The concept of a drug that would disable the liver’s ability to produce cholesterol sounds like a terrible idea to me… cholestrol is to animals as chlorphyll is to plants… we die without it. It’s in every membrane of every cell, and without it the cell basically falls apart. – Stephanie Seneff
Representative democracy would be criticized by an anarchist… because there is a monopoly of power centralized in the state… anarchists of this tradition have always held that democratic control of one’s productive life is at the core of any serious human liberation. – Noam Chomsky
There’s just something about MIT’s linguistics department breeding radically different thinkers who go well outside of the disciplinary boundaries to attack dominant trends in the modern world. For Noam Chomsky, it’s attacking the policies of the United States, and for Stephanie Seneff, it’s attacking statin drugs and anti-life agricultural chemicals such as glyphosate (round-up). Neither of these radicals just likes to spout opinions, they feel much more comfortable speaking from strong positions of research. Chomsky has in the tens of thousands of pages of historically documented wrong-doings of nation states, especially those committed by the United States; Seneff has partaken in more than a dozen of peer-reviewed scientific biological studies/experiments documenting the essential biological roles of sulfur and cholesterol, and their chief antagonists which are statin drugs and glyphosate.
Neither of them started in their current fields where they are revolutionizing our views of human’s place in the world, and neither of them, both in their golden years—Chomsky is 86 and Seneff in her late sixties—are showing any signs of giving up and retiring. If you are familiar with neither, or one but not the other, I encourage you to look into their ground-breaking work and your worldview will grow tremendously. I am much more of a listener than a reader, and fortunately both of them have many talks/podcasts documented which clearly explain their positions and worldviews.
Where can a writing on something political begin? Surely not focused on great political leaders with the delusions that a few powerful people wield all the power and the story unfolds as their whims dart across the landscape where the lesser insects dwell. Nay, not the great man theory of history, for great men whom also wield power is dubious, and would anyways be next to impossible to identify, and fruitless nonetheless. Then what? The class theory of peoples who claim different degrees of property, from vast holdings to mere mass produced trinkets? Nay to this too—though such a neo-marxist undertaking would be venerable/applaudable—for it is too simple for our age, or perhaps rather, our age has become too simple for it.
We could say we are all too variable and on too many shifting paradigms, that a sociologist looking to analyze us would never be ADHD enough to keep up with our shifting technological society and the frequent off-shootings of cliques and resonances that come and go with an upgrade to a smart phone. This grasping for a post-modern explanation of the current political fogginess is a lazyman’s false idol. Why not just let Jesus bear the burden while we relax our guard and assume that events are part of some larger play of force, too big for any of us to make an impact upon because we are all just too different? “Our differences are different, and even our similarities are different.”
It is hard not to fall into this trap, and the only clear way I see is TO NOT ANALYZE THE POLITICAL PRESENT. Too much analysis and practices akin to analysis have weakened and particularized society from a once rich tapestry with harmonious strings, to a war fraught rag where there are neither allies nor foes, just confusion and non-microbial driven decay.
Perhaps I have already wasted too much text on the present, and in this paragraph I will here say that it is “the future”, but more accurately “a” future, that I would like to talk about. There is currently no good beginning from which to launch a political program. An end must be sought, and from this end we can let roots grow down into the present, vines from which we can swing ourselves out of this ObaMadofFacebooKremlin muck that isn’t worth a newspaper nor a future history tome to offer explanation.
So where to find this future? The best page to look at in such a worthy history book is the first. The first page, where we begin our tinkerings in agriculture and left behind our nomadic understudy of nature. It is back to these days we must ponder, when we stopped being a part of nature, and cut down a tree and made paper to write about nature. So followed our thinking that nature was no longer fit to seed itself, we were obviously chosen to do this (and questions of who chose us to do these tasks soon followed). Nature’s great child would now do the seeding, masturbating its various species, and picking mating partners for superficial qualities that blind vision and deaf hearing spoke to. Nature became the ignored parent, estranged at first, but the road has been long and darkening, the asphalt layers thicker and thicker. A helicopter ride reveals the varicose veins—the plaque, as ecosystems are actively marred. In this “post” industrial age it is to the point of nature being daily abused and systematical tortured and disfigured by a warped and deeply disturbed child. No child in the history of the earth has been so disturbed as the human species.
But lo! For I have strayed from a future and from a promise I made, something we all too often have done and will continue to do for it has become our second nature. We must accept this part of us for the present, and guard against its happening too frequently, as we seek to build a future, a future which includes us. Our agricultural beginnings were fraught with perils, most deeply that we put ourselves as master and nature as slave. Let’s this time change both the roles and the whole relationship, and put ourselves as student and nature as teacher. I am speaking of the permaculture future, where we as humans have small but important jobs as laying macro-landscapes to create microclimates where we let nature fruit to its fullest. We leave behind the follies of delving into depths smaller than our naked eyes can see, for these have brought great misery, as too have the extremes of macro-organization that went beyond our own bodies’ abilities to shape materials and required a machine to implement. The best way to dig ourselves out of our current problems—cultural, mental, environmental, and you fill in the rest—is to dig in to the world of permaculture that relieves us from the weight of the world we put on ourselves to manage.
Since the time of my thoughts from the Preface, my mind has continued to ruminate on the possible origins of the shift away from patriarchy. I have quite a crude hypothesis about how this situation has arisen, which looks very generally at some basic changes in the home, relationships, and lifestyles of people over the last few hundred years. I think anything we look at over this time span has to at the very least take into account the industrial revolution, if not link to it as the primary force for any noteworthy modern themes.
It’s best to begin with food, not least because it’s the most essential tangible item that humans need—after air to breath—and its production has always been an occupation of at least some members of a nation. Food production or gathering will always be first to originate in anything termed an economy, whether subsistent, traditional, market, command, or mixed; and it will always be the last occupation to fade when a civilization is ceasing to exist. This primacy of food production might be suppressed in various “high points” of civilizations, but when things start to go awry it’s importance will be reasserted—it is never far from
So even if women played a role in food production, men were usually the owners/managers/directors of the operations and the ones esteemed as the driving force of the farm. Women might cook the food and make the final essential edible meal, but this too, was only possible if the man had brought in the food: he was the real bread winner, if not the bread baker.
Up until the industrial revolution got well under way this was the main trend in societies: the relationship between males as dominant and females as subservient was codified in the immediate setting of every home, and reinforced by larger cultural traditions that put men as the only legitimate owners, dealers, shot-callers, etc.
Once industry started to literally and figuratively tower over agriculture, most men couldn’t or wouldn’t continue to be involved in farms and went on to either own factories, transport services, or work for them. Men were shuffling off to earn what was deemed more valuable—money; and giving up on what was deemed less so—food production and rural patches of land.
During all this, women were still the homemakers: preparing meals and raising the children, because it fell on them to do so. I think this is where the inflection point occurred and patriarchy began its waning. Why? Women had day-to-day evidence that what they did was in a basic biological sense absolutely essential to their families. What men were doing could not compare. It’s true that the money and the pursuit of wealth that men were undertaking had the highest amount of social legitimacy, but it wasn’t something biologically necessary the way food was, and so as men were gaining wealth from one generation to the next, they were losing ground in their visible necessity at home. Children might be told that their fathers were bringing home the bacon, but their mothers were making the rules, constantly involved in their upbringing, and going and buying the bacon AND cooking it. This shift in female self-concept probably had its greatest surges inter-generationally rather than the less likely story of singularly revolutionary females having epiphanies about their real worth; mothers might have the visibility of their value repressed by their own blinders, but their disgruntled daughters who were daily fed empirical evidence that women had the more important role in society were sure to be the ones with fires lit under them.
I don’t know if I’ve made a strong enough case for causation, but I would definitely argue that there is a strong correlation between the industrial revolution and the growing prowess of females. There are certainly other factors that played a large role in originating patriarchy to begin with, such as men taking on the role of warriors. What role soldiers being given the highest societal honor plays in modulating the waning of patriarchy is not for me to say here. I am not of the opinion that we should somehow try to engineer a way back to patriarchy either, and do not think gender relations were necessarily any “better” back then as to how they are now.
This and other details I leave for you to fill in as you will.
or, not that I necessarily agree: “Man is born free yet immediately looks for a woman”
Maybe the beginning of some anti-capitalism, letting-off-some-steam efforts as the coming spring weather now permits? The idea of burning cars should be most enthusiastically used in the winter time to keep protests lively and warm enough to care about those higher levels of needs on Maslow’s little hierarchy.
In Europe, too many twenty-somethings are overly educated and underemployed to not find some time to call out the bullshit back door money printing going on in the fiat currency world. There’s less fast food and less over-grain saturation in West Europe to sedate the people than the USA.
So I was at Wholefoods and looking for grass fed beef liver and they only had grassfed veal liver. My skeptical self, I couldn’t help but wonder if grassfed veal is another scamming, cheapskatish way of selling you “bullshit”… eerily close to a pun.
They have grass fed and then grass finished, nuanced uses of words that probably allow the industries to not deliver what they are purporting to, but I wonder if there is a notion with veal of “grass beginning”? Basically, my skepticism is that the industry is having calves be born from “traditionally” grain-fed mothers who are dumping all their toxic load onto the calf—a similar mechanism which has been theorized for how autistic kids derive their super-toxicity. They then feed the veal nothing but grass for its short life before they slaughter it, and can now label it “grass fed”, when really we can all figure out that the most important considerations is what its mother was fed (grass or grains) while the calf was in uterro (not to mention whether or not it was given its mother’s milk before or in conjunction with being grass fed).
Anyways, I am no cattle expert, and I think this is what the meat industry is hoping for—that most of us know so little about their world that they can maximize profit by changing as little of their bad practices.