Monday, August 25, 2014

Spit or Swallow: Cum and the Human Condition

Translife Means Death

Among the myriad recent structural attempts to destroy life have been the twentieth century's many divergent, diverse, yet eerily synchronized attempts to destroy everything human. Marx expressly wanted to destroy families and replace them with the state; anarchists expressly wanted to destroy the state and replace it with individuals and/or small, independent communities; feminists, springing off Marx in many early cases, wanted to use the state to destroy certain families and create others; neo-reactionaries wanted to destroy the modern state-feminist families and create their demented and incorrect take on what earlier families were supposed to have been like; neoliberals and neoconservatives wanted to destroy everything and replace it with a state which nonetheless disavowed, while essentially practicing, Marxism. Fun all around, and because of the way that list was written, now almost everyone hates this one, too.

A bit of scripture, neo-ironically, will start us off best, here. We'll touch upon the parable of Onan's sin, and address the impossibility of absolutist scriptural interpretations. Secondly, we'll summarize the nineteenth century and twentieth century social wars over "family" and "individual" communal arrangements, and the twenty-first century reactionary responses thereto. Then this one will cheat a little, and give you answers for human society which, for being technically non-provable here, won't count as cheating anyway, so there. We'll examine, throughout, how almost all of these philosophies are what is now called "transhumanism," or the antilife death-urge to destroy ourselves in order to alleviate the pain of existence.

Onan's Sin and Manly Hypocrisy

To Americans, the old-fashioned take on Onan's sin is that Onan was a guy who jerked off, and because of it, God killed him. The error derives from people remembering that, in that part of the Bible, Onan "spilled his seed on the ground," which they took to mean masturbation. This is part of the justification behind why Mormon perverts spend a great deal of time quizzing middle-school boys about the details of their masturbatory habits.

The actual Onan text goes:
Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

Genesis 38:8-10

A lot of fun things come out of this one. First, it's not at all about masturbation; Onan was just pulling out rather than ejaculating into the vagina. And obviously, non-marital sex is okay with the Judeo-Christian God, at least in certain circumstances. Most modern people aren't going to be much affected by that, but while we're here, the Alpha/Game/PUA manly-bloggers strongly identify as Christian, and what they really, really hate is the thought that they might be "cuckolded," or forced to have anything to do with someone else's child, and/or to provide for their own child that someone tricked them into having.

Irresponsibility aside, there's a valuable lesson here in the Onan parable, about filial duty--not so much a duty to the departed, but to the living, and the future, to provide for the continuation of the species, even if it sucks (in the sense of giving the individual less free time for play and/or self-discovery). Those of you who couldn't care less about the Bible don't need to care about this part, but for the community of online manly-men who have developed their own mutated form of selfish-Christianity, Onan makes a clear point, not about sex, but about communal obligation. Onan, like Joseph, is given a duty for a child that wouldn't be "his," strictly speaking, and while Joseph accepts the duty, Onan shirks it, and earns hisself a whoopin', as goes the vernacular.

Where to Spill and Textual Interpretation

Now, as to sexual proscriptions, Onan's story conflicts with the popular take on Abrahamic tradition. God approves of sex outside marriage, provided that it is done for procreation. He doesn't approve of pulling out to cum on the ground...but does he approve of facials? It's hard for semen to survive inside the female body, and not all intra-vaginal ejaculation during ovulation leads to pregnancy. If a woman regularly swallows a man's semen, though, her body adapts a little to that semen, and it becomes easier for said partner's semen to survive inside her. Adding that semen to the digestive system from the other end, via anal sex, has a similar effect, making it more likely that fertilization will occur during later vaginal bouts. So, if Onan and Tamar (his deceased brother's wife) are having trouble conceiving, and Tamar gives Onan blowjobs for a week with swallowing included, they increase their chances of producing the heir that Judah (wannabe grandfather) and the Lord are interested in--same show if they do anal for a week, provided Onan finishes inside Tamar.

Is sodomy, then, acceptable, since it's done in the ultimate pursuit of fertilizing Tamar and producing a child pleasing unto God? God specifically doesn't like Onan pulling out of the vaginal passage during sex and ejaculating onto the ground, but He says nothing about cumming on Tamar's skin (a tiiiiiiny, almost negligible, long term improvement in semen survivability, as compared to the noticeable improvement in the swallowing case), or in other orifices to increase their chances. If He means what He says, and that's what He says, then it looks like everything else is game-on. Non-marital sex, swallowing, anal and bukkake are okay when they're in the interests of the survival of the species, unless they're not, which could be an equally valid take.

Exceptio probat regulam suggests that Onan could've done all sorts of things in the furtherance of his duty, such as bringing in a few fluff girls to warm him up to Tamar, or--if he has occasional moments of physical attraction to men--topping a tender eunuch or a built hoplite until nearly the point of release, then transferring to Tamar for the meaningful few seconds--anything but spilling on the ground. His inaction was unacceptable; he had to get her pregnant, or he wasn't doing his duty before God.

More Lieth With

Leviticus tells Jews, and possibly Christians, not to lie with men as with women, but it says nothing about manual, oral, anal, or podophiliac behavior. Jewish law at the time (probably, formally) condemned sodomy, which was understood to be (probably, formally) male anal sex, but what, then, does it mean to say, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination..."? You can't lie with a man as you lie with a woman, if you're only permitted vaginal sex with women, so Leviticus 20:13 either:

1) Prohibits MxM sex only when one of them has been fully surgically-altered to possess a vagina, and the sex in question involves the penetration of that artificial vagina by one partner; or,

2) By condemning only MxM non-vaginal sex, gives the all-clear to MxF non-vaginal sex, because that's how you "lie with a woman," so, ipso facto, sodomy is acceptable as long as it doesn't involve MxM; or,

3) It's a metaphor that runs deeper than MxM or MxF, and "as he lieth with a woman" is a euphemism for not specific sex acts, but rather, a set of behavior patterns, such as MxM behavior that substitutes for social contribution. E.g., it's okay to have a couple boyfriends so long as you don't make your "lying with them" in the manner of a woman, so as long as you work hard and produce offspring and defend the tribe, you're allowed to have MxM during the day--just don't spend the night.

That's not a fun conclusion for some Christians, because it's so textually tight: if God commanded men not to lie with men "as he lieth with a women," then the condemnation of that MxM was a condemnation of only things which were authorized for MxF. "Lie with" could be any kind of metaphor you like, because otherwise, God would say it was okay for guys to have MxM anal all day long so long as they were standing or crouching, but not lying down; if it is a metaphor, then, it's speaking to something broader than just MxM anal penetration, e.g., a lifestyle which devalues the social necessity of women, and allows men to marginalize women by play-acting as each other's sole partners.

The War Against "The Family"

Humans have always been in quirky battles over how best to raise children, but the issue became far more serious with the advent of industrialism, when the British family structure proved inconvenient to factory overlords. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, elites have worked under many guises to destroy the community element of "family," in order that replaceable, fungible, cog-like individuals could be atomized and isolated into powerless, depressed, productive worker bees.

Manly "game" guys thrive within the destructive illusion of classification, believing that feminism as a social movement has tried to destroy families and replace them with the State. Here's an example of that argument. And there's a lot of truth in that; no-fault divorce is, in se, great, but within the context of this insane corporatocracy, it's resulted in children losing daily access to their parents, and perhaps more importantly, becoming subject to an immense network of child-prisons. If you're not familiar with family courts and the various States' child-life-management agencies, take some time to pick through some of the whistleblower sites--like the vampire subculture in Blade, there exists this massive, pervasive, nationwide, yet largely unseen network of cops, probation-like placement officers, SWAT-like raid teams, kickback-receiving state shelters, and faceless bureaucratic hell, constantly jerking hundreds of thousands of kids around through walking nightmares.

Like the for-profit prison system, which is funneled hundreds of billions of dollars through the overabundant network of U.S. "criminal courts," and which spends its time kidnapping and beating and raping people for mostly victimless crimes and failure to properly conform to arbitrary administrative requirements, the anti-child network is driven primarily by an equally sinister set of "family courts," often cross-staffed by the same professionals at different points in their careers, whose goal is to make the life of a child subject to State control rather than parental control. It's a terrible, but possibly well-meaning, idea for the small percentage of homes where children are violently abused, but is solely a terrible idea in every other situation, reflecting in its every aspect the color of money, and our audacious arrangements of "State marriage" and "State divorce," where wedding planners, divorce attorneys, and the USG all work together to fuck up everything that can possibly be fucked up.

The dual nature of these sick systems is so closely linked it's maddening; kids go from CPS supervision, to school supervision, to prison supervision, to probation supervision, spending their entire lives generating menial labor for the overarching State. Child protective services literally kills children as part of its rampage. The biggest spur for these gulag monstrosities is no-fault divorce, where courts use marriage as a set up to get jurisdiction over alimony and child support payments for decades of post-tax profit, just as possession of a dime bag can justify seven years of the state expensively monitoring some guy with chronic back pain. State marriage is a loss leader for America's legal system, using cheap contract law to lure suckers in the front door. From the wiki above:
One use of a loss leader is to draw customers into a store where they are likely to buy other goods. The vendor expects that the typical customer will purchase other items at the same time as the loss leader and that the profit made on these items will be such that an overall profit is generated for the vendor.

"Loss lead" describes the concept that an item is offered for sale at a reduced price and is intended to "lead" to the subsequent sale of other items, the sales of which will be made in greater numbers, or greater profits, or both. It is offered at a price below its minimum profit margin—not necessarily below cost. The firm tries to maintain a current analysis of its accounts for both the loss lead and the associated items, so it can monitor how well the scheme is doing, as quickly as possible, thereby never suffering an overall net loss.

It sucks to be an un-savvy adult getting screwed by the system, but it sucks most of all to be the children, who have zero chance at a normal life once they've discovered that they are being monitored by paid government caseworkers, rather than people who love and know them. As soon as CPS enters a kid's life, the kid's chances of homelessness, underage pregnancy, drug abuse, suicide, adult prison time, and all the other bad stuff go up, so naturally, these programs are and have been the darlings of every single major American politician for the past several decades. Family courts and their business partners work with America's big banks to skim administrative fees out of monitored transfer systems, regularly review case records, decide where children and their parents can move, where they can work, what fields they can work in, what schools the children can go to, what they can be exposed to, and essentially, accustom a large slice of the population to constant police-state monitoring of everything they do. That's why these kids slide so easily into military service or prison labor: because when the State substitutes for the family, and kids are used to sleeping in a government facility, prison comes naturally.

People who hate "the patriarchy," or who have justifiable problems with some aspect of the "traditional American family," tend to see State intervention in a positive light--but just because George Zimmerman helped you take your trash to the curb one day, doesn't mean you want to let him inside your bedroom at night.

The 20th century trend of replacing private families with prison- and caseworker-like State institutions is terrible, wretched, and wrong. Carlos Morales again:
The first state back foster homes in the US weren't created until the Children's Aid Society in 1853, where children were removed from homes and became indentured servants for family farms. Then in in 1909,Theodore Roosevelt created a publicly funded volunteer organization that would "establish and publicize standards of child care."

This is the commonly held history of foster homes, but this is only one aspect of the history – the darker side is one steeped in a eugenics plan created by British and American Aristocrats to prevent the “scourge of savages” which were beginning to bloom in the United States due to the creation of prosperity through the industrial revolution. This led to Hispanic, Black, and Native American families having their children removed from their home and dumped into white foster homes for re-education. They double downed on efforts to prevent the “scourge of savages” coming to the United States by forcibly sterilizing over 100,000 people in the United States.

The CPS hammer disproportionately hits non-white communities, because it's mostly hurting poor people; when wealthier people get trapped in the system, the government drains a lot of money out of them, but usually they're able to buy lawyers who can establish and verify safe joint-parenting plans, and buy the right kind of daycare, so that their kids don't get kidnapped for playing outside. The latter case, incidentally, is a great illustration of how the State, with its goal of replacing "the family," forcibly intrudes on even those who are doing the best they can under shitty circumstances--but elites can always make it get worse for the proles.

It's hard for many middle class white people to understand the problems with the idea, "State monitoring of children." Bourgeois persons tend to hear complaints about CPS, and think, "Oh, those redneck perverts in the Bible belt beat their kids and raise them to be ignorant, and thank God that the State of Missouri is there to rescue them." This attitude bespeaks extreme privilege, because what State child support agencies primarily do is get poor children raped, starved, and beaten in foster homes, grinding their entire childhoods through a miasmatic blender of loveless hell, with a disproportionate impact on black and Hispanic families. It is the lucky position of the bourgeois, like that of white motorists in the best neighborhoods of San Francisco, to believe, so foolishly, that the complaints of "bad parents" are, like those of black motorists, the unjustified whining of those who deserve hell--because after all, I only got pulled over that one time when I was speeding! It's surely a lie that State agents are outrageously cruel and unfair to lesser peoples!

This series will ultimately condemn the faux-traditional family; however, the American Empire, with its torture prisons and endless wars, is about as good of a parent as you would expect after flipping through some pictures of bombarded Fallujah.

The War Against "The Community"

"The family" is better than CPS, by far. The elite attempt to replace the raising of children by families with the raising of children by the State is deadly, evil, and deliberate. For a hundred years, elites have used popular isms, and notions of "freedom from tradition," to accustom people to law enforcement agents becoming part of their most intimate and tender relationships, while cleverly convincing people that this would make them more free.

Faced with the horrors of today, one might be tempted to engage in a pseudo-traditionalist argument that "families are human history," and the best way to produce and care for children, and that we need to "re-take" families, or defend the concept from elites and feminists and all that. Like most of the neoconservative counterattacks to the 20th century's horrors, though, that line of reasoning is flawed and leads to bad places. The atomized family is, itself, a flawed, unnatural construct of feudalism, which was used by elites--like the family courts and CPS agencies of today--to supplant and shatter groups of humans nurturing each other.

Compared to the best way to do things, "families" are as bad as "Child Protective Services" are compared to families. Even the neo-reactionary conservatives and anti-feminists sometimes acknowledge this:
When feminists, and others, criticize the “housewife”, they miss the importance the housewife has for modern, mass society. Absent the traditional bonds of tribe and villages, anomie was destroying people in an urbanized, industrial environment. The development of the housewife held this back.

The housewife may not contribute to “GDP” but she contributes something just as important, she socially bonds the family together and bonds the family to the rest of the community. She has time to take care of dependent family members. She has time to develop meaningful relationships in the neigbourhood and the family’s social circle. She had time to support local organizations and by taking care of the household, she gave the husband time to support them.

The bread-winning husband is economically productive, while the housewife is socially productive.

In a modern, urban society, social productivity is as essential to the health of society as economic productivity, as the natural social relations and community of a tribal or village lifestyle simply do not exist. But building community takes time, something people working full-time, while taking care of children, simply do not have. The housewife had this time.

Naturally, hackles are raised all around at the idea that something is more important than earning fiat currency. But that very visceral feminist reaction--the hatred of being shunted into a "housewife" role--is a good thing, because it represents a proper female social memory complex response to the atomized family. The destruction of "tribe and village," so to speak, is not a necessary consequence of a planet's industrialist phase; it was, though, a necessary consequence of the way Earth did it, which is to say, it is necessary to shatter communities apart into atomized families in order to begin the severance that would lead, generations later, into the destruction of the family, and then the individual mind. So feminists, as well as everyone else, should be baring their teeth at the faux-traditional gender roles of "postwar America" (rather, interwar America). When masculinists, or whatever the hell else they call themselves, whine about the need for housewives, it's just as bad of an advocacy as it is when feminists stress the need for corporate careers or earning power: it's a way of selling out the integrated communities that people were meant to have, before the feudal, then industrial, then transhuman nobility began having their way with Earth. Atomized family units in the 1950s white flight suburbia were as progressively stressed and powerless then as atomized, childless individuals are now. The nightmares are generally not realized until later--when the deathbed, or the rituals of the memory care ward, drive home the meaning of priceless in a way almost no one sees coming.

Masculinism, Feminism, Problems Thereto

So, everyone knows the problems with patriarchy and/or feminism, right? Yawn, yawn. Women who weren't suited for lifestyle under patriarchy had their lives destroyed and possibilities limited; men could hold too much power over women, abused to their own ends...all that. And feminism, the bourgeois notion that well-off white women should hire low-wage minority women to raise their children for them, while pursuing careers that were formerly male-only, which eventually became the bourgeois notion that everyone should be equal, which equality was to be achieved first and foremost by providing child care and affirmative action careers to wealthy, predominantly white women in a tiny number of select first-world nations.

Comparatively few westerners would be willing to defend patriarchy, while in Earth 2014 the opposite holds true for feminism. We'll talk about feminism, first, ensuring that almost everyone hates this one thoroughly before moving onto patriarchy, where the few lingering conservatives will storm away in fury.

Assuming the best motives from those currently espousing selective, classist "isms," the feminist now is also a men's rights advocate, who so genuinely believes in equality of ability and freedom of choice that s/he loathes consistently "wrong" results in, say, graphs of sex-differentiated engineering career paths, now more than twenty years--and a generation of young girls' entire lifetimes--into a heavily counterweighted, expensive, pro-female technical push.

Put that aside for now, though; it's possible that, enough billions of dollars and decades later, some kind of statistical parity will be achieved, but it's also irrelevant. Ever since Betty Friedan decided to completely ignore the Civil Rights movement in favor of advocating for white women's corporate jobs, the structure of western feminism has been a class-based movement for expensive state intervention. However noble its end for those middle class bookkeepers angry about not being managers, and however stupid the quotes from Joey-Bob the Wife Beater at some bar in Georgia, the greater proportion of the world's women have never been of feminist concern when it came to time and money. Even if preferencing suburban white and Asian girls into college programs for decades was a just act, it was an unjust use of resources during decades where far more girls, some even white, were being murdered--murdered by the very same governments, male and female multimillionaires, that used the same extension of state power to prevent some jerk developer from only hiring male bookkeepers in his semi-regional construction business.

We could argue all day about whether women or men are better at abstract math, but here's a better set of equations: the vast majority of western feminists have been content to vote, rally, and fundraise for western politicians who butcher millions of foreign women, in exchange for blood-money kickbacks for subsidized birth control and abortions.

How many gang-raped and murdered El Salvadoran girls does it take to equal a hundred safe trips to Planned Parenthood? How many thousands of Sudanese girls with their vaginas torn apart by rifle barrels and Ethiopian warlord dick are justified by the firing of some moron pharmacist in Topeka who refused to bag Mononessa? The answer is fucking zero.

Knife cuts both ways, too: men's rights advocates complain, sometimes rightly (just like feminists did), about being culturally marginalized. Yeah, so statistics show that women abuse children and beat their spouses in equal ratios to, or more than, men, yet men are automatically to blame whenever something goes wrong. A man who calls the police about being abused by his wife gets laughed at (if he hasn't kept a careful photographic record over the years), mocked, and no one cares. And of course, that same man donates a significant portion of his tax dollars each year, at police gunpoint, to fund women's-only shelters, counseling services, support groups, hotlines, and advertising campaigns talking about how bad men are and how vulnerable women are.

And that all sucks, but how many men and boys did Bill Clinton kill in Iraq during the 90s? If Clinton killed only half a million Iraqis, that's probably somewhere over two hundred thousand males that he killed--slow deaths from starvation, dehydration, or denial of basic medical supplies. And that's just Iraq, just during Clinton's reign, and doesn't even count the ones bombed or shot or untrackable. So, what do you do if you're a guy who's really concerned about men's rights? That's right--you do the same thing as a woman who's genuinely concerned about women's rights: you put a billion percent of your energy, funding, outspokenness, marching, et cetera, into being anti-war, and into never ever voting for or supporting any candidate who kills boys or girls.

If you're a racist, a classist, or a nationalist, of course, those qualifications don't apply--you're allowed to only care about domestic sex policy, or domestic domestic-abuse policy, and say to hell with the rest of the world, without being a hypocrite. Barring that, if you're into some kind of sex-based temporal ism, and your immediate heavy focus is not being against war, you're proving yourself to be a little self interested.

Patriarchy Was Just As Narcissistic and Stupid

Patriarchy sucked domestically, too, just like feminism. Each movement was nothing more than an offshoot of modern nationalism, navel-gazing in the upstairs bathtub while the police burned down the black neighborhood across the street. "Patriarchy," or the idea of a male "head of household," was a way of making men feel proud for the privilege of slaving for a lord--because they could think of themselves as independent heads of households, which was supposed to make up for being subject to a feudal lord. Think about the same ruse as Lincoln used it on American blacks: "You're free! Congratulations! Now go sharecrop your life away in marginalized poverty, but be oh-so proud to do it, because you're "free"! Giving someone a gold star remains a remarkably effective way to get them to ignore the real results of a deal.

In case you're not up on feudalism, that's the system where the king owns everything, and rents out land to his vassals in exchange for promises of money and military service. And the lords had vassals of their own, in exchange for promises of money and military service. It was just a pyramid scheme, with only a few people near the top seeing any benefit; almost everyone else was a freeman or a serf, working away their lives in service of someone higher up the food chain.

To slip that shit over the heads of the laborers, feudalism had to destroy communities--and it did so with patriarchy. We'll talk in more detail about the ideal human community in a little bit, but for now, just take a bunch of happy idealistic notions of niceness: everyone living together in a network of villages, cooperating and all that nice stuff, and suddenly, a warlord murders a bunch of people, puts himself in charge of the entire country, and parcels out control of land to his lieutenants, who then take control of everyone else. In order to make everyone else feel less crappy about the arrangement, the atomized, isolated, unnatural, patriarchal, "traditional family" is developed--a means of throwing a bone to the greater mass of men, in order that they'll govern their wives and children such as to extract labor while forestalling revolt.

The patriarchal husband, by being granted "responsibility" for his family, is supposed to feel proud, just as the village headman is proud of managing the village, and the Count is proud of managing the County. Oh boy. Congratulations--we've just sold your planet back to you. You're now the proud owner of one rancid hut! Or, conversely, you're now the proud manager of a small strip of forty rancid huts! And of course, feudalism had all these other terrible throw-forwards to postmodernity in it: the modern suburban hell originated in feudalism, where lords wanted to further isolate these atomized "male-headed households" by getting each family unit to live in one "house." (The modern form of this, besides the inefficient, atrocious suburban house, is the use of kickback-linking, net non-neutrality, and journalistic consensus to isolate and marginalize even as integrative a tool as the internet.) Individualized housing cut down on the community. The idiot patriarchs who felt proud at managing a family, and at their state-granted authority over such family, were barking and crowing over table scraps, even as the high nobility stole the real meal.

(That's another reason why the Indians had to go, yo--they lived communally, and that kind of infection couldn't be allowed to spread to the white settler-pawns. People who live together know each other and rely on each other and have powerful bonds, and all that kind of social-unrest shit. It'll blow a lot of urban minds, but the actual white Christian settlers who just wanted to live in America often did okay living near tribes, intermarrying, farming, learning language, and stuff like that--until agents provocateurs from the great empires showed up to fund Syrian rebels that became ISIS, excuse me, that showed up to cause a Tonkin Gulf and get the war moving. And those agents provocateurs were primarily backed by the cosmopolitan, progressive, urban intellectuals who looked down on their rustic, unduly conservative countrymen--both for living disgracefully near the Indians, and then for being so violent as to war with them. This is a trend carried over perfectly nowadays, as educated liberals sneer at those stupid, violent, uneducated troops in Abu Ghraib, while simultaneously paying their taxes and voting for the War & Property Party.)

Some of the men's rights people, now, and a lot of the Game/PUA/Alpha people, think that the social problems they correctly observe--from dating to state economic intrusion--can be fixed by a "return" to patriarchy, which is an idea as flawed and shortsighted as "feminism" was in response to patriarchy.

Here's Jessa Crispin on 50 Shades of Grey and the internally individualist failings of feminism:
There are obvious problems with this set-up, and it’s questionable whether this actually counts as “progress” or is maybe not simply a reshuffling of the same old deck. Even if gender isn’t necessarily the determinative factor, there’s still the powerful and the powerless...once you get into this mindset, focused on the acquisition of power, the people around you are less likely to look like human beings and more like useful tools. Which is why it is alarming that the language in Fifty Shades of Feminism is overwhelmingly more about individual aspiration — a dozen writers complaining about their difficulty in “moving up the ladder” at work, and so on — than about creating a more compassionate society. Because that could have been the goal of the removal of hierarchy, a society that is not structured around power but around empathy and compassion. A world based not around “I got mine” but around “We have ours.”

Reacting to a narcissistic female-centered ism with a narcissistic male-centered ism isn't a fix, but only a reversion to the last reaction, since various patriarchies have been used as bad responses to matriarchies. That's only the next scripted move in the elite playbook, being yet another way to make people proud of owning an acre instead of joining their people in owning a planet. The queen was so bad she makes the king look good by comparison, which isn't really true, since Dubya and Obama are the same president, just as Tony Blair proved as horrid as Margaret Thatcher. The reactive pattern will continue indefinitely until a non-reactive pattern develops, which is another way of saying that the beatings will continue until morale improves. Affirmatively putting an eye out in the service of a previously-pricked eye is, however seemingly fair, nothing but a brute counterattack. And before the weighty eyes of time, counterattacks done in the service of justice prove themselves to be merely attacks, bereft of prefix and as foul as their predecessors.

Continued in Part 2.


  1. I like it, well done.

    You're right about the mra/ gamers and feminism being flip sides of the same coin. Sometimes it's hard to distinguish a MRA from a feminist because they will actually use identical phrases and terminology.

    1. They're like most political bloggers in that the bulk of their activity is group condemnation of an affirmative link. E.g., link to a news story where [one sex] has mistreated [other sex], followed by a reminder of why this news story proves that their original theory is correct. And the news story generally validates them, in part, keeps their group cohesive, and is just one tiny part of a bigger picture.

  2. I think you already tried to sort of envision the end of history (arken's highs, highest highs etc.), and it didn't work still, even under the best of. If every conceivable premise of communal living is destroyed, then what's the point of speculating about it?

    For example, if a species, or a human language or dialect goes extinct, there is never, ever, ever getting them back. We may have some fading records of what they were like, but there is no way of possibly ever getting the real thing again (except by recreating the whole evolution of the universe, I suppose).

    Besides, even if we tried to, the communal forms of life we had a brief glimpse of (e.g. the Indians), involve giving up most of the stupid shit we call "civilization".

    All that is left is to come to terms with the human condition, find God, and eat a lot of peaches :)

    Speaking of God, it looks like the Biblical patriarchy was a fairly understandable and healthy reaction to the social disintegration accompanying the more complex civilizations at the time. So I don't think you can chalk it all up to feudal scheming

    1. Well, the Arken case doesn't mean every other attempt at full communal provision has failed or will fail; it was the holdovers from earlier times that caused the fall. What we can learn from it is that, even as a society becomes healthier, it must retain a vigorous defense against, shall we say, "alternative economic systems." Idealists are often accused of being naive, and in that case, they were--people began advocating letting others starve (e.g., what here is the Satanic/Randian argument), and--being many generations removed from those kinds of societies--the Arken treated those arguments as legitimate ideas. If it, or any other society, gets a chance to protect everyone again, that society needs to maintain an informed defense against, shall we say, hardcore capitalists, so that when such people start to pop up and advocate for systematic economic eugenics programs, they are not able to convince others to follow them.

      In the best years of High Arka, they had the perfect way of dealing with such people--they were provided for, same as anyone else, but prevented from exercising any public supervisory positions (when they did stuff like that, they would often use their position to try to "outdo" other divisions, passing off externalities in a way that hurt people outside their division, and getting discovered) until they had completed some counseling. Faced with that option, most would just quit and return to either productivity or personal extraction.

      The downfall there actually began with a small adjustment in what we might call "psychiatric standards of care." A few academics were able to argue that this one particular manager, who had dumped an industrial solvent rather than having his division pay to break it down, was not actually sick. The guy would repeatedly go through treatment, arguing that his division had produced unnecessary "profits" (he was too much of an ass to just retire, even though he was rich; he actually wanted to be a manager in his late eighties) but after they changed the psychiatric standards, he was able to get a managerial position again without establishing that he understood what he's done wrong.

      In Earth 2014, we have that idea about, say, random serial domestic child rape--no one would achieve political success by arguing that random serial domestic child rape is wrong. We need to expand the definition of things that are "so wrong" they are beyond applied consideration. In High Arka's case, a sufficiently educated public would have been prepared to address, and stifle, cyclical returns of the "let people starve in service of capital" argument.

      (FWIW, this one's been other places where it has worked; Arka is a fun example here because, as it passed into the stage of full food/housing/etc.-security, it nonetheless retained so many similarities to postindustrial Earth's sexual & social mores. More some other time, but to whatever part of you ascribes to fantasy, this one can promise that [communal forms of life + personal conveniences and high technology] both have happened and will happen again.)

    2. The ancient chinese empires had a way of exploiting the benefits that the activities of greedy merchants could provide, without letting them obtain anywhere remotely sufficient power to overtake the system. There was nothing communal about it, however - it had to be overseen by hugely complex and powerful authoritatian bureaucracy.

      So i think I see what are you doing, but you seem to keep going in circles going back to the fundamental problem of political philosophy: good governance is based on uncompromising adherence AND enforcement of "the good". However, in the absence of any hope to define "the good" in terms free of contradictions, all you end up with inevitably is some sort of an oppressive fascizoid regime. Which, going back to conveniences, once you accept the idea that producing larger surplus, and individual accumulation of surplus is acceptable, then you immediately lose any rationale to distinguish "good accumulation" from "bad accumulation". That's why the contemporary regimes, in spite of all the disasters they generate, are so safe. You are not anywhere close (and I would argue can never come close), to some sort of shared consciousness of "the good". And complex technology is certainly incompatible with communal living. If some members of your community suck at math, what are you going to do? still put them in charge of monitoring the reactor, because otherwise your aunt would get mad?

    3. "Good" is the promotion of lightforms, while "bad" is the demotion thereof. That works from the simplest acts--e.g., feeding a baby found in the wilderness is good, while killing one is bad--to the most complex--e.g., arguing on behalf of a small adjustment to a complex legislative bargain that will marginally increase funds availability to a firm which influences its foreign partners to lobby for reduced child welfare standards is bad, while bribing a legislator to introduce a constitutional rewrite proposal is good.

      The issue of good versus evil isn't self-contradictory; however, the argument to be made against it is some form of pop-evolution: "It is actually good to wipe out the weak, because then the strong can better themselves unencumbered." At this period in Earth, that's why all moral arguments lead back to our idea of self-interested/random evolution--because to non-contradictorally advocate for self-interest, you have to rationalize it through an impossibly ridiculous foundation of random mutation.

      Contemporary regimes are great at being contemporary regimes, yes. Because free will exists, though, the possibility exists for all points to exercise positive behavior, creating utopia. So long as we admit that we all have agency, things can get better. Having agency, moreover, means not only that we could all act positively, but that we could all decide to reinforce that goodness, and establish structures to sustain it indefinitely.

      "Shared consciousness of the good"--is that moral relativism? It's possible that there will always be one holdout, or six billion holdouts; nonetheless, the tree makes a sound when it falls in the isolated forest. It's true that it's unlikely and/or impossible to instruct even a simple majority to understand good and evil, but what else are we going to try while we're here? Beer pong?

    4. Right, sowing the seeds. That's pretty much every wise or religious person has ever done. Socrates didn't have a good answer to what is a "good regime", so he focused on individual youth, trying to guide them to the philosophical life, and away from tyranny, sometimes succeeding, sometimes not.

      Same for genuinely religious people, leaders or ordinary, and quite literally said in most or all religious texts - sow the seeds, help others find god. You can't save their souls, but you can, sometimes through a small act or sentence, trigger something good in them.

      This is all great and hopeful, but none of it adds up to an utopian planetary society. Just the ordinary permanent mess, with the ordinary permanent pockets of insight and hope here and there.

      I can't say if Christians literally believe that one day the second coming will set everything straight, but at least it seems clear that the definition of the original sin is to pretend to have answers to things that can have no answer - at least not in human society sans revelation.