Well, as a 'liberal socialist' (Or an left-leaning Anarchist, depending on the company), I think she makes some good points.
Also, I despise Siggy Frued, and his family such as Barnays, so open door on that.
2 problems however. She strongly suggests that 'unconscious' and 'shadows' don't exist - and then goes on to point out that in an abusive culture/society, they will exist. And then points out correctly that Western culture/society is abusive. In other words, nearly everyone you meet in the so-called "developed" world will have those psychological traits. So clearly, they do exist. And if they exist, then there is a natural ability/possibility for them to exist.
What would be really interesting is seeing how strongly natural wild animals have those traits too - in some situations. Perhaps "pets" exhibit them most strongly, fx.
Secondly, I agree with Jung that Frued's notions are MODELS, and are to be taken as such, not as concrete reality. Taking them as models however, the aura of those with strong egos - and that includes animal pets raised by humans - is quite different. Or perhaps that would be better expressed by the Jungian term 'Self'.
Thirdly - piss off Spanish Inquisitors - the concept of 'price' has been fought over for centuries, and frankly the Marxist notion of 'Labour cost' doesn't cut it, nor even if you include all the other costs of production. That gives you a base figure you will lose selling beneath. The price itself is set by supply-demand-competition, as in classical economics. Again, she first derides that, and then comes to accepting it.
On money-creation she's on the money, although I would have thrown in some comments regarding "Interest" while I was on that topic. Such as that "Interest" on the financial supply forces inflation throughout the economy
Which means that the current popular notion of "Raising interest rates to lower inflation" really means that what you are doing is removing purchasing power from the oiks (us), and handing it over to the financial elites (banksters), while actually not doing anything about the real level of inflation going on - or even increasing it it in ways that are not used by the bean-counters to measure 'official' inflation figures.
[K - Evie's note: if comment preceded by a [K] that means it's Katrina speaking]
First, you are going to love the rest of this series because I'll be addressing all the point you raise. In this continuing intro I'm really just introducing various concepts/talking points. We'll get to the nitty-gritty later.
One of your best points, which - this is really cool - I was actually thinking as I was typing it, was about the existence of 'shadows' and so on 'in the natural world'. I neglected to mention that in my article partly for reasons of not wanting to digress. But I had thought of making the basic point - 'do we see the existence of 'the unconscious' etc. in any natural animal?' - answer is no, we don't. Obviously, unless you stick them in a cage - in which case this is not natural.
You say 'the possibility' of it must exist. Yes, that's true. But first, this is a product of the human brain's natural imaginative and self-conscious abilities.
Also it's only as a result of serious and sustained trauma. Evie would not want me to give you too many spoilers about my story but after waking up in this body in this parallel world I came to discover that I exist in a brain with multiple personalities. The most important point about all this in terms of your observations is that the human brain is capable of creating 'shadows' and 'unconscious'. This is not the same as saying they exist naturally. If you understand the process of creating a multiple you'll understand that it's utilising natural human cognitive abilities - specifically, self-defensive reaction, but removing the fight or flight ability, thus resulting in a 'freeze' reaction. Follow this up by sustained trauma and the brain shuts off the consciousness, that's to say it suppresses it and splits. The new consciousness takes over so the original doesn't have to experience the trauma. So the whole thing is a self-defensive reaction, combined with the human ability of 'imagination' taken to its extreme - that's to say 'self-awareness' replicated. If I know myself, if I am aware of myself as an identity, then I can imagine a copy of that. But here's the thing - this only happens if triggered by a need to do it for self-defence. In the natural world, there is never such a need. Because normal humans do not subject each other to such extreme, sustained trauma. In a small human group of 150 people, if one of them started behaving like a psychopath, he would be ostracised from the group before he had a chance to 'sustain' the abuse.
So 'dissociation' is a very modern phenomenon. I don't think other animals in the natural world have this because they don't have the imagination or cognitive self-awareness to do it. So it is an evolutionary potential, but it's not natural. They can display aberrant behaviour if subjected to trauma, which may well manifest as a different personality, but it's not a 'new' personality in addition to their old one. They don't have 'multiple' personalities - and thus they don't have 'shadows' or 'unconscious'.
Some very interesting studies of genetics floated past some years ago, don't have links to them anymore, sorry.
But it turns out that environment 'triggers' certain gene groups.
Fx, a young child in a highly abusive situation will trigger certain chemicals/genes that reduce interactivity, they become more... passive. This affects their growth, stature, optimism/pessimism values, and intelligence.
Depression has a genetic component.
(And can also be passed down through RNA, one or two generations).
I know well how disassociation works, and the level of agony of sustained positional meditation required to start to re-integrate - and forgive.
I wonder how the animals raised in barbaric conditions - such as veal cages - conceptualise. Needless to say, such studies will not be high on Humanity's To Do list.
Meat eating is part of nature, and meat comes from equally living creatures, every meat-eating creature is effectively a murderer. Our teeth lay out what we are.
At the same time, our future meat's life can be free and enjoyable, until the meat is 'harvested'.
I don't know for sure, but I'm PRETTY sure than any wild cow psychologists would find those poor veal calfs to be "Utterly fucked up", to coin a phrase.
I don't think we are separate from the Animal Queendom, we're just a more egocentric branch of it.
As for psychopaths/sociopaths in a tribal setting, the tribe will endeavour to use those traits for its own advantage. In hunting, battles, story-telling, fx. Societies that have to hunt down and murder large, powerful and intelligent other species just to survive (There being no Waitrose for thousands of years yet), cannot afford to be a bunch of squeamish hippies. (I'm a hypocrite who enjoys meat, but COULD NOT kill for it myself, not even a fish, rabbit or bird).
As for the manipulative, greedy, sadly those elements seem innate. Wiser societies limit the influence, but like the propensity to violence, any society that eliminated such negative qualities would soon go extinct. Nature IS "Red in tooth and claw", just as she also is "Cooperative, gentle and instructive".
I'm no post-humanist.
Reality cannot be some dreamy utopian landscape. As The Matrix says, all such dreams/experiments turn to shit because they are unrealistic.
But nor are the fascists correct, because Nature IS also cooperative, gentle and instructive.
This is why I'm 'liberal', rather than left or right.
I think we will find in future studies, that at least all mammalian species have the same possibilities for mental perturbation as the hairless monkeys do.
Epigenetics I think is the word we're looking for here.
As a sort of crossover to the Social Psychology & the Cabal series, I can't remember if I have gotten to the bit where I talk about the importance of learning how to control fire. Specifically, how once that happens, there is nothing in nature (red in tooth and claw etc.) that can scare you. Wave a burning torch at a predator and it will run away etc.
This is important psychologically, because one is no longer 'adapting' to being scared, and thus using sheer physical violence as self-defence. In other words, the human brain 'calms down' so to speak. Over several hundred thousand years, this makes for profound neurological changes, which become permanent.
It also has benefits for hunting, in particular with cooking food. This leads to increased brain processing ability and most importantly - strategic thought. Thus hunting becomes less of a violent act, and more a carefully thought out ambush-type situation in which you simply discern the herd's tracks, dig yourself a pit, possibly with some spikes in it, then use your fire, your spears, and your chorus of shouty voices to manipulate the prey towards the pit.
As for butchery, this would've become so habitual as to never have any moral value attached to it either way. Where 'morality' comes in is when we get to 'unnecessary' violence, and most importantly violence against a member of one's own social group, or species.
IMO one of the absolutely most important points to remember is - ironically - about 'supply versus demand'. The idea that demand was ever greater than potential supply for early humans is absurd, given how low their numbers were, how strategically intelligent they were, and how wide-ranging they could be - along with simple calculations of required calorie intake in relation to rate of reproduction of both prey and edible vegetation/fruit/nuts etc. This idea that 'there isn't enough of... such and such a resource' is in my view one of those myths deliberately propagated by the cabal for obvious reasons. They can't maintain their musical chairs feudalism if people realise there is more than enough resources to go around, if the distribution was fair. Ironically, the next part starts with a brief mention of how the cabal have deliberated corrupted theoretical physics, to prevent people from understanding how energy (electricity) can be generated with virtually zero costs. If people are self-sufficient for energy, they can't be controlled.
You are right about some of the monstrous ways animals are treated by people. One thing that has always made me furious is animal testing, for example. Interesting you mention cows, because I live in the Limousin region of rural France, which is very famous for its cows. The way they treat them here is about as kind as you can get - this includes the veal calves. They are simply allowed to graze from one field to another, as they would in the wild, until it's time for one or more to be slaughtered. That can be done kindly as well with a stun gun from behind. This is probably a significant reason why the meat tastes so good, because the animal is not stressed before death.
Animals - and humans too - have a sort of natural 'go into shock' (a sort of dissociation) when faced with imminent death (or torture, for that matter), so I'd say that's another relevant point.
I'm on two minds about the type of killing. My younger, idealistic self likes the idea of the less fear and pain of sudden deaths.
My older, idealistic self that understands death is a necessary part of life (And that all the Xian bollocks regarding Hell/Heaven is just fear-mongering for power and wealth), and that animals are not afraid to die - obviously they don't WANT to, but accept it when it happens - perhaps the Muslims are correct that giving an animal the time to 'say goodbye' to life might be more beneficial.
How would you feel if the doctor giving your mother her notice she has fatal cancer whips out a stun gun when she isn't looking and boom, before she say prepare herself for what is coming?
But I'm stuck between these two positions. I don't know!
I'm down south near Brighton, used to live there for a while in the 90s and then again in the 00s, after returning from DK. Got the South Downs a few mins to the north, and sea a few minutes southwards. :) Your area looks exceptionally nice though, how long have you lived there? Any problems since Brexshit? :/ xx
I am, ironically - or used to be - familiar with the Brighton area because I spent several years during my early to mid teens there (late 80s). The drugs and the music were good, if I recall… Not long after that I went to Camden, for similar reasons. I couldn’t possibly live in London now though. Perhaps it’s a young person’s city. Or I am showing my age. Rural idyll and withdrawing from the world for me now…
We haven’t had too many issues with Brexit aside from a few bureaucratic ones, like the need for a residency permit, which requires photo ID and the taking of our fingerprints and all that. Not that I am planning to do any crimes but they can always plant the evidence if necessary. I also don’t really see the problem with ‘digital ID’ etc., seeing as they already have all the information, whether you like it or not.
I haven’t really been back to Britain since Brexit so I can’t really comment on the travelling issue. I don’t think I’d want to go back either tbh, from the looks of the place now…
I don’t think there is a conflict between the younger and older self in what you say - I would agree. It’s ironic after all that most people who haven’t studied get scared of the Death card in the Tarot, which is simply change or transition, because they don’t understand it (education goes a long way). It’s the Devil and the Tower you have to watch out for…
I never liked London much, but went to some fantastic parties there in the 90s. Some friends moved there, so I saw a bit of it visiting. Was always glad to leave again though, lol.
I know what you mean about the ageing/rural thing, cities are for the young who can enjoy the freedom of being in a crowd and showing off - which I did more than my fair share of! ;)
Glad to hear Brexshit didn't bugger you over, tbh it did me because it made the working trips back to DK nearly impossible, due to the paperwork now necessary. Bloody gullible mugs, and BloJo, and F'Rage.
It was a US Empire op, I'm certain of that.
Digital IDs... coming back from DK on a coach one year, I observed a young man being hauled off because he was "An illegal". First time I'd ever heard someone called "An illegal", as though that was their entire identity. It was in Holland, and the guards went down the bus demanding "Your papers!" in a German accent. It was unnerving, and not something I want the badged thugs in the UK to be able to do so casually.
They especially focused on me, for some reason. All 5 or 6 surrounded me when demanding - which they hadn't done to anyone else, not even the young man. Finding visas to Iran, and Pakistan, didn't seem to help. :/ But I was legit, so they had to let me go.
Yes, do facto there are databases with all our info on them, and de facto those DBs are integrating. Still, the fact they are not allowed to unify them gives some small protections. Needless to say they will eventually be united in a dID, but I'm in no hurry to see that day.
And the very people who want that centralised system, such as B'Liar etc, is a big indication that we should resist that route for as long as possible, imo.
I used to use Crowley's deck a long time ago, struggling now to remember the particulars, but don't recall any terrible cards, isn't the Devil associated with dope, ie the breaking down of intellectual rigour-mortis? Crowley's Tower did look especially fearsome though, lollol.
[K] Your economic points. Your observations are ones I would agree with. However, they are only so 'within the current economic system'. The current economic paradigm enables the cabal to fuck with prices, regardless of the 'costs of production'.
Yes, 'costs of production' includes 'labour costs' - which in turn are dependent on 'cost of living' which is in turn dependent on 'commodities prices'. So if the cabal decide to raise one of these factors, they create a domino effect - and thus inflation (cf. Kissinger's infamous statement).
Your point about 'interest' - well, I will be addressing this later, but this would only lead to 'inflation' if 'no new money is added to the economy to pay the interest'. This ironically is how the cabal maintain social control - by NOT adding new money - this is why I use the musical chairs analogy. Their version of 'interest' is equivalent to removing a chair from the game (with same number of players), but without creating any new chairs (which would prevent 'inflation' - i.e. the perceived value of the chair increasing; remember the perceived value is demand divided by supply).
As I will explain in a later section, part of the efficacy of liberal socialism is in fixing the price of most of the necessities/commodities. This means no inflation. Luxuries, sure, these can be open to price fluctuations according to supply/demand etc., but not necessities. Furthermore, most crucially, 'labour costs' are also regulated - according to an arbitrarily designated 'cost of living'. So we set the cost of living (for one person for one year) arbitrarily at 10,000 (currency units). We then break down that CoL into that basket of necessities and mathematically work out what the price of each necessity is - then we fix that price. We then set the minimum wage, for say a 28 hour week, at 10 per hour. So for 50 weeks a year that's 14,000, or 1.4 times CoL. Then increase average salary by 1k per year. By fixing this 'amount of money that an average person can use for demand' we are forcing the 'supply' side to bring their prices down to the equilibrium level. If they increase their prices beyond what enough people can pay then they do not make their bottom line and they go out of business. Instead, a new entrepreneur comes along and does sell it at the equilibrium level. So now we have even unregulated goods being 'regulated' by supply/demand. We do this by setting a maximum salary (also maximum mortgage at 3x income - which prevents house price inflation).
The point is, because 'currency' is such an arbitrary thing, we can fix its value versus certain commodities. Everything else in the economy which isn't 'regulated' or 'fixed' has to gravitate itself towards the equilibrium, without legislation being necessary.
I'll be going into this in much greater detail later, but essentially all of this depends upon taking control over the money supply and ensuring there is enough real money in the real economy (enough chairs for everyone to sit on - then make some extra ones for free market competition). The current system is all about social control because it artificially restricts the availability of resources/money.
I loved your comment, by the way. Especially as these early bits were about provoking philosophers. To be continued...
Yes, and well explained on the "Interest" causing inflation if no new money is added to pay for that... but, the very concept of "Interest" is itself inflationary. Why is there even a need to print more money? BECAUSE of the "interest" added. This means that say, adding 5% "Interest" means that money has to create growth of over 5% just to stay still - every year. The baseline "Interest" rate is the amount the entire economy has to grow just to pay for the debts of the privately issued currency.
Obviously, a state-owned bank could issue interest free currency, such as the infamous 'Greenbacks'.
There would be a lot of red faced mansion-dwellers were that to happen, and all previous currency was withdrawn. What a sad, terrible day that would. I hope there would still be some champagne in shops to celebrate. ;)
There's more about these considerations later in the series. It is in part about 'fixing' the value of the currency, which eliminates inflation - if we think of 'inflation' as 'devaluing' the currency. If, for example, 1 currency unit this year buys a kg of vegetables and next year 1 currency unit will still buy a kg of vegetables then you have no inflation. It doesn't matter if you have added another fifty trillion, if 1 currency unit still buys the same amount of basic necessary resource.
Obviously fifty trillion is hyperbole and would have some effect, but the point is sound.
Likewise obviously, taking power over setting commodities prices would indeed leave a lot of red-faced mansion-dwellers. As would appropriating their champagne and wine cellars.
In the Liberal Socialist system, it's not 'interest on debt' which creates a need to increase the amount of money, so much as 'productivity growth' and in particular a positive export-import balance. So if the economy is seen to grow by, fx 10%, then the national bank simply adds 10% real money into the economy. So because there is always enough money available to cover any 'debt', then you do not get devaluation of the currency because there's no musical chairs anymore. Put another way, the bank never lends more money than it has, nor does it lend more money than there is available for repayments. It's perhaps a case of chairs being passed around, rather than chairs being removed from the economy because of 'interest'.
In fact, to follow this analogy, it starts with creating the equivalent of, say, five chairs per person. After everyone has one to sit on, you can then have free-market competition for the remaining 4/person. Yes, some will end up with more than others, which is what happens in a competitive economy, but even if an individual loses they still have one chair, and the 'exchange value' of the currency unit is unaffected.
Of course this is all easier said than done and ultimately it comes down to having the social decision-makers being benevolent and sensible and all agreeing to fix commodities prices. Getting to that stage is the difficult part. But once humanity is at that stage, maintaining it shouldn't be difficult.
But it is true that there is a lot of 'utopian thinking' behind this Liberal Socialism, meaning that ultimately it does come down to psychology, and whether human nature can ever become wise enough to make it happen. Unfortunately when we look around at the world as it is today, we can't help coming to the conclusion that it's not possible. It's not that there isn't a capacity for 'sufficient wisdom' in the species known as human, just that there aren't enough 'wise people' (who also have the capacity for ruthlessness and 'doing what must be done') to make it happen.
Katrina's parallel world is in large part about exploring how it might be possible for it to happen, what needed to be done to make it happen, and what that world would look like.
Once everyone's basic needs are met, those with too much - or too much time - can play their never-ending games of oneupmanship, I like it.
Have you ever visited Denmark? I studied/lived there for a while, in the early 00s. (Apparently they are also now invaded by the neolib parasite, Rot at the DC core spreads outwards...). But you can still see that mentality there, even if weakened. Working people wear their denim workclothes on public transport with pride - it shows they are real people.
But this is breaking down rapidly, heartbreakingly quickly. And in all the Scandinavian countries.
My Danish best mate said that "Socialism worked too well; it made most wealthy, and when they became wealthy, they became greedy too, and then they became right-wing".
He also hates Thatcher, lol. And F'Rage.
Nor is 'sir' Kid Starver on his Jule card lists. ;)
The Danes are a clannish bunch (That hasn't changed), but they were rightly proud of actually vanquishing poverty, and their basic democratic principles. There was a national outrage when Rassmussen took them into the Iraq war without public agreement. He went on of course to head NATO.
I have not visited Denmark. Ah, no, that’s a lie. I have! I went to Legoland as a child and my memory is of them not allowing me to watch Star Wars on the ferry over. The second time was part of a European inter-railing type trip (late 90s sort of time), where I spent about a day in Copenhagen. Then I went to stay with a friend near Stockholm. Except he lived quite rurally so I can’t say I really got to learn anything about the culture to any great extent. I think it’s fairly self-evident that one really has to spend an extended period in a country to genuinely learn about the culture (and the language, for that matter).
Ahh, that's a shame. The Danes are essentially Northern English with a considerably less abusive and exploitative system raising them. It shows you what the UK COULD be with a more humanist regime in charge.
I agree that time is required in a place for such insights, I spent 5 years there eventually, while also travelling out around the world from there during my work/studies.
Probably the most authentically civilised part of Europe, or at least it was - neolibs parachuted in there as well, now.
Well, as a 'liberal socialist' (Or an left-leaning Anarchist, depending on the company), I think she makes some good points.
Also, I despise Siggy Frued, and his family such as Barnays, so open door on that.
2 problems however. She strongly suggests that 'unconscious' and 'shadows' don't exist - and then goes on to point out that in an abusive culture/society, they will exist. And then points out correctly that Western culture/society is abusive. In other words, nearly everyone you meet in the so-called "developed" world will have those psychological traits. So clearly, they do exist. And if they exist, then there is a natural ability/possibility for them to exist.
What would be really interesting is seeing how strongly natural wild animals have those traits too - in some situations. Perhaps "pets" exhibit them most strongly, fx.
Secondly, I agree with Jung that Frued's notions are MODELS, and are to be taken as such, not as concrete reality. Taking them as models however, the aura of those with strong egos - and that includes animal pets raised by humans - is quite different. Or perhaps that would be better expressed by the Jungian term 'Self'.
Thirdly - piss off Spanish Inquisitors - the concept of 'price' has been fought over for centuries, and frankly the Marxist notion of 'Labour cost' doesn't cut it, nor even if you include all the other costs of production. That gives you a base figure you will lose selling beneath. The price itself is set by supply-demand-competition, as in classical economics. Again, she first derides that, and then comes to accepting it.
On money-creation she's on the money, although I would have thrown in some comments regarding "Interest" while I was on that topic. Such as that "Interest" on the financial supply forces inflation throughout the economy
Which means that the current popular notion of "Raising interest rates to lower inflation" really means that what you are doing is removing purchasing power from the oiks (us), and handing it over to the financial elites (banksters), while actually not doing anything about the real level of inflation going on - or even increasing it it in ways that are not used by the bean-counters to measure 'official' inflation figures.
Food for thought.
[K - Evie's note: if comment preceded by a [K] that means it's Katrina speaking]
First, you are going to love the rest of this series because I'll be addressing all the point you raise. In this continuing intro I'm really just introducing various concepts/talking points. We'll get to the nitty-gritty later.
One of your best points, which - this is really cool - I was actually thinking as I was typing it, was about the existence of 'shadows' and so on 'in the natural world'. I neglected to mention that in my article partly for reasons of not wanting to digress. But I had thought of making the basic point - 'do we see the existence of 'the unconscious' etc. in any natural animal?' - answer is no, we don't. Obviously, unless you stick them in a cage - in which case this is not natural.
You say 'the possibility' of it must exist. Yes, that's true. But first, this is a product of the human brain's natural imaginative and self-conscious abilities.
Also it's only as a result of serious and sustained trauma. Evie would not want me to give you too many spoilers about my story but after waking up in this body in this parallel world I came to discover that I exist in a brain with multiple personalities. The most important point about all this in terms of your observations is that the human brain is capable of creating 'shadows' and 'unconscious'. This is not the same as saying they exist naturally. If you understand the process of creating a multiple you'll understand that it's utilising natural human cognitive abilities - specifically, self-defensive reaction, but removing the fight or flight ability, thus resulting in a 'freeze' reaction. Follow this up by sustained trauma and the brain shuts off the consciousness, that's to say it suppresses it and splits. The new consciousness takes over so the original doesn't have to experience the trauma. So the whole thing is a self-defensive reaction, combined with the human ability of 'imagination' taken to its extreme - that's to say 'self-awareness' replicated. If I know myself, if I am aware of myself as an identity, then I can imagine a copy of that. But here's the thing - this only happens if triggered by a need to do it for self-defence. In the natural world, there is never such a need. Because normal humans do not subject each other to such extreme, sustained trauma. In a small human group of 150 people, if one of them started behaving like a psychopath, he would be ostracised from the group before he had a chance to 'sustain' the abuse.
So 'dissociation' is a very modern phenomenon. I don't think other animals in the natural world have this because they don't have the imagination or cognitive self-awareness to do it. So it is an evolutionary potential, but it's not natural. They can display aberrant behaviour if subjected to trauma, which may well manifest as a different personality, but it's not a 'new' personality in addition to their old one. They don't have 'multiple' personalities - and thus they don't have 'shadows' or 'unconscious'.
Will answer you other points in separate reply.
Some very interesting studies of genetics floated past some years ago, don't have links to them anymore, sorry.
But it turns out that environment 'triggers' certain gene groups.
Fx, a young child in a highly abusive situation will trigger certain chemicals/genes that reduce interactivity, they become more... passive. This affects their growth, stature, optimism/pessimism values, and intelligence.
Depression has a genetic component.
(And can also be passed down through RNA, one or two generations).
I know well how disassociation works, and the level of agony of sustained positional meditation required to start to re-integrate - and forgive.
I wonder how the animals raised in barbaric conditions - such as veal cages - conceptualise. Needless to say, such studies will not be high on Humanity's To Do list.
Meat eating is part of nature, and meat comes from equally living creatures, every meat-eating creature is effectively a murderer. Our teeth lay out what we are.
At the same time, our future meat's life can be free and enjoyable, until the meat is 'harvested'.
I don't know for sure, but I'm PRETTY sure than any wild cow psychologists would find those poor veal calfs to be "Utterly fucked up", to coin a phrase.
I don't think we are separate from the Animal Queendom, we're just a more egocentric branch of it.
As for psychopaths/sociopaths in a tribal setting, the tribe will endeavour to use those traits for its own advantage. In hunting, battles, story-telling, fx. Societies that have to hunt down and murder large, powerful and intelligent other species just to survive (There being no Waitrose for thousands of years yet), cannot afford to be a bunch of squeamish hippies. (I'm a hypocrite who enjoys meat, but COULD NOT kill for it myself, not even a fish, rabbit or bird).
As for the manipulative, greedy, sadly those elements seem innate. Wiser societies limit the influence, but like the propensity to violence, any society that eliminated such negative qualities would soon go extinct. Nature IS "Red in tooth and claw", just as she also is "Cooperative, gentle and instructive".
I'm no post-humanist.
Reality cannot be some dreamy utopian landscape. As The Matrix says, all such dreams/experiments turn to shit because they are unrealistic.
But nor are the fascists correct, because Nature IS also cooperative, gentle and instructive.
This is why I'm 'liberal', rather than left or right.
I think we will find in future studies, that at least all mammalian species have the same possibilities for mental perturbation as the hairless monkeys do.
Epigenetics I think is the word we're looking for here.
As a sort of crossover to the Social Psychology & the Cabal series, I can't remember if I have gotten to the bit where I talk about the importance of learning how to control fire. Specifically, how once that happens, there is nothing in nature (red in tooth and claw etc.) that can scare you. Wave a burning torch at a predator and it will run away etc.
This is important psychologically, because one is no longer 'adapting' to being scared, and thus using sheer physical violence as self-defence. In other words, the human brain 'calms down' so to speak. Over several hundred thousand years, this makes for profound neurological changes, which become permanent.
It also has benefits for hunting, in particular with cooking food. This leads to increased brain processing ability and most importantly - strategic thought. Thus hunting becomes less of a violent act, and more a carefully thought out ambush-type situation in which you simply discern the herd's tracks, dig yourself a pit, possibly with some spikes in it, then use your fire, your spears, and your chorus of shouty voices to manipulate the prey towards the pit.
As for butchery, this would've become so habitual as to never have any moral value attached to it either way. Where 'morality' comes in is when we get to 'unnecessary' violence, and most importantly violence against a member of one's own social group, or species.
IMO one of the absolutely most important points to remember is - ironically - about 'supply versus demand'. The idea that demand was ever greater than potential supply for early humans is absurd, given how low their numbers were, how strategically intelligent they were, and how wide-ranging they could be - along with simple calculations of required calorie intake in relation to rate of reproduction of both prey and edible vegetation/fruit/nuts etc. This idea that 'there isn't enough of... such and such a resource' is in my view one of those myths deliberately propagated by the cabal for obvious reasons. They can't maintain their musical chairs feudalism if people realise there is more than enough resources to go around, if the distribution was fair. Ironically, the next part starts with a brief mention of how the cabal have deliberated corrupted theoretical physics, to prevent people from understanding how energy (electricity) can be generated with virtually zero costs. If people are self-sufficient for energy, they can't be controlled.
You are right about some of the monstrous ways animals are treated by people. One thing that has always made me furious is animal testing, for example. Interesting you mention cows, because I live in the Limousin region of rural France, which is very famous for its cows. The way they treat them here is about as kind as you can get - this includes the veal calves. They are simply allowed to graze from one field to another, as they would in the wild, until it's time for one or more to be slaughtered. That can be done kindly as well with a stun gun from behind. This is probably a significant reason why the meat tastes so good, because the animal is not stressed before death.
Animals - and humans too - have a sort of natural 'go into shock' (a sort of dissociation) when faced with imminent death (or torture, for that matter), so I'd say that's another relevant point.
This is all a lot of food for thought!
I'm on two minds about the type of killing. My younger, idealistic self likes the idea of the less fear and pain of sudden deaths.
My older, idealistic self that understands death is a necessary part of life (And that all the Xian bollocks regarding Hell/Heaven is just fear-mongering for power and wealth), and that animals are not afraid to die - obviously they don't WANT to, but accept it when it happens - perhaps the Muslims are correct that giving an animal the time to 'say goodbye' to life might be more beneficial.
How would you feel if the doctor giving your mother her notice she has fatal cancer whips out a stun gun when she isn't looking and boom, before she say prepare herself for what is coming?
But I'm stuck between these two positions. I don't know!
I'm down south near Brighton, used to live there for a while in the 90s and then again in the 00s, after returning from DK. Got the South Downs a few mins to the north, and sea a few minutes southwards. :) Your area looks exceptionally nice though, how long have you lived there? Any problems since Brexshit? :/ xx
I am, ironically - or used to be - familiar with the Brighton area because I spent several years during my early to mid teens there (late 80s). The drugs and the music were good, if I recall… Not long after that I went to Camden, for similar reasons. I couldn’t possibly live in London now though. Perhaps it’s a young person’s city. Or I am showing my age. Rural idyll and withdrawing from the world for me now…
We haven’t had too many issues with Brexit aside from a few bureaucratic ones, like the need for a residency permit, which requires photo ID and the taking of our fingerprints and all that. Not that I am planning to do any crimes but they can always plant the evidence if necessary. I also don’t really see the problem with ‘digital ID’ etc., seeing as they already have all the information, whether you like it or not.
I haven’t really been back to Britain since Brexit so I can’t really comment on the travelling issue. I don’t think I’d want to go back either tbh, from the looks of the place now…
I don’t think there is a conflict between the younger and older self in what you say - I would agree. It’s ironic after all that most people who haven’t studied get scared of the Death card in the Tarot, which is simply change or transition, because they don’t understand it (education goes a long way). It’s the Devil and the Tower you have to watch out for…
I never liked London much, but went to some fantastic parties there in the 90s. Some friends moved there, so I saw a bit of it visiting. Was always glad to leave again though, lol.
I know what you mean about the ageing/rural thing, cities are for the young who can enjoy the freedom of being in a crowd and showing off - which I did more than my fair share of! ;)
Glad to hear Brexshit didn't bugger you over, tbh it did me because it made the working trips back to DK nearly impossible, due to the paperwork now necessary. Bloody gullible mugs, and BloJo, and F'Rage.
It was a US Empire op, I'm certain of that.
Digital IDs... coming back from DK on a coach one year, I observed a young man being hauled off because he was "An illegal". First time I'd ever heard someone called "An illegal", as though that was their entire identity. It was in Holland, and the guards went down the bus demanding "Your papers!" in a German accent. It was unnerving, and not something I want the badged thugs in the UK to be able to do so casually.
They especially focused on me, for some reason. All 5 or 6 surrounded me when demanding - which they hadn't done to anyone else, not even the young man. Finding visas to Iran, and Pakistan, didn't seem to help. :/ But I was legit, so they had to let me go.
Yes, do facto there are databases with all our info on them, and de facto those DBs are integrating. Still, the fact they are not allowed to unify them gives some small protections. Needless to say they will eventually be united in a dID, but I'm in no hurry to see that day.
And the very people who want that centralised system, such as B'Liar etc, is a big indication that we should resist that route for as long as possible, imo.
I used to use Crowley's deck a long time ago, struggling now to remember the particulars, but don't recall any terrible cards, isn't the Devil associated with dope, ie the breaking down of intellectual rigour-mortis? Crowley's Tower did look especially fearsome though, lollol.
He was a character and a half. :'D
[K] Your economic points. Your observations are ones I would agree with. However, they are only so 'within the current economic system'. The current economic paradigm enables the cabal to fuck with prices, regardless of the 'costs of production'.
Yes, 'costs of production' includes 'labour costs' - which in turn are dependent on 'cost of living' which is in turn dependent on 'commodities prices'. So if the cabal decide to raise one of these factors, they create a domino effect - and thus inflation (cf. Kissinger's infamous statement).
Your point about 'interest' - well, I will be addressing this later, but this would only lead to 'inflation' if 'no new money is added to the economy to pay the interest'. This ironically is how the cabal maintain social control - by NOT adding new money - this is why I use the musical chairs analogy. Their version of 'interest' is equivalent to removing a chair from the game (with same number of players), but without creating any new chairs (which would prevent 'inflation' - i.e. the perceived value of the chair increasing; remember the perceived value is demand divided by supply).
As I will explain in a later section, part of the efficacy of liberal socialism is in fixing the price of most of the necessities/commodities. This means no inflation. Luxuries, sure, these can be open to price fluctuations according to supply/demand etc., but not necessities. Furthermore, most crucially, 'labour costs' are also regulated - according to an arbitrarily designated 'cost of living'. So we set the cost of living (for one person for one year) arbitrarily at 10,000 (currency units). We then break down that CoL into that basket of necessities and mathematically work out what the price of each necessity is - then we fix that price. We then set the minimum wage, for say a 28 hour week, at 10 per hour. So for 50 weeks a year that's 14,000, or 1.4 times CoL. Then increase average salary by 1k per year. By fixing this 'amount of money that an average person can use for demand' we are forcing the 'supply' side to bring their prices down to the equilibrium level. If they increase their prices beyond what enough people can pay then they do not make their bottom line and they go out of business. Instead, a new entrepreneur comes along and does sell it at the equilibrium level. So now we have even unregulated goods being 'regulated' by supply/demand. We do this by setting a maximum salary (also maximum mortgage at 3x income - which prevents house price inflation).
The point is, because 'currency' is such an arbitrary thing, we can fix its value versus certain commodities. Everything else in the economy which isn't 'regulated' or 'fixed' has to gravitate itself towards the equilibrium, without legislation being necessary.
I'll be going into this in much greater detail later, but essentially all of this depends upon taking control over the money supply and ensuring there is enough real money in the real economy (enough chairs for everyone to sit on - then make some extra ones for free market competition). The current system is all about social control because it artificially restricts the availability of resources/money.
I loved your comment, by the way. Especially as these early bits were about provoking philosophers. To be continued...
Yes, and well explained on the "Interest" causing inflation if no new money is added to pay for that... but, the very concept of "Interest" is itself inflationary. Why is there even a need to print more money? BECAUSE of the "interest" added. This means that say, adding 5% "Interest" means that money has to create growth of over 5% just to stay still - every year. The baseline "Interest" rate is the amount the entire economy has to grow just to pay for the debts of the privately issued currency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPYoT24B2uc
Obviously, a state-owned bank could issue interest free currency, such as the infamous 'Greenbacks'.
There would be a lot of red faced mansion-dwellers were that to happen, and all previous currency was withdrawn. What a sad, terrible day that would. I hope there would still be some champagne in shops to celebrate. ;)
There's more about these considerations later in the series. It is in part about 'fixing' the value of the currency, which eliminates inflation - if we think of 'inflation' as 'devaluing' the currency. If, for example, 1 currency unit this year buys a kg of vegetables and next year 1 currency unit will still buy a kg of vegetables then you have no inflation. It doesn't matter if you have added another fifty trillion, if 1 currency unit still buys the same amount of basic necessary resource.
Obviously fifty trillion is hyperbole and would have some effect, but the point is sound.
Likewise obviously, taking power over setting commodities prices would indeed leave a lot of red-faced mansion-dwellers. As would appropriating their champagne and wine cellars.
In the Liberal Socialist system, it's not 'interest on debt' which creates a need to increase the amount of money, so much as 'productivity growth' and in particular a positive export-import balance. So if the economy is seen to grow by, fx 10%, then the national bank simply adds 10% real money into the economy. So because there is always enough money available to cover any 'debt', then you do not get devaluation of the currency because there's no musical chairs anymore. Put another way, the bank never lends more money than it has, nor does it lend more money than there is available for repayments. It's perhaps a case of chairs being passed around, rather than chairs being removed from the economy because of 'interest'.
In fact, to follow this analogy, it starts with creating the equivalent of, say, five chairs per person. After everyone has one to sit on, you can then have free-market competition for the remaining 4/person. Yes, some will end up with more than others, which is what happens in a competitive economy, but even if an individual loses they still have one chair, and the 'exchange value' of the currency unit is unaffected.
Of course this is all easier said than done and ultimately it comes down to having the social decision-makers being benevolent and sensible and all agreeing to fix commodities prices. Getting to that stage is the difficult part. But once humanity is at that stage, maintaining it shouldn't be difficult.
But it is true that there is a lot of 'utopian thinking' behind this Liberal Socialism, meaning that ultimately it does come down to psychology, and whether human nature can ever become wise enough to make it happen. Unfortunately when we look around at the world as it is today, we can't help coming to the conclusion that it's not possible. It's not that there isn't a capacity for 'sufficient wisdom' in the species known as human, just that there aren't enough 'wise people' (who also have the capacity for ruthlessness and 'doing what must be done') to make it happen.
Katrina's parallel world is in large part about exploring how it might be possible for it to happen, what needed to be done to make it happen, and what that world would look like.
Once everyone's basic needs are met, those with too much - or too much time - can play their never-ending games of oneupmanship, I like it.
Have you ever visited Denmark? I studied/lived there for a while, in the early 00s. (Apparently they are also now invaded by the neolib parasite, Rot at the DC core spreads outwards...). But you can still see that mentality there, even if weakened. Working people wear their denim workclothes on public transport with pride - it shows they are real people.
But this is breaking down rapidly, heartbreakingly quickly. And in all the Scandinavian countries.
My Danish best mate said that "Socialism worked too well; it made most wealthy, and when they became wealthy, they became greedy too, and then they became right-wing".
He also hates Thatcher, lol. And F'Rage.
Nor is 'sir' Kid Starver on his Jule card lists. ;)
The Danes are a clannish bunch (That hasn't changed), but they were rightly proud of actually vanquishing poverty, and their basic democratic principles. There was a national outrage when Rassmussen took them into the Iraq war without public agreement. He went on of course to head NATO.
I have not visited Denmark. Ah, no, that’s a lie. I have! I went to Legoland as a child and my memory is of them not allowing me to watch Star Wars on the ferry over. The second time was part of a European inter-railing type trip (late 90s sort of time), where I spent about a day in Copenhagen. Then I went to stay with a friend near Stockholm. Except he lived quite rurally so I can’t say I really got to learn anything about the culture to any great extent. I think it’s fairly self-evident that one really has to spend an extended period in a country to genuinely learn about the culture (and the language, for that matter).
Ahh, that's a shame. The Danes are essentially Northern English with a considerably less abusive and exploitative system raising them. It shows you what the UK COULD be with a more humanist regime in charge.
I agree that time is required in a place for such insights, I spent 5 years there eventually, while also travelling out around the world from there during my work/studies.
Probably the most authentically civilised part of Europe, or at least it was - neolibs parachuted in there as well, now.