Oh yes, and this here . . .

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Anarchy Again : One Thread

I believe I've been banned from Crimethinc.net from this computer, not to say as I blame them. But I'm hoping someone can post this in there. I can't even see if it is in there . . .


Hello, and thanks for reading.

I post as Permacultureguerilla, and entered as Gaiaskeeper (whose messages I've deleted all but a few). It's a good symbol, because the term "Gaiaskeeper" signified the intention as a guardian or doctor for nature. But I'm far from it. I'd say that personna is dead. Permacultureguerilla is more accurate. That's what every hobo is.

They use their permanent surroundings to survive, and fight against their nation's rules whether dismally or strongly. But that still doesn't describe me, and if I change again, I'll try to do it in the fashion of a group and not as a person. Less to do with nature, and more of what I talk about.

I don't want the arrogance to assume I can start something. I can only join what others agree with. And that's all I want. But I have my own ideas that seem to refuse absolutely anyone else unless they either change my mind (which is hard) or completely agree. So I'm giving another of those demanding messages. Not tyrannical, but certainly extremist.

When I think of nature, I think femininity. But now I'm not sure I can call nature feminine. I think its best potential is feminine, and that's why we recognize it so. But nature wouldn't fit into the tiny boundaries our minds have, that assume there are two genders to choose from.

I'm writing today because I've regained contact with someone that would command me to the ends of the world. And it's the only one I would find any meaning in any more, although that shouldn't necessarily be true for all people. I'd call her nothing short of an angel or Goddess. Call me "spellbound" or just plain oggling? I'd say it's a matter of where life's guided me.

If I had a choice of what to create, I would certainly have my suggestions, but now the most prominant demand would not be an anarchist tribe. It would be matriarchal.

The idea of a ruler at the top is not democratic, and if we expect to survive, we will need true democracy. The problem is: We're human. We weren't bred for democracy. Not yet. Not unless we evolve, and who says that re-engineering ourselves is not in fact evolution? More advanced species have used more advanced tactics to change themselves, there's no rigid line in what we can call natural and unnatural. But us, as the humans that we are today, need matriarchy. History makes it clear. It's not a matter of ethics but what works and what doesn't.

One noble tribe known as Amazons are no longer depicted accurately by any known media, but they did exist and they were strong for a time.

Just the way humanity proliferated from africa, so did a culture of tolerance and justice. Some of it went into Celtic Gypsies, despite the horrendous crimes of vikings. Some of it went to the beginning technology of Mesopotamia, despite the tyranny of the visigoths and the Roman empire; which trickled further to other abusive cultures like the european colonialists, the spanish conquistadors, and finally the United States and their "New World Order."

But in it all there's been that small voice that believed in Magick and diversity. That culture was mostly matriarchal wherever it sprouted. We see it today in things we would think are completely disconnected. Ironically we call them "goths" and hippies. Punks. While some of this subculture is indeed horribly abusive, it carries that same spirit that we resist indoctrination. From Marylin Manson to Enya, we see a demand for experimentation without control. It incorporates the ancient Powwows and the tribal "craziness" around a campfire. But it does anything except for pushing the cliche that each man has to be the Incredible Hulk. Indeed, those types of men in our society are not far from the truth. These two-faced men are so accurately symbolized, like Dr.Jekyll, who drink from their "elixir" of alcohol and change like a flash.

Now, today, I can't talk about new ideas for another hypothetical society. Either it's too late, or all has been said anyhow. And that's not to say people should stop. It means I should for now. And hopefully I can come back with more positive attitudes, more . . . democratic. At least less from my own voice and more from others. You can almost smell the testosterone in some of my posts. But that doesn't mean I take them back.

I deal with trauma in the most discreet way possible as far as reality goes. That is: I scream in cyberspace. I just don't do it with a lot of programming.

If I really could choose from any society right now, it would be the Borg from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Isn't that the ultimate prison?

In a world where those unjust can no longer be the useful labour that machines replace them with, doesn't it make sense they become forced as scientists, with nothing but thoughts, making new incredible recipes? Where their only outlet is thinking, it's bound to happen that they think themselves out of anger, or at least can't pose a threat if we identify their thoughts as dangerous. Isn't that what's happening in our governments today? That the people that would have been horribly barbaric in a natural life find a better outlet in playing us as pawns, and because we don't identify their thoughts as dangerous despite its potential, we obey it?

What if Charles Manson could be left to his own imaginary ends with our information and developed the atomic bomb? Would we still give it the same respect we gave einstein's inventions? I know if I were caged for life, at least thoughts would keep me going. And I would know I have become a slave for the crimes I've been condemned for, but how the heck do I resist being a slave if I can't help but think?

Is it terrifying? I would prefer that to today's overcrowded prisons where inside deals land you guns, and you come out with wages as well as a great deal of drug dealing knowledge, and a very perverted product of a "correctional facility."

Here's where my opinion on Matriarchy comes in. Such a prison is the only place I would deem fit for those humans that refuse matriarchy. That's not to say we shouldn't have diverse cultures everywhere that try different things. But the world, by majority, without such a simple construct will fail. And if you want to see our true potential throughout the universe, which I think is huge, I believe that's the ultimatum we face. Resistence is futile . . . unless you have a great deal more respect for women.

From legends such as Joan of Ark, nearly every woman that aggressively demanded retribution was seen as devious and malicious. Where exactly do we see the statue of a warrioress saying "she fought bravely"? And irregardless, where is the statue dedicated to the woman and her baby? It's not that we don't recognize that as beautiful. Sculptures and paintings galore of the like sell pretty well. But where is the religious recognition? Where is the government plaque? Surely they exist, but exactly how common?

Why are they so missing? No. It's not because male dominance meant a stronger war and a better protected race. Soldiers were a commodity, they were bred and traded. That's not it.

Because men could no longer control sexual advantage if the species no longer needed to breed quickly.

It didn't happen by a distinct plan, but it is the obvious outcome: Men claimed dominance so that they could rape.

Look around you and tell me that isn't true, when you ask yourself who better to go into the local dark alleyway? Ask yourself what happens and happened much more so in the mental hospitals behind closed doors when the doctors and security guards were all male?

Ask yourself what an unmarried woman was, particularly an attractive one, in the middle ages unless she wore a symbol of the patriarchal cross?

Women have been, quite literally, the pull-buggy to the rest of society for millenia! From the day we had reached a prosperity for our species, one side of us was doomed to eternal subjugation and rape unless our intelligence could finally reach an understanding that we can criticize ourselves. That, still . . . is a very difficult thing when you ask yourself when you last analyzed your own emotions.

Our patriarchal world has a Succubus complex. That the attractive woman is an incomprehensible threat compared to an angry man. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," "The devil assumes pleasing shapes." While such an idea may be interesting, the dominance of this hate is drenched in our beliefs. If we've grown distrust, regarding a girl as naturally treacherous, maybe that's what's happening with our views on nature. After all, we see the jungle as an inhospitable, unpredictable world of mayhem. I guess we hate the industry of life because that makes it powerful?

Women did attempt to flee their dissent as both a culture and a gender in their covens and their "Aztec Disappearances," (a legend following the conquering of South America), and their convents . . . funny how we still see the resemblence between "commune" and convent.

Only now, do we see a very miniscule resurgance of the covens, but placed under the labels of satanism and the now frightening term "witchcraft." Now, the convents are asking exactly at what point they were considered part of the church, and yet not allowed to reach the level of priests? Now, the people who no longer know of ancestry since tribes of old want to research this "bygotten era" as though it just faded away from natural whithering.

Now, even bordellos, we ask if it was more correct to offer prostitutes a way of protecting one another rather than them singlehandedly out on the street where they are pretty well kidnapped with each "date." Those prostitutes (and yes, I've spoken to them myself) would be happy to join an escort service if it were not for the laws that you cannot be part of them unless you're squeaky clean.

Those prostitutes refuse the help of soup kitchens and homes because women's shelters are a limited basis, and after sleeping with some of the same types of people you see in those kitchens, watching them is what they call "depressing." Not to mention these shelters are about 75% males who've seen neither sanity nor sex for several decades. And the only "enforcement" is holding a soup ladle. That's a little troubling if you ask me.

Women's rights, to me, is not an accurate term. I believe in women's justice. And I believe it is men whom are responsible for bringing that justice, not women . . . even though, it is indeed the majority of women's rights activists that are women.

Those activist groups would probably be much greater in numbers, but unfortunately some of them prefer to fight for the world's concerns. Like that ever matriarchal Greenpeace, and Voice For Animals, and Earth Liberation Front. Would you like me to go on?

So here's my demands . . .

Do I believe that our species is in a downfall? Yes. We were meant to go extinct at some point and time, the human being as it is can no longer function within the new measures. That's not to say a total utter change. That's not to say "more intelligence! More strength! More perfect shapes!" But that is to say "less" of a thing that is abusive to the rest of the world. "Less" of a biology that cannot control itself.

Don't take this for the cheap implication of "kill all men." As ridiculous as that is, it's had a great deal of therapeutic value to some women who would have been either much more dangerous or in danger if they hadn't coaxed themselves with that.

But the system of gender has to change. Eliminate sex? Why would one draw this assumption so directly? Why would it ever be my place to condemn the idea of two living things interacting as directly and sensually as we know it can be?

Eliminate the capability of rape? Yes!

Can any creature possibly exist that would require the mutual interaction and not . . . "insurrection" of another? Yes it can!

But first we need to accept the idea that nature can make mistakes. Not that they all lead to bad things. Mistakes are the means for evolution BUT. Not all of them. Natural and artificial selection, just like natural itself, is all relative. You can't condemn one form over another. We need to accept that we were given intelligence for a reason, and that squandering it on "more power!" is just the thing that decays us back to the alpha-male wet dream.

But that's not all.

The key is in justice before prosperity. Whatever bible boasts of forgiveness, and whatever confessions allow some of the most grotesque criminals to throw off their baggage whereas they would be forced to deal with their concsience otherwise, I believe, like every child believes as they "hit back" after being struck, that everything must have a consequence. Forgiveness is not limited. But it is not immediate. It is indeed conditional.

I not only believe that a person in a lifetime who does the crime pays the dues, but that the organism of the race take responsibility for the crimes that it represents all before it.

Yes. Inherited consequence. The bible has a similar, more twisted version known as "original sin."

We all should consider our "original sin" as easy as it is to simply say "I'm a new person, and I'm not answering to everyone that was hurt by those just like me."

The inherited consequence of the caucasian race. In which some of it had valor and beauty, but ultimately in majority locked down our borders and took out our nomads.

The inherited consequence of the human race opposed to the planet, that we must redeem ourselves in proliferating its life or die in our own squandor.

And yes . . . the inherited consequence of men.

Of men, that belong to the same species, but are still of that organism that has so been the most unruly of malcontents. That cannot be denied. That failure, even the "revised" history textbooks cannot refute, only cloud. And cloud it they have, as we read of Christopher Columbus, Prime Ministers and Presidents. Funny that Emma Goldman not be seen chiefly as a philosopher, but as a bible for the renegades running from the state.

In my white, middle class, male, adult body; I can do nothing but consider that it is my absolute duty to not only ponder the horrors I am capable of but also the horrors that I represent. If I do live long, I would be proud to redeem myself for the rest of life out of dumpsters and in parking lots. To devote myself to this sole purpose of women's justice and ask for nothing but the means to survive somehow.

I have found my place in the world, and luckily it was before I retire. That's more than most people can say, I believe.

I ask you to consider what I'm offering. Not that I have a lot to offer, but the idea that I present. Not just a big "wise man say" motif to decorate our rebellious website. But instead: To do as I would do in that "borg" society and rack my brain from cell to cell, and hop the train from home to home, and resist the patriarchy word for word if I can have some lenience.

Not that I lose my ban from Crimethinc. That's great, it keeps me off the addiction. But that someone says "maybe we can try it." I don't want a "yes," I'm not bothered by a "no." And frankly, I don't care about a "that's stupid." But I do think you're a bumbling idiot if you can really say the latter. And once again . . . that's likely a dose of testosterone in that statement once more.

What we need today is a universal home that will offer women a true net of safety, regardless of whether we define their life as "safe" where they were raised. There is no way of knowing. Not by behaviour, not by scars. Just that they want an alternative.

Parents and guardians are illegitamete to the situation. Even adoption agencies are loose. No matter what the laws, it's ridiculous to assume they can be enforced behind all these closed doors, all this lifetime conditioning that parents put their children through. And quite frankly: Boys have more power to run off. The world is indeed more secure if you're male. Girls simply are not given that liberty, unless they want to be raped right outside of town, or be someone's "bitch." They simply are not given the privileges for independance that men are.

We need to show security and respect for those that have given birth to us and tolerated our hatred for so horrifically long. We need to shut up and consider their story.

Hopefully you've found this agonizingly long repertoire enlightening at the very least.

I will work to accomplish something I don't know how will come out. In some ways I'm afraid, and I know it isn't safe. But then, I also wouldn't want to live in any alternative.

It seems, perhaps, trauma can breed intelligence just like intelligence comes with psychosis. Either way, I would like to leave with the exact same signature that tries to throw the insult back at you . . .

If I'm crazy . . . you've underestimated me.

JUSTICIA PARA FEMINAS! . . . (did I get that right?)

-- (used to be Gaiaskeeper) (permacultureguerilla@bikerider.com), June 28, 2003


Well we all know who wears the trousers in your relationships. I think your about 40 years too late. be honest this is just a way of getting female attention isnt it?

-- bromis (bromis@psychoactive.org), July 18, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ