notes 4 today: 2017-02-09 (Sanctuary Tierras; Trance And Kervranian Biological Transmutation; Paradoxes Of Uniformity; Musings On What Revolution Is)

title: Sanctuary Tierras

Since speak of sanctuary cities is commonplace these past several weeks with what is going on in the USA, I would like to in brief suggest an alternative and longer lasting sanctuary that needs to be established. Cities, despite having become havens for diversity and a logical place to resist racist/xenophobic/fascist policies, are themselves at the forefront of ontologically establishing the necessary background for totalitarian control; cities funnel people in to narrower movement patterns, they make them hyper-dependent on oppressive supply chain dynamics, and they severely lack in ecosystems. The history of cities coming in to existence is predicated upon imperialism and domination, and it is only sickened magical thinking that they are somehow separate or above this bloodbathed historical conjuring. Cities are now globalized places and globalized means dependency; cities try to justify an inter-dependency, but this inter-dependency is only a feign—cities are not needed by those who live in a balanced relation with the land. Everyone is to some extent in equal danger in a city, and equally displaced from the location(s) that they harm by their very existence continuing in a city. The leap from cities to concentration camps is not very far, the gap to jump is not even as noticeable as a crack in the pavement. A fascist house will soon be inhabited by fascists, whether intended or no.

Real sanctuary is to put ourselves—human animals—back in to a balanced relationship with the land that does not have civilization’s concrete/asphalt/agriculture scars all over it. Being spread out over the land, immersed in connectivity, there is much great natural security against all manner of problems that beset people, INCLUDING social problems such as racism and fascism which are a natural outcroppings of exploitative and extractive Western capitalism and the dynamics involved in exchanges between the urban and the rural.

Racism will come to mean little when starvation sets in, or the specter of starvation is hung over a people. Sanctuaries that are in places which were built upon centuries of human, lifeform, and land/resources oppression and alienation are not good long term places. They are at best temporary rendezvous spots, but they will fail in this particular regard as well as in their general capacity to “support life” because they were built to fail. Land and its natural abundance, on the other hand, is very modulating to the extreme swings on which a diseased living situation ensnares us. It supported us long before we clustered ourselves (or were clustered by) in to cities.

The immigrants undergoing increased oppression would be best served by those who have land to open up to them to practice agriculture/permaculture and/or to establish intentional communities that build up a community immune system prophylactically before diseases like fascism and racism have the chance to emerge. Too much is happening in reaction, and sanctuary cities are part of that reflexive unreflected reaction.

¡Tierra y Libertad!

Related Writings: Globalization Does Not Exist and The City Is Dead, And We Have Killed Him

title: Trance and Kervranian Biological Transmutation

Why is it and how is it that music can make you feel so good? What does music provide in the vibratory energy that expresses upon our bodies? Among other things that emotionally moving music (such as high quality euphoric trance… not easy to come by!) gifts us, I believe that music exudes subtle vibratory energies to be absorbed by energetically open humans (perhaps other energetically open lifeforms as well) so that they (we!) may alter atomic structures to create elements that we need out of other atomic elements available. Kervran showed that plants, at least, are “bioavailers” that have the ability to create elements that are in short supply, and I see no reason that other lifeforms should not be intrinsically capable and active at doing this. And for the reason/mechanism by which they are enabled to do so, I see no reason that it cannot be at base some beautiful vibratory force(s) that are moving these lifeforms to be self-healing and internally growing. Why biological transmutation should be restricted to a certain class, family or kingdom of life, would in my view only be the sophomoric restrictions that science places upon itself. As I’ve asserted before [note 2], I think ideas the imagination produce are true and it’s the burden of science to prove them false.

Music has real power to heal and provide nutrient needs, something especially valuable in our lands of quickly eroding soil that will see the Earth’s biomass decline even more steeply if we do not start rapid restoration. Allowing music to do its work, just as acupuncture and other healing modalities, is as important as ever.

title: Paradoxes Of Uniformity

The ease of uniformity is concurrently the disease of reality. Things (not to focus on humans per se, yet) are made uniform by human artifice, to align them in a straight rigid fashion. Though on the surface it may be justified as such, imposed uniformity is never about establishing connection, instead it’s about making things the same, so that they are the same frequency and adhere to the same leveraged manipulations. When such simplified manipulating frequencies are not there, the things lie dormant, very inactive and pulled from an ecosystem that would have had them actively becoming. Perhaps bridging to sociological phenomena, think of the perfectly trained unit of soldiers without their commanding officer present to direct them. What is their existence if not to be lead by a commander, these perfectly trained soldiers bereft of their past life experience by a perfect training regimen?

Human the organizer rather than human the steward forgets the invaluability of diversity in a landscape, and fancies that uniformity is an end in itself on many forages. Humans ontologically treat the rest of the world this way, and they so too treat each other in this fashion. This fashion needs to change, I fashion.

title: Musings On What Revolution Is

Revolution, just like any other term in our languages, is a reified term. Being reified it is by necessity imprecise and distracting, but revolution is one of the few words in my mind that is truly attracting as well. It is a potency, and is worth investigating, a touch of which I will do here:

Revolution should not be thought of as spread over hundreds of thousands of square miles: this is an extrapolation that humans all too often do for our activities and false assumptions about how reality on this Earth is governed (or that it is even governed!). Revolution is a desperate (and often beautiful) attempt at qualitative shifts of evolution when there has been a long quantitative drift of devolution. Revolution—for if nothing else it is a human convention—is something that happens within ourselves, our habits, and our relationships to others. The change that revolution might bring us in such deadly and dystopian times as the ones we are now in, are to treat ourselves better and habitually be good for and aware of our connection to the Earth. We might move and grow at a balanced pace, and move without attention, or attachment to, consequences imposed by contextually external entities. One does not ask permission from the old world to revolt and create a new world; if such revolution happens under these circumstances, it is revolution in name only, named by the overseers.

Revolution within will have us loving our enemies, our lords, as our friends, and as in need of help to come down from the heights of responsibility which hierarchy has elevated them to. Money and other legalities returned to mere paper, a banal crime against a tree and an insane crime against immediacy. Reality mediated no more, this is revolutionary given where we are…

notes 4 today: 2016-12-21 (Showering Of Ideas; Dogs And Society Correlation; Revolution And Paranoia; Response To A Favorite Che Quote)

title: Showering Of Ideas

Some meta-cognition: It occurred to me during a shower that during a shower I have a relatively high amount of ideas come my way. I think I used to believe this was because my mind was free of other tasks and so it could wander to more distant or abstract things to chew on. But then it occurred to me in a contrasting light, that there are other times I don’t have a fecundity of ideas, such as standing on a grocery line (or the ideas come more seldom here, even though the time span is similar). My hyperthesis is that warmth, specifically carried through water, heightens our bodies overall, or relaxes the troubles in the body that the brain would’ve been attending to, and now can entertain more freely the ideas that roam in.

title: Dogs And Society Correlation

Simply put, western societies tend to have dependent pets more frequently, and yet have a smaller and weaker family structure. So pets are certainly there to fill in the vacuum, but is it also causative or co-evolving, co-factoring, displacing? How many other animals in the mammal family hang out with other mammals sans human interference? By having dogs, we have become quite singularly concerned. If you consider yourself miserable (a likely thing this day and age if some open/critical thought is put in to it), I think we need to look at different primates for inspiration on how to live with each other rather than our own culture and the lessons of domesticated dogs whose instincts have been retarded.

And so the short term reality of “Having a dog helps me meet people” stands in irony to the probable long term effect where our families and societies as a whole, weaken.

We destroy pets’ relations to nature and they destroy ours. They are a cock block for they create a barely tolerable but still paper over a gap of connection needed to animals other than our individual selves. Keep your dog, but fill in the gaping hole underneath the bandaid with your fellow humans. We have the right skin and hormones to truly have loving interactions.

title: Revolution And Paranoia

A revolution must be paranoid if it is to survive. Just consider the context in which it must be emerging that it is so dearly needed. A true rƎVO⅃ution, is capitalized wisely and reveals certain progressions to be regressions. If a revolution is too paranoid, it will eat itself; if a revolution isn’t paranoid enough, it will be eaten by others, usually the forces which it opposes.

title: Response To A Favorite Che Quote


It is still sadder Che that we are all born now with deadly enemies, but we just tend to confuse them as friends (corporations, governments, banks, salespersons, etc…). But it is a happy thing that we are born with friends we often confuse as dead (plants, fungi, life forces unarticulated)! Pronoia is on our side!

Q is for Quelling (my thoughts inexactly)

Slavers don’t lure their victims with a closed cage.

Karma might kill you but your dead enemy won’t.

Dystopia doesn’t taste bad, it is flavorless. It is to drink without ever quenching any thirst.

There’s nothing more dangerous than a criminal that needs to commit more crimes to cover up previous ones. The string of crimes around is sure to thicken in to a rope.

To kill a governor, a person must oversee murder; but to kill a government, a person must oversee themselves.

It’s better to should all over other people as you do on to yourself. Don’t fear being labeled a hypocrite, fear being without dreams of somewhere better that should be.

Most did not choose to leave the land, yet here we are, just as fish who have left the water by the pelican’s envelope. We are dying but not yet fully digested… return to the land before the death of either we or the bird precludes such a reunion.

The church bell is the official toll for the great variety of death incurred—the death of unguarded polyamory, the death of unmarked temporality, the death of unconventional spirituality, and the death of untold bodies. The allure of its curving form is no less a straitjacket, and it is non-ironical that it is composed of metal, for it displaces an unbiased gathering of evidence that henceforth must conform to a statistical distribution. A cracked bell has not led to liberty, only with its dismissal and burial under the Earth can such hideous vibrations yet be quelled.

Wishing for that which is not, is a sin against that which is.

Part of being stupid is not knowing that you are stupid. Part of being unconscious is not being conscious of your unconsciousness.

We love to cry and cry to love. A growing dystopia shows us that these two expressions of feelings do not stand opposite one another, but die alongside one another to be replaced by their absences.

Those who take the stance of “wait and see” will get to see their own demise at the hands of those who act without full evidence.

Revolution that rises and falls with one man is not very revolutionary.

The more time spinning words, the less time available to pirouette ourselves.

If we only take our revolution to the comfortable shallow levels, we cede the great depths of the ocean to the powerful establishment that will dilute our efforts quicker than a tide changing.

As we continue to lose steam from this peculiar suburban era that is quickly burning through natural resource piles, visit places that make sense, rather than cost dollars. If you must, go by car, and go to places fully aware that you are a visitor, for your next trip may be one way as a refugee.

Humans are the deep roots of trees, the mobility of swinging primates, and the vision of eagles. Yet if we stay in one place there’s little reason to swing, and our vision atrophies because of the lack of light with our roots twisted in to the ground.

Laws that justify other laws which justify the original laws—let yourself not be part of this chain of prevents!

Related Previous Aphorism Posts:

notes 4 today: 2016-12-03 (Starving Government; Programming Humans; Ulterior Motives Of Facebook; Unusual Extinction)

title: Starving Government

You aren’t going to get mad at a chasm for existing as your main way of ridding yourself of the chasm—you are going to avoid the chasm. Being angered by a fungal disease that plagues a certain region is best followed up with leaving that region. Government is a chasm, or a disease, that is best dealt with by avoidance rather than the devotion of energetic emotions of anger. If it is truly a disease and not a force that fosters greater life, it will die out as it lacks those to feed on (and if it is a force for good, or what parts of it are a force for good, these will endure and morph to be not bound up to governance).
So the best approach to a parasitic government is to not approach it. Give as little of yourself—temporally and spatially—to its vast and open digestive system that is always taking nutrients away from the many hosts, whether they be humans, other life forms, or minerals and the air. Government is a long way from starving out, but the hungrier it is and the more we evade it and help others to do so, the weaker it will become and it might collapse. Perhaps a war of attrition is the best way to rid ourselves of government, though I daresay that it needs to be done in tandem with other efforts. No dogmatism should be settled on, but some guiding principles are useful, too.

We are starving for government the way Candida Albicans has us starving for sugar… best to starve the starver!

title: Programming Humans (meme)


title: Ulterior Motives Of Facebook
The “seen [time x] ” read receipt indication found below messages acts as a deterrent to someone’s leaving facebook and returning to their lives outside of it before responding to a message that had a question posed. Facebook—with full knowledge of the pressures that awkwardness creates, particularly the awkwardness by a non-response—uses with great success the “seen at” read receipt. It keeps people engaged with facebook that much longer by taking away the persons ability (another example of the instinctual flight response being undermined) to just evade communication and play dumb. The forcing of response is an example of infrastructure coercing those who dwell on and in it to alter their habits reactively. Facebook benefits monetarily with more advertisement time, but there are more insidious benefits, too, as with all the forces who (mistakenly) laud social engineering and social control.

title: Unusual Extinction (meme)


River Sleepiness

Mammals are the most dehydrated when they wake from a long sleep and are thus the most in need of liquids to be their tonic. Could it be that the white noise from running water calms us in to a restful sleep not just because it might remind us of our deeply nurturing time spent in our mother’s womb—as is commonly suggested—but also as a primary survival trait that encourages us to rest when we are in earshot of a life-replenishing water source. The vibrations of the moving water grounds and relaxes us after a long day of adventuring abroad to places that might not have had drinking water possibilities; it’s lacking in an environment keeps us more on edge to truly rest as our bodies sense that they need to be in proximity to a water source. In the quiet of the early night when we are still alert and on the move, we are hunting not for the sounds of prey, but for the sounds of tomorrow’s water.

Just wanted to point out what I thought was another example of the tremendous foresight built in to our instincts, which is in contrast to the notion that has instincts painted as lowly and banal “animal” reflexes and reactions.

Humans Hunted by Herbivores

As with many of my flighty or subterranean ideas ruminating in and out of consciousness, this is one narrative of deep anthropogenical “predicting of the past” that has heretofore not had a landing space on the surface for which it could clearly be elaborated and connected. Now a clear and propelling catalyst has emerged—thanks to the awesome possibilities ¿unEarthed? by a recent post by Ria Montana—so that this anthropogenic chapter in the human story can emerge without a stark aloofness. This narrative (for lack of a better word) is in answer to the direct and perhaps simplified question:

Why did the proto-human primate-types leave the trees and become the upright humans that we see today?

In rough terms my answer is the following:

→ Our ancestors as forest animals were deeply embedded in the fungal dominated forest eco-system and were quite connected to the needs of the forests, and were acutely aware of encroaching grassland herd species of animals (large ruminants, mostly) that were chipping away at the forest edges over the generations and quickly bringing the land to a succession towards bacterial dominated grass lands. Frugivorian humans turned hunters were the forests’ answer to these “herbivore” predators displacing the forest ecosystem at a cancerous rate (in an Eon-ic time scale) in to a new bacterial dominated savannah and grassland. Humans were the paleo (but not pale) white blood cells of the forest’s immune system, the animals most fit to restore a balanced relationship between the fungal soils and the bacteria soils. Up to this point the Earth had not yet evolved an effective ecological control on the indomitable marauding masses of unsizably large ruminants, but that was to change with the ascent of humans in to this new “grand-stewardship” role.

→ Possible origins of our nearer-side nomadic patterns and our shift to an omnivorous diet (away from a more strictly frugivorian one) can now be offered, as these humans leaving the full ecosystem of the forest would now be exposed to the lands of two annual seasons: wet and dry. During the peak dry and peak wet seasons humans would preferably migrate to forest ecologies where a water and fruit supply could be attained, and their sensitive bodies could better thermally modulate and keep from being too hot and burning or two wet and shivering; during the intermediary times when faring in the less protected grassland ecology was more plausible and the rivers and springs ran with fresh strong water, humans would do a greater deal of hunting and carrying out of their forest immuno-responsibilities. This bi-modality of shifting nomadically from open grasslands to the retreat of a protective forest could be looked at as humanity’s first engagement in geographically and climatologically determined guerrilla warfare. Unfortunately, this lifestyle, given that it eventually unbalanced to bring surplus rather than sustenance, might have planted the seeds that saw human vigilance begin to wane, and the human championing of life’s cause be replaced by human’s championing themselves, from the species on down now to the individual, against the world.

→ The not innately-violent humans—used to being a link in the life cycle eating the freely given fruits of the forest—had now become the champions of the forest. They had to devise ways and methods to “dehumanize” the fellow mammals they were sent to slaughter, and such symbolic methods of separation became our downfall and the current downfall of the Earth, roughly stated.

→ Regardless of the low points we have come to now, understanding this part of the human story is very reassuring, for it is one of our most important embarkations as stewards of life on Earth, which I believe is a natural role to which humans are inclined and predisposed. We were very threatened and sensitive enough to realize we were threatened not by a direct predator, but by a predator that threatened the whole entire ecosystem of which we were a part. This awareness is astounding and reaffirming of much deeper connections of life than science has yet discovered via its dissective and anti-life methodology. In a very noble attempt to keep back these bacteriological grassland conquerors, our ancestors chose to stand up (literally) and fight back on part of a series of organisms which we held in community and in high regards. We died hunting and evolving ways to attack these animals and lessen their populations to save the forest eco-systems we held so dear. And I’d like to believe that for a time the transitioning middle was extended before we made our wrong turn, and we held both the forests and the grasslands in high regard; we let ourselves be a bridge, a common ground through our not favoring one ground over the other, and these two very different worlds of vital development were given a relationship through us and our migrations. They could peacefully co-exist for this epoch as long as humans were to fill in our new niche responsibly, not overdoing it or underperforming. Unfortunately we overperformed in our specific species successes and became conquering and predatory without keeping in mind the long view that we were to be eating away at our future selves; a disease is a blind act of suicide.

→ And lastly, I offer an allegorical way to put this transition in terms of “rock-paper-scissor”. Ruminant herbivores came along (the paper) ready to swallow up our friend the forest (the rock); in order to get back at the paper and defend our friend, we fashioned ourselves out of the rock minerals in to the scissors with which we could now cut back at the engulfing paper. We made the enemy of our friends our enemies and created ourselves as the scissors, the third length in an important cycle. Unfortunately, the scissor moniker has been taken to heart, and now we cut down everything, including rock! But the choice is ours, even at this seemingly late stage, to reemerge as the stewards the Earth borne us to be.

In Defense of Libertarians (TMLF part 2)

In response to Capitalism is Cruelty and this facebook discussion which indicates fundamental differences and problems of reconcilability between two general camps—anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists—I’ve decided to republish my responses to a fellow “ancom” where I don’t think it makes sense to try at this juncture to unwed the people from the political identity of “ancap” that they dress themselves in. I like to think that I’ve undressed down to a naked animal, and my skin and inner organs are all “ancom”, but whether this is ontologically accurate, and important to conceive of at this juncture, I throw in doubt. When an important alliance looms between our two groups, which is arguably always an important alliance to make so long as these two groups of people exist, I am quite fine with putting these differences aside, no matter how much the idea of private property “gets under my skin”, to mix metaphors! So, here is my responses to what he said on facebook and in his one article:


I read Cap is cruelty, and I agree fully with all you are saying (though I am doing theoretical anthropology and am guessing that the seeds were sown more than 10,000 years ago, but no matter property is an ancient burden that has been unsuccessfully challenged heretofore). I guess I just feel a time pressure and if we hold the bar so high for full on mental revolution to a sense that mutual aid and sharing are the ideals that we are ready to unbag all the cultural baggage we’ve inherited, we will lose many people along the way that might have been a few years away from that leap, and might be turned off to the ideas if they are too much of a radical leap. I’ve visited some intentional communities where, to me, they seem at the forefront in western culture towards retribalizing in a sharing, horizontalist as possible fashion. some are only a couple of generations away, in my opinion, of realizing your and my dreams for people. obviously that collides and is not enough given the speed of the holocene extinction event/desertification, a real crisis indeed. but the teacher in me would rather “chunk” mental revolution and i see being a libertarian that doesn’t like global expansion, itself the most harmful general trend to the environment, to subaltern people, to dangerous new military arms weaponizations, i would rather these people be included than excluded in this movement and perhaps their culturally acquired ideas of rabid individualism will start to soften as they find the comraderie with others that the culture was unable to provide them with beforehand. Psychological barriers are so deep, I have found this true within myself, and they generally need to be crawled out of, so as to slowly stretch them. It’s taken me a long time to get to the latent content and fully be conscious of this nightmarish reality, and break down the self-inner-monologue bs narratives. I give a lot of credit to people even being libertarian and having a sense that imperialism is wrong. it to me is a huge leap in the right direction, one that should not be admonished by any who have had a lifetime to think deeply and move their mental states further along. But I think your article might argue against what you’re proposing here, which is “the first step is to get more people talking about it.” I completely agree with this sentiment. Peace!

and lastly wanted to say there still are indigenous and psuedo indigenous people who are farther ahead than intentional communities, and surely should be learned from. the difference is they possibly never lost the core of sharing going back tens of thousands of years, whereas westerners really have to go to some core instinct that private property is wrong and rebuild from that, aided of course by ideology of anarchists or revolutionary marxists.

and lastly lastly, ha I keep having add ons, or new ideas (which may work to support what I’ve been getting at) – private property is not just solely something that exists in human minds and therefore perpetuates because of their ideas. property is outside of humans in historical Alien archaeological visitors viewing our planet shortly after we all were extincted would be able to decipher that we were “thing obsessed” people by noting both how our skeletons were gathered and separated in our dwellings, but maybe even more by our infrastructure and mass strewn about separatized possessions. It is a battle of ideas in our minds for sure, but it is also a battle against hard and individualized matter that has suffered us and our recent ancestors who industrialized and thingified so much of the physical planet. Though I call myself an anarchocommunist, how often do my habits unawares stray back to the default of being possessive, spiteful, paranoid? Not infrequently enough! And how often does an an cap do something cooperative, or feeling something mutual? Probably more often than would be given credence. We are all works in progress/regress. Let us throw out the gray bathwater, but certainly not any comrades rinsing and refining, or polluting their halfway decent ideas. We need all the comrades that we can get in this lopsided, terrain destroyed battle for the ecosphere to survive this human-led extinction effort.

Related Post:

State Forests: what the state hasn’t grasped

State owned parks act as impenetrable rocks accidentally swallowed that cannot be digested by the predator’s intestines. The deep state isn’t so deep yet that it has been able to make full exploitative use of the entrenched non-hierarchical ecosystems of these hundreds of thousands up to millions of forested acres. The state dubs it protected land, but it has not silenced the dynamism of the land’s own making that protects and defends it from the state (for now, at least); anti-statists and anarchists alike would benefit to ruminate on this point to inform their future strategies and tactics. There are occasional forays by the state to fix or assess something in the typically mountainous regions covered in green on the surface and on the maps, but mostly, the extractive profiteering is minimal. The state’s conquest is limited to the besieged borders where the state seasonally charges fees to access these wildernesses, with permits to stay more than a single daytime day at a time; they would use tick fear as a patrol mechanism, a state ploy couched under “safety”, attempting to dissuade human access to these lands that it itself could not tame.

Contrary to the de jure legal understanding, I would argue that the borders of the protected lands are international, and the fees are a customs charge, for the land is merely enclaved by a state but not yet enslaved by it. The land is saved from state penetration perhaps by it’s lofty position (often mountainous), seated as Switzerland is in high and oblique inaccessibility. Though there are few to zero humans who permanently dwell in these places, there is plenty that we—who would choose to not be conquered by a state—can learn from such unconquered places. The protective geography that is an island in a sea of the state, is akin to ancient Greece’s geographical context, except that the unpopulated geography was the sea that made protected “islands” out of the separate city states.

While most other forests, grasslands, marshlands have been dragged in to the state’s nexus by roads and settlement—with taxation and monitoring following closely behind—these topographically asymmetrical lands have been overlooked by the state precisely because they were not, and still are not, easy to master. It is these places that frequently offer an overlook, a breath giving scenic vista, that belittles to a mere lower corner of the panorama the bedraggled exclave country that only legally includes this natural beauty. Even imperialistic statesmen such as Jefferson and Ted Roosevelt had either a steward’s empathy wrenched from them, or an awe and terror for something more dominant than they, when dealing with these vast dimensionalized lands and deciding to throw their weight behind their protection; a side question is whether they were acting as moral politicians or political moralists. Other politicians might have decided to do the same in their stead, and had they not, fierce nature might have beat them and their cadre of industry back anyways.

One of the most banal and taboo truths about human existence ties in here—a truth that puts us in our place—and it is namely that land grows people. This uncomfortable idea is ameliorated by other ideas of a plenitude of land (manifest destiny) so that raping and scorching vast stretches is okay and only localized: one cannot marry a land because there are too many parcels available, though one can have a piece of land every night and throw it away by the morning, for there are such reserves in wait. Unfortunately, such overcompensating has lead to pillaging that does not stop until it reaches little unimpressive islands of land where multiple series of squares meet—those awkward sub-acreages that modern land development is unable to systematically make more copies on. A “compromise” with nature is made with places like these alongside interstate highways where “lucky” trees remain that had the good fortune of seeding in what would be future front row seats to a twenty-four hour highway. A development corporation’s convenient public relation’s “green space” ruse disguised as a compromise with nature, is really a defeat of their instrumental rationality; but it is in these cases almost a Pyrrhic victory, for corporate and state use of rationality is so efficient in their destruction of nature.

As development corporations have trouble with little parcels of land that don’t fit in to their cookie cutter model, the state and its corporate parasites have trouble with untamed large pieces of land that would break their cookie cutters were they to try and apply them on the terrain. Life for now is very lush in these ultimate refuges of protected mountainous lands, lands which stand in a stark contrast to what industry really is all about—intentionally taming life and inadvertently (but inevitably) killing it. As of now only these strongest lands have not succumbed (been subalterrained) to the disease of state driven civilization; the state’s claws are not those of a mountain lion, they cannot easily grab such real things without great difficulty and harsh resistance, and so they only etch dividing lines in to flat plains coastal and continental that are two dimensionally digitizable. The state’s inability to grasp these places is precisely why they want to put their title on them. The state wants to contain them in language because such places actually show the limits of state power, and expose its vulnerabilities; like with so many other things, western powers linguistically co-opt what they physically cannot. Sometimes the protecting of these lands is presented as a bargaining chip in exchange for receiving a green-light to industrialize a different piece of wilderness, so in this sense they are used for political expedience. Beyond this the state’s utility of such lands is minimal, and that is a testament to what power life has in such lands, and perhaps to its future benefit if it has not deposited reserves in to fossilized coal. For us with the ability to migrate ahead of the coming metropolitan crises, skyscraping lands of tenacity with such a view would be quite a wise place to rendezvous.

“We are being too idealistic”: The Critique of Money, b part of

One of a few planned follow-ups to the first money critique , in a smaller dose:

As one who believes that given the chance humans (like other animals) have the innate capability of working and surviving harmoniously (usually) in direct, unmediated relationship to the land, I’ve often been told that I was being far too idealistic. Many of us surviving in modernity, I believe, have our brains as the last refuge for such pleasant utopian daydreams, rarely speaking to others about them. Now grown-up, we dismiss them ourselves to think about more real and practical things like money. But is money at all practical, and should we not listen when children say things like “isn’t it just paper?” and “can’t we just print more?”? (Some bankers and the Treasury/Fed are certainly listening to this latter advice à la QE)

The height of idealistic thinking is that pieces of paper have value. Its very legitimacy needs disproportional amounts of idealism to establish itself. I fancy that an ulterior motive to the child labor laws was to make children the captive audience to specific literacies that legitimized private property and the exchange value of currencies. Don’t let the unions set up their own schools that might teach Marxist and anarchist reflections on the industrializing path of the United States…

In any event, the frontal cortices of many now are channeled to thinking only about money and all its different dimensions; because money is so unreal, it can take on far more dimensions and dynamisms than would be allowed to something tangible.

Our problem right now is that our species is way too idealistic, I think Kunstler would concur saying we say we have succumbed to magical thinking. I think we could follow this idea all the way down to civilization’s roots, when some among us thought it would be a good idea to use grains as both a way to sustain ourselves and a way to keep track of wealth. Previously our wealth used to be in our bodies in terms of how healthy we were and how well we were getting on with our group of compatriots. Now we are deep in our heads looking for answers or for escapes, when what we really need is to be more in our bodies. If we live in a framework that separates our heads from our bodies, death is much closer, and so too is a loss of life. So again, ideas that we should be closer to the land, share the land with each other and the plants, fungi, bacteria, and animals—are these idealistic ideas? No, that’s our bodies attempting to wrest control from our narrow and mismanaging brains. The idealistic thinking is that we can keep this money thing going on into perpetuity, that representationalism is an appropriate path to follow to maintain our residency on this planet. Perhaps our greatest medicine to wake up from this hallucination is to grab a handful of forest floor soil and reawaken to the great cycle we have unplugged ourselves from.

The Critique of Money, a part of

When we give legitimacy to money (by using it, accepting it as payment, etc.), we are dispersing our power, sidelining ourselves and handing over authority to all the unfathomable quantities of combined monies that elsewhere exists. Agreeing to be part of the money system is in more than 99% of human cases the agreement to deleverage oneself; it is from the get-go the signaling of an agreement to fractionalize oneself to the betterment of non-reciprocating others. The uncritical educational propaganda says money exists to facilitate trade, when money really exists to facilitate trampling. How many sustainable subsistence economies existed throughout the world before the narrow conception of money/property was introduced—at the point of a sword—to siphon off the inherent non-monetized value that had been previously built in these locales? Money facilitates conquering and victimage at both the macroeconomic and microeconomic levels; it has never been employed to facilitate symbiosis (though some symbiotic tending people may have deluded themselves that money was a positive part of their program). Money grows (and is grown) in the vacuum of a fleeting and absent symbiosis; it parasites on the death of trust, and wedges in between more and more areas of receding life.

If money doesn’t taste like it is this bad of a pill to swallow, it’s because we aren’t the ones who did the original swallowing. Our great great grandparents had to swallow that pill at a creeping dosage, and we are merely born dependent—hopeless junkies looking for a fix, rather than looking to detox. Money is the greatest and grandest Ponzi scheme, extended so much so that the original creators are long gone by the time the game collapses. Because so many different entities are dependent on money, their own epic failures obfuscate money’s prime role by the sheer number of debris that litter the ad hoc graveyards. So what happens then? After a generation, money reenters the equation to rape the next era, mistakes repeating themselves.

So long as the money system remains legitimate by our energy inputs, money that isn’t possessed by us is money that is potentially—and more than likely eventually—wielded against us, if not directly than through the inevitable erosion caused by externalities. Money is internally a zero-sum game; it naturally pits people against one another which some argue allows for a productive competition, which in turn causes an external net benefit: money has been part and parcel of the progress that we’ve seen. But this progress is really just that of money breaking down the natural defenses to the commons (wearing down people, animals, and life to exhaustion and quitting), with more and more natural resources becoming “monetized” and future inhabitability of vast lands put in to jeopardy. The true cost of money is not a zero sum, and it is certainly not a net benefit. The true cost—by which I measure using a core and utterly essential foundation to know where we are truly at—is the level of biodiversity and biomass occurring on Earth. Since the rampant exportation of money economies—what we call European colonialism—that measure is way down; life is dying all around us; life requires symbiotic relationships for a synergistic net gain, yet synergies including organic complexities, are dwindling. Trees are much more easily turned in to money than money is turned in to trees, just as violence more easily gets rid of something than peace recreates it.