Why Europeans Don’t Wanna Leave Britain…

As a very early millennial, I am a part of a generation that wishes nothing to do with me for the most part. To those of my own age, my beliefs are a temporary insanity that will pass with solemn regret for my ‘xenophobic’ actions. At best, my views irritate them and unintentionally make them cry. At worst, my views trigger aggressive responses designed to demean before silencing me. This is not a singular occurrence. Every day, more violence is aimed toward those who express ‘patriotic’ views (i.e. views relating to their own nation and fellow man).

Almost 4 million EU citizens guaranteed right to stay after Brexit even if there’s no deal.

The idealistic notion that anyone should be allowed or even supported in their attempt to live anywhere is a noble goal, which  we should all strive for. However, no matter how hard a single country tries to provide for almost half the entire population of another, they never will. It is simply impossible. After Brexit, [i.e. after benefits were capped for EEA-citizens], I lost my job, because there was no electricity, heating and hot water in my building unsafe for habitation. I was barely able to afford the rent while paying for university. So, before you begin to judge, I supported Brexit during the day while scavenging for food at night. As many others, I have lived on the streets of England with the natives. When I listened to the stories of veterans abandoned by the very country they fought for, my heart went out to them, but there was nothing I could do to help. In Europe, joining the military used to come with certain privileges. For example, PTSD treatment, shelter as well as daily meals. Now, our veterans are lucky not to be assaulted, tortured and then killed on the streets. They traded in one warzone for another. In the daily struggle for survival, they are forced into a transient lifestyle without hope of settling anywhere permanently. Why should we, as Europeans, expect to be treated any differently than how we treat those willing to sacrifice their lives on behalf of the country we wish to reside in?

Forced Cultural Assimilation Is The Issue,
Not Europeans

We, as foreigners, support Brexit to stem the flow of economic migrants surging into Britain to take advantage of the welfare system. Most of us study or work very hard to live in England, and we do not like to see others taking the piss. Brexit [as a political decision] was not based on fear but survival. France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain have embraced millions of young, male migrants. Statistically, less than One In 40 Male Migrants has gained employment since emigrating to any EU country. Less than One In 100 Female refugees from Sharia-controlled countries are in some form of employment. Due to the low number of female refugees, this number includes Muslim women who emigrated before as well as during the crisis.

To the point, the average Brit does not verbally attack, slander or outright demean Europeans for their heritage, unless those Europeans are overly assertive of their ‘right to remain’ without making any contribution. From personal experience, I have witnessed many Europeans deliberately antagonise the English, only to pull the ‘race-card’ once the police arrives. Some cleverly use it to avoid prosecution by being eligible for better trained civil defence attorneys from their respective EU country.

Historically, the reasons for British hostility toward outsiders are not unfounded, but it is also typical behaviour for island people. Shortly after WW1, the civilian populace would almost point and cry out, if they encountered a non-local in the middle of their detached, rural town. Just as depict in Agatha Christies ‘Poirot’, they were not too shy about criticising our accent, behaviour or attitudes when they did not quite fit in. [Isn’t that just village life, though?!] At the time, they lost millions before they had even  pulled all their troops from every corner of the lost empire, simply to march them over the line all at once. The joke is to this day that the military generals would have actually continued with this strategy until only a handful of nobles remained. Until they dug under the trenches, they had lost almost their entire male population [except those who were too young, disabled or on their deathbed]. Throughout this tragedy, if you had the ability to walk and fire a pistol, you were sent over the line. As traumatic as war can be, those days were worse. Over 2/3 of British soldiers never returned. [As many as 74,187 Indian soldiers died during the war and a comparable number were wounded.] The returning soldiers often suffered severe shell-shock, which meant they were often not stable enough to marry or procreate. Before the leftover population had properly recovered from the effects of WW1, the next world war was already in progress. Although this was by design, that’s a story for another time. During WW2, an extremist fraction of Labour sided with the Nazis, [just as they are now siding with the Hamas Brotherhood incl. the implementation of Sharia]. After the fall of the Nazis, the Jews began to fund Labour to secure its allegiance. It was an imperative to prevent the repetition of events from a political standpoint that would not go against their vows. Many traditional Rabbis were heavily influenced by the belief that WW2 occurred as a result of buying German land, so those who fled to England returned to the old practice of ‘renting’ instead of buying land, reinforced by their religion. It is tragic irony that they began to buy British real estate after a few generations before  history began to repeat itself.

Britain has been involved in every ongoing war for the last 1000 years. British grandparents still tell tales told to them by their grandparents of WW1 & WW2, just as ours do. It is their way to honour their sacrifices by keeping them alive, just as it is ours. There was never a time in the last 1000 years, when Britain was actually at peace. Its politics were always influenced and funded for the worse or the better.

It was never racist, bigoted or politically incorrect to share an opposing view on historic events, ask yourself, why it is now? Over the last decade, we have begun to favour what the media reports instead of what our elders tell us. We have become disinterested in hearing about their sacrifices while they often mock our struggle with daily life as though it was some sort of ‘phantom pain’. The rift between the generation has grown exponentially due to the integration of a new lifestyle into every aspect of our societies. The younger generations have discarded physical interaction to be a part of a global, but largely digital community. However, when local communities stop communicating with each other, we cannot attain a state, in which we may have both: a local, but also global community, in which we are for the highest good of the locals just as much as strangers.

Before it became politically incorrect to speak openly, the mainstream funding of the country was devoted to suppressing the gap generation, [the largest generation in British history]. Ironically, it has become rather noticeable that the opinions of younger generations receive much greater support, when they fall in line with the political agenda of the current leadership. Although that is what is expected of any generation, the millennial generation is subjected to extreme levels of peer pressure, often even to violent degrees. Europeans in support of Brexit experience similar from Europeans who have adopted the Anti-Brexit stance.

The Reason Why We Wanna Remain So Badly:
Our Countries Are Warzones

There are many excuses why we, as Europeans, would prefer to stay in the United Kingdom, which has nothing to do with welfare payments. Once the DWP has made Europeans ineligible for JSA or Universal Credit, most with the intention to rinse the system have left the country. Many countries, such as Germany, actually pay much more than England on a monthly basis. Hence, there are often other reasons. At times, a criminal record or even arrest warrant can make life back home very difficult for Europeans, just as it does for British hiding abroad. More frequently, we have gained full or temporary employment and established a social circle. In other words, we have integrated. We have a job, friends and/or romantic relationships that may not survive the transition [i.e. we have no intent to marry as a route to dual-citizenship yet, which would ironically fortify post-Brexit ties between residents more than any trade agreement]. As selfish as our decision to be against Brexit might be, more people make important decisions out of [temporary] self-interest instead of what would benefit them long-term…and just for laughs, I deeply apologise on behalf of Europeans, unwilling to support the country that they reside in after the people made their decision.

Important Fact:

British Liberals are deporting  Europeans rather than Economic Migrants

In addition, the interest in free healthcare, particularly as it is no longer free, has ceased for Europeans but not economic migrants. Another utopian ideal [this time, free medical treatment for decent citizens that would suffer or perish otherwise] has crumbled under the weight of excessive use. Although Europeans have begun to only attend hospital or their GPs in emergency situations, their caseload is growing along with the waiting times. This is not merely a discrepancy, it indicates an in increase in serious conditions, likely not of European origin. [Remember, the Black Plague was germ warfare on steroids due to rodent infestation, but originated from the Middle East.] This is not unexpected due to the ‘minor’ disease outbreaks across Europe.
On rare occasions, our reason is that we have made England and its people our home. In plain English, we fucking love, you crazy racists, because deep down we are just as racist. You are our kind of crazy. We are the same…

For Europeans, living in England is like Marmite, you either love it or you don’t, and if you [as a whatever], do not, you should go to another country where you can be happier. Truly ask yourself, what is the real reason you are here? Maybe there is something you are trying to avoid, perhaps trouble back home?

It is vital that the British understand, Europeans [without exceedingly close ties to their homelands] have no real information on what is happening to them. Under censorship, our information mainly comes from the media…and as gullible as we are, [compared to the average Corbynite], some of us believe their propaganda. The continued protests to overthrow Brexit, while the same MPs demand a second referendum, are a political manoeuvre to delay the deadline. If it can be delayed long enough, the foreign population has imported the numbers required to win a second referendum. If no second referendum takes place, they will have bought additional time, in which to aid ‘not-so-illegal’ border crossings.
When Brexit was enshrined in law by the Queen, our separation from the EU became inevitable. However, something can exist in law only, but still be at risk of exploitation by deals made after the fact. It can be a mere smokescreen, only existent on paper. In reality, it can be the kind of red tape that binds a nation to a totalitarian overload still resentful over the peasant uprising [i.e. the vote] As stated here, we have no rights other than those we embody on a daily basis. If we do not use them, we are sure to lose them. Our ancestors, British or European, fought, bled and died for our rights to do as we please, to be anything we strive for…But, we have repaid them poorly so far by either going against establishing a free and self-governing Britain or not enough. As entire countries  have already been crushed under EU rule, such as Greece, more will follow if they do not leave. For Europeans and British alike, Brexit is our chance to do better by forming a more equally beneficial alliance across the anglo-sphere. For decades, Britain remained silent as the influx of migrants became unsustainable. All the while, a quiet rage was building. It is the same rage, which is building across Europe. We may act as though Europeans are discriminated against by the British, when we know we, as a whole, are being discriminated against, or we may do something about it. For example, we can open up a dialogue with each other only to discover we actually share the same hopes, wants and dreams, which cannot be said about those who wish to enforce Sharia law.

Important Fact:

Economic migrants do not play by the same rules. They will readily deceive women in order to marry them. In Switzerland and Liechtenstein, it is a long-standing tradition to marry the ugly duckling and divorce them after the legal required timespan has elapsed and they cannot be deported.

In truth, we know instinctively what is happening across Europe. On a base level, we can sense a storm is brewing in territories that have been very hard to defend in the past. Even liberals deporting liberals are too scared of the concept to admit that they are turning it into a reality. It is a death-sentence for them, their fellow men and possibly their country. Yet, they seem to be unable to confront this dark truth on an emotional level. For them, there is no reality, in which that is a possibility. Although there are some, like Corbyn, who are pathologically incapable of admitting to failure, hence imagining it would shake the foundation of their perceived reality. Conversely, the majority [who support the EU, migration etc.] choose to avoid facing the trauma that would alter their perceived reality until they have no choice. This mindset is often deadly as is historically documented. It, in turn, weakens Britains internal defences. While Europeans are deported or choose to leave for countries with higher crime and terrorism rates, more economic migrants are imported. Just as the European people need any ally they can get, the British do as well. It would be strategically and morally beneficial to seize the opportunity before it is too late.

Advertisements

The Debasement of Relationships

“To analyse the psychology of political violence is not only extremely difficult, but also very dangerous. If such acts are treated with understanding, one is immediately accused of eulogizing them. If, on the other hand, human sympathy is expressed with the Attentäter, one risks being considered a possible accomplice. Yet it is only intelligence and sympathy that can bring us closer to the source of human suffering, and teach us the ultimate way out of it.”

Of all the misconceptions about love, the most pervasive is the belief that ‘falling in love’ is love. No matter whom we fall for, we sooner or later fall out of love, if the relationship continues long enough. This state of ecstasy is a part of a very subjective experience, but it is always temporary without exception. Moreover, the experience itself is sexually motivated to a large extent. The beginning of a budding romance is filled with crackling, erotic tension. It is electric, yet it can never last. That is not to say we cease feeling for the person, whom we fell in love with, but the honeymoon phase always ends and when the rose-tinted glasses come off, we are bereft of our illusions about who that person truly is…

Through pain-staking experience, we learn not all relationships are based on love. Many may have begun with a deep sense of mutual affection, whereas others never stood a chance. Inevitably, we must all face up to the fact that most relationships are based on some form of arrangement. Under the semblance of friendship, we use honesty in a selective, rather pre-calculated manner for the sake of personal gain. On the pedestal of undying romance, we idealise prospective partners to such a degree that we set expectations that can never be met. In the anticipation of marital bliss, we enter a life-long commitment to what may turn out to be a complete stranger…in so doing, the majority of our relationships are founded on our need for self-deception. As people grow used to each other, they form unspoken agreements. We make each other feel better through transparent lies. For example “No honey, that three strand comb-over totally hides your receding hairline. [Sorry, the almost complete lack of hair.]” or “No dear, that dress is not three sizes too small. [Sorry, but you cannot be a size zero and still be a healthy weight.]”
When a relationship lacks the necessary stability to survive free expression, its foundation will crack under the weight of what goes unsaid. In other words, it is short-lived, unless we accept that any relationship is hard work. We must be mature enough to understand we will not agree on everything and develop the tolerance to accept the opinions of others even when they oppose our own.

Marriage differs from other life-long relationships in one simple respect. It is a contractual arrangement, certified by the State, sanctified by the Church and audited by the Bank. Marriage is primarily an economic arrangement, an insurance pact. It differs from the ordinary life insurance agreement only in that it is more binding. Similar to a basic insurance policy, our contributions are mandatory to keep the arrangement afloat, but we are always at liberty to discontinue our payments, try another or go without. Continuing with the previous analogy, if we were to imagine how this kind of arrangement affects each gender, we will discover that what we endure is not so different anymore:

Historically, if a womans premium was her husband, she would pay for it with her name, her privacy, her self-respect and her very life until death. She would knowingly enter into a state of life-long dependency without the ability to separate. Nowadays, if a womans premium is her husband, she has the right to keep her name, protect her privacy, be as independent as she likes and spend her life with whomever she wishes [in most parts of the world]. Although emancipated, she earns less, but she no longer has to tolerate unwanted advances, arranged marriages, FGM or prove her worth by acting more like her male counterpart. She can stand up and speak freely as long as she accepts the consequences. Her freedom may have come at a great cost for the family unit, but it did not spell its undoing.

Historically, if a mans premium was his wife, he had to have proven he can earn enough to afford matrimony (by providing food, clothing, shelter etc.), handle the responsibility of monogamy, maintain appearance and social status in the community. Once proven, marriage heightened their social status, just as fulfilling the social expectation to father children afterward did. However, it did not end there, any indiscretion on his part would typically cost him all of the above. Nowadays, if a mans premium is his wife, he lives longer, spends more and on average has more sex. He still earns more than unmarried men, however, he is less likely to be employed. Particularly, when the job involves travel or relocation. Plainly speaking, businesses learnt that uprooting children dents their image, so they began to select single men for higher positions usually designated for a married man. It did not take long until they realised the benefits of hiring single men across the board. Before the corporate community promoted the single lifestyle, how many years the marriage of an employee lasted was a testament to their capacity for loyalty, dedication as well as commitment. With every additional year, they were viewed as more of an asset due to their increased reliability. In recent years, divorces are treated as though they are evidence of how devoted these men are to their jobs in place of their families [although corporations would never admit to anything of the kind].

Statistically, the effects marriage might not have radically changed, however, they have not improved by much either. Betrothed men still continue to outlive their unmarried counterpart, but also their own wives. Forced and arranged marriages are still more common amongst women than men, as is genital mutilation, including circumcision… Truth be told, the institution of marriage was perhaps never as beneficial [for all] as it was intended to be. Marriage has seen happier days, yet the vow of holy matrimony in an illiberal Christian democracy was never designed to be ‘liberal’ and there is nothing wrong with that. If it had been as liberal as it is right now, it would not have been the democracy that we know…It would have encouraged child marriage long before now, instead hiding its paedophilic nature behind # feet thick walls. It would have shared the secret documents in the Vatican vault, collected from all over the globe. Plainly speaking, it would be as uncharacteristic as willingly housing a substantial number of enemy combatants. Albeit, the Christian Church was forced to integrate long before 2006. It first began, when its followers took the texts too literally. In these extreme cases, devoted men and women violated the law of the land in favour of divine law. One case, in particular, in which a teenager killed his father, impregnated his mother against her will and then raped their child. Such intense biblical archetypes shook entire communities, for whom the Christian faith was not an optional denomination. The law was put into the position to choose between reason and blind faith based on an incomplete text translated from. Aramaic [that still contains more than a few mistranslations]. Although DNA had not been discovered, inbreeding was known to cause peculiar psycho-physical side-effects, so people began to question the Church and pastors had to come up with answers to quiet them. Ultimately, the justice system overruled the Church, which had already folded quite willingly at this point. Frankly, it had no interest in genetic anomalies, whose ability to contribute financially was non-existent. This is how we ended up with a more symbolic interpretation of the Bible. Their self-interest, for once, went hand in hand with their selfless service to the people.
At the core of religion, each belief system serves as a control mechanism of the people. For example, there is a recent fatwa, which forbids digging in the sand in certain regions of what used to be Persia. The reasons are fairly obvious. Islam is not the first faith to establish rules to prevent the discovery of alien life, spacecraft and the ancient pyramid network powered by Tesla coils. Christianity has done the same. If they had not, questions would have arisen that they are still not prepared to answer. More importantly, when a belief system only serves to control the people instead of providing them with the means to control themselves, then its purpose is flawed. Worship becomes a tool to subdue the masses, which uses marriage to keep couples from seeking to verify what they believe and realising the truth about themselves. [Heaven like Nirvana is a state of mind we cannot reach through lip-service or unenlightened devotion.]

After all, marriage is a contract, but it has seen worse days. It continues to prohibit prestipulated behaviour, such as adultery in monogamous relationships. The difference is, when both partners give consent, the Church does not care, unless it is against the law. [You want an open marriage? Have it. You want multiple wives? Move somewhere bigamy is legal. You wanna tie with knot a two-year old? Germany will turn a blind eye.] In other words, religious institutions are only as powerful as the state allows them to be, with one exception, Sharia. Conversely, the state is only as powerful as the people make it by giving away their power. This includes regimes, in which the State and Church function as one.
Honesty aside, relationships are not what they used to be. After the millennium, a study revealed we no longer have life-long partners, we have different partners for different stages of our lives. In total, 3-5 was said to be the new average number of long-term partners, but it can vary. A smaller percentage settled for 5-9. Ten years later, this has changed. The innate narcissism of the younger generations, myself included, is sadly doomed to shorten the average duration of relationships even further. Millennials are accustomed to certain level of comfort, technology and attention that cannot be maintained. Our expectations cannot conform to real life, unless reality cuts them to size. For what it is worth, most of us imagine relationships to be something they are not. Once we have fallen out of love, but remain committed to the relationship, many ask themselves “Is this it?” Women, who planned their wedding since they could walk, romanticised their ‘perfect day’ to such a degree that reality can never measure up. Their perception of marriage is a Disney fairytale that has a 1 in 2 billion chance of coming true. On average, our dreams do not come true, when they involve a rich, tall, good-looking and kind husband, a castle or other material goods that the universe could not care less about. Unless we devote our life to worthwhile dreams that do not just benefit us [for instance, love, truth, justice etc.] our efforts can never yield anything truly transformative.
Although love is not synonymous with marriage, that which it represents is the most important aspect of self-realisation through Union with another. In Hinduism, it is a very special form of bhakti-yoga…and as the term suggests [Bhakti: Devotion, Yoga: Union in Sanskrit]. We should all be so lucky as to practice such devotion in our marriage on a daily basis and have such devotion returned to us. Through its methods, the growing-used to each other becomes synonymous with discovering each other anew each day. Osho added a great many tantric techniques to spice things up. These suggest self-realisation can be attained as a couple, which leads us to the very purpose of marriage:

At first, marriage may seem to be just another economical arrangement far away from the spontaneity, intensity and beauty of love. When treated as such, marriage is degrading to both the woman and the man. It forces us to give without end, but reciprocates little. However, when it appears as though we need marriage to meet our basic requirements, we may feel as if our life depends on marriage. Imagine to be in a state of such deprivation, low self-esteem or uselessness as an individual or society that relationships use their inherent value and thereby their function. They are not a failure, since no matter how independent we become, we cannot survive alone…But, our approach to them has. It is very much the same with marriage. To solve the problem of high divorce rates, we must initially tackle our deeper relationships problems. To do so, we must start with ourselves. We cannot attain any level of lasting happiness, as long as it is based on external factors, such as economic stability, youthful appearance and so on. In other words, the problem is us. We are the reason our relationships do not last [romantic or otherwise]. It is our overwhelming desires to be exact. Although men and women are no longer inferior to one another, both are never satisfied. Equality is not enough for many. In truth, they seek superiority, dressed up as equality. If they only knew the game was rigged from the start…If they only knew slavish acquiescence goes both ways…
On a personal note, some say that marriage is an archaic institution incompatible with idealistic notions of freedom, but I humbly disagree. Women may seem sentimental when holding onto the idea of life-long companionship, true equality or unconditional love. Still, I ask you, what is life without them? If those ideals are impossible or improbable, then our inherent interconnectedness has no meaning. Our survival has no meaning. To believe there can be no such thing is self-destructive. Yet, to disregard the programming that our children are exposed to would be criminal. For decades, girls have been prepared for ceremonial rituals that basically mutilate their genital. Around the world, they are lied to when they are told the ceremony is conducted on the day when they will officially become a woman. Like the lamb led to slaughter, they are psyched in preparation for the event and screaming in pain once they realise what is happening to them. Unlike circumcision, this is not done for some religious reason, it is done to please future husbands. Afterward, no woman can be the same or look at a man the same way. Once the surface wound has healed, they are in physical and mental distress for years. Yet, they are often sold, married, raped and impregnated before they could even begin the healing progress. My point is the average man would be as abhorred as the average woman if they came into direct contact with these ongoing problems in our society. He or she may not seem to blame, but we all are. Our inactivity condemns other to dire suffering. The average man or women would never forget what they witnessed, but would do nothing to prevent further bloodshed. It would be no more than a frightening anecdote to scare their children into being more cautious. That is how far the practical nature of our society has come. Our comforts mean more to us than the quality of life of another soul, and to make matters worse, we feel so guilty over the fact that we would open our countries to billions. Where insanity is concerned, I thought I had seen or heard it all, then that happened. The worst thing is, it continues…We are returning to a time, when it was unsafe for women to walk the streets alone. Feminists readily dismiss the issue, even while their own are murder in cold blood. While German politicians are losing their daughters through targeted attacks with sexual overtones, their allegiance remains with highest bidder.

In any case, the psychological predilection to physically, emotionally or sexually mistreat another living being is a personal one. No matter how much we may wish to program it into someone, we cannot. It either comes naturally to them or it does not. Now, there is a large difference between inflicting injury and receiving ‘the goods’. Men can quite easily be led to believe ´that is how it is meant to be’ for whatever reason. From foot-binding to FGM, tradition takes over. After these painful acts have been performed for too long, it becomes habit to condition future offsprings to marry women that conform to these ‘oddities’. When two cultures meet so rapidly in such a large quantity as they have the last few years, this non-conformity can readily lead to violent aggression. Beneath their obvious religious motivations is something much more perilous: Desire. Although they seem to be more openly afflicted, we are far more vulnerable than we think. Political representatives [i.e: the state] as well as the Church approve of mass migration not because their heart fried out at the sight of misery. In order to exist, they must maintain a level of control over the people, men as well as women, and sometimes that means culling the herd for profit. Their desire for money, status or survival outweighed the ideals they represent. As stated previously, desire is not love. It is transitory, whereas love is constant. It never wavers. Desire has neither the capacity to protect us nor the nature to bestow peace, while love is its own protection ever at peace.

As to the protection of the woman, coming events will reminds us of the true value behind relationships, communities and marriage. Not that they really protect them, but they have the potential to and, on occasion, they actually have. At their core lies a great acknowledgement of our interconnectedness…a deep love of multiversal being…In recognition of that, we are closer to God, Shiva, the Great Spirit, but mainly each other, in absence of the Church and the State. By default, we would also be more protected.

Relationships are changing at the face of mass migration, as is marriage. We may think the institution of marriage is a debasement of love, but we have to remember how marriage was institutionalised. Its institution was the preemptive solution to an actual problem. Tribes controlled inbreeding through their elders knowing who they were intimate with. This knowledge could only be passed down from generation to generation because the tribe was of a smaller size. In medieval England and Europe, Christianity needed to maintain hold of larger population in its empire and at the same time limit inbreeding amongst their followers. Now, whereas Christianity [as an institution] has displayed paedophilic tendencies, whereas Islam has become well-known for its ‘incestuous’ tendencies in academic journals. As stated in a previous post, when Lawrence of Arabia interfered with the Middle East, they reverted back to the verse of the sword. In other words, the wartime protocols for their state and mosque. At times, when there is a shortage of unrelated women, which happens approx. every 1000 years in the Middle East, the bloodline line could be ‘preserved’ through inbreeding. In any case, it is not an advisable practice as it can do irreversible chromosomal damage. This is why certain disabled children only legally class as human but not medically. They do not have as many chromosomes, but this is not a popular fact in genetics circles as it opens the door to euthanasia for those suffering extensively from the damage [unable to speak, use the bathroom or live by themselves] in order to save them from a tormented existence. This leads us to a darker aspect of marriage. Segregated communities in England [Pakistani and other] are knowingly arranging marriages designed to produce disabled children in order to receive higher welfare payments from the state. Sadly, this old war tactic has taken a much more damaging turn. What was once a medically inadvisable emergency solution has become a means to con a perceived enemy. The high number birth defects weighs on the healthcare system, thus also interfering with their health. As immigration increases, these birth defects will become more frequent. However, the occurrence of kidnappings and forced marriages should also be very alarming. The ability to kidnap and restrain for long period of times implies there is a level of privacy. These communities are often on Royal Mail and police black-lists [i.e. one may need more than a riot squad], so it would not be far fetched to conclude that the increase in missing persons is directly related to the increase in kidnappings and forced marriages following rape. These areas are rarely frequented by the authorities. More importantly, few speak English. Even if they did, those that may talk are too afraid.

The institution of marriage has always served as a means to control men and women through religion, but we could grind Christianity and State down to a level of morality, in which it can permissibly become non-existent through its own doing, whereas Sharia is another matter entirely. Sharia embodies the State and the Church, yielding the authority of both. While it was permitted in Britain around the 1900’s for husbands to strike their wives with a stick no more than inches in diameter, this law was in conflict with women’s rights shortly after and was never really practiced. Apart from this one law, physical violence against women was never permitted by law in the UK as well as Europe. To this day, Sharia has no limit on the violence committed against women. It is a perversion of the faith, as it fails those it has sworn to protect under a religious oath. These shortcomings are the reason why the Church and the State remain separate. Each time, they merged, it ended through a violent revolution carried out by the people. Catholic men may have been made mistakes, but violence against women was never a wide-spread cultural penchant of the regions. Again, this is generally for self-serving reasons. Industrialising peadophilia behind closed doors is one thing, industrialising it en mass is quite another. It restricts their victim pool, reduces its overall quality and in less than one generation produces pre-damaged stock that might not be to their liking.
As Sharia attempts to influence the age of consent and very interpretation of the term, we must remember how far we have come. Sharia is not a sustainable system in its current form. If it does not adapt, it will self-destruct and inflict immense damage on its surroundings. Throughout the crusades, our female casualties were kept at a minimum since the penalty was a variety of torturous executions. As that is not the case this time, the casualties will continue to mount without adequate jail sentences…and even if there were, prisons are some of the most fortified structures in Britain, they are ideal ground for an offensive takeover of the surrounding area.

The reluctance of the Catholic Church to involve itself in a conflict against Sharia, as it threatens their existence, will undoubtedly lead to violent takeovers in areas near No-Go zones. In any scenario, the people will be disinclined to turn to the Church or the State for assistance. Marriage is hard when times are good, but marriage during war is naturally harder. PTSD has severe symptoms [such as nightmares, violent outbursts, aggressive behaviour etc.] The divorce rate is typically higher during large wars, mainly because couples do not have the time to build a solid foundation for their relationship as well as due to the effect of combat at a young age. Conversely, within an actual war-zone, residents need to be intelligent about building and maintaining relationships at a time of high casualty rates. One could meet someone at dawn, only to mourn them at noon. The emotional repercussions this has on children is rather profound. An entire generation of British children born in anticipation of a Cold War are evidence of that. To elaborate, as soon as children were old enough to understand in the early 80’s, it was explained to them what happens when the siren goes off. They were calmly told, the sirens were a part of a three minute warning system, which would alert them of a nuclear attack on the country. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy parodied ‘putting a bag over the head’ as a reference to this time. Most think it is bad joke of what not to do when the bombs are about to fall. To others, it is the equivalent of sticking ones head into the sand, but there is actually some truth to it. The British could not help their people at the time, except to alert them of an impending attack. In fact, there would be nothing anybody could do in those three minutes, no matter where the attack occurs. As I stated in the addendum to my doctoral dissertation, three minutes to prepare for death is a luxury. Even when death is expected, three minutes of conscious awareness to mentally prepare for dying is rare in cases of sudden death. Now, British troops had assisted in the cleanup of a nuclear strike in Asia, and their men returned deeply traumatised by the experience. Most had recurrent nightmares, involving the contorted faces of the dead. In case of attack, this can be very demoralising and affect the outcome of battle, as a retaliatory response. Long story short, residents were told to put a bag over their heads, so when their bodies are recovered, the distorted faces will not be too traumatic for those remaining, whose duty it was to bury the dead. The gap generation, which grew up in this time, were taught in schools that were fortified bombshelters. In Thanet, civil servants operated from council buildings that were prototypes for bunkers built to withstand a direct missile strike. For about five years, an entire generation lived under constant ‘fear’ of a Cold War. Once the tension cooled and the sirens were removed, the gap generation had turned out to be the largest generation of British born citizens in constant conflict with the its middle classes. Statistically, the effect of growing up during such times fosters a more anarchistic and/or detached mindset with the innate need to question authority, which often makes them very unlucky in love. Those qualities are not necessarily endearing to men or women, who do not share the same mindset, especially when prospective partners also are not of the same political persuasion…

The Trump & Brexit Effect

Our political ideologies are a direct reflection of our core values, and thereby our personal priorities. When we do not share the same core values as our partner, then our differences can lead to more arguments as a result. Although our core values must only be similar for two people to be more compatible with one another, even those minor differences can lead to conflict. There is nothing wrong with ‘loving’ someone but being unable to share our life with them due to fundamental differences in the way we see the world. But, there is also nothing wrong with trying our hardest to reconcile those differences in order to find a lasting peace in the relationship. We must only realise that sometimes we give up too soon and other times we try too hard when we know it will never work.
Trump, Brexit the EU may trigger arguments, but they simply point to a much deeper crack in the foundation of the relationship. We are all afraid of something, may it be the abolishment of women’s rights or the return of black slavery. Our core values [incl. what we consequently prioritise when making important life-choices] are designed to protect us and others from that fear becoming a reality. Usually our partners would soothe our worries, but what when our fears hinge on some nightmare of theirs? Some associate Brexit or Trump with the implosion of society, while their partner views it as an important step toward a brighter future. Since it is assumed that only one can be right with their thinking, an argument ensues that lasts to the bitter end of the relationship.
Conflict is an occasional part of relationships at every point in history, knowing why we fight is more revealing than how the fight came about. The topics rarely change [finances, chores, personal interests, ideologies or quirks], but how we resolve them has come a long way. We no longer have to view marriage as an inevitable downward spiral in the form of a lifelong commitment without escape. We can choose our partners freely as long as we protect our democratic freedom to do so. We can overcome our political differences when we realise we share the same core values underneath all the posturing, blaming, misconception and concern about the future. Each couple is unique, therefore each couple has to find their own way of resolving its problems with or without pre-existing methods.

That notwithstanding, major socio-political change has a way of getting us to prioritise in a manner we are not usually accustomed to. When we lose someone due to Brexit or Trump, whose contributions are invaluable, it is a tragic loss to the nation that should not be undermined. However, it pales in comparison to the death toll caused by mass migration. Love can overcome all obstacles, even death. Democracies cannot. As much as we may care about our ability to think, speak and move freely, there will always be those ready to debate what basic human rights includes or excludes. In the event of war, these reoccurring debates are typically suspended [while countless lose their lives] and continues after the violence has ceased. We may disagree with our friends, relatives or spouses, but we still love them. For the most part, we go to those we have known the longest or care for the most [i.e. child, partner, parent, sibling, childhood friend etc.] in the event of trouble. Others are not so lucky. Our democratic lifestyle has allowed us to receive education, choose our partners at a later age of our own volition and live freely by making predetermined choices. Regardless of how sensitive or radical our partner may be, we should be grateful that we met them. In Jungian terms, when two extremes meet, they may seek balance in order to attain a state of wholeness. Although we may not like to admit it, we can learn much from each other. Remainers could reflect on how their migration strategy has certain massive flaws in order to improve on it, for example, by rebuilding the Middle East instead of homing almost its entire population. Meanwhile, Brexiteers may wish to ponder how to revitalise the industry, avert crop failures by arson as well as extreme weather, combat No-Go Zones, FGM or child marriages. The main objective is for couples to realise that relationships end as a result of all these perceived problems in society, yet we do nothing to solve them. Essentially, when it comes to politics, we break up over opinions rather than actions. If we voted for Brexit, we would most likely still vote to leave. If we voted for Trump, we are still likely to support him. A vote just surveys how many people feel the same for the government to act accordingly. Voting generally does not change how we feel, but it can affect how others think of us. If we think of Trump as this misogynistic tyrant that grabs a feel with his morning coffee, eats babies for lunch and hosts orgies for the underaged at night, then of course, who would not be distressed? If we think of Trump as the return of American industry, less immigration, regular employment and higher wages, then who would not support him? In any eventuality, nobody is as bad or as good as we think. Trump is simply a man with the potential to implement positive or negative change, just like Brexit is just an event with the very same potential. The rest remains to be seen.

Our ideologies reflect a few from a larger number of core values, ranging from autonomy to wealth. In-between we will have demands such as honesty, dependability, commitment and self-respect. Although there are too many to list them, our core values are what should be expected from any sentient being with manners and common sense. These can come into conflict with each other just as much as failing to uphold them can be the root of our relationship problems. Though it is possible to embody every possible core value simultaneously, it is beyond madness to maintain permanently. To be a fair and decent person, who makes an honest living can be enough, but it does not have to be…

Our relationships are a doorway to something greater. Dare I say, our interconnectedness is the most important lesson that life may teach us. Only when we approach each other as equals and without judgement may we understand what love truly is. Relationships can wither or fade, but our inherent unity remains. It transcends common experience, even the realm of the desire, it is the epitome of peace. For us [as people], this notion of peace is very difficult to understand, let alone live up to. To live in peace without understanding the meaning of the word is impossible. I am not referring to the definition of the term, but the mental state. Why is it so difficult for us to be calm, peaceful and desireless? We make no effort to be any other way. We are been lulled into complacency by the belief that evolution happens naturally, when consciousness development requires rigorous effort for decent results. We must look beyond right or wrong and attempt to see things from a wider perspective, not merely our own and ask ourselves “What is the root of all conflict?”.
In sum, the root of conflict is time. For this, we must know time is the manner in which our consciousness perceives our relative existence, as a sequence of moments. It does not yet realise its source. Time, as a byproduct of consciousness, is primarily psychological. Time is a movement [a rotation of planets] and as such does not truly exist. From prior to the Big Bang to the lateral end of time, the total sum of energy in the multiverse never changes. Energy is not destroyed, just transformed, therefore whatever we believe our problems are…they are infetixmal on the grand scale of the cosmos. To the point, we are one. In that oneness, time is an illusion…and if psychological time does not exist, then there is no conflict. There is no `me’, no `I’, which is the origin of conflict. However, life is never so simple…

The modern relationship has evolved, or so we think, but we have not grown closer to each other, we are simply more dependent on feedback. In truth, we seek a higher level of verification, personal approval and social satisfaction. We may only be a text away from each other, yet the homeless have mobile phones without money for food or anyone to call. We wish to think that we care so deeply about our own, but actions speak louder than words. Our care for each other is often selective, if not driven by the goal to appear unprejudiced. We may have become more accessible, but we have grown further apart. We are often too busy with our own lives to truly connect with our families or the community. As the quality of our relationships degrade, we are unable to resolve problems that are larger than one or two people. Our dream of an improved world might never come to be, because we did not try. It is never too late to call an old mate, rekindle a neglected relationship or engage with the community. After all, we all have until the entropic collapse of the universe to truly connect with each other. But, that does not mean we should wait, letting worthwhile opportunities just pass us by. Every moment matters and we should make good use of it…

The debasement of relationships is merely an intended byproduct of engineering human consciousness out of a myriad of others. As with all others, their success depends ignorance. Such methods can only be successful when the individual does not know themselves as well as their opponents do, in turn, making them that much easier to manipulate, defeat or crush. Although we may not like to admit it, but we need each other to secure our continued existence and to realise the purpose of life in the multiverse. Our relationships are key to understanding a higher union than blood-ties, camaraderie or marriage. A union, which cannot be certified, sanctioned or audited, but remains the overshadowing reason for our pragmatic reluctance. In the eyes of the politically correct beholder, selfless love is impractical, unfeasible and often close to the nonsensical. We are lulled into a state of such intense chronic dissatisfaction that we cannot allow ourselves to grasp the very meaning behind the concept. As a majority, we would rather support the latest, popular fad instead of resolving politically disenfranchised problems that have been ongoing for over a decade. In other words, our affections are selective, which its unconditional counterpart is not. Love does not play favourites. It has no interest in personal gain. It does not value one life over another, nor does it overdramatise certain problems just to distract from others. It has no ulterior motives, as it only exists in the absence of judgement. It, therefore, is not an act of persuasion, but a state of being, in which we treat everyone equally, not identically. It has no need for constructive criticism, when compassion will do. It does not shift blame, knowing responsibility is mutual. Its powerful effects cannot be described through any language, nor can they be empirically quantified. We do not know why we feel the way that we do. Often when our affection is reciprocated, we do not care to…Once again, by being selective, we are depriving ourselves something very precious. That which overcomes all obstacles. Love.
On the other hand, love is just a byproduct of the foundation for relationships as a whole. Love is not the result of our proximity or biological relation to one another, but our interconnectedness. In conditional form, love serves the purpose of prolonging or improving our current state. It becomes an early casualty in a violent struggle between the ego and the collective unconscious. Conversely, in its natural [unconditional] state, it brings us closer to realising the inherent unity that exists between all things in the cosmos. Love, therefore, is not a choice, concept or ideology. It cannot be debased, only our expression of it can. Just as we cannot be separated from each other in consciousness, the perceived distance between us is merely a temporary setback. Our differences are illusory in nature and eventually we will realise that love is devoid of the conditional qualities that we associate with it…

What is Thought-Crime?

⚠️ Warning:

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: [1] those responsible hide in wait to attack the repair-crew, then attack the police and expand the No-Zone to that point. [2] law enforcement anticipates an attack but does not have enough manpower to keep the area from becoming a No-Go Zone. [3] 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…

Depopulation: Crafting A Subservient Race Through Mass Migration

⚠️ Warning:

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 [1] processed, containing toxic additives and preservatives, which further reduce the fertility rate when least needed. [2] canned, exposing people to excess heavy metal and BPA for prolonged periods known to cause disease. [3] 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.

Related:

What Happens When Islam Has Outbred Its Enemies?

When our primal urges are in direct conflict with our rational mind, which reasons we may only propagate our genetic code so many times before future generations suffer the repercussions in the form of inbreeding (commonly causing reduced cognitive functioning, unfavourable genetic mutations, diseases etc.), then there are bound to be consequences. In essence, what we perceive as a selfless act to gain a modicum of control to give our offsprings the best chance in life can backfire when we do not look far enough ahead. Nations that do not have sufficient access or moral quarrels about the use of contraceptives, but do not practice abstinence, naturally experience an unsustainable, continued growth of the population. At a certain point, the resources can no longer support the unstoppable expansion of the populace without drastically increasing resource production. Ipso facto, starvation or migration becomes the inevitable outcome. However, when these individuals migrate to other countries in smaller or larger groups (as a minority) with the objective to breed at an increasing pace in other to become the majority, then they are often assured victory through strength in numbers under better conditions. Historically, minorities achieved strength in numbers over decades, even centuries. At the current rates, the Arabic and African populace may establish genetic supremacy in less than 10 years under the guise of Islam. Many are concerned, asking themselves could it work? Others are scared as it has become too unsafe to conceive or raise children without fear of kidnapping, violence or state interference due to the parents political views. Truth be told, yes and no. Any ethnicity may attempt to outbreed all others, some might even have quite a head-start, but it cannot remedy the damage that we have inflicted in the soil, the water or the air on this planet already. It cannot save any species going extinct as you are reading this. As long as we adhere to the modern lifestyle as a collective, we are suffering a consistent decline in cognitive function, health and well-being. It worsens matters that our society rewards ignorance and emotional sensitivity in times of a worsening crisis, because in doing so we are propelling the sixth mass extinction even further…

More importantly, when our civilisational development stagnates and/or regresses on a planetary scale over time, our overall lifespan is expected to shorten while disease, poverty and famine becomes a common occurrence. Countries, such as Africa and Saudi Arabia, still suffer from conditions dating back to the Middle Ages due to poor sanitation, water pollution, wealth inequality and so forth. This is not news. Starving children in Africa have been a regular occurrence from the moment their natural resources were claimed by non-natives, seizing their status as a superpower in the world. Before prehistoric times, Africa was a centre of immense importance as one of the main birthplaces of humanity. (Egypt and Ireland were others.) However, the tribes still practicing the ancient customs in Africa are a mere handful. The same applies to Egypt or Ireland. Between 1840-1850, Africa lost its mines to hostile forces in the form of the Germans initially. Since then the power was just transferred from one consortium to another. To the point, what is happening right now mirrors the events in Ireland and, more importantly, Egypt. Whereas shamanic and pagan practices were submerged by Christianity over generations, Egypt lost its ancient practices to migration. Few know the pyramids were once possessed a ceramic coating, strategically riddled with gems with the capacity to generate twice the power of the Sun. Both were damaged and stolen during a Muslim invasion of Egypt, but excavations around the base have shown the sections buried in compressed sand remain intact. Threats of war on Egypt should the pyramids be destroyed and then removed have preserved them, but for how long? We have lost much of our history. What we believe our prehistory or even actual history to be is simply inaccurate. Details are omitted, while victors spin a tall tale to be drummed into impressionable minds taught not to question. Yet, what happens when the victor blindly ignores the blatant warning signs of the sixth mass extinction looming around the corner? The inevitable. Migrants stay in poorer nations, such Africa, Egypt or other predominantly Muslim countries, temporarily before they move on to settle in wealthier Christian nations. However, that is not how life works. As a Liechtensteiner, who works in one of the worst parts of England, I understand the appeal of moving somewhere to study or strive for a better life…Relocation for any other purpose than education is not a solution to the problems we face, but this is not what is happening. We aim to ignore, deny or run far away from them, but we can never succeed. Our problems are an inseparable part of our modern lifestyle. Instead of going back to live in poorer living conditions resembling those of the Middle Ages with poor nutrition, hygiene, sanitation and lack of base medical knowledge, we have the opportunity to educate ourselves about these problems. The Black Plague, for instance, was the result of a cat extermination across France that followed a deadly rodent infestation. Unbeknown to many, the plague ravaged Italy, Greece, Turkey and the Middle East long before this point. In fact, it originated from the Middle East and that is where it is returning from.

We may recognise the very nature of the cosmos centred around achieving balance through moderation in order to function at peak efficiency until one day we achieve a state of abundance. Tilting the balance of an ecosystem is therefore quite a delicate process. When we condition the ground, water and air through simple daily use, then we must expect our wide-spread actions will inevitably have wide-reaching consequences. When crop failures, water shortages, pollution and natural disasters do not reduce the rate of reproduction, more aggressive rationing strategies are implemented favouring those perceived to be more important by society. In a society with a hierarchical structure, those at the very top of the food-chain are provided with an advantage. Ergo, the most influential members on a financial and sociocultural level have an immoral advantage, heightening their chance of survival. Directly below them are those eager to embrace their views, ideas or public agenda…The percentage of the population, who are the easiest to control… Below which are those that can be turned with the threat of discomfort, pain, suffering or even death. At the bottom, there is a small percentage who cannot be bought, bargained or reasoned with. The so-called fanatics on the other end of the mental spectrum. Therein lays the problem, but that’s a story for another time. Right now, this newly established hierarchy highlights something rather curious: To analyse the state of national resources, we must only look at sales statistics. The more poverty-riddled a community becomes, the less money is available for brand goods, activities and lastly are essentials. Often before rationing is implemented, the corporate community experiences such a dip in sales that they are forced to close one facility after the other. However, private or public corporations/organisations can avoid closure by covertly extracting money from the government as well as the general populace via the government. In the UK and Europe, this happens particularly through social services in the attempt to promote economic stability as a life goal. At first glance, giving Adidas sneakers to a child or teenager seems harmless enough. But, on a deeper level, it sets a living standard. For what it is worth, as a psychologist, I have encountered a large number of people, especially in the gap generation, which wore the closest shoe size available in the local charity stores at the time. This is still a frequent occurrence in households across the United Kingdom. Over 2.2 million households in England live in constant fuel poverty during winter. PG Tips is rarely seen in the cupboard of care/support workers, just at work and in the homes of the managerial staff. While we teach our children that they can achieve anything (incl. attain a state of financial stability), they are no longer entitled to the benefits they enjoyed as a child once they reach a legally specified age. Unemployment benefits are not designed to keep natives/foreigners comfortable or warm, just barely alive with enough money to avoid starvation and rent. Since mass migration has begun to weigh heavily on countries already without the finances to keep their citizens properly nourished and warm during harsher winters, the casualty count has increased. Concurrently, the rate of migrant reproduction continues at an accelerated rate while the natives struggle to maintain suitable conditions for child-rearing. For many families, free school-meals are lunch and dinner in one. After several weeks of staying at home during the summer holidays, a significant percentage of children return with a gaunt, visibly undernourished appearance. Their parents may work a low-income job or they may not, often it hardly makes a difference financially. Few dare to even dream there could be an end to the cold winters. Even fewer dare to hope we could actually establish a world, in which fresh, unprocessed food is equally available to all. Sentiment aside, the welfare system often promotes having several children to increase the amount of money coming in. Since inbreeding heightens the chance of disability, in turn increasing the household income, it is encouraged in various ethnic regions across Britain.

From a tactical viewpoint, these expensive brand products given to migrants and children in the social system are not designed to withstand pretty much whatever can be thrown at them. For example, expensive shoes are made to be visually appealing, not structurally long-lasting. In migrant jungles, inadequate footwear (or lack thereof) greatly contributes to the accelerated increase of trenchfoot. In WW1&2, this condition became too advanced to treat medically, making amputation the last option to stop the spread. In short, France invested loads of money in products that are have the same effects as walking around barefoot at around the same time, give or take the extreme dampness. Germany provides food, often thrown away in public protest against the type of food served at the facilities, which depletes the social funds available for natives, who would eat anything without question given the opportunity. Meanwhile, groups of travelling migrants have been found to settle on farmland as police refuse to remove them, whereas others maliciously salt the ground. Make no mistake, many farmers have been put out of business due to these ‘incidences’ across Europe. This raises the number of crop failures to a catastrophic level alongside increased adverse weather conditions, pests and plant diseases that devastate more crops each passing year.

In conclusion, minorities outbreeding majorities at a rapid pace places an excessive strain on food production, especially with increased crop failures. Without the finances, workforce and resources to expand the amount of food grown, that society will experience shortages. Due to the sixth mass extinction, we are one major event away from a global catastrophe, which could be amplified by world war. The lasting impact of geo-engineering or terraforming on this planet has already reached the point of taking millions of lives each year. When we add war into the mixture, then we can easily presume billions may die.
In addition this, diseases common during the Middle Ages are returning, while the conditions around gradually expanding British No-Go Zones are deteriorating. Rubbish-heaps accumulate on the streets. However, when white council workers arrive to clear these areas, they are attacked. Then, the area complains to the council that they are forced to live in the filth. The council attempts to address the repeated attacks, as the person on the other end plays the victim. The same is happening with the Royal Mail. White postmen and women are frequently attacked, hence entire streets have been blacklisted. Again, they are not shy about launching official complaints to the Royal Mail. Police and fire departments also experience problems, they are not permitted to discuss publicly. But, you already knew that. You did not click on this article, because you already know mass migration is turning our communities into toxic rubbish dumps. The problem is that this creates an ideal breeding ground for bacteria, insects and vermin, which then roam around our food to lay eggs. These dumps pollute the air, resulting in various respiratory diseases and other adverse health effects when contaminants are absorbed from lungs into other parts of the body. The toxic substances in air contaminated by waste include carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. Also, this waste and its byproducts typically end up in the sea or even the regional water supplies via the surface water, negatively altering its chemical composition of the water. It affects all ecosystems existing in the water, including fish and other animals that drink from the polluted water. In such conditions, children often do not reach the age of five. According to the UN, more than 340,000 children under age 5 died from diarrheal diseases in 2013 due to a lack of safe water, sanitation and basic hygiene. In truth, that is probably over 1,000 deaths per day. More often than not, an infection spreads through a weakened system, until it reaches a major organ without which the body cannot survive, like pneumonia. It is still the deadliest condition for children and elderly, including people with certain preexisting illnesses.
Typically, families have less children as the survival rate of children themselves increases. Whereas we had ten children in the old days just in the hope just one would survive, we no longer need to take such extreme precautions. As our lifestyle in the West became more sophisticated, the casualty rates were consistently reduced along with our birthrate. However, when specific diseases return with the type of environment that they usually exist in, the casualty are inevitably going to rise again. Excuse the graphic example: The most basic hygiene problem is the l lack of adequate toilets, sanitation and knowledge thereof. Approx. 2.5 billion people do not have proper toilets. Among them, 1 billion people defecate in fields, bushes, bodies of water and the open street. I have sadly witnessed this first hand. This puts these areas and their communities in danger of fecal-oral diseases, like hepatitis, cholera, dysentery and many infectious diseases. When children run around playing barefoot in these areas or come in contact with excrement some other way, they are prone to catching worms known to impact cognitive development. It is nasty, unpleasant business what you can get from contaminated fecal matter. Although most of such diseases are not contagious, many can be transmitted via contaminated fecal matter from humans or animals and spread after the incubation phase. Tuberculosis, for instance.
Since we still function in a very tribal manner on a quite primal level, herd behaviour exerts constant social pressure on us. We are rarely left to question, think, reason and undisturbed in the modern age. For example, any medical practitioner could effectively reason that a TB epidemic is happening now, just by realising how easily TB is transmitted when contagious refugees are not segregated from the mainstream public or each other. An adult with TB could arrive in a Paris or Calais refugee camp, coughing as they march through infecting at least 10-20 people. Those people then take refuge elsewhere and the cycle continues. There is perhaps a one in a billion chance that this could give rise to a super-strain, but it is unlikely. It is more likely that the continued transmission would make the common strains more resistant to treatment, until complete resistance to antibiotics becomes inevitable. Historically, in 1851, on in four was killed by TB. By 1882, Robert Koch identified TB is caused by an organism, Mycobacterium tuberculosis. It took almost forty years, for the Housing Act to be enforced in 1919. This led to a wide scale clearance and a gradual improvement of living standards. New houses and blocks were built, which dealt with household overcrowding, reducing the transmission of TB. This solution, however, is no longer of any use to us. Unsustainable population growth has made it almost impossible to grow enough food without worsening overall imbalance with our natural environment.
More importantly, in any infectious disease scenario, implementing protective/preventative measures requires the willing cooperation, if not understanding, from the general populace. When migrants are infected and deliberately sent to a specific country (crusade warfare tactic), then they act as simple carriers brainwashed into being hard to find and generally hostile when caught. Once we add a little religious fanaticism to the mix, this scenario quickly turns into an ethnic cleansing of the West to invade and subjugate its territories through any means possible Fortunately, when it boils down to it, our offsprings are a reflection of our own psycho-physical health. Individuals, masquerading as refugees, did not travel across Europe to live long or prosperous lives. They are pawns in a much larger game. Those who sparked the mass migration, after Merkel so callously invited all the refugees to Europe, have no care for the wellbeing of foot soldiers. They expect them to be caught, incarcerated or killed in the attempt to take over. Their interest is not in the land itself. However, it would be pretty difficult to convince someone to march across Europe without the promise of a reward in exchange. Conquering forces in the Muslim faith are frequently promised the land that they seize. The problems start piling up when fantasy ultimately meets reality. For example, ‘refugees’ were quite unsettled by the periods of complete darkness in Scandinavia. Whether sun sets or does not even rise is of no consequence to us, since we are used to adjusting to the suns rotation as well as how it affects our environment. But, for totalitarians with strict requirements, no landmass will feel like home until it is almost the same. Meaning, similar in temperature, law and ultimately inhabitants. Few have the understanding that this creates conditions, which are obstacles to child-rearing.
As explained before, every few hundred years the Middle East ventures out, when they have depleted their breeding stock in order to kidnap women to fill the void. At present, at least one third of the Middle East displays signs of inbreeding, while more women simply refuse to submit to Sharia or retaliate against their own. On one hand, they hardly have any genetically viable female breeding stock left. On the other hand, they are discouraged from breeding with foreigners. Under Sharia, Arab women may be second-class citizens, but we are slaves…and children born from slaves are equally slaves. Any forced breeding, which occurs in No-Go Zones and elsewhere, serves a dual purpose. It is designed to replenish the breeding stock temporarily, while it increases the amount of cannon-fodder at their disposal during the later stages of their Holy War. As confusing as this may sound, the ultimate goal is not to take the West but transform it into a barren wasteland. Although this is only the first step, what follows would be the eradication of the need for women as a whole. Deep underneath Turkey and Saudi Arabia, research facilities are tirelessly working toward eliminating the need for women through cloning and other means. Some experiments include RH negative DNA. Considering all of this, it is improbable the coming war can be won from the bedroom by either side. When resources for the populace are at a stretch, then any increase in the population runs the risk of losing more than it saves on both sides. Ultimately, it cannot be won through  strength in numbers, only by cultivating our inherent intelligence and applying the necessary force…

15 Post-Primitivist Theses

Introduction

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.

Technology, on the other hand, is defined by process. The process of poking a stick into an ant mound or hunting a bear or applying linguistic constructs or working through a math problem under a certain axiomatic framework or chugging through Javascript or poking an object and recording the responses you notice… it doesn’t matter. Regardless of how dynamically some technology functions in a given situation, it’s no more than the details of applied interactions. Codified processes. There doesn’t have to be any degree of contact through them. The channels can be left empty, the same processes of interaction can be under-utilized or embraced. Technology alone is not understanding.

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.

Afterword

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

We Come Back: Dying, Reincarnation & Life On Other Planets

Click Here for a copy of ‘We Are One’, the 1rst book in the series ‘Light Is…’

Click Here for ‘We Are Awakening’  and explore the 2nd part of this trilogy.

…And please take the time to check out my books in paperback form…

 

We Are Awakening: A Treatise On Journeying In Time

If you enjoy this book, please purchase it in paperback

Click Here for a copy of ‘We Are One’ The first book in the series ‘Light Is…’

Click Here for ‘We Come Back’ and explore the last part of the trilogy.

Link

Please Spread The Word!

And if you like this book, please purchase it in paperback

Click Here for a copy of the next book in the trilogy ‘We Are Awakening’

Click Here for ‘We Come Back’ and explore the last in the series ‘Light Is…’.

The Bitter Truth of Leadership

At this time, we can switch on the television and witness thousands of lefties standing up for the rights of those that would exterminate them on the spot, given half a chance… They have chosen a higher path, yet most of them are unaware that this decision will seal their fate. They’d rather debase an honest discussion about their political views into name-calling instead of facing the fact that everything has pros and cons. We have opened the door to economic migrants that are simply out for what they can get with small numbers of actual refugees hiding amongst them (that are probably asking themselves whether the West has gone insane). The majority of economic migrants have no care or concern for the freedom of their host countries. This leads us to the question, why do we risk our basic human rights to protect them? Why are so many standard citizens infatuated with the idea of defending them? If the tables were turned, only for an instant, they would not reach out to save us. Truth be told, the only curtsey they would extend us is a swift execution.

To stand up for what is right has its risks, often it will be the last thing any of us will ever do in this life, but there are greater powers at play than the elite could ever fathom. Regardless how many more us will be buried, no one can successfully seize the freedom of another. The true essence of freedom is in every breath we take, it cannot cease even after we’ve drawn our last… It is infinite and absolute in all its manifestations. Nothing in all of existence can change that.

However, the illusion of control is a dangerous weapon to wield that can make anyone believe anything, given the right situation and application of pressure in all the right places. Our free will is bound by cause and effect, which means it is not free at all, until we make it so…until we realise that our will isn’t bound by circumstance, but by the motivations that drive our acroons, we shall never find freedom or peace. It is our choice to participate in this ongoing political charade or tear it all down.

We admire strength, boldness and power, so we seek those who possess it. We lavish wisdom, forethought and emotional freedom, so we strive to be near those who impart those qualities. However, to what end? Whoever becomes the centre of our focus invariably rubs off on us, but where that’ll lead is anyone’s guess. Too many falsely believe that sociopathy and psychopathy are inherited conditions… Contrary to popular belief, they are genetic as much as they are environmental. We model ourselves according to those around us by mimicking their behaviour. Nonetheless, whether we do so unconsciously or are consciously aware of this is another matter entirely.

Every leader attracts a different type of follower from the left or the right, from the lowest or the highest class… Every leader unwittingly attracts certain stereotypes that fuel their underlying agenda. For Merkel, these are the stereotypically short-sighted as well as those lacking peripheral vision in general. Very few decent, hard-working foreigners that emigrated to Germany, Austria, Switzerland and other EU member states are in support of her policies. The moment she opened her bosom to every young male from here to the Middle-East, one could see their eyes widen as they began to panic. Many escaped the situation in midst of the white flight shortly after. Not out of fear, but common sense. They, along with countless  natives, could sense that their time was running out fast. It is reminiscent of the complications that arise when a parent introduces a new sibling to the family… Those old enough to sustain themselves realise it is time to stand on their own two feet, whereas minors become acutely aware of how the power is shifting against their favour. Like Attracts Like. In the case of Merkel, the fiercer her followers become, the more unwilling they are to answer questions they don’t approve of. As she blatantly blanks the direct enquiries of her constituents with unrelated topics that make no logical sense, her supporters follow suit. It appears that the left across the entire world tore a page out of the Psychopaths Bible and did the exact opposite of what the instructions said… They do not offers answers, solutions or even consider the option of pretending to execute the will of the people. To the New Left, the people are a means to an end. They are irrelevant to the equation. They confidently act as if their rise to power is not in the hands of the people, but a small minority, controlling the majority from behind the scenes. This makes them feel as if it entitles them with the unquestionable right to belittle and devalue that which does not boost their appearance. When their stance is sensibly questioned without allowing them to evade those enquiries, they resort to offensive quips. They push them aside in a derogatory manner, while labelling those that asked them as racist. The mere fact we dare to question them is perceived as an insult, if not a direct threat. However, they don’t deal with threats like any sane individual, by taking them seriously… They ignore them, when they don’t dismiss them with the harshest words that spring to their minds at the time. Such behaviour has led many of their followers to believe, this is an acceptable way to behave. For Corbyn, this opened doors to reinforce an abhorrent, new standard in British politics. He was the first with the courage to openly ask what his party’s hearts desire. For approx. 15 minutes, he took the time to listen to what they want as well as expect from him. After he realised their views opposed his, he became the first leader to flee from the majority of his own party, and yet retain his position of leadership. The majority of Labour supporters are against immigration, not for the reason that they dislike other cultures, but because they are the cogwheels that keep this broken society running. The average, working-class person is the reason our society still functions. Granted, it barely works at the best of times, but it has not faced its inevitable collapse yet. When Labour abandoned the working class, which was no surprise, those cogwheels began to jar… Too many kept voting for them out of habit, blind faith and misplaced sympathy, not anymore. People do not like to be taken for granted, when it is them that has enabled Corbyns unfortunate rise to power. Unsurprisingly, Labours supporters are no longer white or British… They are not African-American, Asian or Indian any longer. They are no longer the party of the working-class, unless long-lasting unemployment and the unwillingness to seek paid work is categorised as the New Working Class. Moreover, their religious orientation, which was once a shining beacon of equality & diversity, has now become a party renowned for the coerced conformity of their supporters by the bleeding hearts of Britain. They may as well force their followers to convert openly instead of almost making them so do behind closed doors to prove their loyalties. In one way or another, they want to make you feel guilty/ashamed as to encourage self-loathing. Labour began to target the vulnerable and malleable members of society, whose minds are easily swayed by fear tactics. Not any kind of fear toward real-life threats, but the fear of being viewed as narrow-minded, bigoted or racist. This is basic psychological manipulation. What Corbyns upper-working/lower-middle class, left-wing supporters fail to understand is, when you have nothing for long enough, you lose all interest to maintain appearances. We don’t care how it looks. We care about what it is as well as what it will lead to. In life, nothing is ever as it seems…and we’ll do our best to never let anyone forget it. The actions of Corbyn have led a significant percentage of his followers to believe that his words serve a higher purpose than the complete religious and social indoctrination of the British people. He is the tool of the puppets that are strung along by the elite. He has lowered himself to such extreme degrees that they do not wish to be openly associated with him or scratch his back outside of dire necessity. In their minds, he lacks the intelligence and back-bone to be useful for any prolonged period of time. His control over the people is at best short-lived. As he envisions becoming Prime Minister of a non-country with the reigns firmly in his grasp, those behind the scenes laugh at his ignorance. (As much as he may be terribly oblivious of what normal people go through, no one deserves to be used only to be tossed aside like a children’s plaything.)

In addition, Corbyn deliberately disregards the historical fact that multiculturalism only works when both parties are willing to find a compromise they can live with. When multiculturalism becomes a matter of sacrificing your way of life to accommodate mass migration, it paves the way to genocide. Corbyns traitorous actions are causing direct physical, mental and emotional harm not only to the British people, but all people of all ethnicities. They are forcing decent people to hide or flee the United Kingdom, while they put genuine refugees at risk. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that his left-wing followers act in accordance with his radical views, enforcing them at every opportunity. This can solely lead to civil war, which will most likely take the form of an uprising of the right against the left, when there are obviously more pressing matters at hand. While we will waste more time quarrelling over schematics, our mutual enemies channel their energies more productively. They are breeding for war under the guise of Sharia Law. They do not require the consent of their women, when it is the sole purpose of their existence to serve them, otherwise they will attempt to terminate their existence and secure new breeding stock.