“Choosing” Love

 . . . all great ideas, Mrs. Marx and Engels, Drs. M. L. King, Gabor Mate, Alice Miller, Mr. Cavoukian, just names from my personal logos, but so many great humanists, all with a terrific idea about how things ought to be, about love over hate, too many to name them all, so many good folks trying, so many apparently obvious rhetorical questions posed, why wouldn’t we choose love?

If I have readers, you know what I think: spanking and it’s mythological excuse, “Human Nature,” is why. But today’s question isn’t that, it’s “why would this be rhetorical?”

All good things hit this wall.

We would choose love – but goddammit, I have forever been choosing love and receiving hate and I’m sorry, but it’s not love I got too much of and not love I need to void myself of, is it? If you didn’t want this from me, why did you do that?!?? We would, but, kind of thing, right? But not for them, or something, right? Surely there is someone out there who deserves some of the limited resource of my mercy.

I’m trying to tell you, you ask, “why choose hate?” like it’s rhetorical, like there’s no answer, like we’re not really looking for an answer.

I woke up today with a thought that is childishly simple, yet still unfortunately true of a world of adults. You know the old saw, a child says in anger, “You made me feel X,” you know, X equals sad, mad, something awful and at some age we start saying, “other people don’t make you feel things, your feelings are yours.”

It’s a bit of gaslighting, doesn’t matter what I do to you, you are responsible for your own feelings, but it has a sort of truth, we do need to own our feelings enough to control them some and such, but it has just occurred to me for the umpteenth time, that isn’t this just what every sort of hate, every “ism,” is, the hated groups are blamed for the feelings of the haters, the haters hate everyone but themselves and it’s everyone’s fault but theirs, all their hate.

But you know what? It’s not so simple, this gaslighting. Rather, there are multiple levels, a ruse within a ruse, and while we gaslight one another in the here and now, that we aren’t responsible for one another’s new and current feelings, we are also closing off any conversation about anyone creating feelings in anyone – about antisocialization, in a word. Nobody affects nobody, apparently.

AST, so, you feel bad, you blame someone, but Psych 101 says your feelings are your own, from some other trauma, not from the person in front of you, so now you feel bad and it’s not their fault, it’s you, and “some other trauma,” of yours, and trauma is always some sort of accident, Psych 101 knows your abuser had their own trauma, so no-one tried to make you feel that way, it’s a . . . choice, ultimately, how we respond to a tragic accident. Why not choose love?

Uh, because it was a trauma and not an orgy?

These haters really don’t create all this hate themselves, is all I’m saying, the haters’ parents do, their caregivers do, their preachers, teachers and coaches do. Contrary to your memes, we can’t just make our own hatred from thin air and we’re not born with an unlimited supply, and of course somebody else makes you feel that way!

I want to say, of course we make each other feel things when we interact, but that’s not the point, the point is they were made to feel that way as a part of their upbringings, and it’s a feeling that doesn’t go away, somebody else makes you feel that way for life.

Your mom, your dad. Your people do that.

Why not choose love? It’s not bloody rhetorical, there’s a real world, living reason, and it’s because of the way they have made us feel, as I tried to express above. If we do not choose love, it is because we have been made to feel something else. Feelings are . . . real, materialistic, they are born and die here, in this world. Your bad feelings happened here, and the source is knowable.

I’m trying to tell folks: we can’t get there from here, but if we stop hurting our kids, maybe they can see more from there, maybe they can “choose” love a little more often than we did.


March 23rd., 2023

No, YOU Have a Genetic Component

I’m so used to being misunderstood, to being the intellectual black sheep, Jeff against the world, that post hatching and having found a type for myself, I find myself rejecting it and its assumptions like I always have with NT world’s; it’s a habit and a survival mechanism and maybe a whole neurotype and it’s not likely to change anytime soon.

All my life I have been battling a broken neurotype, not mine.

It stresses me out, it’s got me pacing and even hand flapping a little, when I hear the charlatans’ noise about “curing” Autists, but our responses also do not satisfy me, I feel that while we are putting up an argument, that we get dragged into accepting some portion of their premise, and I want to lead you in, but you know what, let’s go straight to it, I’ll name it. More than that Autists are not a thing to repair or to prevent, I need to go further, nothing falls into place for me if “Autism” is a thing, at all. It’s not the monster I have identified and wrestled all my life, that was . . . the other thing.

Here’s my premise.

“Autism,” isn’t a thing, I mean it’s a thing, everything is a word, everything is a thing, a vacuum is a thing, but it’s also nothing: space is a “thing,” that is also nothing, whereas matter, now that’s a thing, a thing that isn’t just the absence of another thing. Autism is a thing like space is a thing; whereas . . . I need a better word, for it, please work with me that these are close, whereas Neurotypicality, Allism, being “normal,” – now these are things. Like matter is a thing.

Being normal is a thing, and it is not also just “nothing,” like the word suggests. That’s just the consensus fallacy, if it’s everywhere, it’s nothing – this is backwards, NTs, if it’s everywhere, that’s more like everything than “nothing,” isn’t it? Not asking, or not asking NTs: it is more like everything. Like we’re having the discussion about air again: if it displaces something else, it’s matter, it’s not “nothing,” even if it is everywhere. Even if it is invisible to you.

When the charlatans go to environmental causes, Tylenol, that’s horrible and stupid, Autists haven’t been poisoned, and poisons don’t create neurotypes, but that’s not my area, plenty of good folks are fighting those folks, thank goodness (and also I have had a run at them recently already). What I think I need to answer today is when they start talking about genes. That’s close to a logic I am already looking at, and I have already been developing a genetic theory about that other thing. “Autism,” “has a genetic component,” they say, and . . . duh?

Doesn’t everything alive and all of behaviour “have a genetic component?”

Of course it does, and to say it about “Autism,” is as obvious as it would be to say it about anything, and to say there is “more than one gene involved,” is also true of everything and equally obvious, and I predict that they cannot even say it is associated with any “group of genes,” not yet, they will say, and none of those statements suggest that “Autism” is a genetic . . . unit of any sort. A single gene might, as in some diseases, a group of them might, I think there are things associated with more than one gene, but these have not been identified for “Autism,” and so they have not ‘yet,’ shown the genes to say that “Autism,” is a genetic . . . phenomenon.

OK – I have seen this idea, a group of genes, and I think they will argue, I think they will say they have identified a “number of genes,” now – I don’t think I’m out of date, I think I’m arguing, I’m saying I don’t believe them. This blog is about how I don’t think “Autism” is thing in itself and that there is no such logical grouping. It’s a dispute, not my ignorance – I think. It does get a little circular, both their argument and mine, and I’m not sure there’s any way around all of that with these sorts of constructs. My point is, that it is less circular when we see it the other way around: I am predicting that we can indeed find a “group of genes,” but for NTness, not Autism. Such puzzles always carry an extra level of difficulty when you’re looking at them upside down, trying to prove the negative rather than the positive in the situation.

Their language is doomed to vagueness and complexity, we see it progress: a gene, no, a group of genes, well, a variable number of genes, along with environmental things (like Tylenol) also, well, environment (like Tylenol) and a variable number of genes and also life history (like a lack of “discipline”) . . .

You know what, here, let me flip that over for you. That’s what we’re here for.

Of course, I can’t show you any genes for anything, so, while proof is lacking for “Autistic genes,” at this date, let’s look at some theory, shall we?

What does a genetic . . . entity look like? How do we recognize genes, what sort of attributes do genetic things have?

I’ve thought of four things that we associate with a genetic . . . effect, and they are, in no particular order,

One, heritability: genes explain heritability, our children inherit our genes and our lives, to some degree. It has been dramatically explained how genetic behaviours appear in separated families, most poisonously in the twin studies. Heritability that survives family and cultural disruption, we know this is a genetic matter.

Two, epigenetics: an epigenetic effect is a sure positive sign, if not not always present, but when we see differences in development with the same genes in different environments, we know some gene is taking a cue from the environment and choosing an option.

Three, sameness: when we share a gene, we share a trait, not one for one necessarily, but species share a whole lot of their genes while all of life share a few, almost. “Species,” means a high level of shared genes, and when we see shared attributes, especially across diverse environments, we know we are seeing shared genes. Accordingly, the more uniform a given group is, a given species, the less variability it displays, this indicates a higher percentage of shared genes than perhaps another, highly variable “species,” has, and the more variable species has more genes that they don’t all share – think perhaps species with mountain and lowland versions – but the more they are all the same, the more we know their genes are too.

To phrase it for use here, I want to say that the more uniform a group is, the more “genetic,” it is, that is to say the more it would be accurately defined by defining the gene, or as I’ve been saying, the genetic . . . something. Genetic overall effect, I suppose. I mean, I don’t only want to say it. I think it’s a fair example of how we use the soft term, “genetic,” in conversation, and I try not to want to say untrue things, of course don’t we all. We will judge for ourselves, I guess, but if you don’t agree, things will look more circular later, I’m afraid. I’m trying to set it up, but with a change of viewpoint, not by dispensing with the truth, I hope.

Inasmuch as ninety-some percent of shared genes makes a species and a hundred percent makes you an identical twin or a clone, more similar means more “genetic,” – ah, there it is. It means more of the “genetic component.”

That ought to do it! It just takes me a bit sometimes.

Four, evolution: when a trait or an effect is growing or shrinking, being selected or deselected over time, when evolution is happening, it happens in your genes, if we see polar bears fading to tan, we know there are grizzly genes, they are converging. When we see species getting bigger or smaller or changing how they use the environment, we know their genes are changing too.

OK. Caveats.

Some of my reasoning will rest upon reasoning that as far as I can see, is only mine; I will be expecting you to accept AST, Antisocialization Theory, my idea that humanity drives itself to more and more antisocial behaviours by way of its attempts at social control, my idea that no-one traumatizes humans except humans, that we are horrible and destroying the world because we treat ourselves horribly and for no other reason. It’s the materialistic ideological opposite of “Human Nature.” It’s all I ever talk about, see the blog.

I will attempt to give you a way around it where possible, but I’m nothing if not holistic, and it won’t really work without it. Nothing works with the Human Nature myth gumming up the science, and cynic that I am, you know I think that’s the point of it.

Alright let’s apply these criteria and find out who’s a genetic . . . whatever and who isn’t, shall we?

One, heritability.

“It runs in families,” sure it does, of course it does, wait – what does? “Autism?” So, “Autism,” “runs in my family?” Again, yes, sure it does – but it’s not the only thing that does. I’m pretty sure my family has a non-Autistic streak too. The rest of them aren’t blank molds, waiting to be coloured in, they’re not “nothing,” if they’re not Autistic, are they? More like everything, if you count them. If we don’t just leave them out of our equations. Hmm.

I’m afraid I’ve just talked myself out of “Allism,” as my term, I’ll go back to my generic, “NTness,” again, because my point is it’s the concrete thing – and Allism is defined as simply “not Autistic,” that’s not a definition for my thesis, obviously they can’t just define each other that way, and I’m going the other direction, where it is “Autism,” whose definition will simply be “not NT.” With a better word some day, I hope. My apologies to the community, that word is not going to work out anymore when I’m finished revamping the entire movement and the world. To say, “Allism runs in families,” instead is merely a grammatical tautology, not my point at all. We should find a way to say NT to mean something more specific, but that’s a bridge too far just now.

NTness it is.

The point of this is that this is not a grammatical tautology, but a real one, there is some real, heritable thing being passed along that isn’t Autism, some genetic . . . structure that is its own thing, and again, isn’t “nothing,” or “Human Nature,” or any sort of a functional default that is necessarily good or “natural,” or just the way God planned it. But either way – if it’s only grammar to you, it’s still clear that both neurotypes “run in families, Autistic and not Autistic.” If it’s only grammar to begin with, it’s still grammatically true. Logically, if “Autism runs in families,” so does the other thing, or there would be nothing but “Autism.” Right?

For me, there are two possible genetic things in this conversation, both possibly actual, heritable things in the world, and perhaps it’s one or the other, or perhaps it’s both. So, that’s One Point each. Both things look genetic, based on their heritability, to me, “Autism,” and “NTness.”

It’s a One-All tie at this point. They could both be genetic . . . forms of order by the first test.

Two, epigenetics.

Now, this is all overview, I am not a biologist, and when I say “genes,” or “alleles,” or even if I name one as I’m about to do, know that the names and the details don’t mean much to me, that this is all theory and someday your details will catch up. I won’t be held to some genetic detail from 2020, this is all made from macro observations, no minutiae is going to invalidate it for me.

This seems to be a feature of some genes, or some genetic effects, that they have options, depending on what they detect about the environment, that affect an organism’s development. I believe some genetic diseases or conditions come on during development as genetic options are settled, isn’t that right? Classic epigenetic effects are things like . . .wow, Google seems useless, nothing but cancer, and it seems confused with mutation. Things like a foetus sensing its mother’s malnutrition and adjusting how the person processes proteins for their life, this is an example, the Dutch Winter Babies – I’m not sure anyone’s proved that this extends beyond the womb, but wouldn’t it?

If a one year-old senses its own famine and had any developing left to do, can we assume some things are adjustable well into development? I would think so, I mean I do think so, I’m quite certain this is the case but that I am not in that business and am having a little trouble finding the proof for you. The idea is central to AST, I must have seen it somewhere. Oh, there it is – identical twins have the same genes to start, and epigenetics, response to environment, is understood to be responsible for any differences between identical twins at all, which clearly exist.

AST has it that the so called warrior alleles operate that way, and I think that’s my example, everyone thinks that – it’s just a poor example because it’s exactly my thesis, AST’s premise that some genetic effect like the warrior alleles happens for people, and that no-one makes the environment one to activate those alleles, I mean set the worse option, but us. This environment is called, “spanking.” It has a special name, it’s not just “hitting,” or “beating,” and it’s only called that when we do it to humans in childhood, during development, because it is epigenetics.

We see the effect, as I said in a recent blog, when children, born sweet and helpless become hard and aggressive as they age to “maturity.” Spanking sets the options of your warrior alleles to “war.” At least it does for most people. I have been trying to make this case for years; if I haven’t convinced anyone yet, it must be impossible. For me, this is the epigenetic effect that rules human life.

We must pause to admit that the “warrior alleles,” have suffered the same process as “Autistic genes,” that at first it was “the psychopath gene,” then the name change and the caveats, depending on other factors, then only in extreme abusive environments, along with or without many other genes, etc., etc., it is difficult to say anything with any power in this complex business. But the less extreme function seems clear and independent of microscopic detail, how people grow up to “be strong,” more reliably than that they grow up getting more sensitive. If you don’t see it, you probably think nothing and no-one is strong enough, which makes my point in an even more powerful way.

To some of us, at least.

It seems that perhaps it fails for some? For many Autists in particular? Can we not be counted upon to get “strong?” This is my AST view, that this is the DEPT, this is what is so wrong with us, we cannot be trusted because we are apparently no damned good in a fight.

Not sure I can continue. This is a controversial point, I’m not sure anyone is going to follow me so far. There is a lot of talk online about Autistic sense of fairness and justice and on the other hand the ones who would “cure” us are quick to say we resist the training. Look, I guess I can’t speak for all Autists, maybe any of them, I am pretty new, and as I said at the start, I’m not a very good follower – but it never changed me. I am as opposed to spanking today as I was when I was one year old.

I don’t think I have that warrior allele thing in nearly the same measure as normal people do, and I suspect a lot of us Autists are like this. Can you see where I’m going? I think NTness displays the epigenetic effect of people growing up strong and mean, and I’m not so sure “Autism,” has that.

I think we’re at Two to One now. In this sense, NTness is a genetic . . . function, and “Autism,” lacking this attribute, may not be, at least is not proved to be by this logic.

Three, sameness.

Which has diversity, which conforms?

Am I done? It’s tempting. More than tempting, why insult you? Maybe in the LSD halcyon days of the sixties I would have had to but . . . you have media, right? Enough said.

Three to One. Next!

Four, evolution.

AST again: I think we’re getting worse, I mean something is. I don’t agree with the existing conversation, I don’t think we’re “better,” than the chimpanzees because I think we have a chance to know better and we never take it. We don’t rule and kill the whole world because we are “better,” than any damn thing, try this – the chimpanzees probably don’t kill as many chimpanzees as we do anyway. We are worse, and getting worse all the time, and we don’t take any responsibility for our horrible selves and talk about “Human Nature,” insisting, promising, to never change. For hundreds of years now, maybe thousands of years, wars keep getting bigger. Standing still in the river of life changes you, and trying not to change only means you are choosing the worse option when the world changes, and suffering a reduction in your viability and quality of life.

It’s not just me and AST that thinks so, it’s the same meme that we are Fallen, that we have gotten worse, perhaps the biologists have a slightly less negative view, they say that we retain the nastiness of the chimpanzee and have only extended their destructive capabilities, not that we are getting worse within ourselves, only that we are not getting better. That’s better, huh.

This is my long held, and long considered from every side that I can imagine worldview, AST, that we keep making ourselves worse, in an act of misguided self-directed evolution, and it’s about the species in general, but:

 . . . but I didn’t know about “Autism,” that my mindset may not be a one-off, but a type, and I wasn’t aware of the Indigenous Critique either. It is amazing to learn that my self-taught understanding of the world that few of my white friends understand or agree with happens to line up with a common Autistic set of traits, but far more amazing that it does with the pre-European North American way of life.

I have been thinking and speaking about an “NT gene suite” for some time now, as opposed to at least my Autistic genes, and honestly, Wengrow’s talk about the Indigenous Critique is an evidence I never dreamed of, too bloody good to be true! You mean there are modern people, whole civilizations, practically within living memory, compared to the long story of evolution I thought I was telling, that didn’t have this problem, at all?!?!?

The Indigenous Critique of “Europeans and their culture,” and my complaints about my life’s difficulties communicating with NT people, they are identical. The Indigenous life the Dawn of Everything describes is exactly the life I pine for, exactly what I would have designed for us all – the life I bloody need. I’m trying not to tell you what it is, this is getting long and I’ve barely begun the book myself, everyone should read that book. And it existed, this life?

Really? Bloody Hell.

Is it really too much to assume some previous state, as those enlightenment pundits did, before all of this? Having watched this toxic thing take over North America, and likely other places, can we not assume it began somewhere and took us over at some point, maybe not so far back as caves and fire? Again, again, if it’s “nothing,” because it’s everywhere or will be soon, you’d say no, but that’s crazy, it’s everywhere, or almost, so it’s something, very, very something. I had been talking about an aggressive gene and genetic drift, and good Lord, if the European Age of Expansion isn’t just that.

Drift counts as “evolution,” doesn’t it? One of evolution’s most powerful vectors, isn’t it? You’re free to disagree, of course, but I think the main thrust of humanity is evolving, not in a positive way, it is adapting to an environment that it makes worse and then it adapts to that – this is a positive feedback loop, thermal runaway, and it is all going to burn. AST suggests that the 21st. century looks exactly like the 20th. century and that this cycle of meltdowns may be the final stage, to be repeated until we do adapt in a different direction, or for as many cycles as this planet can survive it.

Of course I’d love to be wrong about that.

But the other side of the question, this factor – are Autists evolving?

It will be Four to One by me, if not. What do we know?

Not much, to be sure. We’ve only had the word for a hundred years, and we’re still fighting about the definition; I don’t have a lot to work with. We exist, so we are being selected for, somehow, someone is breeding with us, although I expect that nobody knows yet if we are on the wax or the wane or holding steady, and nobody can say we are getting more or less Autistic, for the same reasons. We lack data for evolutionary change happening among Autists at the moment, of course, we haven’t got much of a snapshot yet, but is there anything?

I think maybe I’ll touch genetic similarity after all, not having to make the case for NTness, but just to talk about its relative absence in “Autism.” I won’t be using quotation marks going forward in my life for that, it just helps make the particular point in this blog, that we’re analysing that term.

But there is something about the other health issues, “morbidities” associated with us. There is a word, for illnesses that occur together, “comorbidities,” and technically it’s fine if you have more than one, but I’m seeing an argument that says to use such a term around “Autism,” sounds like “Autism,” is one of them, like “people with EDS often have the comorbidity of being “Autistic,” might pass too, so we’re looking for other terms, less negative, “co-occurrences,” like that.

But, terminology aside for the moment, it’s like, uh . . . it’s a little like “Autism” is a prophylaxis for disorders and problems that at least from an NT, bro-science evo point of view, “should” get people selected out. Again, some talk about “curing,” us for these issues, but somehow we are here, still getting laid and breeding, despite them. No? I mean, on the theory that we aren’t a new thing in the world, and I don’t think any but the most hardline creationist sorts think that.

What I’m suggesting is that the “number of genes along with environmental factors, etc.,” associated with “Autism” seem to be shared with a lot of problem genes, and no force is taking advantage, the leopards aren’t eating us, we are still here despite some liabilities. I have this sense that somehow, our side of the gene pool is un-curated, we are either too small to worry about or too big to fail or something. All this, is my only tiny stab in the dark evidence that perhaps “Autism,” is not presently evolving, that it is not showing that trait that some genetic . . . things do.

With that ephemeral bit of reasoning, and no evidence either for or against to speak of, it seems equally right or wrong to declare one way or the other – but well. This is my blog, and that is the declaration I am here to make: go forth, prove me right, prove me wrong, get us that data, this is science, Laddie, that’s the whole idea.

So, argue, criticize, of course, but I’m at Four to One now, and I expect readers are at Two, Two and a half, maybe Three to One, and I would call that a win.

Conclusion: at this point, I will say that “Autism,” could be something along the lines of a genetic “disorder,” but the data is not in to say so, and it could very well not be a genetic . . . occurrence, while NTness absolutely is one, meeting all the basic criteria.

I will re-iterate, I end most of my stuff with this point, I think, that it is not some small minority of weirdos or their disabilities that are forever at war and driving this planet off three different cliffs simultaneously. That is some typical disability, clearly. Which again, is not “nothing.”

Oh, hey, midnight, so it’s Sunday. Let’s post.


March 19th., 2023

We’re Only in Warrior Mode

Warrior Mode

/                                  *                                 

Abuse                         Authority                              Social control          

 . . . OK, so I wanted to build a graphic, a visual, a tree or something, with a beginning and a flow and an end, but there’s no beginning, I’m sorry, ignore that silly chart, don’t listen to that, listen to this instead: it’s impossible to untangle, our troubles, it is a mode of existence, encompassing both the causes and the effects, let’s call it Warrior Mode, it’s a group conflict mode of life for human beings, and we have warrior life problems, mostly a lot of fighting. You take the rough with the smooth.

Antisocialization Theory tries to describe how life in this mode hangs about, how it is maintained and reinforced.

Origins, how it begins . . . does it matter? AST suggests that evolution has moved on, that we are not who we were when it began anymore and also that evolution is different than creation, things are not evolved into existence and then stuck with themselves forever that way as they are in creationism. In an evolved reality, if it exists today, it is because you are making it so today. I have fantasized about origins before, it seems a sure way to discredit oneself, wild guesses, tailored to fit the guesses of others before me regarding our origins generally: a sure way to be a fool and look like it. For now, let us be sure that begin it did, because here it is, up and flying.

It’s very difficult to talk about because a way of life asks certain questions and answers them a certain way, and a different way of life has different priorities, asks different questions. As I said, both the causes and the effects are different, what is to compare? The opposite, or alternative to it is rather an unknown thing, beyond the current epistemes, which can be thought of as the public imagination. “Mode of existence,” methodology of life, this is not small, it is sort of the whole world, all of the epistemes, all of the environment, almost. Language is not made for multiple worlds, or multiple neurotypes, or even more than a single human group, it’s as though the Us and Them aspect of human life was what language was created for, and maybe it was, I don’t suppose I’m the first to suggest that.

I still think this tack is worth a try,  I always think a puzzle of how to say a thing is doable, somehow, given unlimited commas, dashes, and colons: that it means both the causes and the effects, that a change of mode wouldn’t answer the same problems or questions. I even have an example.

Take the case of the terminology of the public conversation around childrearing, where the connection based people, they are quick to say that the question in childrearing for them is not, “what ‘works,’ to win the conflicts for the adults, to have the kids compliant, but what ‘works,’ to maintain trust and love in the relationship. It’s the same, and this example is exactly the point. The “connection-based” parent wants something different than the “regular” one does, or at least they are trying to, perhaps battling these two modes within themselves.

But it’s that big, really, a way of life, different goals altogether, despite that the public conversation always frames it as either no choice or rather a simple one. It’s a choice, but it’s a big, complicated one, and if we understood that going in, maybe a few more of us would succeed at actually making the change.

This example is framed from one side, you know I’m with the coddlers, the regular folks don’t say it’s to win fights against children, they have their own language, it’s ‘teaching wrong from right,’ or some such, we’re all more than familiar with it, they don’t frame their mode of life the way I do, and if I expressed it from their side their goal would be to maintain order and I would represent anarchy, threatening to take us back to the jungle.

I think they would agree that the difference is not small, an entire lifestyle.

In the warrior mode of life, really almost what they mean when they say, ‘the life,’ like the criminal life, life in the human jungle, there is always an Other, an enemy, a rival, always another group over the hill or across the ocean that poses a threat, as we do to them, and all in this mode of life are obliged to be ready at short notice – strong and angry, ready to fight.

All three of my second layer functions above serve this purpose, making us gain and hold some level of fear and anger. It is Antisocialization Theory that the rightmost one includes the leftmost, and that the centre one ensures the implementation and success of the others. Perhaps Social control belongs in the third layer, under Authority, but I’ll be scrapping it all soon enough, so for now it can stand. That much wouldn’t be so different.

Warrior mode involves planting a seed in childhood, a seed comprised of fear and pain and resentment that the group can harvest later, this is what I call the Antisocialization Theory of war, this bit of emotional agriculture, the creation, nurturing and storage of bad feelings that can be unleashed later as aggression.

The ‘beginning’ of the cycle, the cause that precedes the effects referred to above in a mode of human life is our first spanking, perhaps our first threat-bite a million years ago (and that’s as far as I want to go, not a cause, just the same scene), and the ‘end’ of it, the effect and the harvest comes when we kill in war, or perhaps when we have spanked our children, deferring the worst of the harvest to the next generation, when perhaps they are reaped for the next war.

I suspect it is fair to say that at that ‘beginning,’ in the timeline of a human life, that the introduction of a new child to the life of fighting/social control is an event thoroughly ensconced in both categories, abuse and social control, that what is transmitted is both emotional, anger and “strength,” read ‘antisocialization,’ and also the perhaps less emotionally loaded informational ‘socialization’ of cerebrally learning the rules, the environment.

Completionism asks that we mention the third possibility, prosocialization, but we are talking about violence in this case. More generally, do we do things to grow love in our children, or was it already there, these are important questions, and I touch upon them, I do think we are born “good,” and loving, my evidence being AST, the world of tech we have and use to turn it around and to dampen empathy tells me we must have been good to start, why spend all your time and money breaking a thing that is already broken?

This logic is solid for me, proof positive. I see the manufacture of our evil; I have no reason to suspect it pre-existed except the word of the manufacturers themselves.

Do we grow love nonetheless, of course we do, by giving it, with food and care – but our antisocializing tech I feel overwhelms it, we grow more hate than love, surely you see the news. So I’m a repairman, the love that is isn’t a problem, we will follow two streams, the pain and the knowledge. These are where the problems are.

So I guess my graphic needs two flows after that?

Oh, and the other thing. Kill your darlings. Ignore the previous graphic, and the upper left quarter of this one for now, I’m not there yet, it’s sure to change or disappear.

Warrior Mode


Abuse                                                 Authority


Healing                                              Social control


Social control


Antisocialization                              Socialization


I guess that will be two streams.

I have stated, perhaps overly leaning towards poetry and away from science, that the first bite, the first hit perhaps convinces our infant selves to make the ‘Human Nature,’ decision, to decide that people, even Mom, go in the Predator category, as Bad News. Again, it would seem unlikely that we could separate the emotional response from the decision, the informational change, and my word, ‘antisocialization,’ does mean both – again, this is modal, both sides of the incident: the infant’s problem, Mom apparently attacking, and the infant’s solution, don’t trust people, the cause and the effect.


But of course, the first bit of friendly fire isn’t the last; AST has it that your whole life of frustrations and pain are in your antisocial savings account, ready to be misappropriated and spent by the CEO at any time. And once you have it in your head, don’t trust people, people are on the Bad side of the ledger, it’s not hard to find a world of evidence to back it up. Every time we hear it, our infant selves’ binary judgement is confirmed, and that surely feels like truth, I mean survival is a good enough surrogate for truth, so that’s the dopamine mix it gives, that’s how it feels to us. Oh – there’s a group dynamic, I suppose: even the innocent mistakes of the out-group feel like confirmation, people are horrible, our group prejudices confirm our bad judgment that we learned at home? Everything does, I’m afraid – it’s a mode of life, pervasive.

And there’s no getting around it, it doesn’t much matter what that creature says, does it? . . . uh oh, starting to feel easy, I’m on my usual again, I fear. What was I supposed to be doing? Something about two causal streams?

I mean, it’s the boss’ to spend provided you’re not living as a complete raging beast, letting it out all the time to begin with! I don’t mean to be leaving anyone out. Even the boss, angry imp emoji.

Ah, there it is, the boss is letting off the same steam? So –

Warrior Mode


Abuse             Social Control


Antisocialization                              Socialization


Fighting                                 Authority

/                                            /         

Social Control           Abuse

OK, I wonder what is the more circular, the reality, or just my logic?

Easy to see an endless cycle here, of social control and abuse leading to social control and abuse forever, except when we can change course, lose the control and go to war. That is not a very hopeful graphic, let’s all just take solace in that it is surely still wrong? Of course, I fear it is not wrong, but it’s a cycle, and our task is to find where it can be broken, if anywhere. It is all one thing, rather integrated, that isn’t simple – despite that the entire cycle and every block in the graphic is a human behaviour, it’s a system, again, the mode of living – so you can’t replace one leg of it, you have to do them all.

Again, what that looks like, the diagram for another mode of existence? How would I know? This surely is another guaranteed way to be a fool, I only know this life too, despite I’ve spent my life running from it rather than working in it, but I’ll give you my first childish guess, with the understanding that that is all it is:

I think we look like a zoo in another paradigm, where we assess each other’s needs and provide for them, while keeping us safe from one another somehow, managing our breeding, working for diversity and celebrating variety. That would be the opposite; this warrior life keeps throwing up obstacle courses and trials and bends towards a lethal conformism for everything it touches.

There’s my pithy ending, the moral of the human story, but this one has another.

I said, “impossible to untangle,” and I sort of meant it – but that’s not the end, if I was a determinist I wouldn’t write, why would you. It sort of is, it was my point that you can’t just pull the spanking thread out of it so easily as we imagine we might – but the point is that the knot is real and specific and has limits and weaknesses and is not some limitless ideological situation that we would have to fight God to escape. We can’t untangle it one thread at a time, maybe, but it will be doable.

Antisocialization Theory, it is a trap, a self-perpetuating system – -but is not existence itself as the creation meme has it, as the half-measures, half understood version of evolution and nature we often speak of that is only creation with a new name has it. It’s big, but it’s not mythology big – and it has a logic. It’s an intelligence test – can we chimpanzees work together, communicate well enough to pull all the strings, solve the puzzle, and get the bananas? Applications are being accepted.


March 5th., 2023