Finally Over That Woman & a Confession of Polyamory

 

It took me nearly fourteen years, lots of tears, and several other women hurt upon the way, but I am over that certain and somewhat "groovy" hippie chick. I am most certain I am not the only one happy to read this!

I loved this woman, or at least I really and truly wanted too. What I now realize is that I loved nothing about her (or almost nothing), but only the things we did together, which means I never truly loved her!

She was and is nearly the exact opposite of me and that fact made for great times and adventures, but was never meant for a lasting relationship, besides...she never was anything I'd call a trophy, especially having experienced other women beyond her who were much more magnificent “to me”. I do not say that to degrade her, but to make the point that she was not meant for me (we each have our own tastes, and I am sure she has her own as well).

I do not hate that woman (this I want to make clear) though at times in our long past I did, and it was because I was not over her despite our having broke up nearly a decade ago now. I realize now that I got over “her” a long time ago, but our time together and memories is what I did not wish to release to the past. She was fun! She was interesting! She pushed me to be me! She was awesome, but she and I are no more, and the woman I knew, or thought I knew is long gone.

She was and is an awesome woman, but she was never for me and she had her purpose for me, and I with her. Goddess did it hurt for so long, but I finally get it – and not like all those times before. This time I really have no feeling when I say goodbye. Perhaps because it has finally been too long, or maybe because I finally get things?

I used to talk to her on social networks, but I cut that off nearly two months ago and I haven't looked back, nor do I intend too. She tried to attack the real me, and that is unacceptable and also very revealing of where we truly stand – we are truly done.

I cannot begin to express to anyone what sort of freedom this is for me. Perhaps part of that freedom is other realizations, but the one which I speak of is very great. I was a slave to her love for quite some time. I even entertained the idea that she had cast a spell on me (having dated two witches after her with whom both relationships failed because of her existence in my life), or that I had cast it on myself.

I really do not know how to express what went on in my head and heart, but I do know two relationships which could have led somewhere and potentially been happy were destroyed because I was not over her. Rest assured, I have no illusions or anything – those relationships are destroyed and will not happen unless some sort of miracle happens (on both ends), so this is no poor plea for their restoration. I am alone and single and pushing 40. Life sucks, but at least I am free from the slavery of love I once felt.

I guess I didn't just have to give up, I had to decide I did not want it!

I now know the liberation she felt in rejecting me. It is somewhat nice to know you never needed someone you honestly thought you needed – to know that whether they were born or died tomorrow it really made no difference in your world other than a few moments.

Don't get me wrong, I am not that shallow and I realize whatever she had to offer to me is part of me forever, but I obviously do not need her anymore, and it is quite probable that I never did and someone else could have done every single thing she ever did for me. She is obviously, as I now realize, not a necessity, nor even any longer a desire. My knowledge tells me she was for me then, but never meant to be forever and certainly never meant to be for longer than she was.

Another thing that kept me “stuck” was children. She helped to raise my daughter and I helped to raise her's, which is something I will never forget, and I could never not love Emily Jo as if she were my own daughter, but still...even that time is past.

I love Emily and always will; in fact, I will always love those whom I had a close contact with, but that does not mean times cannot come and go and also that I cannot feel different about my relationships. Would Emily even recognize me if she saw me? Would I recognize her? What about her and my daughter recognizing one another? If none of us have known one another for a decade or more how can we even know there is anything beyond what there was a decade ago, or, if there is, that it remains as it did then?

The past truly is the past. How do I know I would like what that woman or her daughter became, or that they would like what my daughter or I became? How could any recent love exist, and if it did, how could any believe it would be of the same type or in the same way?

I'd be crazy to think what was is still there, and I no longer even consider that possibility. I have truly and finally snapped out of the irrational and insane concept of unconditional love. It is truly liberating!

I no longer think about contacting her or wondering if she sent me an email – I don't care. In fact I hope she does not ever send me an email again! Why? Because then I know it is done on her end as well. If she speaks to me then I think there is something there, and there is not. It has been so long since I have known her that I cannot even truly call her a friend. What do I know of her but that of years ago?

I'm free! I realize this now, and I hope somehow someone else who is struggling long term to get over another man or woman reads this and comprehends. Did you truly love them, or was it what you did together? There is a huge difference!

I loved hanging out with that woman, going on adventures with her, dreaming dreams, partying, having fun, and seeking pleasure, but that was nearly everything I loved about her. I realize this now after all this time and damage.

I do not blame her but my upbringing and the false concept of absolute love. Yes! I loved her and always will in her time and place, but there always were and always will be many others whom I love in their time and place as well.

So here's to you! I toast you and say “I am glad to say goodbye”. Please do not ever contact me again for anything (even sex – like that time you broke into my home) unless it is truly important. You are good in bed, but you aren't that damn good that I should destroy my potential relationships or life goals for you. And frankly, your sex is the main thing that made me still want you, and when I think about it, Diana was much more fulfilling – though you and I both destroyed that.

Freedom is mostly in your head, but it is also in your heart. Love yourself enough that you can say goodbye to those you think you love and you just might find freedom – that is my advice!

I refuse to burn any bridges and say any further how I feel or what I think, for I may not feel the same or think differently in the very distant future when I am more mature and nearer the end of my life.

I loved you, woman, and I will always love you in our time and in our place, but I was wrong to love you like that all these years and all this time. I betrayed myself and I betrayed others, as a consequence, in loving you like that. Love does not just belong to another (an observer), it also belongs to a time (a space and moment). Do you understand what I am bleeding to you (for I never said our personalities were not real, but rather our subjective observations of them were incorrect)? Do you understand that I believe we are all a part of the Goddess (the All) and that you and I can only therefore see a part of the truth from a small piece of a perspective (in this manifestation and time)?

I can now say with fervor that I am polyamorous, at least in accordance with space and time, for I have loved your equal in another time although I do not see you that way now, nor never envision it again. Do you understand what I am saying? I do not care if you ever felt the same (it does not matter, for love is not necessarily two-way), I felt and feel as such. I love all my loves in accordance with what I shared with them in the most profound way I can on this physical plane. I also love Mom, Dad, Jesse, Mike, Tara, Digger, Danny (and all my close pets), my relatives and ancestors, Quinton, Kim, Trish, Diana, my other good friends such as Steve, Adam, Butch, Steph, Julie, Jimmy, Jimmy and Jimmy, Zach, Robert, Logan, Josh and Josh, Chris, Chris, Kristy, Angie, Jen and almost all I can name from memory in face and name, then those I've worked with, those I only remember a name or face, and those (at all levels of consciousness) whom I have interacted with whom I share some minor bond with (and in whatever order is precise for the moment and time) – I love them in a more spiritual way.

Is this many loves? Yes it is! Am I evil for such? Hell no! Polyamory is REAL and it is right, in my opinion. So there you have it...I can move on from all my past loves and find happiness because I accept the fact that I have many many loves in many many ways in many many spaces and times.

Does no one see the logic in that? The logic in loving many or all you interact with to varying degrees? The logic in embracing it naturally and carrying the same principle to all natural levels?

In any event, polyamory is a human truth, in my opinion, and this is liberation for me – this realization on many levels. I am a lover, so it is hard for me to understand space and time, making my position on love very difficult to discover.

I'm over you, Beautiful. My Love awaits me.

Peace.

Alraune

Update: I removed that certain "groovy" hippie chick's name so as not to offend her. I'm just blowing off steam and sighting personal subjective reasoning – I mean no harm, hate, or rudeness to others. Apparently, "she" is not done with us because she contacted me via email with many complaints. I will try, as a former lover and a good man and friend to work with her and address "her" and "our" concerns. She just needs to understand that I did truly love her and I always will love her. And I am trying to sort that out in my own way.

Jacques Ellul, Technique, Efficiency & Materialism: The Disease of Modern Civilization

Book Review for The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul

I acquired a copy of Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society, translated by John Wilkinson (ISBN: 978-0-394-70390-9), a few months ago. Recently, I finished reading this monumental 473 page critique of technological civilization in its entirety (everything but the bibliography and index). It took me awhile to read it for two reasons: it is rather dull and I was reading it in my spare time (literally sitting in the car before work). The book was extremely interesting but rather dry in presentation. Jacques Ellul is no doubt an intriguing intellectual, but he is fairly lacking in the emotional expression of his personality and it really makes this book a flat read.

That said, I am rather impressed at the scope and depth of his argument against the course of civilization under the direction of blind materialistic efficiency. I am most certainly of the opinion, at this time, that this text is of enormous importance and can be a useful aid in many sociological, anthropological, politically philosophical and idealogical circles.

This book speaks to me because it puts into words some of the things I had noticed and was thinking, but couldn't quite pin down. One of the overarching points which Ellul seems to be getting at is that modern civilization, which has a pervasively materialist worldview, idolizes and gives priority to the value of efficiency, and that materialist based efficiency is cold, calculated, inhuman, and absolutely dangerous and destructive to both human happiness, the value of life, and the ecosystem.

Another major point is that of how man utilizes technique as a tool to ensure his survival, comfort, and evolution through the manipulation of his environment (physical, societal, and psychological) with various techniques. However, in doing so he must adapt to the tool and therefore becomes himself manipulated (physically, socially, and psychologically) by the conditions necessary for the most efficient use of that tool, which ultimately leads to a utilitarian development of personhood directed by massification and materialistic efficiency – man becomes a sort of robotic machine.

In layman's terms and in lay psyche that translates to Jacques Ellul brilliantly defines the coming new world order by examining technique and society. He tells you how the world works, why the world works the way it does, what the various parts of the world system are, some of the methods used within the world system, the historical development of the world system, where this new world system is headed, and even who controls this world system and how much power they have.

Ellul tells us that what are enslaved to the world system: "The 'all' is involved because technique yields results and demands efforts to such a degree that no individual can remain outside. But if technique demands the participation of everybody, this means that the individual is reduced to a few essential functions which make him a mass man. He remains 'free', but he can no longer escape being a part of the mass. Technical expansion requires the widest possible domain. In the near future not even the whole earth may be sufficient." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 207). He tells us how we arrived in this situation and in the same breath hints at how might free ourselves: "But when the natural is intergrated, it ceases to be natural. It becomes part of the technical ensemble. It is an element of the mechanism, an element which must play its role, and no more." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 217). Finally, he tells us who controls and shapes the world order: "...there is a limited elite that understands the secrets of their own techniques, but not necessarily of all techniques. These men are close to the seat of modern governmental power. The state is no longer founded on the 'average citizen', but on the ability and knowledge of this elite. The average man is altogether unable to penetrate technical secrets or governmental organization and consequently can exert no influence at all on the state." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 274). He then concludes: "Technique shapes an aristocratic society, which in turn implies aristocratic government. Democracy in such a society can only be a mere appearance. Even now, we see in propaganda the premises of such a state of affairs. When it comes to state propaganda, there is no longer any question of democracy." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 275)

I found the last statement striking as it was exactly what I had been thinking when I realized that the world order was designed by aristocrats, yet the common person thinks they can somehow have freedom within a system designed specifically by and for aristocracy merely by altering one or two key components (ie. the political or economic system). What ignorance! Such naivety amounts to believing that by replacing the umpire, switching ball fields, changing teams, or introducing a new ball or bat, it will somehow result in something other than a baseball game. It seems to me that if one honestly believes they can be free within a society based upon technique and materialistic efficiency they are either ignorant to reality or blatantly delusional. How can anyone expect to obtain a very human concept (freedom) from mechanized materialistic efficiency (the world system)? How can anyone conclude that a system designed to control will ever provide individual liberty? These are just a few thoughts this book brings to mind.

Now, this is where I may differ from others who happen to agree with Ellul's assessment, as I do. I do not believe technique or technology are themselves harmful to humanity, however I firmly believe that when humanity is excluded from the equation and all technique becomes founded upon materialism and efficiency it is utterly destructive to humankind and will eventually result in the total loss of all which can be described as human. I believe this is the danger which the technological society, as described by Jacques Ellul, presents to us all, and the very cause of this present darkness. The materialistic world view coupled with technological efficiency is a disease of modern civilization and a scourge upon the universe.



All in all, The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul is an excellent book which I feel should be required reading for any conscious person despite its dry presentation. The wealth of useful information which an individual can extract from this book makes it well worth the time and effort of reading this nearly 500 page text.

Planned Intentional Migratory Communities – What The World Needs

Sometimes what I think I am looking for is a planned intentional migratory community; that is, a group of people who believe in self-sufficiency, minimalism, individual liberty, and some form of primitivism. A small group of individuals who migrate about a certain region living a primitivist or somewhat primitivist life-style.

Personally, I would just like to travel, experience various things, meet new and interesting people, and live on and with the land in as much harmony with it as possible. Yes! I intend to have fun along the way, after all, what is life's experience if it is all serious business?

I'd like to master learning animal tracks and sign, and become an expert in plant and mushroom identification, foraging, preparation, use (both edible and medicinal), and storage. I'd like to learn to pan for gold and find gemstones. I'd like to make crafts (I like to work with wood) and sell them at festivals. I'd like to write, create artwork, and investigate unusual places and things. I'd like to explore the metaphysical as well as the physical!

I want to do all of that as freely as possible, and I guess a sort of planned intentional migratory family or tribe is the very best way I can conceive of it taking place.

This migratory community would ideally live in harmony with the cycles of the environment and seek self-sufficiency, but live in a close enough relationship with technological society to exert a positive influence upon it. It would have a neopagan worldview and a primitivist-type ethnicity combined with a nomadic economy and the all-encompassing encouragement of individualistic creativity and expression. It would be a ragged-tagged band of individualists in an open-relational family who share a common ideological bond in “back to nature”-ism.

This family would not judge one another for being different, but only judge one another based on what effects one's actions have on another. They would be open-minded and not need to have their viewpoint confirmed or accepted, and they would be all about succeeding in self-sufficiency and helping others to do the same. They would be interested in giving or at least giving back what they take, and for this reason they would want to stay somewhat attached to the technological society in order to give everyone in their world a gift and the experience of an individualist in harmony with a collective environment. This family would provide the world with art, holistic medicine, written and verbal knowledge, and the preservation of nonindustrial cultural skills and knowledge.

Such a community would consist of individuals who quit or who are learning to quit the failed system which is the materialistic society, and they would seek to serve as tutors and examples for those masses of people who don't quite know how to quit the system or recognize the broken system from whence their disharmony and dissatisfaction arises.

In order for such a community to survive it would only have to have a few basic principles:

Free love – means one practices hospitality and really shows care for all living things, and love is given freely and expressed freely to all who are capable of and willing to receive such affection.

Individual choice – this entails the encouragement of individual expression, interests, and actions.

Self-sufficiency – this means the encouragement of a non-standardized education and the acquiring of necessary primitive life skills.

Harmonious interaction – which requires the constant striving to live in balance with all of existence while seeking to have the maximum amount of experiences/interactions in the least intrusive manner possible.

I believe such communities can work and would work if the four basic principles presented were within the core ideologies of each individual in each group. Once more, I think those ideologies come natural to all human beings and should therefore not fail unless corrupted by the foundational sins of a materialistic society (eg. greed, murder, hatred, domination, and neglect).

What would get such communities started? Simple. The adequate promotion of international, national, regional, and local open-invitation primitivism gatherings. The very best way to get something of the sort going is by creating a network from which it might blossom. I believe this was the actual intention underscoring the creation of such social events as Rainbow Gatherings and Wild Roots Feral Futures.

Alas! I do long for such a thing. Perhaps I should attend one of the two aforementioned temporary intentional communities wearing a t-shirt stating, “Wild Nomadic Individual Seeking Wild Nomadic Family”? You know, that might not be a bad idea!

Peace.

Alraune

Sandy Hook, Mass Shootings, and Societal Insanity

I don't really have much to say about the horrific massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary or the recent plague of mass shootings – I just don't. Actions like these are horrible and really are beyond words, but it seems everyone has something to say and some sort of quick fix.

Everyone in our American society is asking “how could this happen?” and they all have their answers and solutions. Well, I don't have a quick fix and I am certainly not gullible enough to place the blame on any one thing. If you ask me the problem is our society and our society, like any society, is complex.

I don't think the problem is guns and I don't think the solution is to ban them – I just don't. Banning all firearms or placing tighter controls on them might stop mass shootings, but in my opinion, you are nuts if you think it will stop mass killings, which is the real problem here. We need to ask what drives individuals to violently lash out against seemingly random individuals?

One might say they are nuts or mentally ill, but what causes that? In my opinion it is our society and its underlying idealogical driving force of strict materialistic efficiency. It is also my opinion that these individuals target random people because they all, and we all, represent and support the organism of our society which is destroying individuals everywhere, ripping their humanity from them, and raping the environment. They are attacking the only physical part of the very thing which is already attacking them every day.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying “we” are the problem, I am saying “it” is the problem – the idea, the invisible organism, the hidden idealogical driving force behind “progress”, and our perspective on what “progress” is. “We” allow “it”, and I would venture to argue that we don't even allow “it” any longer, but are driven by, create by, and created for “it”. And when “it” let's some of “us” down, some individuals either can't cope or they react violently because they lack the very human tool of interdependency which grants them self-respect, integrity, appreciation for all life, and hope, unlike the system of dependency which our society has created and nearly forced all of us into.

I think the problem is our society, in fact, my belief in that is so strong that I prefer to say that I know the problem is our society (and I would venture to say that most are at least suspicious of that fact), and its strict materialistic efficiency is just one of the main roots holding the entire tree in the very bloody ground upon which it stands. Just how to get enough people to see that is the largest problem on my mind...

It is very difficult to love and respect a system that you depend on which does not even recognize your value as any more than a number or statistic – period. Given that very human fact, is it any wonder we have the violence and problems we do within our society? How can you be expected to act human and have emotions and care for others within society if society, of which we are all a part, does not treat you as a human being with emotions and care for what you think and feel? Simply having some “shrink” to talk too and some pills to take is not enough! Actions speak louder than words – we must SHOW we give a damn, and a society based on dependency is, in my opinion, incapable of such.

Now, so far as guns are concerned, this may not sound very “hippie-ish” of me or meet your ideas of “progress”, but I am not against them, which is by the way, very individualist of me (only individuals can have interdependence). It is true that guns are tools designed to kill, but it is not true that all killing is wrong. As the Hidden Song on the Tool album Undertow says, “life feeds on life.” - you must kill to live; therefore, tools designed to do that job quickly, painlessly, and efficiently (particularly with a spiritual approach to efficiency which likely includes care for pain) are not necessarily wicked tools. Personally, if a lion decided to have me for dinner I fear the pain of how it is going to do it more than the idea of being dinner itself.

And the necessity of killing for food is not the only reason tools designed for such purposes should be around – self defense is another very valid reason. The world is dangerous and not simply because of humans! Its a jungle out there and we all know this, unless we are living in la-la land.

Even if you live your life as a strict pacificist and live on nuts and berries you must still destroy what might have been in order to preserve your own life. The only difference when it comes to life under such circumstances is much like the definition of a fetus versus a living human – it is mere semantics. Should your teeth be plucked out and your hands be cut off because they are designed to acquire and consume organic material? Of course not! In other words, we all agree that it is necessary for life to feed on life, but we disagree on what the definition of life (or various levels of life) is, often merely because it makes us “feel” better about ourselves.

My point is that tools designed for taking life are not necessarily evil in themselves, it is how they are used and what ideology is driving the individual who uses it. Most “progressives” (I use that term in quotes because I consider myself a classic liberal who sees nothing “progressive” about our society whatsoever) have no problem with a peace officer carrying a firearm, but they suddenly have a problem when it is an ordinary citizen. Why is that? Where is the interdependency when only the authoritarians are permitted to efficiently and effectively do what we are all entitled (and often required) by nature to do in the first place?

I'm not trying to defend the Second Amendment here or Article 1 Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but rather I am trying to make my point. That point is that it is the body, mind, and spirit of the people using tools, not the tools themselves which are the problem. Blaming the tools is a far too simple and potentially hazardous answer. We are far too willing to give up our rights or even give an inch on them, when our inquiry and understanding of both the problem and the accused right should be examined inside out and upside down if any of our “societal rights” mean anything to us in the first place. Such an inquiry and understanding always begins with a full understanding of life, necessity, society, and a thorough analysis of what “progress” truly is.

I am confident that if people look deeper than the wound (the object) and the causation (the action) they will find both the underlying human condition (the adjective) and the causal force (the noun) which is all predicated on various epistemological assumptions (the philosophical ideology), which is ultimately founded upon metaphysical ideologies (dualism, physicalism, idealism or panpsychism), which is finally founded upon metaphysical assumptions (physicalism versus some sort of theism), which all works its way on down into society, its individual members and its ultimate underlying ideological drive.

In my opinion society has gone mad because it makes insane assumptions which it has twisted around in such a manner as to make the other equally valid assumption (by logic) sound somehow less likely and self-evident. Humanity needs deity (no matter what it believes deity to be) because humanity needs something which transcends it and its condition, and it needs this flowing through every level of its society, lest human greed and selfishness (individual or collective) become humanity's purpose. If you honestly believe nothing transcends your physical make-up and condition (regardless of what some claim) what do you rationally have to turn to as your guiding light besides YOU?

An interdependent society provides what is needed because it makes its deity among many lesser deities “Love” - something which cannot be perceived directly but only inferred (thus it transcends). Of course, then there are metaphysical assumptions concerning the definition of “love”, but then again, that assumes that the only valid criteria of truth is visual, auditory, or “scientifically” observable (as the criteria of materialistic science currently stands) and not the criterion of “feeling”.

As a panpsychist I must say that God is not dead, we only kill God/dess when we kill without necessity, for that is the only true death – to die without being the reason for the continuation of life.

For that matter, a last philosophical note... What of entropy and the expansion of life despite its need to feed on life?

Peace. Alraune

How Do We Win Our Country, Civilization, Society, and Lives?

I can't tell you how to win any of these, but I can tell you it is up to no individual man or woman, but up to each of us to do our own thing after understanding the problem fully.

First off, you must ask yourself a very simple question: “What are we trying to do with this grand experiment called civilization and society?” Are we succeeding? If not, what is wrong? What are the fundamentals of a civilization, society, and culture? What is “progress” and does it emit “regress” under all circumstances; is there never a point which is too far or wrong? Who gives me my ideas on these matters, and do I truly agree or have I never really thought about them independently? What are my feelings about independence and individuality (to the core and at all levels) and where do I ultimately stand? Do I think too shallow and only attack areas and points or am I truly going to the root of the problem? Am I thinking these things or am I using someone else's ideas, words, or thoughts in such a way that I have not actually felt I thought for myself?

I cannot answer your questions, but I can answer my own and tell you what I think and what I intend to do. I intend to pulverize the jerks that have enslaved us by first learning about, understanding, and hearing the people (the ones who truly wish freedom), then formulating an intellectual argument in “common” lay terms (through my gifts and also studying of various things which includes philosophy), and spreading it far and wide. I intend to be no leader, but only a messenger of an idea, which cannot be killed. I am not sure exactly how I intend to do this, but I do know I shall do it in a method not yet used (nonviolent, as always), so that there is no current method against it and it therefore has the maximum impact.

I guess the biggest advantage I have in my intentions is that even I do not know what I will do next, and I cannot therefore be predicted by the machine, but I can probably predict I will use the machine's NECESSARY weaknesses against it so that it has the most difficulty adapting and suppressing what we ALL truly want – individual liberty.

I may one day ask for your help, but I will not ask now, as I am not ready. I may one day die or be killed, but then all you need do is be yourself and continue in the work for individual liberty. I believe in the human spirit!

All you need know is the following:

1. Be yourself (break free and find out if you are really you or the product of something else)
2. Know yourself (are you a product of culture and tradition or really free and independent?)
3. Know what you want (do you love society/civilization/culture or not?)
4. Know your environment (all parts of it, especially locally, humans and human minds included)
5. Know your society (how does it work and what are its foundational pillars, etc.?)
6. Know how to survive (can you live independent of society and in a natural state?)
7. Know your logic (what drives the minds of culture/society/civilization? What is in their minds?)
8. Know what is right and what is wrong (find a solid ground you can stand on and live by)
9. Know your direction (what is your plan? What makes you happy?)

From there you should develop the rest. I believe in the human spirit, so I really do not think much more need be said, other than, you need not agree with everyone on every point, only the ROOT – the rest will sort itself out from there.

What do you believe of the human spirit now and after you have learned all you need too?

I am not out of this hideous matrix yet, this I will freely admit, but in the meantime I would recommend those who wish to escape should most definitely commit to reading Jacques Ellul's 450 page book, The Technological Society, for it is a very very good start. You will not need all I think you should know, but you will gain quite a bit of the knowledge I think you seek from it, and also from Will Durant's The Story of Civilization, particularly all that can be inferred from volume 1.

It will all depend on your “base” as to how you take these texts, but they are, in my opinion, good starts all around, which is why I must emphatically state that we need not all agree on all things, just the root.

Begin educating yourself and asking the important questions like “What are we trying to do?” and the rest will follow. Freedom is merely a state of mind – you are literally the manager of your own future.

Am I an Anarcho-primitivist?

I believe in freedom through simplicity, by utlizing the resources which are available to us for free and which are meant to be free, by drive and determination for self-sufficiency, and by living in harmony with oneself, one's surroundings, and one's neighbors.

In a search for my true socio-political philosophy I have tried to identify with many positions and labels. I know it is somewhat useless and I don't like being labeled, let alone labeling myself, but I guess what I am trying to do is to find an idea which closely resembles the undefined and undeveloped idea I have inside of me so that I can take that idea and compare it to my own. I am not doing this because I am incapable of original thought but for three reasons: there is nothing new under the sun; there are and have been lots of people with lots of ideas and at least one of them is bound to be very similar to my own; and it is simpler to build a logical and coherent personal philosophy if you are kept honest by testing the ideas of others against the ideas of yourself. In this search I have found that at this moment in my life I most likely identify with what is known as Anarcho-primitivism.

Wikipedia defines Anarcho-primitivism as an anarchist critique of the origins and progress of civilization, and advocation for a return to non-civilized ways of life through deindustrialisation, abolition of the divisions of labor or specialization, and the abandonment of large-scale organizational technologies. In short, anarcho-primitivism seeks to eradicate all forms of domination and advocates a return to the simplest form of human society and its relationship to the environment. Anarcho-primitivists believe that civilized society, particularly technological society, is destroying both the environment and humanity.

Now, before I discovered this philosophy I found that I could most closely identify with libertarianism, however, I never could quite buy into unbridled capitalism even though I view socialism as much worse. Libertarianism has its roots in anarchism, so libertrianism to anarcho-primitivism is no large jump, but it is libertarianism's embrace of the underlying structure of what is “the system” which causes me to differ sharply from its basic tenets. Basically, my problem with libertarianism is the same problem I have with socialism and most all economic or political philosophies – they are based on the same underlying structure, which is “the system”. I just never understood how any of us can expect for “this” thing we live in to get any better if we keep on using the same old formula and only change the manner in which we apply its main components.

In my mind, the organism is the problem, not some part of it or fungal growth on it, so how is a different form of economics going to help any? How is privatizing schooling or leaving it public going to change the problem that is schooling, not in schooling? How is the privatizing of prisons or leaving them public going to promote individual liberty? How is a smaller or larger governing authority going to abolition despotism? How is the ownership of any property either by private individuals or by the public through the apparatus of government going to promote freedom of movement and one's natural right to the use of natural resources, not for economic gain or power, but for day-to-day survival? How can anyone expect to have individual liberty when they are forced to be part of an organism which can and will punish them for not only refusing to be part of it, but also for not being part of it in a manner consistent with what that organism deems fit to the purposes of its own survival?

I agree with anarcho-primitivism's critique of "the system". I have been questioning "What is this for? What are we trying to do with this grand experiment we call civilization? Is it delivering, has it ever delivered, and do I believe it can ever deliver whatever it is we, the people, think it did, does, or could accomplish? Who's idea was this, where did it start, and who started it? Did people opt in or were they forced in? Can people opt out or are they forced to participate through coercion? Was it all started by we, the people, or did it all begin with authoritarians, and if the latter, how can we, the people, ever expect an authoritarian system to deliver us from itself?" With these questions I am constantly critiquing modern society, its origins, purpose, and progress.

In the aspect of critique I most certainly agree with anarcho-primitivism, its value, and its necessity to the welfare of us all – without question. In the aspect of "rewilding" I am not so certain I agree with some of the more extreme elements who wish to eventually abolish written language, the division of time (think: clocks and calendars), and similar fundamental building blocks required for mere reason, not just civilization. To put it plainly, I don't think anarcho-primitivism can justifiably or even rationally conclude what it does if it attacks the very foundations of the reason it used to arrive at its conclusions. That does not mean it cannot disagree with civilization itself, for there is a difference between the system which allowed for advanced reason to develop and the fundamental priniciples of reason, but it does mean language, division, and similar basic elements of coherent thought and transmission of thought are off-limits. Taking the most extreme position, as some anarcho-primitivists do is, in my mind, always a dumb idea – extreme anything is hardly balanced and harmonious and often also irrational.

I see nothing wrong with oral language and I don't necessarily think written language is detrimental to the environment and humanity although I do agree printed or mechanically produced language (be it oral or written) has allowed for and always will allow for a loss of humanity, individuality, and is the root of many problems, particularly media exploitation – in the end I do not think all of the pros of printed or mechanically produced language justify all of the cons. I also see nothing wrong with counting, basic mathematic operations, calendars, and the measurement of cycles via the division of time. Unlike government institutions, impersonal monetary units, institutional schooling, and organized religions, I do not think the tools of language, division of time, and math are inherently only useful as mechanisms of control and domination.

So far, concerning what I know about anarcho-primitivism and my personal position on things, I applaud anarcho-primitivism's critique and I share in its critique. However, concerning its advocation of a return to non-civilized ways, I personally advocate a return to simplicity although I am not quite certain as to how far back humanity should go or how simple I believe things should be – I only know that "this" is not working. I cannot say I disagree with anarcho-primitivism's approach or some of its conclusions concerning "rewilding", but on the other hand, I cannot say at this time whether or not I agree with it enough to consider its principles desirable, necessary, or feasible.

Now, concerning environmentalism... I am not an extemist, nor do I absolutely believe in man-made climate change. Do I believe it could be a problem? Yes! Do I believe it is a problem? I'm not convinced it is currently a major catasrophe as some would have us believe. Do I believe pollution is a problem? Yes! Do I believe technology and civilization aid in pollution and are a major cause of it? Yes! Do I think humanity has a responsibility to its environment? Yes! Do I think we should be good stewards of the earth? Yes! Do I think humanity should try to have a sustainable relationship with nature and live in harmony with it? Yes! Do I think humanity should exclude itself and all of its natural drives, as part of nature, from the equation? No! Do I think "carbon taxes" and similar ideas are good and are an answer? You're out of your mind! I agree with many thngs, but I do have my limits, although I remain open-minded, but some things simply take more to convince me than others.

I recently acquired a book by one of anarcho-primitivism's main proponents, John Zerzan, entitled, Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilization, and there are several other texts which I intend to read in order to get a better hold on my position, including: Against Civilization: Readings nad Reflections, also by John Zerzan, The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You by Leo Tolstoy, The Techonlogical Society and Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes both by Jacques Elul, The Gutenberg Galaxy by Marshall McLuhen, Men Against the State: The Expositors of Individualist Anarchism 1827-1908 by James J. Martin, Technological Slavery: The Collected Writings of Theodore J. Kaczynski, a.k.a. "The Unabomber" by Theodore John Kaczynski, and The One Man Revolution in America by Ammon Hennacy. I look forward to reading these texts and seeing where they lead me.

Now, as for where I currently stand... I believe in strongly critiquing civilization and I advocate minimalism and the simplifying of one's life as a means to both acquire individual liberty and to protest the inadequacies, wrong-doings, and falsehoods of "the system". I believe that the closer humanity can get to a harmonious connection with the whole of nature the closer humanity will get to a connection with its own nature and purpose. I believe that in order to reach this point one must not be "anti" anything, but rather must advocate a position based on something more concrete than merely being against something, such as technology or civilization. Basically, using the mindset of "simplified living" one should eliminate what is deemed unnecessary and do what is necessary to live in harmony with the whole of nature—which includes humanity and its nature—and seek to revere and sustain that relationship.

I believe this simplification and critique can be obtained by eliminating the purchasing of products which are both unnecessary and manufactured using specialization and division of labor, purchasing and using only secondhand or "used" products when necessary and possible, the studying of wilderness skills, learning plant identification, studying botanical medicine using local plants, learning to forage, acquiring gardening and farming skills, learning to fish, hunt, and trap, shopping at local farm markets, minimizing one's possessions, and otherwise trying to do as many things as possible which minimize one's dependence on "the system" while promoting all-around harmony – this is where I currently stand.

I would probably not be considered an anarcho-primitivist by most anarcho-primitivists at this time, although they might agree I have some leanings. In fact, at this time I would probably consider myself an environmentally conscious individualist anarchist who is also a minimalist and neopagan. However, if you are interested in anarcho-primitivism you may find the following links useful:

A Primitivist Primer

Primitivism

Understanding Anarcho-primitivism

Green Anarchism/Anarcho-primitivism

Wild Roots Feral Futures

For further information..."web search" is your friend.

Peace,
Alraune

Freedom: The Hunger Games and the Future

I had been dead set against watching The Hunger Games, as I wondered what the infatuation was with watching children kill one another, but my knowledge of the film's metaphorical meaning intrigued me anyway and so, with much reservation, I rented the film to see what the fuss was about.

For starters, as I had assumed before watching the film, Hollywood, in this day and age, could not resist the chance to show a murdered child dying on screen, and indeed, the viewer will watch at least one child die a very intimate death. However, after having seen the film I do not believe it would have been as effective in its presentation had the scene aforementioned not been included – it is pivotal to one's full emotional understanding of the allegory the movie presents concerning the direction of future society. In other words, I do not believe Hollywood simply included the scene for its “sales” or “shock” value!

The Hunger Games is an allegory concerning the current direction our society, and indeed the direction all of global society, is headed in. Its ending expresses clearly that if one understands the “art of man-herding”, as expressed in Plato's Republic and Statesman, and how society is controlled, then one (through the awakening of many who do likewise and act independently) can alter the course of the game.

You see, all society's are controlled from the top down through manipulation of the mob, or masses, by the “philosopher-kings” who are otherwise known as billionaires and wealthy anthropologists. They control the “play” and each of our “lines” by manipulating the action of the mob (causing us to concede to peer-pressure) and through the direct technical manipulation of both the environment and the regulations involved in “the game” of society. As soon as one is aware of this fact then, if they are intelligent and resourceful enough, they are fully capable of changing their “lines” or otherwise altering the scene and therefore the outcome of the “play”. Should many uprise and do likewise “the game” is then over and we are truly free and no longer controlled.

Life, which very much includes the “art of man-herding”, is a lot like a chess game wherein a “master” attempts to cause the various players to move in accordance with their will in order to achieve the desired outcome of victory. Like chess, the only way to alter the course of “the game” of life is to think outside of the box, refuse to follow the mob, and to create one's own rules by choosing options other than the obvious ones laid out by the opposition.

In other words, what The Hunger Games is trying to say is that if you want to be free (e.g. “live”), then you have to write your own lines and make your own rules – you must act and not react!

I believe each and every one of us on this planet wish to be free. I believe that even those who wish to control us want to be free, but their own fears drive them to control the rest of us as a means to that end. I believe “We, The People”, are capable of being free and that we can and will figure all of this out, individually – I believe. We do not have to follow any one philosophy or anyone's idea – we only need to follow our own belief in our principles.

We must stop voting party lines – they are controlled! Most of us are moderate and we do not want either the extreme right nor the extreme left, but we want something in the middle. Still, we need to understand that the controllers want something in the middle as well (Hegelian Dialectic) and it is that which they are directing us towards, so we must ask: “what are MY principles, and what are those things which have been placed into my head? What do I want? What do I believe in? What do THEY want, and why do THEY want it?”

If you agree with anyone 100% you need to ask yourself where you went wrong! On the other hand you must compromise to get along, but you need to ask yourself: “am I compromising because I think it is the most workable solution for all, or am I compromising because others told me that is the case? Is it what I think, or is it what I have been told to think? Am I truly compromising, am I capable of such, and if so, is it really my own feeling? Where do I stand and what am I willing to give in order to get; furthermore, am I really compromising or am I too in-love with my own idea of what should be to see the points presented by others? Is that stupid redneck or dirty hippy really all that dumb? What is this valuable human being trying to say, why are they trying to say it, and where can I reach a compromise with them? Do I really understand my neighbor and their point of view? Do I think I need to understand my neighbor's point of view in order to reach a reasonable compromise? Must it be my way or the highway, and if so, do I really think that or am I being convinced by someone other than myself that it must be that way? Do I really believe in freedom and the rights of the individual to rule their own life or do I want to control or force others in some way? Where do I really stand?”

If you are incapable of foreseeing a compromise then you have failed yourself in that you are incapable of envisioning a realistic solution, since nature is full of compromise whether you believe it was designed that way or merely an accident – it is the way of nature. How can you hope to succeed against nature and how can you call your ideology “true” if it goes against the only thing we all know to be true in the here and now – nature?

Just remember that compromise is not necessarily agreement, but it may just be the closest you can peacefully come to what YOU think is correct, and after all, isn't peace what we all seek?

Deny what I say – I do not care, but I highly recommend you watch The Hunger Games, if you have not, and see how it speaks to you.

Peace,

Alraune