Bad Parenting

That’s really what it comes down to. That’s the human difference, why we’re special, why it’s possible to convince a human being that it is heroic, god spawn, or a child of the sky people, some alien simian hybrid – one, the poor thing had the worst parents in the entire animal kingdom who told it anything they wanted so it will believe literally anything; and two – that is the magic.

Sure, some creatures kill and eat their children.

But what other creature tortures them? What other creature seeks out unrelated mature adults to torture their children, thus inventing a workaround to defeat normal animal mammalian parental love?

We know it, too. I mean, it’s a thing we do, a technology we leverage and then we call it a mystery, bury that in a riddle, and then wrap the whole thing in an enigma. When you go to all that trouble, you know it. I mean, compartmentalized and all that, of course. The trick bloody works. OMG, a digression –

Norm MacDonald died yesterday and Twitter was full of love and homages and videos. There’s this time Norm was on Larry King, and he sets up this bit, says to Larry, “I’m a deeply closeted man.”

Larry says, “So, you’re coming out, you’re gay?”

“Why would I say that?” Says Norm. “I’m deeply closeted.”

“But ‘closeted’ means you’re gay,” Objects Larry.

“Whoa, whoa! Easy there, Buddy!” Norm’s all twinkles, this was the line, Larry breaks down, we all do.

Spoiler alert, I’m gonna destroy this joke (and your life): of course it’s the setup. Of course, you can’t declare yourself an “involuntary celibate,” as that class of trolls does, if it’s you making the declaration, that’s voluntary. And you can’t really declare yourself closeted, as he starts the joke. Once he sneaks that impossibility past us, we are surprised and confused when it turns out impossible again at the end, right? Larry and we have all been had as soon as we make the first argument, LOL.

I’m at the bloody keyboard today because it just struck me that “humanity is moral,” or some analogue of that is the same impossible premise and we all live in the same surprised confusion of the punchline forever.

Ah, there, good. I got the concept down before it got away. Now it looks like work to do, laying that out.

Ah, here’s something – that took me some time, not a week, but more than a minute, working out where the wrinkle was to create Norm’s joke, that it was the illogic of the setup – and I’ve been telling the other one, the ‘incel’ example for a few years now. That should have been automatic if I were smarter – and during that time, I was amazed and confused, feeling and reacting as though the genius comic had uncovered some facet of the secret of life or something, I was that australopithecine doing the slow gaze up at the monolith for a while there, or that’s what I felt like, how can he turn something we all knew on its head like that?

There’s often the sense of innocence with Norm, and one can find it here, of course it all started with, “OK, here’s my premise,” whether explicitly or not, we know him and what his job is. The trolls don’t give you that sense, although it absolutely is a premise, because it is not a good or honest one, so there is no allusion to it. They are serious about their misdirection, unlike, hopefully, comics. All true of humanity’s smugness also, the latter bit. Of course.

Our premise is always coming from either some divinity or from some other authority and carries qualified immunity.

So, if I was to try to do this exercise, what is it – a syllogism, use Norm’s format?

Maybe, let’s try it with the incels, what would that look like?

“I’m involuntarily celibate.”

  . . . So you’re impotent?

 “How would I know that? I’m celibate.”

  But ‘involuntary’ means you can’t.

  “Whoa, whoa! Easy there, Buddy!”

 Ha.

I’m sure I’m cheating there, that’s not the same, is it? – but it’s close enough for rock’n’roll, so we’ll move on to the main event, have a go. For premise, though, well, that’s sort of the unknown in this equation, we’ll have to try a few, see what rolls out.

  I’ve been trying some, I worry that our actual premises are longer and don’t fit in this format.

  Still trying.

  Sometimes the premise is Original Sin, we’re born bad and trying to be good, or we need divine help – say, “I’m bad, but trying”? No, wait – this isn’t working.

I need to break it down, I got lucky with the incel one, that was easy and intuitive, and a huge part of the puzzle I have assigned myself in life is that we are tricky, it’s not intuitive, not for us, the objects of the game. What is intuitive to us is what I’m trying to cure, not what I’m following, like the EP boys, like the whole white world in such terrifying times.

We tend to intuit the need for a fight and naught else, and contrary to increasingly popular belief, that is the problem, not the adjectival solution.

So what is that format?

Starts with what – conflicted statement? Closeted is gay but can’t be? That seems to work for incel, incel is sexually active but can’t be, I suppose. So what is our opening line, our premise? – moral premise, I think that’s close – ah. “We are good but can’t be,” isn’t it. Perhaps in reverse, “we are bad but don’t want to be?”

It has the conflict, at least.

The second line, the first response, what is that, an objection? A clarification – conflicted statements mean something, closeted means gay, incel means, uh, blocked? So, “don’t want to be bad but are, try to be good but failing . . . I think the clarification/complaint is “So you’re bad,” isn’t it?

I feel like I’ve gone too far, like that was more than I was looking for! But I suppose this is only a thought experiment, I’ll be a good little scientist, hold my nose and run the experiment anyway. Ouch, though. So what do we call the third line, counter-argument, counter clarification? What could it be? Is it “Shut up, don’t say that, we have to try?” OK, maybe not so hard. Is it “Why would I say that? We have to try?”

Line four is the second objection/clarification? “You said you failed, you said it’s impossible!”

“Whoa, whoa! Easy there, Buddy!”

Well, I’m disappointed, it seemed too easy, it doesn’t seem right, surely there is more to it and I am closing the box and running away early. The only problem with that theory is it all sounds true. What I’ve left out of course, is that I am the better premise, and antisocialization theory won’t leave you in the hopeless mess we’re all in here, that this premise we live in is insoluble.

Jeff

Sept. 17th., 2021

Invader’s Lament

To what degree are we simply homeless, the exiled children of convicts and prostitutes? We are not agents of jolly old England, not anymore, and they don’t want us back now anymore than they wanted our les misérables grandparents then. It may be noted that most of our colonizer ancestors were simply dropped off, while the ship captains and the generals and admirals kept their old world permanent addresses.

Of course our behaviour has been appalling.

It could have been the Thanksgiving Day fantasy, in fact they say it was, for a time, and surely there has been some peace interspersed with all the overwhelming violence of the ongoing genocide all along. Past is past, we like to say, except it isn’t. I am concerned with my own illegitimacy, my own moral homelessness, placelessness, as well as the enforced placelessness of the Turtle Island People, today.

The past is only past if you change; that’s why it never really is, because we never really do.

I never thought of getting a job and buying a house as me taking a place for myself, or taking it from anyone, but it is, we have no place and must take one, make a place for ourselves, I mean we think we do, we believe we do to the point that we accept paying most of our money for a tiny plot for our whole lives. Privilege is that I never really had to fight anyone for it, never had to put it on the line, I just had to show up for work.

Of course, in reality, that’s a fight, in reality if anyone is drowning and anyone else can simply go to work and purchase floatation, then that is one big fight, with winners and losers, and I tell you, I feel the pressure, and I feel the guilt of the wins I had, and I don’t want this whole deal, where I pay all my life’s wages to the bank, and so I don’t have to fight – but there’s still a fight? I have to pay and kill, or pay for the new killing? Even as a relative winner, I’m unhappy, insecure, morally compromised, and these bon bons and cakes are giving me heart disease. Please make it stop!

Who is happy?

I mean, I know there are rich, dominant people, and I know I’m one, and well, stated above, I’m not happy. And don’t the richest, most powerful bastards seem angry and miserable? Who is happy? If the richest and worst of the invaders are so upset that they sound like they’re getting ready to kill everyone, they must not be happy. No?

So if the winners are pissed, the architects and owners of it all are murderously unhappy, who is happy? Can we just bloody stop? Who are we serving? Can we just stop feeding the misery machine? This invasion has been going on for five hundred years now. White people found both coasts and their way to the middle hundreds of years ago. Who decided it should never end? Who decided it wouldn’t stop, ever?

Where is the upside? Who are the humans that are benefitting, what general good does conservatism conserve in a system the poor are sad and the rich are angry? Need I spell it out – where all beat their children, to acclimatize them to a life of endless conflict, rich and poor alike?

Can we stop?

Can we change the supposed goal?

Can we just pretend that we are all here now and just try to find a way to live?

I say this, because we look like we’re caught up in some mythology about a journey, or a saga of some sort, that there is always some other, less peaceful goal than simply deciding that we are in the present, the very middle of time, and simply settle in and do what it takes to carry on, for the kids. There is always some stupid vision of the future that we are screwing up the present for – and of course we colonizers are, of course that is our mythology, because our ancestors banished us for all time to this God-forsaken turtle shell where we do not belong. You know I mean that in a very pointed way; it’s “God-forsaken,” only because we do not belong here, because it is the place of our exile, “God-forsaken” for we invaders. I suppose it means placeless, mostly, God has forgotten you when he has given you no place to belong.

We are living on the run, perhaps the next undiscovered continent will be uninhabited and we can finally live the dream of peace. Of course, every clever even partial mystic has always said, that world is here the minute you choose to have it. We choose to keep it tied to the end of the stick to keep us slogging through the mud of the endless conflicts. One hates to eat the dessert, I mean, then it’s gone, I suppose? We prefer to think we can have peace one day, but fear to verify, to test the idea?

Because . . . ?

Again, because before we reach this future experiment, we have proven the matter forever, this could have been the place for it, the last place could have been the place for it. Because deep down, we know what I try to articulate, that we never do the thing that would be trying, we always slide towards a fight, and that is because the fight is the morality, the highest and lowest form of it and the harder we “fight for good,” the more we are forever fighting. Again, again, the answer is to simply stop.

We work way too hard, we are forever trying to fix things – hey, I approve, I am a repairman, and everything needs fixing, but it seems our only tool is an axe. It fixes some situations, too many trees, mostly, but it only hurts others and the harder you try, the more you wield it, the more stuff is going to need to be repaired. Put it down, pick up something you can build with . . . the axe is morality, our moral fight with ourselves. Full disclosure, in other stories I tell, our only tool is a club. Same, sort of.

The point is, all you have is an axe. Please stop “repairing” the clock, the clock being the super complex human being and its entire world.

I say “human morality,” when I say it, but the point is, it is further concentrated, laid more bare in the invader, in the European version, and honestly, it is a great mystery of my life, one I expect I can never truly know about, as to whether pre-contact Turtle Island people had a lot of punitive social control going on, if the average person was the same seething time bomb walking about as we are today, or were at home in Europe then. I’m curious to know if there was child abuse, if it was largely what Chagnon saw in the boys among the Yanomami, children sort of self-abusing one another into warriors.

I want to learn these things were not the case, that seems like it would be a positive thing to discover. I would very like what I see as human morality not to be a universal thing, and I have an unlikely dream that along with learning a sustainable lifestyle from the Indigenous, perhaps there is a sustainable human development to discover as well. It’s all one in the end. For first time readers, or if I haven’t been clear, what is statistically “normal” development for these humans we see today is abuse and the leveraging of an aggressive genesuite option.

I wish to start a rumour that there was ever another sort.

It’s like languages, when you only know one, you sort of don’t know what a language is, what the parts and structure are, and if we never postulate a different path of development, then we sort of don’t know what a path of development is. To bring it home, in line with the rest of the blogs, the one sort we half know we call Human Nature, and it’s my idea that it’s only one possible Nature of humans. Again, like language, it is the only one we know, and so the structure, the blank form for human development, is still something of a mystery.

You hear about it in the general terms, like I complained about in the previous ramble, it’s an interaction between an individual’s set of genes and the individual circumstances of their life history – and so maybe we don’t identify the huge things, just hide them among the general idea. But I digress, ha.

Just kidding, still digressing!

I saw a meme on Instagram from someone in Gabor Mate’s circle that said overexplaining yourself is a PTSD symptom, and fair enough. I feel I need to build the whole edifice.

Back to Earth again, the only sort we know is largely abuse to activate your warrior genes, and I’m saying the dominant society, the group who wins the war is the one more actively engaged in the abuse of its citizens and its children, the one with the more activated violence genes. Getting back to the pre-contact situation, I’m not clear that the Euros were fiercer or that they would have won if the microbes had not been on their side as well. Again though, as today – that is some abused, aggressive to the point of mental illness people who discover this immunity disparity and use it, or engage in secondary extinctions, exterminations of the bison to aid their genocide.

I don’t think there is any evidence to say the Turtle Island people would have done that if they could have, sent a deadly Turtle Island bug to wipe out Old World people? I think the whole sad nightmare describes the near end and end of peoples who if they thought that way it would have been a very different story. Europe never would have gotten a foothold, maybe. No Thanksgiving Day if the Turtle Island people had been such Art of War hard cases.

I don’t know. Hyperbole, maybe. I’m desperate to think that some children somewhere, at some point in time were not abused into hyper-aggression. If this title attracts any Indigenous scholars with ideas about pre-contact childhood, I’d love to hear it.

Colonization is a system of abuse, absolutely, but it’s not exactly an orphan in our tree of ideas that way, is it? Aren’t they all. Of course, brown people the world over are at the very bottom tier to we invaders, whose entire society is what I have described as a champagne fountain of abuse, we all have a full load already, but it just keeps coming from above and we pass it on to the vessels below. The bottom layer holds it all up and takes it from every level.

No-one is happy, though.

Happy people don’t need to do what you need to do to get or stay rich – those miserable bastards are lying. I know it’s an extreme example, but the second in command in America recently had to run for his life and publicly thank the man who ordered him strung up! I suppose he’s “happy” they missed him. Those Masters of the Universe, they’re not happy. They live among bloody killers and sociopaths, for starters. I can say a lot of words about it, I stupidly think I can explain it to you – but honestly, I fail to see what they are protecting, this system we live in where none are happy.

We take it, we live this way, afraid if we don’t it will be worse, it’s some game theory rubbish, and yes, of course I know why that is, it’s because our only tech for people is the axe, the punitive abuse, meaning “making things worse,” it’s how we make everyone do everything, of course the worry is they are going to make it worse. What else is there?

If I weren’t simply crazy and any of this were true, how could anyone be happy?

It’s my point in all these things that yes, there is a disparity, some are less happy than others, some win the fights and some die in misery – but, as the Buddha said, I suppose – it’s all misery, I mean it all runs on misery, misery is the currency, the causative thing, and it’s, oh let’s use a modern term, it’s the great capitalist lie that anyone is able to purchase happiness with it.

I swear, there is a way, if anyone wanted to know.

Jeff

Mystery Stew

It’s like y’all are basically happy with the dish we are, with the human stew as it is, and you just think it needs a little more of something, a pinch of empathy, some sugar to counter the salt or something.

Everything we do, everything we try looks like this to me, just add some good to the mix. Ah, OMG, I didn’t want to be topical but it’s exactly like the social media response to voter suppression: vote! – uh, they are canceling the votes, and same with this, they take the good things, cancel the good things, destroy the good things, we are “adding a little good”- more “good” votes – to an ocean of bad that we also create.

All your liberal/progressive ideas, sure, all terrific ideas – you gonna implement them at the same time as you keep cranking out criminals and soldiers, keep beating your children and imprisoning your depressed addicts? While you keep selling your neighbors the cheap plastic (petroleum) made crap that they have to buy again every year and send the broken and used stuff back to Asia or Africa to poison the world poor folks first?

I mean, I say ten times a day, the human nature myth says we are made evil and so anything that makes us evil, anything that breaks us to the bad side is obscured, neutered of it’s causative power, and that our human life is primarily concerned with this effort, that this is our social control, to break every human to the bad side, despite that this isn’t conscious, that we all seem to believe we are trying to make ourselves better, not worse, despite the world of evidence. Then again, the human nature myth derails the question and says, all that evidence is simply evidence of the evil that was already there. Apparently, the social controls simply fails, and our original condition rules and we spend our lives in the effort for naught, but still, all day we spend on the effort, despite we say all day it “does nothing,” you can’t fight human nature.

But this all day unconscious effort, it is a world of bad, and you cannot “make the world a better place” by ignoring it and just doing some random kindnesses. It’s all for naught. There are not enough small kindnesses in the world to get us to where we do ourselves more good than harm. Humanity will forever be a turnip soup – I hate turnips – despite your seasonings, if we keep putting turnips in it, is what I’m trying to say, and we are, constantly. Social control is a turnip, it’s supposed to be good for you and you’re only supposed to notice the trace elements, the spices.

Life is complicated, I mean over-complicated, infinitely complex, so clearly so that we all soon come to know we can never grasp all of it, or even a meaningful fraction of it . . . yeah, sorry, I don’t do rhetorical.

Are we so sure about that, I mean, is that global fact perhaps covering something, inducing apathy where perhaps we could find work to do? I’m very caught up in today’s politics, and this is like saying, “just because there will always be problems and poor people, does that mean we can’t feed this person at our door right now?” I’m saying how much of it is an infinite world beyond our grasp, and how much of it is that this infinite world of mystery is where we put stuff we don’t want to see, perhaps big things, things that are most of it, perhaps everything in the pile of what we all don’t know isn’t the same size?

I mean, that is often people’s last defence if they are faced with my thesis, is that nobody has the answers (in a conversation that starts with me saying ‘here’s the answer’), and this is the rationale, this is why my truth is not truth, because everyone knows there is no truth, so it couldn’t be, and there is no point learning or addressing the argument.

Ah, I’m sorry. I presented it like a rhetorical question, didn’t I, ‘are we gaslighting ourselves.’ It was a dirty trick, and I still don’t do rhetorical, of course this is me telling you that is exactly my experience of it, exactly what I have learned by just having a look at the unknowable anyway, because you never know and also because my personal life has taught me to trust but verify.

It’s a good policy, a good anti-gaslighting measure.

It’s how you find out it’s practically all turnips.

Jeff

Aug. 29th., 2021

A Moral Basis

Good and bad, right and wrong, it’s meaningless, isn’t it. Good for what, wrong for what, of course? The generalized, overarching Good and Bad – these are good and bad for something, and all morality is a circle, its “immoral” because it’s wrong and wrong because it’s immoral, and just like the more immediate social debates today, there is no talk of what it’s wrong for. We’re all supposed to know – or rather, we’re all to pretend we know, and enforce this half concept upon one another: be good! For . . . you know, good. The folks the Left call “liberals” should perhaps feel their ears burning especially here.

For my purposes, good and right mean truth and peace, OK? Flip side, wrong and bad mean lies and violence – let’s say war. Conflict. OK?

When Jeff says “bad,” he means war and conflict. Bad things bring conflict, good things bring peace. I know, we all know this – oh no we do not. We think we do, sure.

When your brain does its thing, it doesn’t function in English, no more than your computer does, so “good things bring peace, we all know this,” is exactly the same meme as “your kids aren’t supposed to be hurting each other, so you must teach them right from wrong (by whatever expedient means).” The peace is lost in the second iteration, where we somehow transpose the equation into “whatever stops the misbehaviour is good.” I know.

Every theory, be it science or pseudoscience or straight up crackpottery, every single theory, every idea that purports to change the world has some part of the equation that doesn’t quite work, some part of the story we’re all supposed to understand and agree with for no apparent reason. This is my fatal flaw right here, and the above childrearing example is only that, an example at best and really, only one attempt to express my insight that we have redefined some possibly objectively bad things as “good things.” I say possibly objectively, but I have already stated my bias: good things bring peace.

Perhaps none of us have the perspective to judge this more objectively than that anyway. Within my scope here, though, it’s that we have redefined some bad things as good things, meaning we have decided that some of the things that bring conflict are “good things,” somehow, such as the above parental intervention, in the event that the parent wound up getting physical, tried to do something aversive. In these cases, I do declayuh, even if “successful,” the resultant peace is illusory, and on the whole, the net effect is to promote conflict, and I invoke psychology to support the point.

In bad times, in fascist times, it is all taken to its illogical extremes, that this sort of conflict enhancing “good” law and order are increased exponentially, and not only are the authorities increasingly rough in their suppressive punishments for “bad things,” crimes, but as though to make my point for me, calls for peace and non-violence, such as the Black Lives Matter protests become punishable crimes. In such times, we go from “some little bad – policing, spanking – for the greater good,” to “only the bad is good,” meaning only the violent “punishments” are good, and apparently asking for peace and non-violence is somehow bad and punishable with good old rubber bullets. The moral line shifts, because, as I began this thing, the moral line, in our world, is attached to nothing, only the disembodied, ephemeral “good” and “bad,” and what constitutes it comes and goes, pushed about by our unconscious internal climate and weather and worse.

It needs to be good for a reason – I propose my reason, that peace is promoted, from a psychological viewpoint – and bad for a reason, that conflict and war are promoted, which, as we see, easier to see in such times, our moral institutions are not only not stopping conflicts but as many say, creating them. The supposed good we get from them and from our conformity, obedience, the appearance of order is not peace, but rather a never-ending condition of war, forever won and forever lost and the spots of peace we ever seem to have are enforced by a sort of social martial law. I am trying hard not to use my usual buzzwords, but we have the institutions, the churches, the criminal justice system, some public education and still we live in a state of war and conflict, within and without our nation states, so they are either not working, or peace is not really what they are for, not really what they get us.

For context, European church and government in Canada are presently covering up the ongoing genocide of the Turtle Island peoples. These institutions carry war, not peace. Law and Order, of course – not peace, never peace.

So, let’s all just agree on my definition of morality here, that what is right and good is what pacifies, instead of the exact opposite of it, maybe abandon all our institutions – and everything will be fine, OK? We are on the cusp, but we are totally looking the wrong direction, as always, carrying war.

Jeff, updated

Aug. 18th., 2021

Never Forgetting

Proposition: the “good” people assume good things will come, good things will happen, that people try to be good, that of course good is the direction we are going, because of course no-one wants to be bad, and the good people are simply wrong, that what we do doesn’t take us in the “good” direction at all.

“Always remember,” and “never forget” – these are predicated on this reversal – and look who remembers, look who won’t forget.

We say “always remember,” on this idea, that if we “remember,” we won’t do it again, because of course no-one wanted to do that, we want to be good! Right? We say “always remember,” ostensibly to stop the next iteration of the death wish – and then we beat our children, to make sure they’re good, make sure they “always remember” about violence.

All the same things are in place, all the competition and inequality is all still there, people are still motivated as they have ever been – why would “never forgetting” all the eternal inherent conflicts of human life change anything – again, it only does if we are making moral progress. It only makes any sense if the holocaust and all pogroms and wars were accidents that happened because people simply “didn’t know better then,” or just what, forgot how to live in peace, if it was a memory problem or a learning problem in the first place?

If it were a passive accident of forgetting to start with.

What a fully blind, idiot child’s idea that is. Come on. Sorry, God, I forgot not to mass murder, like Steve Martin, I forgot mass murder was a crime? But I’ll remember this time! Never forget!

There’s supposed to be a learning that you don’t forget, isn’t there? Did we find a solution last time, did we learn, and that’s what we’re never to forget? Remind me – what was it again? Don’t follow the thug who will kill your family if you don’t? Did we learn that one? WTF. I see swastikas, I see Hitler’s cursed haircut – it worked. They remembered.

Humanity talks shit.

Your peace talk is shit. Your war talk is science, takes math to hit a target – and your peace talk is blind fucking fantasyland, you are not even trying. At all. You put peace in a box labelled “fantasy,” and then say “always remember.” Then you ritually beat your children, tell them it’s “good,” and lie to one another about “remembering” not to do that again.

When did folks start talking about not beating kids? I suppose there were always a few, the Quakers, they say, like that, but I suppose it’s been at least my whole life, at least one human lifetime, maybe two since psychology started tiptoeing around that. And it’s the same, just talk. I’m an oddball, on some spectrum, I suppose, my life is an endless series of misunderstandings because I take things literally and seriously and I seriously tried to not use force on my kids. No-one understood, and the ex simply forced them behind my back, nothing worked out – but the ex and everybody else, they “always remember” their own abuse. And it helps their kids not at all, they “remember,” and they repeat. Is that what you mean to do about the holocaust?

Look at these millions of deaths. Now – never forget!

Just the trauma. No lesson. No answer to the problem. Look and remember. And again, they fucking did, because humanity is not automatically naturally good. It’s not that we’re automatically naturally bad either, this false binary that we all accept is bullshit. What looks “natural” about us to you? We are unnaturally bad. That is the lesson, the only lesson, the opposite of humanity’s denial and blindness.

I swear to God – forget, already.

Stop “remembering” and bloody well learn something new, for God and humanity’s sake. “Something new” – again, more than one human lifetime ago, psychology noticed that abuse damages people, like before Hitler was born, maybe. Learn that, and then always remember and never forget that, then maybe we’ll see an end to it.

Jeff

July 19th., 2021

The Progress Meme

Proposition: the “progress” meme suggests that all bad things are aboriginal to us all, in all of our pasts, and so natural, evolved, and to be expected, while only the latest fashions are “good” and “moral.” In this way, perhaps the concept annihilates itself, by placing all bad things in “nature” and making all good things “artificial.”

Someone on Twitter expressed how sad it was to ponder all the closeted people of the past with never a glimpse of freedom of sexuality – my words – and absolutely, but this view is a little like history is only the history of our colonies, sad to ponder anyone around here for the last few hundred years, certainly – but there have also been times and places, even now, where they would cry for us. But then, the view expressed wasn’t unheard of, that it’s sort of a binary, present good, past bad.

The progress meme, right?

I’ve been chasing this idea all my stupid life!

Suddenly strikes me as fascist propaganda, this awful, bigoted past – when it is only lately, a hundred or two years that this brutal, near global conformism has been doing this, thinking it has to kill practically everyone. Isn’t the present nightmare all of more relevant, salient, and right in front of our faces?

Right? But, to the point, wouldn’t these Nazi sorts want you to think that about the past? That hating you is natural and forever? Normal? Even if it’s a few thousand years, all of Bible times, all of history or something – that’s still all modern propaganda more than it is “nature,” is what I’m saying.

If the concept includes its opposite, and most do, if as I’m trying to say here, “progress” must be predicated on an awful, “natural” past and so destroys itself, reinforcing the validity of the awfulness as “natural,” maybe even evolved – then that is the entire point. The point after that is that if the concept has all that, logically and inherently – then you bloody well know it too. Your brain does. The harder we scream “progress” at ourselves the louder our brains hear “the bad things are natural.” We only talk about the side of things we can or want to – but your brain knows everything, the totality of all the concepts. Right?

Philosophers? Right?

 . . . where this is heading: the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people he exists. Right? “Awful is natural,” you can hear the fictional bastard whispering it; I mean, your brain can.

I am quite certain this wheel has already been invented, I expect it’s well known that the toxic manifest destiny grows out of something like “progress,” be it only their vapid Christian “spiritual” progress. But this is not the point, what we think of others, what thoughts “progress” produces about other peoples, but the thoughts that the progress meme engenders regarding ourselves. The very suite of “progress” ideas that makes the Indigenous less than human to some people allows those same people the “lapse” into ancient, brutal war behaviours themselves.

Well, again, this is the totality, the dark side of the concept, so to everyone caught in the progress meme – well again, not to everyone perhaps, until we look – but to all of our brains. The status quo lives in this function, somehow. It’s already in your brain, so it’s not as shocking as it seems it ought to be, perhaps.

I am going to need some time to integrate this idea, the progress meme has ruled my life, and now I see it’s what ironically let’s us never change and grow and clearly we need to stop thinking about futures and destinations and goals and just settle down and try to live as though this might really be it, all there is.

Jeff

June 26th., 2021

Justice, Ever

The only justice is if we, as a people, we as a species, understand why we do what we do and so then we can make changes.

If we allow hate and conflict to remain completely unchallenged, I don’t mean on the battlefield but everywhere else, in the libraries, then what are we talking about, what are we hoping for? If we don’t know why it is, what changes are we planning to make?

All this wokeness is depressingly for naught if we don’t apply our science to the hate and the conflict, if we think it doesn’t need it. If we think it’s un-sciencable, if we consider it foundational in a way nothing in nature is, if we think it is somehow exempt from real world causation. If we for some reason don’t want to know.

I’m talking about how all conversations about changing the world end, with a sigh and the rule: human nature.

Society – warrior society, a society that runs on hate and conflict – tells science it’s not allowed to follow the hate and abuse exactly the way T told Mueller not to follow the money. It’s Human Nature, we already have this answer, shut uppa you mouth! You can talk about it, sure, you may tend to the sick and injured – over there in the “soft,” human sciences – but don’t be bringing that weak nonsense into the real world where hate and abuse are our premises, like Kant’s time and space.

In real life, we hate. Babies want to be everyone’s friend, but grown-ups kill. This is what the Right means by considering themselves the adults, the “practical” ones, and honestly, I have the meme also, I consider myself aligned with the Left and the babies . . . but today, the point is that it is more that all are following false principles, refusing to grow up and face themselves. Bison Boy looks like a child, and if he were carrying Pelosi’s head, I tell you – still a child, still unaware, still founded in foundationless myth he swallowed whole at an early age. Violence perhaps only defines a maturity of body.

Follow the science of humans, any one of them: psychology, anthropology, bio theory, genetics, pick one, choose them all – follow them to the bottom, it’s Human Nature.

A moral stop light. Go no further! (Shoutout to Tom Waits in the Fisher King.)

This is abdication of their role. Go to a biologist and ask them about “whale nature,” or “ant nature,” and they will ask you why you are trying to cancel their job and natural science altogether. Science has reasons, not natures. Humans are exempt from science – well, human science, I guess. But that is the relevant kind to you and me, isn’t it?

The only justice for anyone, ever, is humanity troubleshoot itself for the first time, learn where the hate enters our lives – so that our children don’t keep killing the natives, FFS.

If you won’t admit why you did it, how can you say they won’t? “Human nature” doesn’t count, you know the bastards had – have – reasons. Real world, human reasons. Unsavoury AF, yes, but reasons. Lies, of course – but lies to hide reasons. When you can’t stop a thing, there are reasons, damn it, what is the matter with you?

When you want to change a thing, I mean if you really do want to change it, you have to know the reasons for it and deal with them. You don’t say “that’s just the way it is.” That is what the people who do not want to change it say. And that’s what human nature means.

Justice is when we stop saying Human Nature and start saying “because” something. Then there is something to change!

If you say Human Nature, your hope and your promises and your apologies are fucking empty.

Human Nature is a myth, the bad guys’ myth.

Justice is truth.

Jeff

June 26th., 2021

A Place, and a Place to Talk

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.

Jeff

June 7th., 2021

A Loving God

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.

OK.

Jeff,

May 27th., 2021