Subversify Magazine » Religion, Patriotism and Money – Three Evil Crayons

Religion, Patriotism and Money – Three Evil Crayons

Share

herd mentality

Rant by The Late Mitchell Warren

It is generally believed that humans and our pre-human ancestors have been alive for millions of years, presumably with less evolved brains, and so presumably with savage instincts.  Probably much of our time was spent fighting, hunting, and generally being anti-social.  As we began to “herd” and find agreement with other human beings, we found that only three systems seem to work–seemed to unite us together towards a common goal, instead of merely fighting amongst ourselves over territory and food.  These common goals may well have been (A) patriotism and regional control, our side, our strength in numbers vs. the weaker enemy; promise of protection and sustenance (B) greed and territory, our sharing of resources and human-centric pleasures; (C) religion, superstitious stories that explained foreign concepts to us; we being over-analyzing animals seeking answers as a relief to our chronic anxiety.

In other words, these three values (religion, patriotism and money) were control techniques, herd-tactics that helped keep human beings united in groups, and thus spoke to their inherent need to belong to a pack.  Humans found that herd mentality was safer than playing a lone wolf and hunting every day for scraps.

It took human beings thousands of years to realize that these systems were flawed.  But ultimately, these systems rose from the minds of men…they were herd creatures desperately seeking control and rules to live by.  They needed their alphas, and the alphas needed their masters, so that the herds, the sheep, could be placated while they went about their putrid business.

One could even argue that men used religion, patriotism and money values as a way to tame his own savage instincts, which was to behave as a lower animal, incapable of compassion or altruism.  Without these values, man would have no motivation to be kind or compassionate because outside of the one unit family, there is no great understanding in the jungle, the wilderness of amorality.  Man is scared of what he would be without these rules, these familiar recyclable concepts.

Now that man has evolved further thanks to technology, he has outgrown religion, patriotism and money…or so he says, and is attempting to create a new herd control technique known as Secular Humanism, the idea that human beings are a superior species and behave in a civilized, “logical” manner.  This is basically a recurring trait in human civilization; we see our modern society as civilized and past civilizations as barbaric.  Despite the fact that not much has changed; despite the fact that we constantly invent enemies, and revere gods or at least behave obsequiously towards our favorite cerebral leaders among men.

Even in our modern society, the problems of antiquated religions and national prejudices still plague us.  There is still excommunication, still internal bickering, still separatism and class warfare, still crime and destruction, those who practice outside established laws of the city.

Not because of any deep-rooted “morality” that apparently comes from God or another pseudo-God called “Common Sense” – indeed morality remains a social construct, a demonstrable benefit of these herd control systems.  Rather, sociopathic and violent behavior is declared such because it is anti-human, it is perceived as dangerous to the preservation of our herds.

Therefore, we have little choice but to follow the laws of the State, the laws of our chosen God or Surrogate God Entity, or the Law of Attraction, because to step outside of these bounds would be anti-human, antisocial behavior.  It would be the opposite of normal and the majority and thus a threat to self-preservation; a threat to herd prosperity.

What I have learned from religion, patriotism and money is not that they are evils dropped from a demonic entity out of the sky.  They are the fruitages of mankind, because they really have no other explanation or origin, assuming that a God being did not give us these “control techniques.”  They are simply old survivalist tools we devised to protect us from starvation, from uncontrolled rape and violence, and from poor land management practices.

Yes, we are aging rapidly and have replaced these crude instruments with pseudo-intellectual concepts like Humanism and “Common Sense” and “Tolerance”, which feel emotionally modern; a common denominator that we can call believe in.  Despite the fact that they accomplish more or less the same thing religion, patriotism and money did for their time.  Namely:

* Controlled violence, attacking threats to the pack rather than turning on friends or family

* Monogamous lifestyles, concentrated, planned breeding rather than reckless, constant genetic mash ups

* Honesty and transparency, peaceful emotions and instinctive moods rather than the constant “fight or flight” response of hunting

* Compassion and empathy, rather than a cut-throat world of constant competition and battling alphas for pack leadership

Religion, patriotism and money are the Crayola drawings of man’s multi-millennial maturation.  To hate them is to hate one’s own evolution, the journey of progress that we have made.  (Or at least the progress we pride in ourselves, the peripheral accomplishments we need to feel motivated to continue working and grazing)

I am constantly told by religion to hate materialism; told by patriotism to hate religion; told by materialism to hate religion and patriotism.  Sometimes because of the rhetoric and inflammatory words of artists and propaganda machines, I fall for it and start to hate.

Until I realize that much of what I see in this modern propaganda world are a herd of wildebeests holding together tightly, their peripheral moralities and perspectives protecting them from a charging, destructive fear – one that will ultimately tear everyone to shreds.

The Late Mitchell Warren is the author of Attempted Rapture: The Sinner & The Saint, two different books for believers and for doubters.  Both are pretty fucked up, honestly.  But one has lots of disturbing sexual content in it and the other doesn’t.  Why the hell are you even reading this bio, honestly?  Fucking Google bot.

Share
Posted on December 12, 2013

37 Comments

  1. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    All the things that you say religion, patriotism and money (which I take to mean city-dwelling and temple-worship) protect us from-all the horrible violence and the constant struggle for food-are simply nature, or the natural setting of life on earth. For one thing, wild animals and wild people today find their food without too much fuss, and it is safe to assume that before the human population exploded, all kinds of food were plentiful for all creatures including wild men and women. Also, the most terrible violence that occurs among wild animals and wild people is a thousand times more humane and honorable than the violence which happens in cities or at the hands of city-bred people. It is a known fact that the first cities were constructed around temples. If those temples had never been built, wild people living in a natural setting would have never had a reason to do so and as a result leave their natural lifestyles behind. Fighting for money and fighting for the gods were perhaps the immediate symptoms which accompanied city-life. Perhaps in the long run if/when civilization breaks down and we find ourselves incapable of finding food because a) we can’t hunt and gather, and b) there is nothing to hunt or gather, then the true effect of civilization and its degrading impact on us will become clear. By your logic, the human race created civilization (religion, patriotism, money) so that it could weaken itself and throw itself out of alignment with nature and with the earth and become trapped in a simplistic materialistic view of existence so that a handful of other people could make huge profits, and eventually cause its own extinction. If cows could think, they would probably believe that their cow ancestors built dairy farms to protect themselves from the evils of a natural lifestyle. :) Maybe they’ll say “our ancestors house (what they call the farm) is flawed, but at least it protected us from ourselves and from nature!”

  2. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    Mitchell, read up on the numerous diseases and illnesses (mostly psychological) that afflict jungle-people from the Amazon who immigrate to South American slums, especially in Peru and Ecuador. A lot of good studies were done on this in the 60s, if i’m not mistaken.

    These jungle-people were Christianized first, through the work of missionaries. Once baptized, the first step to civilization was to get the people to stop hunting and gathering until they forget how to hunt, their bodies lose shape and they become incapable of hunting, and also they forget the uses of plants as food, medicine and building material. Instead, they are taught that a respectable civilized man (as if the western world will ever respect a christianized amazonian indian) does not use plants to cure himself, but that he must go see a doctor and get a pill. (the indian is made to feel that the pill is vastly superior to the smelly jungle plant) He is also taught that chasing after monkeys is unacceptable behavior for a civilized person, that when such a person is hungry, he just opens the fridge or goes to the nearest restaurant. When the jungle-person is ready, he moves to the big city so that his children can get a better education and a better chance at life than he did. The crowded slums of the big city is where the truly wretched dwell. It is where you must go if you wish to see the effects of civilization firsthand.

    Go see all the drunks, junkies and 9 year old prostitutes, then tell me what civilization is and is not. When you’re there, make sure to look up the usurers and loan-givers (banks) that own all these poor people through debt, who make the people feel that they should be thankful for the priviledge of being allowed to live in the wonderful city, away from their shameful savage heritage. Say hi to them for me.

  3. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    The nine year old prostitute will beg you to let her suck your dick for 2 dollars. But thank god civilization rescued her from the dishonor and shame of growing up in the jungle.

    Maybe I should write an article advertising all the preteen sexual delights of the slums of Quito and Iquitos, you know, out of good will, to encourage tourism and help stimulate their economy, so they’ll have something to pay tribute to their bank overlords every month.

  4. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    The indian is made to believe that the worth of a man is measured by the amount of money in his possession. He is made to feel that working and making money are the signs of a respectable upstanding citizen, and he wants to be respected in his new and strange world more than anything. When the civilized indian sees his wild cousins, sitting around all day, eating excellent food for free (hunting doesn’t take very long if you know what you’re doing) he feels nothing but disgust and contempt (read: jealousy) for the freeloading savage bums who contribute nothing to society. Because he believes that if everyone contributed their share to society, everyone would be rich, and so it’s not the rich people’s fault that everyone (he) is poor, it’s the unemployed poor people’s fault.

    Fuck this. Civilization needs to go down. We need someone to burn all the money, break all the idols, kill all infidels, and set us all free.

  5. “the most terrible violence that occurs among wild animals and wild people is a thousand times more humane and honorable than the violence which happens in cities or at the hands of city-bred people.”

    Why do we always assume that humans are more vicious than other animals? Because of our sadism? Our creativity? Or our insistence upon begging for mercy right before someone kills, rapes or eats us? If you take away the logical level of it, we’re not a lot different than the animals that rape, bludgeon and eat each other–usually while the victim is still alive. Except maybe that the sadistic human being “laughs” when torturing his victim. I don’t know enough about animal laughter to say definitively that they do this.

    I think back to something a friend told me recently: is man a natural creature? Then is everything man does a part of his nature? Then is man’s actions a part of nature? The question did provoke me to think and wonder, if man is not merely a doomed species like the animals. The earth will most likely survive man’s gradual erosion of it, but it will change for the worst, perhaps allowing another species to thrive. I hope, personally, that some sort of God saves us all…but then again, that’s very human-centric of me, isn’t it?

    What are you trying to say with all of these big city – rural comparisons? I’m not saying modern civilization is any better than so called primitive living. In fact, my whole point is that we recycle ideas that our ancestors had long before our modern “herd religions” came along. It seems modern to us today, when in fact it’s a rehash of all these things that instinctively, we knew as herd animals.

    Are you actually debating that we’re not herd animals? Are humans a different species than the animals? Built with spiritual capacities and communication with the gods?

    “When you’re there, make sure to look up the usurers and loan-givers (banks) that own all these poor people through debt, who make the people feel that they should be thankful for the priviledge of being allowed to live in the wonderful city, away from their shameful savage heritage. Say hi to them for me.”

    LOL What are you talking about? The whole point of the article is the illusion of modern civilization. To say that we don’t need religion, patriotism and money now, is as if to say, we didn’t need crayons growing up, or diapers when we were babies.

    The point is, they were man’s invention. They were man’s survivalist tools, methods of herding that helped control the species.

    As for what the world is today, where it’s all going, I’m sure it’s to hell in a hand basket. All of our survival instincts, whether it’s religion, Science, or Secular Humanism are primitive tools, basic herding techniques. Maybe Nature is separate from them, but they are the offspring of Nature — the instinct behind our superior brilliant “logic” that (makes us think) we’re better than the animals somehow.

    And of course, the illusion of paper money, debt, and government control are empty…just as empty as religion. Just as empty as all this Perfect Atheist John Lennon Paradise bullshit dream they try to sell me. Nothing’s going to change unless humans evolve into a different species or are wiped out entirely. 200 years from now there will be some other bullshit thing besides Secular Humanism they’re trying to sell. And it’ll accomplish more or less the same thing: class separation, control, trade…etc.

    We’re a destructive species. Plain and simple. We are the wildebeests that charge aimlessly, eager to fall into line, to follow some herd leader to happiness.

  6. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    Let me tell you, lions in the wild live a fairly simple lifestyle. Their primary habit is just sitting around resting in the shade all day. But sometimes they also get up and go hunting. Specifically, one of their hunting patterns is something like this. “A bunch of lions are casually hanging out near a watering hole where other animals come to drink. Whenever one of them feels hungry, they just get up, run off and grab something to eat.” (the other animals at the watering hole are always aware of the lions, and they keep one eye exclusively on them at all times, so when the lion so much as decides to get up, all the animals suddenly start running away, the lion usually ends up catching the specimen who could not run as fast as the others either because of old age or injured legs, etc. the other animals keep coming back to the watering hole again and again even though they know that lions loiter there.) Female lions are hunters by default. Male lions can’t run as fast as females because of their mane, which weighs them down. So male lions in reality just sit around doing nothing but fucking their women and wrestling other males and cuddling little baby lions all day long, while the female goes out on short hunting trips, which are really very short, mind you. Lions don’t really chase prey you understand, they position themselves at a strategic spot and wait for prey to come to them. In any case, I think anyone can understand what a lifestyle of tremendous ease and luxury lions enjoy in the wild.

    My understanding is that the higher a creature is in its respective food-chain, the more comfortable its life generally tends to be. Lions are apex predators, they’re at the very top of the food chain, like sharks, they don’t have a single worry in the world and their lifestyle is dominated by a general sense of floating around doing nothing, what the Finnish people call “vain ollaan” (just being). Now, wild people are still a step higher than lions and sharks, they aren’t just apex predators, but they are gods. A wild man with a spear bested all the beasts that walk on the land. It is a fact that Mesopotamian warriors fought hand-to-hand with lions at 4000BC, the land was infested with them. Later kings would boast at having killed hundreds at the behest of the gods, albeit on horseback with hunting parties and sophisticated weapons, unlike the early warriors that used only spears. I believe it is also a fact that people were hunting mammoths at 20,000BC, mammoths are huge. They were much bigger than a big elephant. They would have appeared monstrously large to a 6 foot tall man. And the man’s spear would have appeared no more than a tooth-pick. And yet, the spear was essentially the only weapon in the stone age.

    Wild people on this planet enjoyed a lifestyle which included all the comfort and luxury of the lion’s lifestyle, but also added a dimension of spirituality and otherworldly interests. I tell you, those people were perfect. They lived a perfect life in an unscathed untainted paradise where their ancestors could have lived on for millions of years in harmony with the planet, if they had not over-populated unnaturally and artificially.

    The truth is, all of our ancestors came to the first cities as slave-laborers, just like the Amazonian jungle-person comes to the city to be a manual-laborer today. Unless you are from the ancient bloodline of the old Sumerian kings, your ancestors were captured from the wild and forced to adopt a lifestyle of work. Today, civilization doesn’t need to go out and capture wild people, rather it tends to destroy their habitat, forcing them to come to the cities in order to survive. And understand that when those people come in from the wild, they can offer to society nothing more than crude back-breaking manual labor. In Iran everyone knows that an Afghan laborer works twice as hard as an Iranian worker, that’s why they have all the peon-jobs in Tehran, they are the gardeners, the construction-workers (they tear down buildings with sledge-hammers), the garbage-men, etc. But then, everyone in Afghanistan knows that the Bangladeshi laborer works twice as hard as the Afghan, so Bangladeshi peons have taken all the manual labor jobs in Afghanistan. Now, the Iranian city-person, someone who grew up in Tehran for example, cannot perform manual labor at all. At best they can do easy jobs like being a security guard or cleaning people’s houses or working at a restaurant, etc. People who come into civilization from the wild always come bursting with energy and capable of doing the most difficult work under the most strenuous conditions. The Afghan illiterate peon working in Iran, however, can never hope to achieve an income equal to a middle-class Iranian, so he is essentially doomed to the lower class of society. this same thing applies to the indian jungle-person who comes to the city, or the mexican peon who goes to the USA. Civilization means that slave laborers constantly coming in from less-civilized areas have to work 8 hours a day, and middle-class citizens who are the descendents of other slaves who came before also have to work 8 hours a day, so that a small number of high-class people can live without working at all. Civilization means, 12 years of your youth are spent in a detention-center-slash-brainwashing-prison for kids, and the rest of it is spent working to survive and go through a meaningless “agnostic” existence day after day, until you’re too old to work and too old to enjoy life and you die. Is this the life of the most intelligent, superior being on earth?

  7. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    What I object to is your assumption that this civilization which cripples peoples souls is something we created. There is no proof and no logical foundation for this. Perhaps our ancestors were the slaves who worked to build the stone foundations of the first cities, but the idea of civilization was not theirs. They were captured and forced to submit to a domesticated lifestyle. As their descendents, we were all born in captivity, in bondage. Our civilization only appeared once, in a single location. It wasn’t developed separately at different places and on different occasions. It grew out of the middle east and devoured the whole world. It was never ours, we are just the slaves who work here.

    I shudder at the thought that I, along with everyone else, wouldn’t even be able to feed ourselves if civilization, which has become so globalized and non-localized, somehow collapsed tomorrow.

  8. karlsie says:

    My own studies of the rise and fall of civilizations is that when a large enough group gathers as a cooperative community, they begin exchanging ideas that will improve their general condition. These ideas include inventions to make them better hunters, to cultivate fields with greater ease, improving building designs and techniques – all the things which give a person more leisure. More leisure; more time to think, reason, invent, build, dream, etc. At some point, their dreams invite religion, invite invocations for more successful hunting, more protected homes, greener fields…

    At its apex, the community has become a civilization. It has made greater advances in technology than its neighbors. It has developed a system for remembering its history. It lives in better homes, successfully defends its fields from raids, has a heightened sense of the necessary rules for controlling inner strife.

    Civilizations fall when they begin acquiring an elevated sense of worth. They believe because they had advanced technically and academically, they are superior to their surrounding neighbors. They measure the wealth of their community against the simpler development of their neighbors. They measure their individual success against each other. They realize they can have more material luxuries through acquisition. They begin waving war and absorbing cheap labor.

    Sadly enough, there many civilizations that were interrupted in their maturing stage primarily because their communities never gravitated toward conquest. Since a peaceful population is unprepared for the conqueror mentality, it becomes a victim of its aggressor. Their development is aborted. We seldom hear of their contributions to human knowledge because their knowledge has been absorbed and credited to the civilization that had conquered them. However, in the process of being absorbed, they learn one thing. In order to survive and regain their status of a culturally distinct people, they must conquer.

    It is undoubtedly a vicious cycle but my feelings are that civilization is once again at a critical point and will tumble to its downfall precise because of the elevated sense of worth the current civilization places behind its religion, patriotism and materialism. Stirred by these motivations, it perceives its opposition as having the same criteria. The future, however, might have a different story as we flirt on the edges of all-out war.

  9. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    Logically and rationally, what you say should be correct, karlsie. Civilization, as you describe it, should result in more leisure time. How do you explain then the fact that hunter-gatherers have more leisure time than working-class civilized people? Also, if you work from 9 to 5 and come home exhausted every night, does that time-at-home count as leisure time?

    Rationally, civilized people should all be engaged in making works of art, in writing poetry and philosophy and literature, they should all be engaged in deep pondering over the nature of reality and consciousness and existence, and yet I’d point out that wild people, on an individual basis, are far more creative, artistic and in touch with their spiritual side than civilized city-people. City-people spend their leisure time “getting fucked up” on alcohol, pot, coke, etc. City-people only make art if they get payed for it. They write poetry and philosophical dissertations for the same reason. City-people will inquire into the nature of reality and consciousness, but only from 9-5; at 5 o clock they go home and they forget the matter altogether.

  10. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    Forget writing poetry and making art…civilized educated people should be reading books in their leisure time at the very least. But who the hell reads anymore? Who has the time? (<— I keep hearing.)

  11. Shh, you’re argument requires more dissection than simply “we didn’t create this.” On one hand, you must assume responsibility for your ancestors because you are (presently) a human being like they were. To excommunicate yourself from the human species and claim that whatever is happening now is the result of people not like yourself is simply not true. They are your species, your ancestors.

    On the other hand, I do understand what you’re saying in theory; that there are at least two groups of people that are in direct conflict of humanism. The naturalists, which, like you, desire to return to nature’s way of thinking and behaving; and the technologists (or whatever else you want to call them) who want to explore new technology as a means to benefit, as a whole species, and at the expense of the old world.

    This is a dichotomy of human behavior that is not easy to address; hence I did not address it in this article. Your comparisons of city life compared to rural life seem a lot like “good” and “bad”. As in, all city people are this _____. Perhaps the majority of them do behave a certain way, because they are molded to do so by their society. Others however, attempt to keep their individualism and vote their heart, instead of following the herd.

    This discussion could go all sorts of directions. For instance, do you think that if we rejected materialism and patriotism, all these evil city things, that we would have still accomplished all of these technological conveniences? Does a group that is united still maintain a better survival rate than a bunch of lone wolves who distance themselves from a herd? Perhaps the two types of people you describe as merely the next evolution of human beings that may occur–two different species eventually.

    I really don’t know, but that’s where we’re at. As Karla alluded to, it may end in war. Maybe only one species will triumph.

  12. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    First thing’s first, my comparison of rural people and city people was meant exclusively in terms of Iranian people. The Iranian rural person was strictly a farmer who lived entirely and exclusively off the land as late as thirty years ago. The average rural person then had no need for money and was illiterate. Today, rural Iranians over 40 are barely-literate, over 50 almost totally illiterate. Their lifestyle was one of getting up at dawn and working difficult manual labor jobs in the fields til dusk. The lifestyle of the city person on the other hand does not include any heavy physical labor. I don’t get what you find objectionable in this comparison. There is no doubt that rural people are more physically-oriented than city-people who are considerably more mental. City people (people who grow up in Tehran for example) are not only not cut out for manual labor jobs, but they are also lazy and they dislike the idea of heavy lifting and physical work. A person who grows up in Tehran prefers a desk job or a sales job, etc. to digging dirt with a shovel or hauling bricks and cement blocks all day. Whereas the rural person (practically over 90% of Iranian rural males) know how to work construction and agriculture, both of which require peon-labor. Now, it’s true that nowadays the rural people in Iran are getting literate and using money. For example, they don’t live directly off the land like they used to, but rather they produce one product (like peaches or walnuts) and sell that to the cities and use the money they get to buy what they need. However, when they made their own food they ate premium quality fruits, vegetables, milk and dairy, bread and meat, whereas now they can only buy low quality industrial shit that everyone else eats. Soon, in a generation or two, the rural people will forget the ways of self-sufficient farming which their ancestors had perfected over a million years.

  13. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    Mitchell, it is my understanding that academics today divide human civilization on earth into several distinct stages or phases. The first phase which unquestionably demonstrated signs of thought and civilization and made human beings distinct from other wild animals was the appearance of what is called the nomadic hunter-gatherer tribal community. These communities emerged in the Palolithic, which is to say they date from 2-3 million years ago. It is generally accepted that uncontacted tribes residing in the Amazon rainforest are still living the exact same lifestyle as Paleolithic man. The next phase of civilization was the emergence of domesticated sheep and goats, which made hunting obsolete as a means of sustenance, and gave rise to what is called the nomadic pastoralist community. These people roamed across thousands of miles with their sheep and goats, as a lifestyle. The next stage was the appearance of the domesticated cow, which gave rise to the sedentary proto-farmer’s lifestyle. With a few cows, a whole family could settle down on a plot of land. It is believed that eventually these people got into the habit of sowing wild fodder-plants (like alfalfa) for their cows’ winter hay demands, which was more efficient than just gathering and storing random weeds. This was the first stage of agriculture. The final phase of human civilization, the one we are living in today, is the second stage of agriculture and it began with the introduction of wheat and barley in Mesopotamia possibly some time around 10,000BC. Wheat and Barley were plants that could be sowed like alfalfa, but that would provide the staple food of a new mankind, a slave. That food is bread, and it has been established I believe that people can subsist almost exclusively on whole-grain bread and water. Bread is the perfect genetically-engineered slave-food. Bread is 100% artificial, neither the plants grow in nature nor is flour, dough and baking with fire something that ever happens naturally.

    What I have to insist, and you don’t like Mitchell, is that there is no rational scenario whereby people would have (or could have) created wheat and barley. There is no such scenario that can explain how people domesticated the first cow, or how they tamed the first goats and sheep before that. In absence of any working rational hypothesis, I am forced to look to ancient peoples’ themselves and seek their thoughts on the matter. Ancient Mesopotamians had absolutely no doubt that the first grains of wheat, which the temple at Eridu gave to the first agriculturists to sow, were created by the gods in the heavens and brought to earth. Only a handful of grains were brought over from the other realm, and those handful of grains are the common ancestors of all the wheat (and barley) that is grown on the earth today. Furthermore, cows were also believed to be gifts of the gods which they brought from the heavens. Goats and sheep were domesticated at such an early date that there has not survived any specific tales about their origins as far as I know.

    So, Mitchell, while I understand that as a vegetarian you might somehow want to equate people with herds of herbivores, but the truth is that humans are not herd animals. Apes generally live in small groups. Hunter-gatherers live in tribes of up to a hundred people. Nomadic herdsmen live in clans that include as many as five hundred to a thousand people in modern Iran, but the clan is generally split up into smaller segments which graze separately, all of them only get together for their yearly migrations. Farmers live in households that include a single extended family, as in, the farm belongs to a grandfather or great grandfather whose sons, grandchildren and great grandchildren all work on their separate plots independently, or they all work communally, in any case their number rarely exceeds 100 people. There is no evidence of large gatherings of people (because there was no way to naturally feed them) before the advent of true-agriculture based on genetically-engineered seed-stocks like maize, rice, wheat and barley, etc. In order for you to understand how unnatural and artificial wheat is, just consider that if all the wheat-grains in our possession were to somehow go bad today, the whole species would go extinct and there would be no way for us to obtain any “new” wheat, because the species evolved only once in a single location and spread all over from there. In the same way, all domesticated cows today trace their ancestry back to a single original cow ancestor who was born a mutant or genetically-altered by humans (or aliens) ~100,000 years ago. So, without certain artificial “tools” whose origins are dubious and unknown at best, totally unknowable at worst, there could never have been a first city. And without a first city, there could have been no monkey see, monkey do, to spread it all over the world. I’m sorry, but humans are not naturally herd animals and all the psychological problems that arise in cities (did you know that the abuse of xanax, synthetic opiates, and anti-depressents are like a fuckin epidemic nowadays?) and all the criminal behavior that followed the advent of cities and money and temples is proof enough that cities are not in the best interest of people. You know my position, I think certain non-people are reaping the fruits of our toil in big cities.

    I don’t think we should all return to nature. I know for a fact that it wouldn’t be possible to integrate 7 billion people into any natural ecosystems on the earth. Technology is a crutch that we’ve gotten so used to, we’ve practically evolved parallel to it, and we won’t survive without it today. But I will not deny that I personally feel a nomadic hunter-gatherer existence in the wild (like the precolumbian native americans of the plains, or the amazonians) is good, whereas an urban lifestyle in a major city is bad. There is no question of this.

  14. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    I’m gonna try and put this as simply as I can, because it seems to be bypassing you altogether. This is a question which mainstream Academia has consistently ignored and refused to deal with it. Even my dad, who prides himself in his numerous phds, shied away from responding to it; he thought it wasn’t a worthwhile scientific inquiry and that I should instead concern myself with “real” genetic-engineering like what Monsanto is doing, ’cause that’s where money is and not pondering worthless philosophical questions. The question is put thus:

    Wheat and cows are the primary, basic, fundamental foundation of human civilization. This is as true as the sky is blue. It’s an undeniable fact, without cows and wheat, what we call human civilization today could never have developed. Without them we would still be living in small communities of nomadic hunter-gatherers and nomadic herdsmen. So, the crux of the matter is this: if the scientific method can demonstrate in vitro how cows and wheat were evolved, then there is nothing further for me to add. But the fact is that not only can’t they demonstrate it in practice (not even close), they can’t even come up with a working rational hypothesis which would at least demonstrate the basic outline of how these things _could_ potentially have been done.

    But wait, that’s not all. It is a fact that wheat was created at least as far back as 6,000 years ago, and it is a fact that cows date from the Pleistocene. So, the truly horrifying aspect of this dilemma is, how did people with stone-age technology and half-assed linguistic capabilities *create* (what’s a better verb here? engineer? conjure?) cows and wheat? It is a plainly evident fact that Monsanto today _can’t_ make a new domesticated plant or animal. I know firsthand, for a fact, that they don’t even know how to approach the task, or where to begin. All Monsanto can do is modify the corn and cows that already exist.

    So, Mitchell Warren, unless you can demonstrate or put forth a scenario by which the staple foods of civilization could have been created in prehistory by human hands, you should for no reason at all make the assumption that civilization is something “we” (mankind) built. Really think about it, how did they do something 10,000 years ago which we can’t do today with all our super-technology and our profound understanding of matter?

    And to my father, and all academics who refuse to face facts, I say: go fuck yourselves, you are the shame of the human race, your agenda-driven science is benefiting no-one but your rich masters.

    And here’s something further to ponder. Eating wheat-grains is not a particularly healthy or enjoyable activity for people, birds maybe, but not us. So, having wheat but not knowing how to grind it into flour is useless. Having wheat and knowing how to make flour, but not knowing how to make dough is also useless. Having wheat, knowing how to make flour, and knowing how to make dough, but not knowing how to bake it in an oven is still useless. Making bread is a technique. And in terms of animal intelligence, it is a terribly complex and sophisticated technique. It’s not something a monkey could ever do. So what I want to know is which came first, the domesticated species of wheat itself, or the technique to turn it into bread?

    Scientists will say that we ate raw wheat for some time, then we discovered it’s easier to eat flour and then centuries later someone discovered accidentally that flour could be turned to dough and a few centuries after this someone accidentally put a chunk of dough next to a fire and accidentally discovered bread. Rational idiocy.

    You understand, unless people knew how to make bread beforehand, genetically engineering a domesticated species of grain would have been pointless. But without the large-grained cereals, there is no feasible way to make bread. So I think the appropriate question here is simply: “wtf?”

  15. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    It is generally accepted that the dog was the first animal to be tamed and domesticated by people. Dogs served as a vital component of the early hunter-gatherer communities. There is no doubt that the earliest dogs were huge and muscular beasts with big and sharp teeth, practically no different than prehistoric wolves in terms of fierceness and strength. In fact, the first dogs _were_ wolves. These early dogs did not need to be fed, rather they were perfect hunters in their own right, which is how they were utilized by early people. That is, as hunting partners. A man and a dog together, even today with harmless little pointer dogs, makes a mightier and much more practical hunter than a man alone. In those early days of the first hunter-gatherer communities, dogs also served to protect the women and children in the settlement while the men were away hunting. You understand, a pack of early wolf-dogs would have sufficed to ensure that no wild animals came even close to the tribal village. (Amazonian jungle-villages: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=shabono – believed to be practically identical to villages from 2 million years ago.)

    Now, any smarty-pants scientist will immediately tell you that the first dogs were just simply domesticated wolves. (like most science, just empty words.) You see, we don’t know what they did to the wolf to make it transform into a dog. We haven’t been able to duplicate that first rendering of wolf to dog since its original occurrence in prehistory. It has never been repeated again. We’ve had wolves and other animals locked up in zoos since at least Roman times, and none of those wolves ever became friendly towards mankind to the degree that they would follow people around and defend the lives of humans. All those wolves still bite off your hand and eat it if you hold it out for them, whereas the earliest dogs apparently just licked it. I think it goes without saying that without the early form of dogs, hunter-gatherer communities would have been extremely difficult to establish and maintain (if not totally impossible.)

    So, how do you think ape-men circa 3 million years ago created dogs? Shouldn’t you and I, Mitchell Warren, be able to do whatever they did? Aren’t we a million times more mentally-developed and sophisticated than people were millions of years ago? And don’t we (just you and I in our homes) have knowledge and technology that would make the heads of early men spin?

  16. The Late Mitchell Warren says:

    I’m not quite sure what to make of the dichotomy of naturalists and technologists, as I said. Two different species is the closest I’ve come to reconciling it. There have always been naturalists throughout human history. They have often fallen victim to the technologist’s ways, and sometimes suffered for it.

    I agree thus far. Bread isn’t natural, nor are processed foods, nor anything that’s not directly from plants or fruits. Although I might suggest it is human or natural to experiment with blending things together.

    “There is no such scenario that can explain how people domesticated the first cow, or how they tamed the first goats and sheep before that.”

    Shh, you’re absolutely right. There is no rational reason why man domesticated the cow. Which is why I often say, he raped the cow first, and then discovered that he could use the cow’s body for non-essential food. Man’s hunger for non-essential foods seems to be a powerful motivator; perhaps that is also what makes man blood-thirsty. He craves blood, he craves suffering. Eating the blood and flesh of animals may well be the only way he can satiate these blood cravings in a civilized manner.

    And this also lends credence to my new realization that vegans (depriving themselves of all animal products) are mean-spirited sons of bitches. They are dangerously low on blood.

    How can you say humans are not herd animals when it is observable in society that humans build families, and those families become a part of civilization? While there are people who are alone, I think it’s instinctual to desire the companionship of other people.

    That’s pretty much what I call herd mentality. We have instinctive desires to follow alpha leaders for our own protection. This is observable in religion and politics.

    You’re saying that humans don’t belong in herds and that’s why there is violence and suffering…but the alternative would be anarchic family units, who would never trust anyone and who would be miserable, having nothing to do but collect food. I think herd mentality is not just city and national merging, but intrinsically related to desiring the presence of others in order to live. Lone wolf humans are usually not happy. Our families and friends make life meaningful.

    “I don’t think we should all return to nature. I know for a fact that it wouldn’t be possible to integrate 7 billion people into any natural ecosystems on the earth. Technology is a crutch that we’ve gotten so used to, we’ve practically evolved parallel to it, and we won’t survive without it today.”

    This I agree with.

    “But the fact is that not only can’t they demonstrate it in practice (not even close), they can’t even come up with a working rational hypothesis which would at least demonstrate the basic outline of how these things _could_ potentially have been done.”

    Interesting idea. So you’re basically saying that just because something is here, and observable, it does mean that human beings created it? Are you suggesting these technologies are not human?

    “And to all academics who refuse to face facts, I say: go fuck yourselves, you are the shame of the human race, your agenda-driven science is benefiting no-one but your rich masters.”

    Well yes, academics are the way they are because they don’t get fucked nearly enough.

  17. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    “I’m not quite sure what to make of the dichotomy of naturalists and technologists, as I said. Two different species is the

    closest I’ve come to reconciling it. There have always been naturalists throughout human history. They have often fallen

    victim to the technologist’s ways, and sometimes suffered for it.”

    There is no dichotomy in the terms you describe. A naturalist is by definition someone who lives connected to society and

    partakes of the fruits of technology, but professes an intellectual yearning for more natural ways. I could be a naturalist. The

    true dichotomy is between people who are living a natural lifestyle today, who have absolutely no ties to human civilization

    and are essentially “wild” and “untamed” and “free”, and people who have been domesticated. Domestication-by-force is the

    creed of our civilization.

    “I agree thus far. Bread isn’t natural, nor are processed foods, nor anything that’s not directly from plants or fruits. Although

    I might suggest it is human or natural to experiment with blending things together.”

    Naturally-occurring.

    “Shh, you’re absolutely right. There is no rational reason why man domesticated the cow. Which is why I often say, he raped

    the cow first, and then discovered that he could use the cow’s body for non-essential food. Man’s hunger for non-essential

    foods seems to be a powerful motivator; perhaps that is also what makes man blood-thirsty. He craves blood, he craves

    suffering. Eating the blood and flesh of animals may well be the only way he can satiate these blood cravings in a civilized

    manner. ”

    Holy shit man I think you just cracked this case wide open! Early men captured a wild cow, they held it captive while they raped it daily. In this way it was terrorized into submission. They probably did the exact same thing with wolves and wild goats. But it still doesn’t explain what they did to a grass to make wheat.

    “And this also lends credence to my new realization that vegans (depriving themselves of all animal products) are mean-

    “spirited sons of bitches. They are dangerously low on blood.

    Sorry to have to put down your realization, but people in Islamic countries only eat meat that has been slaughtered as “zebh eslami” which means the cow or sheep to be slaughtered is held upside down as an incision is made on their throat, the heart keeps pumping until all the blood leaves the animal and it dies. Technically speaking, there is no blood in the meat in Islamic countries.

    “How can you say humans are not herd animals when it is observable in society that humans build families, and those families

    become a part of civilization? While there are people who are alone, I think it’s instinctual to desire the companionship of

    other people.”

    “That’s pretty much what I call herd mentality. We have instinctive desires to follow alpha leaders for our own protection. This is observable in religion and politics.”

    Forgive me Mitchell, but I don’t think you’ve ever seen a herd. A herd has no alphas. It’s a chaotic jumble. The only thing resembling an alpha-creature in terms of a herd is a shepherd. Alphas are associated with wolves, lions, etc. And not with goats and sheep. What you call herd-mentality is just a figure of speech, there is no “mind” associated with a herd of cows grazing over hills, there is only instinct, only feelings, no thoughts.

    “You’re saying that humans don’t belong in herds and that’s why there is violence and suffering…but the alternative would be

    anarchic family units, who would never trust anyone and who would be miserable, having nothing to do but collect food. I

    think herd mentality is not just city and national merging, but intrinsically related to desiring the presence of others in order

    to live. Lone wolf humans are usually not happy. Our families and friends make life meaningful.”

    How do you know that’s what the alternative would be? And again with the food. Mitchell, bro, are you saying it’s somehow

    more rational to work 8 hours a day for food than it is to hunt 8 hours a day for food? And seriously, where our civilization

    and industries have not encroached upon the habitat of wild people, those people spend like 2 hours a day hunting, and as a

    kind of fun activity (like ice-fishing in a little shack on a Finnish lake, while drinking beer with your buddies). Those people

    were all natural athletes (like all wild animals on this planet), that is to say they are all endorphin-junkies. If a wild person

    doesn’t run or hunt for a week he feels depressed and his body starts to lose shape. As soon as he goes for a hunt, even if he

    just manages to shoot down just a tapir or a small monkey, the chemical rush is enough to make him feel awesome for the

    rest of the day. And who says people in the wild live as lone wolves? Where are you getting this stuff from? People in the wild

    are much happier than we are, and their lives are much more meaningful, their friends and families much closer.

    Technically, what you are referring to as ‘herd’ is applied to grazing herbivores like goats, sheep, etc. Mammals are not known to form herds, technically speaking. A family or a tribe is not a herd. Perhaps nomadic pastoralists whose societies are arranged in terms of clans (hordes) are the closest thing to people exhibiting herd-communities. But still technically, a herd is not a politically correct term here. Even in cities people do not generally tend to assemble in herds, unless through the will and intent of a leader, and still that is a mob and not a herd of goats grazing over a hillside. Those goats tend to stick together in a large crowd out of instinct, they would get lost and die if they split up from the group. People in cities are more like bee-hive communities, where people act the way they do because of thought and conscious will and preconceived ideas about law and order, but not instinct. The moment people started thinking what to do, their behavior stopped being natural, and became intentional instead.

    “Interesting idea. So you’re basically saying that just because something is here, and observable, it does mean that human

    beings created it? Are you suggesting these technologies are not human?”

    I’m suggesting that these technologies are not naturally-occurring. If fire is something we just happened to discover,

    naturally, then other animals should also be discovering it. None of them have so far. If stone tools are a naturally-occurring

    extension of organic life, then why are we the only ones who use them? Language is the most artificial structure of them all. You need to understand that there is a huge difference between something that evolved and something that was constructed through will and intent. Laptops exist on the earth today, and they are observable, but does this necessarily imply that laptops a result of evolution? Darwinian science-ism tends to insist that everything in the world is a result of evolution, whereas Jesusian religionism says everything was created. Well, maybe they are both trying to further the cause of disinformation and confusion, because obviously some things _are_ created, and others evolve. If we can agree that cows and dogs aren’t naturally-occurring things, that they didn’t evolve naturally on this planet, then we can safely place them in the category of things that were created. And let’s say that mankind created them. But then, mankind itself is a domesticated animal essentially no different than goats and sheep and cows, so we must also place our species among those created-not-evolved. And it would be contrary to logic to assert that we created ourselves. So, there _must_ have been someone who intended to make humans, the same way humans intended to make dogs, yogurt and atomic bomb-shelters. Comprende?

  18. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    Shit, remove the last one.

    “I’m not quite sure what to make of the dichotomy of naturalists and technologists, as I said. Two different species is the closest I’ve come to reconciling it. There have always been naturalists throughout human history. They have often fallen victim to the technologist’s ways, and sometimes suffered for it.”

    There is no dichotomy in the terms you describe. A naturalist is by definition someone who lives connected to society and partakes of the fruits of technology, but professes an intellectual yearning for more natural ways. I could be a naturalist. The true dichotomy is between people who are living a natural lifestyle today, who have absolutely no ties to human civilization and are essentially “wild” and “untamed” and “free”, and people who have been domesticated. Domestication-by-force is the creed of our civilization.

    “I agree thus far. Bread isn’t natural, nor are processed foods, nor anything that’s not directly from plants or fruits. Although I might suggest it is human or natural to experiment with blending things together.”

    Naturally-occurring.

    “Shh, you’re absolutely right. There is no rational reason why man domesticated the cow. Which is why I often say, he raped the cow first, and then discovered that he could use the cow’s body for non-essential food. Man’s hunger for non-essential foods seems to be a powerful motivator; perhaps that is also what makes man blood-thirsty. He craves blood, he craves suffering. Eating the blood and flesh of animals may well be the only way he can satiate these blood cravings in a civilized manner. ”

    Holy shit man I think you just cracked this case wide open! Early men captured a wild cow, they held it captive while they raped it daily. In this way it was terrorized into submission. They probably did the exact same thing with wolves and wild goats. But it still doesn’t explain what they did to a grass to make wheat.

    “And this also lends credence to my new realization that vegans (depriving themselves of all animal products) are mean-”spirited sons of bitches. They are dangerously low on blood.

    Sorry to have to put down your realization, but people in Islamic countries only eat meat that has been slaughtered as “zebh eslami” which means the cow or sheep to be slaughtered is held upside down as an incision is made on their throat, the heart keeps pumping until all the blood leaves the animal and it dies. Technically speaking, there is no blood in the meat in Islamic countries.

    “How can you say humans are not herd animals when it is observable in society that humans build families, and those families become a part of civilization? While there are people who are alone, I think it’s instinctual to desire the companionship of other people.”

    “That’s pretty much what I call herd mentality. We have instinctive desires to follow alpha leaders for our own protection. This is observable in religion and politics.”

    Forgive me Mitchell, but I don’t think you’ve ever seen a herd. A herd has no alphas. It’s a chaotic jumble. The only thing resembling an alpha-creature in terms of a herd is a shepherd. Alphas are associated with wolves, lions, etc. And not with goats and sheep. What you call herd-mentality is just a figure of speech, there is no “mind” associated with a herd of cows grazing over hills, there is only instinct, only feelings, no thoughts.

    “You’re saying that humans don’t belong in herds and that’s why there is violence and suffering…but the alternative would be anarchic family units, who would never trust anyone and who would be miserable, having nothing to do but collect food. I think herd mentality is not just city and national merging, but intrinsically related to desiring the presence of others in order to live. Lone wolf humans are usually not happy. Our families and friends make life meaningful.”

    How do you know that’s what the alternative would be? And again with the food. Mitchell, bro, are you saying it’s somehow more rational to work 8 hours a day for food than it is to hunt 8 hours a day for food? And seriously, where our civilization and industries have not encroached upon the habitat of wild people, those people spend like 2 hours a day hunting, and as a kind of fun activity (like ice-fishing in a little shack on a Finnish lake, while drinking beer with your buddies). Those people were all natural athletes (like all wild animals on this planet), that is to say they are all endorphin-junkies. If a wild person doesn’t run or hunt for a week he feels depressed and his body starts to lose shape. As soon as he goes for a hunt, even if he just manages to shoot down just a tapir or a small monkey, the chemical rush is enough to make him feel awesome for the rest of the day. And who says people in the wild live as lone wolves? Where are you getting this stuff from? People in the wild are much happier than we are, and their lives are much more meaningful, their friends and families much closer.

    Technically, what you are referring to as ‘herd’ is applied to grazing herbivores like goats, sheep, etc. Mammals are not known to form herds, technically speaking. A family or a tribe is not a herd. Perhaps nomadic pastoralists whose societies are arranged in terms of clans (hordes) are the closest thing to people exhibiting herd-communities. But still technically, a herd is not a politically correct term here. Even in cities people do not generally tend to assemble in herds, unless through the will and intent of a leader, and still that is a mob and not a herd of goats grazing over a hillside. Those goats tend to stick together in a large crowd out of instinct, they would get lost and die if they split up from the group. People in cities are more like bee-hive communities, where people act the way they do because of thought and conscious will and preconceived ideas about law and order, but not instinct. The moment people started thinking what to do, their behavior stopped being natural, and became intentional instead.

    “Interesting idea. So you’re basically saying that just because something is here, and observable, it does mean that human beings created it? Are you suggesting these technologies are not human?”

    I’m suggesting that these technologies are not naturally-occurring. If fire is something we just happened to discover, naturally, then other animals should also be discovering it. None of them have so far. If stone tools are a naturally-occurring extension of organic life, then why are we the only ones who use them? Language is the most artificial structure of them all. You need to understand that there is a huge difference between something that evolved and something that was constructed through will and intent. Laptops exist on the earth today, and they are observable, but does this necessarily imply that laptops a result of evolution? Darwinian science-ism tends to insist that everything in the world is a result of evolution, whereas Jesusian religionism says everything was created. Well, maybe they are both trying to further the cause of disinformation and confusion, because obviously some things _are_ created, and others evolve. If we can agree that cows and dogs aren’t naturally-occurring things, that they didn’t evolve naturally on this planet, then we can safely place them in the category of things that were created. And let’s say that mankind created them. But then, mankind itself is a domesticated animal essentially no different than goats and sheep and cows, so we must also place our species among those created-not-evolved. And it would be contrary to logic to assert that we created ourselves. So, there _must_ have been someone who intended to make humans, the same way humans intended to make dogs, yogurt and atomic bomb-shelters. Comprende?

  19. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    mammals = primates, doh.

  20. The Late Mitchell Warren says:

    You’ve said a lot and I’ll comment on the rest later. For now, I will only add that blood is ALWAYS in meat. Minute traces of blood are in meat and even in dairy. You cannot separate blood from the human animal even if you drain the volume of it.

    I learned this only recently, as I grew up thinking that eating blood was a sin, while eating meat was okay. I figured, if blood was drained it wasn’t a sin. Technically speaking, we all eat blood remnants and flesh.

    More to come…

  21. karlsie says:

    I won’t comment on the entire blood, meat debate as it comes dangerously close to religious/social convictions, just as in some societies and religions the eating of certain meats is taboo, while other types of meat are not. I suspect selective sensitivities accompany availability. In regions where there is a vast assortment of edible plants and an abundance of wild and domestic animals, society is able to form more selectivity over what it will and will not eat. Likewise for those who do not have to harvest their foods but can buy them in a supermarket. I will submit that bleeding an animal during a kill, however, allows for fewer infestations of blood-transmitted bacteria. When you don’t bleed an animal out, the blood coagulates around the bone, and seeps back into the food during preparation.

    I would like to pick up again on the discussion of civilizations. Peter, your example is one of our current civilization, which I see as a civilization in decline. Civilizations in their developing stage are marked by strong activity in science, art and engineering. It is only at the point when they begin to create a monetary value system and consequently, conquering armies (versus defensive tactics) that a civilization begins its decline. Why did the Roman Empire last over a thousand years, while the American Empire is collapsing after just a little over two hundred? Because the use of a monetary system was not widely prevalent at the time of the Roman Empire’s beginnings. It was built off preceding empires that had used monetary systems, but had not extended beyond the boundaries of their known system of trade. Rome expanded into Europe, carrying its monetary system with it, but even in the vast Roman Empire, trade and barter were common. It was only after material wealth became an established goal and desire throughout its conquered territories, that the Roman Empire began to crumble from within.

    Touching on the natural human versus the urbanized one; this happens to be one of my pet subjects. To begin with, technically, humans are not herd animals. As non-aggressive herbivores, herd animals find safety in numbers. They develop techniques for more sustained living by grouping together. Nearly all animals gather in groups, for various reasons. It would be easier to point out the animals that do not gather in groups than the ones that do. Even the “lone wolf” is a myth. Left in their natural state, wolves form clans of sisters, brothers, mates, parents, etc. Some wolves are baby-sitters. Some take up guard duty. Some are scouts, some go out on the hunt. Bears are highly territorial. but their territories tend to keep them as a group, just a widely dispersed one.

    The problem with urbanized life is how far we remove ourselves from natural surroundings when we choose to live in such close circumferences. We identify with only the worst of natural calamities that destroy whole scale buildings, towns, or bring a few days of inconvenience to our living conditions; flooded basements, power outages, backed up traffic, wind damage. The urbanized human does not grapple with nature on an every day basis. S/he does not look out the door anxiously when a storm is brewing and young seedlings are just coming up out of the ground. The urban dweller does not pray for rain when plants begin to whither, or spend a summer fighting aphids that have begun devouring the leaves of the trees. The urban dweller cannot imagine what it’s like to be isolated for two or three weeks at a time because of weather conditions.

    While this may sound unattractive, it’s not. Those who are acutely aware of the weather, are also aware of its spectacular benevolence. They are fully conscious of the benefits nature bestows. Familiar with their habitat, they know each clear running creek, each clump of plant-life that signifies whether they are near a swamp, entering a meadow, or reaching high ground, and whether or not that plant is edible, medicinal, toxic to the touch or poisonous to ingest.

    The more we alienate ourselves from our natural surroundings, the more we alienate ourselves from nature. I submit that a civilization can live in harmony with nature. May I point out the Native Americans. They created incredible civilizations that rivaled the best of Egyptian and Greek architecture. They had advanced knowledge in mathematics, astronomy, human anatomy, architecture, medicine and agriculture. A curious thing about Native American civilization, however. Very few actually lived in the cities. The majority lived on the outskirts and spread out into agricultural farms. The cities were primarily a place for trade, commerce, religious ceremonies and political functions.

    Among Native American beliefs, there are numerous tribes who believe their great civilization fell because they were not supposed to live in the cities. In order to complete the wheel of life, the people should remain in flux and close to nature. That they had committed a great sin when they began to remain within their cities. We are a mobile society, although we are also a society of billions. Spreading the cities out into the remaining natural countryside would do untold damage, but the country could penetrate more deeply into the cities. There have been huge advances made in agri-architecture, allowing entire gardens to be built around buildings, improving the quality of the air, incorporating water recovering, and providing edible plants and herbs. Of course, this means a change in thinking from profit margins to common good, which is the basic issue of our global society.

    On the subject of dogs; another favorite topic; it is rather remarkable how much we have genetically diversified humankind’s favorite four-legged friend, from tea cup poodles to mastiffs, capable of pulling eight hundred pounds after breaking it loose from the ice. It is true that canine’s are directly related to lupine. As far as I know it is the only species of mammal that can mate with what is now a separate species, and not only have offspring, but the offspring are fertile and can continue to produce canine/lupine animals.

    Although wolves are apparently able to breed with any dog they don’t decide to eat, only dogs closely related to wolves; such as huskies; or dogs who have wolf in them are able to properly howl. Dogs do not have the same vocal chords. Nothing is funnier to me than listening to my dog of questionable heritage howl (which means he has either husky or wolf in him) and my daintier spaniel/ retriever try to howl. He sounds like a girl whose fingers just got pinched.

  22. The Late Mitchell Warren says:

    Okay, so your corrections aside, what are you arguing? There is only instinct in man. I know that it’s human to think that we have evolved more so than animals (or are created apart from animals) but our so-called logical, self-conscious minds don’t amount to much, given that most of us (A) Follow our alpha leaders, (B) eat, sleep, fuck and waste, (C) are bloodthirsty, (D) don’t even commit to a worldwide movement of INTELLIGENCE- you know, stuff like saving the earth, improving quality of life, and traveling beyond the universe.

    “And who says people in the wild live as lone wolves?”

    So basically, you’re dividing my dichotomy of naturalists and technologists into additional distinctions of “Wild” and “Domesticated.” You could argue that there are technologists who are savage and bloodthirsty, just as there are naturalists who probably want to be domesticated, if not by their society, than by a dominant household head.

    “People in the wild are much happier than we are, and their lives are much more meaningful, their friends and families much closer.”

    Since we are all descendents of our ancestors, we are the natural progression of human beings, based on the majority instincts. Despite the existence of resistors, it’s hard to deny that the majority of the human species have instincts to develop technology. So I just don’t understand what you’re saying–that the existence of man isn’t natural, meaning, there must have been outside influences other than man showing him all these foreign ideas and concepts.

    We as humans developed survival instincts, but those instincts evolved further into selfish, slave-mentality, herdism, whatever you want to call it. Now we are a majority species of miserably, domesticated people–by the majority’s own will. The naturalists and wild are surely the minority, or else they would have squashed this conglomerate corporatist back when the playing field was even. But they didn’t, did they? The naturalists were killed or outvoted because the majority of human beings wanted advancement in technology.

    So you’re basically saying domestication is unnatural and wildness is human. When I think history points to the fact that man prefers domestication in numbers, while a minority species of separatist humans prefer naturalism and wildness. I suppose you could argue that man secretly yearns for untamed survivalism, but until a zombie outbreak occurs, I don’t see any evidence of that.

    “Darwinian science-ism tends to insist that everything in the world is a result of evolution, whereas Jesusian religionism says everything was created. Well, maybe they are both trying to further the cause of disinformation and confusion, because obviously some things _are_ created, and others evolve.”

    I accept this.

    “mankind itself is a domesticated animal essentially no different than goats and sheep and cows, so we must also place our species among those created-not-evolved.” And it would be contrary to logic to assert that we created ourselves. So, there _must_ have been someone who intended to make humans, the same way humans intended to make dogs, yogurt and atomic bomb-shelters.

    Okay, I can see your point. So you’re arguing that there is some sort of nontraditional creationism involved. Not everything is a product of evolution. I can agree to that, which is why I often say I am a deist-agnostic, because there is a probability that something beyond humans created things in our world.

  23. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    “So basically, you’re dividing my dichotomy of naturalists and technologists into additional distinctions of “Wild” and “Domesticated.” You could argue that there are technologists who are savage and bloodthirsty, just as there are naturalists who probably want to be domesticated, if not by their society, than by a dominant household head.”

    You misunderstand. Being wild is not tantamount to being a bloodthirsty savage, no more than being domesticated implies being peaceful and loving. The distinction between a wild person and a domesticated person is like the distinction between a wolf and a dog. The reason you equate the wild wolf with savagery and brutality is because it refuses to yield to our will. The wild wolf, like all wild animals, despises mankind. Just as there is no wild animal who yearns to be shackled and domesticated, there is also no wild man. What I’m arguing is that all wild men, from the very beginning of time were brought to civilization in chains, as slaves. They were beaten bloody and forced into submission. They were forced to perform the most difficult physical labor on pain of death. Any who tried to escape were killed.

    I understand the mainstream rational academic view on how civilization evolved. But I prefer the ancients’ records to our logical guesses and conjectures. According to some interpretations, the earliest wild people (the very first) who were captured by the gods were forced to mine gold. This gold was being minted into coins and used as money as early as 4000BC. My own interpretation is that the first human slaves were forced to haul rocks and dirt in order to build the ziggurats around which the first cities were constructed. This is all in good accord with the evidence today, which comprises the Amazonian jungle-people and their coming to civilization. The Amazonian wild men today aren’t developing their own cities. They have been living in small tribes in the rainforest for at least 10,000 years and they have not developed cities and grand luxurious civilizations. The fact is that they were forced to come live in cities through the process which I described in the beginning. I’ve seen this with my own eyes, I have no doubt regarding the matter.

    “We as humans developed survival instincts, but those instincts evolved further into selfish, slave-mentality, herdism, whatever you want to call it. Now we are a majority species of miserably, domesticated people–by the majority’s own will. The naturalists and wild are surely the minority, or else they would have squashed this conglomerate corporatist back when the playing field was even. But they didn’t, did they? The naturalists were killed or outvoted because the majority of human beings wanted advancement in technology.”

    Now you’re being absurd. Are you saying the Native Americans could have somehow fought back harder against the encroaching white man? I know for a fact that they fought with extreme fierceness and showed their enemies immense brutality and hate. To the pre-columbian Native American, the ways of the white man were disgusting and intolerable. But once their leaders were killed, their nobility and middle-classes reduced to slaves, over half their population annihilated, the remaining survivers were left with no choice: either work as slaves in the new sugarcane, cotton, cacao, etc. plantations or be executed. Native American slave labor built New Spain (Mexico). You can’t honestly tell me that all those people could have outvoted the Spanish Conquest and maintained their freedom and their way of life.

    Forget the naturalists and the technologists. Look back to your own ancestors. Were they the creators and founders of civilization, or were they brought to civilization as slaves/laborers? My own ancestors (on my father’s father and mother’s side) were nobility as far back as 500 years ago. But before that they were slaves. There is no man on this earth today who can claim to have been descended from non-slaves. (except the first kings, who claimed descent from the gods, who were believed to be half-breeds and not entirely human)

    I understand how difficult it is for a rational mind to process this idea. But remember, this is not some crazy idea that I concocted. This is what ancient thinkers, ancient writers, thought important enough to record. They recorded these same exact things on both sides of the Atlantic.

    Also, here is something more to ponder.

    1) Archeologists have dated the earliest strata of Sumerian cities to circa 4004BC. My understanding is that when the British and the French first started digging in Mesopotamia in the 1800s, they were doing so under the auspices of the Christian church. They had no choice but to make their dates coincide with biblical ideas of the time. This mistake has not been correct since, and one can only speculate why. My guestimate is that there were cities in Mesopotamia and Egypt much earlier than 6,000 years ago. Ask yourself, why is it taboo to suggest that the pyramids and the first cities are a million years old? Since the genus Homo has been on this planet for around 3 million years, and the first Homos were much more physical than we are today, it is only natural to credit to them the construction of the biggest stone-buildings on the planet. (All of our buildings will be dust in 6,000 years, but I assure you, the pyramids of Giza and Mexico will still be there unchanged. Also, here’s a fun fact: tepe in Farsi means hill, kuh in Farsi means mountain, whereas in the Maya tongue ku means mound, and in the Nahuatl tongue tepetl means mountain. Also, read this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/nov/20/children-unable-run-fast-parents-heart-fitness <– This is the result of civilization. We are losing our strength and we've been led to believe that physical strength is an unimportant attribute. Today, anyone who emphasizes physical fitness and correlates it with mental fitness is labelled a fitness freak and dismissed and mocked as a fool. I tell you, the physical body and the mind are mirror images, they are the same thing. If one of them is out of shape, the other is certain to be out of shape also. If your body is sharp, your mind will stay sharp. If your body decays, you start to lose your eye-sight and your mental acuity altogether.)

    2) According to the mainstream view, Native Americans broke off from the rest of humanity around 40,000 years ago, give or take a couple tens of thousands of years, and they became completely isolated circa ~10,000BC when the Bering land bridge supposedly became submerged. Keeping this view in mind, consider this:

    a) The biggest pyramid in the world is located in Mexico. It is called tlachihualtepetl (man-made mountain) in the native Nahuatl tongue. Aside from this, there are countless big and small pyramids all over Mexico and Mesoamerica. All these pyramids were the sites of ancient cities. If all the pyramids in the world were built after 4,000BC as our esteemed academics claim, then the question is, how come isolated people came up with the idea of building pyramids in the middleeast and in Mexico?

    b) At the time of the white man's arrival, Native Americans had no goats, sheep or cows. They had no domesticated food-animals at all. This can mean one of two things. Either the Native American line broke off from the rest of mankind before goats and sheep were domesticated, which would date their departure from the old world to at least hundreds of thousands of years before present. Or if we take the academic view that they went their separate way 40,000 years ago and became isolated only 12,000 years ago, then they must have had goats and sheep and cows with them, but that for some reason they all died. This latter is quite unlikely, that the people of a whole continent would lose all their domesticated animals and still survive to create the magnificent civilizations of the Inca, Maya, etc.

    There is no way to reconcile the facts with the rational theories which our school-teachers fed us while our brains were still mush. Human history is much more complex and involves more than just ape-men fiddling around with rocks and trees and accidentally building pyramids and cities on two isolated continents. I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the literature on ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. (Gaspar Maspero is who you should read.) When in the 18th and 19th centuries archeologists dug up the old Sumerian cities, they stated emphatically (and I paraphrase) that "nothing of note has been discovered or invented since 4000BC". For years academics were perplexed by the fact that the earliest city-dwellers in the world were already practicing medicine, mathematics, architecture, philosophy, linguistics, politics, tactical-warfare, etc. The people of ancient Sumer had oil industries; they knew how to make over a dozen products from crude Iraqi oil thousands of years ago. All this has been swept under the rug in our time, but to early-20th century scholars like Maspero, ancient Sumerian civilization was more perfect and more refined than British civilization at the time.

    If I am arguing anything, it's that the pseudo-knowledge that we've been fed, the one-size-fits-all bullshit that schoolbooks have concocted for our benefit, is total nonsense. It's the result of some people sitting at a desk and rationally guessing at what happened in the past, at what seemed logical to them. Wherever a fact didn't fit their preconceived notions, they simply discarded the fact and held on to their theory. This is why we are still insisting that Mesopotamians built pyramids at 4000BC, Egyptians built them at 3000BC, and Mexicans built them at 2000BC. See how nice and orderly the dates are? How pretty they look to the eye…that's modern science, trying to make everything look pretty and orderly on the surface, while in truth it's all a chaotic mess of ignorance deep down.

    If the ancient people who built Sumerian civilization claimed that they built nothing and that they received everything wholesale from the gods, who am I to say otherwise? If you look into the matter (don't just wikipedia it, get some real books) you'll understand that the thinkers and writers and rulers who lived in Mesopotamia in the first cities were geniuses, way beyond anyone in MIT or Caltech or the White House today. If Sargon of Akkad, the most powerful man in the world in his day, the creator of the first great empire on earth, claimed to be the bitch of Enlil, and claimed to have received all his knowledge and power, his military strategies, his political exploits, all from his friendship with Ishtar, who the hell am I to say otherwise? We need to take a good hard look at our Academic rational ideas, and where they are leading us: towards knowledge or towards confusion and ignorance?

  24. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    The general notion we have today of human development and the development of human civilization is a picture of gradual progress over time. We believe that slowly, invention after invention and discovery after discovery, we climbed the ladder of knowledge, technology and efficiency until we reached the modern Space Age, the age of cyberpunk; virtual reality, artificial intelligence, and fringe psychology. This notion is completely wrong.

    You see, when archeologists in the preceding centuries dug up the ruins of ancient Iraq and ancient Egypt, they noticed something baffling. They noticed that the old Iraqi cities were more exquisite, more beautiful and more functional than Iraqi cities in the 1800s. They noticed that for example, the ancient Egyptians had built enormous temples and cyclopean pyramids, and that they had achieved great advancements in all aspects of human endeavour. The same profoundness visible in their architecture and construction-works were also apparent in all their sciences, politics, warfare and their religion, magic and abstract philosophy. The ancient Egyptians were practicing Transpersonal Psychology thousands of years before the European calendar had even begun. The archeologists and the spectators at the time found this baffling because they noticed that while the ruins buried below the sands were all incomprehensibly futuristic and really inconceivable all-around, the cities that lay above the sands, on top of the ruins, the living current cities, were ugly, smelly, full of crime and completely lacking in elegance and refinedness. Not just that, when the early British and French excavators compared the workmanship of the buried cities with France and Britain at the time, it was still apparent that the old Egyptians and Sumerians had been a superior civilization. Those excavators could not conceive how the Egyptians had done something at 3000BC that Western Europeans could not do in 1800AD. The truth is, we still can’t build cyclopean structures like those of the Incas and the Egyptians; our biggest buildings are miniscule in comparison, but let’s not get into this.

    The truth is that all the technological advancements that distinguish the modern world from the ancient world have happened in the past few hundred years; a hundred years even, if you’re really picky. The general population of the world a hundred years ago lived a lifestyle which was very slightly different from what their ancestors had been living two thousand years ago. The people of rural Iran 50 years ago were living a lifestyle that was essentially unchanged from the beginning of history. The nomadic pastoralists of Iran 30 years ago (the Baxtiari and the Qashqai) were living a lifestyle that predated recorded history. All the modern advancements of science happened subsequent to the discovery of ancient buried cities. I’m not trying to imply that the two were somehow linked, although I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility. What I am trying to say is essentially this:

    In the year 1800, a group of enlightened western thinkers, scientists and academics, essentially men of knowledge from the most advanced countries in the world, beheld in front of them ruins of civilizations (In South America, in Egypt, in Mesopotamia) that were in a single word: mind-boggling. For the life of them, these men could not fathom how Puma Punku had been built, let alone that it was built thousands of years ago. They could not fathom what kind of force could have built the Great Pyramid of Cholula, or the Great Pyramid of Giza, or the Teotlhuacan complex. Today, we shrug the whole thing off because we think with our technology it would be easy to duplicate Machu Pichu, Tiwanaku, or the city submerged in lake Titicaca. We think it would be no sweat to build a pyramid that could withstand sand, erosion, heat, water, earthquakes and all other natural calamities for 5,000 years. We don’t dare to say the ancient pyramids might be millions of years old, because in all frankness, there is no way that any building built in modern times is still going to be standing intact in a million years, let’s not kid ourselves, none of our buildings will still be there in 5,000 years.

    So, essentially, here’s the thing. People were living at an extremely advanced state 6,000 years ago. Then everything went to shit and the biggest cities became the biggest cesspools of degeneracy, crime and depravity as is evidence from ancient Babylonian cities and ancient Roman cities much later. During this era, from 4000BC to 1200AD, no advancements of any kind were made by mankind. All the knowledge that the ancient Greeks and the Islamic Persians “discovered” was just a rediscovery of what already existed written down on clay tablets under many feet of dirt and sand below the Caliphate’s feet in Iraq. It was only around the year 1800AD that those old cities were discovered and it was realized that no true scientific discovery had occurred since very ancient times. Not only had there been no progress, but in that era the general trend was portrayed by what happened to Iran when the Mongols invaded. Iran was a country of civilized people, the Mongols were wild and their sheer speed, strength, agility and physical supremacy in wielding any kind of weapon was simply too much for the Iranians. Even today, if guns and modern technology is removed from the equation, armed with less technological weapons a group of rural Iranian farmers could brutalize, intimidate and lay to waste a small Iranian city. In fact, a bunch of us were sitting in a friend’s orchard on top of some hills which overlooked a city of 40,000 on the other side of a wide river-valley a few years back and we were contemplating this idea. All the guys there were rural people from a small village of 5000 neighboring the city a few miles away from it. All of them thought that if Israel and the USA invaded Iran, it would again be up to the rural people to go to war and defend the country, like they had done when Iraq had invaded, and like they had done countless times before that. They all laughed at the idea of city-people out in the hills and mountains trying to find their way and survive, let alone battling an invading force. They all thought that armed with shovels, tridents, sledge-hammers, etc. a small number of them could take over the nearby city without too much fuss, if the city-people didn’t have guns. At some point the comparison came up that if the Ils (the nomads) were to compete in this same arena, a small number of them could easily take out a rural village of 5000 strong. Everyone agreed. “Those guys sleep outside on the dirt in sub-freezing temperature in the mountains at night, they walk and run countless miles per day and they can lift a horse. We would be no match for them, except that we have pitchforks and shovels and they have no metal implements” was the gist.

    I’ve strayed too far off-topic. I’ve confused even myself now.

  25. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    What I was gonna say was that not only did mankind not make any progress in that era, but that wild uncivilized people like the Mongols, the Huns and the Turks kept putting civilized people to death and their knowledge and civilization with them. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Islamic Persia before the Mongol Invasion was the equivalent of the USA of the time. The Persians were so deep in their pursuit of science, philosophy, poetry, mysticism and general spiritual and academic endeavors that they were absolutely no match for the hands-on cunning and savagery of Mongol hordes. This was the trademark of those times. All the vestiges of civilization and science and development were destroyed by less-civilized barbarians until finally during the deepest part of the Dark Age (the period between the Mongol invasion of Iran and the Rennaisance in Europe) there was no culture, civilization or science to be heard of in all of the Old World.

    Then suddenly in a few centuries ancient Greek and Arabic ideas were discovered by Europeans and widely translated to Latin, the ideas were developed until the year 1800 where Europeans thought of themselves as having broken all the previous barriers of scientific and mental inquiry, when the ancient cities were discovered and blew the lid off the whole thing. The European thinkers discovered that they were not as advanced as these biblical legendary people who had suddenly been dragged out of the ground and brought to life. Then, in a span of 200 years, all the science of those ancients has now supposedly been surpassed. It took us only 200 years to develop from a Medieval no-electricity, no-gasoline, no-complex-machines existence to the Space Age.

    I’m not trying to draw any conclusions or make any conjectures. I’m just trying to paint a clear picture of things.

  26. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    “I would like to pick up again on the discussion of civilizations. Peter, your example is one of our current civilization, which I see as a civilization in decline. Civilizations in their developing stage are marked by strong activity in science, art and engineering. It is only at the point when they begin to create a monetary value system and consequently, conquering armies (versus defensive tactics) that a civilization begins its decline. Why did the Roman Empire last over a thousand years, while the American Empire is collapsing after just a little over two hundred? Because the use of a monetary system was not widely prevalent at the time of the Roman Empire’s beginnings. It was built off preceding empires that had used monetary systems, but had not extended beyond the boundaries of their known system of trade. Rome expanded into Europe, carrying its monetary system with it, but even in the vast Roman Empire, trade and barter were common. It was only after material wealth became an established goal and desire throughout its conquered territories, that the Roman Empire began to crumble from within.”

    karlsie, my understanding is that the monetary system is the basic foundation of civilization. Bear with me.

    It is ~4000BC, and according to our academics, there is only 1 city in all the world. That city is called Eridu and it is located at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, near where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers join the sea. The layout of Eridu at this early date was simple; there was a large ziggurat (A step-pyramid; look up Choghazanbil for one of the only remaining ziggurats) in the middle of a plain. Surrounding the ziggurat were small shacks, some made of wood, others made of reeds, dung, baked clay-bricks, etc. The ziggurat had a residential area at the very top where Anu resided. All around the city of Eridu there lived 3 groups of people, three distinct types. It is unknown what the Sumerians themselves called these people, but the ancient Iranians called them the Irs, the Turs and the Sami. (The Irs are believed to be the Indo-European speakers, the Turs are all Turanian people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turanians) and the Sami are the Semites. The Semites belong to the Afro-Asiatic language family. And the Turanians includes all the other white-people languages. These three groups dominated the Iranian plateau in prehistory, until the Irs finally overcame the others and drove them out. Tehran was previously Turan (place of Turs) and there are cities in Iran today called Saman (place of Sams) anyway….) According to the people of Eridu, the three people were involved in three different lines of work, three different lifestyles. One group were farmers who lived on the plain of Sumer and possibly also in the foothills of the Zagros mountains. The second group were the nomadic herdsmen who lived in the Zagros mountains and in Anatolia with their goats and sheep and horses. The third group were the hunter-gatherer tribes who lived in the wooded areas beyond the Alborz mountains all the way into the woodlands of Northern and Western Europe. Eridu was a special place because people from all three groups came there to trade. In the vicinity of the temple of Anu (essentially the whole city of Eridu) was a no-violence zone dedicated to the gods, whom all people respected. (like Mecca in later years when it was a holy place for all people regardless of religion) The temple of Anu had a large supply of gold coin. People brought in their surplus goods and products in exchange for coin. The coin could be used to buy other stuff from the temple or directly from other people. It is almost certain that Eridu (ie. the area around the ziggurat) was divided into three districts to accomodate the three races of people. Some only came to the city for trade and for worship, but others had already begun to settle down into permanent jobs in the city. One of the first jobs of the city-people was the military. The military was a vital component of the temple’s schemes. As soon as the temple started giving people loans (whether in the form of gold or grain. in ancient mesopotamia, like ancient egypt, the granaries were upheld and maintained by the temple. they were property of the gods, just like all gold was property of the gods) …anyway, those who received loans from the temple were expected to pay the loan back with interest, duh. So, let’s say that the temple had minted 1,000 gold coins and that eventually all these coins were given away to people as loans. The people were expected to pay back 20% interest to the bank which meant 1,200 gold coins. But gold coins were the exclusive property of the gods/temples and the only way to get more of it was by bringing in goods to be sold at the temple. You understand, this system creates the illusion of scarcity. There is never enough gold/goods within the domain of the city to pay off the temple’s interests, because anything that falls within the realm of the city’s reach is already contained within the economy, and the economy is expected to generate interest in addition to what it contains already. This is where the military comes into the picture. The military goes off to the hills, the mountains and the woodlands, looking for slaves and for plunder. Early military soldiers could keep for themselves most of what they plundered, giving only a small tribute to the temple. But in any case, whatever those soldiers brought back had to be sold to the temple in exchange for gold, so it all belonged to the temple anyway. Now, in those days all able free men were conscripted into the service of the god’s army. So, the temple’s strategy was expansion at all cost. Eridu kept devouring the people and resources that lived all around it, for the sake of growth alone. But none of the people knew this. The people had no established organization other than the temple at that early date. The temple was the state, the church, it was alpha and omega. Everything the people did was by the temple’s permission and specific instructions. The people who followed an academic career did so under the auspices of the temple, just as the people who followed a military career or the people who followed a career in agriculture (distinct from the earlier farming). Of course this was before the land was flooded with slaves and the temple bought all the land from the farmers. At this stage, what happened in Babylon is essentially the same thing that happened in Rome. (For a marvellous, absolutely breath-taking look at conditions in Rome circa 50BC read Arthur Koestler’s Gladiators. Every paragraph of the book is pure knowledge, there’s no fillers and not a single worthless word.)

  27. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    I’m going to quote a few paragraphs from Arthur Koestler’s Gladiators, because it’s just so good. It’s enchanting, really. I’m sure Mr. Koestler’s lawyers won’t mind. And if they do, too bad, ’cause I live in a rogue outlaw nation and I don’t believe in copyright or intellectual property. (In fact, I don’t believe in property at all, but whatever.)

    Here goes:

    Auditorium and stage were sheltered from the sun by a coloured canvas roof. A couple
    of flowerpots-full of wheat played at being a cornfield in front of a plain back-cloth. The
    piece was called Bucco the Peasant. First to appear was Bucco, with a scarlet, puffcheeked
    mask and bright yellow hair. Babbling incessantly, he stumbled jerkily on to the
    stage as though moved by invisible wires.
    ‘I am Bucco the Peasant,’ he said. ‘I’ve just come from the war in Asia where I killed
    seventeen men and two elephants and was greatly commended by my Captain. “Bucco,”
    said my captain to me, “now you’ve killed off enough enemies and committed enough
    heroism, now you go home nicely, and till your soil, steeped in glory and honours as you
    are.” But where are my wife and child, not to mention my field-hand, who are to receive
    me exultantly? Hey, come here, wife and child and field-hand, Bucco has returned
    victorious!’
    He clapped his hands and revolved a few times on his heel, but nothing stirred. As he
    peeped and pried and clapped, Maccus the Glutton mounted the stage in funereal
    tardiness. He was the soul of laziness and ugliness, a phallus made of rags dangled
    lewdly down to his knee. He nibbled an enormous turnip and tore out the cornstalks that
    hemmed his way.
    ‘Hey, you Cappadocian scarecrow,’ cried Bucco the Peasant, ‘you shorn onion whose
    sight brings tears to my eyes, you lascivious frog, what are you doing on my field?’
    ‘I am reaping the harvest,’ said Maccus, bit a piece off the turnip and went on plucking.
    ‘Praised be the Gods!’ cried Bucco the Peasant. ‘So they made a brand-new field-hand
    grow unto me during my absence! And even if he is not handsome, he doubtless is a man,
    as anyone can see.’
    ‘I daresay you got sunstroke in Asia,’ said Maccus measuredly. ‘I daresay your brains
    evaporated through your ears, if you think that this field is your field. Know it then: this
    field belongs to the exalted Lord Dossena.’
    On hearing this Bucco the Peasant broke into loud lamentations. But that was not all.
    Bucco learned that the exalted Lord Dossena had not only taken his field, but had led
    away his wife and child; every shred of land all around now belonged to the exalted Lord
    Dossena; Maccus the Glutton was also one of the slaves of the Lord Dossena. Weeping
    and sobbing, Bucco the Peasant paced the field that was no longer his. He hurled
    atrocious curses at the mighty Lords for whom he had fought the war and killed
    seventeen men besides two elephants; this, then, was the fatherland’s gratitude!
    But what good were curses; Bucco had to try and find a livelihood; so he decided to go
    into service on the land that had formerly been his own. Whereupon the Lord Dossena,
    hunch-backed and beak-nosed, made his entry, and Bucco the Peasant delivered his
    request.
    But the Lord Dossena, who spoke an affectedly literary Latin in contrast to Bucco’s
    deep-vowelled Oscian brogue, declined; he employed only slaves, he said, and would not
    have anything to do with free labourers, for they are pretentious, demand high pay, and
    decent treatment even. No, no, said the Lord Dossena, he would have none of that, and
    off he went.
    So there stood Bucco the Peasant, helpless and lonely, and walked the stage, he could
    not even curse any more. Fortunately Pappus came, the Good-natured Sage, and knew of
    a way out: Bucco must go to Rome, for in Rome everybody whom bad times have
    deprived of his living, is supported by the State by means of monthly distributions of free
    corn. ‘Go to the capital, my son,’ said Pappus, ‘and live on the wheat you can reap without
    sowing.’
    Bucco became quite enthusiastic on hearing this; humming a jaunty tune he departed
    for Rome.
    The wheatpots were swiftly removed and a new back-cloth let down, which represented
    a street; and there was Bucco already marvelling at the size, traffic and stink of the
    capital. But then he got hungry and asked the next passer-by where it was they distributed
    corn to unemployed citizens.
    The passer-by, a fat man with documents under his arm, nearly threw a fit with surprise
    at this question. Where, he asked, did Bucco come from?was it the moon or the German
    province? Did he not know that glorious and dauntless dictator Sulla?whose name, he
    begs to point out, he only mentioned with all due reverence?has abolished the cornbenefit
    because the State needs all its money for the wars? And anyway, Bucco had better
    disappear at once, unless he would like to be suspected of extreme oppositionism and
    high treason, and see his name advertised in the proscription-list.
    Thus all of Bucco’s beautiful hopes were gone, and he was wan and hungry again.
    Fortunately a turbulent crowd came by; its leader asked Bucco whether he would vote for
    Gaius or for Gneius at the elections. Bucco the Peasant replied that worried him as little
    as a fart of slumber. So the leader said he should vote for Gneius and slipped a coin into
    his hand. Delighted, Bucco skipped to the bakershop to buy bread; but the baker said it
    was one of the recent coins with which the State cheated the people, for, though silvered
    outside, it was only copper inside, and he would not take it. So then Bucco sat down on a
    cobble in front of the bakery and wept.
    But now another man passed by and asked Bucco why he was weeping. Bucco told him
    that he had been to the wars where he had slain twenty-seven men as well as two
    elephants, and now he could not even buy a loaf of bread. So then the man said Bucco
    was a hero, and did he not know that dictator Sulla?whose name, be it noted, he only
    mentioned with all due reverence?had promised fields to the faithful veterans of his army.
    No, said Bucco, still bathed in tears, he did not know, for they had not given him land but
    taken it away. A crying shame, this, said the man, and he would see to it that Bucco got a
    new and better field in compensation for his lost one.
    After that the back-cloth with its streets was pulled away and the flowerpots with wheat
    returned: Bucco was a farmer again.
    But things got really bad only now. The new field assigned to Bucco was full of stones,
    and he had to sell the sparse corn it bore at a loss, because the wheat from overseas
    lowered the price. Apart from that, Bucco again owed money to the hunch-backed Lord
    Dossena, as he had been forced to borrow from him in order to buy the necessary tools.
    Lo, came Dossena with a smug bailiff who read out some unintelligible document;
    whereupon the field was taken from him again.
    So there was Bucco the Peasant, alone on the stage, chubby-faced, bright-haired, and
    speaking a monologue: ‘It’s fiendish,’ said he, ‘every day is worse. The justice of our State
    develops backwards like a cow’s tail. Cross my heart and hope to die if I believe that all
    this is Divine ruling. What will you do with yourself now, poor old Bucco? All you can
    do is leap about and wonder and worry, like a mouse in a chamberpot. . . .’
    But when Dossena and the smug bailiff came back to order him off the field, Bucco the
    Peasant took a big stick and began to thrash them soundly; he yelled he would go to the
    bandits now, to Mount Vesuvius, in order to smash this bloody country to bits; and thus
    the play ended happily in the obligatory row, under the raging applause of the spectators.

  28. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    As you can surely see, gold coins as they were utilized by the temples in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Mexico at the very beginning of history is an ingenious device. The gold coins are worthless themselves, they can neither feed people nor fight off wild beasts. They are only good as long as the temple is there to take them from people in exchange for other items. If the temple is corrupt, which it has always been, it will use this system to enslave people, as it always has.

    I believe that in the very beginning, the temple offered gold coins to people free of debt, simply as a public service. But this changed very soon. At the beginning of the historical record, the temples were already loan-giver institutions surviving and expanding rapidly on debt and inflation.

    karlsie, you say that civilization offers people more leisure time. This is true, technically. It is a fact that we have plenty of leisure time today, but what good is leisure time if you’re broke? There is no doubt that the upper 10% of our society have plenty of leisure time, and they have boatloads of cash to ensure that their leisure time is spent travelling around the world, seeing and doing everything and anything. Those 10% know of pleasures that you and I can’t even imagine. They spend their time enjoying all the fruits of the earth and civilized life to the fullest. They go places and do things that we aren’t even allowed to know about. (Did you know that the world elite gather at the Bohemian grove to take experimental psychedelics right out of Alex Shulgin’s lab? synthetic psychedelics that aren’t even available for sale to the general public.) In any case, those 10% can enjoy their special lifestyles because they were born rich. The rest of us, the 90% are either low-class worse-than-slaves who have to work every day of our lives without ever getting rich, without even the hope of ever getting rich. Or we’re part of the middle-class, which means our ancestors were low-class slaves and through a few generations of wretched poverty and slavery they were able to provide us with a middle-class comfortable life where we have enough leisure time and money to sit and home watching TV, or drinking at a bar, or whatever it is middle-class people do.

    So, sure. 90% of people have to work and have very little free time and very little cash, in order that 10% of people can have only free-time and more cash than they could spend in 100 lifetimes. What’s worse is that rich people today are almost exclusively born into their life situations. None of them will ever go broke, they will never share their money with the rest of us, and every single day that passes, they get richer and we get poorer.

    Enjoying my leisure time immensely. Thank you so much society!

  29. The Late Mitchell Warren says:

    Hmmm Apparently my reply got eaten up…guess I better retype it all. :-(

  30. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    lol haate when that happens!

    The distinction I’m drawing between the three ancient races of white people is not arbitrary or based on my whim. Before the days of the first cities, people in western eurasia lived in three kinds of natural landscapes. These landscapes consisted of 1) woodlands, 2) mountains and 3) plains, flatlands and low foothills without dense vegetative cover. The people who lived in the forests at that early time all lived in hunter-gatherer communities, because this lifestyle was the only one conducive to the forest biome. In the same way, mountainous areas are much better-suited for a nomadic pastoralist lifestyle (alpine grasslands in the summer, subalpine valleys in the winter; two yearly migrations) and in the third ecosystem there is no possibility of supporting hunter-gatherers or herdsmen but only farmers. Only farmers could survive and subsist on the Mesopotamian lowlands. The difference between the farmers and the other two is their sedentary lifestyle. Hunter-gatherers in jungles and herdsmen in mountains have to constantly move around, because if they stay in one place too long they will deplete all the resources, farmers create an artificial cycle of organic matter through manuring and composting, which means they can live on a small plot of land without ever depleting its resources. (Can cities ever exist without draining and depleting their resources?)

    Now, so there is no confusion I should point out that the ancient Iranians were calling the three people Ir, Tur and Sam at around 1000BC, and at that time all three people had developed cities and civilizations (although there were still many farmers, hunter-gatherers and herdsmen in the world also) but by this date racial and linguistic affiliations had already become heavily intermixed, and that while the Irs may have originally been descended from the forest people, the Turs from the mountain people, and so on, at 1000BC these distinctions had become moot. After the cities multiplied, the whole scene changed. It has been recorded that when the kings of Ashur defeated and subdued a city in Iran, they deported and relocated 100,000 of its citizens to Syria, or when they defeated a city in Palestine, they moved 400,000 of its people to Iran. They did this to eliminate any nationalistic sense of homeland and country among the people, essentially to destroy their cultural identity and ensure no future rebellions. In addition to this, when the ancient Irs “drove out” the Turs from Iran, they didn’t exactly just kick them all out, but rather what happened was that they took their beautiful women as sex-slaves to bear them children, their able-bodied men as peon-laborers, executing all the children, the ugly women, the old and disagreeable men, etc. It was very common that when a people were conquered, their people were taken as slaves. The Jews, for example, it seems were slaves in Egypt and in Babel. Over time slave populations tended to integrate into the society they were living in. So, essentially there is no feasible way to track and cross-reference racial and linguistic affiliations in the middle east today. Many people who are not racially Turkish speak Turkish as a first language in Iran today. For example, when a Farsi-speaking group settled down in a generally Turkish-speaking area of Chaharmahal, it so happened that after a few generations the they shifted their language to Turkish. So, it is nearly impossible to relate any modern (since the year 1AD) middle-eastern and near-eastern racial or linguistic group to any of the three particular ancient races.

    But in the days of the very first city, these racial and linguistic distinctions were sharp and clearly evident. It is my understanding that the forest people had very light hair and skin because they had been living in the Western Eurasian Temperate rainforests for hundreds of thousands of years, understandably they received less sunlight than the mountain people. And the people of the plains lived in a generally sunnier climate than the cloudy mountains. Isolated for hundreds of thousands of years, this would potentially give rise to three distinct hair colors and skin tones.

  31. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    They say that prostitution is the oldest profession. Whether this is true or not, there is no doubt that it was one of the first professions in the cities. The esteemed temple, trained women to become ‘qadishtu’ and ‘haru’ and ‘priestess’ in order to take people’s gold from them. So, let’s see, the first professions that came with the cities: usurer, conscript-soldier, prostitute, slave….and all working directly under the temple’s supervision. Yeah, cities are definitely in the best interest of mankind. How could I have been so blind. I repent everything bad I said about the first cities. I wish I lived in those cities so that I could watch with pride as my sister sexually serviced a never-ending chain of hairy wild men. I wish I was there to watch my sons sent off to slaughter, plunder and rape innocent wild people. I would have been so proud. I wish I was there to see my father brought in from the wild as a slave, to see him toil every day to feed his family a single loaf of bread. I would have liked to have been forced into debt over a few grains of wheat, because the system was designed that way.

    You know what, I wish we could all go back to that time and enjoy all the marvels together. But wait, nothing’s really changed. My sister is still a whore. My father is a workaholic whose life revolves entirely around his career. I was shipped off to Afghanistan to kill random people who I didn’t know (I’m AWOL right now. I’m also an illegal alien.) Yeah, civilization rocks!

  32. The Late Mitchell Warren says:

    If I can remember what I originally said…

    So there are multiple aspects of this division of human beings. Maybe all the other prerogatives are misleading. Maybe the word is aggressive; warrior beings vs. peaceable beings. Or a master-slave race. Perhaps even something in nature; a parasitic man who feeds off the prosperity of the honest and hard working.

    The Native Americans fought hard, sure, but there were vicious settlers who were were greater in number. Perhaps this is part of what it is to be man; it’s not good and evil; it’s the militaristic, violent part of man vs. the peaceful loving man. In a way, we are two different beings of the same species, just as there were carnivorous dinosaurs and herbivores. In a way technology that is disrespectful to nature and life is a form of violence, of aggression and exploitation.

    History suggests that the violence genus usually overpowers the peace loving ones, because the peaceable would have to resort to animalistic violence and lose their souls, as it were. So I suppose on that basis, I can accept your view that “we” didn’t create this world; it is the product of that other species of man, or perhaps, another generation of man far removed from our thinking. I dunno, I tend to think that instinct in man is strong and lasts for eons and so we can see ourselves in ancient species. Then again, it is presumptuous of me to assume that ancient societies were not entirely different from us. We assume human ancestors were so much like us, when it’s possible they weren’t. They evolved in mind…

    I haven’t really seen anything suggesting to me that man has greater intellectual capacities than animals. Well, Yes, I can read the science and the rationalization, and the examinations of animal carcasses. But I don’t know what it’s like to be in an animal’s body or mind. Man’s view of animals would always be biased since he is the one conducting the study. Anyway, point being, man’s instinct, I believe is long-lasting. I think the two mental species of man tends to repeat their actions throughout history. The humanitarian and the conqueror.

    I reserve judgment about the distant past because there’s no proof either way. I am not one to instantly dismiss past societies as primitive just because our society deludes itself into thinking it’s “advanced.” I see arrogance, yes, and lots of patting each other on the back. I have always said that there are gaping holes in the evolutionary record and that until these holes are filled, we cannot just dogmatically accept evolution. We were not there. We have no idea what happened; whether a god was involved, or whether aliens created us, or whatever.

    The question is, does there have to be a beginning if there is always an end? I don’t think man can quite reconcile what beginning means. The Big Bang Theory is absurd. It’s as if someone devised it, just because he wanted to tack on a pat “beginning”, just so he could reject the concept of an everlasting God. But I honestly don’t think that the initial universe just appeared and was built in a trillionth of a second.

    Hmmm…I have never heard the idea that the pyramids are a million years old. I suppose our systems of dating objects could be flawed, especially since we take the ass opinions of scientists as gospel.

    Sumerian cities, they stated emphatically (and I paraphrase) that “nothing of note has been discovered or invented since 4000BC”.

    You know I was just thinking that!!! How weird is it that mankind has been evolving for millions of years, and yet all this technology just suddenly appeared within the last 10,000 years? I can understand why theists believe in a 7,000 year old earth because that is a massive jump that is not accounted for.

    “I’ve strayed too far off-topic. I’ve confused even myself now.”

    LOL

    I had more to say in the post that got eaten. Forgot now. Anyway, I do understand what you’re saying.

    Just as a background, my motivation in writing this article was to remind people that religion is not evil–man is evil and man invented religion. So it makes no sense to me how someone can claim to be an anti-theist and hate religion as a sort of god travesty, when they don’t even believe in God(s).

    It’s just irrational emotion, trying to convince the world to get rid of religion, when in fact, religion is just one of man’s many multiple personality disorders.

  33. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    Here’s some more semi-random facts and ideas, in the interest of civilization.

    Soon after Eridu, the first human city, was firmly established, four other cities popped up on the Mesopotamian plain. These first five cities were all located relatively very close to eachother. For example, from the top of the ziggurat of of Eridu, the ziggurat and city of Larsa were visible. The names of these first cities (Sippar, Shuruppak, Bad-tibira) are not of the Sumerian language. They are from an unknown and unrelated language that predated Sumerian. It is believed that the reign of these five cities constitutes an era. At some point other cities started popping up all over the place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cities_of_Sumer_(en).svg) and a new era began. The first and foremost of these new cities were Kish, Uruk, Lagash, Ur and Nippur. All their names are attributed to the ancient Sumerian tongue. Each of these first ten cities was more accurately a city-state during this era. A strange thing about this first era is that the cities (the excavated earliest strata) did not have walls, and aside from this it is generally held that those first cities although they existed in very close proximity, and had access to all the exact same resources, they did not war or battle eachother. My guess is that this was strictly forbidden at that date. All of those first cities were no-violence zones by the sanctity of the gods. It is my understanding that _all_ people respected this at ~4000BC just like all people regardless of race or religion respected the no-violence zone around the Ka’aba (The Cube, the temple of the Black Stone, a universal place of worship and pilgrimage until Muslims forbade non-muslims from entering the temple of the Kaaba at Mecca) from much later. The historical record holds that a king named Gilgamesh built the city-walls of Uruk sometime around the year 3000 (give or take a few hundred years). By this time, it seems, the city-states had started warring with eachother. During this early Sumerian era, we know of one historical king who rose to power from a city-state, and went on to conquer a number of other city-states, removing their kings and royal families from power, implanting his own vassals and thus establishing the first empire. The cities within the empire had essentially 1 army that took orders from 1 high-commander, the king of kings, Lugal-Zage-Si. Lugal-Zage-Si’s reign did not last long. A Sargon of Akkad, a Semite (yet another unrelated language, belonging to a group of newcomers) under the tutelage and patronship of Enlil and Ishtar captured the last Sumerian king and brought him to the gods in chains, as tribute. Sargon created was is believed to be the first truly functional human empire. His Akkadian Empire stretched from the Medditerranean Sea to the Persian Gulf.

    I find a few issues intriguing about Sumerian language. In the old Sumerian tongue, the word ki (or possibly gi) meant earth, land, ground, place. In the Ancient Greek language, the word for earth was ge (the source of the word Gaia). In modern Farsi, the word “ja” means place. The word jahan means “the world” literally translated it reads something like “all places”. (The counterpart of jahan is keihan, “the cosmos”) Also, in modern Farsi the suffix -gah also implies place. For example, the word panah-gah means “place of shelter” ie. bomb-shelter or danesh-gah means “place of knowledge” ie. university. This is strange because Greek and Farsi are part of the Indo-European language family, while Sumerian is not believed to be in any way related to this family. The word similarities between modern Farsi and ancient Sumerian (4000BC) are so many that it would take still years for me to compile a list. But some general examples are, Old Persian “ap” (pronounced up) modern Farsi “ab” from Sumerian “ap” means water. Modern Farsi “kun” (=ass; both the body part and the animal) modern Taleshi (an Iranian language from the province of Gilan) “kun” (=backside, behind) from Sumerian kun, which probably meant everything from tail, back, behind, ass, to perhaps even donkey. And one more, maybe the strangest, modern Farsi “lulu” (pronounced loo-loo) means “the boogeyman”, from Sumerian Lulu, also The Boogeyman. I wanna suggest that the old Sumerian speakers were probably somehow closely related to the speakers of Proto-Indo-European (the linguistic ancestors of everyone who speaks Farsi, Greek, or English. but not Turkish, Finnish, or Hebrew and Arabic) Also, it seems that the name Uruk is the Semitized pronounciation of the earlier Warka, which is obviously an Ir (indo-european) word.

  34. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    “Hmmm…I have never heard the idea that the pyramids are a million years old. I suppose our systems of dating objects could be flawed, especially since we take the ass opinions of scientists as gospel. ”

    Dating rocks is not as simple as carbon-dating organic matter. And in any case, I think the elite world of Academia is withholding tons of information from the public. You know the large collections of clay tablets that were recovered from Iraqi ruins and moved to unknown basements and labs in Europe paint a very detailed picture of what happened in the past. I think ancient people were meticulous and avid record-keepers, they made records of everything they did and everything that happened during their lifetimes. The age of lies and dishonesty and propaganda and global agendas is a very new thing. From the past 100 years. I’ve seen and met with a few less-advanced peoples, and I can tell you that they were all unfamiliar with the concept of the lie or with the idea of “cheating” or even “doing bad things”. The short Amazonian jungle-man, dressed up in ill-fitting western clothes, like something donated to the salvation army in Detroit and brought to the rainforest to be sold to the simpletons, he looked at me quizzically and said “but why would people do bad things?” I was trying to tell him about how psychdelics are illegal in the USA because of the police. He just couldn’t for the life of him understand what cops were. He couldn’t conceive of people doing anything “bad”. “Is it ‘bad’ that I drink yage?” He was truly perplexed and confused by the whole thing.

    Anyway, what I meant to say is that there are exhaustive and very-descriptive records of our history that date back to at least 4000BC (some would argue that as the Sumerian king list dates the first city to hundreds of thousands of years ago, then the archeologists and excavators (on the elite payroll, because who else has the cash to fund anything non-profit?) so, these excavators they actually dug up 700,000 years of human history when they unearthed the ancient cities. How likely do you think it is that the items on display in Museums in the Western world are totally random, and not pre-selected items arranged in a certain order so as to give people a preconceived idea about history? I think the early Zionists were looking for something very important in Jerusalem, so they went and dug it up, just like the later Zionists funded all the early excavations in the middle east (in truth, these Zionists, these Bilderberg, these handful of rich men, whatever you wanna call them) they fund all Academic activity in the world, they always have. But they don’t do this so that you and I can become more familiar with our past and our magical origins. They do it to further their own causes. Any Qabbalist will tell you: “knowledge is power. knowledge shared is power lost.” <– this is strictly adhered to by the elite today, who try to keep people as deeply in the dark as they can. They've made us believe that life is a mundane, boring, pointless existence. They've turned us into mundane, boring, pointless beings, void of spirit and soul. We're becoming mechanical machines, I swear.

    The idea of Homo sapiens is a first-class example. There is no such thing as Homo sapiens! It has no existence outside of the intent of the Academic world. There is nothing in the physical universe that you could point out and say "this is homo sapiens." Homo sapiens is a hypothesized blending of all modern races of mankind into one. (i don't know if hypothesis is even the right word, more like imagined.) The Negroid race and the Western Eurasian race must have been isolated from eachother for at least a million years, absolutely no contact, no intermarriage, nothing, in order to have developed such different looks. There is no fucking doubt that the Negroid race is the superior one on earth. That's why they are being exterminated and sterilized and what-not. People of Black African descent are physically (genetically!) far superior to all other people on earth. Black men suffer from baldness and loss of vigor far less than white men. (everyone in Iran is bald!) Black men have the biggest dicks, go figure. I think the idea of homo sapiens is a ploy. What it does is give people the impression that organized violence against black people is not technically racism or genocide, because black people and white people are the same race. This is bullshit. It is clear that the race of subsaharan africans has changed very little since its appearance over 2 million years ago, namely the appearance of Homo Ergaster. Yet, the white race and the mongoloid-native-american race have changed immensely from that time. And why is it that people have to hear about the existence of hobbits from J.R.R Tolkien in a book of "high fantasy" (falsehoods) and not from Scientists and Historians? If the African pygmies are not hobbits, Homo floresiensis was not a hobbit, if Homo habilis was not a hobbit-man, then I really don't know what to say. And this situation with the appearance of Homo habilis followed by Homo ergaster is quite a conundrum itself. They are both believed to have been human, and both emerged around the same time, one was under 4 feet tall, the other over 6 feet tall. How did this happen?

    I tend to credit the gods for all this. I mean after all, human beings are just machines. All organisms are machines. Very complex and intricate, uber-futuristic machines. We are the Cylons, the Terminators, Skynet. We were created and manufactured as certainly as we are manufacturing robots today. Our society is the most artificial thing perhaps in all of existence. It is all based on deceit and lies, and manipulation, and certainly not about humanitarianism or the good of the human race. This is unquestionable IMO.

  35. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    “Just as a background, my motivation in writing this article was to remind people that religion is not evil–man is evil and man invented religion. So it makes no sense to me how someone can claim to be an anti-theist and hate religion as a sort of god travesty, when they don’t even believe in God(s).

    It’s just irrational emotion, trying to convince the world to get rid of religion, when in fact, religion is just one of man’s many multiple personality disorders.”

    I don’t think religion is evil either. I don’t think money (materialism) and nationalism are evil either. The problem is that certain powerful organizations exist on the earth today that tend to manipulate people based on the people’s materialistic/religious/nationalistic drives. People are enslaved, not by money or religion, but rather by organizations that control money and religion. This leads me to believe that money and religion were invented in order to control people.

    Let me tell you, the first true Academics in the world were the priests and priestesses of the Mesopotamian temples. The early priests were the first mathematicians. They were the first people to study mathematics. Do you know why? A naive person would say “because they were trying to learn, and to create a better society through understanding and blah blah blah”. The truth is, the priests _needed_ mathematics in order to keep track of loans and interest rates, and compound interest, and all the other financial scams the temple was pulling on an illiterate populace. Let me tell you, literacy was strictly the domain of the gods and their priests in those days. It was illegal for normal people to know how to read and write. It was considered a blasphemous offense against the gods, equivalent to spitting in their face. So, mathematics was invented with the intent of scamming and manipulating people. Who do you think is really benefiting from math today? I’ll tell you. It’s the Wall Street, World Bank, IMF motherfuckers and all the other economists and bankers working in big-time financial positions. They use extremely complex mathematics (i mean really otherworldly, super-intelligence shit) they use super-computers and Crays that work 24/7 analyzing tons of data, solving complicated equations, all so that they can ass-blast us with mathematical precision. The banks’ mathematicians ensure that they will never make a loss, and we will never make a profit. Some guy stole like 2 billion dollars from an Iranian bank through super-modern economic schemes, which were obviously developed and executed with help from Wall Street. The guy stole 2 billion dollars from an Iranian bank, which means he stole it from the Iranian people, and got away with it. He’s living the good life in some unknown location now. This is the whole point of banks. So that a few people can enslave and steal the property of everyone else.

    The sciences were never invented with the intent of bettering mankind. They were all created so that the temple could always stay one step ahead of people, to have more knowledge, superior technology and equipment, to firmly control all of society. Even today, we are funding the development of all technology. We are funding them by buying piece-of-shit technological devices like iphones and ipods, devices that we don’t need. We buy them so the elite can develop much more sophisticated devices for their own benefit in private. And in this age of capitalism and privatization, they aren’t even legally obligated to let us in on their activities. They own the law. The law is there to protect them from us, not the other way around.

    karlsie, I think your view of society is a reflection of your optimistic and good-natured spirit, but it in no way portrays the truth of what’s happening in the world today. The elite, the shitheads at the top, they have a purpose. Every single one of us has been stripped of their will and purpose and forced to work jobs that we don’t understand, so as to fulfill the unknown agendas of the elite. Soon it will be illegal for a man to have individual thought patterns or an individual and personal will and purpose. Soon they will call us to the doctor’s office to get our brain-microchip implants. If you can’t afford the implant, they’ll buy it for you and you can pay them back with interest later. They will make the whole thing look like a medical issue (like the poor Amish girl who didn’t want toxic chemotherapy, who had to escape the USA lest a judge and a bunch of police-goons force her) anyone who speaks out against the chip-implants will be called crazy like anti-vaccine people are made to look insane today. You can count on it.

  36. Peter Peter Cannabis Eater says:

    Here’s a little tidbit. Say “New Uruk” and “New Warka” out loud. Pronounce them however comes naturally to you and don’t worry about the ‘correct’ pronounciation. Is it a coincidence that the world’s financial capital today is called New Uruk?

  37. Paulo Arruda says:

    Seems to be very good.

Leave a comment

Switch to our desktop site