Someone called me that. I have to say, I like it. “Natural Marxism” feels pretty close, huh.
June 9th., 2021
Someone called me that. I have to say, I like it. “Natural Marxism” feels pretty close, huh.
June 9th., 2021
The commons, limits on private ownership, especially of media, land, air, and water
If a place is not my place, if the land is not for me, if I can’t have water, all this because it is someone else’s place, what has gone wrong? If people with places feel OK about it, if that seems normal, if having a place seems like the normal human condition – well, I’m human! Or I was until something cost me my home. Generally, some disaster happened, natural disasters sometimes, human ones more often, even if it is merely that we have too many children for our land to support and we ourselves force our children off it like any stranger. I haven’t actually done that; it sounds awful. I got the boot twice instead, long story, but usually, in my comfortable white life, people at least can help their kids get set up when we do it, or they don’t fully migrate and can stay in touch.
I mean, it is “normal” to occupy and defend land, so humans all do that, or it isn’t. Kids don’t get it, don’t expect it, that they would be born homeless and what seems to be the normal human existence would be denied to them, and this is my point, my theme today – aren’t they right not to get that? If we think having a place is normal, then they are correct and there is something wrong.
And shouldn’t we, instead of forcing a counterintuitive unreality upon the world forever, simply work to make it that way, more that way? We absolutely should be working to make the world into what a happy child naturally expects! What a kid naturally thinks – that is our evolution and our genes talking. We naturally think what we have naturally evolved to think. It’s true for a crocodile or a cow or a row of corn. Isn’t that the environmental principle, you have to have what nature made you have to have? When you build a zoo, you have to provide what the creature’s evolution has made it need, you don’t argue with that and expect success.
For the record, we totally argue with that regarding ourselves, and our success is debatable. We can do things other creatures can’t – on the other hand, we do things that other creatures don’t do for good and evolved reasons.
If a young child can see what’s right, how can a whole world of adults not?
Wait, there is a failing here, a tendency I need to check, this sounds like every person always had a place until, I don’t know, some level of recently, and that may be a myth, placelessness may be as old as humanity also . . . I mean, that’s why I said “if,” I suppose, if you think having a place is normal, then it’s up to you if this conjecture is on track or not, I guess. Full disclosure, I think it’s popular to think and say, that the normal, aboriginal human condition includes having a place. I think I’ll get away with it, proven or not. Most of us want a place, certainly landowners will tell us it’s normal, and territoriality is not strange or unusual, not only with us. Territory is food and water.
I’m not saying I have an answer, but we should be trying to create a world that matches our organism, shouldn’t we, is this not obvious? We are working hard and apparently consciously to “overcome” something – what?
The food chain? Life?
If it’s normal and acceptable that humans have a place, if adults think so, if children are born expecting it, then private ownership is a newer thing than our evolution. If you expected a place to live – then our evolution was socialist, wasn’t it? Is this irony? The rich, entitled man, university educated, certain that his land is his and no-one else’s, this is my proof: evolution made us socialist, because he feels like having a place is all right and proper, perfectly acceptable.
I am capable in my contrarianism to turn anything in the world of illusion on its head. If we find a decent principle, we can audit our modern madness some. Did I not just prove that most our history and prehistory must have been more socialist and less competitive than the mainstream position has it?
No secret, I believe what we call human nature is particular to us – but nature it is not. The entire human deal is that we have learned how to do and be unnatural, isn’t it? Not asking, teaching. If I put the book together, the working title is Human Unnature. What we reference when we say “human nature” about something regrettable is our new, manufactured self, our socially engineered selves who overcame what was natural.
I haven’t nailed it all down yet, but it seems to be the human dream and the human magic to do just this, to be “free” of environmental constraints . It puts me in mind of a current events story, a zookeeper has lost an alligator and he feels the animal was old and unhealthy and extremely unlikely to survive on its own, he’s very worried. But the beast is “free,” it must have wanted to be – and this seems to me to be us all over, we are Icarus – Icarian, do we say that? I guess so, Word doesn’t mind – why would you want to be free of the Earth, the only place there is?
If I am read at all, you know, I think the ability to have your place and your water and deny the dispossessed it all is created through abuse and its desensitization. Not under any illusion that I’ve proven the matter – yet! – but I don’t hold our aggression and our tendency to violence as naïve or intuitive, I think it’s part of the unnature. If not for that, we would be trying to match our world to our evolved selves, naturally and obviously, as the indigenous the world over have been trying to do. Of course, with land goes everything, water as we’ve said, game, resources, fuel. I don’t have to pull the idea of the commons from anywhere on myself, it’s very well developed, despite that it’s been losing the battle for a long time.
It’s not news that the air waves are a part of the commons either, and they were partitioned and regulated as such for their first hundred years or so . . . but issues of private ownership haven’t gone away, or they’re back.
It seems so unbelievably obvious and clear in the case of social media, that it is a talking space and should be free to all, would this not be your intuition also? Same as land, above – isn’t it normal, doesn’t every human expect to have a talking space, like around the fire, like in the Great Hall? Granted, the campfire, the Longhouse was a small space, and largely just for the extended family group a lot of the time, a world of strangers listening, arguing and threatening in that space is new and strange, I guess. But even after I’ve blocked everybody Right of Gandhi and used all my privacy settings, there are still some site owners’ rules about what I can say to my friends and family and I have to worry about who that is and what they’re up to.
I mean, you couldn’t plan a coup in the Great Hall, authority is always listening, fully free speech is a unicorn, a perfect vacuum – but again, authority listening, I’m used to that, and ostensibly, we’re supposed to have some kind of group rule. “Authority” is supposed to be something of a consensus – but the private owners of the social media sites? While I’ve been censured a few times for angry speech online, policed on the privately owned Twitter, entire other sites are full of the most dreadful hate, so where is the law? If my speech is harmful, who decides, Jack of Twitter, while private rich person Jack does nothing to police Reddit or Parler? Or God knows what straight up German Nazi named sites there are?
I think the talking space belongs to the people or the king, the government. It sure as Hell shouldn’t be owned and policed by individuals. Commons. I mean, I’m not sure there is a solution for the disaster that is social media, I’m only sure that it is weird and wrong that we should have to go to some rich person’s house to talk and do it however they say we should, and after that, there are sites where the owner allows the worst of everything. Fair to say, they are not curating the public talking space safely.
We surely did not allow talk in the longhouse to descend into blows every time, there is supposed to be a sense of community and good will in the talking space. Bothering me right now, that surely, we hype ourselves up for war in the Great Hall, in our group’s private talking spaces. I’m not sure social hate is a thing we have ever been able to constrain, again, as humans, raised on pain and threat. Again, there is everything wrong with social media, everything that is wrong with people with a thousand watt Marshall, I’m certainly not anyone to re-engineer that madness safely. And, generally, I do not find solutions for individual aspects of our human problems, I don’t see solving one miserable rough thing while a million other miserable rough things go on, it all has to move together, as Pinker would cheer us up that it is doing already.
I think we’ve missed it, the Earth will die and all the bad things happen if we only become conscious at the rate we have been, even if Steven is right.
So, it’s a world sized Gordian knot and it all has to loosen at once, and here I am saying, it all moves with spanking and abuse. Less hurt people will find solutions that destroyed children like us are unable to. Still, maybe late with this. Honestly, my hope is that someone finds my blog afterwards, like when he finds the statue of Liberty in the Planet of the Apes, and we make a better start.
June 7th., 2021
I’m sure one or several of the famous polymaths has worked through all of this three hundred years ago, but one, just in case, and two, I can’t hear other people. I don’t understand anything I haven’t personally pulled from my personal backside.
A just, loving God or God concept
I’m sure I heard it growing up, but to a degree now, I see I just sort of decided that myself, chose a better God than the imperious alpha male of the bible. I don’t believe there was a time I was enamoured of Jesus, his sacrifice, or the NT more forgiving God, but that must be a part of it, that I think I saw a trend, the Bible God was getting nicer – and so I went straight to the end, with “logic,” or what I thought was. If God is everything and all that, then it’s better than that, all the way better than that.
You could call me something of a martyr type, I try to sacrifice my selfish needs for peace and a better life for all, I mean don’t we all, that much Christianity I have, absolutely, but I don’t think there’s rules and forgiveness or sacrificial payments operating between humanity and some small concept God, a sort of forgiveness business deity. If we are to spend any time talking about God, let’s make it something finer, perhaps that is what I would have said if I were more able, many years ago.
Today I would say a universal God, a God for all of humanity, one that doesn’t pick sides in our fights and wars, one that loves us all and wants us all to be happy, not a warrior god who wants us to be not so much happy, but strong.
The point is I’m wrong, or I’m just making it up as I go along – the legal, ruling God is that other guy. I’m shocked and horrified and I don’t understand, but he is the law to many people and so fighting is not only not proscribed but approved for all things, we must fight all bad things, fight for good. Our friends, our family, our nation – our group – they need us to be strong, to ready and able to fight for them.
I have this silly idea that violence and the fight are humanity’s eternal curses, but God and humanity believe otherwise, all the good things are presumed to be found only on the other side of a fight, that if we do not fight, bad things happen. To be clear, today, I think it is the conflict, warrior life that requires a violent, judging God. Today, I think that it is abuse victims that fantasize about power and vengeful entities, and that warrior gods are the projections of beaten children.
Too forgiving, is a way to see it, the warrior deity doesn’t curse you for war, for the fight, and people firing the bullets and giving the beatings are forgiven while victims, by definition, were not and paid the full price.
My intuition tells me a good and loving god would forgive the abusers some – but not forever. This society’s paternal entity seems to work for the sinners and they can apparently do no wrong, no wrong He can’t overlook.
Perhaps my intuition is philosophical, perhaps I’ve internalized the idealism after all and I have come to believe that we cannot cognize the world, only our concepts of it, and I deal with God at that level, he is our creation – all sort of intuitive, accidental. I have spent my life railing against the idealists, but it seems clear that at least in terms of the invisible and fictional things, that it has to be the case that the concept is the operative thing and not the thing “itself.”
It seems intuitive that the God you have gives you the society you have or the other way about, depending on his literalness or not, that this connection is there whichever way you think it works, clear as day. I want a loving God, so that’s my God – but I am redefining forgiveness for myself, again, I’m not so sure a loving God would forgive all this human evil. At some point forgiveness given forever is permission. I find myself believing, insisting, perhaps, that a loving God would want us to find a way out of it all, that a loving God could want more than to keep “forgiving us” for being the worst creature on Earth.
Don’t make me pull out the heavy artillery and remind you that much of the world is dying at the moment, under our watch.
Again, though, my intuition isn’t it, not presently.
OK, this part is difficult; it’s stopped me a few times.
I am, I have always been living in a projection I create. I live theoretically, I have always held a model world in my mind, an entire other world that starts with, “Well, if things made any sense, then this would be X,” and honestly, I try to address that world wherever possible, wherever there is an overlap, whenever my world of reason can win for a moment, I try to help that happen. When the external reality makes sense for a minute, these are wins, I find that the times actual reality conforms to what should be reality are rare and precious. I know it’s mad, and difficult to say, but much of observable human reality I judge to not be, I judge it to be “fake,” sort of.
Everything that has happened didn’t “have to” happen. Everything doesn’t happen for good reasons and a detailed history of the world wouldn’t prove anything about anything because most of it was mad, deluded nonsense that made people do what they did. The very real holocaust happened for bullshit reasons, and to this day that is still all we have on the subject, the myths, the lies and slander, autocracy explained as popularity, we are told people back then “believed” this or that – none of which is science or even philosophy, it’s simply a list of mad data points. The entire enterprise was bullshit, most agree, the pogrom was simply a unifying technique for him, a public works project to keep them busy and threatened for the war, expediently created and leveraged hate in the population – yet, despite the bullshit premise for the whole deal, we analyze it to death and talk about the “depths of human nature.”
I’m here to tell you, that shit wasn’t natural at all. Do not study it like it were a functioning ecosystem or some such foolishness. Of course I mean unless you do it my way.
Yes, people died, but for what mad reason? What phony causality explains it? Yesterday’s lies are today’s facts and science?
People talk about everything that is or was as though it must be, or must have been, life is all random possibility in the future, but set in stone in the past. I watch golf on TV, it’s mostly calm and green, and when a players fails at the shot they attempt, the announcer says, “Oh, they couldn’t do it,” and it drives me a little spare because of course they could. I’ve seen them “could” before! They didn’t, fine, but they could have. It’s a small example of language being strange, but blown out of all proportion, the same meme we apply to wars and massacres. History tells us why we couldn’t not. It happened, so it couldn’t not have and here’s why, here are all the things that made it inevitable – many of which are lies, propaganda, mad, magical myths about the other’s demonic physiology – couldn’t not happen, what with them having horns and all, is what we apparently believe.
I know, not in the minute to minute details – but that’s what it adds up to.
One more time, seems logical to me, in the more reasonable reality I try to keep in mind, that it wasn’t inevitable, the player could have made the shot, that the massacre or the war may not have happened . . . but all these possibilities are more likely in the facsimile world, under my loving God, while in this reality, these things show up as obvious and natural.
It is odd, reading this, what I wanted to show as intuitive, perhaps aboriginal, an idea of a loving god, one that favours no people, but I will happily shift to defend the idea as above all others as well, as being an idea that transcends most human thought and has some hope to stop the fighting before the house burns down, as the biggest of ideas, with human and Earth’s future as it’s long considered goal.
I’ll still call it naïve, however, because no-one is trying to beat the idea of a universal loving God into me, while the other, the one people’s warrior God is forced everywhere it exists.
May 27th., 2021
Did you ever see a blind man cross the road, trying to make it to the other side?
I’m sorry, I mean, did you ever see a vast herd of creatures living their lives in relative peace, in fear of the lions but not of their own? Have you ever seen mothers and fathers loving and protecting their children, and one another’s children? Can you imagine rolling back the clock and seeing them throughout the history of life, long before we came along to argue about it?
Then I ask you: how does anyone’s aggression get a pass, how is any sort of violence “just the way it is?”
Moral things like the protection of children and peaceful coexistence, of driving around the blind man, have existed in the world, among creatures for a very long time, before us, before mammals.
Humanity did not invent them. We should stop looking for the proof that we did.
“Donated aggression,” that’s the state of their search so far, right?
Short version, they look at costs and benefits (which won’t find actual altruism, so we’re in a technical world, looking for ‘elements’ of morality) and creatures paying costs for their kids, for folks other than themselves, this is the start of altruism and the next step is altruism beyond our genetic interest that they try to explain and a famous example is of chimpanzees risking themselves in conflict and so solidifying a position in a group. This is altruism, if we risk life and limb to help each other take life and limb. I’m not certain – that may be new behaviour – but raiding parties are not the morality we were looking for, come on.
I believe that they are finding the “morality” we have, the one that makes the world what it is today, and that’s sort of fine, we need to find the human difference – but “altruism” and “morality,” these words don’t make it across into life with their technical meanings. You call that “morality,” folks think killing is morality. That example is a tale of conflict and pressure, and not a moral choice but a capitulation to conflict.
But the point again, the one we are looking for is not a new invention. Choosing peace, respect, and security, some animals have done this before and surely some will again when we’re part of that deep past.
There are new things we have brought into the world but being nice is not likely to be one of them. I suspect the chimpanzee research touches on it, I’m sure my thesis could use their data. Donated aggression, aggression as a commodity, it is part of my view also – I just don’t call that “moral.” For the record, again, I know this definition, moral, slips in and out of it scientific meaning when I use it, that in a technical sense it doesn’t mean “good,” or “right,” that these are the social connotations – but this conflation isn’t only mine, it’s everyone’s and it’s the point of this rant. The idea that it can be parsed out and discussed technically, well, I think that has created the upside-down nature of their answer, altruism is a gang murder in a border skirmish. You separate that, you’ve lost reality.
Trading violence for the security of the group, again, this is the morality we’ve found, but not the one we want. The function there is an evil threat, kill for me or I send you to the wolves – placing people between a rock and a hard place here is the big picture, the laboratory, while the altruism shown is barely visible, it’s like building the giant collider to show us what tiny little electrons do. Think of the ongoing story of the Rat Park, if you know it – there were parameters in the experiment’s setup that were not accounted for in the description, and the further we step back from it, the bigger the context becomes and the smaller the meaning of the result. Long story short, it was an experiment that “proved that rats choose addiction at such a rate,” and time let us all see that it only proved that rats alone in a concrete and steel prison choose addiction at that rate.
The “with us or against us” aspect of the gang murder altruism matches the bare solitary confinement of the rat in my analogy – I don’t think, as I’ve said, the altruism arranged in this scenario is the stuff we are looking for, not if it’s in service of the ultimate inconsideration of murder. The one we’re looking for would be when one of these chimpanzees becomes aware of a lone stranger and lets it pass, wouldn’t it?
I imagine it happens. In fact, if that recruitment scenario ever played out at all, it must have started that way, one would think. I don’t imagine you can show up during the fight and expect anyone to know whose side you’re on, the chimp in question must have already been known and tolerated. It’s not because it isn’t there that we’re not talking about this and going with the violence instead.
I’m feeling like a male, EP swine for using the example, but I’ll remind myself and you, I’m calling it out, I use it as an example of what’s wrong, not what’s right. Still, I’m a fool if this scenario was made up nonsense in the first place, which I am starting to suspect.
The human difference is not that we are more moral than our bestial cousins, rather the other way about; we made a difference, and we can’t have invented living and letting live – so the difference we made was in the other direction. We are different, we are like this because we invented immorality. We invented abuse.
Find me the roots of that, please.
Those will be somewhere both before and after this, on the one hand, those chimps are plainly already living in full blown group conflict, c/w intrigues and prices to pay and so there is a history to glean, but they haven’t taken some step or steps that we have just yet, they haven’t turned into us, or not yet. I think we may not see it the other way about with them, like we do with us. This example, is kill for us and you can join, we do this too, but have we observed chimpanzees pushing, rather than pulling for that, I mean threatening rather than offering? Do they have the concept, kill for me, or I hurt you?
Do I have to stop if I don’t know this?
It’s sort of my whole deal, punishment is our unique madness, but it doesn’t have to be perfectly black and white. Maybe there are roots for that to be found in primatology, but basically, this is my thesis, that punishment/abuse is our invention, the human . . . wrinkle – ha: kink. Our weirdness. And that this is not meaningful because it makes us “moral,” but the reverse, that this is not indicative of morality as such, but of our workaround for it, our way out of it.
When we are abused, we feel we have an excuse.
Of course, you’d have to agree abuse even exists first. I only see it this way anymore: you’d have to lose the human nature myth. You’d have to want a reason why we go wrong, you’d have to not think we are simply born wrong. You’d have to have some small measure of faith that this world is real and that what we do matters, that what we do is what makes it this way.
It is also difficult to feel that way when you’ve suffered abuse. Oh, it never ends. Screw it, send.
Feb. 15th., 2021
What if I gave it up, what if I stopped fighting it and said, yes we are this large, intelligent, competitive ape after all? Aggressive, even?
I’m always trying to say we’re not, we don’t have to be, we’re not automatically or necessarily, for all you know I look around me and see a different bunch of them than you do or something, what safe, white, little world do I live in anyway – I don’t, I see it. I mean, I do live in such a world, but I can see out. It verges on dishonesty the way avoid acknowledging it, maybe. I’m sorry, sweetness and light ain’t cutting it these days. If I were preaching to the choir, even the choir wouldn’t know what to say to me.
We are. We evolved to be this way, so we are.
We oughtn’t be, is all I’m saying.
It’s in our power not to be, is what I’m saying, that evolution means never-ending, ongoing self-creation, and what happened tens of thousands of years ago is only still with us if we do the same things, make the same choices today – and so after that, it becomes a matter of information, of making informed choices. We are the environment now, most of what modern people must negotiate in life is modern people and so the environment we live in we chose, we provided both the selective pressure and the adaptation to it. With the right information, putting our choices in the right context, in theory, we could make ourselves, our today natures, more sustainable.
We could dial down the aggression and the competition.
Sure that war ape is us, but that was self creation, and it is time for another, corrective self creation. If your aggression becomes a data point instead of part of the manipulative question, then we could see what’s going on and try to do something different – of course, psychology, everyone knows a way to avoid dealing with your troubles is to simply write yourself odd as born bad. Everyone knows that that is always the lie that needs to be disproven at the personal level, and it is at the species level too. This shouldn’t be a surprise.
There aren’t fixed natures in evolution, nothing is non-negotiable and for every rule, some clever creature makes a living breaking it. We know there are successful non-aggressive creatures, and so aggression and competition are not necessary and foundational: everything in nature needs an explanation, and so does human aggression. I’m not going to try to make the explanation today, my views are not secret about it, today, the point is that I am accepting that the state of affairs today is that we are aggressive and competitive right now.
I give up. I admit it.
This is the life that is available for human being today, and it is not our natures forever, but this is a level of “default” for a human born and raised today, and this is the point, the political point of today’s rant – “competition” is not a system, not a human enterprise at all, but only the lack of a human system or solution, only a capitulation to the current animal default that we have unconsciously evolved to be.
I mean, for old people, this is not news, I think it was part of the whole idea, Adam Smith’s explicit idea that capitalism would be conceived this way, as a system our aggressive animal selves could function within – the wording was something about channeling “Man’s natural greed and avarice” as a constructive force, somehow, all will be motivated to succeed and survive – tomayto, tomahto. But it’s an idea based in permanent natures being a real thing which they are not, and there is no “going with it” that isn’t also creating it, I mean, going with what, with who?
You may say you’re “going along,” but I am “going along” with you, aren’t I? When you’re going along, you are also simply going. Everybody can be going “along,” and if so, we are all going, I mean rolling along, competitively treating most of our own species as an enemy and lamenting that they in turn, treat us that way. “Going with the flow” of some “nature” and agreeing to live in constant strife and violence. Warms one’s heart, doesn’t it, there is something we can all agree on after all, the inverse of the platitude, that struggle, fighting, is life.
And having agreed, it becomes “good,” the new good, somehow fighting and the taking of life is good, because . . . here we insert the secret, the mystery, the bit I am spending my life futilely trying to get to, there is a logical connection I cannot make yet I am fighting relegating it to intuition. I am sure it is there, because this is a matter of the world, not just my human mind, it happens, I can’t quite explain it, but we can all see it. We employ fighting when we are trying to fix things, trying to make things better, from a pat on the bum to the violence and ravings of the fascists.
About the latter, however, I cannot from here, understand what problems they hope to solve, what is so wrong in the world that some uber-can model of a police state is better?
I can sort of see the spanking, it’s everywhere, after all, if a spanking stops something worse, mass murder – what evil does the mass murder avert? What is worse? It is clear, what I said above, life is a fight, because peace threatens them somehow, going from peace to war is a solution, somehow. These crazies wave their guns and there is no enemy, no threat, no armed people but them!
The point, I almost missed again – the human list of unwanted behaviours and crimes does not include violence. It’s a solution, on the positive side of the ledger. The police respond to crime with violence, and if violence were a crime, we would all see they add one to every one they find, we would all see how even the good guys propagate violence endlessly. But it’s not, it’s sacred or something.
And so, we are doomed.
Feb. 1st., 2021
Antisocialization, that’s the word, my word.
I’m making a slight shift in focus, I’m going to stop trying to elaborate the definition and just push the word. It should explain itself; it’s made of known words.
It’s a secret or something, hiding behind negative ideas of “human nature.” It seems to have not been previously coined rather pointedly, like we hid it behind the human nature myth for a reason. I suspect the secret is safe, despite my efforts to out it, perhaps it always will be.
I have the concept, and not the sort to make anything easy for anyone, I will start offering caveats and problems with it on the theory that if it’s problematic, then it’s a little more real for us all. There is still a “problem of evil” to negotiate, maybe. I have moved the source of the evil, I have said you weren’t born with it – but basically I’ve said it’s a process very like photosynthesis: we pull it out of the air, create the evil from nothing, and so you may not have been born with it but you’ve got it now. All of us, oaks and maples alike, shoutout to Rush. Ah – a minor breakthrough there, the “human nature myth.”
I’ve been arguing it literally, telling myself I have disproven the matter with science and logic and that has been done pretty thoroughly with Creation and hasn’t made a dent with half the world, has it? You can’t beat a myth with reason – so now I want to do and end-run around all that, just get the word on record – into dictionaries – and let the world inform the science, stop trying to teach the teachers, wait for teachers that grow up with the word and so have to reconcile the myth. The myth has had free reign, the myth has been writing the science.
Without my word, the myth has had no opposition.
I would like to make a campaign, ask people to lobby for it, submit this word to the dictionaries, work it into your conversations, criminals aren’t “hardened” by prison abuse, but antisocialized, we’re not talking about steel, but people.
There’s a reason this word isn’t internalized and everywhere – and it’s the same reason we fight, the same reason we have smelted the world for our fights. There’s a reason – ah, right, the problem – there’s a reason we don’t like this word, don’t want this word, because it means the evil is in us, and it means our people put it there. Of course it is us, exactly “our people” who would have to change, and you can’t make a change when you don’t even have the word.
Feb. 4th., 2021
They are a half-step from just saying “normalize this,” aren’t they.
I get the positive, world of illusion theory, of course I do, “letting it sink in” is supposed to provoke outrage, it’s supposed to hurt to deeply realize the truth of some of these ongoing crimes and that pain is supposed to spark us to action.
I get that, and if it works, I am all with it. But does it, mostly?
Haven’t we been saying it the entire time and losing all the way along?
I think the outrage, the spark and the fight belong sometime before letting it sink in, I think we fight it, reject it, defeat it, so that we do not have to let that toxic stuff sink in. Allowing the crime to sink in is defeat. Again, it’s normalization, isn’t it, what is “normalization” other than getting used to something, internalizing the idea, finding a way to live with it?
I’m pretty sure it’s the bad guys telling us to let the bad stuff sink in.
The good guys would make a stand and declare all this crime unthinkable and fight to keep it that way. “Pain sparking us to action” is the whole social control punishment idea I spend my life debunking. Pain does not bring good things, does not make people strong and upright, it hurts people, breaks people.
Bad things “sinking in” is exactly my word, antisocialization, makes the evil a small part of us, makes us sad, angry, ever that much closer to violence and war. Again, I have a new tack – simply meditate upon the word, imagine it’s a real thing and that there is no proof that we were born evil and aggressive, that no control group ever existed to make that sort of conclusion – learn the word and the truth will become . . . available, when perhaps it wasn’t from here, where we’re at now.
Jan. 25th., 2021
The Law and Order to Mass Murder Pipeline
That’s a way to express the function I try to draw attention to, that punishment and social control are violence, and so propagate violence rather than mitigate it.
The Plague lays all things bare.
When your crime that we all rationalize means you deserve sometime away becomes a death or disfigurement sentence, because “criminals don’t deserve public health,” your career in criminal justice has gone from wanting to help people, to accepting that hurting some is a way to help most . . . to killing them, if it means giving them the same protections as the un-convicted. A good childhood urge, perhaps suggested when your parents spank you and explain it, becomes an adult reality in . . . I’m going to say futility, that’s far enough, I have some empathy. A grownup exercise in futility, which, when the environment changes, quickly tips over into an overly adult exercise in deciding who lives and who dies.
This is a radical position, but if anyone is setting prisoners free to isolate, it hasn’t made the news. This radical position is everywhere. Far, far too many people have been radicalized by law and order.
Jan. 17th., 2021
picture by @sweetspectre18 (on Twitter)
It’s the central unsolved question of life I’m after, why are we like this, why the hate, why the conflict? Why do so many think these are the path to something good?
I’ve been blustering, I solved it, answered that, that it’s abuse, our abusive social control that makes us angry, aggressive, and competitive, and I’ll stand behind that, but I see it’s not enough, that I may have connected some dots, but I haven’t been able to make it matter, somehow.
When I first started trying to write my way through this puzzle, I thought and said that we were simply mistaken, that we think the spankings and the prisons, the deterrents will improve the world, and that what was required was a logical argument that highlighted the dark side, but several years later, I’ve come to a more scientific sort of view, that says what is really happening is what drives things, not hopes and deterrents. That what we think of as damage from abuse, that this is being selected for in as much as it exists.
If the damage adds up to aggression, then we are selecting for our aggression when we abuse, which is my thesis. A negative experience makes for a negative outlook, and a negative outlook tilts humanity towards aggression, because if people are bad, then they are more viable as targets, it’s less of a crime to hurt one, up to and including being all too often obligatory. A biased set of initial conditions skews all the science. Spankings equal war, is my slogan these days.
It’s self-fulfilling, the logic, if we are “bad,” we are abused, and if we are abused we are bad. I don’t fault it so far even today, I think that, if you abuse you are bad – so if you do, if you did, if I got spanked, then I think that, if even Mom who birthed and nursed me and has a 50% interest in my genes, if she abuses, OK, I get it, people are bad. They must be, right? You may not cop to it out loud like that, but if you’re as smart as a crow, then I know your brain put it together, with or without you. The logic is there, whether or not we are.
It’s the “if” I would have you take home. Without that, who knows?
Aggression is being selected for, this is my answer to “what is punishment,” and again, I’m fairly confident this is the case – but I am still banging my head on my desk trying to figure out why we would, how many generations we are going to live blindly in this Red Queen’s game where all of humanity is socially and genetically engineering itself for a level aggression above what it may have otherwise been.
If this is all true, then how does anyone stop?
What society would throw down this weapon surrounded by rivals? None, let me tell you, this human antisocialization of ourselves, this is possibly our most sacredly held, unquestioned and violently defended behaviours (and therefore a job for Supernaysayer!). They all say they are the only ones and must preserve the tradition, but really, they all do it and the one who stops is quickly selected out. It’s the same, crucial, sacred. Survival critical.
I try to make the point that it is now survival critical that humanity find another way to be.
I feel in my heart of hearts that any person serious enough to be in charge of a country or a faith understands all this completely. Certainly, I know the army generals understand the principle and do not overly coddle the troops and know that abuse feeds aggression. I worry that changing this would be an all people sort of enterprise and, well. Does everyone? Does everyone know this in their hearts already?
Certainly when we see our “corrections” aren’t working or necessary, that our resulting “toughness” is always the fallback rationalization. Do we all, in our deeper selves, understand that it’s literal and true?
I think it’s knowledge we hold in parentheses somehow, because if not, surely we would object to everyone else doing it. Surely we would rail at our enemies to be nicer to their children so that they would be less formidable in battle, less likely to have warlike leaders. No?
Well, sort of. It’s a working system; that doesn’t mean it’s a conscious, above board, agreed upon system anybody admits to. It’s supposed to be an accident when we damage our kids. I was as gentle a parent as I could imagine to be, but still, when there was tension, when things were hard, I felt used and manipulated, forced into repeating some ancient drama I wanted no part of. I imagine most folks get over it somehow. The sense of eternal recurrence was strong.
I think, two paragraphs up there, I think maybe that’s a tack I should try, talk about it as a “them” thing instead of an “us” thing, scare ’em if you want them to pay attention. Maybe. Because this seems to be as close as we ever approach to “why.” It’s not straight up rational and conscious – but damnit, my description of it should be.
Why not, more like.
Jan. 12th., 2021
Like all my answers, this one arrived breach, backwards, started with the free-floating thought that I had been personally mis-moralled, treated as hostile when I wasn’t. Will you allow the expression?
I understand mis-gendering, the negation of our own self image and expression in favour of someone else’s idea and role for us, I have always been at some distance from the male end of the gender spectrum and have always felt unseen when someone includes me among the manly sorts of men. I’m a “he,” but of course “they” doesn’t bother me – “bro” bothers me. I don’t feel the solidarity it suggests, don’t want it, I do not offer my support to much maleness, much of it is toxic.
But you know what? Not for reasons of sex. That’s not the part of being gendered or mis-gendered that doesn’t fit, and I really don’t take offence if you think I love the ladies, I want to use a strong expression, an anatomical expression, but you know what I mean. I’m not ashamed of my heterosexual leanings, not horrified to be accused of them. My offense is about the other male things, the strength, the violence. A lot of that is directed towards sexual things, conquest and such, and people generally maybe see the sex in that and maybe manage not to see the violence in it, but I am not that way about it. I have this childish idea that some things are more important than sex and gender and that the violence should be the thing that sets off alarms for us instead.
There is enough love and sex in the world that even a little pacifist like myself should be able to find some love, and I did – although maybe my lovers had mis-gendered me, assumed I was tougher than I was, and perhaps some would like to take it back. I found some on my own terms anyhow, I thought, but the general mis-gendering has cost me far more than it’s paid me in the long run. There is a certain amount of testosterone being sexy, but there is also a lot of pain and resentment around it.
I feel being called “bro” like an accusation, I hear “every man is a rapist” In it. I hear “we are all assholes together” in it, I don’t hear “we all love the ladies here” in it, sort of the reverse. It’s more like “we hate everyone, everyone hates us and we’re winning this fight,” that’s what I hear, and I’m not happy with this situation generally, life as a fight. I’m a man, basically, and a white one to boot, supposedly the pinnacle of privilege – why is my life a war, why am I a soldier, fighting and dying in some war and if we’re winning, why doesn’t it ever end?
I feel mis-moralled, that because we white men are winning the war, everyone thinks I’m happy about the whole deal or something. That because men run the world, people think that my life is an exercise in dominance, I don’t have feelings, and want to hurt people or something.
Of course, being “mis-moralled,” being subjected to treatment that is based in assumptions, in this case not about your gender or sexuality, but about something vaguer and more basic, your “morals,” well, that is a part of all of it, isn’t it, this sexism I try to rebel against, that if I’m a man, I’m aggressive, or of regular misogynist sexism generally, and racism. All of it tends to mis-moral the target group, doesn’t it? All of my life I’ve been frustrated about people’s, ladies’ assumptions about me, that I’m some sexist player, when I have always known myself as a person who always tries to good and no harm.
I am absolutely certain that this is a tiny portion of the same feeling a good, clean living Christian black American feels when some white, bigoted obvious sinner lets them know they consider them to be automatically somehow ‘immoral.’ Women generally, looking after everything and everyone and being told by the evangelicals and the old fashioned doctors that women are somehow less developed or less moral, less fit to run the world than the men. Moral efforts seem to count for nothing in this world of group conflict, all try, none get credit, except that within our racist little groups, we are rewarded for good, moral work within and for bad, violent work outside of the group, all under the name of morality.
Bros before hos is “morality” for the bros. Not an endorsement, hence the irony quotes.
But I think this is what hurts, this is the core of it. Mis-gendering has been confusing me some, how is every stranger supposed to know, and why does every stranger need to be familiar with my complex personal sexuality? But it all makes sense this way, that the point of all discrimination is simply the judgement, and the filthy slide into what we call “morality” from matters of other, discreet things, sexuality, race, gender, age, name it. Red headedness. It wouldn’t hurt, and it wouldn’t serve the dominants’ purposes to say, “you’re gay and that’s weird;” it’s always this “you’re wrong” business, the moral othering that makes things dangerous and awful, and it doesn’t matter to a bigot that I might be working hard at being the very best, most moral gay person I can be, making all the right choices.
It’s like when it comes down to it, morality isn’t about choices, isn’t about making moral choices at all, great swathes of humanity are just born “wrong,” to the very people who preach the most about moral choices.
Interesting to me, that again, as the having it easiest demographic there is, an old white male, that I too have suffered this disregard all my life, that there have been almost no-one that ever acknowledged my efforts to be a good fellow. Not saying “me too, I get it,” of course I’m still in the best possible position. My point as always, I think it’s science. That even the best role in this play comes with a large basic serving of bullshit and being hated, even the best served demographic doesn’t have to look far for a reason to be miserable.
This is a hair’s breadth away from white apologism, and I don’t want it to be, I want to say whites are dominant, in charge, causing all of the trouble and strife and we don’t even have the self defense excuse the racists pretend to, this is all our fault. All I want to add is, most whites are getting screwed over too, yes, even as we continue to screw everyone else around. We do not have some working, racist system where all the dominant race’s members are happy and free, and I don’t want one, of course. I’m just saying, this is not a system, as the trolls on Twitter might have you believe, that makes an entire race happy and free.
This is horrible for all but the .01%.
Most white folks are not with the racist cops, mostly, we too are terrified of them. As I said, social media might give you that awful impression, like all whites are happy with Trump, like it’s all white folks against you, of course it’s not, it’s just a few percent of us, against all of us poor folks, of every shade and sexuality. These are not democratic elections, half of no country ever votes for a plague, do they. Never mind the actual vote tallying, actual democracies do not exist awash in misinformation. Actual, human voters in Canada and America aren’t valid, informed voters, a prerequisite for group rule.
I’m trying for it not to be, it always seems to me that to talk about all of us is far more important than to talk about me, but this is very personal for me.
Like I say, I am not black, or female or any seriously persecuted sort of a person, but I have managed to get myself into that situation, where a life of moral strivings means exactly nothing to someone, to the few someones I dedicated my life to being good to, and looking back, maybe from all the ladies in my life ever. White as I am, I am starting to understand invisibility and erasure. Thirty years, entire human beings came into existence and lived lives, in my house, but not in my world, my good self had been erased before they were born.
There are lines not to cross so as not to incur any further abuse from the world, but there are lines that no amount of good behaviour can ever cross and when you “are” wrong, you can’t ever do anything right.
I can’t keep my blogs separate, it’s all one, humanity and me, we have the same problems.
It’s a little bit funny, out of my white guilt and the privilege I have enjoyed, failing upwards or level, I would say, like any white liberal/progressive that I join the disenfranchised voluntarily, that I defend the LGBTQ folks and all oppressed races and such, happily say it, join indeed on paper, in my writing . . . it’s my privileged chickens coming home to roost that the matter has sort of been taken out of my hands, that I stand now, thoroughly marginalized out of my own life.
Dec. 28th., 2020