Log in

No account? Create an account
Sharp Like a Dagger [entries|friends|calendar]

[ website | Gallery ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

god is dead, i killed him [09 Jan 2008|08:05pm]
incredibly bored.

I have this reoccuring day dream almost everyday. I am at daggers drawn with a single figure that embodies God, Yahweh and Muhammud, and all hell is about to break loose. It's tense, the sun is burning us. I have sweat running down my cheeks and God is just scared shit less.

The God I am at daggers drawn with is a God that plants himself in the depressing and oppressive concepts of what is know as the State and the Church. The only differences is that one is secular and now more powerful, and the other isn't. Unlike the secular liberals or nonsecular lunatics, I make no distinction. They both are killers of sinners (those that go against them), violent, and portray themsleves as the almighty saviours-prisoner-wardens of humanity. They keep us folk from living self-determined lives.

In the dream, I've wanted to kill God since I was birthed, since I first took a breath only to be muzzled by his Godly Demons. My whole unconcious life (that is, from 1 year old to 7ish) was just preperation for it. I would do things that were counter to what I was suppose to do. I would steal from church, work, school, dress outrageously, or cry my head off when the preacher or teacher was speaking. Then, when I gained my own muscle and strength, and with the help of lots of introspection in to my unconcious, I become concious of the fact that I must killed God. It's a must. I just want him dead, dead, dead. Bang, stab, bang, like that.

In my dream, I am like a ancient samurai/ninja building my sword. I spend years building my sword; there are 15 layers of the best metal in my sword, all flattened so that it's width is nearly a nano meter. I practice with my sword, chopping the heads, torsos, arms, etc, off of manicans in one fluid movement.

It was assumed that I was an atheist, and I just had some serious psychological issues. The doctors told me that craziness runs in my family. They told me to take a Prozac everyday, along with a healthy dose of education. But, I am not an atheist. Atheism is lazy, I told them. It's just as deluded and faithful as believing in god! And besides, I told them, I know where god lives. And he knows who I am. I know he knows what's coming for him: 8 inches of dagger. I should know, He has text.

I should tell you, amongst the angels, I am like Ted Bundy and Charles Manson combined. They flutter their wings frantically; feeling much like, if you can imagine, those fearful goosebumbs we get as humans. I guess they could be right. I have no sympathy or compassion to their friend God.

I would like nothing more to see his decapitated head in my hands.

Once I get to this God, I spit at his feet to show how serious I am. Cuz when you spit at someones feet, especially God's, they know you are crazy kamakazi motherfucker.

"Crazy homosexual motherfucker!" God exclaimed very martial arts master-life. He looked a bit offended. He added the homosexual bit cuz I hear he's not much of a fan of homos.

I laugh tell him that his mother was a piece of shit and that we fucked real hard last night.

He retorts that he has no mother, because he is the Creator of all that is living.

"You must have been sucking me off and didn't even know it." He says laughing.

I think about this for awhile, enough that he notices that I am having a hard time understand such a concept.

He notices and begins to laugh. He says in a voice of a arrogant elder, "My child, you come here to kill me and yet, you do not know that I have no mother, that I AM what builds the universe, that I am YOUR mother. I give everything meaning. And you even forget that last night you were busy sucking me off. Now go home, child, and read my word." Normally, someone with similar views, but with less confidence would give up and just fight her battle another day, or give in and reform. I have come too far, waited too long for this moment. I reply that I am not his child, that I recognize no authority that stands above me and that I have no time to argue against (nor do I have to!) my slave master. I am my own person who can create his own life. I can create my own ethics that are based on the here and now. I don't need your commandments, I need something that comes from me and the relationships that I develop on my own. I say I have the own power to create and destroy--and that he's about to feel some power in the form of steel.

"My child, such bravado! Such vengence. You argue like you know everything, like you do not respect me. What have I ever done to you? Don't you realize what I have given you? Dont you know--..."

I had grown tired of his ramblings. Whipping out my daggers, I charge. He is still busy telling me to give up and let him guide my way; but my adrenaline was rushing and I had forgotten that he was speaking. I was on a mission.

As I swung my daggers, as I screamed with fury and wrath that no devil could pull off, I asked myself if I had any second thoughts. I had only a milisecond to decide and I decided right. I quickly realized that God never fights back. He makes other people do that for him, and he makes them do it in his name. But, everyone, everything that he could use against me was too scared or too weak to stop me. And this coward, this murderer of worlds, cultures, people, was dead as quickly as I sprang.

He lay in two pieces like a piece of meat, bloody as hell. Both halves of his body stare at each other like mirror images. And, soon enough, he was crying to his real mother, Humanity. (And at that monent, I realised that I, apparently, was not a homosexual). His mother screamed at me and told me to put my sword away and that I would be in time out for the rest of my life. This whole time she didn't think I was serious, thought my dagger was plastic. She screamed that I'd sit in a dark, cold and moldy cell for the rest of my life. His mother told me that his son was all that gave her meaning. That even when people used him to kill millions upon millions of people, she still loved him. He was her knight, the protector, the one who allowed her to deny responsiblity for all the pain she inflicted upon herself and those millions. All she had to do, she said, was please him and his spokespeople on earth.

"Why is that so hard for you get? You kill my son, now I can only kill myself, because I have no meaning. I know not what to do with myself. Heaven and hell, poor and rich, mean nothing to me now. God, my son, made it all easy, all very black and white for me. Now you have killed the thing that unifies us all, you have made everything complicated."

"But, now, madam, the earth exists. It exists! The trees grow, the wind blows, water runs through your body giving you strength!

"There are multitudes of people who do not love your Godly God. Nothing unifies the human race except that we all breathe, feel and think. We are all the same, yet we are all very different. We live in different places, and thus we believe and do different things. We are not a mass of people, we are multitudes of people. Why not embrace the differences and the similarities? You believe that we must all be unified under the weight of your God, your son, but this misses so many things. You kill in the name of unity, you kill because you are afraid of differences. And look what you have done! All the wars in the world are started over your sick, sick creation. All those who have struggled to be human, to breathe, have only been stomped upon. Don't get me wrong, people who can be different can be violent towards you and if they are, you will fight them back. But, why waste your time using your son, God, as justification for fighting back? Why not fight for yourself and those you love?"

"I am already dead. I am ready to protest this monstrosity, to kill myself, to matyrise myself in the name of God. And if no one listens, my brothers and sisters will continue on after me. We will continue until this Godless world is completely dead. God is my martyr."
post comment

[28 Oct 2007|04:44pm]
I am downtown quite a bit. It is a great place to watch people.

The other day I saw this homeless man walking around a fountain over and over again. He was talking to the air, to whoever would listen or just to himself. He was selling ads. For a while, he said he was part of OnStar (a thing that you can put in your car and it tracks you). He said HIS satellites are all over the world, making "OnStar, the most dependable security system out there." HE said a lot of other ads too.

It really struck me as sad, funny and interesting at the same time. At the time, all the yuppies were out on their lunch break and the square was really busy. And here is some homeless guy trying to sell ads he stole from TV, but he is in essence showing the stupidity of capitalistic advertising (whether he meant it or not). So many people trust those who act like like experts on TV, but they are really there just to look pretty. You won't believe a roughed up homeless man, who is partly a negation of society, when he says that OnStar has satellites all over the world or that his company can protect you from child molestors, but you will believe a clean shaven suit-wearing man on TV (who is an affirment of society). Which is crazier? Lawyers, OnStar, CEOs do a million times more harm than he does. But, we believe in them and support them.
post comment

[30 Aug 2007|08:06pm]
some new photos I took the other day. im pretty pleased with em.
the school got some new digital SLRs and we've been using them like mad crazy. they are pretty pimp. Doesn't beat film; although, it's pretty close.

2 comments|post comment

[03 Jun 2007|01:07am]
hmmm....may send this to the paper. it's not done.

I propose something else quite different as to how to stop the "illegals" from coming over to the US. I think my solution is more humane and practical than most of the "solutions" around; and I think it's one that any anti-immigrant advocate will have to agree with. I am for closing the borders entirely. Let's put a fence up and pump it with electricity so no on can climb it with out dying. But, I think if you are true pure patriot, you will also want stop all trade with Central and South America. After we stop making Central and South Americans (the very ones that come to the US) handle all our oranges, avocados, oil, timber, etc, and all the while getting very low wages for their work (which is why many immigrants come to America: for a higher wage) on some vast corporate facility, much of the vast influx of people coming to America will stop. People do not come here because they hate where they live, they come here for very real economic reasons, ones that may make them hate where they live, and ones that can't just be blamed on their own governments.

For instance, the US government's trade policies, like the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have run hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers (or campasinos, in Spanish) out of their jobs and livelihood, and this in turn destroys the local economies of their towns. The NAFTA policy puts farmers at the mercy of its trade quotas, and therefore, farmers often lose their land and go to work a corporate farm, textile factory, etc, tending our oranges or bananas, sewing our t-shirts; if this is not possible, they move to a big city, or they, bingo, come to America; or they do all three. This effect has a wide effect on the economy of not just farmers, but of all those who are poor.

So, let us put a fence around the border, dig up all the roads leading to it, stop all the trucks carrying those precious oranges or corn, and arrest all "illegals" who try to come in because of those oranges. I am very serious about this. I challenge any of those who are also anti-immigrant to come up with a better solution. If you are not ready to give up oranges or bananas in December, then I would say you are what is causing much of the problem.
post comment

[26 Mar 2007|07:40pm]

Read more...Collapse )
3 comments|post comment

[17 Feb 2006|06:08pm]
im thinking of deleting this. it's time to move on.

you have 5 days to tell me otherwise.
5 comments|post comment

[14 Feb 2006|09:07pm]
When many people think of water, they think of a water bottles or a water fountain. Of course water is none of this, these are only techniques in which water is brought to us. These techniques make it extremely hard for anyone to get water any other way.

When I think of water (as we use it now), I think of dams that kill fish or divert natural wild rivers. I think of the hundreds of artificial lakes in Oklahoma that are usually used as drinking water. I think of how many acres of wild lands were destroyed by these lakes in order to meet the demands of Tulsa's oil boom and population boom. I think of the fact that the water I drink everyday came from another place far away from me. In my case, "my" water came from either Lake Oologah or Lake Spavinaw, which are both 50 miles away from my home. I also think of economic growth, because water is what fuels industrialism. Tulsa would never have grown to 500,000 people if it weren't for the artificial lakes that feed it. Neither would New York City, nor Los Angeles, nor Chicago. Water is the cornerstone of life, but it is also the cornerstone of civilization's insatiable economic nature (Which gobbles up water).

Water has been domesticated by civilization. It has been filtered and manipulated to meet our needs (and not the land base). (I won't even go into the filtration procss.) It has been put in to plastic bottles (which are soaked in chemicals) and sold in soda machines (which are full of sugar). Water is also an expensive commodity. It is privatized, someone now owns it. It is no longer free Read any water bottle and you will see ("Our water comes from the Pristine(tm) and Pure waters of the Alps. We wait 50 years for the deep layers of pure snow to melt so that we can let you drink it." Do you actually believe this?).

Think of this: All water is made up of cells from long gone life-forms (and living life forms). This is amazing! This means, I could be drinking water that a dead Buffalo helped create by it's decay! Or... even a human being. When you transport large quantities of water to far off countries, you are not only living un-sustainable, you are also losing contact with your own landbase, since water is your landbase. In this way, water becomes another economic exploit. The life that it once lived and the life it once supported now becomes meaningless and taken for granted. Water? Big deal! For instance, golf courses use thousands and thousands of gallons of water in order to water it's acres weedy and bland non-indigenous grass, so that rich white, alienated, yankees can play their game of golf. Like that old sang: We will only know the value of water after it runs out.

The gentle fierceness of water that once created canyons, watersheds, that was once home to salmon, bears, eagles, wolves, and all of Life has been enslaved to technique, in my case, an artificial lake. The fierceness of water that once flowed free is now being held under arrest by huge dams (millions of them, 50,000 in the U.S.), but not for long. Water is still as fierce as ever. And now it's way more fierce, because war has been committed upon it! Slowly but surely it will break free and destroy the dams that mediate its flow. Free! The water will come crashing down. It's weight will destroy habitats, houses, towns, but in the long run, the land will be healthy once again. This is inevitable. One day, there will be a time when they will all run free, like any respectable river!

I'm selfish. I want water to be mine, the individual's. I don't want to be enslaved to the techniques of modern water purification. I want my water to be drinkable and I want the water where I get my water to be full of life. I don't want my water to be somewhere far away from me. I want it within walking distance. Most of all, I want contact with water! Contact! I want to marvel at it's life, as it's life passes me by. I want to explore it! Swim! In order for me to feel secure and free, water must be set free.
1 comment|post comment

[13 Feb 2006|11:25pm]
From: The Abstract Wild, by Jack Turner

I understood my client. His conviction opposes our tendency to
tolerate everything, to accept, to forget, to forgive, to get on with
life, to be realistic, to get over our losses. We accept living with
nuclear weapons, toxic wastes, oil spills, rape, murder, starvation,
smog, racism, teenage suicide, torture, mountains of garbage,
genocide, dams, dead lakes, and the daily loss of species. Most of
the time we don't even think about it.

I, too,abhor this tolerance for anything and everything. My client's
refusal stems from the Holocaust. Mine started with the damming of
the Colorado River's Glen Canyon and its tributaries, especially the
Escalante River, and specifically Davis Gulch, which I visited twice
in 1963 before it was drowned by the waters of Lake Powell. Visitors
now houseboat and water-ski hundreds of feet above places where I
first experienced wilderness. It broke my heart then and I am still
angry about it. I am angry that Wallace Stegner and Edward Abbey
would boat around Lake Powell as guests of Universities and the U.S.
Government. i am angry with friends who kayak and skin-dive its
waters. I make a point of being nasty about it.

Read more...Collapse )
post comment

[31 Jan 2006|09:12pm]
So, I'm thinking about getting another art show. i want this one to have a theme and to be mostly centered around my work. and i wanna try and get it in a gallery.

the theme would be earth based. like the earth reacting to civilized society. or anything that makes people uncomfortable. it would be in b&w. the pictures would be taken all around here in tulsa. i wanna write little essays under each pic, like what it conjures in my head (i take a pic of a city and write how cities are inherently unsustainable. or say how it affects my senses).

this would make people realize (maybe) that the death and destruction is right in there faces. it's not in some african country that we fucked up. it's here, right in every city--a weapon of mass destruction. soil erosion, developers killing the land, etc.

and then i get to take a crap load of pictures of subjects and order more bulk film. and find my tripod, even though i lost parts of it! and prolly would need to buy a zoom lense. or else fix the one i already have (which was carelessly dropped).

now i just need ideas! gimmie, gimmie!

oh yeah, this is my state of the UNION.

freedom, democracy, terrorism.
3 comments|post comment

[29 Jan 2006|02:19am]
Ho, ho, ho...ho. I was thinking today about being the whole idea of being "alternative." I hear that word all the time coming from some proud parent's mouth (bless their hearts!). "My child is so alternative. She doesn't fit the norm." What's the norm, anyway? What's being alternative? Thrift store shopping? Doing art?

In order to be "alternative" of society, there must be a society that you are against. It's not always bad to be against something. But, this can define your total "alternativ-nish" (which isn't too swell). Many people who are "alternative" feel they are against the grain of society. It would be better to say that you can often fall into a sub-culture with this stuff (but, most of the people I know who consider themselves "alternative" don't even come close to creating a sub-culture--because they really aren't "alternative."). A subculture is a culture that is created in reaction to a dominant culture and can only survive when the dominant culture is still alive (the black sub-culture is one). It is co-dependency. Like the who alcoholic THINKS he depends on the liquor, we feel free of any kind of blame. Instead of creating something new and truly independent, we often just react to the culture that we are against (although, you don't particularly have to be against the dominant culture in order to create a sub-culture (it can be created by isolation from the dominant culture's "wrath."). For the sake of argument, let's just deal with those that are against it). We whine, tell stories...over...and...over...about how the "death culture" has hurt us (which isn't always bad). We don't create a revolution within ourselves, we externalize it. Like it's far away. We make theories about what the post-rev life will be like and make it sound all so sweet. We make glaring predictions of hte future based on our what we want and not the reality of thinking in the now. Communists talk of taking over production for and by the masses, but don't question the ill human effects of production. We become re-activists. In this kind of sub-cult-ure, there are roles, much like society, that one needs to follow in order to be accepted (being "alternative" of society, which has a set defenition depending on what group your with). There are boundaries in this sub-culture, maps that need to be followed and subtle dogmas. Much like every other cult-ure.

Thus, you can see people wearing patches that say "Smash Capitalism! Smash Patriarchy! Smash the State!" These are just reactions, and words that mean nothing...they are also abstract and pretty "bravado." Much like "taking down civilization" has become. They are often ill or never defined, much like many of the things in the dominant culture are. But many dare not question them, because we've all read the same pamphlets and books, and subscribe to the same ideology (we've read the same history books, went to school, etc). So, why wouldn't it be true?

The sub-culture is, as I said, a culture that depends on a dominant culture to survive. In this way, it gives the dominant culture more strength. Because, the sub-culture is just an extension of the dominant culture. There is no authenticity in the sub-culture. Thus, the dominant culture's urge to create dependency on itself is strengthened. It's the spectacle of society that we all keep replaying over and over in different versions, trying to break away from it. But it's still the spectacle. It's pre-packaged d/r/evolution. Any kind of change in society is turned into a commodity, and a further ploy to the homogenization of humans.

So, what can we do? Figure it out yourself! To be independent is to venture outside of the dominant culture, to get away from being dependent on it. Now, we are all like the alcoholic who depends on liquor, but blames the liquor and not himself. But, we need to figure it out ourselves (with the help of others), without stinkin' books and essays like these. Look outside of you and ask yourself: What am I doing to make this situation? What part am I doing in the "reproduction of this daily life?" How can I move beyond it?
8 comments|post comment

[18 Jan 2006|11:12pm]
shit. one more entry:

I am falling.
from a cliff.
One moment
I was just walking
into the thick abyss,
thinking of only thoughts that
help themselves
into cancerous cells.
Thoughts that
give me no love.
Thoughts of
banal nature.
Next, I am walking and walking,
concentrating on my thoughts so hard,
I no longer comprehend the canyons in front of me.
I no longer
comprehend anything
but the pounding,


inside of my brain.
I take one step
I walk out into the
where there is no ground to hold me down.
I try to walk and walk and walk,
without realizing
that I am
I am falling,
falling, and falling
into chaos.
Falling into
But the air actually
smells so good
that I wish I didn't
have to die.
I wish.
But I am
falling into chaos,
where there
no constraints to define me,
no boxes to fill,
ideologies to live by,
ain't nothing to keep be bound to this earth,
the air that smells so good,
the clouds that move so
I look down,
wondering what it feels like
to be
smashed into smitherings.
What will I taste like to the vultures?
I soon realize that I've been
falling and
for oh so long,
that I should have landed
quite a
long time
So, I wait and wait for something to happen.
For a demon to
pop out at me
and tell me what I've done wrong
or what I need to do
Or a Genie to tell that I
three wishes
and only
I wait and wait
No one comes.
It's just me, the air, the cliff,
and the clouds that look so beautiful
to my
hazel eyes.

It's impossible for me
to grasp on
to anything while flying
through the air.
Nothing in this chaos,
but the air, the moon, the stars,
my thoughts and emotions,
that now mean so much,
when they never meant anything in my
orderly life.
3 comments|post comment

[18 Jan 2006|12:45am]
For every 100 people chopping at the branches, only one is hacking at the roots - Thoreau

I've recently been analyzing my core beliefs (civilization is a maladaptive way of life, a/moralism, values, etc). And recently, I've become pretty disillusioned on a lot of things (to the point that I've become a little jaded...don't worry though, it's all good!). This doesn't mean I've changed my mind on those beliefs. It just means I've chosen to see them in totally different ways.

I used to think that anything rebellious was believable. That it was completely objective of the dominant culture, that the rebelliousness didn't replay the patterns of the culture. Hence, I fell in love with Quinn and Jensen so easy (yes, they are still amazing authors), without even analyzing them enough. I fell in love with anarcho-primitivism, anarchism, etc. I didn't question them. And when I did, Jensen said I was being abusive.

I don't think our minds are capable of making a sane and FULL critique of the civilization, because we are products of the culture...thus making us mildly insane. It's too complex, but people try to do it. Maybe it's part of being alive...to figure it all out. Maybe, civilization screws around with our natural yearnings and turns them towards the benefits of civilization ("You can be creative and unique when you work, Scott!", "Come on now, let's join create tribe and forget that we are takers!"). We feel we must justify something in order to move somewhere. We must grasp on to something. Like those new agers and the 4th dimension. Truly, we need some kind of identity, but I think we often project ourselves way too much on to things outside of ourselves (or we make these things outside of ourselves, even when they are part of ourselves). Like, statistics, factoids, technology, politics, love, hate, anarcho-primitivism, etc.

I've been thinking about chaos a lot, too. I think chaos is when you have nothing to grasp on to but yourself and your (and others) own survival. In a chaotic situation, a staunch republican and staunch liberal would forget their conflicting ideologies and worry about there immediate survival. We really need more chaos. It's such a reality trip. It's almost like jumping off a cliff or taking down civilization. That's chaos. But, when there is chaos in civilization it's stopped pretty quickly. It's co-opted or demonized and made into another spectacle. I wonder what would happen if we just let riots happen, would they eventually quiet down? Like forest fires.

Me and my friend Don where talking about how so many people feel so sure. The peak oil clowns, the anti-civilization anarchists, Jason Godsky, tribalists, scientists. All of these people make predictions about the future, but they are often predicting what they want to happen. Some people believe that civilization is at it's last straw forever (because coercive power will easily go away...Right. Civilizations don't depend on lots of energy really..they just depend on coercive power. I'd like to see someone disprove that a h/g society can be coercive and oppressive). Some people believe that agriculture is the core problem. Some people believe that we can fight off all the civilized people during the mythical "crash," thus forgetting about the present and looking for the Future. Some people believe that if we spend hours wasting our lives looking at the at the past (why did agriculture grow as it did?), we can liberate ourselves. Maybe, I'm wrong about the belief structures. But, I do think there is something wrong with this. Something. It all seems crazy to me. I mean it's great to analyze the shit out of everything and try and figure out shit. And I don't dismiss the claims made by those people in my examples, but it's just getting repetitive and my instincts tell me that I can't trust anyone but myself. They also tell me that it's better to look at the present, that this is enough evidence that something is out of whack. I can't trust anyone's solutions to this problem. I'm utterly nihilistic towards all this. I think we need chaos. I think we need to be like vinegar sometimes and be brutal to ourselves and others who are talking about such big things as taking down civilization. And why be scared of this!!! Jesus H. Christ, I know people would be scared when the foundations of their thoughts (which soon becomes their life) are questioned and ruffled. I know there have been times when I figured out that my belief systems were complete bullshit and I always felt scared of something, like I was going to be attacked by a demon! But, I soon realized that it was just me.

I think a saner (not a completely sane path, but the sanest of the sanest) is to learn to trust our experiences, desires, thoughts, etc. If we trust ourselves, we can never be fooled. If we are selfish (uh oh! a bad word!), we can learn to embrace our wild desires. We can embrace the chaotic times in life. We can also embrace others easier, because we would not be part of some collective force, a vanguard. We would individuals in a community. And what's wrong with that? So, civilization is a collective force. We all participate in it, we must or we die..individuality is no longer possible within the limits of our domestication. Take it back!
6 comments|post comment

[13 Jan 2006|08:28pm]

wow. this is just water and wind erosion, that doenst even count tillage erosion.
4 comments|post comment

[09 Jan 2006|07:23pm]
"Is it only terrorists we're worried about? We are witnessing the collision of civilization and the earth."
— Al Gore

this is what he said about the book against civilization. crazy!
4 comments|post comment

[07 Jan 2006|10:11am]
this aint done, but what ever. it was suppose to be a review of the book, but sorta got side tracked. i plan on doing a way more indepth essay on all this.

Ecocide: A Short History of Species Extinction by Franz J. Broswimmer is a nice little handy book to read. It’s full of statistics about species extinction that you can throw at your friends and family—although, it’ll probably just annoy them…again. In fact, that’s one of the draw backs of the book for me. It seems so impersonal, so unattached from any kind of emotion. I want to hear the author’s thoughts, not just some stuff he researched. It downplays extinction, and makes us focus on remembering some impersonal sounding statistics that are all jumbled together and that are not synthesized very well.

Overall, Broswimmer does a good job of introducing views that can be very alienating to others (I know from experience). Many of the things I read in the book shocked me. To know how much destruction that (pre)modern war has inflicted on ecosystems was very interesting and sad. To know the disgusting and exploitive nature of the fur trade was also sad. But, like I said, for me, I wanted more emotional writing in this book, personality. One cannot take sides in these kinds of issues and be objective (yes, it is good to lay out facts objectively and not let your morality get in the way); one must be in some ways subjective.

I do appreciate the fact that the author went a step further than most environmentalists usually do. He actually critiqued civilization! Civilization is what has been killing the land all these years. He defines Civilization by the fact that we have culture, which allows us to use language (giving us the capacity to symbolize things for our personal benefit), thus in part giving us the capacity to commit ecocide. And he also shows that the defining characteristic of all civilizations is intensive agriculture.

Now, I don’t know if I agree with the first part, but I do agree with the second part. Agriculture (whether organic or industrial) has been degrading the land since it’s birth 10,000 years ago (Mesopotamia, Aztec, all civilizations followed this). 75% of the original topsoil in America has already been lost. Every year 4 million acres of topsoil is lost—roughly the size of Connecticut. That’s a big problem. Most of the original forests in the United States and internationally are gone, because, in part, of agriculture

The author goes through every big pre-modern civilization and shows why they collapse. Every collapse was the result of resource depletion, which was also a function of agriculture (clearing more and more land for food). The story is the same over and over: A repressive civilization prospers for few 100 years (or even just a few decades), only because their nearby surroundings are full of resources that allow the society to grow easily and steadily. But eventually, the slaves of the rulers have to walk further and further out to get their wood, their food, water, etc. Social strife comes along. Trade prices become high. The economy crumbles. And there is the fact that the citizens of the civilization had/have to worry about the barbarians at the gates (those who may be attacking because that civilization killed their cultures and their land).

The author shows that our now global civilization is different in the fact that it can exploit the land faster and can do it any where in the world. But it is no different from past civilizations, only the fact that it’s global. Oil can run out in America, but the companies can just move to Africa. The forests can be killed off in Europe, but the timber companies can move to Africa, Indonesia or Brazil. This shows that there must always be a victim in civilization, that there must be some group who is of lower status. Whether its wild animals or the fiscally poor domesticated humans of civilization, someone has to lose in civilization. If everyone was rich and happy, who would build the cars? Who would build the sky scrapers? Who would make the CDs we own? I assure you that if everyone were happy and content, they wouldn’t want to work to make such meaningless things.

In pretty much every case, it’s any developing nation that is the victim. The people who live in these nations do not own their land. It was stolen from them. No one (as in, the rich nations) will ever give it back. Instead, we send them tons of food and water (which destroys the local economies even more), instead of giving the land back or lowering the population we helped explode through agricultural practices(1). Much of the land in these countries is not in good shape, since it has been so messed up by the first world nations looking for wood, oil, or by agriculture. As you can see these countries will never develop anytime soon (development also implies unsustainable growth, so actually we should not develop…just look at America and Europe) because the developing nations are the fuel for the 1st world nations. North America is doing a good job of using this fuel. But these nations will someday run out of “resources” for us to live the way we do.

Like all good civilizations, the author shows, our population is way over the carrying capacity of the planet. As of now, we are working under an “artificial” carrying capacity. One can look at China whose cities are expanding at an increasing rate and also see that only 10% of their land is even arable. Right now a third of the arable soil in China is losing topsoil at an astronomical rate from agriculture practices(2). So, how do they get their food if there soil is depleted? They can import it from far off a country, which, I might add requires an industrial infrastructure to do. Which, I might add is unsustainable, because it’s not local at all. Importing food also affects the soil in the other nation that is exporting the food. It also is only possible if we have oil to fuel the ships that bring the food. We need to have factories that build the ships, process the food, etc, you get the point.

Unlike the common myth spread about by ignorant people, there is enough food to feed us all. But one must ask this question: How is there is enough? There is enough food because civilization has killed off all the forests, prairies, has dammed rivers, and has killed all other wild beings in the way in order to grow food or to build our ivory towers. Species extinction is a function of agriculture. For instance, the ecosystems in North America will never be healthy as long the Great Plains is jammed pack full of crops. Fortunately, there are actually many abandoned towns and crops in the Great Plains area that are slowly being “rewilded” by themselves or with the help of humans(3) . The buffalo will never roam in as big as numbers as they once were again as long as agricultural-civilization exists.

1) For a good reference on why agriculture boosts up population see Jason Godsky’s essay: Human population is a function of food supply: http://anthropik.com/2005/07/thesis-4-human-population-is-a-function-of-food-supply/

2) http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/34224/story.htm; China Losing Ground to Severe Erosion: "More than a third of China's land is affected by soil erosion, state media said on Tuesday, underlining a threat to the country's ability to provide enough food and water for its 1.3 billion people... Loss of topsoil is reducing China's already limited arable land. The country has 21 percent of the world's population, but only 10 percent of its tillable earth."

3) Population 1: the town that's been reclaimed by the prairie; http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1646659,00.html?gusrc=rss; “All over the Great Plains small towns are dying....The landscape is gradually reverting to grassland and prairie. Many farms are switching to hunting. Some have replaced cattle with buffalo, [which is becoming] increasingly common on American dinner plates...the plains are taking matters into their own hands. Prairie wildlife is already returning as humans leave. When Eiler was growing up, deer were unheard of around Monowi. Now they are so common they are a pest....Wild elk have returned, too. And predators not seen for a century on the plains of Nebraska are back. A handful of mountain lions roam the state and are even spotted on the outskirts of Omaha, the biggest city...'We used never to get deer here at all. Now every day I see them come through the streets,' Eiler laughed... A walk through Monowi is an eerie experience. The only sound is wind rustling through the grasses...Suddenly a flock of birds shoots out of the tall grass, soaring into a blue sky. They had been nesting in thick weeds growing on what was once Main Street.”
3 comments|post comment

[05 Jan 2006|09:16pm]

i just found out that im an indigo child. i have special powers. no one likes me. i display different behavior. this has nothing to do with my upbringing nor the books ive read. i just have special powers. and those silly adults need to feel helpless to me, since i am their divine intervention.

"The year 2012 has special significance for the indigo children. According to predictions of the Maya, the so-called "Great Transition" will be taking place in 2012 after the Sun and Earth form a straight line pointing to the center of the Galaxy. The above position will trigger the demise of the 3-D model of the world. The earth dwellers will be given the opportunity to live in a 4-D world. But the offer applies only to those whose mind has expanded to an essentially new level - the indigo children."

we're all slaves to mayan's ya'll! someday, we'll go to the 4 deminsion and live happily ever after. all we have to do is raise conciousness, yall! man, notice the linerism in that quote?
5 comments|post comment

[03 Jan 2006|09:13pm]
im BORED. im getting in to PBS. lots of educational stuff. although it aint always good. I saw this program called the "mercahnts of cool," which was about how the Spectacle is a feed back loop. we imitate a trend that we see on TV because we are given it, but we dont realise that it was given to us. so we think it's unique. something different. (did you know that some companies go around talking pictures of "alternative" teens and then put those pictures on the internet so that companies can see what's unique (all for the price of 8,000 dollars)?) it's like all those music snobs who talk about indie rock bands all the time and rail against the radio. it's like those sad-alienated fucking aspiring supermodels that are 13 years old, who wear too much make up, who feel that they MUST look good to please the men... they feel unique. they feel different. where do they get their atitudes? some kind natural thing with pre-teens eh? nah. it was given to them, by the damn sexist culture. it's just the same with men, though.

i need to read Society of the Spectacle, but it's hard to even understand it. i hear the last few chapters are easy, though. im gonna go do that.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/etc/hunting.html cool hunters.
3 comments|post comment

[01 Jan 2006|11:59am]
"95. It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government. [16] Most of the Indian nations of New England were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than our society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler's will: There were no modern, well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.

96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock that right: it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people.

97. Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not serve to guarantee much more than what might be called the bourgeois conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a "free" man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of the individual. Thus the bourgeois's "free" man has economic freedom because that promotes growth and progress; he has freedom of the press because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders; he has a right to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of the powerful would be bad for the system. This was clearly the attitude of Simon Bolivar. To him, people deserved liberty only if they used it to promote progress (progress as conceived by the bourgeois). Other bourgeois thinkers have taken a similar view of freedom as a mere means to collective ends. Chester C. Tan, "Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century," page 202, explains the philosophy of the Kuomintang leader Hu Han-min: "An individual is granted rights because he is a member of society and his community life requires such rights. By community Hu meant the whole society of the nation." And on page 259 Tan states that according to Carsum Chang (Chang Chun-mai, head of the State Socialist Party in China) freedom had to be used in the interest of the state and of the people as a whole. But what kind of freedom does one have if one can use it only as someone else prescribes? FC's conception of freedom is not that of Bolivar, Hu, Chang or other bourgeois theorists. The trouble with such theorists is that they have made the development and application of social theories their surrogate activity. Consequently the theories are designed to serve the needs of the theorists more than the needs of any people who may be unlucky enough to live in a society on which the theories are imposed."
2 comments|post comment

[19 Dec 2005|08:27pm]
roman civ

roman civilization was vast, stretching from as far as places like africa and the borders of nothern england... and ruling over quarter of the world's population. during it's rein, many forests (from as far as to the hills of a gailee to turkey and to the sierra nevadas of spain.) were cut for agriculture. pg41

roman intellectuals took great note of their civilizations destruction of the surrounding bioregions. Romans ransacked the land looking for resources like ivory and also looking for animals that they could take back to the empire and have killed in an arena.. they did this until there where no more left. in once instance, an emperor dedicated a week to a killing fest of 9000 animals, and some celebrations went over 11,000. and this deosnt count all the wild animals who died in their cages. the roman empire was probably responsible for the greatest annilation of large animals since the megafauna extinctions in the paleolethic. pg42

medtitarian rivers were polluted with sewage, which spread to the drinking water and made it unsafe. the main drain would go right in the tiber river and effect people down stream and also the city itself..often the water-sludge would flood. some people would through their shit out their windows and just let it stack up. this caused epidemics. pg 43.

in the early days of rome, most people were loving towards nature, trying not to hurt "it" for fear that their gods would punish them. but as their ciivlization got complexer, so did resource extraction..thus causing many envrionmental problems. pg 43

stoic and epicuran philosophy? pg 44

rome was predominantly a grain based civilization, grian harvested by slaves. many romans thought it fine to over indulgege and eat "fine foods." gluntey ruled all! pg 44

the decline of the roman empire was the consquence of alot of factors, over exstention of military and fiscal; envionmental problems, like soil erosion and defroestation; and foreign invasions. the fertile wet lands of North Africa that once supplied the empires granies had turned into deserts. pg 45

anazazi civ

cacho anazazi civ took up agriculture around 5000 bce to 2000 bce due to factors (as the author says) "of climate shift, loss of big game animals, and population pressures." the newly emerged agri had more worked invovled fro the people, greater sedentariness, and accelerating changes in technology. pg46 and 47

at the peak of it's reign, it dominated 40,000 squ miles , roughtly the size of scotland. it took the anazazi farmers 6 centuries to create the total framework of a "flourishing" civilization, but then they lasted 200 years, during which the collapse lasted a few decades. pg 48

the anazazi relied on loads of timber to create their gigantic pueblos (and also use that wood for firewood). as large of portions of the surrounding area were destroyed, this forced the anazazi to travel further and further away for more wood. pg 48

as the population grew, so did the strain on resources...eventually this civilization collpased, along with the surrounding area. pg 49

the chaco civ had to distinct classes, the chaco farmhands (who lived in farmsteads) and the chaco elites (who lived in large pueblos). pg 49

until 1090, this system seemd to be working well, but evntually, they ran out of land to conquer and use for farmland. there was also periods of drought. in a terrible display of power, and in effort to save the economy, the anazazi's built big huge buildings from ponderosa pines, which were often brought in from 30 miles away. they were also brought in from roads (about 400 miles of roadway has been found so far, each averaging around 12 to 30 feet wide). pg50

over 800 years later, the wood lands of chaco canyon have not returned. pg 51.
3 comments|post comment

[18 Dec 2005|12:02pm]
Greek civilization was the first society to inflict damage on to the Meditareian landscape. It's demographic and economic expansion led to the destruction of rich pine and oak forests, of which fed to the insatible need for lumber, firewood and charcal. Even more, the Greeks destroyed forest land in many instances in order to clear out land for cattle (sound familiar?). pg 39

Greek civ was democratic towards men of power, but women and slave-zeks were excluded. pg39

At least 100,000 people lived in athens. This caused alot of pollution in the water, air and waste. The effects were not just in the cities, but even as far as Egypt and the Black Sea coast. pg39

Greek philosophers had a sort of delusional vision of self-sufficenticy,even though they pretty much helped rationalize the destruction of the land. Athenian leaders were bent on expansionism, so they could feed their desire for more and more power. pg 39

deforestation is even more apparent in Greece than in Mesopotamia. In their wars of conquest, such as the their war between Sparta, the greeks used a shitload of wood for the construction of warships. the result of all this shit was severe deforestation in mainland greece and asia minor. large plots of land was turned into barren wastelands, which helped the soil erode. pg40
post comment

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]