Wednesday, August 3, 2016

past future 3 of 5

note: "The Malthusian Catastrophe" by Ernesto Robles is on KU.  I had to read it, just for the title.  Actually a darn good novel.  NOT apocalypse themed, and erroneous conclusions at the end-but a very enjoyable read.
I promised to move on to feminism rejection, but I feel I must detour at this point before I cover that.  Let’s talk about aggression.  Aggression is inherently human biologically.  But because we can select and choose when to be aggressive, the uneducated amongst us ( not ignorant, not stupid, necessarily, but uneducated.  Of course, they can be both but I’m feeling magnanimous today so I’m assuming less than the worst in some people ) think that there is NO need for aggression.  You know, “can’t we all just get along?” or “War, what is it good for?” and all that other claptrap.  Or far worse such as trying to teach aggression out of little boys-but then that would veer into our coming discussion about feminism.  Let’s just say that the ignorant think we don’t have to be aggressive as if it’s a lifestyle choice.  They usually have another agenda too, such as being pimps for Big Daddy Government ( the nice policeman will protect you.  What?  What’s going on next door?  Asset forfeiture and gunning down the unarmed owner?  Nothing to see there, move along ) or the aforementioned FemiNazi.


Aggression, like theft and other activities, is not an either/or proposition like most Libertarians and such imagine but a duality.  If an individual murders, a government can execute.  If a person steals, a government can tax.  No, it ISN’T the same thing ( I’m not trying to be too harsh on the anti-government folks as their heart is in the right place.  I used to be one of them.  They are mistaken in their basic premises however ).  Humans did NOT evolve to be free agents.  We are pack animals with hierarchy.  And while small tribes with an informal governing structure work quite well, larger governments do not.  Not as far as maximizing individual participation in the government.  Only tribes allow that.  Not some silly notion of democracy in a nation state.  There, you are NEVER heard regardless of propaganda.  What Libertarians are opposed to is Agricultural Age centralized government, but they think they are opposed to all government ( yes, I know, that is really what Anarchists believe, not Libertarians.  They just want to be A Little Pregnant.  I’m lumping the two together for convenience sake ).  Humans need control as a survival mechanism, but not as much as we are given currently for the last eight thousand years or so ( which goes too far towards turning us from monkey packs to insect hives ). 


In my fondest daydreams I like to think that with the current global devastation of all our environments there will never again be Agriculture Empires.  That might be a pipedream, but with the end of metal mining and the end of fertile soil mining, it is at least a possibility.  Then we can put this short lived horrible experiment to bed for the rest of our existence as a species.  Anyway, to return to aggression.  When an individual defies culture or the law ( the law is supposed to only be a codification of culture.  If your society has surpassed that point, your civilization is on the right side of the bell curve.  Suck my pasty white hemorrhoid ridden rectum, maggot lawyer scum! ) and is aggressive OUTSIDE the established norm, he is a psychopath.  But if he acts within the established norm, he is a hero.  Aggression itself is not prohibited.  Defying the law/cultural norm is.  But ALL non-acceptable behavior is prohibited.  Aggression gets way too much press.  It is just another norm, in approved circumstances.


When the state is aggressive, it is A-Okay Buckwheat!  It was okay for the government to bomb countries, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, wasn’t it?  Whether firebombing Tokyo or Dresden or the Vietnam countryside or Baghdad, it was our patriotic duty to wave the flag, buy war bonds to finance more bombs and cheer on more enemy civilian deaths.  And yet, it isn’t okay to attack a neighboring village and slay all the non-combatants?  There is no difference other than scale.  Your motives certainly don’t have to be pure.  Lincoln killed a half million to enrich his owners.  Wilson the same, although he started too late so had a lesser body count.  FDR bullied us into a war by hook or by crook to take the global empire reigns from Britain and really didn’t even care what the body count was ( to include throwing the Jews under the bus ) and even if the average citizen benefited from the arrangement for a new short years, the whole enterprise was instituted to enrich the 1%.


When the tribe is once again the dominant governing body, replacing the empires of now because in an energy contraction the size of government must also shrink, the tribe is who decides when aggression is allowable.  While individuals act at the direction of the tribe, they are no different than the bomber pilot killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians.  The only difference is that the tribal warriors can decide to be LESS barbaric and not burn their victims alive.  I think everyone’s objections stem from the misguided notion that only nation states can make up a government.  No, Clyde, you can devolve much smaller.  And remember, we aren’t talking about a Mutant Zombie Biker gang terrorizing the populace to survive the die-off.  We are talking about the survivors of the die-off battling each other.  One governing body against another.  And yes, guerrilla warfare can be and has been sanctioned and practiced by governments.  Second Generational warfare ( which is what we’ve been practicing since WWII-see Lind ) is not the only way that governments are allowed to fight.  Just because you label a group “terrorists” doesn’t mean they aren’t a legitimate governing body that is waging war on you ( today’s term “terrorist” is used because we can no longer use racial slurs to dehumanize the enemy we wish to eradicate.  It is also a means to delegitimize non-nation state groups ).  More tomorrow.


Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page.  IF YOU DON’T SEE THE AD, DISABLE AD BLOCK ( go to the Ad Blocker while on my page and scroll down the menu to “disable this site” ). You can purchase anything, not just the linked item. Enter Amazon through my item link and then go to whatever other item you desire. As long as you don’t leave Amazon until after the order is placed, I get credit for your purchase.  For those that can’t get the ads because they are blocked by your software, just PayPal me occasionally or buy me something from my Amazon Wish List once a year.  Pay your author-no one works for free.  I’m nice enough to publish for mere Book Money, so do your part.*** 
*Contact Information*  Links To Other Blogs *  Land In Elko*  Lord Bison* my bio & biblio*   my web site is           *wal-mart wheat
*Link To All My Published Books
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there


  1. Aggression is loaded term because of the PC warriors.
    Is it aggression to take a dollar from the floor that someone dropped? Is it aggression fortify your home?
    Is it aggression to look for opportunities?
    Is it aggression to refuse to back down before threats that you know you can overcome?
    Is being violent aggression? Even if it is violent only in defense or only after giving clear warning and exploring non-violent resolution?
    Is yelling at someone aggression?
    Is looking angry aggression - I knew a kid in Jr. High who got called in to the principles office and suspended for the angry looks he shot those whom were tormenting and teasing him "that's aggression!".
    Clearly by aggression you, Jim, mean the willingness to act with violence when suitable- the problem is defining the suitable. A playground argument usually goes to the aggressor (first to clearly threaten or implement violence)- But it can also go to the one who is BETTER at violence or able to escalate the violence to a level their opponents cant match. And relations between organized groups of people often go the same way...

    1. There shouldn't be a problem defining the suitable. Our culture does that. It is only currently in our dysfunctional society it is an issue. The primary focus in this series is we need to be ready to reject all of our modern culture in order to survive.

  2. Here's a sandman video from a few days back that might provide you with some good food for thought for your following chapter on feminism James. Yes, the speaking style is strange and takes some getting used to, but I think you will find this particular video to be useful.

    Mr Right NOW

    1. Thanks, but my cut-off point is three to five minutes. Past that I'd rather be reading than watching. Plus, remember, I'm one week ahead in my writing. Tomorrows article was written last Thursday.