Many mothers nursing their many children is a human nation; one mother nursing her own child is alienation.
One would think with the coming of propertifying civilization and the loss of depth in tribal connections, the loosed individuals would need to sharpen their sensitivity to fill in the gaps that were now missing given the loss of so much camaraderie. Instead of advancing in this fashion, to evolve into these magnificent independent individuals, humans agreed biologically to become less than they were in their unity. Disease of thought coincides with the disease of body. The lessening of oxytocin, the lessening of agility movements, the lessening of nutrient density in diets, the lessening of the range of experience by being stuck in a more localized geography—all these losses led to a lessening in sensitivity. It is both a specific and generalized desensitization, a devolution of our species affirmed by cultural institutions that would now harbor and modulate a great deal of human emotions and experiences, narrowing their actual and acceptable ranges.
The disease of imtribalism was contrived in the wintering lands where private survival, at first a means to keep surviving, became the very ends. Thus an example of when the means became the ends—ends in need of ending…
The greatest marriage is not that of a couple, but of a tribe; it does not begin with priestly words, but at beastly conception, from parents multiple, of love polyamorous, profuse—a strong web. The greatest nurture is to be raised by a multitude of parents that go far beyond your two progenitors of a stricter scientific understanding. A whittling down of the parents from forty-two to two, subtracts the child down to negative forty—it should be no wonder that raising children these days can feel as the greatest burden. The death of a tribe in a nuclear holocaust is worsted by the birth of a child in a nuclear family; if you think this hyperbole experiment with the thought that the tribe died crying together, and the baby was born among unfeeling strangers that did not reciprocate her tears, your perspective will shift profoundly.
The work that should be shared among 80 of a tribe, is now the burden of 2 parents or even 1 single parent. Zero parents—and zero children—is not long off.
Most individuals have a plurality of sides to them that are deeply flawed—missing qualities paired alongside with grand over-compensations that would have others in “the normal range” feeling vacant and flawed by comparison. These flaws are constantly revealed to the therapist and personality analyst types among us because an individual is rarely whole on their own; a conclusion these professionals are usually blind to is that an individual is an idiosyncratic puzzle piece that must have vulnerabilities and additional capacities to fit in with a more complete picture, albeit a large family or tribe. Lacking this tribe to fit in with is the great flaw, for tribe-lessness is the great disease and a puzzle that we seem farthest from solving, for truly we need others to complete us.
The more of all of us there is, the more of each of us there is.
Industrial civilization has eaten away our tribal identity and worn us down to the gradient point of having a mere individual identity (a stability unknown previously); civilization is as a thorn fixed in the side for too long, that inevitably leaves the afflicted as thin and biting as the thorn itself.
Born of 40 parents and married at original contact, instead of 2 parents and a state-sanctioned marriage contract.
Children, even babies, need not always be in the immediate proximity of their parents for their biological parents to feel at ease. There just needs to be a sense that there is parenting going on, which is why when corporate day cares take over childcare, there is usually some reluctance or ill-at-ease that happens with the legalized parents. This only lasts for a time, but it is a very real distinction between a bond to someone that is to share in the parenting that need not be tied with money, and a bond that is exclusively due to the medium of money being utilized. The tribe as parent and the tribe as child has been replaced with the nuclear family and biological parenting almost exclusively, and because these are such intrinsically weak models immunologically, the disease of monetary profitable daycares starts to materialize.
Religion fills the vacuum left by a lack of a tribal family—in other words there grows a lack of people to invest worship in. We are built to worship, but in lacking a secular worship opportunity (a tribe) we worship a fanciful supernatural element. We are supposed to worship one another.
Your whole self is fully realized not when it is entirely apart from the group, but when it is absolutely a part of the group.
An individualist culture that produces utterances saying “what does it matter? I’ll be dead in one hundred years” does not have much farther to devolve. Despite the individualism, the voice that echoes such words is still that of a tribe, one its throes of death; individualism is hopeless.
Reestablishing tribal societies rids us of the need to tediously parse through the ingenuous and the disingenuous actors who easily make prey of our havoc-worn world.
We are in a time of unique and unprecedented levels of grief to be absorbed by singular individuals. Put numerically, when a tribe of 80 loses 1 of their own, the 79 survivors all have one another to lean on in this tragic time, and the child/parent/lover lost was in all likelihood not the only one “specialized” in that role with relation to the other 79. Now with the nuclear family in it’s most crude form, there is a tribe of 4 each in a specialized role (without redundancy) of a mother, father, daughter and son. When one of these gets sick or injured, or dies, the vulnerable nuclear family is hurt and in death quite devastated. Tragedy exposes the very weak internal web and allows disease (lawyers, therapists, pharmaceuticals) to come and prey on a failing eco-system; tribes never needed nor allowed the emergence of these diseases because they were so strong on a blend of layers. Make no mistake—a tribe does not dilute each of it’s members to insignificance; rather, a tribe is a more evolved drink with emergent properties making it quite potent, too, available to quench the thirst of all. The tribe is not necessarily the only referent point—thinking about it that way might be a uniquely skewed view imposed on our thought by our peculiar times; tribes might be best evaluated by looking at person to person relationships in a specific time frame, judged against what we have now. Did tribal people choose to pay attention to a medium rather than a person in their immediate vicinity thirsting for interaction? It takes a village… and now a village is taken. A shared grieving process is the only grieving process.
WE, because ME alone is upside down.
Soul searching is often misdirected, for we are looking deep within ourselves when really it is others we are searching for.
Not knowing whose child is whose, where no lover is no one’s only lover, where one’s father is not one’s only father, where one’s child is not one’s only child. The more the merrier without the more the Malthusian mortality. More relations without more mouths to feed.
Stray from the herd you’ll find yourself living, stray from the tribe and you’ll be found dying.
I trust a people I do not know, I do not trust a person I do not know.
Wanted to release a compilation of pictures, memes related to spreading permaculture ideas via the Permaculture Campaign, which I launched the end of January. Also, some door to door educational campaigning is in the works, and there is a budding facebook contingent that merged with NJ Permaculture Group if you are curious.
Karlos Generalizations And Memes On Permaculture:
Permaculture is the bridge that allows humanity to leave its barren desert island and cross back to the land of holistic ecosystems
If our actions don’t follow the word permaculture in to the main stream, we are up Shit’s Creek.
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.
A few different conversation lines that I would draw upon for a political comic strip, if I had the skill or digital know-how:
Scene: Corporate guy (CG) in suit talking to KKK member, both have drinks in their hands, the KKK member only listening and nodding in understanding:
CG: “Hey, no need to wear those bed sheets to commit your crimes, we have corporate clothing and technology that hides us from responsibility from the lynchings we create”
CG: “and you don’t have to worry about breaking the law, we have lawyers for that… a few of which will be appointed as legislators to keep the laws on our side.”
CG: “One more thing, we don’t wait for night to do our bad deeds, we get paid for them! And we spread out who we hurt, so it is less visible.”
A caption below might say: “Hiding behind layers of blankets, or layers of technology” or “Republican-debate House Party”