title: Permaculture/Propaganda (memes)
Sorry to break the news to you, but its always been fixed
title: Wicked Timing Of An Intentional Disaster (draft)
If there is an oligarchic “they” who decide they want to diminish the human population—and even if it is only a plurality of the oligarchic class in disagreement with their peers—they are sure to do it at the weakest link. As for humans controlling populations, it’s an empirically derived fact that our species in general has both intentionally and unintentionally “controlled” population numbers of other animals for a very long time—why wouldn’t the same be true today 2016 for the human animal? It’s true that our passive herd like tendencies have been amplified by modern food-culture-infrastructure-medication crowding out, dampening, and alienating our tabooed vigilant tendencies to such a high degree that we are already self-drilling for population control. Indeed, literacy is such a severe control mechanism that we euphemize it is facilitating communication, but it is a very specific communication; I am not above this control, for though I have quite a lot of anger against being controlled that I will not sedate, I channel it into words which is a very effective way of controlling me—controlling myself—for the benefit of those who might parasite away my energies. I won’t digress further, I won’t deviantly stray too far from the corpus that I am trying to get at, from the herd of words I have conjured; besides, these or similar arguments have been made frequently enough by liberation-minded leftist and conservative thinkers. Here I want to speak of how this devolved reality we passively inhabit can most acutely be used against us.
Such an approach by a “shepherding” group [uncompleted thought]
→ A polylemma: What or when is the weakest link? ←
There is such a plethora of weakness, so many vulnerabilities, that one must wonder that anyone deciding on a specific programme to diminish the population would have a real problem in the decision making stage; not a dilemma, not even a trilemma, but a very large polylemma is what they would encounter, seeing all the different opportunities to hit the masses hardest. Indeed, I think many of the oligarchs are probably of the mind that the best approach is to sit back and let humans diminish themselves through their own sheer stupidity (though such a course might drag their interests down as well); humans really are very similar to the corn crop that we have contrived (explained by Michael Pollan), very frail and subject to death without specific input needs being met at regular intervals. We give ourselves health problems, we expose ourselves to weapons’ dangers, dangers of travel and transport, and dangers of misplaced emotions, among other dangers that I am normalized to and cannot see/hear/feel (yet), such as sonic and emf vibrations. I am not sure what specific system (finance, the electric grid, water contamination) or what specific place (Western Europe, Eastern North America, Brazil, China, cities, etc.) we are truly the most vulnerable in—and such a calculation would besides be severed from accuracy by the whims of the executing oligarchs—but I am more confident that there is a time window when the damage imposed is to have greatest impact:
The hours of mid morning when parents are away from their children, when children are ready to be kept from their parents by state mandates “we are keeping them safe”, parents would die trying (maybe that’s the goal of these oligarchs) to get their kids from their school.
The more kids you have, generally, the more vulnerable you are to such a timing, and the more you are intrinsically a threat to the oligarchs in that you are keeping the population going in a direction that they don’t particularly like—whether on the path of decadence or deviance.
title: Russia Hacking
It’s pretty telling, but this article—Top U.S. intelligence official: Russia meddled– in election by hacking, spreading of propaganda—and so many headlines I’ve seen flashed over the last few days have this phenomenon where if you cross out “Russia” or “Russian”, and any adjective or adverb adjacent, the title always changes to the more sinister possible reality; I will leave you to cogitate on what that reality is.
I do not put it out of the realm of probability—and I do not think you should either—that some of the most powerful people in the world have some poor ideas on how to remedy the state of this planet. Those who hold the levers of power can pull them to make a wide range of bad things happen (good is precluded with such hierarchy, thus an expression of the asymmetry to which I have been so attracted to); and some of them surely think that the human population growth, being so out of sync with the obvious depletion of the environment and life-fauna, points to a necessary solution (a final solution) of killing back humans (or letting us die by our own devices) to a much lower number. They would view this as a “vent”, a pressure release, to “save” the viability of the rest of the world. A range of motivations among the powerful, crossing over this specific idea I’m presenting, could potentially contrive for a concerted action of sorts to reduce our numbers, with most of them viewing it as an “ends justifies the means” good thing.
So personal biases notwithstanding (I’d like not to be targeted for extermination), I think this is a faulty solution even if humans have made themselves in to a disease threatening the extinction of many many lifeforms including themselves. This ocd mentality that so many have, to get to a clean slate, is very dangerous when acted upon, and yet it is the zeitgeist. In regards to diseases and animal domestication the dominant thinking, despite its idiocy, is to confine separate and in the case of diseases kill them by direct force (think about how scary the word “anti-biotic” really is).
So, the way our medicine regards diseases “kill the disease” is how some of those with the levers to great power presumably view the human disease. I think the ethical way to deal with the diseased human presence, is to remember that life is resilient, especially when in the ecosystems that it holistically evolved with, and so rebuilding the ecosystems, rather than killing their destroyers, is the best thing. Humans will be guided by ecosystemic forces that will naturally
Maybe the planet can support 70 billion humans, but not when there is no other life on the planet, but a plethora of life. We can approach this great number, but at the very least we have to evolve our miseducating cultures (by and large get rid of them) and we will inevitably evolve many degrees away from the current, poorly developed, humans that we are.
So the ethics that I would hope any with levers of power, for we all have some levers no matter how small or how large, is to let go our levers, let go our control, and only re-move what we have erroneously put in place to the detriment of the ecosystems, and become active stewards of life. Carbon won’t be wildly out of control in the atmosphere if a resilient life with an appetite for it is unleashed and allowed to consume it. Rebuilding ecosystems along holistic/permacultural lines is the surest way to have an extinction prevent.