THE TREE OF DESTRUCTION

The Historical Facts: there was a DRASTIC ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AROUND 10,000 YEARS AGO which brought about a NEED to seek new conditions BY WHICH and IN WHICH to live. The agrarian age began 10,000 years ago: FOR SOME. People in certain areas could no longer survive and therefore either abandoned those areas or abandoned their old ways.

Many of those seeking conditions BY WHICH to live culturally evolved but biologically degenerated into a "norm" of unhealthiness (mental and physical), malnutrition, allergies such as to gluten, tooth decay, back deformities and arthritic joints due to the backbreaking work, and of sick sexualities, fear of such desires and supreme repression finally with there coming into being a state of gender WAR common to them and even the demonification of the female gender, i.e., monotheistic religion and patriarchy. Overpopulation, health problems, hygiene problems and diseases, massive sewage and all the rest of the ills which amount to a public health disaster resulted from the agrarian way of life. The prime directive is to mate and make more of the self. Those who cannot do this (for WHATEVER reason, including "free choice" or "preference") are genetically dead. This is highly unusual.

Genders can not remain at war too long and a species thrive. What happens when the electrical field around the ova REFUSES to let healthy sperm in for fertilization? We are now seeing this strange phenomena. That's what I'd call "REALLY saying 'NO'!" LONG is how long hominids were around and even this is short in real terms of evolution. Hominids (not just H. sapiens) were around only about 2 million years. That's not long compared to other species. Long is NOT measured by "civilizations" that rose and fell. It is "civilization" and such cultural evolution that people (FROM them) hold so high and consider so important. This is definitely akin to trying to analyze patriarchy and feminism when you are FROM such patriarchal people and living IN such a society yourself. It is as if you are a fish - INSIDE the fish tank. You can not ask "what is a NOT-fish" from outside the tank where you never go or see. ONLY a NOT-fish, outside it, CAN TELL YOU what is NOT IN that fish tank.

This article is about a tree, and to know about trees, branches, leaves and fruit you must know what the SEED is and next what the ROOTS are like to determine if it's viable, healthy, etc. and see clearly WHAT IT REALLY IS. One must think and see things synthetically. That's what E.O. Wilson is calling for: a synthesis; but he'll have to stop analyzing modern humans teleologically and see that SOMETHING went very WRONG since agriculture. Stop focusing on the presumed "intelligence" and wonder if it IS intelligent at all to doom one's own species to extinction by poisoning it's own habitat. Bacteria did that long ago: they poisoned their ecosystem with oxygen and it caused a ..... Revolution.....

SEED: ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE. Need for humans to change in some way, or perish. (The same do or die necessity occurred which FORCED ape to eventually evolve into man; FORCED fish to eventually evolve into amphibian. Keep in mind, all members of One Species go their own ways when such is necessary and they SPECIATE into more than one species and/or variation - all determined by the environment and then, mate selection. - see Niles Eldredge "Reinventing Darwin" for more on that.)

ROOT: AGRICULTURE chosen as means BY WHICH to seek continuance as a means to survive. What was NOT chosen? Physical, biological evolution. Agrarian life forced humans to eat things they were not fully biologically evolved to eat. It forced humans to work far more than they were evolved to work. CULTURAL evolution, with all its ramifications, was chosen as they self-sang the praises of their own ruination of life, their own drudge-filled lives (one group even called agriculture, gender war and birth problems a CURSE and imagined their god put it on their GENErations), and they praised it all as they pushed out, absorbed or wiped out all of the others who were nomadic.

COMBINE these above: leads to humans conquering other humans, the "might is right" mentality, and warlike nations subduing anyone in the way by absorption or extermination. Priestly dictates emerge with fairy tales about manifest destiny to justify genocide. Of course there is oppression. Life in agrarian societies is always so hellish for the average person that people are constantly trying to find ways to live off the work of others! This can take the form of classism or imperialism. Such societies run on oppression and can't run any other way. Even if all members of one such nation are free ("given" freedom by the rulers!), their freedom is bought on the backs of some "other" nation that is exploited as a colony of "inferiors." The only thing ever able to utterly defeat and replace such a society was another identical society with more might; or one such society split apart and became two such societies. Temporary defeats occurred where the slaves rose up en masse and overthrew their rulers. That didn't last long.

Doing an analysis of the current ethics (from inside the fish tank, so to speak) and moralities and then trying to find some justification for the "behavior" in the ancestral human, is teleological (i.e., Wilson's analysis is flawed). Ancestral humans behaved NOTHING like moderns; if they did, they'd never have evolved! (See Cavalli-Sforza "The Great Human Diasporas" for information on a modern-day primitive society that retains ancestral ways: they are the first affluent society but they are nothing like what civilized people imagine "jungle dwellers" to be like.) Understanding that something WARPED the underlying hunter/gatherer urges is a better idea. Trying to squeeze "religion," especially organized religion, into some kind of animist/shamanist developmental phenomena is also wrong. It is FACTUALLY incorrect; the two are not the same nor are they congruent.

There exist/ed/s genders in all sexually dimorphic species, including man, long before this happened. Being gendered is NOT the problem. Genders exist in nomadic communalistic societies too. There was division of labor according to ability and the fruits of all labors went back into the society to be shared equally. There was no need to defend land because no one was stationary. No one had yet put down a stake in some land, drew lines and declared "this is mine." Overpopulation NEVER occurs in nomad societies. Such primitive societies are all communalistic in one form or another, but the WHOLE FOUNDATION of these societies is utterly unlike that of the agrarian societies. Their entire way of thinking regarding relations to their labor and relations with each other, are completely different. Agrarian societies pushed out the nomad ones, they are almost all gone now. At the same time agrarian societies have eaten up almost the entire planet. THEY don't have anywhere to go, to find a new habitat. They now threaten to "eat up" our air supply. They have rendered many rivers anoxic or hypoxic and oxygen-based life as we know it is being replaced by other life that is able to tolerate these new conditions. These new life forms are in our food chain! This is the situation NOW. But this situation had a ROOT back in time, and not all that long ago: 10,000 years ago is not long ago.

View this (the following diagram below) as a tree, not as separate categories, but as how one thing grew into and developed into another at the same time AS all other parts of the tree were growing. E.g., Walls around a protected area (i.e., with a given set of protectors) necessitates a grouping of who is going to do which chores. This simple division of labor with the fruits of ALL labor pooling back into the whole group begins to change with certain groups getting a bigger share than others. Warrior castes, which arise from those chosen to be protectors, go hand in hand with unequal ownership, now of privatized portions of land. Warriors are in a position to demand more and claim patches of land simply by using brute force. These protector/warriors continue to exist even when they are NO LONGER REQUIRED to protect anything! Next, the castes become static, they become set AS CLASSES and they'd vie for favoritism from the strongest class, i.e., the warriors. This, in itself, would alter the gene pool: warriors are usually quite dumb but smarter folks are usually not warriors! Females choosing their mates would be replaced by rape. The warriors would elect a King. The priests (wimpy and lazy, usually also male, but cunning deceivers able to pull off a few tricks) would declare him a God King or claim he ruled by Divine Decree since the warriors are in a position to destroy these priests if they don't serve them. This is how it starts and ends up every single time.

By the time this formerly small group overpopulates and ruins the land, they are strong enough, as a nation now, to conquer and/or push out all other people. Nomads were once the majority. Now they are almost extinct or absorbed. The New World Order is one HUGE Empire with the classes still in place, slaves and all. It's just HUGE now. The revolt against Altar and Throne is a revolt against THIS "TREE." A destructive tree.

Prior to this agrarianism, there were a few million years of human hunter gatherers living with a stable but primitive communism. They were also nomads and spread themselves all over the world prior to agriculture. The ENTIRETY of our physical, biological, including neurological, evolution into H.sapiens happened during those few million years - and it STOPPED COLD since agriculture; what I mean by that is that modern humans are like the first H.sapiens were. We don't see bigger brains. What we do see in terms of technology is cultural - and not necessarily good for us as a whole. Our technology poisons the habitat. It allowed us to overpopulate; another negative.

The main point, the ESOTERIC implications of calling this a "Tree of Destruction" is that it means these people divorced themselves from a Tree of LIFE - which is what existed prior to their turning to agriculture. Both the left and right captions shown on the ToD developed simultaneously and these all fed into each other.

The ToD does not show a "revolutionary vehicle" (as some Reds complain). It was never intended TO show that. It simply shows how it all started and grew - and it shows WHAT we have to fight against, now, in its almost final stage (the Tree is HUGE now, it's not just somewhere in the Middle East or China or MesoAmerica!). And I feel it's not so much "nations" or "some group" we have to fight per se (defeat them and another nation or group arises and continues on the same road), but this entire BALL that's just rolling like a juggernaut needs to be stopped or it will doom us all and not too far off in our future. It is as if humans are incapable of STOPPING. Why? Because underlying their behaviors are ancestral instincts, drives, urges even possibly hard-wired into our genes - and these biological things, I feel, are WARPED due to the things we eat, the agricultural base, perhaps the metabolism, parasites in us, viruses including neurological viruses - the WHOLE THING we've been doing since agriculture - it has warped the underlying hunter gatherer cooperative nature of humans. It has turned the hunter into a cancer, a genocidal (overt or covert, direct or indirect) monster, it has turned the gatherer into a greed-filled thing that wants and wants when NOTHING is ever enough! He hoards things he doesn't even need (like 30 cars, or 20 billion dollars and the insatiable desire to make one billion more).

When you read this chart, you have to figure out yourself, the social relations, the relations of workers to their labor, and the NEW modes of production, technologies and people's relation TO that technology and the other people around them, that came with growing food on static patches of land. You have to figure out yourself, what happened when "area protectors" became "The Warrior Caste" and how they related to the rest of the society. You'll have to have a firm grasp of our ancestral nature, the Primate Nature which is hard-wired into us (GENETICALLY!) (Look at the Bonobo, the primate genetically closest to humans). No one can understand a living organism by looking at it outside of its biological nature and environment. To do so would be abiological. Humans, like any other animal, can be conditioned to BE this way or that way within the LIMITS or "norms of" their biological natures - i.e., they can't be conditioned to breathe water; but they can be conditioned to be bullies and followers.

Reader: You'll need to print this page out in order to SEE IT as it is meant to be seen.

The later trade routes were not developed by these agrarians. For a long while, later in history, agrarians were preyed on by roving nomads who were like bandits. Eventually, they reached an agreement and the roving nomads became new, oftentimes stationary, protectors against OTHER nomad-bandits (usually their own related tribesmen; e.g., Jenghis Khan and the Tatars). It was THESE who knew where this or that could be gotten and from whom; and who needed this or that: THEY developed all the trade routes. Agrarians originally drove nomads out (in Euro-Asia they ended up in the colder northern regions where other humans already were), but they later came back as the most fearsome warriors of all and RULED these agrarians from time to time until they, too, got absorbed into the more populous agrarian societies (Kublai Khan and China, good example of this). True to form, as soon as they were absorbed into the societies they ruled, they set to war against each other. When these agrarian lands were conquered by these nomads, their knowledge was not destroyed but leapt ahead not just due to the import of goods from nomad-held trade routes, but due to the initial TOLERANCE of these nomads when it came to such war-making notions as religion and race: Shah Jahan, Kublai, and the so-called "great" Arabian civilization - were not Semitic or Arabian or even Chinese - these were the products of people CONQUERED by Turanian peoples whose input and organization (synthetic, diverse and cooperative) made them great. A lot of knowledge from many places was gathered into their lands.

Specifically, WHAT did these stationary, agrarian settlers with their own hierarchies DO when they were invaded by these roving, unbeatable nomads? They did what proletarians do in relation to the rich and powerful rulers in THEIR lands: they dealed! They do what small nation rulers do when confronted by larger imperialist nations making demands on them: they compromised! This, now, is pretty much a separate cultural evolution showing HOW other kinds of "classes" developed amidst Feudalism; a class that got for themselves some BIG privileges, and the class of merchants. Not everyone got filthy rich from the opened trade routes - only the privileged got rich and they were WHOLLY dependent for about 1,500 years on these roving nomads! Only VERY recently are they now independent of them - but now these people themselves are AKIN to roving nomads. They are called imperialists. :) Spelled out, well known example: Bill Gates was a nobody but he roved around and found a little of this and borrowed a little of that - he was a bandit of a type at times, too - then he joined it all together and SOLD IT to buyers. Then he made it so that no one can just share it, they have to go through him and HIS company and PAY A TOLL to get it. That's EXACTLY what nomads did with trade routes and/or passes from this place to that place, or rivers - made people pay a toll. LIKE the nomad rulers of old, the imperialists have all the leisure time in the world and everything in the world they want. Unlike the agrarians, these cold-adapted evolved nomads were a tad more predatory, BY NATURE. ALL animals and plants from that region ARE more ferocious and predatory. If you doubt that the USA is a hunter gatherer nation, just think of how they HUNT for markets and GATHER buyers, how they HUNT for resources and get very predatory about getting them to gather into their own nation. They have even learned the art of war, Chinese expert style - they get groups within nations (that have something they want) to kill EACH OTHER - then they come in and keep the peace for them - and take what they want. Pure hunter gatherer. They even preach the new religion - "humanism," to get the uninitiated citizens in their own countries to back them up: "so and so is doing a genocide; WE, the 'Moral Democracy' (chosen of god?) have to stop him for the sake of those POOR people - so we have to BOMB them - it's our moral duty... We have to do it 'for Democracy' (for God)." Few Americans see clearly enough to predict that we will soon witness a "Drive to the East for goodies" similar to the earlier Drive to the West, which wiped out almost all the American Indians... Same show, different channel. The trick to keeping the status quo is to make sure they keep the citizens of their own nations HAPPY AND CONTENT (not overworked and underpaid!). I'm sure I have just outraged everyone, left and right. Unfortunately, it boils down to people noticing "who's the boss." The one with the biggest stick. The rest is a matter of how well anyone can suck up or deal/compromise with the boss (bully). Leader/led; master/slave: The Hellish Paradigm! Anyone who insists that this is "human nature" is full of shit! It's warped nature. Those who refuse to dwell in it (the few) are either doing revolutions or writing articles like this one from a comfortable chair.

So, the underlying hunter instinct becomes warped: produces genocide whether that genocide be by direct use of weapons or by "normal capitalism" which preys on workers in other places such as we see today. The underlying gatherer instinct becomes warped: produces people seemingly empty of all compassion or feeling who are insatiably greedy and who prey on the planet's resources as if they are infinite, and who are unable to use reason when they SEE what this is doing to the entire planet. The interaction results in a set up where the norm is to step on fellow man, murder fellow man, rape the earth, destroy habitats (human ones), etc.

*Note, this CAUSE here is what the original tree grew into so long ago.

There is a definite in-built, hard-wired overall-genetic or ancestral predisposition for these behaviors. Scientists seem to focus on MALES adapting, as if there are no females. It seems more as if males were warped the most. What accounts for the distortion of the sexual urge and obsession with unwholesome practices (a politically incorrect idea but hell...whole pseudocultures for the genetically dead are now built on one's sexual deviations - think TALIBAN). I think it's what people eat, or centuries of people eating garbage which produced garbage cultures, no matter how "great" people IN the system think these cultures are. They are garbage; they produce no JOY in life for the majority of people who WORK IN those societies: ergo they are garbage. What accounts for religion? Is it extreme repression due to a split in emotional input and disassociative state becoming insanity when the repression breaks lose? Perhaps it is Borna virus! How many slaves had to starve, suffer, die to make a tomb for a crazed Pharaoh? And what for? So he could "rise from the dead? Wherefrom in nature would any normal human get the notion that a dead thing could wake up and walk around again? NOT from seeing people sleep. Primitives would also see people "sleeping" then start to rot and stink. They'd have a clear understanding of death. They, like any other animal, would come to accept death as a normal part of life. THAT is rational! Why do so many researchers justify irrationality by trying to find "good things" that came of it? NOTHING good comes of it. Consider what H. sapiens COULD HAVE BEEN, but never became. Animals are very practical. Humans are not and have NOT BEEN since agriculture. Again, using some kind of correlation or congruence to try to explain modern human behavior by understanding the ancestral human design is teleological. Animism is nothing like religion. Eg, attributing a "manitu" to all objects animate or inanimate is sort of like having a rudimentary feel for "what matter is." All these objects are atomic matter, all have electrons, etc. Wind would be an object that was felt strongly, but unseen. They'd call it by a name that would be sort of like calling it a force. The sun would be worshipped or at least loved as an in-general life giver, as would be rain. This is nothing like religion. People would either love or hate, eg, the sun due to their physical relationship to it in their daily lives.

Is there a biological evolutionary explanation for such horrendously AWFUL behavior? Well, I'll give that a try: other primates are not genetically predisposed to this or that static or fixed social system. They also can't be accused of having priests, morals, ethics or books with rules in them, or written laws! Other primates try various social systems; the social systems are themselves subject to natural selection. The ones that work best IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL NICHE THEY ARE IN are they ones they keep.

Put any primate in an ecological niche where there is scarcity and you'll end up, guaranteed, with alpha dominant male structure as social strategy (culture) where they TAKE ALL and no one can stop them; you'll get females that do not band together, and weaker males and all females terrorized by the strongest brutes (whether they wield fist, club or atomic bomb....). Most APE species have this social strategy, including many chimps.

Put any primate in an ecological niche where there is abundance, but not of the long-lasting or permanent type, and you'll end up with cliques of females dominating the foraging areas and a kind of bartering between males and females for food/favors. Bonobo chimps have this social strategy (culture). Note that they are the SAME species as other chimps, they are cross-fertile, but they do NOT choose to mate with them. (Is that racism?) The Bonobo is genetically the closest to humans but one doesn't need "genes knowledge" to be able to know what an animal will do if you set up this or that condition.

Put any primate in an ecological niche where there is abundance and it lasts long or is renewable or permanent (whether that be vegetation that doesn't rot fast, lots and various kinds of eatable fruits, easily hunted animals to eat, or refrigerators to store TV dinners and easy-access supermarkets with cheap food...) and you'll end up with equalitarian social strategies (at least within each tribe or nation) or a tendency to want to make that in the society, no gender-specific work duties and all-around harmony, or at least a tendency to strive for that. Some monkeys have this. I know of no APE species that has this. Some humans have it - I doubt they want to give it up.

The trick, then, to "making a utopia" is not to preach doctrines or dogmas, but to CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT/ECOLOGICAL NICHE. How can you do this when another group, a TINY group, has all it needs for now and is also MEGA RICH, and is hell bent on keeping what they have and is against any efforts to FIX the world? How? Have a revolution. THEN make things right. Can humans do that - just ONE TIME? I don't have high hopes. There would have to be more than just a balance of people to resources. There'd have to be a potential for resources to outnumber people using them, for there to be MORE than "just enough" for everyone in the niche. They'd have to control their tendency to overpopulate. They'd have to consciously make up new rules and laws, by "Divine Decree" if necessary. Would such content and happy people even need religion anymore? Basically, humans would have to start putting PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS! There are many "howevers" to that dream. However, how do you get people that still have something, to give that up and have nothing - and then fight the Powers That Be? How do you move what is almost like an inertial mass of masses of proletarians when some of them have no clue what a labor union is now? Can you move them with an idea? No. But anything the Left does to alleviate problems (put band aids on things) only stalls any revolutionary desire. How do you wrench the power and mega-profits from those who have them: with your bare hands?

For agricultural problems check out NEANDERTHIN on internet (http://neanderthin.com/). Lots of literature exists on this, hard science references. See "Meat Three Times a Day," a book by F.J. Schlink and M.C. Phillips. Humans are able to eat 98% of all meat stuffs on the planet, but only about 2% of vegetable stuffs. As humans changed the foods they planted, grew, bred and ate, the plants changed humans - like co-evolution - it works TWO ways. Metabolism can be said to be all: you ARE what you eat! Check on some semi-classified neurological data (especially on neuro viruses and toxins). Check on what parasites can do to you and MAKE YOU DO (despite the notion that you have a free will!) It is also well known that many American Indians went from being totally healthy hunter gatherers to creating a public health disaster when they turned to agriculture. Question is, why did they CONTINUE to do this and not stop? Perhaps they lost the ability to "reason," which would have told them to STOP. Perhaps they were infected with parasites that literally MADE THEM continue. But aside from outside agents, what could cause humans to do such a thing? Pain could, mental confusion could - lots of things could, even addiction in some way, perhaps barely detectable (unlike with opium).

A FEW COMMENTS:

Man "advanced" in a WRONG WAY, way back about the time he had to start doing agriculture, due to a (presumed?) climate change where he had to change the way he lived or perish. The whole imperialist, theocratic, patriarchal (woman hating, woman fearing), dung heap of history since then is one long stream of horrible occurrences where simple division of labor BECAME castes and then classes (with the ultimate same end: revolution and overthrow with another imperialist theocracy taking over in a short time). It is ONLY BECAUSE these divisions of labor existed INSIDE OF boundaried and OVER POPULATED (key event) nation-states, that came into being due to them living and planting on a PATCH of land, that caste/class arose from division of labor! In turn, nation-states needed armies of "the strongest" to "protect" from "the others, out there" without realizing that armies of bullies do not go away: they turn against those they were created to protect in the first place. That's how it happens, simple as that: they elect their Ruler, or "God King" as of old, and this Ruler has his army and his Priests backing him (usually). Altar and throne!: something the Founding Father MASONS of the USA were dead against, and something the Bolsheviks were also against.

ALL of such societies went patriarchal, and the OLDEST ones of this type, long standing and formerly Great Civilizations, are all NOW called the Third World, with the WORST anti-woman, outright sadism, practiced as the norm. One should draw the line when people (half the gender) get tortured and mutilated and even crippled for the sex pleasures of men. If such things were being done by Islamics or Hindus - or by Christian Americans - on ANOTHER RACE you'd see the U.N. having a fit over it.....maybe.

A note on what amounts to politics and imperialism and gender problems - and these are PROBLEMS and they need to be addressed if our biological nature (or unnature) is to be understood. If you are a prude or shy, don't read this paragraph: it's BLUNT. What First World Feminism seems to REALLY WANT to say to men is:

"Hell no, there is no way in hell that you males who want penis rule will EVER turn our U.S.A. into an Islamic or Hindu or Chinese society where you cut off clitorises and sew up vaginas, where you set women you are tired of on fire, or where you bind the feet of women for your sexual pleasure; we are not masochists and we will not allow you to be sadists - not with us. We don't need you men, we can get pregnant from ANYONE and wander away with the man never even knowing he is a father. Fuck fatherhood: motherhood is real. Mothers do all the work and, as such, men have NO SAY in what we birth (or don't birth). There is already something wrong when power of a NON-sexual type focused on material objects, fetishes, or non-sexual acts are eroticized, but there is no way in hell you will make us into slaves/masochists, no way in hell. There is no way we will TOLERATE sadism. It's NOT a 'dick thing' after all. No: it's WOMB thing! There is NO WAY this society will become like that. And, oh yes, (the afterthought) we can do that job as well as any male can...... And we want equal pay..... And housework is work and we should be paid for it....."

Does this speech sound wrong? These women put the labor and wage issue in the forefront because that's all "clean and white," it's all so proper; they bring blatant abuse to the forefront but they shy away from being brutally graphic and calling it exactly what it is: SADISM for someone's turn on; something so twisted and demented that it boggles the mind. But they settle for unpleasureable sex, lie to their mates or husbands and do a LOT of complaining to other women behind the backs of the men - usually about how much they hate oral sex and how lousy the men are at sex, cum too fast, not big enough, etc. etc. Elaine Morgan (the lady with the Aquatic Ape Theory) found, in interviewing women who were brutally honest (and wholly anonymous!), that she could forget about suggesting or finding out how to make sex "more pleasurable" for the women she anonymously interviewed - they'd be happy if it was "less disgusting." What's wrong here? LOTS. Fundamentalist "Jesus freak" Christian women have found a way to keep the husband and avoid the sex altogether; they say: "It's a sin to have sex unless we plan to have a child - and we DO NOT plan to have a child." They are also doctrinally against the "oral thing." Smart ladies! How do I know this? I asked a whole bunch of them and when they felt they COULD be open with me, they TOLD me. That's the same reason why the first Nun, Melanie, became a nun and why so many ladies joined her, long before men had any juristiction over these Nunnish ladies. (One libertine male asked me: "What's in Christianity for women that they can identify with or which can aid them as women? There is only Jesus who is celibate and Mary who is a Virgin -plus God." Answer: Yes. I explained it all to him. Silence. He was one of those guys who could NEVER manage to keep a girlfriend after she experienced sex with him - he had no idea why. Well? Now he knew why. And the Truth does not always set people free.) :( In this society where women can work for themselves and can easily get divorced, THEY DO. The first chance they get, THEY DO. HALF of all American marriages fail within their first four years. I see that Marx et. al. didn't deal with this dynamic. Heh. Oh, it's an issue.

Making up a "reason," after the fact, to "justify" the behavior-as-it-is, eg, "he who has the best car gets the women and has offspring, this is the GENES at work" is BULLSHIT, it's teleological pseudo-science! EO Wilsom fails in his analysis due to this.

First World Feminism! They set up abuse centers, rally, and even rally men and the law, to harsher treatment against abusers and so forth. They divorce the men and get the First World courts to force these men to PAY for it and to PAY for children that happen to be around. But what many women do not realize is that the crime, lousy education, all of the CRAP out there is forcing a grass roots white-Christian movement to arise in one of the MAJOR political parties. What these First World Christian women and most of their enemies (left-wing feminists) do not realize is that these right-wing Christian people are acting out of immediate necessity (just like it was done long ago) and they are setting up the SAME EXACT CONDITIONS for the SAME EXACT patriarchal theocracy.

History shows that such patriarchal theocracies were ancient and very long standing, big, "Great Civilizations," long ago when Europe was a nothing place with nothing there and long before Christianity existed. If you grade or rank patriarchal practices in terms of brutality against women, sadistic or degrading perversion, and the age of the civilization, you find that the OLDEST patriarchal societies, India, China, and the Afro-Semitic Middle East, are the WORST patriarchies and theocracies even though they are no longer powerful or big (or civilized in some cases)! Next oldest are Greece and Rome. Their patriarchy and theocracy is less, but more than in the NEWEST imperialist societies. The latest imperialists are the English (British Empire) and Americans (New World Order); one can't even really say Germany ever had a real imperial empire, although they tried it a few times, Hitler being the last try. However the most primitive peoples and the latest to get civilization are the Scandinavians and then the Slavs (real Slavs, not Slavic-speaking Europeans). They are the LEAST patriarchal, some groups of them are STILL MATRILINEAL and they are the most peaceful, and what theology they have is little more than shamanism - even E. Slavic Christianity is mother goddess worship akin to shamanism as they practice it.

I don't have to explain that the Afro-Semitic Middle East, Hindu India or China (at least, before Mao put a forced end to it) are the most sadistic and degrading toward women (See Marilyn French: "War Against Women" for details. And consider and understand - when these men see what would probably make an American man puke in disgust and flee in terror, THEY get HARD ONS! I think blunt graphics is called for: see it for WHAT it really is.).

In post Maoist China, if a man merely talks to a woman in a grocery store, asking her the price of an item, she is ruined, considered a whore. Don't these people have any revolutionary rebelliousness in them to say "FUCK YOU, we guys and gals are going to congregate?" No, it took Mao to enforce this and outlaw male practices against women. But Mao is gone and so are the bans and no sooner were his wife and the Communists deposed and male rule reinstated that they called Mrs. Mao a WITCH! Small wonder so many feminists are into witchcraft! So: women who wield power are WITCHES. They are evil, of Satan. Same old shit! Obviously, forcing males and females to wear the same clothing didn't do anything (no kidding) and this "outer change" amounts to people dressing up like clowns and then imagining they'll BE funny and give birth to funny kids.

One would have to get at the INNER to cure this gender war. What do I mean by INNER? Evolutionary biology, neurology, brain development especially inutero and during first 7 or 8 years of life, and above all, the CONDITIONS, labor, etc they live in. Inner: the HIDDEN stuff that MAKES things what they are - the stuff that's not obvious immediately on sight when it's happening to you. Attributing this Chinese reversion to Confucius or whoever is nonsense. WHY would they CHOOSE Confucius and not Lao Tse? For the same reason that certain TYPES of people would CHOOSE Protestantism over Catholicism.

In India the only time the men hold back and stop their brutality against a whole gender is when some Western news reporter is there to watch. In the Afro-Semitic Middle East they don't seem to give a shit who's watching when they throw acid on women without veils or mutilate their genitals.

Are these people human beings? I could easily be persuaded to think they are NOT human beings and that's a familiar tendency, alright - others can even more easily be persuaded to think of "them" as "not human." I could be persuaded to treat them as if they are mad dogs and BOMB them. See: they are pretas, klippoths, bhutas, MONSTERS, things out of control, destroyers, etc. etc. make up more words. Now, I FEEL this when I see this stuff. I don't THINK it. Can most people distinguish like that? More to the point, can the MOB distinguish like that? Not according to history.

But in Greece and less in Italy (and Greece is older than Italy as far as civilization/culture is concerned) there is the sexual double standard where a woman is either a virgin or a whore. This is very Catholic. This double standard is slightly in the Anglo-American lands, but it hardly exists in Germany and does not exist in Scandinavia or the Slavic lands. If spreading genes around is the prime directive, why would males "think up" such ideas and label females "bad" when they obviously had DESIRE for them (which is supposed to be positive)? When a female gives a male an erection, the male is supposed to LIKE the female, at least feel some kind of positive thing toward the female: friendship, even love. These men have sex with what they HATE? That's SICK! FINDING some possible ancestral biological trait that is possibly "transformed" to explain this behavior is BULLSHIT - it's teleological! Let's LOOK at other primates then. THERE IS the ancestral behavior! Other primates are not demented!

That the sperm itself has types - some seek ova, some attack OTHER sperm!, and some block OTHER sperm, proves that females were MEANT to be "sexually free" (a cultural word). Well - like chimp females! Chimp females are that way due to biology and genes - that's for sure! Humans are not pair-bonding animals. Pair-bonding is a biological term. Monogamy is a non-scientific word.

There is inequality in equality just as there is difference within sameness - even within the SAME "THING." Also, you can NOT take out one human trait or behavior (even if it's BIG - a "Culture") and look at it - it's not possible since all of life, our niches and our evolution (biological), the ancestral urges - all of it, is INTERWOVEN into a picture: is it "normal" or not? THAT humans DO a "human" behavior doesn't necessarily mean that it evolved AND that it IS ALSO determined by HUMAN biology. That's an assumption. Parasites can make animals alter their thinking and behavior and do things that are entirely UNnatural! (Discovery August, 2000 "Do parasites rule the world?" and Science News, August 12, 2000, p 109 "Parasite deludes rats into liking cats." "Wasp redesigns web of doomed spider").

Sometimes, people's biology gets WARPED AND BENT! Or rather the primate urges are there, and then subverted by the new conditions. The instinct to hunt animals becomes the behavior (NOT instinct) of hunting humans for slaves. Kin bonds in tribes becomes xenophobia and demonization of "all others" with attendant genocide. The Aryan Nation perceived the Jewish segment of the Semite Nation as a demonic evil: that wasn't rational! That was LUNACY, yet a whole technological nation of civilized people believed it (see Goldhagan, "Hitler's Willing Executioners" for proof.) Environment, which is the ecological NICHE an animal (human) is in, plus genetic heritage (Primate in our case) is CO-evolved. All this involves a two-way (dialectical) interchange/interaction in specific ways. But something went WRONG! OBVIOUSLY so. Or else we are a species biologically determined to go extinct!? What you see today are broken people, and heaps of broken people make a broken society, a broken nation. Observing the abnormal and finding a correlation with NORMAL ancestral urges, and then saying "it's all OK" is a teleological error and a pretty pathetic excuse.

Someone needs to take biological evolution, merge that with neurology (see Antonio Damasio especially: "Descartes' Error"), merge that with neurovirology and parasitology and then merge that with the PUBLIC HEALTH DISASTER that agricultural living brought on, the WORK people had to endure, the overpopulation way out of balance with resources, and come to the RIGHT conclusion: that the dogmatic types of woman-hating patriarchy and religion we have had since then is NOT a normal thing at all. We are hunter gatherers at base: what do we hunt and gather now? Someone needs to understand what some "esoteric" doctrines have been saying - which is SPELLED OUT in Wilhelm Reich's works - and merge that with Antonio Damasio's work. It seems that E. O. Wilson, an expert entomologist, is suggesting this too. He has done a lot of it already or at least hinted at some of it in a book "Conciliance" - BUT - he has failed to mention the public health disaster brought on by agrarian life - there is FORENSIC PROOF of that statement; he has failed to reason what humans would BECOME and what they'd "think up" when they felt pain all day long from back breaking agrarian work, when their lives became constant drudgery; or what some of those people would do to GET OUT OF the drudgery - at the expense of all others of course! He has failed to reason bottled up instinct, upbringing designed to bury instinct and condition the child to IGNORE the 5 senses, sensual impacts, somatic markers. He has failed to conclude that such a human is NOT CAPABLE of logic - but neurologists could explain it - Damasio has explained it: they are anosognosic - alexithymic. He has failed to factor in the fact that we are DOOMING ourselves and there is NOTHING "animal" about this - nothing "normal" about it - it's insane. Humans are SUPPOSED TO have logic and the ability to STOP DOING such things to themselves and each other: do they have logic? Can they stop? I think NOT.) Perhaps one should look at something other than humans: WHAT BENEFITS in the animal world from the actions of humans destroying a human habitat? Let us look THERE for the answer.

Also, one has to fully understand that animism and shamanism are NOTHING LIKE monotheism, and monotheism is NOT some mental advancement at all. It is either the con job work of ruthless rulers, or heaps of morons believing in the delusional ravings of schizophrenics or humans with a viral infection of the brain (such as Borna). In this, Richard Dawkins is 100% right when he says: religion is a DISEASE. But he is 100% wrong on selfish genes, for if genes were as he said, we'd be walking tumors: oncogenes are the ONLY genes that behave as he claims. Animism is NOT religion, not at all. Animism is a wrong explanation of why things in nature work - or it's right but Westerners can't understand what's being said. After all, Australian Aborigines can MAKE boomerangs and hit moving targets with them. They never studied Newton. Why do THEY say the weapon works that way; what made THEM "think of" making it in that particular shape? Who can understand their words? FACT: they make them and use them! It took an aerodynamics expert to figure out HOW these boomerangs worked! Are the Aborigines aerodynamics experts? NO? They make boomerangs and use them! Knowing what Newton knew, could Newton use one as efficiently? There is knowing with the head and then there is KNOWING with the body. Without the direct input of healthy somatic markers that have been allowed to grow and develop, guided by the instinct, there is NO logic possible! That is a fact Damasio proved. (It's a fact some of us KNEW by mere observation of the FRUITS of actions).

Imperialism and its attendant colonialism is new to the Europeans. Egyptians did it long ago, they colonized people. So did the Romans. So did the Chinese. They all had slavery, too, nothing has changed. But in the West there have been violent revolutions: American, French, Bolshevik (Russian, Communist). China had revolutions when bands of Turanians (Ural-Altaic, North and Central Asian peoples) had enough of Chinese colonialization and went into China and kicked their royal butts - and then took them over. So there was a big change in China for a very short while until it reverted back; as it has done post- Mao. Similar incursions of Turanians into Mid-East Semite lands resulted in the same things with some BIG civilizations resulting from it and mass migrations of people INTO Europe resulting from it. Incursions of barbarian Germanic tribes, allied with Turanian Huns, into Rome caused chaos, but the Holy Roman Empire (The First Reich in Germany) came from these actions.

It doesn't matter what items get produced or mass produced. That's not the issue except in terms of labor, capital, slave-wages, etc. It's also an issue that now the First World exploits the hell out of the Third World - but it used to be the other way around with the peoples of the Third World having the power when the peoples of the First World mere barbarian savages, primitive as ever. (How did the Anglos get to England? The Huns came and pushed populations West and these peoples bumped into the Anglos who also got pushed. Why did the Anglos come to America? Because Tamerlane cut the East-West trade route and the East, at the time, was BIG CIVILIZATION while Europe was a cess pool.) So the Crown of Imperialism has changed many hands in history: now the Anglo Americans have it, they have it ALL and they are having a party at the expense of the Third World which they exploit to have their party. But things are NOT O.K. There is trouble in the Realm. But it's the same old trouble: are humans incapable of learning from history?

The Empire (I mean the U.S.A.) is in BIG trouble with warring nations inside of it (ethnic groups, including gays since they seem like a big ethnic group). There has to be a way to fix this. What the right-wing Republicans want to do sounds VERY GOOD, even to some hard-line Reds. ISOLATION - IGNORE the world, PULL OUT of the world - USA FOR USA. US FIRST. Like: SOCIALISM IN ONE COUNTRY? Oh, they can call it capitalism but Roosevelt, whom everyone loved and who was elected 4 terms in a row, put into policy 8 of Marx's points and called it "The New Deal." Also if the rulers in the USA continue to overwork and underpay their own workers, or trash them out of jobs, and erode the New Deal benefits, there is only so long that the masses of Americans will stand for it! So, if the Christians took over, there'd have to be a kind of socialism mixed with some capitalism, probably not mega-mega-profit capitalism, with Christian values stuck in it. Christian values can go both ways: warlike fascism or peaceful communalism. They might not go for the New Deal or any of that "Leftist" stuff because the social programs were abused, predominantly by a very noticeably different ethnic group/race. In this case corporations will rule and they WILL NOT CARE which nation they get workers from - the cheaper the better. The profits will continue to be made, for real, by the toiling hands that slave away while the owners of these corporations will move the goods around: provided anyone can afford to buy them! Do they ever learn? Everyone praises human intelligence. I ask: where is it? SHOW ME REAL intelligence - with FORESIGHT. Hindsight is too late, buster!

But still, this is how the Third World BECAME the Third World: through imperial empires that became simultaneously more patriarchal and theocratic, with a closed-unit kind of theocratic self-help rule, at first with an army (male warriors) to defend the realm. Women have the RIGHT to vote? Who gave them the right? MEN! Armed men could just as easily take the rights away and they ARE bigger and stronger than women. The most brutal of them would end up being in power because what they want to do, aside from "to hell with the world, USA FOR USA, isolation" is GET RID of gays, blacks, and others they regard as a parasitic danger to their safety or way of life, to their QUALITY of life (which they want to keep high)! This is no news; they are open about the gay issue and not all that secretive on the blacks; just read their "Bell Curve" book or Michael Levin to see. So, the TYPE of man who could wipe people out or enslave/imprison them would be in power, be in their army, but who'd put them in power and want them there to keep them safe? THE WOMEN!! And it's a checkmate situation here. Blacks can protest this idea because what I'm saying has been VOICED lately in "respectable Republican-type" books! Gays can protest it, too. The checkmate is that the more they protest, and with big shows of numbers, the more of a THREAT they appear to be, as seen by these right-wing Republicans whose numbers are growing bigger every single day. All the paper wasted on the IQ issue, notice it? Who cares what a person's IQ is - is the person a good citizen, nice person and good at SOME job? If all stupid people are prone to criminality, why are there no Down's syndromes in the jails? Jeffrey Dahmer was smart, not a moron. He was a criminal. Smart criminals are smart enough not to get caught, or they are very hard to catch! All this paper wasted is nothing but a preparatory justification for what AGENDA someone plans to implement! (Warning: do you smell gas?) Repeat - someone's agenda. Is that a clue? Why else BOTHER with all the wasted paper on a meaningless number? What irks me about the New Left is that they heh, somehow got it into their heads that man has become "too civilized" for such awful things, that "it" would never happen. HELLO? Given the right CONDITIONS - hell yes it would.

But all of this, to really understand it without blaming this or that group, takes long thinking and understanding of a large and conflicting group of conditions and a multifaceted situation; it takes a LOT to figure out how the place GOT so messed up starting from scratch and not just from the industrial revolution onwards. And solving it would take a lot of thinking too, a lot of really exact "hard" science. Theories aren't going to solve it nor are political ideas which merely predict or legislate behavior. Take away the laws and cops and the situation starts up all over again. I don't think that our ancestors, prior to agriculture, had cops or jails. They had behaviors or, to be exact: WORKABLE social strategies.

Right-wing republican methods, like similar methods used long ago by others, are simple but IMMEDIATE solutions to problems they see and FEEL plaguing them RIGHT NOW; the problem is that they utterly lack foresight, they ARE simpleton. They want simple jobs, example. They manage to see foreign speaking people taking the jobs. They don't care if Big Companies brings them here as slave-wage workers; that's too abstract and they can't see an immediate way to stop Big Companies from doing this especially if these American companies aren't IN the USA. They see these people, and these people WILL NOT learn English and more, they are making demands these days about language. This makes the right-wing Republicans grow in numbers daily and it also ticks off other ethnics who DID learn English; who did NOT get "free English classes." This is what they see and, more immediate and importantly, what they FEEL: "He takes the jobs from me and also wants me to speak his language?" They see crime, black inner cities, their solution is to build more jails and lock them up - throw out the key. What happens when taxpaying workers don't want to pay for prison inmate upkeep anymore? The prisoners will find Big Companies building plants near the jails - where they'll "work" for their upkeep. That's slavery all over again.

On the other hand, some other more permanent solution could be arrived at which eliminates the criminals altogether and "solves the overpopulation problem" at the same time. It would be presented as "moral" to the American dupes. Genocide. Oh horrors! Oh shock! HA! Do you know how EASY it is to GET humans to go and do such a thing? We already have, hard-wired into our GENES, the tribal instinct - and it IS an instinct! The only thing stopping it is some moral injunction that halts what people feel, the "civilized veneer" that can vanish in a second - just let the going get REALLY tough and see. This bracing and pausing to "feel guilty about such thoughts" - pents people up if conditions in society exist that stress people out enough. Eventually, pent-up dams break. If you don't believe this, then you are a pipe-dreaming, wishful thinker living in fantasyland, who knows NOTHING of human nature (or RECENT HISTORY). How could the most civilized country, the country of Marx and Hegel, fall for "nice moral reasons" to do what they did? Easy. Really easy! The Left has never really dealt with this reality. It's too spooky for some folks.

What one must grasp is this: MOST human beings can't think and/or will not bother to think when their emotions get in a boil against an IMMEDIATE THING that they can concretely see; especially if the flames are fanned. They can SEE, example, the Hispanic speaking newcomer, legal or illegal, on a job, crossing a border, spreading TB now, even antibiotic resistent strains of TB now, etc. They can not easily see the Company. Most folks are DUMB. But then humans were evolved to respond to a situation of threat IMMEDIATELY and history shows they do it in a predictable way: they get the strongest men to be their warriors, they get the warriors to hunt and kill or exile "the others" and then they END UP with a patriarchy with repressive laws and anti-female theocracies to back up the men. If this happened in the USA, the USA would be on the sure road to being just one more Third World country. After all, those male warriors "fought and died" FOR the women and their children. That's how the men SEE this.

Well, maybe there wouldn't be anything so wrong about all this if it weren't for the fact that most of these men are BROKEN beings, they are twisted and sexually sick; they don't have animal-power of the kind that would make women tend to CHOOSE MATES along more carnal/animal lines as Wilhelm Reich and many others suggested, as we suggest and even as honest sexology studies show. I.e.,: "if he can't fuck, if there's no pleasure, then DUMP him." What if 99% of the men "can't fuck?" Well then the white Christian Western women will be back to the days when they had to be married, had to open their legs on demand and had to put up with this without having any pleasure of their own: which is why they are so neurotic today and don't even KNOW how to find a mate that can get them off (except those few who DO find one and then abandon husband and kids to BE with that man - it's common!). But then, this would still be just more Third World without the physical torture or mutilation Taliban style, at least NOT YET. Two very important words: NOT YET. So goes gender war.

Another real problem is that this "mess" goes on BECAUSE the modern First World has been exploiting the hell out of that modern Third World! But people tend to get selective amnesia about such technicalities. They tune that statement out and override it with their "might makes right" rhetoric as if this will make the "mess" go way. They are also unable to see that these now large groups of dissatisfied ethnics, having BEEN exploited, ARE BECOMING a might. Some of their Third World countries even have nuclear bombs now. Doesn't their might make right too? Result: WAR WAR WAR, more war. Predictable.

Solution? Some new way has to be found, some NEW MEANS OF PRODUCTION of FOOD (since a food issue is what caused the snowballing of this mess 10,000 years ago), has to be invented or discovered to STOP that snowball once and for all. We have to find new energy sources because fossil fuels won't last forever and nuclear energy is a non-feasible method. We have to do a LOT and FAST because right now two people work in a family and it's never enough, they're always in debt. Cars are polluters and money eaters. More fossil fuel crap. Ecological issues, you know the story... Some alternate form of fuel and MASSIVE public transit would do, but we can't have the public transportation end up being dangerous to ride on due to the asocial horrendous behavior that turned a former Left-liberal into a frothing reactionary (Michael Levin and his subway experiences). That has to stop, one way or the other some one is going to come to power to MAKE it stop and it's the people who's opt for that. Right now, the only ones out to do this are the right-wing Christians. Also, J. Sakai, author of "Settlers, Myth of the White Proletariat," pointed out how the left-wing and Communist Parties in the USA have gotten workers rights and all that good stuff, but ended up being First World Parties not exactly out to help the Hispanic non-English speakers or Chinese coolies, or the blacks who were also HERE and working HERE. Right now we need labor unions again, but we need to stop the companies from moving out of here and from hiring slave-wage foreign labor which exploits the Third World AND messes us up here. But how? More and more, battle lines are being drawn; you'd have to be BLIND not to know this. And there is overpopulation - too many people are even denying this!

Some think violent armed revolution is the answer either like the American one or the Bolshevik (Russian) one, but we already tried that and it failed. Also the CIA wrecked every single non-capitalist government that got legally VOTED in, such as Allende's in Chile. Of course, no one knows the CIA is doing this at the time; they know it on hindsight after the CIA members admit it on documentaries or evidence comes forth. Whenever someone, anyone, comes forth with some GOOD idea for freedom and prosperity, the nay-sayers manage to mess it up, obstruct it, sabotage it or corporations buy it out and bury it. WHY? I think they do it because they are schizoid, alexithymic, unable to REASON. Perhaps the answer is that they LOVE STRIFE and hate the world and their own inner beings so much that strife feels better to them than peace and quiet. It's hard to fathom this. It's greed, but - HOW MUCH do they need? Big Capital, oil companies and such aren't going to do anything to allow us to STOP using fossil fuel and perhaps try fuel-cell technology (non combustion engines, non polluting - fuel is hydrogen) - Big Capital might try to stop it from being done. But it HAS TO BE done. And it WILL BE done and not too far off - humans will have NO choice in this. (Update BALLARD FUEL CELL: IT IS HERE! WE HAVE the technology NOW, FDA approved! CHECK THIS OUT!)

Wouldn't it be nice if the Earth had Gene Roddenberry's dream of a Star Trek society as he conceived of the Earth, people living on the Earth, in that time period? Wouldn't it be nice (to break this down to the naked reality), if humans eating and overpopulating out of balance and making human waste didn't cause such strife and trouble? Yes it would; but society as it is now would have to be turned back RIGHT-SIDE UP; the "house" has been upside-down for far too long.

Gender conflicts can not be solved, or even objectively looked at, WITHIN patriarchy. Certainly, using the teleological argument to explain "that our noses are the way they are so that we can hold eye-glasses up" is rubbish. By the same token, the "means of food production" cannot be looked at within a world subsistent, for the most part, on agriculture. Communal Nomadic populations are very SPARSELY populated and they NEVER overpopulate! They remain in balance. When an animal (say, agrarian man) eats up his own habitat and ends up with ruined land and TEN TIMES the numbers of people, he has to migrate and take over another, bigger habitat. That is how, by the way, those still-nomadic ice-dwellers got to where they are now: PUSHED OUT by agrarians long ago. (See: Cavalli-Sforza "The Great Human Diasporas") Example: China is agrarian and has been for centuries now, their patriarchal imperialism is stamped in tight now. What if they DID NOT control birth by putting restrictions on it? They'd soon overpopulate the whole planet. Well, the numbers of hungry mouths are growing and the amount of land available is decreased: agriculture is in its end game (Cf. Smithsonian information by Robert McC Adams). The problems ahead of us are SO BIG that even the best analysts tend to "fuzz out" over it save to say they think the human species is finished. And sure, there are the "immediate solutions" to the problems that sound like the "final solution" of the Nazis: just wipe out a few billion people and end their starvation! Then there will be LOTS of land and fossil fuel to last "the survivors" a bit longer - a BIT longer. It WILL run out! And while this is not a solution in the long term: IT IS A SOLUTION FOR THE SHORT TERM - and consider that the most powerful countries surely have figured that out! The CIA has thought of it already.

Experiments need to be done with balance in ecological niches in terms of population numbers. Does something happen to animals (humans) when the population is too high? Something "hidden" - maybe pheromonal? That would change their behavior in a very direct way. Do they get crazy?

The problems of class and labor can be solved easily enough: pay everyone the same wage across the board. Socialism would solve the problems of "services for the people" but we'd have to find a "closed system" method of doing socialism or it WILL NOT last. Everyone pooling into it would have to benefit from it - and NO ONE ELSE. We'd have to either have nation isolationism or the whole planet (which would be ideal!) would have to be involved in this. Right now, we are nowhere near that dream. We have not even overcome war. Globalization is going to spread and FORCE capitalism, the brutal kind, on everyone: dog eat dog; don't cooperate; step on anyone to get ahead; trust no one; feel nothing when you see the freezing and starving, even babies: that's a definition of HELL! We'd have to find a way to keep the system in balance: we can't keep MAKING hungry mouths and expanding when the land is finite and subject to ruination so that there is LESS land to work with. That "people expansion, land erosion and lessening" started with agriculture 10,000 years ago. Even the method of animal husbandry in agrarian society is a land-gobbler. It's fine if you can move to another habitat, but there is nowhere to go anymore - humans have eaten up the whole planet and are now entering into DANGEROUS territory: the rain forests. The problems are mind-boggling. Capitalist imperialists are SO STUPID that they fight a war over who controls the oil but they don't lift a finger against those destroying our future air supply! Many humans would survive without electricity and other oil-petroleum-based life-supports and technology, but we will ALL perish without air. The CPUSA has a good Environmental plan but we would have to put people BEFORE profits. The problem is not for those that would benefit from this: the problem is for those that would LOSE something they have right now. No one is going to do that if they WOULD have to live in hardship when they don't have TOO MUCH hardship NOW. Something is always better than nothing! MORE is always better than LESS. No one will do it, if they have SOME THING to lose.

Fuzz over that. No one REALLY hears it enough to DO something about it. In one ear, out the other - go eat some dinner, go watch TV, go take a shit. Go to sleep and forget you read this and the heaps of other similar warnings. This is not an insult. This is exactly what people do when they have to WORRY about next month's rent. And if they are no longer worrying about the rent they will surely never do something that makes them have to worry about it again! And what do I do about this situation? I write this article. I go to work by driving a car, I watch TV, and so forth. Nothing much, in the grand scheme of things. Such is life: FOR NOW.