- Leaflets, pamphlets, and books
- Newspapers and journals
- Records, radio, and television
- Skywriting and earthwriting
- Mock awards
- Group lobbying
- Mock elections
SYMBOLIC PUBLIC ACTS
- Displays of flags and symbolic colours
- Wearing of symbols
- Prayer and worship
- Delivering symbolic objects
- Protest disrobings
- Destruction of own property
- Symbolic lights
- Displays of portraits
- Paint as protest
- New signs and names
- Symbolic sounds
- Symbolic reclamations
- Rude gestures
PRESSURES ON INDIVIDUALS
- “Haunting” officials
- Taunting officials
DRAMA AND MUSIC
- Humourous skits and pranks
- Performances of plays and music
- Religious processions
HONOURING THE DEAD
- Political mourning
- Mock funerals
- Demonstrative funerals
- Homage at burial places
- Assemblies of protest or support
- Protest meetings
- Camouflaged meetings of protest
WITHDRAWAL AND RENUNCIATION
View original post 589 more words
This content may be disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised
George Orwell introduced the concept of the “Thought Police” in his dystopian novel 1984. Those who have taken the time to read any of his material may presume that his ideas of thought-policing via complete, external surveillance is far far-fetched. However, thought policing is not just possible, there are many ways of achieving it. Each would invariably lead to a different type of revolution as a direct consequence.
Now, when we attempt to surveil thoughts, most would resort to methods that are already available to us. Social media, for example, or service providers such as Google. No new gadgets must be invented. The elite does not need to provide their newly found henchmen to with pre-patented technology that is not currently available to the public. If this served some higher purpose, the public would reluctantly learn to adapt to a new status quo [that includes total surveillance of every inch of their lives]. Who would disagree with a digital cavity search under the guise of justice, unless they have something to hide? As we are adults here, we have the maturity to admit that there is personal information we would prefer not share, even if it means lying to keep the information from getting out. Few are willing to share anything, which is why authorities tend to get the extra large anal probe at the sight of hesitation. [For what it is worth, this may seem more intrusive, but it is better than ‘good, old-fashioned police brutality‘. Though suspected offenders still suffer extreme beatings, there were also incidences when an offender was thrown into a cell with an HIV-positive inmate for them be deliberately infected through rape. This treatment was typically reserved for heinous crimes, like pedophilia.]
Contrary to popular belief, the human race could easily become used to total surveillance. In fact, many would welcome the idea, if it were implemented correctly. On the surface, it would be a simple exchange of liberty for a greater sense of security, like any other. However, one cannot sacrifice ones freedom without giving away ones power. We might be glad to be rid of the responsibility, but we have this a persistent penchant for accumulating power to exert it over others…
Do We Live In An Era of Constant Surveillance?
When Scotland Yard instated a special unit, designed to tackle hate-crime, they were jokingly named the thought police. By now, there is a growing body of evidence that their job is no laughing matter. They, along with each law enforcement officer, is ordered to get with the program, face unemployment or suffer incarceration for speaking against the globalist’ agenda. Another utopian ideal has become a dystopian reality, turning the police into unquestioning servants prepared to engage in violence by the way of service once more before they will face their biggest transformation in recorded history. While their enforcement of blasphemy laws [disguised as hate speech] is a blatant waste, it is also an abuse of authority. Their ability to safeguard the mainstream public is compromised by the sad truth that they have to prioritise laws, which stroke bruised egos rather than save lives.
We may not believe mass migration is changing our societies for the worse, but when we cannot voice our doubts, then we are not as free as we are led to believe. Most already treat constant surveillance as a part of modern life. We benefit from CCTV on our streets, as it can aid in the capture as well as prosecution of petty offenders. We save time when companies [such as Apple, Google etc.] monitor our usage of their services in order to target us with ads tailored to our every need or want. Deep down, it makes us feel a little safer to know someone is always watching…But, deep down in our heart of hearts, we know [on an instinctive level] that those people do not always serve our best interest. We know, yet we do nothing, because there is still a chance that they might…
Each time, technology takes a step forward, backwards or sideways, we move with it. We are changed by it, especially when we have never known anything else. The millennial and following generations are evidence of this. When we have forgotten what it is like to live without TV, computers or mobile phones, we have become dependent on them. In fact, a recent study showed that we check our phones every 12 minutes on average. With each check, we post, google or respond to something. In turn, most of what we do, write or say via our mobiles is recorded by the various service providers. Beyond that, the microphone and camera remains active, even when it is not used. However, anything gathered [when it is not used] is generally inadmissible in court with minor exceptions.
What we do on a daily basis is how we spend our lives. How many of our activities are monitored is debatable, but it mainly varies according to which country we reside in. For example, Britain had more CCTV can any other country. Although it is a known fact that the number of cameras in No-Go Zones has been substantially reduced, the effects of this on surrounding areas are kept even quieter. The cycle usually is as follows: CCTV is vandalised while other crimes are committed, the police investigates, the CCTV is repaired within a set time-period. Now, when CCTV is repeatedly damaged up to or beyond the point of repair, the situation now ends one of three ways:  those responsible hide in wait to attack the repair-crew, then attack the police and expand the No-Zone to that point.  law enforcement anticipates an attack but does not have enough manpower to keep the area from becoming a No-Go Zone.  the police arrives in full force, a small gorilla war ensues until the attackers withdraw as to not lose the entire No-Go Zone and will try again next week. This is a pattern that can be found in every No-Go Zone across Europe. In their case, CCTV surveillance serves little purpose, except to build a trap in order to re-establish control. Apart from alternative news sources, very little is reported on the subject as a result of wide-spread censorship.
As parts of the U.K. and Europe are becoming no-go areas with a slow, but consistent expansion rate, law enforcement may only operate outside these areas. These ‘communities’ have their own justice system, in which crimes are not reported to the authorities. Residents tend to report offences to trusted members, who will then act in response. When these cases are uncovered, they are very hard to prove due to the lack of CCTV footage and/or other physical evidence. The residents in these neighbourhoods rarely speak to the authorities after they have been the victim of a crime, they say even less when they are not directly involved.
In truth, we are under some form of surveillance most of the time, even inside our homes. This is not new information, nor is it a reason to lose our heads. It just means that our paranoia is not groundless. Hence, we should be aware of what can happen when the justice system takes an undemocratic turn by targeting those who hold unorthodox views that do not physically harm anyone. Many still argue that hate [in itself] is not a crime and should not be treated as such, while acting on feelings of intense dislike/prejudice should be. But, the moment we began to prosecute those who acted by voicing their true feelings [or pulling stupid pranks without inflicting bodily injuries], we endangered their lives. As more are arrested for hate-crimes, the system attempts to draw attention away from the fact that almost all of them died in radicalised prisons. If Tommy Robinson had not been such a public figure, he would have suffered the same fate. Instead, they placed him in solitary confinement and probably poisoned his food. Interestingly, those lucky few, who survive their prison term, often emerge with chronic and/or terminal diseases for which they have no explanation other than that they were deliberately infected.
The purpose of the law is the preservation of life. When we imprison those speaking out of term for the same amount of time as we would sex offenders, then it is evidently a crime to hate. However, there is a difference between what the accused have actually done and what they are accused of. For instance, when the leaders of Britain First were convicted of ‘religiously aggravated harassment’, they merely acted on their right not to believe, to blaspheme and to question the Islam. This is not an isolated case. Here’s another example: When Tommy Robinson was incarcerated without trial for ‘contempt of court’ after filming suspects involved in a criminal trial and broadcasting the footage. During his own trial, he was informed by the ruling judge that the freedom of speech comes with responsibility.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
– Human Rights Act 1998
So far, freedom of speech is not directly against the law. Conversely, the expression of hatred toward someone on account of that person’s colour, race, disability, nationality [incl. citizenship], ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden by law. In other words, it is illegal to discriminate based on the characteristics listed above. The current interpretation of hate speech, which legally favours one set of religious beliefs over another, is a perversion of justice. As long as any statement is just hurtful, it does not warrant an arrest or even the persecution of those involved. Once we begin to incite violence [for example, by calling for the gassing of Muslims], then there are going to be consequences. After all, it is against the law to incite religious hatred and/or inflict physical injuries.
In Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986, religious hatred means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. This act describes the acts intended to stir up racial hate, ranging from threatening behaviour [incl. speech, written material etc.] to the power to enter and search the premises of a person, suspected to be in possession of written material or recordings. Please read more here.
Is There Legitimate Concern We Could Be Wrongfully Arrested?
Well, yes always, but within reason. People are arrested for crimes they did not commit every day. They are also prosecuted for illegal acts, which should have been decriminalised decades ago [such as growing hemp or cannabis for personal use]. Meanwhile, sex offenders of non-European origin are rarely incarcerated, except when the the legal system cannot ignore the evidence provided.
Contrary to popular opinion, the law is a fluid construct. We think of its history as blood-soaked, when it represents the exact opposite. We use the Geneva Convention as a means to control the likely damage inflicted during war and prevent unnecessary suffering, but the conflict continues for economic as well as ideological reasons. We have not yet attempted to remodel the Geneva Convention to outlaw armed conflict on similar grounds. Firstly, it is futile at our current state of development. Secondly, there is simply too much profit to be made and power to be gained through war. It drives technological advancement, inflates prices and decides the politics of tomorrow. However, the same can be said about the continued effort to revoke civil gun rights. Despite the irony that anti-firearm lobbyists ensure their bodyguards carry multiple weapons, their job is to undermine our ability to protect ourselves and each other. If those rights are removed, firearms do not simply disappear. Their price on the black market soars, leaving a power vacuum on the open market for new non-lethal weaponry like patented stun guns. In other words, when we ban transportable goods, they just become harder to access without the right contacts. Statistically, they become more accessible to ex-offenders with the increased risk of using them for criminal purposes, but less accessible to the average person who would use them for self-defence. When we censor specific content online, it simply moves to a more heavily encrypted region of the dark web. The risk of exposure is limited by restricting access to the banned content. When we censor specific content in the media [incl. newspapers], we typically prohibit the expression of corresponding views at the same time. Without omni-present surveillance, this kind of censorship is much harder to uphold offline. There are no laws in Europe that restrict the freedom of speech, when there is no intent to commit an illegal acts. Put differently, there are no laws against ‘hate speech’ yet. The worst that social media platforms can do is deny that person access to their site for a period of time. However, the interpretation of certain laws are changing…
Antisemitic acts are still illegal when they are so defined by the law [for example, denial of the Holocaust], despite Labours dubious new definition of the term. Although no criminal charges have been filed against Corbyn and the like, they continue to commit hate crimes in the public eye. There have been multiple instances of attacks [incl. threats] against the Jewish people by Islamic extremists, but little action has been taken. Needless to mention, the new definition further undermines this rampant form of antisemitism. Yet, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are not the only faiths affected by this new brand of illiberal ‘liberalism’. Spiritual practices that do not receive the same legal protection as official religions, such as Shamanism, have also been subject to prejudice…
By legitimising Sharia Law, we are legitimising more than hate crimes. We are legitimising child marriage, pedophilia, rape as well as domestic violence. Sharia [in its current form] basically spells the end for the rights of women and the LGBT community. These laws do not exist to protect Allah or the Arabic people as a whole. They exist to protect the fragile egos of the Imams and ensure that they maintain control over their followers without offering them the option to leave the Islamic faith [via apostasy laws].
In any eventuality, there is a crack in the foundation of our global community, we are more reachable than ever before in recorded history, but we have never been further apart from each other as a race. As stated in my book, our ancestors have fought bled and died for the liberties that we enjoy today. We may fail to understand how important those traditional values were to them, but nature is a cold, hard place involved in a constant struggle for survival. Those outdated values worked for thousands of years, we must ask ourselves is it truly wise to abandon them now? In the end, all we have is each other. By being easily offended and refusing to acknowledge the fears of another person, we are destroying each other along with ourselves. All freedom comes at the cost of eternal vigilance, no matter the era. We could spend over a thousand years fighting for the ultimate system to monitor, intervene and prosecute offenders around the globe. We could even perfect preventive measures, eradicating crime altogether. However, any system can crumble in less than a day…
We must not rely on a system to protect us. We do not live in a ‘systematic’ universe. [Mathematically, the multiverse is more of a non-system, due to its underlying nature. A holomovement. There but not there.] We cannot understand how to live with each other, if we do not understand the nature of existence. If there could be a system to satisfy all, then we are probably living it right now. When everybody wins, everyone loses. There is no governing system that does not benefit one over the other. Those governed lack the skills, education and experience of those they govern, vice versa. Equally, there can be no ultimate surveillance, especially when it restricts our freedom even further. We, as individuals, are a part of a larger whole. We are connected to each other and this planet. Everything is connected, regardless how much we attempt to deny the scientific evidence. Somewhere in the future, our hurt, anger, hatred and/or hypersensitivity will have come and gone. It lasts for a blink of an eye. This may be hard to imagine in the here and now, but the Truth is limitless. It cannot be captured, contained or suppressed. It is perhaps of the freest there is. Although we may feel intense emotions about what is happening across Europe, to act on these feelings on a whim can have a stiff price. Be kind, but assertive. Debates do not need to devolve into Hitler comparisons from liberals or genocide on Arabs from conservatives. In the words of James Allen, “It is the silent and conquering thought forces which bring all things into manifestation.” Although we must not delude ourselves, the likelihood of civil unrest across Britain and the continent is incredibly high. Unfortunately, prison is an incentive for us to be more mindful with what we think, say or type. It is also a reason for us to be more diplomatic or more constructive. Why yell, threaten or swear when a calm statement of the facts is all that is required? It comes with no custodial sentence. More so, it embodies the very purpose of free expression [liberation from ignorance]. We are ignorant of them and they are ignorant of us. Our problem is a dual- edged sword. We may only resolve them by exercising our rights within the parameters of the law. We may only take non-violent action, but we still have rights…and if we do not use them, we may lose them, because we were intimidated, too anti-social or scared to say what we truly think. Our thoughts become who we are. They are a force in themselves that helps us analyse, interpret and shape the world around us. In truth, they are free, but truth comes at the cost of self-restraint. Like our words, we should choose our thoughts wisely. We should only think or say as much as is necessary. The absolute truth is, if anything, patient but concise. Whatever we may believe, it will always reveal itself…
This content may be disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised.
The term race dates back to 16th century Middle French, translating as ‘people of common descent’. It is often assumed that there is no correlation between the Latin word ‘radix’ which means ‘root’. In 1868, the word racism did not exist as such. The behaviour associated with the term [including other less hostile behavioural traits] were known as tribalism. It did not simply denote that we belong to a certain tribe, it also described our socio-cultural heritage. Religion generally had nothing to do with it and still doesn’t.
Now, the excessively conservative ways we conduct ourselves used to be a means to protect solitary regions from exploitation, invasion and worse. When a lonesome tribe in the middle of nowhere encountered a stranger or a group of strangers, it signalled potential danger. However, as there are exceptions to every rule, for some tribes, it would signal lunch. There are countless islands, from which travellers would never return. A few even continue this tradition nowadays.
Although we often overlook the first slaves were Caucasians seized during an invasion of Slavic territory, committed as a part of an Islamic conquest that mainly involved pagans, every culture has the potential to enslave another given a certain set of circumstances. This happens to be more important to remember than ever before. Regardless of what ethnicity we are at this point in time, we are responsible for how we treat others. Firstly, when we accuse others of racism, we better have proof…not an interpretation of how we perceive or believe their ancestors acted but actual evidence. Information drawn from personal testimony can be manipulated, particularly if it was collected decades ago and/or translated from another language. Moreover, when information is taken out of context, it can be used to mean anything we want it to, regardless of whether it was intended to be interpreted in this manner. Secondly, it is possible to walk the fine line between racist bigotry and left-wing insanity. I’m not saying, it is a popular choice, but it is a diplomatic solution that defeats the global agenda. To be honest, speaking the unadulterated truth has never been harmless at any point in history. It is always inconvenient, since it is rarely embraced on a unilateral basis.
To the point, when a culture riles up toward an ideological and/or socio-cultural war, there is no way to avoid calling it an incursion. Each time, we encourage one culture to act on their darker impulses while we prohibit another from defending itself against them, it is an invasion of our freedom as a global community. There is no outcome other than revolution. More importantly, this is the basis to fuel any race war…by letting animosity build on both sides by governing them with different rules. Law figures into it only through subjugation to this scheme. When racist tendencies are rewarded as long as they are exhibited by certain ethnicities and punished as long as they are exhibited by others, then there is no moral way of coping with the situation that will not draw attention to the problem. Although such schemes typically happen in stages, recent events have shown what is happening to our world is far from gradual or is it? Initially, European and surrounding cultures overlooked certain less drastic traditions, such as blood-letting and ritual animal sacrifice in the streets. If it had ended there, most turn a blind eye to cutting a childs forehead. However, it did not even stop at child marriage. The cycle of them against us continued with added ammunition, even after they can legally get away with almost anything. They say ‘We do not allow them to experience their full religious freedom according to their laws.’ We respond by saying ‘They do not tolerate our customs, boundaries or laws.’ Contrary to popular belief, the majority of Westerners do not care about peaceful worship. If they wish to dance naked around a campfire every night to celebrate their deity, they are more than welcome to do so for millennia, but not by forcing others to join, not in public and not in a way that involves acts of violence. As soon as we begin to accept the suffering of others as a ‘normal’ part of religious worship, we are bound to suffer as a consequence. When we ignore the tiny voice inside ourselves that begs us to take responsibility for allowing these events to occur, to take action or at least care a little bit, then who will help us if we end up in the same situation?
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me…
It is not the first time we are pressured into taking a self-destructive path through fear tactics and it will not be the last. As always in these circumstances, we are damned if we speak up and damned if we remain silent, whether we are black, white, green or purple. That is the way the game is rigged. However, the outcome can change if we are willing to make it happen. For as long as we identify more with the colour of our skin than what is in our hearts, we are doing exactly what we are expected to. We no longer pay attention to what is happening behind the scenes, instead we are too busy focusing on our superficial differences. This just serves the purpose of making us ignore that we have a common goal as a people: Freedom.
If we want more tolerance in the world, we have to be more tolerant instead of being offended by mere words, because is our responsibility to convey the importance of free expression. If we wish for peace, then we have to work hard for it, because it is our duty to rid the world from hatred and reunite as a people. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
In truth, we do not need to be liberal to accept opinions that differ from our own and we do not need to be racist to discriminate against what is different…This political powder keg is far from black and white. Life is never so simple that we can brand anyone as anything for any length of time. Our views, circumstance as well as behaviour can change in the blink of an eye, but what remains is the moral imperative to realise that we are being distracted from more important things, such as a man-made mass extinction orchestrated by our own under the guise of ‘progress’. The coming war might not be avoidable, but we can be certain that a reduction of the global populace through selective slaughter has begun. Yet, by the time many will recognise what is actually happening beyond any doubt, it may be too late to change where we are headed. Again, that is the way the game is rigged.
We are led to believe that we are responsible for the actions of our ancestors, while those who suffered at their hands are persuaded into thinking any ancestors karma can easily be transferred onto future generations. Although we are not our ancestors and neither are they, we are both encouraged to punish one another for the mistakes of our past. Despite being immensely dangerous, this manner of thinking can only cause more pain, but this is incidental…it mainly serves to distract from the truth. For Africans, it preys on their fear of re-enslavement, reminding them of how deeply their ancestors suffered, yet it also heightens their emotional state…for as long as they are too caught up in what they are feeling, they have no desire to study the hidden history of their nation, specifically who owns the mines and what is buried underneath the sand. For Europeans, it corners us under a false flag operation, namely the European Union. Even after the EU is long gone, we will still be repairing the damage. Liberal Germans, Austrians as well as Swiss are expected to embrace the death of their country as a punishment for Nazi collaboration, leaving the Jews and genuine refugees out in the cold yet again. Meanwhile, their right-wing or conservative counterparts are forced into submission, surrender, silence or incarceration. For the English, there will never be a fair deal with the EU, it is not in its nature to act out of anything other than self-interest…It is the way it was designed. That is its original purpose…to subjugate nation after nation, like bulldozing a field not yet ready for battle. After every borough has been seized by those, who have no interest in upholding British law, the no-go zones will simply expand to include them. It will be swift without any more forewarnings that we’ve already received.
When divided, any nation is weakened. There’s no need for unions, written contracts or agreements, as long as the people realise that what we write on a piece of paper doesn’t embody our connection to one another. If we could honour our word, then they’d have become obsolete long ago but that’s what the legal system served to protect since before the birth of Christ. However, the moment that the legal system is influenced by any kind of prejudice, its rulings are biased and thereby become disproportionate. For instance, a Caucasian, British offender would serve more time than a African/Middle-Eastern offender for the same crime or the other way around. Besides going against the very spirit of justice, it further fuels the race divide [outside of public control] within that country.
Continuing with the previous example, when we witness a child being abused by or even marrying a middle-aged man, we should have no other reaction than disgust. It does not matter whether it is a cultural tradition or religious custom, it spells unbearable pain for the child. It is of no consequence whether one court or all the courts deem this union ‘legal’, it is an act of sexual violence waiting to happen and the natives in the region should be the childs first line of defence against any kind of exploitation. The same applies to laws that permit any kind of abuse, spousal or otherwise…It is up to the people to either make a broken system work or tear it down to rebuild. Conclusively, when any nation values the wellbeing of certain residents over others, it is merely a matter of time until those neglected will display retaliatory tendencies.
When the government is more likely to help ethnic minorities instead of its own veterans, families with children or the sick, an expansion of the minority populace is imminent. In Britain and Germany, the majority has been reduced to such a point that specific minorities have grown out proportion. What once was a tool to prevent the extinction of minorities to achieve a state of balanced diversity now swings the other way. It now spells the gradual extinction of native ethnicities, while minorities have no intention to protect them when they officially become a minority in 2020 or sooner. Does that seem appropriate, considering the situation?
Since Europeans are almost never entitled the same level of care as any minority, this has massive repercussions on millions of impoverished people across the continent in the present moment. Our fertility rate is lowered with every passing year, while many parents starve to feed their children. Although it may sound incredibly harsh, but minorities are provided with flats, warm water, heating and healthcare more often than natives. I’m not saying one should receive preferential treatment over the other or that ‘foreigners’ should be deported by the truckload. I’m merely stating that both should be treated equally regardless of race. Both should either be helped or ignored in equal measures. Being black or middle eastern should not be a criteria that boosts our ability to qualify for anything, but it does in Europe, America and especially Britain. Despite the undeniable fact that there will always be someone better off than us, race should not be a deciding factor in the accumulation or more importantly the equidistribution of wealth. At this level of favouritism, people will continue to resent one another. Few will understand that once we are done fighting each other…once we have reduced our numbers to the brink of extinction, we are much easier to control. When 90% of the population has been disposed of, depopulation will have led the way to a new world order, in which the same elite minority governs the remaining populace and the game is over until it needs to be restarted again. Conspiracy theorist rarely cover the sad truth that this has happened before and it will happen again unless prevented. The hidden demise of Sumeria and the fall of Babylonia are mere examples of how long such a game can last. More importantly, it highlights how much we need to learn about past events in order to survive present day events. Although that is so often the case, the brewing race war intends to erase much of what has been and is being uncovered. As long as we are programmed to label alternative views, as illiberal, inappropriate or intolerant, because we are scared of their implications, then we are preventing others from expanding their consciousness at great cost. Our fears become an obstacle in their development, but also our own. Questions do not simply fade away by telling people that they cannot ask them. Opinions are not deleted from the mind when they cannot be expressed openly. In fact, both grow and fester into something nobody can control any longer. If suppressed long enough, they develop a life of their own that surpasses our lifespan by planting themselves deep in the unconscious. For what it is worth, we can die asking the same questions life after life. Eventually the answer will lose all meaning, because it is the journey that matters. Our persistence to know the truth, even at the cost of several incarnations, is what matters more than the truth itself. Relative truths change concordant to our environment, but the search remains. Searching does not just ‘build character’, it enables us to realise that the absolute truth can only be found within ourselves. It bridges the gap by teaching liberals to be less sensitive to what frightens them, while teaching xenophobes that nobody is inferior due to their genetic heritage. Regardless of how immoral an individual or group may behave, we are not superior to them. In truth, we are all equal to one another, no matter the crimes committed. It is not up to us to judge them, or we’ll eventually be judged in return. It is not our right to be offended by any crime, because we do not know what we would do in their place given a similar set of circumstances or else we may wind up in just such a situation. We also cannot morally justify persecuting others as a consequence of having been racially or ideologically persecuted in the past. Nevertheless, it should be noted that any living being has the right to defend itself when attacked verbally or physically, but this does not justify striking wildly at anything that does not conform to its views. In the end, we are all entitled to them without consideration for how right/wrong they might be or where they may lead. In view of the bigger picture, every person needs to realise their personal misconceptions in their own time. When convinced by force, the effects of persuasion are merely temporary. Most will think, say, do or believe anything, if it spares them pain, gives them what they want or saves their life, except when their conviction outweighs anything that can be done to them. With the firm belief in paradise, heaven or nirvana, delayed gratification can override our immediate needs, even if it comes at the highest cost. In these instances, the present moment is transcended in the dire hope for a better tomorrow, which not only defeats the purpose of the here and now but such a mindset is spiritually toxic. When we act with the expectation of a reward, action loses its inherent meaning. For example, when we complain about menial things in anticipation for others to change in order to make our lives more bearable, we are not just expecting a positive outcome…We are basically asking others to change so that we do not have to. The problem with this behavioural pattern is the ever-changing nature of the multiverse. We cannot stand still for long (though many of us try repeatedly without success), as the next event about to invoke more changes is already in the works. For what it is worth, when we are not dissatisfied with how we are treated, we are pained by low income, lack of security, relationship trouble, disease and/or old age. The lack of personal fulfilment begins at the time of birth and ends at the point of death, just to continue in a sub-domain or space-time. IT DOES NOT CEASE BY ITSELF. Hence, if we wish to be truly content, we must want for nothing. How is that possible, you may ask? Cut the strings and just be. Aim for the final achievement of all thought, their cessation through rigorous contemplation. # Paradoxical, is it not?
Our common goal as a people, freedom, can only be achieved by freeing ourselves. Yet, as soon as we can neither be viewed as liberal or xenophobic, we transcend the boundaries of politics. We no longer identify people according to the political implications, and consequently no longer treat them as people but potential threats or targets. To identify as being either liberal or racially protective comes with a certain mindset that is outward-going and partially combative by nature. Both seek to shape the world in the image of a certain kind. We treat people, things or the world in the way that we wish for them to be in order to inspire actual change that impinges on personal freedom. We no longer strive to reconcile our conflicts through mutually beneficial compromises that allows for diversity, we merely aim to eradicate our differences by applying variant degrees of force. When this reaches the governmental and legal levels of our global community, it is recipe for calamity. In any case, in which the government, legal systems and socio-cultural imperatives of two opposing nations collide, they either merge on a system-wide basis or engage in a violent struggle until control over the majority is gained. Historically, the level of force applied in such cases often reaches violent extremes. Supporting either side in the hope of victory is the equivalence of voting conservative since UKIP had no chance of winning after Nigel Farages departure. For example, as with Theresa Mays election. The end may justify the means, but it never ends well when we compromise on the quality of life, which includes the quality of leadership over the lives of an entire nation. It may postpone the inevitable for a period of time, allowing us additional time to physically, mentally and emotionally prepare for a series of events, but it does the same for the opposing side. It means liberals receive extra time to invite more refugees into the country, but won’t take any into their homes due to security concerns. It also means more people are prosecuted on trumped up charges for speaking up about White, Black, Asian and Indian genocide at the hands of religious extremism. Meanwhile, genuine refugees and peaceful followers are threatened, blackmailed and even assaulted to coerce them to a point of conformity by the majority of religious extremists.
In every recent conflict, the minority that profits is above the conflicting sides. The individuals financing propaganda, weapon supplies as well as the slave trade. War generates capital for an elite minority that they rarely use to support the people as a whole, especially when it typically is invested to fund greater control over the common populace. When such a war is waged to commit ethnic genocide to gain a greater level of control over the people, as it has been on smaller scales in the past, then the side that is underfunded has a higher chance of losing. However, the likelihood of success does not guarantee it. At present, liberal self-hatred is paving the way to not only white genocide, but global genocide of anything that does not openly surrender to religious extremism because they blame themselves for the wrongs committed by their long-lost ancestors. Although their willingness to condone or even support violent retaliation has its boundaries, every liberal would have to reach form of personal limit that radically changes their political views in order to be more conservative. Until then, they will continue to cross swords with their so-called political counterparts. They will resort to extreme measures more frequently, while condemning retaliatory attacks.
When both sides are attacked for their political stance, it is in their nature to persist regardless of the outcome. However, there are very specific limitations to our persistence that reveal much about our psyche. Whereas personal limits that make us less liberal are generally reached when we experience profound trauma first-hand (directly inflicted on us by those whose lives we are attempting to improve), the opposite is true for racism without ulterior motive. There would actually have to be a decline in religious extremism, media blackouts as well as gag orders. Positive change would not simply have to be proclaimed by mainstream media outlets, it would have to visible in our everyday interactions, in the manner our corporate overlords operate and obviously by being able to move freely through no-go zones. For any average racist to become less suspicious of their fellow man, there has to be more equality, freedom of speech and peaceful debate rather than the pretence that we have all those things…
On a final note, the debate about the reasons why we are encouraged to be either cannot cease at this point, it can only devolve into liberal-‘isms’ or race-‘isms’ (often followed by name-calling, shifting blame and even prosecution for the sake of keeping in line with the mainstream narrative). There is far too much profit to be made by dividing us as a whole whilst cultivating a seemingly unbreakable state of dependency. We may perceive ourselves as an independent or united people, yet we are neither. We can never be truly united, until we learn to live in independently in a self-sustainable manner as individuals, countries and living beings. Conversely, we can never be actually independent for as long as we are in a state of system-wide dependency. Nevertheless, it is only when we have the choice between solitude and togetherness without need, preference or desire that we realise our inherent unity…when we no longer identify ourselves by our political stance, creed or race, but for who we truly are beyond this moment in time. To be neither is by far the most dangerous tool in our arsenal, as it paves the way toward a level of anarchism this planet has not seen since its formation…
This content may be disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised.
During insane times, sanity looks very much like insanity. After all, what would you do to stay alive? Ultimately, we must all ask ourselves that question. The shorter the life-expectancy inside a culture, the younger it is necessary for its people to decide on an answer. Regardless, our choices have a greater impact than our attitude. How much we are physically willing to sacrifice in order to live longer requires more than words. It is hard work on a moment by moment basis. Living has not been as hard as this since Victorian England. The obscenely rich coexist with the extremely poor within the same city district. As this worsens, the conditions will mirror those of the third world:
- At present, mobile phones are more readily available than clean food, water, shelter or medicine.
- A dangerous increase in crop failures across the European continent will inflate supermarket prices and result in higher levels of starvation. This does not include the crops that were salted by passing migrants with deliberate intent, thus rendering them useless.
- The nutrient depletion in fresh grown fruit as well as vegetables continues to soar unimpeded.
- Less than 3% of the global water supply is actually clean and at a steady decrease…
Meanwhile, political leaders (such Macron, Merkel, Corbyn, May etc.) pride themselves on encouraging mass migration as a form of cultural enrichment, but do not dare walk the streets without bodyguards. In secret, they are exploiting the self-destructive impulses of society. It is an unfortunate consequence of our modern lifestyle that we cannot spread our wealth around the world. Every country struggles with disease, poverty and homelessness. There is not enough to go around. Although there are more humane solutions than genocide, they are less profitable.
Truth be told, we cannot continue as we are now. Our lifestyle is ravaging the global ecosystem, causing extreme temperature fluctuations, natural disasters etc. We consume almost two Earths’ worth of resources in a single year. Statistically, this includes man-made resources. Without war, our survival will necessitate tough decision-making and even tougher acts of self-control. In the event of world war, the problem would be resolved in a convenient bout of genocidal violence. The ruling elite would just make do with whatever remains in the same dehumanising manner.
The problem is we do not know people as well as we imagine. People often agree on things in order to avoid conflict. They hide their own unpleasant qualities, (while excusing the destructive or even violent behaviour of others) as to not offend. Hence, we can never truly know what a person thinks.
There are two sides to the the current political leadership (for versus against mass migration). As lines are being drawn across Europe, alliances are forming. Both sides in various countries have their personal agendas. For example, Macron aims to take control over the EU, hence he is carefully undermining what Merkel is failing to do, but unwilling to do himself. Le Pen was restructuring her party for a rematch next year, when French judges blocked a 2M subsidy payment (due to an investigation into the possible misuse of funds. This coup d’etat could be the end of the National Front in France, but not the anti-immigration movements led by Le Pen. Although Geert Wilders lost the election, he still speaks up about the crimes committed due to religious extremism. He also attended the protest to free Tommy Robinson. The Austrian Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, is attempting to stem the flood with a broom by deporting close to 7000 migrants in six months. This is perhaps the highest number any European country has expelled. Kurz aimed to lower the number of daily arrivals by cutting benefits, but he knows his methods will only prevent a worse conflict when other countries start to implement them. To the point, as much as these feuds or allegiances appear to be solely professional, they are born out of a deep self-interest for survival. More accurately, survival in a world controlled by an elite with its own agenda.
As I stated about a year ago, mass migration draws attention to our pre-existing shortcomings. For instance, child abduction, FGM and other forms of sexual violence were already daily occurrences. Now, they are viewed as a part of multicultural integration with a complimentary STD as the cherry on top…Instead of the prevalent problem harshly dismissed by silencing, fining and imprisoning whistleblowers that it truly is. These political alliances form around worsening problems either as a means to disguise or resolve them. Continuing with the previous example, Swedish authorities would rather cancel upcoming music festivals than address the root of the problem in their community. The increase in sexual harassment (incl. fatal STD cases) coincides with the surge of mass migration, which is supported by the suspect descriptions often given to the police. However, they are not pursued as vigorously as they could be, since their case load pales in comparison to their conviction rates. Their welfare system is on the verge of collapse and their healthcare system is struggling to cope. Meanwhile, other nations are experiencing similar difficulties. Many transferable diseases, which have not been seen since the Black Plague, are spreading as a result of mass migration. Some believe refugees are deliberate carriers (as in germ warfare), others prefer to think the spread is incidental. In any case, hospitals across Europe are attempting to keep the increase quiet to avoid panic. Not only does this prevent people from knowing how to take the necessary precautions, it also leads them to believe the public health is stabler than it is and vote accordingly.
Caucasians will be a minority in less than 20 years, whereas the birth rate for other ethnicities continues to climb.
As a tool of depopulation, mass migration has successfully led to billions of deaths for various reasons. The Native Americans were given infected blankets by the Spanish, French and Dutch to seize their land. The Native Sicilians were massacred to take their land and forcing the surviving women to breed. (Dark hair and blue eyes was a very rare genetic combination before then.) During the Crusades, land changed hands frequently. Entire towns were taken one week and retaken the next, whereas others perpetually changed sides. At one point, Spain was even under Sharia rule, which they are now returning to…
Our population was never this large, mainly because we engaged in conflicts that cost many lives. In the absence of mass death, the population grows exponentially when the fertility rate does not decline equally across the ethnic scale, so to speak. In such cases, depopulation is not necessary, but it is easier than the alternatives.
‘We’ are not overpopulated as such. (The birth rate for Caucasians is actually in a steady decline. Redheads included.) We simply do not act in ways to maintain an ecological equilibrium, which includes reducing the number of children born in future generations. The declining birth rate across Europe, Britain, Asia and the United States reflects the decline in fertility. For numerous countries, reproduction is not merely a financial concern, but a very personal health crisis. Although this does not seem to apply to certain countries as of yet, it affects any ethnicity exposed to a sufficient amount of toxins in the food, water, soil and air supply for a prolonged time period although whites are more susceptible. These toxins include fluoride, heavy metals, phthalates and/or others that are a large part of modern nutrition. As it takes a few generations for the toxins to inflict enough DNA damage for their effects to be transferred on a hereditary level, it may not seem like an acute problem but it is. Any offspring is invariably affected, once the parental DNA has suffered extensive damage.
For what it is worth, the damage is not irreversible, as much as science may claim otherwise. Various forms of technology already exist. For instance, mesenchymal stem cell differentiation to cultivate the desired cellular matrix (i.e. whereas we used to grow hyaline cartilage, skin grafts and other parts for transplantation, we can know program cells to grow entire limbs that matches a particular genetic code as to avoid rejection). Another example, targeted gene therapy using the desired genetic vectors (i.e. embedding the right vector would heighten regenerative properties within the body by either replacing lost genetic material or encouraging the activation of dormant material). So, as you see, we have options. The corporate community merely does not employ them for the sake of greater financial gain worth the current treatment options than if they did. Lifelong treatment provides a regular income, while fully restoring health is far less profitable.
Overcrowding, the most cited reason for depopulation, does not apply to certain ethnicities as much as we are told. The declining birthdate actually keeps the number from growing for Caucasians (in the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe etc.) Although numerous studies have been conducted to discern the underlying cause, the results remain inconclusive. Hence, the fertility rate is higher amongst Hispanics, Hawaiians, Blacks, Asians, Indians and Arabs without any other explanation than greater genetic adaptability to the before-mentioned environmental triggers. More importantly, upon analyses of such findings on a global scale, numerous thinktanks have arrived at the conclusion that Caucasians will become a minority in less than 20 years, while the birth rate for other ethnicities is expected to rise without incident.
Age or gender appears to have no bearing on the lowering fertility rate, as those with the genetic propensity are equally affected. In women, this resulted in a substantial rise of infertility cases (presenting with primary/secondary amenorrhea, PCOS, ovarian/uterine/endometrial cancer, problems with the hypothalamic-pituitary axis etc.) without effective treatment that does not involve progesterone, radiation or hormone therapy. In men, the number of infertility cases (involving prostate/testicular cancer, hypogonadism, injury-related incidences etc.) rose to equal extents without effective treatment. Regardless of gender, the majority of cases are labelled idiopathic. Due to the misconception that the birthrate is far too high, any investigation into the cause are swiftly dismissed as unnecessary and/or quashed for their politically incorrect results.
Before listing the various reasons behind this, it should be noted that the term ‘idiopathic’, derived from Greek, roughly translates as ‘a disease of its own kind’. From a medical stance, the term implied that illness is as much psychological as it is physical. However, it was also broad enough to be used for ‘the first disease of its kind’, which is exactly what it came to describe. Now, when medical professionals cannot figure out the underlying cause, it is much cheaper to label the problem ‘idiopathic’ than to order expensive tests that the patients cannot afford even with medical insurance, a well-paid job and middle-class lifestyle. In addition, as soon as any medical file contains the word ‘idiopathic’, it is often assumed that the root of the condition is purely psychological. Although the nocebo effect proves psychological factors can have a detrimental effect on health, it is rarely reported when these factors result in death. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that all these cases are of psychological origin. If they were, it would mean over a third of the global population are suffering from psychosomatic illnesses. The likelihood of this is incredibly low, unless the very nature of disease is psychological in origin, in which case it would explain the existence of the placebo/nocebo effect.
As detailed in my other work, mental factors can only influence matter to a limited extent. For example, when we remove a fish from water, we cannot expect it to adjust instantly. Similarly, if we were to relocate an Eskimo to the Sahara, it would take generations before they acclimatised to the extreme temperature difference. The same applies to taking a Venician from sea level to the top of the Himalayas without anticipating problems. To the point, we can say the underlying cause of their problems are unknown or we can admit that our preconceptions may be at fault. Simply because we do not know, does not mean we cannot. Historically, we believed many things, which we eventually disproved. Given enough time, nothing is unknowable. Continuing with the previous analogy, we discovered why certain types of lifeforms are better equipped for survival as well as reproduction in specific environments. For instance, saltwater fish struggle in freshwater due to how hypertonic cells function. When left for long enough, their sodium levels are depleted but not replaced, ultimately causing death. The same happens when we remove any organism from sea level and rapidly increase/decrease the altitude. As soon as dizziness, nausea and vomiting kicks in, the altitude has to be reduced. The same applies to reverse altitude sickness. As soon as symptoms present, the altitude has to be increased. If not, unconsciousness following death is imminent given either scenario. With sufficient training, we can adjust to lower/higher altitudes but only to finite degrees without advanced meditative practice or genetic engineering. Interestingly, it is more than possible for humanoid lifeforms to develop the necessary physiological factors to dive as deep as the Mariana Trench. However, such features take hundreds, if not thousands of years to cultivate without resorting to radical scientific methods. Countless generations would have to activate aspects of the human genome that have remained dormant for millennia, which would then have to be developed further by gene therapy, mind-body training and/or other alternatives.
Our development is largely based on that of our ancestors. How they modelled the environment to suit their needs is the primary source of our daily comforts. Just as their ancestors finding the ancient trade routes allowed for constant global trade, our ancestors devised the means for instantaneous communication around the globe and so on. In other words, we shape each other in this life and the next. Our childrens development is no exception. We continue where our ancestors could not by undoing their best work, rectifying their mistakes and at times by striving for the highest endeavour that any sentient being can. They shall do the same. It is an Never-ending cycle. That notwithstanding, when their wars become ours, as they so often do, we must know the history of the conflict and where future conflicts will take future generations. Far too many romanticise the concept of a modern day crusade without truly understanding the destructive nature of war from first-hand experience. We are caught up in whatever is happening at the time to realise the big picture…Even, if we were told, most would not believe it or investigate further. Truth is much darker, much stranger than we are compelled to think…
Our Perception Reflects Our State of Consciousness Prior To Colour, Creed or Race
When two fractions of the human race are played against each other, then the third is most likely pulling the strings. When manipulating the development of a species over generations, the ends typically justify the means. Anarchistic, free-thinking tendencies are eradicated gradually as to not arouse suspicion but they are weeded out more aggressively as time goes on. This can only be achieved by rewriting the dictionary…by redefining problems to maintain appearance, shift responsibility and compensate for shortcomings… Words, such as freedom, are twisted. Plainly speaking, when a concept no longer benefits the ruling elite, it is remodelled. Although this is an old practice, it is highly effective when people have been ‘sufficiently prepared’. Recently, the British Labour party’s governing National Executive Committee redefined antisemitism in such a manner that it has legitimised it. Its code now says: “In general terms, the expression of even contentious views in this area will not be treated as antisemitism unless accompanied by specific antisemitic content (such as the use of antisemitic tropes) or by other evidence of antisemitic intent.” Hence, unless there is evidence of antisemitic intent, unsubstantiated claims aimed toward the Jewish people are permissible.
It is not the first time that very important terms were redefined for the worse. Redefinition is a part of the ongoing development that comes with linguistic communication. Whereas words have the capacity to activate genes, they may also deactivate them. More accurately, it not actually the words that achieve this. It is the realisation that comes from understanding them. Put simply, a klick happens in the neural cortex, which literally makes the visual cortex perceive ‘something’ [incl. associated ‘things’] differently.
We typically redefine a concept, when we have gained vital information that will aid complete understanding. Otherwise, the reason for redefining anything is morally questionable. As any species progresses from pre- to post-linguistic, the interpretation of universal concepts (expressed through language) evolves alongside them. In ideal scenarios, they strive to realise the final achievement of thought with little to no contention amongst them. As this is rarely the case, the circumstances are often far from idyllic. For us, conflict is a means to reconcile our differences in a rather pre-determinable fashion. Before the conflict has even ended, the winner has already been decided by the type of conflict waged. Almost every possible scenario is considered and what is required for the events to unfold for each scenario to take place. The people themselves are thought to have very little control over their lives, because their actions can be easily anticipated, influenced and corrupted. Votes are being manipulated, until the public response becomes too excessive to control, as with the Brexit referendum and U.S. Election. Behaviour is controlled through positive and negative reinforcement, until the positive/negative stimulus no longer has an effect [i.e. when we completely lack any care about the negative consequences for attempting to inspire global change and need no reward in exchange]. Our food, air and water supplies are poisoned with toxic, addictive chemicals to damage our DNA, until those responsible no longer have the ability to benefit and the cost of doing so is too high. Thought control is implemented, when each attempt to influence free speech has failed. Before which, what we are allowed to express is penalised when it no does not conform to the pre-established political agenda. The political agenda implemented on a nationwide scale is generally decided by those who hold the power. The opposition of the elite acts to counter the waves of destruction, but can only do so to a limited degree. Mass migration has forced leaders to show where their allegiance lies. This has come at a great cost to the people. As events have spiralled out of control, more lives are lost each day and we are prohibited from admitting to the cause without persecution: Religious Extremism.
Across Britain and Europe, the freedom of expression carries high penalties, ranging from fines to prison sentences. First, inconvenient truths became unpopular opinions that incited rage often followed by violent outbursts, after which they became immoral and then they became illegal. Soon, as in any Sharia-controlled nation, they will be punishable by death. Among other things, they will be blasphemous, but not without vehement opposition.
Before we proceed, we must ask ourselves, what are the primary systems governing the people on a global scale: the Church, the State and the Bank. In order for the people to be controlled in an easier fashion without much disobedience, these systems must merge. [Mind you, they will inevitably need to merge in order to become obsolete.] The manner, in which they merge may not affect the outcome but it changes the hearts and minds of the people. When a war becomes so desperate that it shakes the core of almost every person on the face of the Earth, then the Church, State and Bank must work hand in hand for the survival of those remaining. In Sharia, all three are one. They do not exist as separate entities. To do so would violate their religious texts. [This is very similar to the Hebraic principle that forbids Jews from owning land.] In any case, where we compartmentalise the three, Sharia ensures they are treated as one. Although this has benefits in an idyllic, peace-loving world, in which we can leave our doors unlocked, we are not yet willing to make an all-integrated system work for and not against the people. In wartime, the benefits of such all-in-one system may potentially outweigh the consequences. For example, a possible repeat of WW1s lack of ammunition, weapons, worthwhile stratagem or morale. Only this time, a percentage would be due to left-wing/liberal interference to either cease the violence or aid a growing, Sharia-controlled minority about to seize legal superiority.
During times of extreme stress or life-threatening circumstances, it is not uncommon for people to turn to religion, especially when they feel that they state has forsaken them. It is a coping mechanism to ensure the minds functioning after a traumatic event. When one institution has failed, it feels natural to be driven to another, but the solution does not lie in institutions. That is why religion always might just fill the whole. Think about it, it can display all the qualities of a corporation, but not appear as one. Throughout war, religious impulses thrive and die with every passing day, because of our innate desire for meaning, love or peace. The question is which religion?
As the Italian Prime Minister provides more protection for Christians than the Vatican, the probability of a siege has decreased slightly. Yet, it is highly possible that the Vatican will fall from within. In Britain and Europe, pastors will continue to be targeted at an increasing rate. As this happens, religious representatives will lose the trust of the people as they persist in denying that we are caught in an ideological war. When this happens, most church-goers will not convert. They will simply change congregation, unless they have experienced severe trauma around the time of the event. As things worsen, churches will become active targets. There is nothing to be gained by endangering your followers [unless you’re gaining something for the other side], so worship will revert back to a more tight-knit, communal state.
As war-zones develop around the No-Go zones, food distribution will follow military or modified dads army protocols. Rationing will be implemented early on as food shortages are expected. Money will lose its value in areas, which cannot be cut off and secured. Others will transform the benefit system. Universal credit it a beta test. Rationing tickets will be handed out but no actual money will change hands. As WW2 survivors will verify, these tickets were only as good as the foods available to the local store. If the store did not have the allocated food, whatever the item was, people starved. Nowadays, the government would transfer money to the corporate vender for the food to be distributed. In turn, the corporate vender would pay the corporations for supplying the goods. Most food during war times is  processed, containing toxic additives and preservatives, which further reduce the fertility rate when least needed.  canned, exposing people to excess heavy metal and BPA for prolonged periods known to cause disease.  preserved to a marginally healthier degree with sugar, vinegar, brine, alcohol etc.
The probability to survive is typically by calculating the scale of the event. As few accessible locations will be available to the public, the only ability to survive long enough is community. In the absence of secret, large-scale preparation, the odds are not in anyones favour. Religious extremists continue to smuggle full arsenals, including rocket launchers, into Germany, France, Britain and other countries. Strategically, the average community stands a significantly greater chance, when they prepare together and take well-contemplated action as a unified force.
Many native gene lines have been forced into extinction as they could not ‘mingle’ with their own kind. Genetically, Egypt has not been Egypt in some time. Most Egyptians fled Egypt and intermarried. Few [if not none] share the blood-line, dating back to Ancient Egypt.
As time progresses, any country that only breeds with natives would eventually run out of people they are not related to. Interbreeding is required to avoid inbreeding. However, breeding with inbred DNA to outbreed is not recommended. When religious laws damage the genetic health of an already frail future generation by encouraging incest for the sake of financial gain, the non-compliant are weeded out fairly quickly. During wartime, this protocol takes a grim turn. The orders change to kill the mentally, physically infirm as a means to conserve resources. Without welfare payment from the enemy, their religious laws demand those unable to kneel, pray and serve be executed.
As much as certain ethnicities face extinction, there is no way that they can. Our genetic material is safely stored. This means every ethnicity, even older forms, can be replicated via technology as a fail-safe. It should be noted that I am not talking about the seed vault, which had to be evacuated, when its material fell under siege by religious extremists.
In conclusion, depopulation is not about which ethnicity has global superiority. It is about those, whose mental state is easily influenced. Some of whom are obvious cannon-fodder, but can still up their value. Others, whose value has been evaluated for generations, and those in-between. These in-betweeners are maybe 2-5% of the population. The number is designed to be decreased by war. Truth be told, that is the expected number of survivors, just below 100 million, to establish to total control. However, there is a level of leeway, dependent on the reproductive health of the survivors and other factors to be discussed soon.
Twenty years ago a group of Detroit anarchists began work on a new synthesis of environmental and anti-authoritarian thought. Distinguishing themselves from other burgeoning ecological movements in the eighties anarchopunk scene they sought to draw inspiration directly from our primitive roots. Anarchy, they declared, should not be considered in terms of an abstract state to be politically won, but rather a living experience and extensive historical reality. Reevaluating the ideologies and dogma of the classic anarchist movement they turned attention to the archaeological record and existing indigenous societies. By building on post-left critiques they passionately worked to bring attention to a much wider context and history of mental, social and physical expressions of totalitarianism. And finally, taking a stunningly broad stance that framed humanity’s neolithic embrace of mass society in terms of the mythological Fall from Eden, the movement chose to target as a single whole both the virulent social hierarchies that accompanied the onset of agrarianism and the entirety of technological development since.
The radical core of a vast green anarchist awakening, anarcho-primitivism blossomed across the North American anti-authoritarian community and then beyond.
High-profile operations such as Earth First’s creation of the Cascadia Free State to block old-growth logging built an international momentum around green anarchy. At the same time intellectuals like John Zerzan gained public exposure in defense and support of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s anti-civilization politics. In the Seattle riots against the WTO primitivist group from Eugene stole the media spotlight. Today various bundlings of green anarchist thought have become diffuse and deeply integral in the broader anarchist movement and, despite some dramatically turning tides, primitivism still enjoys a significant influence.
Naturally this has provoked sizable criticism.
Within the traditionally socialist and unabashedly leftist veins writers such as Michael Albert and Murray Bookchin have been repulsed at the movement’s radical rejection of everyday basic technology and universally accepted constructs like language itself. And on the ground many activists deride a lack of engagement with or sympathy and awareness of social realities. Furthermore, identity issues and accusations of irrelevancy have plagued the mainly economically-privileged white anglophone movement.
Despite this, or perhaps because of these critiques and their limited nature, the primitivist discourse has continued seeping out to wider audiences beyond anarchism through things like the growing infatuation of liberal conspiracy types with peak oil and Derrick Jensen’s popularization of ecological struggle.
Serious intellectual resistance, where it has come, has been less theoretically inspired than socially motivated. For many radicals the most tangible effects of primitivism have been cultural. Predictions of an inevitable and permanent crash of civilization have sapped the perceived need for revolutionary action and differing degrees of survivalist elitism have mixed with already rampant shallow and self-preoccupied competitive moralisms to the effect of even greater disconnect. A sort of DIY green capitalism has been recreated by certain radical circles in which presumably if you collect enough survival skills tokens you get to retire to your very own plush post-collapse bungalow with a panoramic view of everyone you ever had drama with dying.
This is obviously all very concerning. But, as with any political philosophy or revolutionary paradigm, the demographics and particular social consequences are far less important than what primitivism actually has to say. Neither extremism nor radicalism are ever reasons for rejection unto themselves, nor are even impracticality or a fumbled enactment – whatever tactics might be concluded from an assertion, if the underlying idea is inviolate, the consequence of it should not blind us to that reality.
The actual argument behind anarcho-primitivism is fierce. It is intelligent and complex, yet beautifully simple at root… And it is ultimately wrong.
In giving flesh to these fifteen theses I seek not to call out the radical green movement wholesale. Nor do I mean to limit myself to some official orthodoxy of primitivism proper. Rather I mean to address several core and recurring strands of thought in primitivism today and the deep failings that have come to define it as a whole.
Biological concepts & Distinctions aren’t Particularly fundamental
It’s no secret we, as a society, have a bad case of cosmology-through-taxonomy. The industrial revolution in particular saw an explosion of categorization and demarcation between abstractions. From animal/vegetable/mineral we got sub-parthenons. phylas, compounds, infraclasses and a host of other cognitive divisions. It was a profound and expansive campaign of centralization and itemization and, like all others, it was mostly about control.
Just as has been true since the very first person mucked around with language: naming is power.
It was not enough to build a massive physical infrastructure by which to apply social hierarchies. Humanity itself had to be broken down and controlled. The greatest tools of coercion and control that had ever been available—the needs and frailties of our own bodies—were to be so thoroughly itemized as give charge to the second greatest tool of coercion and control: a religion.
Biology over-asserted its association with hard sciences like chemistry and physics and brought that unearned legitimacy to bear in the social realm. Even as forests were clearcut and species exterminated, Europe’s expanding ecosystem of social hierarchy launched a barrage of taxonomic declarations to convince the people that it best understood their interactions, place and role within the world. We may not understand the processes killing you, but we can pick its name off a chart.
Though it gave no true strength, such taxonomic knowledge provided a numbing security. A sense of personal control over the world through the ingestion of structure.
The synthesis of this pursuit of taxonomy with the valuation of position and power can of course be seen in the constructions applied to race and sex. And “Social Darwinism” justified social stratification more broadly by applying emerging biological concepts as fully descriptive and absolute laws of nature in realms they had no business in describing.
The general assurance provided by taxonomy spurred an overreach that still deeply affects our discourse. Mainstream notions of ethics—long corrupted by the church to remove any foundation save appeals to authority— reacted to the increasing potency of biological explanations by simply swapping authorities. Nature was swapped in to fill the place of god. And the fulfillment of one’s role set out for them by nature was positioned as the moral good. Homosexuality, for example, gets attacked for being “unnatural” more often than “unholy.”
The early field of biology, as it was appealed to and applied in the social realm, excelled in layered complex arcana, rituals and miracles. What it needed was a touch of divinity, something that could be personally mystified until it swallowed up all existential questions. And then it would be possible to draw lines and slice up whatever was left on the metaphysical level. Thus the arbitrary category of “living” was canonized as an absolute on par with the charge of an electron, even though abstractions like “self-replicating system” were obviously subjective as all hell. We saw patterns that could be easily and pragmatically described and pretended they were prefect and fundamental descriptions. So the chemically subjective impression of “life” is declared to begin at conception, et cetera, et cetera.
The churches bought in real fast.
Yet if self-replication is somehow an entropy-breaking signature of a divinely separate force, what of the stars? They grow, collapse and, in doing so, seed their own re-growth among the nebulae. Every piece of matter around us is part of that cycle. Likewise, a mystification of the information patterns of DNA breaks down in the form of RNA and quasi-nucleaic-acid carriers on the frayed edge of what’s a complex molecule and what was declared easily recognizable by a lab technician. What counts as the “sameness” between one cell and another?Why not include the sublimation of minerals?
It can seem an inane difficulty, but these notions come to bear again and again in our political and ecological discourse in ways that can be deeply problematic, yet are rarely called out.
One tradition of primitivist thought appeals strongly to the notion of “complexity”, something well defined in say computer science (where the arbitrary abstractions we choose automatically have real meaning), but not so clear-cut in the realm of cultures and biomes. You get authors like Jason Godesky arguing points that depend on humo sapiens being more “complex” than dinosaurs and dinosaurs more complex than say coral reefs. But for what definition of “complex”? We judge complexity based on how many “parts” we see in a system, but what exactly constitutes a part is itself hugely subjective on anything other than fundamental particles. We chose to talk and think in terms of particular abstracts agglomerates based on how useful such schemes are for us, not because things become suddenly magically more than the sum of their parts at say the cellular level. If dinosaurs are considered “less complex” than primates it’s because we have more intricate naming systems for physical and behavioral details closer to our own experience. But from another perspective a coral reef can be seen as far, far more complex than a human being.
My point is that significant abstraction based in such taxonomies can end up worse than useless. While on a some levels—in the pragmatic service of some goals—they can be useful, we need to remain explicit about those constraints. There can be just as much, say, fundamental “diversity” between a given spotted owl & lemur as between two lemurs. Narrowly focused on similarities between patterns of DNA or macroscopic physical trends in physiology, our concept of “diversity” might even be applicable in the way we want it to be. But it won’t necessarily get us beyond the assumptions, the working parameters, and the social hierarchies a given taxonomic framework is couched in. It’s all too easy to slide into making too much out of false dichotomies between ‘living’ and non-’living’ systems or ‘natural’ and non-’natural’ arrangements.
While pragmatic on certain levels of discussion, abstractions of any deep ethical, ontological or existential significance that are predicated on Biology’s conceptual distinctions are likely to be deeply problematic. Instead of copping out with loose and ultimately arbitrary abstractions, it behooves us to think in terms of the exact particulars and only speak of systemic distinctions that are grounded in objective fundamentals.
The biosphere is not inherently good, just highly dynamic
Between the solar wind and its molten iron core, the Earth has a thin layer of water and nitrogen. Around 3.5 billion years ago, after the planet finished aggregating, this layer of fluid locked into a sort of homeostasis around the solid mantel. The various elements caught up in this turbulent process were forced into far closer interaction than they’d seen as dust between the stars. Due to the nature of the planetary formation much of the surface experienced large and decidedly uneven outbursts of energy. Unusually extended molecules were formed and destroyed as fundamental particles followed entropy to lower energy states all while pressed up against uncountable trillions of their fellows.
Eventually the most violent energy outbursts died down and the resulting elemental muck settled into more efficient and locally sustainable patterns of relational structure. The free-floating O2 molecule became a quite popular pattern of arrangement as erosive molecular aggregates liberated it from the surface’s iron rocks. Another popular arrangement that stood the test of all those trillions of interacting particles and molecules was the amino acid. Of course, this was a far broader generalization of inter-atomic structure and, unlike the simplistic O2, its existence depended on a much higher degree of interaction with the surrounding muck. Such increased interaction, in fact, that, as entropy played out the Earth’s ocean/atmosphere, it emerged primarily in close conjunction with much larger agglomerations of closely interdependent molecules. In the background of all this an almost unnoticeable mass of sugars rolled themselves out and transmitted structural information to their surrounding proteins. The planet cooled and these sluggish uber-massive molecular arrangements gained ground against the more fiery radical arrangements of yester-eon. Today about two trillion tons of matter on the surface of the earth is intimately associated with these deoxyribonucleic acids. And the sum total of these fluidly interrelating positional structures of matter is today referred to as the Biosphere.
There are many cosmically descriptive attributes that could be applied to this planet’s scummy outer film, but the most important is by far its dynamicism.
Neither an expansive vacuum of distant, weak and slow interactions nor a positionally locked, brittle over-structure, the biosphere is characterized by relatively in fluid change. That is to say interacting forces play out with significantly sped up changes in relative positions. Of course that’s not to ascribe to it the properties of some perfectly dynamic super-fluid.
Rather, the Earth is simply dynamic enough to buffer the emergence and mobile propagation of rough, low-density information structures. Like us.
Our biosphere is organized in stratified layers of fluidity. From particles to molecules to cells to organisms. Given any arbitrarily limited system and the intention to convey information in the form of spatial relations able to withstand externalities, some fluid behavior is crucial. Those arrangements which survive and flourish in such dynamic systems do so though grassroots propagation. And the resulting landscapes are characterized by redundancy. By coalescing into autonomous actors they achieve a sort of distributed adaptability that morph around blunt obstacles and seep into their surroundings.
Compared to a rock, a puddle of water is very dynamic. A maple tree’s probably going to be a whole lot less dynamic than the puddle of water. But the rock’s not going to do much at all. The information structure contained within the arrangement of its particles isn’t really going to apply itself to the surrounding world as be applied upon.
The rock, of course, can store quite a bit of positional information. These days we, as a society, spend quite a lot of time saving porn and MP3s to rocks. Because, it’s worth pointing out, the structures in the rock generally don’t spontaneously flow apart. At the same time, however, such brittle frozen structures are incredibly unstable in the face applied contact and motion. But that’s okay because though dynamic systems erode entrenched structure, there are still ways to convey and apply positional information.
The maple tree’s DNA, for example, in proportion to its total resulting weight, may not pack away an impressive number of gigs per cubic inch. But it preserves and applies such informational structures in such a way that an ipod, abandoned on mountainside, would be hard pressed to match.
Through dynamic engagement with environmental complexities, structure can be rooted with more survivability and consequence than a less dynamic one would find. The structure of a hunk of concrete is not very dynamic, and a brittle hunk of concrete embedded in a far more dynamic system will not last very long.
The positional structure of say, concrete overpasses, doesn’t have as strong a history of dynamic participation in the Earth’s scummy outer film as say, humanity. And, as the human body is an emergent structure highly interconnected and participant within a rather dynamic system, our own structures are somewhat colossally interdependent with all the other watery stuff whirling around us.
From our vantage point as homo sapiens, the Earth’s dynamic system usually looks great! But let’s remember that there are no huge metaphysical engines driving the whole thing just to sustain the crude information structure of ‘humanishly’ arranged deoxyribonucleic acids bumping about in scummy water sacks. The Earth wasn’t made for human bodies. Human bodies were made for the Earth.
And all that means is that our template survived two million years of stabbing rabbits to death and picking strawberries. It does not mean that going back to stabbing and strawberries would still cut it for us in another thousand years (even if we had never taken up our new dastardly practice of planting carrots and wheeling around carts). Who knows? Fact of the matter is some dynamic turbulence in the Biosphere could spontaneously wipe us out any day. Following our original position within the greater biosphere (even with some mild evolution) guarantees nothing. It is simply an informed shot in the dark. Good chances but a rather hands off abandonment to fate.
Yet, at the same time, it should be so obvious as to go without saying that suddenly slapping concrete over 1/10th of the Earth’s surface will almost certainly effect a non-human-friendly result. No matter how many of your summer homes you make out of cob.
Humans can choose our dynamics
We exist immersed within a dynamic system and remain deeply dependent on its conditions. At the same time there’s no denying that we can affect both our local conditions and the system as a whole.
On the face of it, this appears to present us with the two extremes: We can strive to interact with our external environment in as close to the same manner as worked twenty thousand years ago. Or we can seek different ways of engaging with it.
To the degree that we choose the first, we throw up our hands at the thought of out thinking millions of years of evolution. Uncountable trillions of calculations were involved in the formation of our bodies and ecology. Granted, the Earth isn’t finished processing through all the fluid interactions of its scummy crust—and when it is, there will be nothing left—but, in the short term, it’s certainly amenable to assume that enough of the overarching patterns of equilibrium involved in our upkeep will be maintained for a few dozen more millennia. …Provided we continue to participate in roughly the same manner.
The second option, deviation, is, at least evolutionarily, a great tactic. But the most efficient processes of evolution take steps inversely proportional to the evolving structure’s size. The greater the trial, the greater the error. Large scale structures have more net components involved and thus more points of interaction with the external dynamic system. A single misstep has larger consequences.
The best way to sneak around this dangerous process of physical trial and error is conceptual modeling. We can think through possible changes to way we interact with the world. We simplify perceptions into cognitive structures and then allow them to evolve against one another in our minds. The resulting successful structures we then translate back into external form.
This is technology.
It’s the process of how we choose to arrange our interactions with the material world. Loose every day associations of bulldozers and computers aside, this is pretty all that the word “technology” means.
Problem is, the greater the abstraction involved the greater the imperfection. Symbolic representations diverge from material behavior as, by nature of their comparative simplicity, they cannot calculate every interaction in a fluid system. “Chaotic” behavior thus emerges as a phantom remainder, left behind to torment the carefully calculated and brittle structures we so proudly abstracted.
It’s one thing when it results in a snapped vine rope, it’s quite another when the structure at hand coats the entire Earth. But, regardless of degree, in every technological channel we might use to interact with the material world, whether it be through our traditional biological bodies, adopted behavioral patterns, symbolic logic, mechanical tools, or agglomerate ecosystem, our ultimate choice is between fluidly integrated structures and clunky or tractionless structures.
This is the greater truth. Our choices are ultimately a matter of dynamics. Rather than a choice between two sets of patterns, “technology” and “non-technology,” every manner of interaction with the world is a kind of technology. What matters is their efficiency in providing the most fluid contact with the world.
Role-filling is an ethical abdication
We do not consider “I was just following orders” to ever be a good excuse or moral justification. Neither is, “I was just following my role in nature.”
Though of course it’s ludicrous to imagine our ecosystem personally issuing commands to Nazi stormtroopers, the basic issue of abdicating personal spirit and responsibility to external authority is the same.
Outsourcing our lives into the control of external systems is a surprisingly accepted practice in our society and whole swathes of people have come to believe that in doing so we can escape the energy of vigilance and self-animation. So vast is the acceptance, that there’s a general sense that actions committed while self-placed under some external authority are, in some manner, of less personal responsibility than would be otherwise true. As if the choice to abdicate choice could ever be less egregious. Whenever we accept a form of external authority, we chew away at the personal processes of thinking and living in a sort of selective internal suicide. But rarely does it stay internal. And what once might have been abstract and largely benign, if still a centrally accepted personal axiom, begins to noticeably seep out into our actions and intentions.
It’s no secret that our most glamorous hierarchies and evils are assisted, if not entirely held up, by such abdications.
Some of the most instantly recognizable and specific cases of role-filling passed as morality come from the Christian church. From semi-broad conceptions of manners of personal position within a larger system as moral goods, to actual behavioral code pounded into rocks, such conceptions of external morality have been adopted and fleshed out by many sincere people striving independently. …And, of course, inexorably lead to empowered hierarchies and the justification of outright law.
In contrast, the extreme back-to-basics of ecological role-filling do not directly lay down the specifics of some universal moral code, nor do they posit precise moment-to-moment structures of action. What is done instead is far more insidious, it embraces a generalized sense of external authority. The broad presupposition that we have a place within a larger system, and that our following of that externally defined role is a moral good.
In short, that the external world should rule us.
The fact that these external notions are more material than social is an important detail, but does not change the underlying movement towards abrogation of personal spirit and responsibility. (And the mediation of material structures into guidelines for one’s personal intent and action often comes through social instruments.)
By supporting chains of governance in the abstract, such ecological role-filling ultimately throws away agency in self-definition and self-determination …even though it may not have yet settled on particular rigid structures of personal participation.
The inescapable problem is that after embedding oneself in external causal sequences one cannot be assured of any moral force remaining in them much less being inherent. Reframing and constructing one’s life according to say ecological equations or drug-induced instructions from an owl-spirit, though superficially different in structural source, are identical in nature. They can justify anything.
And over many iterations, though such external forces may have been first broadly interpreted so as to produce anti-authoritarian behavior, without an internally emergent motivation, they will justify anything.
The rejection of civilization and technology in favor of ecological role-filling, on the face of it, can’t help but appear socially conservative. Still, most if not the overwhelming majority of primitivists have imported enlightenments from progressive movements of deconstruction, seeking to meld anarchist branches of queer theory within the critique of civilization. Despite anarcho-primitivism’s macho appearance and reputation within the community, progressive perspectives and deconstruction of sexuality are widely embedded with the banner of green anarchy and some of the most energetic advances and popularizations of anarchism’s interpersonal insights have come via green anarchist ventures. (Nothing makes folks face gender roles like a winter in the forest together.) But, while there’s been some dancing around biological role-filling in regards to gender, one universal line been drawn, as it is inescapable from the most basic premise of anti-technology: However much primitivism’s role-filling might be stretched to embrace the variance of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and even some limited queer identities, trans folk are right out.
Because one’s biological body is a component of one’s role in the greater system that can’t truly be changed without technology. The greater alteration of one’s body’s dynamics, the more dynamic (and from our point of view complex) the applied technology must be. This occasion of an anti-civilization interpretation of the environment’s orders is but one sharp and early consequence of primitivism’s broader-embrace of role-filling. Even worse ones are certain to come.
As primitivism turns outward for direction from (interpretations of) ecological systems, the divergence between their resulting codes of action and our common feeling of a moral world will deepen. And one can only begin to imagine the depth to the insidious changes capable of spreading after a crash. When the touch of role-filling becomes more immediate. The embrace of one’s position within a system internalizes and emphasizes one’s connections to the system until the core person is subsumed and replaced by them.
Individuals flourish with increases to their dynamic connections
When our relationships to external material structures become poorly integrated, brittle and characterized by rigid control we become imprisoned.
A starving child, trapped alone, say, on a seemingly endless expanse of clay left by sudden drought, is obviously overwhelmed and overpowered by the change of integration with environment. We can even imagine such a doomed child perhaps only finding extended survival by listlessly licking up mud for nutrients. Not exactly a free mode of life, most would agree. And so too is the villager who simply follows the same processes in life endlessly with no real deviation or exploration—even in times of plenty when such chores are unneeded—pretty far from a liberated life. Furthermore, such internalized repetition of behavior might prove more than unnecessary, and, in fact, destructive to the whole community’s relation with their surroundings.
On the flip side, it’s clear that fluid contact with our environment helps us positively spread and grow. At heart, we like to touch. We like to see, feel and know our world. We like to reach out and explore.
That’s not to say that locking ourselves out of the world can’t be useful in situations of oppressive tactile structures. When our environment strays into systems of behavior we can’t integrate with, limited strength and intensity of contact is often a positive survival method.
We might flee a hurricane for a concrete bunker or, when struggling through a winter, slow our bodies down in degrees of hibernation. The villager who mechanizes repetition of the same task in order to survive a bad period withdraws from sensory engagement in a similar manner.
But again with the mechanized villager we see how locking ourselves away can sometimes provide its own powerful form of role-filling. The classic caricature of a suburban businessman might come to mind, someone who locks himself away behind sterile, contact depriving doors, striving progressively to do away with any manner of fluid interaction. replacing contact’1 and engagement with air conditioned SUVs and neatly packaged television shows.
There are stronger and weaker degrees (and of course forms or directions) of such contact possible with the world. Certain examples are obvious. The hunter who embraces the wilderness and, though more fluidly integrated sensation, feels interactions spreading out from the brushed fern to the owl fluttering off in the distance. The same villager considered before, who just washes clothes in the river and doesn’t stray much beyond the functioning of established processes, has internalized a greater barrier to contact, interaction, connection, and integration with the external environment. And, of course, the much lamented World of Warcraft addict, isolated in dark room, may perhaps enjoy great social contact but still little more than faint stimuli in matters of physical reality.
It’s no coincidence that the examples given are characterized by decreasingly dynamic connections as the ostensible trappings of civilization are more pronounced. Modern civilization has acquired layers of structural blanketing that encompasses and confines our everyday lives. In every conceivable realm we have taken to throwing down fences and slinking into set patterns and channels of behavior. We still interact with the world, but the dynamics are greatly confined.
How often do we sit quietly and feel the trees move? How often do we pay attention to what exactly is in the room with us, rather than reducing our reality into crudely simplified concepts of functional relationship? How often do we touch the world rather than ignoring or itemizing it? When was the last time you turned your head up and actually looked at the stars?
No wonder our minds and bodies rot today, we function within set patterns because they can be useful. But we only truly flourish with deeper contact. It’s no secret that such brittle structures and role-filling are unstable and corrosive, but in the other direction, when we approach our connections dynamically we can spread channels of stronger, more fluidic and organic tactile contact.
There is no fundamental limit to this contact.
Certain local realities provide a bunch of pragmatic limitations, but they can be worked around. In much the same way that the hunter can feel the dancing wind patterns far stronger than his skin or the rustling foliage might otherwise reveal by choosing to throw up some downy feathers and watch their interaction with the twisting air currents. Or a apple-gatherer use stilts to stride between tree branches. Or an ancient lens crafter build a telescope. Or a geneticist hack the human genome to give his skin stronger light-awareness.
We want stronger and more versatile contact, and thus we’ve built technology.
Rather than from a drive to rigidly control and master, technology has always been, at root, formed by the desire for greater dynamic contact. Not the divorced-from-the-world laziness that sometimes emerges from later abdications once the tools have been acquired. But from the desire to touch, feel and explore. Because the primal creation involved is necessarily rooted in an act of ingenuity and imagination.
The systems engineer who designs and builds a bridge across a ravine with her own hands applies herself in a deeply connected fashion. The world is felt and worked with smoothly. Rock is shifted. A new channel of contact becomes stronger. It’s easier to move from place to place. To engage with a wider swath of the world.
The onset of our hierarchical methods of industry, though they facilitated greater and greater power and exploitation, partially stem from the human desire for deeper and more dynamic contact with the world. We don’t like being confined. Or that is to say, we rot when limited or relegated to some removed subspace. We flourish with the intensity and immediacy of our more dynamic connections to the world.
Moving beyond the same socially perpetuated processes of behavior, we strive to understand and deepen our relationship, our interaction with the seeds and bushes we gather from. We try for greater contact, attempt a more fluid integration. And so we help plant the berry bushes we need closer to us…
Symbolic structures can facilitate greater fluidity. So long as they, themselves, are treated fluidly. The moment they become rigid, when we remove or replace ourselves with mechanization, our interactions with the world grow rigid and brittle.
Understanding is not dependent on process but capacity to experience
We live in a watery world. Every particle interacts with everything else. The patterns of “structure” that emerge from this turbulent fluid do so in a (relatively) constantly shifting, redundant, and interdependent way. Organic, you might say.
The intensity of interaction–more specifically the high degree of and constant change of relative position internally–found in systems defined by a distribution of particles is the basic premise for the generation of information structures within the system. In the seminal “game of life” demonstrations programmers seeded low level algorithms in a complex environment and turned up the intensity of the environment’s internal interactions. The consequence was “spontaneously” “generated” more “complex” or “diverse” informational “structures.” A whole “complex” ecosystem of interacting informational systems.
But of course we should examine these terms critically. “Complex” can be something of a misnomer given its modern connotations of rigidity sometimes plain unnaturalness (think of the thick owner’s manual to a car or a vast board of circuits). Instead it might be better to consider the hurricane. Or the chaotic feedback found in a small backyard creek; the ripples and eddies forming from smaller masses of interactions and they, themselves, interrelating. Sometimes to form greater agglomerations.
This is a far better representation of the human body, the animal cell, bioregion or net ecosystem. We are each hurricanes in a way. Fractal agglomerates of the positional information of particles in a fluid muck. We thrive with motion and connection. Plop us in stellar vacuum or granite mountainside and, with no connection or absolutely rigidly controlling connections, our informational patterns don’t do that well.
Without dynamic integration to the world we have no channels to exist through. We cannot touch. And without the capacity to touch the world we cannot understand.
We all recognize ‘understanding’ as more than compartmentalized knowledge. More than a tally sheet of discrete informational structures built out of rigid neurons. Something more generalized. Something vaguer, but more tactile. The impression left by a lover’s skin.
The refraction and internalization of the external. The breaking down of a self that might have been discretely itemized by the empty other, not in acceptance or allegiance to emptiness, but through the blossoming enrapture of the other into the self. Until there is no hollow, deathly, meaningless other. Only the universalized self.
This is the arrow of understanding.
Given that the only tangible truth is the internal, understanding is birthed not by attempts to kill of the internal, but reaching out and finding truth by making everything internal. To take in truth. To breath in a lover’s sweat and eradicate the lies between you. Between you and you.
But here’s the trick. Technology can facilitate the capacity to experience. Which is the basic requirement for the creation of understanding.
A hearing aid. Glasses. A microscope. A telescope. Pictures of animals from far away. Pictures of plants. A fine saw blade revealing the layers inside a quartz rock. Satellite contour mappings of valleys and water systems across an entire continent…
The more venues for and the stronger the tactile connections, the greater the capacity for experience.
Today we can actually feel individual molecules with our hands. We can caress the fringe star clusters of distant galaxies with our eyes. We can see the insides of our own bodies and recognize the pheromones dripping off our shoulders. See sound waves. Pick apart flavors and the patterned buzzing of our own nerves.
Understanding is perhaps simply the most dynamic and abstract fluid impressions of the external, it’s that which most effectively mentally grasps the fabric of existence.
We actively want greater understanding, thus we’ve strived for science.
When what we call ‘science’ gets rigid or imperialistic in the classic sense it becomes useless, but in its most dynamic it allows us channels to press up against the face of reality. More intense experience of reality giving strength to understanding. We want to touch the world around us so that we can get a stronger feel for reality. Into those nooks and crannies that require stronger dynamic channels of information.
Can there be modes and forms of understanding without industrial or even agrarian technology? Obviously yes. But increases in technology facilitate understanding. Confined to some frail bundle of six senses within a limited framework of allowable experiences there comes with that an inherent limitation to understanding. If you bound off sections of the world. Outlaw the advanced technology necessary to reach into and grasp the microscopic or the unbelievably macroscopic and distant… you ingrain a limitation on possible experience and thus understanding.
Physical limitation inspires and triggers social oppression
The problem with the rejection of technology (or more precisely, an allegiance to one limited set of possible technologies) is that scarcity and restraint is built in. The greater the technological limitation, the greater the constraint imposed.
Because our given bodies require certain forms of environmental integration and because we desire greater connection, we’ve historically traded for this on a fractured, individual level, at the expense of greater social freedom and equality. For all the reasons and things discussed earlier, the restraints of rigid-technologies naturally chafe people and inspire them to take short cuts by utilizing that which is at hand by turning people into their technology. Enter alienation and all forms of oppression.
It’s a simple reality that want and dependency together progressively facilitate the psychosis of power.
Certainly want can be reduced significantly, but there is an inherent and significant limit. Being restricted in your integration with the environment (having limited technology) means that there is a much more finite limit on survival knowledge carrying capacity and yet simultaneously restrictions on adaptability. Being limited to a very small area of the total dynamic system means that natural chaotic systems dynamics can occur beyond the periphery of one’s limits only to suddenly and drastically effect that within. Sudden regional change is a fundamental reality of the biosphere. It’s dynamic.
Want will happen. And it will do so sharply. Because society will be more regionalized. The total sum of humanity won’t be able to flow around and mesh with the biosphere as a whole, it will be broken into components that will have much less scope and fluidity. Society will be more compartmentalized into autonomous cells, and these cells will be more rigid. We can argue about degree, but the point is there will be some non-insignificant degree of this.
This is where interdependency exits the realm of mutual aid and develops the potential for serious nastiness. Where there is social want and where the fulfillment of individual want is deeply dependent upon others, there is much greater temptation on the part of the individual to drastically simplify their operating processes. To become machines in pursuit of survival. And, perhaps most importantly, to simplify away the presence of other individuals. To reinterpret them as machines as well. With every biological mechanism shouting at a cacophony of simplistic structural procedures. (Get water. Get food. Etc.) It’s very easy for the individual to despairingly become progressively rigidly locked. They start applying such rigid structures to their interactions with people. Bang. Dehumanization. Faith. Power structures. Social oppression.
Where does alienation originate? It is instilled by the overwhelming omni-presence of rigid structure. A lack of fluid, dynamic integration with the world. Baseline human biological structures have certain limitations to dynamic integration built in. Certain structural predispositions. We can’t just realign our genes and grow chlorophyll to take in sunlight through our backs or weave wings to glide through canyons hunting deer. The baseline human body is relatively rigid technology.
And people are inspired by limitation, by want, by the encroachment of rigidity, to oppress.
Limitation upon understanding likewise has this effect.
Limitations to our capacity to experience have been consistently surpassed throughout history, a flower bursting through concrete. But when others are left frozen in the concrete they can bear the brunt of such blossoming understanding.
In order for a Victorian Physicist to reach out, to explore and make discoveries involving vacuum, thousands of man hours were needed. To get the rubber, the pump, the glass, the metal… all the tools necessary to peel away the air and peer beyond the norms of our immediate environment, a massive amount of matter had to be positionally reorganized. But it would be inconvenient to educate, explain and get everyone to consent on the benefit of achieving this vector of increased integration with the world, and because most of the people in the world were still far more entrapped by more fundamental physical wants, it was very easy for the Victorians to put the wants and flourishing of the rest of humanity aside. Because the Physicist’s own rigid technological and structural entrappings have promoted an alienation from others, limited connection fails to fully reveal the effects of his actions, and centuries of aggregated social psychoses have ground down his empathy. Thus, through a diffuse system of intermediaries, Congolese miners are enslaved, ship hands are whipped and a colossal monster of wood and metal is driven across the ocean. Though the desire for integration and understanding persists, when framed by such alienating structures it can be rechanneled into driving social oppression.
Though the imagery of such Victorian Imperialism is dramatic, it is not particularly original or even that worse than similar processes on less visually epic scale.
Think of the elder whose pursuit of understanding seduces the tribe into recognizing his role and position, turning the product of their work and efforts into tendrils of his own tech. Can’t spend all day on mushrooms unless there’s folk who’re gonna provide you with food. You get social stratification. In order to preserve the elder’s high degree of mushroom-related pursuits it’s real easy to apply social coercion, personal and cultural power structures so that even in a period of want, others are forced into sacrificing their own food to the self-proclaimed elder.
Physical limitation doesn’t directly ordain social subjugation. What it does is grease the gears. It makes it easier to adopt the psychoses of power. Makes them progressively more alluring. Physical rigidity leading to mental and social rigidity. The more physical rigidity, the more and more likely social oppression will spontaneously emerge from all facets.
Spatial limitation ingrains social hierarchy
What tears apart the prisons within our minds is the roaring vacuum beyond. The unexplored frontier chased down past the horizon each night by the sun.
The first step in control is the securing of borders. Otherwise the people you seek to dominate could just walk away.
It is said that, in a simple world, a single empire can only reach as far as a horse can ride. But of course the idea of empire knows no such restrictions. One border inspires another.
It is a far more important truth that, in a simple world, a refugee can only travel as far as their feet can carry them. And the final periphery beyond the locally interrelating agglomerates of tribal power is often unreachable. In Europe’s dark ages the refugees lacked the capability to flee beyond all of infected Europe and so they hid between, taking to the forests, much as we always have. And thus the forests were eventually cleared. The only available free space encircled and crushed. This happened because priests, kings and bureaucrats had mills and horses while the serfs had none. But more specifically it all happened because the peasants were spatially limited. They were effectively fenced within authoritarianism as a result of their own limited mobility and positioning.
If we remove all the particularly non-individualized technologies that benefited Europe’s centralized powers, the same reality would remain. The spatial limitation of the peasants was both relative to that of the king’s men and absolute. Power need not be so dramatically centralized and hierarchical to still be as oppressive. Remove the tools of the power zombies and they would simply organize more localized authoritarianism. And the high cost of spatial redistribution of individuals (a single individual moving from point A to point B takes more time and energy) means that society’s natural resistance to power is lessened.
Perhaps an example is in order. When a husband beats his wife in the apartment beside mine the situation is immediate and so is my reaction. I am able to recognize it within seconds. I can move to their door in very little time and, as a consequence, I am able to take whatever action I take much sooner. Furthermore the wife can choose to immediately relocate herself into the presence of safe, protective people. All these things are spatial matters. And remain effectively the same if we replace the aggregate of nearby apartments with more distant tree houses and give the individuals involved bicycles. (The communication of the situation is slightly different matter and will be covered in the next essay.)
If you relocate the aforementioned people into the forest without significant technological choice then interpersonal power structures can leech off the high costs of relative relocation to restrain subjects. This can happen with couple removed far from any others or an entire tribe.
Because of scarcity, hunter-gatherer tribes naturally aggregate with a good deal of separation between them. When the psychoses of power take root in a tribe they are emboldened and strengthened by such spatial limitation.
Individuals can flee for other tribes, they can, as the anarcho-capitalists might say, choose their government on the market. Choose the lives they want to live and choose the people they want to live them with. And, yes, in a relatively open market of infinite options this tends to work pretty well. Oppression just isn’t that appealing. But, and here’s the kicker. Because of their spatial limitation, their choices certainly do not constitute a free market. They have rather limited available options. Because by nature of the necessary hunter-gatherer distribution, the number of other individuals they can reach to associate with is very, very finite. And each relocation, each encounter costs them a whole lot more time.
Furthermore, when oppressive concepts spread further than their “discrete” embodiments, when multiple tribes (forced by famine or battered by climate change, say) adopt a regional consensus of power archetype, the effective boundary of such an aggregate of mini-empires can surpass the traveling capacity of the potential refugee. (And let’s not even mention the even harsher inherent restrictions applied to families.)
Those on the outside of such a travesty could and normally would overwhelm and grind down such cancerous cultures. But a lack of individualized transport technology changes the odds. Simple geometry makes it harder to organize resistance around the edge of a periphery. Centralized power meanwhile retains the local advantage; it doesn’t have to travel much of anywhere.
Given a generalized anarchy, broken only by the occasional tragic psychological misstep that inspires coercive sociological rigidity, society’s most crucial healing factor lies in its ability to flee and isolate the cancer.
Our natural defense against power is free association. The ability to re-form, to route around hierarchy, bypass the malicious and fluidly create new relationships.
For this to be possible there has to be a high degree of positional interrelation. That is to say, people have to be able to relocate around one another easily.
Vacuous distance or overbearing proximity are both inconducive to such dynamicism. And tribal clusters are the worst of both worlds. The only solution is choice. Where distances between people can be overcome easily at will. Where we can rearrange ourselves with respect to the rest of humanity at a moment’s notice. When we are deprived this ability, cancerous hierarchies grow.
Communication and Freedom of information is necessary for free societies
Central to every interaction between individuals is the conveyance of information. Of course, in a certain sense, its impossible to transfer meaning from one individual to another. We each create that individually. But what we create stems from the informational structures we have at hand, the material reality between ourselves. The nature of connection to our environment, the channels by which we experience, by which we touch the rest of the world, are thus critical factors in the macroscopic behavior of a society.
Our interactions with each other are mediated through the physical realities of our environment and are wholly comprised of informational structures. We construct physical systems of contact, whether by movement of skin on skin, electrons in logic circuits, or common neural models and vibrating air. As a result, the nature of our interactions with one another is inherently dependent upon our relationship to our physical environment. In order to interact dynamically with one another we require strong channels of dynamic integration with the world around us.
Communication (although not necessarily through strict processes of symbolic logic or language) is the defining aspect of society. However you cut it, we interact through information.
If there are restrictions or limitations to our communication with one another those conditions will shape the total internal interactions of our society.
In the previous essay I glanced over some of the emergent methodologies by which societies heal the power psychosis. Central to all of these is the internal dynamic integration of the society at hand. In order to correct an injustice you have to first actually hear about it. When we make decisions pertaining to our associations with others we like to be informed. Free societies function because we’re not all fumbling in the dark. We can make knowledgeable choices and respond quickly to changes. We don’t lose sight of what the economists call the “externalities” of our interactions. Other people’s lives are immediate and tactile to our own. As a result we don’t marginalize others beyond a periphery.
Contact is the most vital component of society. We can only help or assist those we can touch. Those we can communicate with.
Resistance needs veins. Empathy needs arms
Dictators know this altogether too well. Free information brings down tyrants and heals cancers. The tools, technologies and processes of communication are antithetical to control. Control can only take root through isolation and strangulation. Governments are critically dependent on keeping their actions quiet. Keeping their citizens distributed and incapable of communication past a certain degree.
In China the country’s integration into the world economic standard has, as a byproduct, allowed its citizens to increasingly surpass physical impediments to communication. To fill the place of this physical limitation the government has found itself forced to wage an uphill battle of sociological domination. To survive the PRC has to expend increasingly vast amounts of energy on ingraining social psychoses to fill the restrictive roles of former technological limitations or absences.
But once the fiber-optic cable is laid (or better yet the mesh WiFi networks) the only thing ultimately keeping a Guangzhou school girl trading instant messages about fashion rather than insurrection is the cop/consumer in her head. At the end of the day it’s just in her head. Deeper channels of communication do simultaneously open avenues for memetic control and vapidly suicidal mental structures. …But why take chances? Outright tyrannies like Zimbabwe and Cuba know full well how reliant they are on the viscosity of their societies. They simply haven’t the energy to keep up with the more complex and elaborate mechanisms of the world’s surviving power structures. Opening the door to more dynamic interaction within and without would be akin to gutting themselves. So in many cases they’ve done the efficient thing and simply removed the technology.
Look closely and all social power systems stem from impediments to communication.
To return to an example in the previous essay, if there’s injustice or oppression but those involved are removed or dis-integrated from the rest of humanity how can recourse take place? All the self-repairing mechanisms championed by free societies depend vitally upon the capacity to convey information (speedily, effectively and across great distance) within that society. In order for an even slightly free society to function, a strong degree of contact must be possible between all individuals.
It’s the same old axiom of system dynamics: Rigid structures of interaction are bad. But so is isolation. Free societies function through the free conveyance of information. The rigid fermentation of this interaction is bad for the total dynamicism of a society, but so it the separation and isolation of it into parts. Fragmented or localized societies marginalize others (those who they are denied an intensity of material contact with) and in doing so alienate themselves, making oppression inevitable. The dissolution and regionalization of significant informational contact is an inherent and inescapable reality of hunter-gatherer life.
In practice this is blindingly obvious.
By the very nature of communication a society’s freedom is dependent upon its physical relations with the material world. Inherent physical limitations makes for inherent social limitation, restraint and oppression.
It’s impossible to speak of regional anarchy
The idea that some parts of humanity can be free while others are not is conceptually incoherent. Insomuch as anyone anywhere is oppressed, I am oppressed. I mean that not as a trite greeting card summary of solidarity in liberty, but in recognition of a basic psychological principle. To speak of being personally “free” in any sense while others are not is to leave whatever remains of the “self” a laughably meaningless shell.
Far from being revolutionary, such thinking is the definition of alienation.
Power is a social psychosis and, as such, it is ultimately something we can only dissolve away individually. But even the possibility of inaction or satisfaction in the face of such power structures is ultimately the acceptance of them in ourselves. The internal dissolution of our personal power psychoses is inseparable from external action.
You can’t coherently talk of achieving any measure of liberty in the absence of empathy, and empathy presupposes some semblance of universalized identity. Without such one person’s freedom would necessarily impinge on another’s and any strong notion of liberty would collapse. We refrain from swinging our fist into another person’s face not because of some arbitrary external structure or law, but because we recognize ourself in that person. We seek not freedom from one another, but freedom from rule. To attack ourself would be to surrender to some rule, structure and limitation. In hitting another person we of course decrease the net capacity for dynamic connection and integration in our society, but more saliently we internalize a psychological approach to the world that is irreconcilable with anything other than structures of control. The only situation in which we could speak of some people having completely abolished the power psychosis in their own lives is one in which everyone else has as well.
Empathy (and consequently morality, ethics and everything else created from its inspiration) stems from the abstract possibility of transitivity of selfhood. It’s why we instinctively frown on punching teddy bears or torturing squirrels; the cognitive structures we associate with our sensations of them are a reflected version of ourselves. The child who acts out violence against her teddy bear isn’t physically hurting anyone, not even from a panpsychic viewpoint, but such external actions are indicative of an internal intent of violence against society and, by proxy, herself.
We interact with the world by neurologically forming imprints of the world around us. We simplify our perceptions into informational structures, into Darwinianly evolving models that allow for greater traction in our contact with the world. Modeling rigid systems of limited complexity in our minds is easy, the interaction of uncountable billions of atoms can be simplified into a “lever” or “pulley.” And, accordingly, we can demonstrate a great deal of control over such systems. But systems of non-linear dynamics pose a greater challenge. Other people are preposterously, if not infinitely, inhibitory to the successful creation of such macroscopic constructs.
The way we all initiate substantive contact with other people is to, on some level, see ourselves in them. We can only deal with other people by shedding off the contextual trappings of our own position within the world and reconstructing theirs around us. As a consequence, to accept their enslavement or oppression is to accept our own.
The king, by his participation in the kingdom, is still very much a slave to the power psychosis. But so to is the monk who gathers berries in the forest, even though the king’s men may not be able to find him for torment. That there could be an entire band of monks gathering berries far from the kingdom does not make them more free. Nor does it really make the sum society more free. That a thousand could live freely while one man chains another is impossible. By inaction they accept, in acceptance they are complicit, and in complicity there is nothing but arbitrary moderation. The presence of regionally inconstant degrees of overt acts of physical oppression does not make for varying degrees of liberty. We are all on the same level there. Whereas if one man chains another and we do react, so long as we remain in action rather than completion, our actions and our own lives are still bound by that chain. Only when the chain is actually gone can we speak of achieving greater liberty, and even then it is a universal reality, not regionalized.
Tribal dispersion, though it may present some of us immediately with some of the trappings of a truer anarchy, is inherently oppressive.
Given that we have knowledge of the rest of humanity, the choice to withdraw and concentrate all our efforts within some social sub-set leaves us not only complicit in the oppression of those we push off beyond the periphery but also in violence against ourselves. To preempt this by erasing our knowledge of the rest of humanity would be even more direct violence and contribute nothing but cowardice to the same reality. No tribe, commune or region can truly flourish in their own anarchy while the rest of world sees violence and oppression. The psychological effect of alienation from others, of such localized preoccupation, is the internalization of a certain rigidity. The acceptance of structure. Turning people into our technology.
The fermentation of rigid social structure is a direct result of alienation.
Any society that dismisses externalities and focuses social value on those near at hand is really making social value a result of context and physical structure. As such it is redefining others into nothing more than the structure of their relationships and functional value to other structures. As a result, the we become nothing more than a hollow structure, the organic human soul transmuted into a structural identity. In such a world, I am this structure and you are another structure that may or may not function to the benefit and sustainability of my own structure.
The resulting society looses its warmly integrated dynamics and its internal relationships instead become matters of incredibly complex, yet rigid, mechanism. Because of the internal rigidity of personal identity all interactions are polarized towards the control of that identity’s (ie informational structure) environment. Small rigid structures can be controlled, but other people’s identity structures are too complex. If both extended systems are rigid then both will collapse violently.
No matter how pretty an isolated section of society may behave in contrast to the rest, oppression without will eventually manifest within. In the face of gross oppression worldwide, regional secession or ingrowth is capitulation and the collapse of such tribes inevitable.
Any society that embraces death will embrace oppression
To accept the inevitability of death or limitation is to accept an arbitrary degree of it. Because once the precedent has been truly set in the mind there remains no innate resistance to it. You can’t accept giving up a finite portion of your soul. You can’t really accept some oppression without beginning to accept all oppression.
It is willfully blind to believe that a society that accepts, much less embraces, the deaths of six and a half billion people will ever know peace let alone any substantive anarchy. It is demonstratively irrational to suppose that any society bound by innate physical limitations will ever achieve more than a fraction of their potential.
Physical realities are inseparable from social realities. The embrace of physical realities that restrict, control and rule our individual and collective lives is the cowardly embrace of dictatorship by environmental proxy.
Life—not in biological or taxonomic sense but rather as the blossoming act of existence itself—is an inability to accept death or rigidity. Life is motion and touch.
A transhumanist once summed up her support for the life-extension struggle in one sentence: “Existence is wonderful.” It is. Mine, yours and all the possessives you can think of. Every heartbeat is a alternating symphony of resistance and hope.
But you cannot have partial resistance. You cannot have partial hope. You either have it or you do not. If you close the door somewhere you close the door everywhere.
If you wall off a portion of it, if you set a limit to what is possible, the day will come when you reap nothing but. Where nothing is left but death. Where we have nothing left to look forward to shaping. Our acceptance of death is our alienation from ourselves. It is our alienation from life.
When we, in our incessant and inherent desire for contact, experience and understanding, press up against that wall of limitation… We will conduct its rigidity back throughout our society.
Technology can be applied dynamically
Language can be a real downer. Words and concepts gather associations that weigh heavily upon us and can obscure the underlying reality. We make simplifications and structures to deal with a given context. To the degree that these structures are integrated with the world around us they can facilitate stronger and more dexterous connections. To the degree that they become more rigid or desolate, such structures prove disastrously dis-integrated with the dynamics surrounding us.
So too, when constructing language and theoretical models around a basic reality is it vitally important that our mental structures be deeply rooted in that reality. Blindly accepting and working from previous or popular macroscopic simplifications can only result in a structure that is out of touch with the underlying dynamics.
Although concepts like “civilization” and “technology” can be simplified into some of their popular associations, any significant analysis built off of such structures will be critically unable to integrate with the root realities touched by said associations. References to “technology” as the rigid and brittle structures so obvious in today’s society can be said to effectively encompass the most visible aspects of what currently exists. But such focus obscures what could exist. …As well as some of the finer points of what is already in effect, but still overshadowed.
By attacking the dominate rigid forms of technology under the premise of all “technology”, the anarcho-primitivist discourse builds itself around macroscopic simplifications and blinds itself to details. Though a popular abstraction of “technology” is what is adroitly attacked, the actual and full definition of technology is what’s consequently thrown out. Rigidity is critiqued but, through the misapplication of broad language and concept, human agency in our environmental integration is what’s ultimately dismissed.
As such, “technology” is misidentified as stemming from a desire of control rather than contact, experience and understanding.
But the reality is, given its popular breadth as a concept, technology actually refers simply to how we interact with the world. And it is the nature of this how is the real issue, not that there is a how in the first place. There will always be a how. By attacking the very idea of hows we simply choose to blind ourselves to the hows we’re already using. And then they use us.
So the real question is what nature of technologies should we turn to. And, yes, our options include the few primitive technologies our species was once born with as well as the wide variety of structures that have been developed and applied since, but not just those.
Of course, I think we would all agree that today’s dominate technological infrastructures are unacceptable, or, at very least, less than they could be. Today most acts of creation are perverted towards structures of control before they even leave the inventor’s mind. We open up new avenues of contact and then work harder and harder to force methods of control upon them.
But the point is not all desire for contact is a false-face for the pursuit of control. In fact one might say that control makes contact impossible. We can never really know those or that which we control. Rather our worship of control is always one of surrender to security. Control is about imposing rigidity. It’s about orchestrating the world around us so that it can’t interfere with the structure within. We do this so that we might cling to this remaining structure and claim it as an identity. Control is about creating a husk to die in. To truly touch, to have contact with the world around us is irreconcilable with such. It smashes through structures of control and rebuilds them as veins and currents.
Contact is conducted though dynamic systems. And this includes systems that we popularly classify as “advanced technology.”
Telescopes, microscopes, radios and phones. Fiber-optic cables, wifi mesh networks, satellites and infrared sensors. The more complex, the more dynamic. The more points of inter-contact. The more fluid and organic such systems become. The more adaptable.
As our new structures and approaches become more dynamically refined, the better they’re able to integrate with the realities of their operating environment. In fact, beyond a certain point the technologies we create can become more dynamic than this frail, scummy planet-skin we were born into. Nanotech and biochemistry embody the current cutting edge of this drive to offer stronger and finer degrees of contact through our own bodies. (Although with both, just as with anything else, the impulsive, blind pursuit of control in such areas rejects understanding and meaningful contact at the cost of potentially catastrophic results.) We are finally gaining choice in all the myriad workings of our material world. No longer content with clunky macroscopic abstractions and simplifications, we are finally grounding the roots of our interactions and integration with the world around us.
It’s a move to stop beating the world with a crude hammer and instead begin to stroking its skin.
And, with such fine understanding and contact, we are opening up possibilities previously closed. The deaf can hear. The blind can see. The crippled can walk. The old folks can get it on.
As we’ve seen the drive for experience, for pleasure and life itself are matters of technology, the methods and structures of our interaction with the world. Information and communication technologies, transportation technologies and science itself (science in the “pursuit of understanding through touch” sense, not the “imperialism” sense) all demonstrate such emerging tendencies.
Core to the primitivist mantra is the assertion that these means of “artificial” communication and the like are, at the end of the day, utterly dismal, leaving us disconnected and constantly enslaved. It’s the least eloquent assertion and almost entirely dependent upon populist “common sense” appeals. …Because it’s completely fucking ridiculous. Whose fault is it if you can’t turn off your cellphone to just enjoy some natural solitude? Stop blaming the phone (or the blasted dagnum computer with its “email”) and take responsibility for the way you integrate with such technology. If our society doesn’t facilitate long uninterrupted walks on the beach then change society, don’t launch a crusade to abolish our ability to play with such fun toys.
Personally, I abhor phones. I just dislike the way they unevenly filter our preexisting social language. In person I’m all about the body language, hand gestures and facial quirks. But that’s just me. In contrast, I love the bulletin-board format. I was prolifically using the internet long before I really started making phone calls and I feel deeply at home with its social intricacies.
Although personal, face-to-face contact provides a lot more bandwidth, at the end of the day it’s only a matter of bandwidth. There isn’t anything any more magical about so called “direct” physical contact. And any connection is a dramatic improvement over nothing. Being able to still contact friends, no matter how distant their desires take them, is a wonderful thing. To reach out and touch Bangkok and Berlin, to be a shoulder to cry on or a ecstatic confident, to watch a volcano explode on another continent or pick out the wobbles of a distant star… Such connection is a thing of liberation. We really do feel better for our use of advanced technologies. All that’s required is a shedding off of our own rigidities and a refusal to lazily feed ourselves to new ones.
But, of course, with the more spiritual, psychological, sociological or philosophical claims against technology for which it is famous, anarcho-primitivism has developed two pragmatic arguments as crutches.
The first is that of diminishing returns. With “technology” we are said to inevitably work harder and harder to take smaller and smaller steps (something noticeable in limited frameworks such as agriculture where more energy exerted on the same amount of land is said to produce less and less per-investment). This is wrong of course, and the misapplication of the “diminishing returns” inference upon the whole of our drive towards more dynamic technologies stems from a misunderstanding of the root reality. The reason some “areas” of technology demonstrate such behavior while others do not is not because things like computer manufacturing have yet to hit some inevitable barrier (although certainly, the universe has an informational carrying capacity), it’s because things like “agriculture” are not discrete species of technological development but cast off, inherently limited, sections of a single progression. Computers are one of the rare technologies that haven’t yet reached diminishing returns, because there’s no limit to what a “computer” is! Yeah, when the length and breath of a single limited structure has been explored it sees less and less growth within those arbitrary boundaries. So fucking what? There can still be growth somewhere else! The conceptual division of technology into discrete fields creates the limitation that is then identified. And, ultimately, the accelerating “areas” of technology like nanotech computing will inevitably turn around and drastically revitalize lagging areas like “agriculture,” letting us take in sustenance by, say, chlorophyll in our backs, leaving behind the awkward and brittle orchards we once mistakenly built to rewild themselves.
The second argument appeals to the authoritarian nature of today’s technological infrastructures. It’s sometimes boiled down into sloganeering with phrases like “who’s going to go down into the caves to get your iron?” Of course the instantaneous response of “we’ll build machines to do that” is spot-on. There’s a reason modern capitalism feeds so ravenously on human labor when it could easily provide comfort. Socially we place value in power rather than liberation and thus market forces move at a relative snail’s pace towards post-scarcity. If we really cared about it, we could immediately make huge strides towards abolishing even the frailest degree of “work” without anyone sacrificing a steadily advancing first-world living standard. This much is, at least in part, plainly obvious to just about everyone. And the perpetual response of primitivism, that mechanization isn’t a real solution because someone would still have to occasionally fix the machines, is a cop-out. I’d much rather be playing around with the gears of mining machines than wheezing out my lungs in some coal mine. And then I could move on to something else. I would be free to learn another role. But all of this talk of new mining processes is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if we have the machinery or not. If there are no telescopes in the whole fucking world, I’d more than gladly go down into the mine myself and personally complete all the so called “work” required to build it myself. And you know what? I’d be more than willing to share it. That’s the whole fucking point.
The advancement towards more and more dynamic technology has never innately required and does not innately require any oppression whatsoever.
Nor, in fact, does such advancement make for any inherent catastrophes or sacrifices. The pursuit of dynamic technology is grounded in the valuing of knowledge and adaptability. It has never been about diddling around with our surroundings until we find something immediately gratifying. That’s not “technology,” that’s a just single methodology of developing technology. And in such behavior no conscious or creative effort is involved, it’s simply the mechanistic/entropic eating up of that which is around you. Entirely focused towards power, profit and control now, understanding later.
But why not understanding first and action later?
Primitivism is famous for its hesitancy, conflict and sketchiness on what constitutes appropriate technology.
Reaching into an anthill with a stick, fashioning a bow, grunting sweetly or meanly, utilizing symbolic mental structures, teaching a mother to pat a baby over her shoulder, building a hut, drawing in the mud… and god forbid we talk about permaculture or bicycles!
On the whole its most obvious weakness (and yet best rhetorical defense) is that there is no clear line. Folks talk of “that which doesn’t start to control you” but never really stop to deeply analyze that. They take it to obviously call for the abolishment of satellites, airplanes, computers and genetic engineering, but that’s not necessarily true.
Such control is a choice. We don’t have to be controlled by our technology, no more than we have to crank out and obey rigid mental structures. Just as internal rigidity is a consequence of our choices so is the resulting external rigidity. In every moment in our lives we can choose life or undeath. We choose to be governed by the environmental structures we interact with or we can choose to move through them as we desire, unhindered. The internalization of rigid structure is not innate to dealing with structures. We can change and create them and ourselves. We can be rather than accepting the world and our relations to it as is. We can constantly reshape and redefine our relations to the world. Rather than following input, we can become fountains of output.
If we are sincere in our rewilding, we cannot turn to something as limiting as primitivism.
Why not nanotech, space tech, permaculture, and dynamic technology in general? Think about how we might have built civilization if we’d been true anarchists from the beginning! Wide-eyed technological lovers oft receive fiery denouncements for wanting to play god. By seeking deeper contact and understanding, of each wanting to be gods. But if one accepts the universe of Einstein and Spinoza where existence is god. Is this such a bad thing? Rather than reject and hide from our birthright as part of the universe should we not instead finally embrace it in all of its glory? To be more godly? To be more integrated with the world around us. Is not the embrace of some random, rigid biological structure alone ultimately a embrace of alienation from the universe?
Many techno-utopians fall into a similar rut as the primitivists by treating technological progress as an undeniable external force. A salvation that will inevitably arrive someday. Both attitudes smack of an “I’m only on this side because our victory is assured” morality. A legacy borrowed from the Marxists’ perpetual wait for The Revolution, and before them, the Christians’ perpetual wait for the Rapture. The reality is that our technologies are just the embodiment of our choices.
The Solution? Be Smarter!
Choose to think rather than abdicating from it at every opportunity.
Radiate life in your every process and action.
The failings of technologies are the failings of ourselves. Our laziness and nihilism. Our greed and hate. All these are ultimately consequences of mental rigidity. Is it any wonder we excrete this stuff in physical form? The rigidity of our technology stems from psychoses that we have the agency to overcome. To surpass. To shed off. Some primitivists have outright argued that we simply don’t have the neurological capacity for mass society, the capacity for more than a certain amount of contact or freedom.
Why not? What’s stopping us? What enforces this limited capacity? We make ourselves. Unshackled, we practically burst with creativity. Why should we snuff it out?
As long as we are alive there is no such thing as an inevitability.
We do not live in a closed system
Although its certainly true our current mass infrastructure cannot and will not survive any prolonged contact with the basic laws of physics, a permanent or catastrophic collapse is not inevitable.
The biosphere is a complex nonlinear system and concrete parking lots are not. Because our most physically dominant technologies are less ‘complex’ (or, as I have been using the term, ‘dynamic’) than their surrounding environment by relatively infinite orders of magnitude, they are deeply unstable. Furthermore, the blunt macroscopic construction of our technological systems and infrastructure leaves them especially vulnerable to entropy as the easiest resources are depleted.
Our response to the inadequacies of our infrastructure’s integration with its environment is to build ever more extended structure on top of it. Rather than abolishing and rebuilding, or just modifying our existing technologies, we add endlessly to them. Concrete upon concrete. Text upon text. Until the sheer mass of technostructure begins to rival the biomass around it.
Our structures eat up dynamicism and replace it with rigidity. But this process of expansion is the only thing that keeps those resulting rigid structures intact. We use up what we can get to easily but as those resources are depleted it becomes increasingly important to expend and commit an exponentially greater proportion of our net civilization towards the upkeep of what we’ve already built. Eventually, in a closed system, the basic mathematical realities of chaos theory and entropy will kick our ass and the catastrophic collapse of this rigid system we’ve paved over the face of the earth will become an inevitability. Due to the extremely over-extended and omnipresent nature of our infrastructure, there will be no faucet of life in the biosphere unaffected. Needless to say our 6.5 billion little frail sedentary bodies will not do so well. In short, we are fucked.
…Except that we do not live in a closed system.
Although our civilization is in dire trouble and our technological infrastructure is a hideous embarrassment, we are not doomed. The crash is not an inevitability. And neither under the banner of “sustainability” are any fundamental restrictions, be they sociological or material, inevitable.
Although grinding into the Earth’s crust for specific resources is a progressively harder and harder zero-sum game, the plain and simple reality is that we have the capability to reach huge swathes of resources in an extremely productive, cost-effective manner (far more efficient, in fact, than any previous process available us in history). What’s more, in an unprecedented (and probably unreasonable) act of forgiveness on behalf of the universe, we don’t have to completely destroy our rotting civilization in order to start acquiring them. We can implement this new process of acquiring resources and use the proceeds to gradually fluidly abolish the horrific structural cancers of our civilization. All the while giving us footing to develop more dynamic and integrateable technologies. And, if that weren’t enough, the rigid structures we utilize in this process don’t inherently replace biomass. Because we won’t be mining our resources from within a dynamic biosphere.
We’ll be chewing up nature’s little bite-sized gifts and breathing in the source of all energy on Earth, finally allowing us to bypass the middlemen and stop fucking things up for them. Asteroids and solar energy. It’s a real simple and practical solution.
Stop doing your fucking around in an infinitely complex non-linear dynamic system you don’t yet understand. In 2020 there’s an asteroid that’s going to swing by the Earth’s doorstep carrying Twenty Trillion Dollars worth (today’s market) of precious metals vital to our advanced electric circuitry based technology. Said asteroid is one of millions of lifeless boulders spread across the sky. Rigid and desolate. Dead rocks waiting to be ingested into the seeds of life. 3554 Amun will be far easier to reach than the moon. If even the barest amount of today’s tech is applied to its capture (and entrepreneurs are already lining up) it will completely devalue the world’s financial markets. The roots of the limits and restrictions, the scarcities that keep the Third World under First World satellites, that keep the mythical “hundred dollar laptop” at something as high as one hundred dollars, will begin to dissolve.
That is, if all the people waiting for it are still there when it arrives.
If the world’s superpowers and their multinational corporate apparatus are ready with legal restrictions, subsidies and financial treaties, the resulting materials will be funneled into existing power-structures and their material detritus (our progressively fucked up global infrastructure).
But far worse than such a continuance of today’s near-fascist powerstructures is the possibility that no one will be waiting for 3554 Amun, or, for that matter, ever again look up at the sky with hope. That our global infrastructure will finally be forced to the point of absolute collapse.
Because, and here’s the problem, Derrik Jensen is right. We are playing for the endgame. If our civilization collapses hard, it might very well be impossible to rebuild. If we crash once and we crash bad, civilization will be permanently limited. We will live in a closed system. A permanent ceiling to our technology, be it dynamic or rigid. Permanent restrictions felt in every aspect of society. Limits to what we can do, who we can be, where we can go, how we can experience… limits to our capacity to touch and understand.
The cheap resources that first spurred and allowed technological development will be effectively depleted, and the remains will progressively become useless. Our fossil fuels will be almost impossible to reach and the little we acquire will have to work far harder to build far less. If we fall there’s a very real chance we will never be able to get up again. That will be it.
And make no mistake about it, the crash will suck.
Our lives will be, on the whole, more horrid than ever before in history. You see, what’s being glossed over is that, though advanced technology in the form of wifi mesh networks and space-elevators may disappear permanently, we simply won’t lose all the technologies created by this civilization project. In fact, it looks like we’ll default on middle ages technology. With all the oppression that makes for. And heavier restrictions on anarchist organizing or resistance.
Serious metallurgy will peak as will, obviously, fossil fuels, but metal won’t peak as much. When the last major nation states succumb to entropy and the survivalists’ bullets have finally run out, the resulting tech level will not be pre-agrarian stone age, it will be a perpetual iron-age. Although complicated endeavors will be hindered, the loose distribution of scrap metal will democratize simplistic metallurgy. Oxidization will eventually deplete vast amounts of scrap iron, but enough mass deposits will remain immediately viable for millennia and enough modern metallurgical compounds will resist oxidization to likewise matter. Likewise, enough topsoil will be farmable in various ways for forms of agriculture to continue (and it will, because six and a half billion people don’t just give in to reductions in food supply). Although it will be impossible to construct complicated circuits or analyze proteins, it will be very easy to construct swords, hoes, pitchforks, crossbows, and, to a lesser extent, guns. However the acquisition and smelting process will lend itself more to social hierarchies than to individualized knowledge. And with information technologies essentially annihilated, anarchists will drowned out by the fiefdoms around them. Paranoia stems from lackings in one’s knowledge and, as information is restricted, old psychoses will take root. Some tribes, by sheer luck, will end up isolated from one another and will achieve some equilibrium of blandness. But most will not.
If civilization collapses what emerges will be pretty fucking simple. The gun-nuts won’t fade away as their guns rust, they’ll fucking expand little fiefdoms. If the crash is particularly bad on the environment this’ll make for universal unending tribal violence (a few magnitudes worse than pre-Colombian Northern America, but granted, not hyperbolic road-warrior dystopia). If the crash is anything but utterly catastrophic it’ll simply shatter the nation state system back into feudal age principalities. The wealth, values and structures created by civilization will still exist. The same dread forces encapsulated by “civilization” will still exist. The only difference (besides the incredibly horrific living conditions and death rates within) will be the frail niche capacity for autonomous societies on the periphery.
But even if these autonomous zones are fully utilized, they will still be incredibly dependent upon the horrific society around them. Deeply intertwined in the ecology. They will be the new bourgeoisie. The suburban autonomist paradises. Never mind that undermining the overpacked ministates (and consequently accepting or dealing with refugees from such) will not be in their best interests as the ecology couldn’t handle influxes of hunter-gatherers our of slave-agrarian societies and that inside/outside dichotomies would kill any potential anarchism in the long term… The basic reality is that they will have lived through the most traumatic and vicious event in Human history and that, to even begin to function as a people, they will have to divorce themselves from the rest of humanity. They will have to create hierarchies of human value based upon relative positions and roles. “Diversity” in whatever jumble of associations one has, will not be desirable because it will not be sustainable. Small forms of localized and specialized change will be accepted while any form of serious deviation will carry with it a direct price in terms of energy or food.
And the ministates? They will simply assist in further ingraining the memes and cultural psychoses of our current society. The logical progression of our balkanized suburbs, a society that protectively contracts into little closed zones of ingrown hierarchies. They will finally know safety from the globalization process of communication and competing ideas. Although the trite physical comforts of modern civilization will disappear, it will ultimately be a huge relief to many. Social hierarchies and oppressions will continue free from dissonance, with reason to further march down the path of nihilistic mental rigidity.
Furthermore, any serious technological collapse will bring with it a vast ecological collapse.
And it’s a perfectly reasonable possibility that humanity, or even mammals, will not survive such. Never mind the very real possibility of nuclear winter (and no, your survival skills are not going to be able to protect you from that kind of radiation) or the windows finally cracking on the Pentagon’s biowarfare lab, the plain and simple reality is that we’re in the middle of the greatest alteration to the biosphere since before the fucking dinosaurs. And, as the computer guts decompose in the abandoned suburban homes, as the last bits of localization self-imposed by our civilization’s infrastructure breaks down and the sheer energy of our chemical blasphemy finally merges into Earth’s outer fluid, a fucking gazillion butterfly wings are going to flap with all their might. As the biosphere’s non-linear dynamics reaction to these last few centuries of sudden and violent alteration plays itself out, the biosphere is going to change in a big way. You don’t make that degree of drastic chemical and macro-physiological revisions without expecting turbulence. Whether or not we peaceably and instantaneously evolve past fossil fuels tomorrow or all die in some mega-collapse, the effect of the shit we’ve been stirring into the pot is going to become more pronounced. And on a biological level this is going to be catastrophic. See the only defining feature of the biosphere is that it’s dynamic. A big bundle of scummy fluid. Taxonomic conceptual structures like “interdependent networks of species and fauna” are just incidental arrangements of macroscopic structures. Fuck, what makes you think DNA will naturally survive into the next iteration of the Earth’s crust?
The Earth’s scummy surface is just going through one mild iteration of entropic chemistry. Frail semblances of repetitive structures and mild plateaus in overall energetic interaction do not make for any realistic security. And with the rise of our civilization we’ve just kicked the shit out of whatever momentarily normalizing patterns may have been buffering us.
There is no magical restoring force of equilibrium in the biosphere to something in any way compatible with life, much less humanity. The “natural state of things” is a vicious myth propagated by the church of biology. There is no real probability that, come a collapse, there will be a role for us or anything like us. And there certainly won’t be in a few more million years.
To embrace that is to embrace death. To push our dependents, the rest of society, our own dreams and desires beyond a periphery based on their relevance to immediate physical guides. To embrace role-filling within constraints. To embrace limitation. A finite set of possible existences. A normalization away from contact, experimentation and evolution in favor of immediate usefulness, our functionality as biological cogs.
The psychological and sociological effects of acceptance alone are reason alone to fight the crash till our last breath.
But hope is more than rational, it is almost justified.
The limitations presented by the Earth alone are not reasonable guidelines to the future. Vast and significant social forces, both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian are very much in the processes of following our desire for contact beyond our immediate puddle. And the consequences of such are anything but disregardable. Closed system analysis is simply an insufficient basis for declarations of inevitability.
Furthermore, such space expansion is far from a simple postponement of the same story. It’s simply impossible to apply the systematic tendencies, constraints and realities of Earth to the heavens. Even if we do decide to expand rather than just utilize astral resources as a platform to fix our relationship with the biosphere, relativity will immediately quash any empire building or any centralized civilization. You see, the very nature of space-time dissolves rigid structures on truly macroscopic scales. There can never be any galactic empires (even ones that later crash from diminishing resource returns). It’s impossible. Yet at the same time there can still be connection and enough individuals immediately connected as to dissolve regional oppression and authoritarianism. Furthermore, and here’s the absolutely critical component, humanity will become truly distributed and redundant rather than intractably interdependent. No longer trapped within a biosphere pressed between walls of desolation and rigidity, we’ll finally shed off this mistaken iteration of sedentary life and return as hunter-gatherers between the stars. Tribes of lessening of material interdependence, much larger sustainability and thus larger market pools for anarchy to blossom. With perpetually plentiful resources for every diverse desire.
Contrary to popular assertion, we are not machines grinding out the inevitable, consequences of our environment, ultimately controlled by everything around us. We are neither mere products of our food supply nor inconsequential components of an already written collapse. We’re smart people and we can make choices. We can reach out, explore, learn and we can invent. We can choose connection rather than isolation and we can choose to see the externalities of our actions clearly. We do not yet live in a closed system. There is still hope.
Asserting otherwise does more than buy into insulting social mechanism, it develops and reinforces such.
Hard though the struggle may be, the ease of partial victories will always cost us more
Demand nothing less than everything and take whatever you can get. But don’t take at the expense of gaining further ground. It’s a simple premise. Take pie, but don’t trade way any hope of taking the pie factory in the process. Take whatever scant freedom they allow but, for the love of god, don’t ever cease fighting for infinity. We have a cuss word specifically set aside for people who do that: Liberals.
Primitivism today exists at the nexus of a modern trend in Anarchism to embrace only what’s “winnable” and dismiss the rest. The consequence is a race-to-the-bottom in laziness. How to get the most dramatic of victories with the least expenditure. The crash, of course, is the natural endpoint of such regression. The promise of massive social change with almost zero personal exertion. (And cinematic scenes of explosions and mass struggle are always more aesthetically pleasing than tame FNB gatherings.)
Don’t get me wrong, the problem with collapse is not that it’s too easy a solution (no one should have to bleed to see change in this world, martyrdom is for nihilists, people who give a shit what others think about them and closet authoritarians). But even if we are to momentarily ignore the fact that it’s impossible, the primitivist dream paradise doesn’t go far enough. The nature of The Crash sets permanent limitations to future generations. If logging CEOs don’t give a crap about humanity 500 years from now, primitivists most definitely don’t give a crap about humanity 100,000 years from now. Because somehow violently murdering 6.5 Billion People to supposedly make a better world 500 years from now at the expense of our ancestors longing for rocketships when the next meteor hits is supposedly better than killing off some spotted owls to make a quick buck for one’s family. Christ. Even thinking in those terms gives me a headache. I honestly have no clue how the collapse cheerleaders can sleep at night. …They’re certainly not sleeping with transsexuals, epileptics, women with small birth canals, or anyone alive thanks to continued surgery, medication or mechanical assistance.
So if not collapse, and not some sort of draconian social imposition of arbitrary technological limitation, what are we left with?
Well, right away let’s make clear that a stasis with our current technology via some unmitigated classical left-wing anarchism would be unsustainable. Never mind that work is hierarchy in action, the very factory infrastructure that many syndicalist and communist or schemes revolve around is utterly illogical. Though primitivist societies may be more oppressive, such doesn’t change the basic physics of our biosphere. Technological change is needed.
It’s a pretty common flippant assertion on the part of primitivists that the only endpoint for technological advance is a nightmare of fractal chaos and mechanical death. I think this is some pretty fucking ridiculous immature masturbatory nihilism. Certainly our technologies could go all kinds of nasty places. But I don’t think the “upbound technological curve” that futurists speak of these days is heading in any of these directions. And I certainly don’t think a world of infinite technological possibility would make fascism an inevitability.
If we are to presume continued technological advance in the general direction of greater dynamic integration, we must consider the consequences of more fluid information technologies, mechanical refinement and biochemical mastery. (We can more or less ignore transportation tech, as it doesn’t matter where or in what context we locate a society, these same basic realities will remain.)
As far as information technologies go, it’s obvious that advances will progressively bring about the dissolution of public privacy. Everything you do in the presence of others will eventually be able to be remembered in perfect clarity and such memories instantly transferred to others. Inert matter will evolve a deeper capacity for recording. Our footsteps will be apparent to anyone who cares to look.
To the degree that the government or any power structure manages to secure control over this process they will gain absolute power to define truth. And, of course, absolute knowledge of their constituents. Which will threaten to permanently quash any semblance of resistance. Though some distorted liberal populist democracy might survive in such a state for as much as a century, the fascist tendency will evolve the institution rapidly. And if the state successfully eradicates the grassroots development of rival technologies, permanent perpetual fascism will be assured. Humanity will be progressively regulated into machinery and the sum structure will die a heat death, our unthinking bodies locked in step or something. It doesn’t really matter. In the onset of global fascism, whatever its form there is a point of singularity past which we can only die. Don’t believe that insipid shit about “so long as there is one beating heart.” Let me tell you, they’ll have a big fucking board displaying every heart that dares to beat. And then the robo-wolves will get ‘em.
However, to the degree that our accelerating information tech is decentralized and access to it is equalized, our natural antibodies to abuse, oppression and control will engage with extreme efficiency. The externalities of our actions will become instantly apparent and there the “tragedy of the commons” will cease. It’s worth noting that, in the absence of centralized power, individual and consensually arranged mutual privacy will continue. So long as anonymity is publicly desired in any venue, basic market forces will supply it. But it won’t help you get away with murder. The main result will be that, since access to any information desired will be distributed and truth commonly valued, it will be practically impossible to rule or coerce others.
Authority is derived from information scarcities and a post-scarcity society would annihilate the very concept of state secrets. Freedom of association and basic tools of defense would make prisons and, in fact, all retributive systems of “justice” starkly purposeless. Through uncountable processes the desire for freedom and social connection would make any anarchy so effective as to make even the very idea of sitcoms seem insanely dystopian.
…Which brings us to the second field of technological advance, self-knowledge. As medical knowledge moves out of the bumbling script-kiddie realm and into actual understanding, we’ll gain such strength and security as to instantly abolish almost every major cultural -archy. Sex, “race”, gender, prehensile-tail or no prehensile-tail… all that stuff will dissolve. The most immediate physical limitations that facilitate power psychoses will give way. When we master biochemistry to the degree that we actually know what we’re fucking with an incredibly potent window will open up to us.
Self-knowledge and agency in the workings of one’s own body is a big deal, and unlike the destruction of public privacy it’s hard to imagine any downsides to achieving having such. I mentioned how there’s not even the barest of pretenses that primitivists are on the same side as transfolk. But birth control is an even bigger issue. Would you really trust your body with some herbal concoction? Oh, wait, nine times out of ten the primitivists hawking “indigenous” forms of birth control are talking about someone else’s body.
Of course it’s true that as things stand, with greater medical refinement, the lethargic small-mindedness of our current market would acquire greater potency. And, indeed, so long as a corporatist economy has a hierarchical stranglehold on technological development (which pretty much boils down to intellectual property), chances are we’ll be fucked long before any honest, hard-working gene-hacker starts growing his own glow-in-the-dark butterfly wings. We all know it’s probably only a matter of time before some GM foods haxored by a greedy and lazy corporate PhD spins out of control and kills us all. If corporate capitalism persists.
Which brings us to nanotech and decentralized fabrication in general.
On the upside we’ve got both the absolute end of scarcity and the fulfillment of the old dream wherein each and every “worker” controls the means of production individually. The production not just of model #12, but of practically anything they desire. …On the downside it means that one day each and every one of these “workers” will more or less have their finger on the button to Armageddon. Today one can make incredibly disruptive weapons if not outright WMDs with only a few thousand dollars. Imagine what’ll be possible tomorrow.
So, yes, there’s a tension there. A need to make the world a better place today, so that when such higher tech eventually becomes omnipresent there aren’t any disgruntled folks to be cataclysmically angry about something.
We’ve got four possible futures: Complete Annihilation. Permanent Fascism. Permanent Post-Scarcity Anarchy. or Repeat Struggles Endlessly.
By embracing the drive towards more dynamic technology we reject perpetual struggle and try to chance it between the first three (not that Annihilation and Fascism are different in anything but cosmetics). If we go with primitivism and somehow survive the cracked bio-warfare labs we get Endless Struggle for a lengthy period followed inevitably by Complete Annihilation. The human drive for greater contact and deeper channels of experience will press up against the permanent technological limitations of a post-collapse Earth and conduct such physical limitation into the social realm. Oppression will be rampant.
But, yes, it will not even near the infinite amount of oppression we risk if we continue to pursue technological advances. As technology grows so do the stakes. Things run faster. Collapse, Armageddon, the Police State… one deviation and any of them could take the entire world.
But they’re not the only ones.
The internet has seen far greater propagation of anarchist values than anything else in history. With every technological advance the struggle has been getting more intense. While the sane have built telescopes and phones, the abusive spouses and tribal elders of prehistory have progressively gained tanks and fighter jets. Hitler’s Germany couldn’t even begin to rival the insidious powers rife across the world today. But neither does the Spanish Revolution hold a fucking candle to the anti-authoritarian insurrection bubbling in every city in the world today. The strength brought to bear by today’s oppressive power structures is utterly without comparison. And yet they aren’t winning. We can march on Washington in an outright black bloc two thousand strong and despite a military that amasses in every every continent on Earth, despite enough nuclear missiles to vaporize the topsoil, despite an economic system beaten into every child at birth, despite orbital platforms that can trace the flight of dragonflies, despite mobile EMPs that can cause car accidents without trace, despite an unprecedented coordination between every major nationstate on Earth so that they can archive 95% of their citizens electronic communications… they dare not even mow us down with bullets.
We took Seattle and all they could use was clubs, pepper spray and tear gas. We held Oaxaca for half a fucking year and yet they were so afraid of public opinion they barely killed anyone. We kill cops in Greece, blow up banks, prisons and police stations on an almost monthly basis, and yet they barely dare to respond. We still have a union a million strong in Spain. For a few months we were Argentina. We gather armies and armed with nothing more than sticks evict the police from the streets of South Korea. We write code in our mothers’ basements that destroy their desperate, last minute, multi-billion dollar attempts to control our technologies. We flagrantly run community centers, libraries, schools, factories, radio stations, and gardens in full view of the public in dozens upon dozens of countries around the world. We fucking outright, absolutely, 100%, unabashedly, militantly, and vocally, oppose every last power structure in the world. And they fight for dear life just to tap our phones. Because we are but the tip of billions. The radical blade of the entire world’s conscience.
And despite the hundreds of fucked up psychotics who’ve had their hand on the keys to global annihilation we are all still here.
But let’s be fucking clear here. We’ve never had anything but the slimmest margin of a chance. If you’re in the movement even the slightest bit because you think it’s inevitably or even likely destined for power, you’re in the wrong movement. Get the fuck out now.
The point isn’t that we’re fighting a losing battle with next to no chance, oh poor martyrs us. The point is that we fucking have a chance. The sheer ecstatic, miraculous implausibility of that. That, against all odds, it is feasibly possible for good to actually win. All that’s required is to, at the end of the day, have inspired each and every single one of 6.5 billion people to become full-fledged anarchists. To personally choose to throw away the power psychosis.
I’ve seen worse odds.
Knowing that we’ve got a shot. Knowing that we do have that choice. Knowing that we do have agency in the world. That’s what makes me jump out of bed in the wee hours of the morning to punch the sky, climb dew-laden trees, dance through the empty city streets and cry out thanks to the stars.
Though there may be near infinite night around, even the smallest drop of light makes the darkness irrelevant.
The new is possible
The past has no monopoly on the possibilities of the future.
The perpetual self-justification of primitivism is that although six and a half billion people dying might be a bad thing, it’s inevitable. The concept of the inevitable runs core throughout primitivism which plays perfectly into the nihilistic lethargy, but it’s also somewhat of an inherent result given their theoretical focus on anthropology.
From what was originally a positive reevaluation that sought to constructively take insights from indigenous and historical societies, primitivism has become a self-reinforcing faith that our only options lie in the past.
The trap is a simple one, and particularly effective as our movement begins to institutionalize burnout. Certain primitive and indigenous societies offer undeniable proof of anarchistic principles in action and tangibility is such a mighty opiate as to leave further exploration and critique undesired. I know that these essays have been received by some as though I were kicking their puppy. Primitivism and green anarchy in general has gotten wrapped in a certain immediate hope that red anarchism just can’t match. (Except where red insurrectionists start sympathizing with certain showy authoritarian right-wing anti-imperialist terrorist groups, but we won’t talk about that. Because it’s too embarrassing.) Burning condos offers immediate gratification, whereas union organizing is a pain. Classical talk of an eventual international rising five hundred or thousand years from now is simply not as rewarding as a soon-to-come Crash that reverts things back to the natural order of anarchy.
And, boy oh boy, does anthropology offer good case studies in the realistic effectiveness of anarchistic societies. But for those desperately seeking a glimmer of hope, the canonization of such societies has become far too instinctive and negative qualities pass without serious critique. Passing mention is made about “imperfections,” without really seeking to address them. Part of this stems from an inherited legacy of “cultural anti-imperialism” that really functions as postmodernism and complete ethical abdication in disguise. (Although, to his credit, John Zerzan long ago recognized that postmodernism was in many ways antithetical to the primitivist project as well as to anarchism in general.) But the biggest part of this stems from the sheer relief of having actual anthropological evidence and being part of a far bigger story.
Faced with the daily pressure of seeking, discovering and defending ways forward, it’s far easier to declare the universe on your side. Yes, formalized power structures piggybacked alongside our technological innovations, the archaeological record clearly shows that (although it also shows scattered examples of anti-authoritarian cities and agrarian societies throughout civilization). But non-formalized interpersonal power structures can be just as bad, if not more immediate and controlling. Our relations with other people don’t have to be systematically oppressive to still be oppressive. And the controlling limitations of tribal life are very conducive to subtle but unbelievably strong power psychoses. Physical limitations both inspire and facilitate social oppression.
Of course many primitive societies demonstrate anarchistic principles. Anarchy works! Get over it. It takes every last institution on Earth struggling 24/7 to even begin to blind us to such a basic social reality. Insofar as society even begins to function, it embodies a degree of anarchism. And, yeah, certainly some components of our society, both prehistorical and indigenous, were pretty decent. But why should that be good enough?
Those who remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Those who get wrapped up in the structures of the past will only operate within the structures of the past. If you only accept as possible what has already happened then, duh, any real technological progress past this point is impossible. But it’s not. Looking back for ideas is wonderful, but let’s not presume that the past has all, or even the best, answers.
I scrawled these essays on napkins summer 2006 blitzed out of my mind at 4am in the back of a diner. It shows. The prose is tangled as all hell and shot up with the spray of five-dollar words my brain spits up when it can’t find the right one. In my defense my young head was filled to the brim and riven with tension from my break with primitivism—I desperately needed to get it all down on paper by any means necessary.
Surprising they actually had an effect. Perhaps folks were just starved for any critique of primitivism thought more original than “that’s impractical” and I just filled a niche at the right time, but traffic to my little site took off and soon I was finding lines requoted in random places, in foreign radical zines and twitter posts from strangers. Of course the direct footprint of these essays wasn’t as big as I might have wished, but attitudes in radical communities have been shifting. Where certain primitivist assertions were once received uncritically, I find folks are now at least aware of the existence of a much broader radical discourse capable of contesting them. I’m happy to have helped disseminate some of those ideas.
These days I and increasingly more than a few others in the scene with roots in anarcho-primitivism have taken to identifying ourselves as anarcho-transhumanists. The change in terminology may appear drastic, but for most of us it wasn’t so much a reversal as a deepening. We still retain and cherish much of the perspective primitivism gave us, our horizons have just expanded. It feels good.
By William Gillis
When you have the key that unlocks all the deepest doors within you, yet you don’t know how to place it in the lock, then what does that make you? What does that make me or even us? I suppose it means we’re stuck. Damned to wandering this Earth with the keys to the Universe in our pockets, reluctant to figure out the perfect combination to unlock those celestial gates to anywhere and everywhere.
That which we already have in our possession is far more powerful than all the religions of all the worlds combined and it’s source is you. It is all of us…
When everything in existence comes together, from the lowest plane to the highest celestial abode, including every being, every thought-form and every act…When the cosmos itself dissolves or is absorbed back into its cause, then we all return to our natural state. A state, in which All is One, as it always has been.
We carry the worlds in our hearts, minds and souls. Wherever we go, we carry them with us…Mistakenly believing that they emanate from outside us, when they originate from pure consciousness. The part of our awareness who speaks silence. It knows us better than we know ourselves, as all the insight that we believe is ours, has bestowed upon us by it. Our silent witness is ever-vigilantly watching from the background. It knows no secrets and nothing can be withheld from it. Our soul is laid bare to it…as it is the spirit from which the soul sprung.
It knows our bodies and our minds far more intimately than we can comprehend at this time. It seeks to fulfil only our highest potential, while it sees all paths laid out before us. What we may become, what we could be and what we is inevitably our fate. For it, time is the manner our consciousness interprets a sequence of moments. It is how it measures all temporary change that is ongoing, but that in the grand scheme of things never truly was. It is light incarnate. The cloth from which we were all cut from is but a spark. Yet, to find the spark means that we may eventually be led to the flame. However, we should beware, following fire may get us burnt. It may vanquish our bodies, as all our delusions are set ablaze. Nonetheless, the pain can only be as strong as the heights of pleasure we attain. For however high we soar, the further we must fall. And so our soul becomes the great destroyer and the infinite liberator of us all… It is a part of that, which shapes the fabric of our finite realities. It is infinite, pure existence beyond all thought and action.
May The Great Spirit Walk With You 〰
Disclaimer: This is entirely theoretical thought experiment. We do not take any responsibility for actions carried out as a result of this post.
The only means to prevent White, Black, Indian and Asian genocide is position oneself in front of the wave of violence that is about to hit and create a ripple that alters its course. World War is brewing across Europe, only a small spark is needed to light an already gasoline-drenched fuse…
When one massacre after the other, involving over 200 people, are silently suppressed, then the only means to start a war in one swift movement is to double, if not triple, the body-count.
Mosques have been targeted all over Europe, but the MO was disorganised. More often than not, their timing was off and the damage wrought was insufficient… These were not attacks that would do anything other than antagonise without casualties. In a Jihad, that’s dangerous, stupid and ill-advised. Either do or don’t, there is no in-between when it comes to warfare.
There is no putting bacon on a handle or committing minor acts of vandalism to an empty building without jail-time, but once a crime sparks a war…It is no longer a simple crime, it becomes an act of war in itself. That is not police territory, unless they catch the perpetrator first. Commonly, it is the military that concerns itself with war-crimes, and historically they do not relinquish custody of a prisoner to law enforcement during times of war, if they turn themselves in. There are even numerous occasions, in which all military and civilians violent offenders were then used to combat the enemy.
This begs the question, when does a crime in the age of terrorism escalate into war? When an enemy is lured into pre-emptively starting their takeover and they do not possess the self-control to wait any longer due to the severity of a single wave of attacks.
Theoretically, one could start a war overnight. In fact, there is no way to know where or how the next war will start. It could be in a mosque, in a no-go zone or with a door-to-door massacre. Which side starts the coming war is determined by who makes the boldest move first. If they slaughter 200 of civilians in France, it’s terrorism. If one were to slaughter 200 of their violent offenders in the same way, it’d be an open declaration of war against the religion. In theory, killing an indiscriminate amount that rivals their worst attack yet would start WW3 with minimal effort and manpower at a random location. No prison or custody cell at a police station could defend against attempts to get retribution. The only protection that could be provided for perpetrators of war-crimes, once things escalate to this level, is at the nearest fortified military location or underground bunker.
The war to win over our thoughts, minds, bodies and even our souls has been ongoing for countless decades…and it won’t end anytime soon. However, the reactions to what we say, what we post and what we believe are far more revealing than our stance towards any given issue. Religion is not excluded from this. Although religion is a constant source of conflict, it is not religion that is the issue. It is our attitude towards it. Religion is freedom, which means that we must all find our own path to enlightenment and live with the moral consequences of our choices.
However, there far are more important issues at hand than a global crisis of faith… As our nations are arming up for war, unequal resource distribution is still running rampant. The little resources that we have are provided to economic migrants, while our own citizens are subject to poverty, starvation, sexual exploitation and exposure to the elements.
Any decent counsellor, therapist or doctor will confirm that silence is deadly, especially where hate crimes are concerned. Many homosexuals, transgenders, feminists and African-Americans can attest to the fact that they were punished violently for their life choices. Back then, most looked the other way. Now, these abhorrent hate-crimes have returned to our streets. Ironically, they highlight exactly what happens when a non-believer enters a Muslim country. The punishments sanctioned by law favours the dominant religion, as ours did for countless centuries. We are not accepting their religious laws, as our own, they are forcing them onto us, which is a crime against religious freedom.
No matter how many religious and/or spiritual practitioners adhere to peace, as long as they remain silent, the height of their numbers (and therefore influence) is irrelevant. They are complicit in crimes against humanity, dare I say, war-crimes (genocide) at the highest levels. If they were truly peaceful practitioners of Islam, as they claim, they would die beside us. They would throw themselves in front of extremists, as any good Christian, Buddhist or Hindu should, defending against an impending terror attack. In other words, the strong protect the weak, otherwise what is the use of their strength? They obviously are not strong enough to maintain their own integrity, if their superiority-complex prevents them from doing the right thing.
We don’t need money, power or influence to stand up for our families, our communities and our way of life. All we need is a little courage with a plan of action. The instant that we allow ourselves to be trapped in this web of political correctness, we are sacrificing the truth for the sake of getting along with an oppressive ideology, reinforced by law enforcement officials that once had our complete trust.
For what it’s worth, countless women are being raped daily all over Europe, which means that over half will experience at least one or two more sexual assaults throughout their lifetimes, if not slavery. Their fathers, brothers and husbands may have been offended a few hundred years ago, nowadays many of my clients report that the men in their lives are almost immune to this method of warfare. Their egos are not as easily damaged by such a violent crime, but they are easily led to expect women to ‘get over it’ in a period of 3-6 months, otherwise they often meet their needs elsewhere…and the common populous wonders why humanity is facing several extinction level events.
What May The Future Hold
In this world, anything is possible. Anyone can get away with anything at the right time under the right circumstances… There is only one slight problem with that. Diversity is paving the way to the enslavement of woman. We are expected to show respect and restrain ourselves toward an entirely different culture, when it is almost impossible to be repaid in kind at the best of times (by any culture). So, with every passing day, the nail of political correctness is hammered into the coffin of our Western civilisation….
Contrary to popular belief, Imams across the globe take orders from the same people that control our leaders from behind the scenes. Yet, neither one of us pays this the attention it deserves. Complaining, rape and retaliation are easier methods than to confront that everything we have been told is a lie. Lies that can inadvertently lead us to the truth about all things, whether you believe it or not.
…Truth be told, if Islam continues on its path of world domination, they will drive humanity into extinction. Every race (i.e. white, black, Asian, Arab, Feline, K9 etc.) will experience a significant reduction in numbers. This concerns humans, animals and plants alike, until there’ll be nothing left.
…Truth be told, if mankind continues on its path of planetary exploitation, whatever is above ground will be driven into extinction. Followed by one mass animal extinction after the other, the environment will have irreversibly changed. The plants and animals that survive will be as toxic to us as the atmosphere, the seas and the oceans, until the planet is no longer habitable by our standards.
…Truth be told, if Islam and the Sixth Mass extinction continue on their path unhindered. Chances are worlds will collide with high casualty rates. It is expected that less than a hundred million (if that) would survive above ground.
Liberty Died With Thunderous Applause
Many of the people that I’m in contact with have woken up to the police at their door, others had their articles pulled… The West is evidently no longer a safe place to express our opinion, unless we are prepared to possibly meet a bloody end by doing so. The choice is ours, but we can be guaranteed that our government or law enforcement will continue to support peadophilia, sexual and religious violence. The worst thing is that with every victim that is silenced, we are creating members of society that will not blink an eye, if violent crimes are committed. No one cared when it happened to them, so why should they care, if it happens to anybody else? However, what they’re actually dealing with is feelings of shame, guilt and emotional pain that are fuelling their own self-loathing, which is then projected onto others that have experienced the same. For most unsupported victims, that is normal. Being abandoned has become normal. For an even smaller amount, giving up on life is easier than living with the daily reminders of the incident.
For the most part, sexually abused women loose the ability to trust, when their support networks vanish into thin air. Dependent on the circumstances, in which the assault took place, many women become numb on the inside. They seek to move on, but they can’t feel anything anymore…and no one cares. There is no magic pill or quick solution, only self-realisation can lead to the cessation of suffering for them now.
As the globe keeps turning, their trauma is forgotten by those around them for its disenfranchised nature. I’ve shed too many tears over the travesty of this, but sadly wet eyes don’t change a thing. Only hard work with persistence has the potential to change how much we suffer. Even then, months after an attack, people simply disconnect, because ‘you’re still on about the same thing’. They lack the understanding that sexual violence leaves deep scars that affect personality development, self-image and capacity for empathy. Later on in life, it even has an impact on child-rearing. In reality, women that condone such events won’t lift a hand when it happens to their offsprings, as the social system in Great Britain and Europe taught me repeatedly. Many relatives would rather shift blame or stay away than to assist in the healing process. However, this is only partly their responsibility. Our society does not teach our offsprings how to effectively cope with trauma, which leaves the majority of us vulnerable to a myriad ways of suffering.
What To Do
Every man, woman and child in every country is affected by the current religious struggle for power. Yet, religious leaders are only too aware that the status of their religion is dependent upon the numbers as well as the dedication of their followers. Whatever opposes them can easily be overcome by increasing the former. Here’s what’s inevitably going to happen:
– Islam will aim to establish itself as the majority in France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
– Any country, in which they successfully establish themselves will serve as their primary base of invasion for neighbouring countries, such as Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Hungary and the entire Mediterranean.
– Islam is currently fully surrounding Europe by attempting to seize the whole of Africa.
– By October 2016, the events in Europe will escalate concordant to pre-arranged election dates. The probability that conflicts will escalate in several countries simultaneously is higher than another wave of attacks across European nations.
– Many believe there’ll be a war by December 2016…That Christmas will be celebrated on the run or in hiding. The decorations, if there will be any, will incite fear of attack and religious hatred. However, there is also a great deal of hope that they won’t choose the coldest months of the years to kickstart a war.
The only way to stop a malignant narcissist with sadistic tendencies is to deprive them of that which they desire. Never to yield. Never to surrender…and never to relinquish your personal power. Narcissists don’t take responsibility for their actions, unless forced into the position. They will resort to all kinds of manipulation, such as shifting blame, shaming and complete denial. Their ego will not allow them to realise their mistakes or feel the horror behind what they’ve done, otherwise who they are would be shattered.
Sharia law has become the enablers code for peadophilies and sexual offenders across the world. It allows men to shame women and humiliate them at every step, even beat them publicly whenever they deem just. This elicits submission to prevent further punishment, as a rather dark by-product of the instinct for self-preservation. In addition, women that speak against Islam are being labelled as Islamophobic, as if our right to free speech is disregarded, when it comes down to an oppressive religious regime that does not recognise women as human.
A narcissist does not see a difference between you and them. For them, you are an extension of them. You serve their needs and they don’t have to serve yours, because their needs are more important. Their mere presence should be enough to entice you into bending over backwards. A malignant narcissist is not so different, but they are far more likely to harm and even destroy the object of their affections. If they cannot have it, no one will. On mass, this is a recipe for disaster, hence the female population in the Middle-East reaches a desperate low-point every few decades, and they are forced to ‘branch out’. When coupled with sadistic tendencies, female genocide becomes routine, simply to maintain control… Islam does not seek support from the West, they seek its submission to their religion. For women and children, that means we will be vulnerable every day until something changes or we will be forced to live by their views. Sadists seek to turn those around them into sadomasochists… In sexual relationships, this entails a form of continuous torment that the mind cannot protect against, if unprepared. Women are often not taught how to protect against pregnancy or induce a miscarriage without self-harming. So, they become breeding-machines in captivity that gradually dwindle into suicidal ideation. (Fasting or a hunger-strike often induces a miscarriage, which should be mentioned is prohibited in Islam during pregnancy, but only if maintained with great self-control.)
For a narcissist, pregnancy is a symbol of ownership. It reinforces their control over the mind, body and spirit of their victim. Worse, in Islam, they often prey on the sentimentality of women by counting on the fact that they will develop an emotional attachment to become slaves to their male offsprings. Should the head of the house pass away, ownership falls to the oldest, closest male of the family, leaving their women no chance of escape from tyranny.
Tips & Tricks
– Don’t confront a narcissist. Wait until they confront you. Then resist and stand your ground, while exerting an air of confidence.
– When a religious narcissist has their eyes set on attaining a specific goal, they will twist scripture to suit their needs. The easiest tactic against this is to reference their scriptures by the letter and be prepared to prove it. (More often than not, things will get violent long before you have the chance to pull out a book)
– When they profess love and peace but never show it, confront them with verifiable, undeniable facts of religious abuse and/or genocide.
– They’ll talk, but hardly listen, which makes them prone to speak over and interrupt people that do not agree with their viewpoint. If they cut you off every time that you open your mouth, speak in keywords. (Pick the most hard-hitting, relevant word in your response and guaranteed that it’ll elicit a reaction immediately)
What is the concept of religion? Or more importantly, why is it?
Religion has become an all-encompassing system that functions in all essence like a corporation. The Vatican, for example, is an arms stockholder and a bank with great influence in the corporate community. Our modern representation religion has strayed far from its intended purpose…It no longer serves as a voice of reason or compassion, but detachment from the people that it serves. Corruption in any institution can only take hold, if organised elements within it act on delusional beliefs that do not benefit the greater whole. Although many religious scriptures are hardly embodiments of peace or provide more than a handful of useful principles, not all of them have been edited, suppressed or destroyed. Some still offer guidance toward understanding a higher power…an essence that existed prior to this multi-verse.
“In politics, if something doesn’t go the way you want, shoot someone. It works every time. Just like it did with the London Riots…Just like it’s working now. As long as there’s a patsy, no one cares who’s actually behind it all.”
What you are about to read is highly controversial and disturbing. This blog does not take any legal responsibility for your actions, so if you try any of what you’re about to read, it is at your own risk!
Don’t die for your possessions. As long as you’re looking at a simple mugging, just hand over your wallet. If they’re after more, however, you have every right to defend yourself. Bear in mind, there is the possibility that you are confronted by only a fraction or half the group, while the others lie in wait for an opportune moment to reveal themselves. In the case of 1 against 30 combat-trained assailants, only the most skilled martial artists walks away unscathed, so be realistic.
Every woman should have a basic knowledge of self-defence, the will and ability to apply it in life-threatening situations. Without the ability to act in self-defence, all the skill and force of will are of limited use. For many women that have never taken a punch to the face, it renders them completely immobile. Many self-defence classes do not advertise the fact that when anyone takes a punch, they have to force themselves to bounce back. To push through any haziness and let the adrenaline kick in. If need be, they force the mind to compensate for the pain and run on auto-pilot for a second, but they do whatever they need to do to stay conscious. They know on every level that if they go down after the first punch, they are not going to get a second opportunity. They may wake up restrained or tied down or they may wake up during or after rape. More importantly, they are going to be at the mercy of their captor(s), which means that they may die at their hands.
This may be much to take in, but it’s vital that women understand that a sex attack is not just 5 minutes and afterwards they’re thrown into the streets out of a van like in an 90’s crime thriller. The migrant crisis has shifted the entire dynamic of rape. Whereas it was statistically more likely to survive, that is no longer the case. Every other day, young girls, teenagers and women are left barely alive after 24-72 hour sex-sessions with 5-50 men and only one or two female participants. The younger the victim, the more likely the internal organ damage is going to be fatal…Regardless of how many participants. Under the age of 10, for example, repeated force can easily result in major blood-loss. It may take hours until the blood-loss results in the loss of unconsciousness, but inevitably the damage done is irreparable.
On a related note, the sexually transmitted diseases in survivors are yet to become a public issue, as none of them are officially “curable”. Despite the fact that corporations profit from every single tragedy without alleviating any suffering whatsoever, survivors do not have to cope with the situation by themselves. Their grief is openly disenfranchised, but that does not mean it is unnatural. In a rape culture, where society prefers to turn a blind eye, women have to look after themselves and one another to heal after such an ordeal. There are many support networks for men, women and children that have experienced all kinds of abuse.
Side-Note: Instead of going out to meet a rapefugee, go out and meet the homeless or unfortunate in your area. Volunteer to support survivors of the migrant sex attacks or speak to an apostate of Islam. In other words, inform yourself without putting yourself in harms way. Don’t take any unnecessary risks…Many women that have insisted they’ll gather evidence to support Islam is a peaceful religion have been raped and killed.
Now that we’ve reviewed what happens on average during one of these attacks, here are a few tricks that were not covered in the previous post:
- Sex-Attacks happen when you least expect them (i.e. jogging, shopping, way to or from work, the nursery, the gym or any other publicly accessible location)
- The only way to take punches is to get punched.
- The body has to become desensitised to the experience of taking a hit in order to stay standing and conscious
- When about to be hit and you cannot step out the way, relax and soften your body.
- Brace for and absorb the impact, then let it to fuel your momentum to strike back.
- The hits that you don’t expect or see coming are often said to be the most painful.
- The goal to anticipate, brace and block every strike is only achievable with a small number of opponents, incl. a few years of highly dedicated training.
- When faced with an opponent superior in height and strength, use your intelligence
- There are no rules: Push your thumbs into their eyes, kneecap them, sink your teeth in their necks, close your eyes and rip or use those heels as lethal weapons.
- Whatever gets you out alive, regardless how psychotic (unless you are fully prepared to die or accept the consequences of what surviving such an attack may mean)
- If guns are legal, where you are. Get two, purchase several clips and boxes of ammo. One gun and box of ammo solely for the handbag. The other can be carried on your person in a concealed manner.
- Sex attacks limits your use of weapons, whereas home invasions are a morally grey area. Even in England, where knife-bans are being implemented in specific regions on a trial basis…If you are attacked in the kitchen, a chef blade (and frying pan for defence against the knife-wielding sort) is legally justifiable.
- The ultimate goal of self-defence is not being required to use it.
- Whatever weapon of self-defence is legal to use, ensure you have it ready in hand before confronted by any attackers. The chance is you won’t have any time to do so otherwise.
- The more time to train, the more prepared you’ll be for the real thing
- Other than getting punched in the head or face, there’s no way to learn not to pass out. Attend a boxing gym. The body learns to adjust to punches that would otherwise cause you pass out fairly quickly, when the circumstances demand it.
- If you have one, give your reinforced (motorcycle) helmet a dual purpose and use it to shield your head when you know an attack is imminent
A home invasion allows you to control the situation through preparation. Be creative. There are an infinite number of ways to make a window entrance into a hidden trap. For what it’s worth, I once cared for an elderly woman, whose house was broken into by a burglar that climbed through the window and instantaneously fell through the floor-boards onto the concrete cellar steps. Unsurprisingly, he remained unconscious in the locked cellar until the authorities arrived, but things could have looked very differently. So, here’s what you can do pre-emptively:
- Install Reinforced Locks, Doors and Windows
- Screw Dense, Reinforced Metal Bars To Windows
- Reinforce All Entrances with Wooden or Metal Barricades
- Obtain Firearm Licence and Training
- Attend a Dojo or Take Private Martial Arts Lessons
- Join The Neighbourhood Watch
- Build Non-Lethal Booby-Traps for Burglars (please be ensure that they can’t be accidentally set off and don’t just let it sit there unmaintained or unchecked until used months later)
Imagine that one that dark night, you awaken to a massive thud at the front door. From that moment, dependent on the size of your residence, you have under 60 seconds to prepare. For families, the sleeping arrangements often allow children to seek refuge in their parents bedroom in case of an emergency, but that implies there is a brace-period of some kind in-between the break-in and any physical confrontation. In other words, without a brace-period, just rolling over to grab your weapon of choice and get out of bed will things cut very close… Too close. By the time that a group or a few individuals have made it to the bedroom, you’ve lost. You have one room left to the defend, from which you’re most likely not going to get out of.
Exit Strategy: Unless you possess the skills and equipment to withstand a home invasion, perpetrated by a group of 15+, you must learn to assess the situation. Know when it is best to quietly sneak away and how you can do so. If you sleep on the second floor, make sure that you have more than one emergency exit, but ensure that its not visible from the outside. If the bedroom is large enough and somewhat obscured from other windows, you may have the space to store a ladder to climb out the window. Conversely, if you live in an apartment building, you may have access to a fire escape. Dependent on where you live and the tools you have at your disposal, the escape route you design has to be laid out carefully to suit your strengths.
Migrant home invasions may seem opportunistic, due to the weapons used for the break-in and inability to get a confession. At least with a lock-pick, the justice system would be able to evidence the premeditated nature of these attacks, but as they use less sophisticated means to gain entry, it becomes hard to prove. As stated earlier, home invasions are a grey zone. It is your constitutional right to defend your family and yourself in your own home.
The purpose of these random, premeditated attacks on women is to send the message that no one is safe. Not even in their own homes or bodies. That’s why they call it terrorism, because even when they are doing nothing…the uncertainty and fear they’ve created continues. Since Orlando, people have much to be afraid of. Governments across the globe are turning against their people…And that can scare anyone out of their minds. It makes us not only vulnerable to attack, but also defenceless. Or would you dial 999, after almost getting raped, only to most likely be fined for using pepper-spray or prosecuted for unreasonable force when you were clearly outnumbered? No, most people move in with each other or just arrange emergency contacts to help them. They turn their back on the law, when it no longer serves to protect them from harm and serves to imprison them instead. We are one step from returning to a time, when having trusted friends to dispose of bodies wasn’t commonplace but a regular occurrence that went unspoken.
Force Through Freezing: Whatever you choose, I urge you to think carefully. Every decision we make has its moral repercussions, even if we are never prosecuted for any crime committed. When the mind is paralysed with fear, we can’t be pre-occupied with philosophical debate. We freeze, we die.
A soldier would say that you are dead already the moment they break through the door, therefore you have nothing to lose. A monk would say that you were never born and that you can never die, because you are infinite consciousness, which equally implies you have nothing to lose. This universe may be an accident. It may be a glitch, a test or a holomovement, but whatever it is…unless we try protect those we love from suffering, none of this is of any consequence.
The reasons why people freeze are simple, but uniquely diverse. Some are afraid and do not truly wish to hurt anyone, others are pre-occupied thinking about what might happen. All of these reasons have one thing in common: The situation is bringing up all this unprocessed content, while the mind is scrambling to find a way out. (1) Failing to find any suitable behaviour, often due to lack of combat training, they freeze. (2) They know what to do but are hesitant, inexperienced first-timers, causing them to freeze (3) They have not decided how or whether to defend themselves. More often than not, they don’t know how far they are willing to go, which can either be a disadvantage or lead to psychotic violence and/or extreme overkill.
Combat & Invasion Tactics
The first question you must ask yourself, are you prepared to take a life in self-defence? If not, create a strategy that immobilises as many attackers as possible without inflicting fatal injuries. In any case, you have to render multiple attackers completely useless in a very short period of time. For that you need to understand, every battle has its physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual aspects. The first strike does not just serve to defend yourself. It is an open statement that allows your opponent to assess your skill, strength and determination. If the attack is feeble, they are more likely to overpower you in a group. If there is a pause or hesitation between one strike and the next, they may gain the upper hand. Therefore, your defensive strategy has to be conducted in one fluid movement. The least time between attacks, the more protected you will be. The ideal timespan between strikes should be one second, leaving just enough time for one strike per assailant. So, make it count. Educate yourself in basic anatomy and physiology!
Study the anatomical weaknesses of the human body. Learn how to maximise the potential of your attack with minimal effort. Use the momentum of their attack against them. First of all, when an oncoming attack is imminent and multiple attackers are charging towards you, you’ll feel the desire to step backwards. Remember, any ground, you give, is ground that you’ll have to fight for with tooth and nails. Hence, soldiers are desensitised, so that they are able to stand still and blankly stare at an attacking force, waiting move through them without hesitation, once they get close enough.
As they charge, they are vulnerable from a distance. The more you render immobile through non-fatal means, before they can get to you the better. Apart from an automatic pepper-solution dispersal system at the front door, or other high-tech security measures, the selection of choice is generally limited by technical skill or accessible long-distance weaponry. (Cross-bow, nail gun etc.)
(On a related note, Home Alone offers some creative ways to use basic everyday objects for self defence, but in case things don’t go according to plan, anything can be used as a weapon, if you’re creative enough)
The easiest means to defend yourself is to make it almost impossible to get to you. If there’s only 3 perpetrators, your preventative measure should hit them hard enough that they can’t get far. Every window, every door and every weak spot is a possible entrance point from which people can converge on the residence, so ensure that you have all your bases covered.
Warning: Booby-Traps aren’t just explosive charges, they can be made of anything that slows down an attacker in a camouflaged manner. Although not all are lethal, they’re heavily regulated. Take some additional time to study the law and follow it to the letter. Obtain the expertise and licences necessary to use them, dependent on where you live. If you have an understanding, pro-survival attorney or friend in the legal industry, inform them of your plans and discuss possible legal concerns. They’ll most likely remind you that any trap can be potentially lethal, if all goes wrong.
Trip Wire: A trip wire should be as thin and invisible as possible. If it serves multiple functions, I’d recommend the kind of transparent carbon-fibre, which is sharp enough to inflict small lacerations around the ankles or calves. With multiple attackers, this can out one of out commission, plus however many the mechanism at the end of the trip-wire can take care of. Whereas some prefer to use the trip-wire as an intruder alert, it’s often counter-productive. Unless you’re looking at a highly sophisticated set of economic criminals, you’ll be awakened by the noise of a window or front/back-door breaking. Anyhow, you’d be better off connecting that wire to something capable of disabling 1-5 people or seal off the path to the communal areas.
Under the Floor: Concealed traps hidden under wooden floor-boards at a door or window serve as another suitable means maim a burglar. For the more technologically equipped, a pressure sensor can be used, but that’s just one idea. Defence in the home is limited by creativity and perhaps madness. The only limits that exist are in the mind. Contrary to popular belief, the more creative you can be, the less or more lethal you can be. For example, electrical charges sufficient enough to stun, tase or even kill could easily be installed through miniature holes in the floorboards with something to direct the current that can be raised and lowered manually. However, this is highly controversial, legally grey territory and should not be tried at a whim. (Just please take into account that family members could accidentally stumble onto any trap implemented before its time, if they’re not equally educated on arming and disarming it. Beware teenagers and general ignorance!)
As stated before, there are an infinite number of variations, when it comes down to booby-traps. If we won’t be able to avert a Third World War, it may be useful to know that the Geneva convention will most likely be thrown out fairly quickly…It’s one of the fastest means to escalate a war to its peak in the shortest period of time available. For those that don’t know much about the Geneva convention, it prohibits the use of excessively torturous weapons, such as spring-bullets and depleted uranium rounds etc. (and unofficially, directed frequency weapons…)
For those worried about a door-to-door massacre, the objective during such an is to delay the attackers and deny them entrance into the property. For a massacre, fire is on or the most useful weapons, as long as you keep in mind to use top-grade chemical fire retardants to prevent the spread into living areas. Few attackers will step through a pit of fire too large to leap over…They’ll either divert more manpower and resource, which is useless against a napalm-based fire. It’d easily melt the asphalt or concrete at the front of the house in a short while, but if done properly…Most do not have the skill or materials to put it out until the fire brigade arrives.
Warning: When playing with fire, expect the worst. Keep it away from your house, but in-between you and the attacking force. That means lay it on pathways, your front and back garden…but use it to seal every available entrance. Hell, if possible, you could even enclose the property in a ring of fire wide enough that no Olympian Medallist would be able to jump through. More importantly, expect that any fire may still grow out of control, no matter how many precautions you take, so ensure that you have a contingency plan, if it does spread to the house or neighbourhood. Gas masks can also be a very useful thing to have, if an attacking force attempts to burn you out of your home or aim to use the fire you’ve laid against you. It should be noted that this cannot be done with napalm. In the military, as soon as an infantry is confronted with Napalm, the objective is to get around it. When all paths to all entrances and ground floor windows are cut off, this is not an option, as long as the fire is laid wide enough. However, that often doesn’t stop an attacking group from converging on the only resisting force. – In videos of refugee centres and blocks, you’ll often notice a lot of rubbish lying around…Seemingly chucked on the floor at random, but if you look more closely, they connect burnable pieces of cardboard, newspaper, mixed in with bits of plastic to create a trail along the walking path and over the patches of grass. One match and the entire entrance to the apartment block is inaccessible to law enforcement until the fire brigade arrives.
A physical confrontation should be avoid at all cost, especially when vastly outnumbered and outgunned. However, its advantageous to consider how to defend yourself should the need arise. Contrary to popular belief belief, attackers are rarely unarmed. The more attackers are coming up against resistance, the more they’ll utilise firearms and knives to gain instant co-operation out of fear. (Mind you, in some of my more gruesome case studies, there was a significant percentage of convicted offenders that exhibited the desire to carve new orifices to penetrate. So, it is truly a matter of gauging the extent of your attackers likely intentions) Although knife fights can last up to 10-15 minutes in Hollywood, in reality, they last under 30 seconds. Often the first to deliver a successful strike walks away.
In all honesty, snuff film footage of amateurs against experienced attackers is highly depressing. After 3 hours of ‘block’, ‘slash’, ‘dead’ in almost every possible variation, (including even the Prometheus school of running), I decided to approach to the situation from a different angle.
Size Matters: The longer the reach of your weapon, the better. You’ll either want to be as far away from the attacker as possible, or so in their personal space that they cannot attack until it’s far too late. (Throw knives as primary and back-up weapons may also be useful. Just be sure to practice)
Ideally, you should be carrying separate weapons, equipped for long-distance and close combat, when facing multiple attackers. Without the legal use of firearms, the situation becomes rather violent and bloody. Without any form of long-distance weaponry, there is only one way to confront and subdue multiple attackers: From the first strike onwards, your defence tactic has to frighten even the most combat-hardened attacker. It has to be gruesome, but preferably non-lethal, unless you are truly fighting for your life.
Protective Clothing: If all fails, a stab vest, chainmail, kevlar or any form of armour can be of extreme use. Even if they’d manage to deliver an otherwise fatal blow, the worse they could do is fracture a rib or two or cause moderate trauma to the chest.
Tips & Tricks For Women
Muscle may weigh more, but it also takes more nutritionally-dense food and regular exercise to maintain. Also, it is a great psychological disincentive when a woman has more muscle than her attackers and knows how to use it. Not to mention, the tactical advantages of strength as well as skill in a neat, sexy package, disguised by appearance.
When attackers prey on fear, call their bluff. Be confident. If they are going to try to rape and kill you, they’ll have do over your dead body. Whatever they are going to do to you is nothing compared to the moral consequences of their actions. Just concern yourself with your own survival and that of those under your care, failing that…I personally wouldn’t want to be taken alive, but I’d fight until my last breath. This is a decision that should never be taken lightly, but it is one every woman has to make for herself. Particularly for single-mothers with young daughters. Many women can easily be driven to the degree of desperation, when killing one’s offsprings to save them from harm may seem justifiable, but investing all that energy in self-defence can be much more powerful. The miraculous feats we are capable of to shield our children from harm should be enough evidence of that. If we have the strength to lift a car during pregnancy, we have access to the same amount of strength to defend our children after birth. We just have to make up for with intelligence, where brute force will not do.
When an opponent is taller, there many advantages and disadvantages. However, it is often an unspoken truth that the shorter one is, the more one vicious and agile one has to be from the first strike onwards. Throw away any inhibitions, they’ll only slow you down in a fight. When the adrenaline surges, don’t resist it. Simply go with the flow. Let your actions be fuelled by whatever you feel in that moment, but don’t allow yourself to be overpowered by emotions…Channel them through your body and throw your entire weight into it.
On a related note, the sex attacks across Europe have shown that the attackers objective is to knock women out and restrain them, while almost fatally injuring any man present.
Game Over: An old friend once gave me a piece of advice, he said that it is more important to know when the game is over. Women have to consider the brutal reality of what will happen to them, if they are captured and even imprisoned for breeding purposes. In some ancient societies, it was a custom to put the children to sleep and then administer a fatal dose of whatever compound was available at the time. However, other societies operated far differently. For example, Norse communities would prefer to slit their throats, whereas in Japan, women were educated to slide a short blade up behind the solar plexus to pierce the heart. Although euthanasia or ritual suicide in these cases should never be an option, it can be a more compassionate solution to seemingly endless suffering.
“Do not impose anything on yourself believing you must behave like a saint. Some rational and intelligent people believe impossible things. They state authentic nonsense and live excruciating conflicts in their refusal to accept the truth. They try to suppress their individuality and so their desires…and in so doing, they distance themselves from everything interesting and thrilling in life, only because it makes them vulnerable.”
Anita B. Sulser P.hD.
Our dreams for the future should not be of greatness or wealth, but freedom: the ability to think, speak and act freely, as women…This is a free world, risen from the ashes of oppression, but we are a prisoner of our bodies and our gender-roles. We should not have to justify our actions to anyone but ourselves. Ultimately, it is us who has to live with the moral consequences. If we wish to devote our lives to a higher cause, such as the search for meaning, we should not do so because a deity demands it. We should only do so, when it is what our heart, mind and spirit asks of us. Anything else is not selfless devotion to a higher being. It is lip-service, self-deception or conformity to something we have never striven to understand. Faith should not be taken lightly, it is very personal business to all of us. Particularly, for those willing to sacrifice their lives in the fight for religious domination or freedom.
Hope For The Best, Expect The Worst
The prophet Mohammed rode into battle alongside his female lieutenant, whereas the present-day interpretation of Islam has made women prisoners in their own homes. It has made them tools of self-gratification for men from the moment they can crawl. It is not only despicable, it is highly dangerous, as to the mental health of their victims. They are creating ticking time-bombs in charge of raising future generations, which can only result in hich rates of violent crime and suicide.
Generation after generation has been subjected to psychological torment and has been beaten into sexual submission, as a blatant abuse of the religious authority of the state. In such a country, where there is no protection for women, their offsprings can never be of optimal psychological health, regardless of the gender. They are raised with extreme forms of Stockholm syndrome, after being beaten, sexually abused and coerced into religious worship. Every inch of their identity is stripped from them…Every basic requirement from the food they eat, the clothes they wear to what they say is controlled by the men in their lives. Now, is that a life, in which any of us can ever be at peace with the world or ourselves?
Sharia Defies Human Rights
Women have it hard enough in the West without the inference of religious laws being thrust upon those that are enslaved and oppressed by them. No country should be governed by laws that advocate gender biases, it only festers corruption and inequality. For those few women that survive, cold indifference becomes a state of being. Some ex-Muslims that I have spoken to live in fear of Islam. As apostates, Sharia laws means condemning them to death. It seems that men, women and children are becoming slightly more afraid with each day that Islamic Laws will create an Islamic State, where no justice can prevail.
There is a difference between being ‘islamophobic’ and being weary of the surge of migrants that are taking a hold of the West, so Educate Yourself. Do not believe what you read in the Newspaper, unless you can be 100% certain that is is not propaganda. Know your cultural history, read more books, trust your gut and see for yourself what is happening in your community.
Organised Religion has no room in state politics or in the administration of the law. Particularly, when it defies human rights and common sense. Since the abolishment of capital punishment, what use is there for religion in the court-room? Prayer cannot change the verdict of a judge. It cannot protect the guilty or shield the innocent, as much as sending a thought into the universe can alter the course of cause and effect. It is unethical to demand religious devotion and/or worship of a non-believer. We were all born with free will. We have the right to be free from religion. That does not mean we have to thrust our beliefs down everybody’s throats, but we can act in defence of our right to free expression.
In a world, where religious freedom is political and political expression is religious. It becomes obvious that they reversed the rules on us in an attempt to infiltrate. It’s psychological warfare 101 to turn the target nation in on itself to weaken its defences. Without the ability to defend itself, it is ready for the taking. (Particularly, if you’ve already taken the outer zones)
France: While the protests are still ongoing for at least the next month, the no-go zones appear to be expanding. Although the Erdogan, the Turkish PM, criticises the French for their way of handling the demonstrators, if the tables were turned, we would witness a press-blackout followed by a significant reduction in the population. Erdogan is demonstrating another tactic of political infiltration, using our own weapons religion, politics and law against us.
The only thing that can possibly win against this is war. The time when complete non-resistance or non-cooperation across Europe would have been effective has passed. Now, our options are limited by the number of people we can dedicate to the problem of violent crime in our streets. The more people support the political freedom of their country, the less violence will need to be applied to regain their policies and territories. The less people take action, the more brutal the measures have to be. When outnumbered against hordes of battle-trained war refugees with more reinforcements hiding in close proximity, the situation can become life-threatening in seconds.
Germany: With about 1.5M refugees, only about 446’000 have been granted asylum. Although the remainder have not left the country, Germany has not taken any action. With daily sexual assaults by 3-15+ economic migrants converging on a single woman, law enforcement is reluctant to pursue the matter for religious/political reasons. An asylum seeker does not commonly exhibit hostile tendencies or commit violent crimes in the country that has given him or her refuge. If their application is denied by the state, they may resort to petty theft to support themselves, but they do not rape and pillage whatever catches their attention at the time.
A good tactician plays with his target, as a cat would with a mouse. They feign weakness, in the form of poverty and immobility, until they suddenly pounce upon their target. Yet, economic migrants are not as skilled at covert warfare, which plays in our favour by altering us to the threat the moment it began. However, the instant Merkel announced her open-door policy, welcoming millions into the country, she opened the country to political invasion. Without the forced deportation of millions of economic migrants that have remained long after their legal right to stay expired, Germany will continue to suffer. As Merkel refuses to assist her people out a sense of false pride in her decision, she is a representative of the people…And in every country, people have the right to simply refuse public support. It is even our human right to refuse elected officials, if we feel our political freedoms are threatened or compromised. Merkel opened the front gates and invited in a Trojan horse that she is now refusing to acknowledge or even comment on. Her unwillingness to respond to negative feedback make her highly dangerous and perhaps unstable. Ironically, her decision has made Germany more powerful in the European Union, but it has sacrificed its people to achieve this and most likely the future of the EU.
Although only 250’000 people would be required to gather in Berlin to overwhelm authorities, there is consistent evidence that the retaliation against political resistance in the fight for political freedom would be more than just instantaneous.
Austria: An EU exit would be perhaps one of the most peaceful solutions. Having grown up in the area, we never needed border control, remember what that was like? When you could walk through the Alps without worrying about migrants, lurching in the bushes. Now, even locking the door or excellent security system cannot stop the high increase in burglaries, rapes and random violence. Only 50’000 protesters are required to overwhelm die Wiener Behörden in a unified movement for the rights of men and women alike to regain political control over their country.
Switzerland: In a recent attack in May 2016 at a Swiss border, caught on CCTV, a group of approx. 2″ migrants blocked the road. The car stopped, the driver and passenger exited vehicle and before they knew it another 15 migrants descended into them out of the woods nearby. When in doubt, always stay in your car, lock the doors and drive and dial the police, if necessary. In the footage, a car sped by and took some of the migrant off their feet (without visibly injuring any of them). However, the content quickly turns into a snuff film as they knock out the driver and group around the female passenger after giving her a bloody nose and take her trousers off…
Here’s what happened & what is yet to come:
As a female psychologist in a profession that’s pretty much a boys-club, I may be scarcely heard or acknowledged, but I’m afraid to say that I turn out to be right more often than I’m comfortable with. Some women enjoy the thrill of the “I told you so.”, I just find it adds animosity to an already tense, if not hostile situation. (Being right for women is like telling someone to move their shit on the stairs, before they stumble over it. Nobody cares when you say it but you can be guaranteed that there’s going to be a crash, bang and wallop in the near future)
Hinduism: 400 million Hindus were slain during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors were enslaved and impregnated or castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s, the Hindu population had been reduced to approx. 200 million. (The conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. “Hindu slaughter.”)
Mass Rapes: In April 2016, a group of male refugees, heading for Europe accidentally wound up across the border of Russia. They 40-50 of them charged into a night-club and began to seize the female staff and guests for their own twisted pleasure. Although it did not take long until Russian law enforcement intervened and administered their own brand of justice.
Public Beheadings: As tensions increase, they will undoubtedly attempt to make an example of public and/or religious figures. Lyle Zimmermann fell victim to this fear-tactic, when he was attacked a tube-station and almost publicly beheaded. This is just another example of how the verse of the sword is misused to target any religious organisation that they cannot infiltrate. This commonly accomplished by spreading fear and ridding them of their most beloved members.
HIV & Other STD’s: The surge of migrants and continued number of sexual assaults is likely to propagate many incurable sexually-transmitted conditions. Most commonly reported conditions reported in survivors are HIV and Hepatitis. Considering this inconceivable fate, survivors would be at a higher risk of suicide. Victim support in these cases is essential, but often neglected, but there is much that we can all do to provide a safe place for them to begin the healing process. (Although there’s nothing that can’t be treated with a bi-annual dose of 9-Liquid Ounces of cannabis in a country, where it is legal, these strands are most likely more invasive, but still originate from the same man-made strain. To flush and restart the system would necessitate an additional 1-2 liquid ounces per month. It is recommended to abstain from alcohol, tobacco and processed food in-between treatment, but pure blunts or hemp & cannabis joints have shown to aid recovery. It should be noted that every liquid ounce is comparably three times more than a solid ounce of freshly grown medicinal cannabis, so don’t underestimate the amount required for this endeavour. In this case, better too much than too little and sooner rather than later.)
Religious & Political Warfare: Over the previous centuries, Islam has destroyed a great deal of spiritual, academic culture. Entire Buddhist and Hindu temples that have existed since before the birth of Christ were eradicated or burnt to a cinder. From a Western perspective, there is no amount of resistance from a single individual that can combat the birth-rate of the migrant population. One against 50 only works, when you have an uzi with unlimited ammunition, a suicide-vest or (if you’re a woman) a cyanide pill. (Especially now since every good muslim should have at least 4 kids) Only political resistance from small groups or large crowds, which invariably devolve into violence, would make an impact.
Political Infiltration: All migrants require is humanitarian tolerance in a host country, and the political freedom of women is directly threatened. Women are snatched off the streets, impregnated and detained in no-go zones against their will. We often speak of racial bias but we only criticise and improve our own conduct. While their blatant disregard of the Western cultures as well as laws grows disguised as religion, we are too busy arguing over the finer points of morality. Our judicial systems are morally superior through the sheer fact that we do not prohibit women from leaving their homes unaccompanied. We do not allow child marriages and yet migrants are abducting more children from playgrounds. If they disappear, we cannot judge their ‘way of life’, which is inherently detrimental to women. The mere existence of Sharia Law in this world is a hate-crime against women. Dare I say, the mere existence of Islam, for their punishment of apostasy with death, is a crime against humanity and every freedom we hold dear.
Mosques Everywhere: A success for Islam would be to establish a mosque at every single street-corner in every single country. Countries, which embrace Islam, must allow Sharia law. By doing so, they weaken their stance on human rights, opening themselves even further to the possibility of being subjected to religious laws that did not originate from the country.
Mass Executions of Non-Believers: In Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, the United States and Europe, one does not need to look very far to see mass executions swept neatly under the carpet. A large amount of the no-go zones were acquired and expanded through harassment and violent crime. In London, Berlin, Sweden and Denmark, they are extending their grasp in the community by extorting shop-keepers. If they refuse to pay, they will vandalise the store and often grievously injure staff. These are all basic warfare tactics that mark the first stage of a religious and political invasion.
Brexit: Although this culture of violence has spread to the United Kingdom, it appears as if most of the illegal migrants that smuggled their way into England are too occupied by the EU referendum. Their vote and yours will determine, whether British culture will become history. Brexit would be only means to stop the inflow, while it is still manageable, but that does not end the economic warfare tactics of the EU. However, the more countries would leave the EU and cooperate to re-build than without a Brexit. It’ll take time to rebuild every fraction that the EU surgically sliced out of Britain, ranging from steel, the docks, import and export to the military. However, if the protests in France give the migrant population the advantage they seek, the entirety of Europe would feel the hostile presence that has taken ahold of their communities. As Hitler once said, all you need to do to control Europe is conquer France, yet England has always been the key piece. Without Britain, you have nothing, which explains the consistent surge of illegal migrants and repeated attempts to break through Calais. It is military strategy, rather than a benefit or healthcare scam. That and they are still trying to get back at us from last time, when they swore holy war against the British Empire (although most historians are asked by the EU to omit that part).
Point-Based Immigration: If the system survives the propaganda pumped out by mainstream media, and make it through to a trial run, it would certainly not collapse the global economy. Far from it, it would offer the British Isle the opportunity to re-build their infrastructure. To produce and manufacture, instead of import everything from EU. Especially since the product quality has been severely diminished, as the products are not able to face the harsh environmental conditions. For example, german-made propellers for wind-farms are not capable of withstanding a certain speed of winds, hence they continually break down due lower wind threshold. In simple terms, they overheat quickly and break due to deliberately poor craftsmanship. (This costs the taxpayer thousands every single time that maintenance is required. For a fraudulent scam, they’ve amassed vast sums from only that one product. One shudders to crunch the numbers of all EU-products with high incident report rates) However, much it has been requested by the public to switch back to British models, this issue could no longer be ignored after an EU exit. Other countries would benefit from the economic growth of Britain, as they have many times before. The world is only as strong as its weakest, most exploited countries. Although not as exploited as some countries, the EU is still attempting strategically crush Britain beyond the point of return.
Civil War: Brutality is the only means to justice in a society, in which there is no judicial system outside of religious law. A system, in which the people do not serve to protect each other…In which freedom of expression and sacredness of life are a faint memory of the past. With the press-blackouts, police orders to keep the migrant crisis quiet, repeated assaults and foiled terrorist attempts, it is only a matter of time, until the people do what they are good at…Fight for the most basic rights of all living beings. To protect themselves and the rights of women in future generations.
These times remind me of the reign of Cesar. As a form of entertainment for the masses, hordes of Caucasian slaves were led into the arena to face hordes of Middle-Eastern slaves. Only this time, for the entertainment of the elite, hordes of Middle-Eastern migrants surge to every corner of the globe. While we are on the brink of mass extinction, depopulation measures are still in full swing, as evident by the increase in fatalities as a result of disease, violent crime and protests across the world.