I came upon an article the other day about an incident of 'honor killing' in Pakistan.
Five women, three of whom were teenagers, were abducted at gunpoint, loaded into a vehicle, driven to a remote field, beaten up, shot, and then dumped into a ditch and buried while still alive. Their 'crime' was that they wanted to choose their own husbands (for the article please see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26469519 ).
Honor killing has a long history and apparently is on the rise according to the United Nations Population Fund...
"Throughout the world, perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are murdered by members of their own families, many of them for the "dishonour" of having been raped, often as not by a member of their own extended family.
Many forms of communally sanctioned violence against women, such as "honour" killings, are associated with the community's or the family's demand for sexual chastity and virginity.
Perpetrators of such wanton acts often receive light sentences or are excused by the courts entirely because defence of the family's honour is treated as a mitigating circumstance.
"Honour" killings are on the rise worldwide, according to Asma Jahangir, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions. Ms. Jahangir is working closely with United Nations special investigators on violence against women and on the independence of judges and lawyers to address the issue.
"The perpetrators of these crimes are mostly male family members of the murdered women, who go unpunished or receive reduced sentences on the justification of having murdered to defend their misconceived notions of 'family honour,'" Jahangir wrote in her 2000 annual report to the Commission on Human Rights. Such killings have been reported in Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda and the United Kingdom, according to the report.
On the order of clerics, an 18-year-old woman was flogged to death in Batsail, Bangladesh, for "immoral" behaviour, according to the report. In Egypt, a father paraded his daughter's severed head through the streets shouting, "I avenged my honour."
The report says that "honour" killings tend to be more prevalent in, but are not limited to, countries with a majority Muslim population. It adds, however, that Islamic leaders have condemned the practice and say it has no religious basis.
Kifaya, a Jordanian girl of 12, was intelligent and full of curiosity. But when she returned home one evening from a walk in the neighbourhood with some friends, she was confronted by her enraged father. Shouting that she had dishonoured the entire family, her father proceeded to beat Kifaya with sticks and iron chains until she was dead. He told police he killed his only daughter because she went for walks without his permission.
About the same time, Hanan, 34, was shot dead by her brother for the "crime" of marrying a Christian. Her brother left her body in the street and smoked a cigarette while he waited for the police to arrive. Every year between 25 and 50 women and girls are the victims of "honour" killings in Jordan."
(For more on the 2000 UN report on ending violence against women and girls please see http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2000/english/ch03.html#top ).
'Honor killings' represent just some of the murders of women committed to repress and control their sexuality. This is just the tip of the bloody iceberg of violence and abuse perpetrated against females in order to achieve this objective.
Female sexual repression is a theme that I have addressed on several occasions in the past (please see my article 'Liberating the Caged Female Human Animal's Sexuality' - http://www.untamedlife.com/articles/bonobo1.php , my newsletter entitled 'Human Intersexual Relationships' - http://www.untamedlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=311 , my newsletter entitled 'Orgasmic Birth, Monogamy, and Sexual Healing' - http://www.untamedlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1012 , and a previous blogpost on Ayaan Hirsi Ali - http://www.untamedlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1559 ).
While there is no excuse or justification for the millenia of violence and torture inflicted upon women by men in order to repress their sexuality, as with everything else, there is an explanation.
Simply put - when it comes to sexuality, men are woefully inadequate and insecure.
Male violence against women in order to control female sexuality is just an expression of male weakness and inferiority in this arena.
At some level men understand that females naturally have greater sexual needs and sexual potential in terms of ability to engage in sex more frequently, longer, and with more pleasure than males.
The clitoris has has a higher concentration of nerve fibers than any other part of the human body - twice as many as the penis. The sole role of the clitoris is to give sexual pleasure.
It is not at all uncommon for women to be multiorgasmic and to become increasingly sexual as they get older while men are generally just the opposite in both respects.
Civilized men are desperate to insure paternity, despite the biological fact that females have a natural need to be able to access the best genes and resources available to optimize the success of their offspring.
Women are built to have sex with multiple partners, to the degree that it is perfectly natural for them to have the sperm of more than one male within their body at the same time. This behavior is standardly seen in our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzees, but even better evidence of this is the phenomenon of sperm warfare in humans whereby a significant percentage of sperm have the sole role of blocking other sperm (presumably from other males) from successfully fertilizing the egg.
Reality is that women have a more powerful sexual drive and accompanying needs than men and they will seek out males that will best satisfy them, from every perspective - in terms of pleasure, genes, and additional resources.
Due to their greater individual physical strength (on average), males have chosen to address this reality by beating women into submission, both individually and through the structure of civilized society in a myriad of ways.
However, this violent male strategy does not change the fact of female sexuality. Beating down the natural female sexual drive is equivalent to beating down birds because they want to fly.
I recently had the opportunity to discuss sexual issues with two women in their 50's.
One had been married, virtually continuously, since she was 15 years old. Her second marriage had ended within the last couple of years and she now found herself on her own, having been abandoned by her husband.
Initially she was very upset with this turn of events but after a while realized that she, for the first time in her life, had the opportunity to focus on her own life and what she wanted in every respect.
She discovered a strong sexual drive within herself and became involved sexually with different men, including to her great satisfaction a man in his early 20's. Being freed from previous constraints she found herself invigorated sexually and in every other way.
The other woman had been raised in a very sexually repressive environment. She married immediately upon graduation from high school and is still with the same man.
She has a good relationship with him, including sexually, however, some time in her 40's she became aware of a steadily increasing sexual drive which she had not felt previously. She has begun to act on this drive with several men, again including a man in his early 20's (whose sexual energy she openly delights in), and feels no remorse apart from frustration with herself for not having done this earlier.
She unequivocally indicates that she is not dissatisfied with her husband, is not seeking romance or even a relationship, but simply wants to explore and develop sexually and is committed to increasing her pursuit of sexual pleasure.
For both of these women, it was clear that they had spent the majority of their lives repressing their sexuality but have finally empowered themselves and are now reveling in their opportunity to experience greater and more varied sexual pleasure. It was also obvious that both regret what they had missed out on for many years but are determined to make up for lost pleasure.
Furthermore, their sexual repression had been just one aspect of the overall subordination of themselves that they had experienced during the first part of their lives. Notably, that overall subordination had taken place specifically in order to supress their sexuality, as is typically the case for the majority of women.
The male strategy of violent repression of female sexuality, and womanhood overall as a function of that, is unwise.
Everyone loses. It is, in fact, a loser's strategy.
While, at a practical level, it will be largely incumbent upon women to stop the present war dedicated to female sexual repression, most importantly by unifying with their fellow women and together resisting male violence, men can do something about this as well.
First of all, rather than fighting nature, men can accept and even affirm it. Men have the opportunity to understand natural female sexuality and learn to be supportive of and synchronous with it.
By acknowledging the reality of female sexuality men can encourage female sexual awakening and thus gain the possibility of enjoying interaction with females as they self-actualize sexually rather than operating within a repressed and dysfunctional sexual dynamic.
Why sit in a tiny swimming pool when you can ride powerful ocean waves?
Of course part of that answer is that one stays in the pool because one can't swim.
This leads to the second way that men can work with rather than against female sexual empowerment. Men must sexually empower themselves.
As it turns out, men are generally very intimidated by sexually secure women, and usually quite rightfully so, because of their own sexual inadequacies.
It bears stating that even the most sexually accomplished male could not compete with his female counterpart. Physiologically woman are inherently sexually superior. To that end no matter how far a man develops himself sexually, he should not imagine that he will truly 'tame' or 'conquer' a woman in his sexual league. Hopefully, he will not even want to but will simply be satisfied with the opportunity to engage with her, enjoying the experience for what it is.
For the time being, however, a man who actually invests in his sexual and overall development and who affirms female sexuality and empowerment is such a rarity that he will stand out in the male crowd and thus will enhance his access to those females seeking their sexual and general self-actualization.
As well, unfortunately, at the present time women are such a subjugated lot that they may be well pleased to find just one man who affirms them in this manner and will be inclined to cherish the relationship more than they might if they were more empowered themselves. It would serve men well in such situations to encourage their partner's sexual and personal evolution nonetheless, in order to prevent the relationship from becoming a barrier to healthy growth.
Realistically, for men to empower themselves sexually they must begin by empowering themselves overall. Nothing is more attractive to a woman than a man who is his own man, comfortable in his own skin and truly operating at a high level. I recommend that a man start by doing whatever is necessary to accomplish this objective. My book 'Liberating the Caged Human Animal' (http://www.untamedlife.com/book/) presents my suggestion of how to move in that direction.
To be better able to interact successfully with a woman intent on developing her sexuality, it is also very important that a man empower himself sexually.
Although men may have had very active sexual lives, in many cases they are sexually very underdeveloped in terms of knowledge or skill.
Additionally, the typical male sexual response involves an exercise directed towards orgasm and ejaculation, often occurring within a time frame during which the female partner is not even beginning to really get warmed up in terms of her true sexual potential (even if she manages to experience an orgasm) and then he's done and falls off to sleep.
Generally speaking, once a man ejaculates his sexual drive diminishes at least for a while (less significantly so for males in their teens and early twenties, thus explaining part of their allure to older women - a woman in her forties typically matches an eighteen year old in terms of sexual stamina), thus either ending or at least significantly disrupting the optimal rising female sexual response.
It was in part for that reason that a very sexual non-lesbian woman that I met preferred to have sex with other women, with whom she generally sought and succeeded in having fifteen orgasms per coupling.
For many women, if sex with a man were a meal, it would be over most of the time before they even got to finish the appetizer.
Men who care about their partner's sexual satisfaction often try to delay ejaculation, typically by engaging in mental diversion techniques with varying degrees of success. Even if effective in accomplishing the intended goal, unfortunately the man ends up not being truly 'present' for the sexual interaction, depriving both himself and his partner of a more satisfying experience.
It is hardly surprising that many men end up having more pleasure engaging with pornography than with a real woman since with the former they are able to truly let themselves go without blocking their sexual response.
In a natural system all of this would not be a very important issue. Women would be having sex with males when they wanted to, presumably often with more than just one when ready for sex, and each male would engage sexually until he ejaculated and would feel satisfied until the opportunity presented again. One will assume that this would not be an uncommon occurrance and everyone would be having enough sex both from a reproductive as well as a pleasure point of view.
Thus, unlike our desexualized cultures (organized this way largely to increase one's focus on work and order - since sex does tend to diminish interest in both), sex would be a common part of life and thus sexual energy would be permeating the community on an ongoing basis with pleasurable results.
Most civilized societies have had little to offer in the area of sexuality.
Western culture has had a particularly unhealthy attitude toward sexuality and as a result males in this part of the world receive no meaningful instruction to enable them to become sexually empowered.
Some cultures in the Far East have had a more open attitude towards sex, typically within the wealthy classes, and spent considerable energy focusing on enhancing sexual pleasure. Generally this was done from a male perspective, often for males who had access to large numbers of women.
Nonetheless, in the process some attention was given to the issue of how to make the experience more fulfilling for the women involved. Presumably, they developed some appreciation that female enjoyment enhances the interaction.
Taoists in China, at least two thousand years ago, pursued the sexual arts in some depth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoist_sexual_practices).
A principle idea of theirs involved the 'essence of life' called 'Jing'. They believed that what contained the most Jing was semen and they thus recommended its preservation so as not to run out of it (and thus die).
Due to this perception of things, they developed an array of ways to prevent ejaculation during sex while still having (non-ejaculatory) orgasms. By these means, men are able to orgasm and maintain their sexual desire and erection and thus remain engaged sexually for prolonged periods of time.
As well, due to the phenomenon of non-ejaculatory orgasms, men are able to attain higher and higher levels of pleasure as their orgasms crescendo, thus further enhancing the sexual experience. Additionally, as part of this process, they learn to distribute the sexual energy that originates in the pelvis and spread that sensation throughout the whole body, ratcheting the whole process up to a still higher level.
Rather than disconnecting from the sexual experience, the techniques used to accomplish all of this involve being very aware and focused on what is happening so as to be better tuned into one's responses so as to work with and direct them accordingly.
The result of non-ejaculatory orgasmic sex for men is that the sexual energy generated during sexual activity continues to circulate long after the sex itself is over providing a level of energy much different than the tired feeling that typically occurs after ejaculatory sex.
Furthermore, due to the ongoing enjoyment that this brings, one is both sexualized and energized and thus interested in renewed sexual engagement. It is as if the body is generating energy repeatedly with each sexual act rather than depleting the energy stores.
As for ejaculation, the Taoists recommended doing so as infrequently as possible. While they understood the need for individualization, they had recommendations for ejaculatory frequency dependent upon one's age....
"A man at twenty can ejaculate once every four days.
A man at thirty can ejaculate once every eight days.
A man at forty can ejaculate once every ten days.
A man at fifty can ejaculate once every twenty days.
A man at sixty should no longer ejaculate."
An important aspect of this whole process is to decide not to make ejaculatory orgasm the objective but just the opposite, recognizing that in doing so, even just for oneself, the net pleasure gain is very significant.
A man pursuing this sexual empowerment process develops a positive sexual attitude, enjoys a great deal of sexual pleasure, and has the potential to be a much more satisfying (and satisfied) sexual partner.
By being more sexually confident, one's overall level of confidence is also enhanced.
By being able to engage sexually for a prolonged period of time and be present and focused during the process, one is able to connect to a far greater degree with one's sexual partner and help her get to an increasingly higher level of sexual enjoyment as well, enabling her to explore her own sexual potential much further.
A man who can relate sexually to a woman in this manner should have much greater chance of her coming back for more and feel less need to control her. Instead the interaction becomes more focused on each one discovering what level of pleasure can be reached, each wanting the other to take it higher - overall a liberating dynamic.
These men do not perceive female sexuality as something that needs to be feared and thus beaten to a pulp. Instead they are fascinated by it, delighting in it, and will do their part to enhance its full flowering.
Being more sexually fulfilled in general and knowing that they have the potential to engage in this highly enjoyable manner with women, these men are more attuned to female sexuality overall, and so they will be more open to women pursuing their own sexual agendas which, as previously discussed, are not identical to men's.
A person that is consistently well fed approaches a buffet taking what they need and enjoy but sees no need to hoard the food since they understand that they can always come back for more.
While I am not advocating Taoism as a belief system, I do believe that for a man living today, the skills that they developed to enable men to experience whole-body non-ejaculatory orgasms can be very useful and play an integral role in addressing the important problem of male sexual inadequacy and insecurity.
This ultimately enhances the possibility of women being allowed and even encouraged to become self-empowered generally and especially sexually. If that were to happen the world would become a very different and much healthier and freer place.
The book, 'The Multi-Orgasmic Man' by Mantak Chia and Douglas Abrams Arava explains in a clear and practical manner the sexual techniques alluded to above (and more) developed by the Taoists, to enable men to become multi-orgasmic. It does not require one to embrace Taoist belief.
While these practices were likely unknown to precivilization humans, when used for the purposes described above, I consider them to be useful in helping the domesticated move forward on their journeys towards untaming.
I believe that every man and woman should be aware of these options so as to have the opportunity to use them to enhance their lives.
Each man should learn these skills so as to be able to experience and give the quality of sexual pleasure that such practices allow.
Each woman should become aware of what is possible so that they will not accept less from the men that they sexually engage with.
I also believe that this information should be presented to young people of both sexes as soon as they are ready to understand and deal with it so as to help them develop healthy pleasure-oriented sex-positive attitudes and skills.
If enough men became multiorgasmic and focused their energies on such activities for their own enjoyment while facilitating the great sexual pleasure that women desire and are built to receive, 'honor killings' and the sexual repression of women in general would finally be recognized as being the terrible and pathetic efforts of impotent males and a source of shame to all involved.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
'Free Will' Part 2
A reader of my last blog posting, 'The Absurd Side of the 'Free Will' Debate', raised some interesting points and so I have decided to share part of my reply to him.
From his comments, I was uncertain if I had adequately conveyed the main point that I was striving to make regarding the absurdity of the 'free will' debate and so readdressed it in order to diminish the likelihood of confusion, as follows....
"When I say the 'free will' debate, I am referring to deterministic versus non-deterministic viewpoints of the universe. While some of the deterministic perspectives have come from a God-based view of reality, some have been strictly scientific. I, as you know, reject the God-based ones outright.
One scientific deterministic perspective is that the universe (universes?) has in its totality been an inevitable sequence of events beginning with the big bang (although what, if anything, predated the big bang? etc.) and thus everything that happens, including the most minute aspect of each living thing's behavior is completely necessary due to a domino-like playing out of things. Therefore, human choice is simply an illusion, as is, therefore, human moral responsibility etc., etc.
Due to quantum physics theory and its implications, the issue of randomness arises that can perhaps alter this analysis of things. That being said, based on my investigations into the present state of scientific knowledge, no human actually understands the intricate workings of the universe well enough to make any final statements about this topic, nor is that likely to change in our lifetimes or perhaps ever, due to the limitations of human mental abiilties and the enormity of the problem to be solved.
So, in the meantime, the point that I was trying to make in 'The Absurd Side of the 'Free Will' Debate' article was that although pondering the 'free will' issue is an interesting intellectual exercise, for caged human animals there is a much higher-priority issue relating to freedom which cries for our attention and energies - i.e. getting out of the cage.
Caged humans investing their limited resources on the deterministic free will issue while completely neglecting the reality of their domestication is as absurd as someone making sure to wax the floors while remaining in a house engulfed in flames. "
One scientific deterministic perspective is that the universe (universes?) has in its totality been an inevitable sequence of events beginning with the big bang (although what, if anything, predated the big bang? etc.) and thus everything that happens, including the most minute aspect of each living thing's behavior is completely necessary due to a domino-like playing out of things. Therefore, human choice is simply an illusion, as is, therefore, human moral responsibility etc., etc.
Due to quantum physics theory and its implications, the issue of randomness arises that can perhaps alter this analysis of things. That being said, based on my investigations into the present state of scientific knowledge, no human actually understands the intricate workings of the universe well enough to make any final statements about this topic, nor is that likely to change in our lifetimes or perhaps ever, due to the limitations of human mental abiilties and the enormity of the problem to be solved.
So, in the meantime, the point that I was trying to make in 'The Absurd Side of the 'Free Will' Debate' article was that although pondering the 'free will' issue is an interesting intellectual exercise, for caged human animals there is a much higher-priority issue relating to freedom which cries for our attention and energies - i.e. getting out of the cage.
Caged humans investing their limited resources on the deterministic free will issue while completely neglecting the reality of their domestication is as absurd as someone making sure to wax the floors while remaining in a house engulfed in flames. "
Additionally, my reader had a variety of questions regarding whether the whole exercise of discussing domestication and the coping mechanisms developed to tolerate its resultant discomfort might be a coping mechansim itself.
As well, he was interested in knowing more about practical issues such as the concrete effects of my own pursuit of wildness, whether the process that I am advocating is really more about become a little wilder rather than actually becoming wild (and regarding this, how far I am personally willing to go in the direction of becoming wild), and the place of technology within a wild society.
My response....
"A coping mechanism is a means that one uses to dull discomfort without actually addressing the problem causing the discomfort.
Therefore, using my model of civilized humans being caged/domesticated animals, each step foward in the process of regaining control of one's life in order to follow one's internal agenda rather than the agenda imposed by the domesticators represents one piece of the puzzle in the solving of the domestication problem.
That process begins by the individual recognizing that it is unwilling to tolerate the present situation and its accompanying discomfort any longer and thus deciding to change. In this case, it presumably eventually understands that the problem is its domestication and then embarks on the journey of self-liberation.
It continues with a multitude of internal and then external changes that ideally ultimately lead to its complete liberation with the reward being the opportunity to self-actualize and thus experience healthy pleasure and well-being.
Obviously any individual may decide to stop somewhere short of total liberation for different reasons (within the structure of the zoo, one may continue to exist without untaming oneself). So long as one is continuing the voyage forward on this path, however, that person is not coping but problem solving.
If, however, the individual is not doing anything to move forward but somehow simply uses the idea of self-liberation as a fantasy escape mechanism from reality, then that would represent a coping mechanism.
Getting rid of coping mechanisms would not generally be a coping mechanism since abandoning a coping mechanism results in one experiencing the pain that one had dulled before. Obviously one can replace one coping mechanism with another (eg. drugs for religion) but that individual will not make any real progress on the liberation journey.
The art of self-liberation is to give up coping mechanisms, attain at least the same level of comfort (or ideally a higher level of comfort), while becoming freer and thus not relying on new coping mechanisms, and in the process enhance one's self-actualization and obtain its accompanying benefits.
What I propose in my book and writings is exactly that. It is also what I personally do.
My personal objective is to become as untamed as possible in the time that I have left.
By 'wild', I mean to follow one's natural internal agenda instead of an agenda externally imposed by another human.
If one is conceived within the cage and subjected to a multitude of domesticating forces during the years of one's life prior to deciding to untame oneslf then it becomes necessary to free oneself from the layers of cages that one is surrounded with at that starting point.
In my particular case, I was a highly domesticated animal until I began up to wake to that fact and began my self-liberation process about 25 years ago. I have restructured my life virtually completely since then and in the process have evolved into a closer approximation of who I am genetically intended to be. As a function of that I am healthier, more confident, happier, more reality oriented, and make decisions that direct me towards a greater probability of looking after my personal interests while being able to better understand the realities of those around me.
I divorced myself from my family of origin due to the pathology of that system and the unwillingness of those people to take their lives in a positive direction. I left Canada due to my increasing dislike of its overwhelming socialist mentality.
I have raised two children who are now young adults and are far further along the path of self-actualization than I was at their ages, due in large part to the changes that I made within myself and in my life. As part of that, I homeschooled them in order to free them and our family from the industrial structure of the institutional school system.
I have addressed many of my issues that prevented me from being able to function well within a relationship and as a result of that have developed a positive and fulfilling relationship with my female partner and have very good and ever-improving relationships with my children.
I have changed my eating patterns, my activity patterns, my interests, and my sexual patterns, all in a healthier and freer direction. I have developed a better understanding of the order of things in human society and on the planet and thus act more responsibly and with more caring for what is important.
I am increasingly drawn to connect with the natural systems around me and am less and less interested in those which are divorced from being nature based or are unhealthy. In that regard I am about to build a small home on 12 acres of land in a manner and with the clear intent of being significantly able to provide many of the essentials of life on that place in a sustainable style.
I decided to build that home without incurring new debt so as not enslave myself further from a financial perspective (a step which represents a significant change on my part). I am organizing my life so as to be able to need less money overall and thus work less and less (particularly doing work within the structure of civilized society).
I speak my mind much more freely without being as preoccupied as I used to be about others' reactions while still being able to deal with people in a caring manner.
I have no end of things that I intend to do as I explore the new terrain in front of me. I have never felt more alive or more myself at any point in my life.
My overall attitude to the world has changed - I am more assertive and also more able to adapt to situations. I seek out challenges more than before rather than avoiding them.
While I anticipate cataclysmic changes to the order of things, I am preparing myself to be able to adjust in as efficient a manner as possible so as to ride the waves as they hit.
I feel an increasing sense of inner harmony, have greater emotional stability and clarity of thought, and note improvement of bodily function.
All that being said, I am still a domesticated human animal and have far from completed my transformation into a wild human, but I definitely am wilder and intend to become even wilder still. This evolution is the guiding focus of my life.
Clearly, for any individual involved in the process of untaming itself, it will transform in steps and stages to an ever wilder version of itself and seek and construct environments around it that match its level of wildness.
Wild does not necessarily mean primitive. It means untamed. I do not consider there to be one particular correct lifestyle for a wild human. It would vary from one individual to the next and from one ecosystem to the next.
Technology could be part of a wild human reality but it would be oriented to simplicity and meeting essential needs and in a manner that would be relatively non-destructive to the environment. Wild humans would seek ways of integrating with rather than dominating nature.
We would operate in small tribal groups which would be fairly egalatarian and dependent upon concensus for decision making.
Obviously, as you would have guessed from my writings, I would envision a non-patriarchal system with the fulfillment of females' healthy needs being of very high priority. A wild society in which female needs are well met will be one in which males will also enjoy and obtain fulfillment. This tribal society would function to facilitate each individual's self-actualization.
Human overpopulation is a tremendous problem but the events of the next century or so will likely start to look after that.
I do not anticipate civilization to just disappear in the near future, but I do expect it to recede somewhat due to its inherent pathology and so I am optimistic as this happens that there will be opportunity for those who wish to increasingly untame themselves to be able to do so with less risk than they would presently experience in an almost-completely civilized world.
Untaming oneself is an ongoing process and adjusts as circumstances change. It happens one step at a time. All I or anyone else can do at any moment is take that next step.
The fact that untaming takes place step by step does not make it a coping mechanism, but instead a process. For most of us, it has taken thousands of years to transform from our wild selves into the present domesticated version of ourselves. Although changing into a feral organism can happen relatively quickly, given the many factors involved in the case of domesticated humans I would expect it to occur reasonably gradually. Furthermore, an individual needs to be able to handle the pace of change for it to ultimately be successful.
I do not pretend to know what all of the steps would be for myself or for humans in general and am not too preoccupied with that. I am open to letting things unfold as I steadily push ahead as quickly as I can manage.
I get most of the direction regarding what's next from within myself by learning to listen to my 'inner self'. I didn't really start to do that until about 25 years ago (and was essentially lost at that point as a consequence) but since then I have learned that doing so is of paramount importance. I'm gradually getting better and better at listening and am slowly becoming more and more willing to trust what it tells me.
My goal is to consistently listen to, trust, and confidently, proudly, and comfortably follow this inner guide and enjoy the resultant voyage during which I will become myself. When I am doing this all the time and for long enough I will be wild."
Therefore, using my model of civilized humans being caged/domesticated animals, each step foward in the process of regaining control of one's life in order to follow one's internal agenda rather than the agenda imposed by the domesticators represents one piece of the puzzle in the solving of the domestication problem.
That process begins by the individual recognizing that it is unwilling to tolerate the present situation and its accompanying discomfort any longer and thus deciding to change. In this case, it presumably eventually understands that the problem is its domestication and then embarks on the journey of self-liberation.
It continues with a multitude of internal and then external changes that ideally ultimately lead to its complete liberation with the reward being the opportunity to self-actualize and thus experience healthy pleasure and well-being.
Obviously any individual may decide to stop somewhere short of total liberation for different reasons (within the structure of the zoo, one may continue to exist without untaming oneself). So long as one is continuing the voyage forward on this path, however, that person is not coping but problem solving.
If, however, the individual is not doing anything to move forward but somehow simply uses the idea of self-liberation as a fantasy escape mechanism from reality, then that would represent a coping mechanism.
Getting rid of coping mechanisms would not generally be a coping mechanism since abandoning a coping mechanism results in one experiencing the pain that one had dulled before. Obviously one can replace one coping mechanism with another (eg. drugs for religion) but that individual will not make any real progress on the liberation journey.
The art of self-liberation is to give up coping mechanisms, attain at least the same level of comfort (or ideally a higher level of comfort), while becoming freer and thus not relying on new coping mechanisms, and in the process enhance one's self-actualization and obtain its accompanying benefits.
What I propose in my book and writings is exactly that. It is also what I personally do.
My personal objective is to become as untamed as possible in the time that I have left.
By 'wild', I mean to follow one's natural internal agenda instead of an agenda externally imposed by another human.
If one is conceived within the cage and subjected to a multitude of domesticating forces during the years of one's life prior to deciding to untame oneslf then it becomes necessary to free oneself from the layers of cages that one is surrounded with at that starting point.
In my particular case, I was a highly domesticated animal until I began up to wake to that fact and began my self-liberation process about 25 years ago. I have restructured my life virtually completely since then and in the process have evolved into a closer approximation of who I am genetically intended to be. As a function of that I am healthier, more confident, happier, more reality oriented, and make decisions that direct me towards a greater probability of looking after my personal interests while being able to better understand the realities of those around me.
I divorced myself from my family of origin due to the pathology of that system and the unwillingness of those people to take their lives in a positive direction. I left Canada due to my increasing dislike of its overwhelming socialist mentality.
I have raised two children who are now young adults and are far further along the path of self-actualization than I was at their ages, due in large part to the changes that I made within myself and in my life. As part of that, I homeschooled them in order to free them and our family from the industrial structure of the institutional school system.
I have addressed many of my issues that prevented me from being able to function well within a relationship and as a result of that have developed a positive and fulfilling relationship with my female partner and have very good and ever-improving relationships with my children.
I have changed my eating patterns, my activity patterns, my interests, and my sexual patterns, all in a healthier and freer direction. I have developed a better understanding of the order of things in human society and on the planet and thus act more responsibly and with more caring for what is important.
I am increasingly drawn to connect with the natural systems around me and am less and less interested in those which are divorced from being nature based or are unhealthy. In that regard I am about to build a small home on 12 acres of land in a manner and with the clear intent of being significantly able to provide many of the essentials of life on that place in a sustainable style.
I decided to build that home without incurring new debt so as not enslave myself further from a financial perspective (a step which represents a significant change on my part). I am organizing my life so as to be able to need less money overall and thus work less and less (particularly doing work within the structure of civilized society).
I speak my mind much more freely without being as preoccupied as I used to be about others' reactions while still being able to deal with people in a caring manner.
I have no end of things that I intend to do as I explore the new terrain in front of me. I have never felt more alive or more myself at any point in my life.
My overall attitude to the world has changed - I am more assertive and also more able to adapt to situations. I seek out challenges more than before rather than avoiding them.
While I anticipate cataclysmic changes to the order of things, I am preparing myself to be able to adjust in as efficient a manner as possible so as to ride the waves as they hit.
I feel an increasing sense of inner harmony, have greater emotional stability and clarity of thought, and note improvement of bodily function.
All that being said, I am still a domesticated human animal and have far from completed my transformation into a wild human, but I definitely am wilder and intend to become even wilder still. This evolution is the guiding focus of my life.
Clearly, for any individual involved in the process of untaming itself, it will transform in steps and stages to an ever wilder version of itself and seek and construct environments around it that match its level of wildness.
Wild does not necessarily mean primitive. It means untamed. I do not consider there to be one particular correct lifestyle for a wild human. It would vary from one individual to the next and from one ecosystem to the next.
Technology could be part of a wild human reality but it would be oriented to simplicity and meeting essential needs and in a manner that would be relatively non-destructive to the environment. Wild humans would seek ways of integrating with rather than dominating nature.
We would operate in small tribal groups which would be fairly egalatarian and dependent upon concensus for decision making.
Obviously, as you would have guessed from my writings, I would envision a non-patriarchal system with the fulfillment of females' healthy needs being of very high priority. A wild society in which female needs are well met will be one in which males will also enjoy and obtain fulfillment. This tribal society would function to facilitate each individual's self-actualization.
Human overpopulation is a tremendous problem but the events of the next century or so will likely start to look after that.
I do not anticipate civilization to just disappear in the near future, but I do expect it to recede somewhat due to its inherent pathology and so I am optimistic as this happens that there will be opportunity for those who wish to increasingly untame themselves to be able to do so with less risk than they would presently experience in an almost-completely civilized world.
Untaming oneself is an ongoing process and adjusts as circumstances change. It happens one step at a time. All I or anyone else can do at any moment is take that next step.
The fact that untaming takes place step by step does not make it a coping mechanism, but instead a process. For most of us, it has taken thousands of years to transform from our wild selves into the present domesticated version of ourselves. Although changing into a feral organism can happen relatively quickly, given the many factors involved in the case of domesticated humans I would expect it to occur reasonably gradually. Furthermore, an individual needs to be able to handle the pace of change for it to ultimately be successful.
I do not pretend to know what all of the steps would be for myself or for humans in general and am not too preoccupied with that. I am open to letting things unfold as I steadily push ahead as quickly as I can manage.
I get most of the direction regarding what's next from within myself by learning to listen to my 'inner self'. I didn't really start to do that until about 25 years ago (and was essentially lost at that point as a consequence) but since then I have learned that doing so is of paramount importance. I'm gradually getting better and better at listening and am slowly becoming more and more willing to trust what it tells me.
My goal is to consistently listen to, trust, and confidently, proudly, and comfortably follow this inner guide and enjoy the resultant voyage during which I will become myself. When I am doing this all the time and for long enough I will be wild."
Please feel free to forward comments or questions to me either on this blog or by email to Hercules@untamedlife.com .
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Absurd Side of the 'Free Will' Debate
When I was about sixteen years old my favorite TV program was the then-new British comedy 'Monty Python's Flying Circus'. I delighted in its absurdist approach to things then as I still do today.
One of my favorite Python skits was a short one entitled 'Duck-Cat-Lizard', which presented an earnest interviewer very seriously posing political questions to three stuffed animals.....
"Chairman : Well, to consider the moral problems raised by the law-enforcement methods involved we have a duck, a cat and a lizard. Now first of all I'd like to put this question to you please, lizard. How effective do you consider the legal weapons employed by legal customs officers, nowadays? (shot of lizard; silence) Well while you're thinking about that, I'd like to bring the duck in here, and ask her, if possible, to clarify the whole question of currency restrictions, and customs regulations in the world today. (shot of duck; silence) Perhaps the cat would rather answer that? (shot of cat; silence) No? Lizard? (shot of lizard again and then back) No. Well, er, let's ask the man in the street what he thinks. "
While the script alone admittedly does not adequately convey the overall hilarity of this scene, hopefully what does come across is the complete inanity of the dynamic between the interviewer and his subjects.
Last year in my Untamed Newsletter I recounted that I had, to my surprise, come across an atheist group here in the extreme Bible Belt area of Mississippi where I live and that at the first meeting of theirs which I attended the topic of 'free will' had been the focus of animated conversation.
Recently that debate resurfaced on-line in a discussion group related to this atheist organization with the two sides still defending their respective positions (mine - free will exists, theirs - there is no free will).
Obviously, we were not the first nor shall we be the last to argue about this theme, as it has been debated in a variety of forms for centuries.
However, it was only after this recent round in which I was personally involved that I finally glimpsed the absurdity of what I and many others had been engaged in.
As those familiar with my previous writings will know, my perspective on the modern human condition is that until ten thousand years ago humans lived as wild animals. Subsequently, over the course of civilization the overwhelming majority of our species has been domesticated by other human animals that have utilized our bodies, minds, and energies to fulfill their own agendas, and we (the domesticated) now exist as unnatural expressions of ourselves in equally unnatural environments as caged human animals (whether the bars of the cages are visible or not).
Over the years, the 'free will' debate has been conducted exclusively among caged human animals.
The zoo-keepers have no real interest in this topic as they are already sufficiently occupied pursuing their agenda of domination and its rewards, in the process making sure that their human chattel stay securely within their pens.
At most, if the zoo-keepers perceive that a certain position on free will can help them strengthen the bars of the cages, they may decide to include it in the indoctrination program of the masses whom they control.
Domesticated human animals operating from within their multi-layered internal and external cages, self-importantly ruminating on the question of 'free will' represents the height of ironic ridiculousness - certainly to the zoo-keepers.
The only important 'free will' question for a civilized human, a creature that has been undeniably enslaved by fellow humans, is whether or not it is doing everything possible to empower and free itself in order to gain control of its own existence so as to begin to experience real life, rather than wasting its resources elsewhere (such as on arcane thought problems).
Jim Morrison of The Doors highlighted this point in his own manner when he taunted his young domesticated audience at the infamous 1969 Miami concert....
"LETTIN' PEOPLE TELL YOU WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO! LETTIN' PEOPLE PUSH YOU AROUND! HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT'S GONNA LAST? HOW LONG ARE YOU GONNA LET IT GO ON? HOW LONG ARE YOU GONNA LET 'EM PUSH YOU AROUND? HOW LONG? MAYBE YOU LIKE IT! MAYBE YOU LIKE BEING PUSHED AROUND! MAYBE YOU LOVE IT! MAYBE YOU LOVE GETTING YOUR FACE STUCK IN THE SHIT, COME ON! MAYBE YOU LOVE GETTING PUSHED AROUND! YOU LOVE IT, DON'T YOU?! YOU LOVE IT! YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF SLAVES! BUNCH OF SLAVES! YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF SLAVES! LETTIN' EVERYBODY PUSH YOU AROUND. WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO?!"
In most cases, the answer to Morrison's question, of course, is nothing at all.
Instead, one could continue to spend one's time effectively blindfolded, gagged, bound in a straitjacket, chained to the wall of a dungeon worrying about things like 'free will'.
The Pythons would love it!
One of my favorite Python skits was a short one entitled 'Duck-Cat-Lizard', which presented an earnest interviewer very seriously posing political questions to three stuffed animals.....
"Chairman : Well, to consider the moral problems raised by the law-enforcement methods involved we have a duck, a cat and a lizard. Now first of all I'd like to put this question to you please, lizard. How effective do you consider the legal weapons employed by legal customs officers, nowadays? (shot of lizard; silence) Well while you're thinking about that, I'd like to bring the duck in here, and ask her, if possible, to clarify the whole question of currency restrictions, and customs regulations in the world today. (shot of duck; silence) Perhaps the cat would rather answer that? (shot of cat; silence) No? Lizard? (shot of lizard again and then back) No. Well, er, let's ask the man in the street what he thinks. "
While the script alone admittedly does not adequately convey the overall hilarity of this scene, hopefully what does come across is the complete inanity of the dynamic between the interviewer and his subjects.
Last year in my Untamed Newsletter I recounted that I had, to my surprise, come across an atheist group here in the extreme Bible Belt area of Mississippi where I live and that at the first meeting of theirs which I attended the topic of 'free will' had been the focus of animated conversation.
Recently that debate resurfaced on-line in a discussion group related to this atheist organization with the two sides still defending their respective positions (mine - free will exists, theirs - there is no free will).
Obviously, we were not the first nor shall we be the last to argue about this theme, as it has been debated in a variety of forms for centuries.
However, it was only after this recent round in which I was personally involved that I finally glimpsed the absurdity of what I and many others had been engaged in.
As those familiar with my previous writings will know, my perspective on the modern human condition is that until ten thousand years ago humans lived as wild animals. Subsequently, over the course of civilization the overwhelming majority of our species has been domesticated by other human animals that have utilized our bodies, minds, and energies to fulfill their own agendas, and we (the domesticated) now exist as unnatural expressions of ourselves in equally unnatural environments as caged human animals (whether the bars of the cages are visible or not).
Over the years, the 'free will' debate has been conducted exclusively among caged human animals.
The zoo-keepers have no real interest in this topic as they are already sufficiently occupied pursuing their agenda of domination and its rewards, in the process making sure that their human chattel stay securely within their pens.
At most, if the zoo-keepers perceive that a certain position on free will can help them strengthen the bars of the cages, they may decide to include it in the indoctrination program of the masses whom they control.
Domesticated human animals operating from within their multi-layered internal and external cages, self-importantly ruminating on the question of 'free will' represents the height of ironic ridiculousness - certainly to the zoo-keepers.
The only important 'free will' question for a civilized human, a creature that has been undeniably enslaved by fellow humans, is whether or not it is doing everything possible to empower and free itself in order to gain control of its own existence so as to begin to experience real life, rather than wasting its resources elsewhere (such as on arcane thought problems).
Jim Morrison of The Doors highlighted this point in his own manner when he taunted his young domesticated audience at the infamous 1969 Miami concert....
"LETTIN' PEOPLE TELL YOU WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO! LETTIN' PEOPLE PUSH YOU AROUND! HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT'S GONNA LAST? HOW LONG ARE YOU GONNA LET IT GO ON? HOW LONG ARE YOU GONNA LET 'EM PUSH YOU AROUND? HOW LONG? MAYBE YOU LIKE IT! MAYBE YOU LIKE BEING PUSHED AROUND! MAYBE YOU LOVE IT! MAYBE YOU LOVE GETTING YOUR FACE STUCK IN THE SHIT, COME ON! MAYBE YOU LOVE GETTING PUSHED AROUND! YOU LOVE IT, DON'T YOU?! YOU LOVE IT! YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF SLAVES! BUNCH OF SLAVES! YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF SLAVES! LETTIN' EVERYBODY PUSH YOU AROUND. WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO?! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO?!"
In most cases, the answer to Morrison's question, of course, is nothing at all.
Instead, one could continue to spend one's time effectively blindfolded, gagged, bound in a straitjacket, chained to the wall of a dungeon worrying about things like 'free will'.
The Pythons would love it!
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Murder and Breastfeeding
A few months ago I wrote a review of the film 'He Was a Quiet Man' for my Untamed Newsletter.
The movie and the article dealt with a fictitious man who decides to murder a collection of despised co-workers as part of his dramatic suicide. I explored what I understood to be the central factor leading to this event - maternal rejection.
I indicated that mothers' rejection of their sons is an overwhelmingly common domesticated human experience, expressed to varying degrees and producing matching resultant damage (to read my article please see http://www.untamedlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1555 ) .
It was then, with interest, that I recently read an article in Rolling Stone Magazine entitled 'Everyone Will Remember Me as Some Sort of Monster', by Mark Boal (who also penned the original story that led to the movie 'In the Valley of Elah', about which I wrote another article dealing with the impact of domestication on human males - please see http://www.untamedlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1556 ).
The magazine article deals with the story of Robert Hawkins, the 19 year old who killed eight others and himself with an assault rifle at a Nebraska mall last December. Significantly, it focuses on his history of neglect ("from the very beginning of his life, Rob Hawkins was a throwaway kid") and his very inconsistent relationship with his mother in particular. The parallels of Hawkins' story with the film and my analysis are profound.
To read Boal's article please see http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/22248593/everyone_will_remember_me_as_some_sort_of_monster/1 (it is also very interesting to review the readers' comments about the article, particularly those apparently by Hawkins' mother's sister).
In a similar but different vein, I came upon a newspaper article this week on breastfeeding that describes the strong societal forces mitigating against this most natural of all means of feeding one's offspring ( http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=7c249e4c-4847-40cb-a1a4-2e82d610eba3 ) .
The relatively good news is that the incidence of breastfeeding has risen markedly over the last three decades (in the Canadian population surveyed at least), although it is still highly underutilized.
Of note, it is much less commonly done by the youngest, poorest, and least educated mothers - those whose babies would benefit from it the most.
Practising medicine, as I do, in Mississippi, I rarely encounter a mother who breastfeeds her newborn for any period of time at all. I clearly recall a discussion with a young, poor mother-to-be who responded indignantly to my inquiry regarding whether she intended to breastfeed - "I sure don't plan on being there 24/7 for this kid!"
The bonding that can occur between mother and child through breastfeeding is tremendous, as are its potential psychological benefits (and other salutary effects).
I would strongly suspect that Robert Hawkins was either not breastfed at all or, if he was, it was only for a very short period of time.
It might well have been a lifesaving move for him and the others murdered at the mall that day if it had occurred.
That being said, like the 'savaging' of piglets by their traumatized mothers (see the discussion of this topic in my article re 'He Was a Quiet Man' alluded to above), the lack of breastfeeding and its dehumanizing consequences are truly just symptomatic - an expression of some of the dysfunction and denaturing experienced by caged human animals due to their domestication.
The movie and the article dealt with a fictitious man who decides to murder a collection of despised co-workers as part of his dramatic suicide. I explored what I understood to be the central factor leading to this event - maternal rejection.
I indicated that mothers' rejection of their sons is an overwhelmingly common domesticated human experience, expressed to varying degrees and producing matching resultant damage (to read my article please see http://www.untamedlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1555 ) .
It was then, with interest, that I recently read an article in Rolling Stone Magazine entitled 'Everyone Will Remember Me as Some Sort of Monster', by Mark Boal (who also penned the original story that led to the movie 'In the Valley of Elah', about which I wrote another article dealing with the impact of domestication on human males - please see http://www.untamedlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1556 ).
The magazine article deals with the story of Robert Hawkins, the 19 year old who killed eight others and himself with an assault rifle at a Nebraska mall last December. Significantly, it focuses on his history of neglect ("from the very beginning of his life, Rob Hawkins was a throwaway kid") and his very inconsistent relationship with his mother in particular. The parallels of Hawkins' story with the film and my analysis are profound.
To read Boal's article please see http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/22248593/everyone_will_remember_me_as_some_sort_of_monster/1 (it is also very interesting to review the readers' comments about the article, particularly those apparently by Hawkins' mother's sister).
In a similar but different vein, I came upon a newspaper article this week on breastfeeding that describes the strong societal forces mitigating against this most natural of all means of feeding one's offspring ( http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=7c249e4c-4847-40cb-a1a4-2e82d610eba3 ) .
The relatively good news is that the incidence of breastfeeding has risen markedly over the last three decades (in the Canadian population surveyed at least), although it is still highly underutilized.
Of note, it is much less commonly done by the youngest, poorest, and least educated mothers - those whose babies would benefit from it the most.
Practising medicine, as I do, in Mississippi, I rarely encounter a mother who breastfeeds her newborn for any period of time at all. I clearly recall a discussion with a young, poor mother-to-be who responded indignantly to my inquiry regarding whether she intended to breastfeed - "I sure don't plan on being there 24/7 for this kid!"
The bonding that can occur between mother and child through breastfeeding is tremendous, as are its potential psychological benefits (and other salutary effects).
I would strongly suspect that Robert Hawkins was either not breastfed at all or, if he was, it was only for a very short period of time.
It might well have been a lifesaving move for him and the others murdered at the mall that day if it had occurred.
That being said, like the 'savaging' of piglets by their traumatized mothers (see the discussion of this topic in my article re 'He Was a Quiet Man' alluded to above), the lack of breastfeeding and its dehumanizing consequences are truly just symptomatic - an expression of some of the dysfunction and denaturing experienced by caged human animals due to their domestication.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Parents and Children
In this posting I will explore the topic of parent-child relationships with regards to the process of self-liberation.
In particular, I will address the issue of pursuing self-actualization as a parent and the matter of taking responsibility for and working to heal dysfunctional dynamics with one’s own children.
Human animals, like all living things, initially give up their freedom very unwillingly.
The first ancestor of each presently living domesticated human animal that lost its freedom did so under some form of extreme duress. The domesticator of that individual was then able to commandeer the energies and abilities of its newly acquired property to fulfill its own agenda, one that was likely diametrically opposed to the slave’s own internal agenda.
Although the process was undoubtedly extremely difficult for the slave, that person survived domestication and learned to exist while betraying its internal agenda. Inevitably, disease resulted – both physical and behavioral.
That captive animal eventually encountered another slave of the opposite sex and, with each obeying its own strong biological drive despite existing in captivity with the resultant negative impact upon their health and the quality of their relationship, they reproduced.
The ability to survive and reproduce once domesticated is the most basic issue regarding the artificial selection of a domesticated organism. While on one hand it is essential for that lineage to persist for both the domesticated and domesticator (who desires a renewable supply of slaves), at the same time co-operation with one’s captor potentially becomes a hostage’s undoing – with its ultimate expression being the provision of new slaves for the master.
The fact that these two captives became parents at all under such circumstances suggests something important about them both genetically and in terms of their approach to reality - something important that favored their ability to exist as slaves to the point of reproducing while others either could not or refused to do so. Not all did.
Their resultant child now experienced something completely new for that genetic lineage.
Unlike its parents who had been born wild, this baby began its life within a cage and never experienced freedom. Even in utero, this fetus was developing in a different environment since its mother was not functioning like an untamed pregnant human, unlike its ancestors’ mothers.
Obviously, the adjustment only became that much greater upon direct introduction to the outside world of caged reality, beginning at birth (often a very central traumatic experience).
The genetic program of this child (although presumably, as suggested above, somewhat favoring its ability to cope with the unnatural situation of enslavement when compared to that of human animals less adaptable to domestication) had not evolved over millions of years to operate within the caged reality that it encountered. As a result, many of its natural instincts were counterproductive within this environment and were negatively reinforced as such.
The very fact that its existence was allowed to continue implies that this new slave was considered to be of some potential use to the owner of the cage. However, for it to be of optimal value to the master it would first have to be effectively trained to accept captivity and, above all, obedience.
A new generation would have to be enslaved.
This process would be somewhat less overtly violent than the taming of the first domesticated generation due to the fact that this life had been caged from conception. But, nonetheless, some struggle for independence would be expected and have to be dealt with - preferably the earlier the better.
For a multitude of reasons, the most suitable ones to domesticate the child would be its parents, especially its mother, given her much greater natural role and connection to the child than the father’s.
Therefore, it would be extremely important that reproductive females be as submissive to the master’s rule as possible so as to do an excellent job in training a new generation of slaves.
Ideally, these women should not consider themselves to even have any proprietary control over their reproduction. As well, the sexual dynamics between slaves should strongly favor males so as to further enhance female disempowerment.
Enslavers understand that obedient mothers produce obedient slave children.
So, the developing child, struggling to operate within a hostile environment, seeks direction, support, and solace from its parents, particularly from its mother, but instead gets the domesticated party line and a collection of pathological parental behavior developed due to parental caged existence.
The parents either simply reinforce the mantra of obedience and/or are so alienated from themselves and a healthy wild approach to reality that they are generally useless and destructive from the perspective of aiding in their child’s self-actualization.
Essentially, like Abraham with his son Isaac in the Bible, parents obediently present their child to be sacrificed to the master.
Additionally, parents act out their own acquired pathology due to being caged animals themselves, inflicting their disease upon the least powerful within their worlds, their child.
The child then has two basic options.
It may fearfully submit to the parental demands (mandated by the master’s agenda) and civilization-induced dysfunction and thus betray its own natural healthy internal agenda while learning to fit into an unhealthy caged environment.
Alternatively, it may struggle to remain true to itself but then finds itself at war with those whose fundamental obligation towards it should be to facilitate its self-actualization (its parents) but instead are deliberately or accidentally focused on achieving just the opposite.
This drama develops over a period of years and varies from circumstance to circumstance.
In both play-outs the results are undesirable.
In the first instance the child ends up becoming a fake version of the person that it should have evolved into, lacking in self-esteem and even more subservient than its parents in its dedication to the master’s desires.
In the second case, while perhaps able to preserve an element of pride and inner strength, the child is severely scarred by the endless battles and sadly stunted due to the absence of positive nurturing that it required from its parents during its critical developmental period.
In either case, the resultant parent-child relationship has been poisoned and all parties involved have been further damaged.
For each of the five hundred generations that have endured this dynamic since the regime of civilization’s institution (fewer generations for some on the planet), the parents involved have betrayed and harmed their children in the process of complying with the regime and, almost invariably, did not do the best that they could have to have avoided causing them less harm (contrary to the tired chestnut ‘They did their best’).
Not surprisingly, we find ourselves today in our present tragic domesticated state as a species, severely alienated from our true healthy selves, far from self-actualized, specifically due to repeated accommodation to caged existence, expressed in the form of multigenerational parental betrayal compounded by subsequent self-betrayal by their offspring.
In addition, the masters’ process of artificial selection, operating throughout this ten thousand year period, has been preserving and rewarding those who played along best with this sick system while eliminating and punishing those who were less successful or compliant in this regard.
For self-liberation to occur, it is central that this downward spiral stop.
It can happen with or without the parents’ participation, however, in the optimal scenario, the parents take a leading role.
A parent committed to its self-actualization understands the paramount significance of the parent-child relationship and, therefore, strives to have an excellent relationship with its own child.
During its journey of self-liberation the parent will examine the relationship that it has with its child.
Inevitably, the parent will discover that the relationship is to some degree unhealthy and definitely less than satisfactory.
The child may display behaviors and attitudes that the parent does not affirm. The actual dynamic between parent and child may not be the loving and wonderfully enjoyable experience that the parent may wish for.
These problems may have existed as far back in the relationship as the parent can remember or may have only come to light later on in its course. If the latter is the case, it may well be that the actual problem began early on but, for any of many reasons, took a long time to come to the parent’s attention.
When dealing with the dysfunction of one’s child and/or the dysfunction that one has in the relationship with that child, the parent must take responsibility for having brought that dysfunction into the relationship and the child’s life, because such was virtually inevitably the case.
Of course, the parent may explain that dysfunction as being a product of the trauma that it experienced at the hands of its own parents or others, but at some point the parent must take responsibility for the harm that it has caused itself.
There is an explanation for every horror committed by everyone on this planet but if no-one ever decides that it is time for all of these destructive behaviors to stop, by taking their appropriate share of the responsibility for them, they never will.
What I am referring to here is a very frightening and fairly heroic step for a parent to take.
It involves a heartfelt recognition of the harm that one has caused to one’s innocent child due to parental abuse, neglect, ignorance and limitations. Thus, the parent accepts full responsibility for the pain and damage that it inflicted upon that child.
This is much more than simply acknowledging that one could have been a better parent, although that is at least a step in the right direction.
It is instead a truly empathetic act, genuinely understanding and acknowledging the distress and suffering that one has caused to one’s own child.
Our children are our special guests. We invite them into our lives and into this world. They should be treated with respect and loving attention so that they feel welcome and cared for.
To whatever extent our relationships with our children are less than positive and our children are not the happy fulfilled people that they could be is, to a very great degree, an expression of our failure to be the hosts to them that we should have been to such special guests.
If, as parents, we observe problems in our relationships with our children or within our children as individuals and it is not already apparent how we have significantly contributed to the creation of that circumstance, it almost implicitly means that we have not sufficiently examined the facts of what took place in order to understand what we have done wrong in that regard.
This is not to say that the child will have no role whatsoever in damaging a relationship with a parent or in choosing to take its own life in a negative direction. Of course, both can and do occur and can make a bad situation that much worse.
However, in tracing the relationship back to where it went off the healthy track, it can be reasonably assumed that it was the parent and not the child that introduced the dysfunction into the relationship.
Those events may have occurred as far back in the child’s life as the moment of its conception, but they happened at some real point in time. As in any other relationship, until one goes back to where the situation changed from being fine to not fine and then having the person who upset the balance address its actions in a responsible and caring manner, things cannot be truly resolved.
Obviously, one cannot actually go back in time to undo whatever happened to damage the relationship.
The parent in dealing with the child can only:
(1) genuinely express its understanding of its responsibility for its actions and their effects;
(2) indicate an honest desire to work to enhance the relationship, in very significant part by resolving whatever personal issues the parent may have had that led to the problem in the first place;
(3) seek some means to compensate the child for the harm caused; and
(4) encourage and assist the child to recover from the damage caused to it by the parent.
However, without the parent taking these steps, the likelihood of the relationship actually becoming healthy is effectively nil. Furthermore, it is the parent’s move to make first, since the child was the initial injured party.
A critical step in the process of self-actualization is when a person stops being a perpetual victim by taking responsibility for harm that it has caused to others along the way. While doing so is difficult and painful, it is essential in order to achieve a state of pride in oneself, a fundamental characteristic of a self-actualized person.
For many, many reasons taking responsibility for the harm that one has caused to one’s own children is key in this regard.
Depending upon the circumstances, once that has been done the possibility then exists that the relationship may be transformed into a positive one. If that happens, it will be due to both parent and child doing their part on an ongoing basis to repair the damage previously done and to create new possibilities for the relationship to grow. This certainly will not happen instantly and the child’s trust in the parent will have to be legitimately earned.
But it can be done. The results, realistically, will not be the same as if the problems had never existed in the first place. However, how we solve problems with others will often most effectively determine the value and strength of our relationships.
Furthermore, it is important for parents to understand that a child may (hopefully) on its own at some point decide to strive to self-actualize and, as part of that, become committed to positive relationships in its own life. If the child does so, unless its parent takes the steps presented above, it will inevitably, for its own well-being, eventually terminate its relationship with its parent.
And so it should.
But by taking on this challenging parental responsibility, by embracing one’s accountability for the harm that one has caused to one’s child, a parent has the opportunity to become a positive role model for its child, a parent that its child can love and admire rather than being an ongoing source of pain and shame for it.
Parents largely create the cages within which their children develop, the same cages within which the parents themselves pace back and forth.
By parents liberating themselves, they can enhance the opportunity for their children to experience the joys and stimulating challenges that freedom brings.
An important part of that new reality involves having excellent parent-child relationships. For this to take place, a parent must accept its responsibility for the harm that it has caused to its child.
In doing this, in tearing down the bars of the prisons that it built around its child, a parent can be instrumental in liberating two of the most significant caged human animals in its life – its child and itself.
Life wants freedom. Help it happen.
In particular, I will address the issue of pursuing self-actualization as a parent and the matter of taking responsibility for and working to heal dysfunctional dynamics with one’s own children.
Human animals, like all living things, initially give up their freedom very unwillingly.
The first ancestor of each presently living domesticated human animal that lost its freedom did so under some form of extreme duress. The domesticator of that individual was then able to commandeer the energies and abilities of its newly acquired property to fulfill its own agenda, one that was likely diametrically opposed to the slave’s own internal agenda.
Although the process was undoubtedly extremely difficult for the slave, that person survived domestication and learned to exist while betraying its internal agenda. Inevitably, disease resulted – both physical and behavioral.
That captive animal eventually encountered another slave of the opposite sex and, with each obeying its own strong biological drive despite existing in captivity with the resultant negative impact upon their health and the quality of their relationship, they reproduced.
The ability to survive and reproduce once domesticated is the most basic issue regarding the artificial selection of a domesticated organism. While on one hand it is essential for that lineage to persist for both the domesticated and domesticator (who desires a renewable supply of slaves), at the same time co-operation with one’s captor potentially becomes a hostage’s undoing – with its ultimate expression being the provision of new slaves for the master.
The fact that these two captives became parents at all under such circumstances suggests something important about them both genetically and in terms of their approach to reality - something important that favored their ability to exist as slaves to the point of reproducing while others either could not or refused to do so. Not all did.
Their resultant child now experienced something completely new for that genetic lineage.
Unlike its parents who had been born wild, this baby began its life within a cage and never experienced freedom. Even in utero, this fetus was developing in a different environment since its mother was not functioning like an untamed pregnant human, unlike its ancestors’ mothers.
Obviously, the adjustment only became that much greater upon direct introduction to the outside world of caged reality, beginning at birth (often a very central traumatic experience).
The genetic program of this child (although presumably, as suggested above, somewhat favoring its ability to cope with the unnatural situation of enslavement when compared to that of human animals less adaptable to domestication) had not evolved over millions of years to operate within the caged reality that it encountered. As a result, many of its natural instincts were counterproductive within this environment and were negatively reinforced as such.
The very fact that its existence was allowed to continue implies that this new slave was considered to be of some potential use to the owner of the cage. However, for it to be of optimal value to the master it would first have to be effectively trained to accept captivity and, above all, obedience.
A new generation would have to be enslaved.
This process would be somewhat less overtly violent than the taming of the first domesticated generation due to the fact that this life had been caged from conception. But, nonetheless, some struggle for independence would be expected and have to be dealt with - preferably the earlier the better.
For a multitude of reasons, the most suitable ones to domesticate the child would be its parents, especially its mother, given her much greater natural role and connection to the child than the father’s.
Therefore, it would be extremely important that reproductive females be as submissive to the master’s rule as possible so as to do an excellent job in training a new generation of slaves.
Ideally, these women should not consider themselves to even have any proprietary control over their reproduction. As well, the sexual dynamics between slaves should strongly favor males so as to further enhance female disempowerment.
Enslavers understand that obedient mothers produce obedient slave children.
So, the developing child, struggling to operate within a hostile environment, seeks direction, support, and solace from its parents, particularly from its mother, but instead gets the domesticated party line and a collection of pathological parental behavior developed due to parental caged existence.
The parents either simply reinforce the mantra of obedience and/or are so alienated from themselves and a healthy wild approach to reality that they are generally useless and destructive from the perspective of aiding in their child’s self-actualization.
Essentially, like Abraham with his son Isaac in the Bible, parents obediently present their child to be sacrificed to the master.
Additionally, parents act out their own acquired pathology due to being caged animals themselves, inflicting their disease upon the least powerful within their worlds, their child.
The child then has two basic options.
It may fearfully submit to the parental demands (mandated by the master’s agenda) and civilization-induced dysfunction and thus betray its own natural healthy internal agenda while learning to fit into an unhealthy caged environment.
Alternatively, it may struggle to remain true to itself but then finds itself at war with those whose fundamental obligation towards it should be to facilitate its self-actualization (its parents) but instead are deliberately or accidentally focused on achieving just the opposite.
This drama develops over a period of years and varies from circumstance to circumstance.
In both play-outs the results are undesirable.
In the first instance the child ends up becoming a fake version of the person that it should have evolved into, lacking in self-esteem and even more subservient than its parents in its dedication to the master’s desires.
In the second case, while perhaps able to preserve an element of pride and inner strength, the child is severely scarred by the endless battles and sadly stunted due to the absence of positive nurturing that it required from its parents during its critical developmental period.
In either case, the resultant parent-child relationship has been poisoned and all parties involved have been further damaged.
For each of the five hundred generations that have endured this dynamic since the regime of civilization’s institution (fewer generations for some on the planet), the parents involved have betrayed and harmed their children in the process of complying with the regime and, almost invariably, did not do the best that they could have to have avoided causing them less harm (contrary to the tired chestnut ‘They did their best’).
Not surprisingly, we find ourselves today in our present tragic domesticated state as a species, severely alienated from our true healthy selves, far from self-actualized, specifically due to repeated accommodation to caged existence, expressed in the form of multigenerational parental betrayal compounded by subsequent self-betrayal by their offspring.
In addition, the masters’ process of artificial selection, operating throughout this ten thousand year period, has been preserving and rewarding those who played along best with this sick system while eliminating and punishing those who were less successful or compliant in this regard.
For self-liberation to occur, it is central that this downward spiral stop.
It can happen with or without the parents’ participation, however, in the optimal scenario, the parents take a leading role.
A parent committed to its self-actualization understands the paramount significance of the parent-child relationship and, therefore, strives to have an excellent relationship with its own child.
During its journey of self-liberation the parent will examine the relationship that it has with its child.
Inevitably, the parent will discover that the relationship is to some degree unhealthy and definitely less than satisfactory.
The child may display behaviors and attitudes that the parent does not affirm. The actual dynamic between parent and child may not be the loving and wonderfully enjoyable experience that the parent may wish for.
These problems may have existed as far back in the relationship as the parent can remember or may have only come to light later on in its course. If the latter is the case, it may well be that the actual problem began early on but, for any of many reasons, took a long time to come to the parent’s attention.
When dealing with the dysfunction of one’s child and/or the dysfunction that one has in the relationship with that child, the parent must take responsibility for having brought that dysfunction into the relationship and the child’s life, because such was virtually inevitably the case.
Of course, the parent may explain that dysfunction as being a product of the trauma that it experienced at the hands of its own parents or others, but at some point the parent must take responsibility for the harm that it has caused itself.
There is an explanation for every horror committed by everyone on this planet but if no-one ever decides that it is time for all of these destructive behaviors to stop, by taking their appropriate share of the responsibility for them, they never will.
What I am referring to here is a very frightening and fairly heroic step for a parent to take.
It involves a heartfelt recognition of the harm that one has caused to one’s innocent child due to parental abuse, neglect, ignorance and limitations. Thus, the parent accepts full responsibility for the pain and damage that it inflicted upon that child.
This is much more than simply acknowledging that one could have been a better parent, although that is at least a step in the right direction.
It is instead a truly empathetic act, genuinely understanding and acknowledging the distress and suffering that one has caused to one’s own child.
Our children are our special guests. We invite them into our lives and into this world. They should be treated with respect and loving attention so that they feel welcome and cared for.
To whatever extent our relationships with our children are less than positive and our children are not the happy fulfilled people that they could be is, to a very great degree, an expression of our failure to be the hosts to them that we should have been to such special guests.
If, as parents, we observe problems in our relationships with our children or within our children as individuals and it is not already apparent how we have significantly contributed to the creation of that circumstance, it almost implicitly means that we have not sufficiently examined the facts of what took place in order to understand what we have done wrong in that regard.
This is not to say that the child will have no role whatsoever in damaging a relationship with a parent or in choosing to take its own life in a negative direction. Of course, both can and do occur and can make a bad situation that much worse.
However, in tracing the relationship back to where it went off the healthy track, it can be reasonably assumed that it was the parent and not the child that introduced the dysfunction into the relationship.
Those events may have occurred as far back in the child’s life as the moment of its conception, but they happened at some real point in time. As in any other relationship, until one goes back to where the situation changed from being fine to not fine and then having the person who upset the balance address its actions in a responsible and caring manner, things cannot be truly resolved.
Obviously, one cannot actually go back in time to undo whatever happened to damage the relationship.
The parent in dealing with the child can only:
(1) genuinely express its understanding of its responsibility for its actions and their effects;
(2) indicate an honest desire to work to enhance the relationship, in very significant part by resolving whatever personal issues the parent may have had that led to the problem in the first place;
(3) seek some means to compensate the child for the harm caused; and
(4) encourage and assist the child to recover from the damage caused to it by the parent.
However, without the parent taking these steps, the likelihood of the relationship actually becoming healthy is effectively nil. Furthermore, it is the parent’s move to make first, since the child was the initial injured party.
A critical step in the process of self-actualization is when a person stops being a perpetual victim by taking responsibility for harm that it has caused to others along the way. While doing so is difficult and painful, it is essential in order to achieve a state of pride in oneself, a fundamental characteristic of a self-actualized person.
For many, many reasons taking responsibility for the harm that one has caused to one’s own children is key in this regard.
Depending upon the circumstances, once that has been done the possibility then exists that the relationship may be transformed into a positive one. If that happens, it will be due to both parent and child doing their part on an ongoing basis to repair the damage previously done and to create new possibilities for the relationship to grow. This certainly will not happen instantly and the child’s trust in the parent will have to be legitimately earned.
But it can be done. The results, realistically, will not be the same as if the problems had never existed in the first place. However, how we solve problems with others will often most effectively determine the value and strength of our relationships.
Furthermore, it is important for parents to understand that a child may (hopefully) on its own at some point decide to strive to self-actualize and, as part of that, become committed to positive relationships in its own life. If the child does so, unless its parent takes the steps presented above, it will inevitably, for its own well-being, eventually terminate its relationship with its parent.
And so it should.
But by taking on this challenging parental responsibility, by embracing one’s accountability for the harm that one has caused to one’s child, a parent has the opportunity to become a positive role model for its child, a parent that its child can love and admire rather than being an ongoing source of pain and shame for it.
Parents largely create the cages within which their children develop, the same cages within which the parents themselves pace back and forth.
By parents liberating themselves, they can enhance the opportunity for their children to experience the joys and stimulating challenges that freedom brings.
An important part of that new reality involves having excellent parent-child relationships. For this to take place, a parent must accept its responsibility for the harm that it has caused to its child.
In doing this, in tearing down the bars of the prisons that it built around its child, a parent can be instrumental in liberating two of the most significant caged human animals in its life – its child and itself.
Life wants freedom. Help it happen.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The Silver Bear Cafe
A friend recently sent me an article from a website entitled 'The Silver Bear Cafe' ( http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/home.html ), one that I had previously been unaware of.
Having taken the opportunity to explore some of its thousands of essays from a myriad of contributors, including such authors as Richard Heinberg, James Howard Kunstler, and Naomi Wolf to name just a few, I decided that it would be worthwhile to share this resource with visitors to my blog.
While clearly targeting an American audience, given America's predominant role on the world stage, I consider it to have value for readers even outside of the USA.
Its principal merit is to help clarify the present state of 'The Zoo' and to give an idea of the major turbulence that is beginning to be experienced within the US with the inevitable resultant worldwide aftershocks.
Although most of the articles operate from well within a statist civilized perspective, they do provide non-mainstream viewpoints regarding the order of things and about what lies ahead.
The overall message coming from this site resonates with that of an article that I have on my own site, entitled 'Preparing the Caged Human Animal for the Long Hurricane Season Ahead' ( see http://www.untamedlife.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=47 for the first three parts , with more installments to come).
Essentially, this message is akin to Paul Revere's (to use a classic American analogy) - a warning and a call to readiness.
In this case, as in Revere's time, what presents is a golden opportunity for increased liberty, although the journey there involves some extremely challenging experiences first. If this opportunity is squandered, increased enslavement and even death are likely outcomes for those who are unprepared.
In my book, 'Liberating the Caged Human Animal' ( http://www.untamedlife.com/book/ ), I encourage people to become their True Positive Selves. I define the 'Positive' individual as one who confronts reality and strives to find the most constructive way possible to deal with whatever reality presents at that time.
I invite you to visit 'The Silver Bear Cafe' in order to help you confront reality so that you may then better seek out the necessary resources to deal with it as effectively as possible, ideally to become the untamed person that you were meant to be.
Having taken the opportunity to explore some of its thousands of essays from a myriad of contributors, including such authors as Richard Heinberg, James Howard Kunstler, and Naomi Wolf to name just a few, I decided that it would be worthwhile to share this resource with visitors to my blog.
While clearly targeting an American audience, given America's predominant role on the world stage, I consider it to have value for readers even outside of the USA.
Its principal merit is to help clarify the present state of 'The Zoo' and to give an idea of the major turbulence that is beginning to be experienced within the US with the inevitable resultant worldwide aftershocks.
Although most of the articles operate from well within a statist civilized perspective, they do provide non-mainstream viewpoints regarding the order of things and about what lies ahead.
The overall message coming from this site resonates with that of an article that I have on my own site, entitled 'Preparing the Caged Human Animal for the Long Hurricane Season Ahead' ( see http://www.untamedlife.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=47 for the first three parts , with more installments to come).
Essentially, this message is akin to Paul Revere's (to use a classic American analogy) - a warning and a call to readiness.
In this case, as in Revere's time, what presents is a golden opportunity for increased liberty, although the journey there involves some extremely challenging experiences first. If this opportunity is squandered, increased enslavement and even death are likely outcomes for those who are unprepared.
In my book, 'Liberating the Caged Human Animal' ( http://www.untamedlife.com/book/ ), I encourage people to become their True Positive Selves. I define the 'Positive' individual as one who confronts reality and strives to find the most constructive way possible to deal with whatever reality presents at that time.
I invite you to visit 'The Silver Bear Cafe' in order to help you confront reality so that you may then better seek out the necessary resources to deal with it as effectively as possible, ideally to become the untamed person that you were meant to be.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Keeping Their Daughters Caged
A few accounts of modern day religiously/culturally-justified brutal male repression of young women striving for independence....
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=fcb10ecb-9644-4f79-8f03-ede0b398477c .
Note the predictable - 'She must be more happy with God.'
Given that all of the incidents described in this article happened within pluralistic secular societies, inevitably the degree of abuse of young women in monolithic cultures is exponentially worse and the degree of despair suffered there by them is proportionally more overwhelming.
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=fcb10ecb-9644-4f79-8f03-ede0b398477c .
Note the predictable - 'She must be more happy with God.'
Given that all of the incidents described in this article happened within pluralistic secular societies, inevitably the degree of abuse of young women in monolithic cultures is exponentially worse and the degree of despair suffered there by them is proportionally more overwhelming.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Elsewhere, I have expressed my contempt for religion, particularly Western religion
( http://www.untamedlife.com/book/chapter6.php ), as being an integral agent of human domestication dedicated to instilling fear, stupidity, and obedience.
The destructiveness of Judeo-Christian-Muslim philosophy has in large part led to the tragic state of the modern human animal.
The anti-life, anti-nature, anti-reason impact of the Abrahamic world view has been most forcefully felt by the female half of our species, since the domesticators have long understood that controlling females and especially female sexuality is not only the key to human domestication but in many respects its driving force (as I have also expanded upon previously http://www.untamedlife.com/articles/bonobo1.php , http://www.untamedlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=311 ).
I was pleased, then, when I recently became aware of a Somali woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has forcefully spoken out against the repression, immorality, and violence against women perpetrated by Islam (the word ‘Islam’ literally means ‘submission’).
She wrote the screenplay for the short film ‘Submission’ which decried Islamic abuse of women. Its film-maker, Theo van Gogh, was murdered in Holland by an Islamic fundamentalist and a death threat against Ms. Ali was attached to a knife affixed to van Gogh’s dead body.
She has written ‘The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam’, a collection of essays and lectures on this theme, as well as ‘Infidel’, her autobiography.
Having grown up in the suffocating environment of fundamentalist Islam, she has not yet come to recognize the degree of dysfunction within the relatively free Judeo-Christian world that she now enjoys living within.
Nonetheless, her perspectives and remarkable evolution are worth attending to. She has journeyed very far from her state of extreme initial enslavement and she is to be much admired for her courage and determination.
In order to see the film ‘Submission’ please see
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=submission&sitesearch=#sitesearch=&q=submission .
For more on Ayaan Hirsi Ali please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali .
An excellent talk put on by her to an Atheist Alliance International meeting can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuaMHiMsRuY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COn4Kb-GE9w .
A brief interview with her about ‘The Caged Virgin’ can be heard at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5382547 .
( http://www.untamedlife.com/book/chapter6.php ), as being an integral agent of human domestication dedicated to instilling fear, stupidity, and obedience.
The destructiveness of Judeo-Christian-Muslim philosophy has in large part led to the tragic state of the modern human animal.
The anti-life, anti-nature, anti-reason impact of the Abrahamic world view has been most forcefully felt by the female half of our species, since the domesticators have long understood that controlling females and especially female sexuality is not only the key to human domestication but in many respects its driving force (as I have also expanded upon previously http://www.untamedlife.com/articles/bonobo1.php , http://www.untamedlife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=311 ).
I was pleased, then, when I recently became aware of a Somali woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has forcefully spoken out against the repression, immorality, and violence against women perpetrated by Islam (the word ‘Islam’ literally means ‘submission’).
She wrote the screenplay for the short film ‘Submission’ which decried Islamic abuse of women. Its film-maker, Theo van Gogh, was murdered in Holland by an Islamic fundamentalist and a death threat against Ms. Ali was attached to a knife affixed to van Gogh’s dead body.
She has written ‘The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam’, a collection of essays and lectures on this theme, as well as ‘Infidel’, her autobiography.
Having grown up in the suffocating environment of fundamentalist Islam, she has not yet come to recognize the degree of dysfunction within the relatively free Judeo-Christian world that she now enjoys living within.
Nonetheless, her perspectives and remarkable evolution are worth attending to. She has journeyed very far from her state of extreme initial enslavement and she is to be much admired for her courage and determination.
In order to see the film ‘Submission’ please see
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=submission&sitesearch=#sitesearch=&q=submission .
For more on Ayaan Hirsi Ali please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali .
An excellent talk put on by her to an Atheist Alliance International meeting can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuaMHiMsRuY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COn4Kb-GE9w .
A brief interview with her about ‘The Caged Virgin’ can be heard at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5382547 .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)