improperlyhuman: (Default)
I am very tired, but I don't know why. I have been getting a lot of rest these past few days.

For some time now, I have been trying to find an article I read a couple of months ago. It was an account of an anthropologist who had accompanied some primitive (South American?) tribe on a river voyage. A tribal girl asked to go along as well, and was allowed to do so. During the voyage, this girl cleaned the boat and swam in the river to catch food (some sort of shellfish, I want to say) that she later cooked on deck. Without being asked to do so. She was SIX years old.

Obviously, I do not know how much of this story is true, but it is quite cosily within the realm of possibility. As I was reading this story, it occured to me how utterly useless civilized kids are relative to this child. How many of us could even swim at the age of six, let alone in a river? How many kids can safely cook over an open flame? This six-year-old child had better independent living skills than civilized kids twice her age. It's the omnipresent infantilization of civilization at work. With all of our food produced by someone else, and no hope for most of us to live the materially independent lifestyle of the hunter-gatherer or even the small-scale farmer even if we want to, the necessary collection of skills disappears from our common heritage of knowledge and child-rearing. I find it a bit terrifying, relying on other people for something as crucial as food.

Infantilization is only part of the issue, however. Civilization being based on slavery, the upper castes are granted leisure time, freedom, because the work of the lower castes fulfills their material needs. From this, a warped, class-conscious attitude develops: the absolutely necessary work of those who feed, clothe, and shelter us is somehow "lower" or less valuable than the useless and often destructive fiddling about of the professional classes – the paper pushers, the navel-gazing academics, the businesspeople who work with mere concepts and digital representations of money rather than actual, material resources. This would simply be an idiotic idea if it wasn't enforced by creating abysmal wages and working conditions for the "lower" work, and forcing people to accept it by making it impossible for them to live otherwise. So, everybody wants better for their kid than the lower castes, and, consequently, we are not only economically forced, but ideologically disposed, to put more effort into "educating" them, preparing them for the life of symbolic manipulations of the professional classes, or even the blue-collar classes, rather than teaching them how to survive like the animals they are. And we've grown accustomed to our unearned leisure time and the oodles of gadgets we've created to fill it. So our kids would struggle to properly feed themselves, but they've mastered video games.
improperlyhuman: (Default)
I think that I have solved the mystery. Taking into account his drawling, half-coherent ramblings and the fact that he has the gall to try my door handles in broad daylight, I think the guy across the street who has been annoying me is seriously mentally ill. Last time he came around, I was completely undressed, but, if he touches my van again, I will warn him (or his caretaker) and threaten to call the police.

I think my laptop battery may be on its way to retirement. The battery light is flicking on and off, and the battery charge has been at 75% for the past 6 hours. Wow, I've been here for six hours.

I've found a lump on the right side of my pubic bone. I'm poised to be the first case of pubic bone cancer in human history. I'll have to wait until my current medical insurance ends and my old one is in effect again before I can make a medical appointment. Also, thanks to Obamacare, my county health insurance will morph into MediCal in January. I don't know if that will change anything.

Late this afternoon (actually, yesterday, it being past midnight now) I finished a non-fiction book entitled The Iceman Inheritance. It is a deliciously bizarre book in which the author posits that the "Caucasoid" race (descendants of Neanderthals) are more aggressive than any other "race" of people due to having inherited "psychobiological" adaptions that Neanderthals evolved in their glacial habitat. I was surprised that the author, Micheal Bradley, attempted to support his thesis in part by psychoanalyzing Neanderthals. His argument is far from watertight, but the illustrations of Western civilization's obsessions with sex and nature-taming (rather than nature-interfacing) technological innovation via cultural comparison were fascinating and the book's progression through physical and cultural anthropology, psychology, and history was a wild ride.

From a primitivist standpoint, the most interesting parts of the book were based on Bradley's invocation of a concept that he has detailed in another book, The Cronos Complex. The cronos complex is a psychosocial milestone reached by pre-historic peoples, consisting of the recognizance of past-present-future continuity of life (connection between ancestors, self and society, and descendants) and subsequent cultural innovations designed to manipulate this continuity (such as the development of writing to preserve knowledge for future generations or emergence of a clerical class to facilitate communication with the dead). Well, those gosh darn Neanderthals then extended their maladaptive aggression and territoriality into this new dimension (time), and this is supposedly why Western civilizations have tended towards being hellbent on out-doing their ancestors via "progress," as well as leading the world in teetering on the brink of obliterating their future with the same. Inconclusive as it may be, this is such an artful analysis that it nearly brings tears to my eyes. Actually, it's late and my eyes are tired. I'm always happy to see criticism of the totally unnecessary, environmentally irresponsible, pathologically technophile bustle we call "progress."

Near the end of the book, the author attends to the West's "progressive intellectuals" and their tendency to agitate for a less misogynistic, less materialistic, more peaceful and environmentally-friendly version of Western civilization by railing against sexual objectification, fashion and cosmetics industries, and pornography. We're going about it all wrong! he says. "The high non-Caucasoid civilizations of China, Egypt, and pre-Caucasoid India" were apparently great, enduring civilizations because their sexual permissiveness and attendant cultural focus on jewelry, cosmetics, (looks!) and pornographic art gave the common folk a "sensual-sexual" means of displacing any aggression that would otherwise have torn the society apart.

Speaking of pornography, I was searching Amazon for erotica earlier this evening, and I was disturbed and disheartenend by the extent to which the sexualization of violence and degredation appear to have become mainstream. Obviously the media is riddled with it, that's feminism 101, but it has sort of been snuck into movies and television, and I guess I expected that less people would consciously seek out erotica that is overtly BDSM-related. It's being sold on Amazon, for fuck's sake. There were titles that clearly indicated plots based on enslavement and forced marriage. I mean what is that? Let's hope a meteor hits us. There's just no hope. I would rather die by nature's hand than by men's "progress" anyway.

What is "progress" at this point, anyhow? More mobile phone apps? What more do we need beyond medicine and electricity? Oh, that's right. Since most "progress" is detrimental to the environment and to our health, subsequent waves of "progress" need to deal with the fall-out from previous waves of "progress." We give ourselves cancer with "progress," then try to progress to a cure for cancer, rather than regressing to the state of not manufacturing carcinogens. Progress is self-perpetuating.

I once read somewhere that the United States is a country in its adolescence, and not only because of the brief span during which it has been a nation. Now I see a reason why; progress is oriented towards allowing us to keep doing whatever destructive things we are doing while avoiding the consequences, rather than just doing different things, like a kid who just gets sneakier in her misbehavior instead of behaving. But we're not the only nation enamored of progress, the more "mature" nations have adopted some of our illnesses. The U.S. has a modern cultural thing that consists of adults who idolize youth, imitate the behavior of the young, and seek to stay young forever. The more mature nations following in our footsteps towards the cliff edge could be likened to these youth-seekers. Like the media promotes youth culture to the point of brainwashing insecure adults, the U.S. promotes it's culture to others. But maybe they're not so much brainwashed as trying to keep up economically, or match us in firepower. I don't know.

The Four

Oct. 24th, 2013 05:11 pm
improperlyhuman: screenshot of Apocalypse from X-Men: The Animated Series (apocalypse)
Pestilence

Disease is isolated in the context of sparse of human populations. Some may get well, others may die, but there is no one to carry the disease to the next town/tribe/commune/whatever. Crowded cities basically create pestilence through forced routine contact with large numbers of strangers and large concentrations of human waste. Unhygienic cultural practices such as keeping animals as pets and the jet-set class galivanting all over the world, picking up foreign bugs that they then pass on to their compatriots, worsens the problem.

Famine

Risk of famine increases with the adoption of mass agriculture and "development." Incessant, large-scale farming strips the Earth of minerals and, in extreme cases, may ultimately lead to desertification. The relatively modern agricultural practice of monocropping creates a food supply that is far more sensitive to threats such as pests and unfavorable weather conditions – when the main food source becomes scarce, insufficient quantities of alternate food sources facilitate mass starvation, as in the Irish Potato Famine. Civilized development is simply the paving over and building on arable land, generally preceeded by theft of land from the poor and powerless. The result is less food producers, larger numbers of people dependent upon huge agro-conglomerates, greater pollution due to the waste generated by the latter's concentration of thousands of farm animals. Then there is the crowding into urban areas of the dispossessed, which facilitates disease epidemics.

War

Quite difficult to wage without huge numbers of soldiers and the financial resources to support them. Without warfare technology, spats between neighboring populations result in relatively few deaths and little material destruction. When no one is building up huge stores of, say, grain or precious metals, and there are no economies in which to trade them in anyhow, and little or no technology with which to mine, refine, or otherwise produce them (not to mention, no class system that allows for a group of people to sit on their asses thinking up such contraptions while others produce their food, clothing, shelter, and mind their kids), the justifications for warfare decrease.

Death

Death is obviously the end result of all of these, but it's more than that.

The concept of necrophilia (original credits to Mary Daly, if I recall correctly) refers to the fact that all roads lead to death in patriarchy:

Poisoning and polluting technology and industrial production lead to death.

Violent, hateful, unjust societies lead to murder and suicide.

Chemically-engineered pesticides and additives in our food lead to death.

Monopolization of resources leads to death.

Marrying off females into a lifetime of reproductive and domestic slavery leads to death.

and so forth and so on. Patriarchy is death-loving and death-supporting. Patriarchy is behind civilization, and civilization, in turn, is behind the other three horsemen. So death (necrophilia) is the alpha and the omega.
improperlyhuman: (thinking)
Of late, I stop and notice all of the people around me. I think of the masses of humans in the world. And it boggles the mind, that a woman gave birth to every single one of them. Every single one! All that work. The untold hours of labor, of pain. The months and months of carrying around extra weight. All that effort, generation after generation.

And this is what men think of all of that work: Today I flipped through an edition of Time magazine and read an article about Mitt Romney and Mormonism. The author reported that early Mormons, facing ostracism and religious oppression, had to be practical. They were few in number, and, in their practicality, decided that Mormon men would take multiple wives to raise those numbers. They wanted to grow their fucking cult, so, they turned to women, their baby machines, and decided that each guy would knock up more of them. Nevermind all that extra work that women had to endure! What's nine months and x hours of labor, what are repeated pregnancies in the face of "practicality"? It was practical for men; that's all that mattered.

Here is my first draft plan. The goal is to the cripple the government by decreasing its funding. Without their goddamned paychecks, useless politicians literally will not be able to afford to sit on their asses making decisions for us, declaring war in our names. They will have to go out and actually earn a living. Can you imagine spoiled politicians actually working? Not only would it be beautiful, it would do them good. The same goes for many other Americans. Of course, I harbor no illusions concerning the number of them that will willingly adopt this plan.

Citizens can put an end to government by not paying taxes. The easiest legal way to avoid taxes is to earn to liitle to be taxed. We therefore want as few people working as possible, with as few work hours as they can manage.

The first step: people have to stop having kids. Kids tie people to work and the economy because they cannot provide for themselves. The less dependents one has, the less one must work. A massive decrease in the birth rate will go far towards shrinking the economy; less people employed = less tax revenues. It will also decrease competition for jobs, shifting power from employers to employees. The wealthy should be encouraged to drop out of the job market altogether. As the pickings for hiring become slim, job application rejections and firings will decrease, and there will be a period of increased job security. Employees must seize upon this opportunity to make employment demands that will further weaken the economy. Higher pay, shorter work days, more vacation time. Employers with fewer hiring choices will be more willing to hire inexperienced and semi-skilled labor. These workers' lack of skills increase employers' time and financial investments, which slow economic growth.

Along with fucking up the supply sid of the economy, citizens must decrease demand. They must stop buying unnecessary crap. Stop buying gas, stop taking random trips. Keep the family close together to eliminate travel costs associated with visiting. Once they have to rely on their own labor just to get a meal or keep a clean shirt on, and can see firsthand how much work that is, having friends and relatives close by will prove its worth. Save and/or pool money to purchase necessities that will last rather than repeatedly buying the products of "planned obsolescence." Buy motor homes and live in vehicles rather than renting or purchasing homes. Conduct mass rental strikes, in which all apartment building tenants refuse to pay the full price of rent. Landlords can't afford to evict everyone, especially with dwindling demand for traditional dwellings. Obviously, people will have to learn some fundamentals of collective organization. Once the government's economic base is weakened, law enforcement will become spotty and downright absent in some places. People will be able to set up tents, build cabins, etc. with impunity, especially in sparsely populated areas, where law enforcement is most likely to have become nonexistent.

Outright theft of goods, if deployed at all, must be used selectively. Corporate retailers should be priority targets. Attempts should be made to absorb small, local retailers, as well as individuals, into barter economies. Economic independence should always be the goal, however. Even barter economies can explode into systems of exploitation under the right circumstances. Along with bartering and decreasing purchases, people can decrease demand by acquiring the skills to provide for their own needs. Cooking, sewing, small-scale farming, canning, vehicle and dwelling repair, home-schooling, trade skills, candlemaking, and composting provide for self-sufficiency.
improperlyhuman: (Default)
If one is or seeks to be an employee, one is dependent upon employers to "earn one's living." If one is a business owner, one depends upon clients to purchase one's goods or services. If one is an employer, one depends upon employees to perform work. Running through these three categories like a dirty stream is the slave work performed by low-wage employees (often halfway across the world, or exploited immigrants) to produce cheap goods to keep the employee, employer, and business owner going about their ways in their economic bubble: sewing clothing, harvesting produce, etc., for pennies. Then, of course, there are the regions full of dispossessed villagers whose land has been stolen, converted from farmland to provide more resources for the corporate dispossessors to sell to the employers, who then pass it along to be altered by the employees, who pass it along to be sold to consumers.

Neither employee, nor business owner, nor employer are independently earning their living. They earn their living, directly (corporation owner) or indirectly (employee), by stealing from and exploiting others. Those who own large amounts of resources have stolen them from the commons and are selling them back to us. The Earth and all of its resources belong equally to every living creature. It must be so, for the alternative is incompatible with the sustenance of life; "private property" is necrophilic (death-loving). The wealthy have taken more than their fair share, more than a single person or family needs, either today or in the past, and, in the latter case, passed it down through the generations. They depend upon the law, the government to uphold their "right" to maintain possession stolen resources and steal more resources.

The only economically independent people on this planet are subsistence farmers and hunter-gatherers.

The dispossesors create consumers and slave labor by stealing land. The dispossesed, robbed of their means of survival, go to work in their companies and buy from the dispossesors the goods they used to produce for themselves. This system of enslavement has already been in place in the United States for so long, it's scarcely recognizable. At some point, none of the land in these 50 states "belonged" to anyone. The natives took of it what they needed. Then, the waves of European dispossesors came along with what is perhaps the original sin of civilization: the tendency to observe "private property." What we have in place today is a far more subtle enslavement than the brute force of kidnapping and violence used to maintain involuntary servitude. Force can largely be dispensed with; once one takes another's means to feed herself, the latter will come crawling to the thief of her own accord.

We are these slaves. We are wholly dependent upon thieves to feed us. If agribusiness falters, many of us will starve. Along with our landlessness, we have been robbed, centuries ago, of the common human heritage of self-sufficiency. Even if we could find a square foot of Earth that had not been paved over, few of us possess the skills to effectively farm it. Thrust into a wilderness, we wouldn't know which plants are edible and which are not. This is one of the most profound effects of domesticization: infantilization. Not only material dependence upon the civilization, but raw inability to provide for oneself like any other healthy adult animal. These are the true "work skills." Knowledge of Excel spreadsheets and calculus and bookkeeping doesn't feed people. These are the skills of slaves; they are only useful in so far as someone else is willing to pay us for them. There is no logical way that this state of affairs can be described as "economic independence."
Page generated Jul. 27th, 2017 02:40 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios