father nature

All posts tagged father nature

Nobody likes trees more than I do; nobody likes forests more than I do. And we’d be hard-pressed to find someone who enjoys the natural world more than I do. To be able to live in a forest has consumed my thoughts since I was 11 or 12 years old. To be able to live in a rainforest, with old growth trees being my front yard and back yard, would be the coolest fucking thing ever.

The forest has always felt like home to me. I have not noticed this attitude, this level of respect and reverence, in many people. In fact, I’ve never met anyone who wants to actually LIVE in a wild forest. I’ve spent time in the wilderness with people who liked camping, people who worked in the outdoors, and people who enjoy a stroll through a park with trees (hardly a wild forest, but whichever, it’s something, I guess). I’ve never met someone who likes forests as much as I do.

One might think that would make me an automatic “environmentalist,” but it doesn’t. Environmentalists do not live in forests. They may live in the country and have trees here and there, but this is not a wild landscape with trees as far as the eye can see, a landscape devoid of roads and powerlines and full of wildlife.

Frankly, Environmentalists have always seemed rather weird and scary to me. On the surface I seemed to have a lot in common with them—we both are against deforestion, pollution, and to some extent civilized development. I can certainly agree with any Greenpeace initiative that challenges large corporations hell-bent on stripping nature, obliterating it, and turning a profit from it.

Talk to some of them and they seem nearly religious about it all. I think that if you take a Nazi and a Hippy and fused them somehow, you’d get an Environmentalist. I’m sure most of them have good intentions, but some of them still seem a wee bit creepy…in the way a zealot, a follower of a cult, with strange rituals, might seem creepy.

Anyway, there is an important difference between the Environmentalist and someone like me:

My vision of an ideal human situation has us essentially back in the Stone Age, with some Iron Age trimming. Nomads, in teepees, following herds and hunting, fishing, and gathering.


Yeah. Obviously, that’s not going to happen—not unless some cataclysm utterly devastates the world and every civilized place is fucking demolished and wiped out, leaving semi-traditional Native peoples hanging on. And they decide to go back to the old ways.

Is this the world Environmentalists want? Is this what “sustainability” is all about? Is this how Environmentalists want to live?

Hell, no.

What they want is closer to what is depicted in the movie, Logan’s Run. An utterly organized, ordered, and control-freak civilization in a bubble, with sissified populations unable to leave and brainwashed into a system in which you can only live to age thirty. That’s your life span. When you hit 30 you go into a circus and get killed, while people cheer.

I want to live in Nature; the Environmentalist lives in a city or town and wants to control or manage Nature, and control all those who enter it or do not enter it. I don’t really want to control anyone. The Environmentalist calls the wild (or the entire planet, for some reason) “Mother Nature,” or “Mother Earth.”

I call the earth “the earth.” Sometimes I call the wilds, “Father Nature,” but that’s only a futile effort to bring balance back, to show that Nature has masculine and feminine parts (and quite frankly there is a lot more masculine about a forest than feminine. Tribes in the Amazon call the oldest, biggest trees “Grandfather” trees. Nature was considered masculine up until the Europeans (the Greeks, mainly) started reversing and switching everything around and upside down. Now everything is called “she”—boats, cars, cities, towns, countries, the planet, the plants and animals on the planet, mountains, storms, the moon, the oceans, the weather. Why? There seems to be an underlying consciousness determined to have everything regarded as female…why? I never understood the obsessive control-freak urge to slice and divide everything into genders; however, I do understand the source of this fanatical effort to feminize everything.

Seems like in fifty years or so, men will be called “she” also. And there will be no such thing as “masculine” or “gender;” everything and everyone will simply be regarded as feminine.

I hope I’m dead by then. Because I do not want to live in such a world.

And it seems that people really don’t think or care about this whatsoever. They just regurgitate what they’re told without giving it a second’s thought.

Anyway, more on that shit another time.)


I see the Environmentalist and its apparent opposite—the greedy, exploiting, soulless fuck in a business suit drooling over a new discovery of resources to plunder and grow richer from—as essentially the same. They both want to control wild regions—they may despise each other, but they’re both control freaks.

Conservation is about control, management, order. Environmentalism and “sustainability” are just another Marxist-based Collectivist system in disguise. The same old pig, grunting the same old grunts, wearing a different hat.

From wikipedia:

“Environmentalism is a broad philosophy, ideology and social movement regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements. Environmentalism advocates the preservation, restoration and/or improvement of the natural environment, and may be referred to as a movement to control pollution. For this reason, concepts such as a land ethic, environmental ethics, biodiversity, ecology and the biophilia hypothesis figure predominantly.

At its crux, environmentalism is an attempt to balance relations between humans and the various natural systems on which they depend in such a way that all the components are accorded a proper degree of sustainability. The exact nature of this balance is controversial and there are many different ways for environmental concerns to be expressed in practice. Environmentalism and environmental concerns are often represented by the color green, but this association has been appropriated by the marketing industries and is a key tactic of greenwashing. Environmentalism is opposed by anti-environmentalism, which takes a skeptical stance against many environmentalist perspectives.”

See, I don’t agree with any of that. Nature doesn’t need us fucking with it, it doesn’t need to be preserved or managed—it just needs to be left alone.

A “leave it be” mentality is not a meme common in anyone who considers him-or-her-self a _______ist.

The Environmentalist and the Anti-Environmentalist basically have the same goals—the exploitation of natural resources for human usage, with all other considerations secondary. The difference is that one wants to rip it all to shreds and sell it as quickly as possible, while the other wants to do this more slowly and “responsibly.” They both seem to want a centralized “government” in charge of the rules and regulations regarding it all. (I use the word “government” quite loosely.)

One wants everything right now, damn the consequences, fuck the side-effects (pollution, destruction of ecosystems, mass-extinctions), the other wants everything in a more gradual, cleaner, more organized manner. A slower, more smile-filled, prettier, more gradual decline and death.

If one group got their way, or if the other group got their way…I’d still see fences, parks full of regulations and rules, towns and cities and economies. But I think if the Environmentalists got their way, everything and every living thing would be tagged, every bee and bug, every bird and critter, every tree and blade of grass, all electronically monitored and tracked and watched on a massive control grid. The only “wild” ground would be fenced (or walled) in, with barbed wire and cameras and armed guards, and you’d have to pay a hefty fee to enter these Nature Concentration Camps.

Now, most Environmentalists no doubt would argue rabidly with my vision of their future, claiming I got it all wrong, that I really misunderstood them, saying I’m deluded or whatever. But the Environmentalist Movement is a separate entity from its followers, the same way Christianity is separate from Chirstians. Those at the upper levels of the religion (The Church) typically have wildly differing beliefs (and agendas) than the zealots who follow.

I’m saying that people in powerful positions have different beliefs than those masses who go along with policy, procedures, and rules.

An article by David Suziki earlier this month:

The fundamental failure of environmentalism

Environmentalism has failed. Over the past 50 years, environmentalists have succeeded in raising awareness, changing logging practices, stopping mega-dams and offshore drilling, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But we were so focused on battling opponents and seeking public support that we failed to realize these battles reflect fundamentally different ways of seeing our place in the world. And it is our deep underlying worldview that determines the way we treat our surroundings.

We have not, as a species, come to grips with the explosive events that have changed our relationship with the planet. For most of human existence, we lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers whose impact on nature could be absorbed by the resilience of the biosphere. Even after the Agricultural Revolution 10,000 years ago, farming continued to dominate our lives. We cared for nature. People who live close to the land understand that seasons, climate, weather, pollinating insects, and plants are critical to our well-being.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the birth of the environmental movement. In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which documented the terrible, unanticipated consequences of what had, until then, been considered one of science’s great inventions, DDT. Paul Mueller, who demonstrated the effects of the pesticide, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1948. In the economic boom after the Second World War, technology held out the promise of unending innovation, progress, and prosperity. Rachel Carson pointed out that technology has costs.

Carson’s book appeared when no government had an environment department or ministry. Millions around the world were soon swept up in what we now recognize as the environmental movement. Within 10 years, the United Nations Environment Programme was created and the first global environmental conference was held in Stockholm, Sweden.

With increasing catastrophes like oil and chemical spills and nuclear accidents, as well as issues such as species extinction, ozone depletion, deforestation, acid rain, and global warming, environmentalists pressed for laws to protect air, water, farmland, and endangered species. Millions of hectares of land were protected as parks and reserves around the world.

Thirty years later, in 1992, the largest gathering of heads of state in history met at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The event was meant to signal that economic activity could not proceed without considering ecological consequences. But, aided by recessions, popped financial bubbles, and tens of millions of dollars from corporations and wealthy neoconservatives to support a cacophony of denial from rightwing pundits and think tanks, environmental protection came to be portrayed as an impediment to economic expansion.

This emphasis of economy over environment, and indeed, the separation of the two, comes as humanity is undergoing dramatic changes. During the 20th century, our numbers increased fourfold to six billion (now up to seven billion), we moved from rural areas to cities, developed virtually all of the technology we take for granted today, and our consumptive appetite, fed by a global economy, exploded. We have become a new force that is altering the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the planet on a geological scale.

In creating dedicated departments, we made the environment another special interest, like education, health, and agriculture. The environment subsumes every aspect of our activities, but we failed to make the point that our lives, health, and livelihoods absolutely depend on the biosphere — air, water, soil, sunlight, and biodiversity. Without them, we sicken and die. This perspective is reflected in spiritual practices that understand that everything is interconnected, as well as traditional societies that revere “Mother Earth” as the source of all that matters in life.

When we believe the entire world is filled with unlimited “resources” provided for our use, we act accordingly. This “anthropocentric” view envisions the world revolving around us. So we create departments of forests, fisheries and oceans, and environment whose ministers are less concerned with the health and well-being of forests, fish, oceans, or the environment than with resources and the economies that depend on them.

It’s almost a cliché to refer to a “paradigm shift”, but that is what we need to meet the challenge of the environmental crises our species has created. That means adopting a “biocentric” view that recognizes we are part of and dependent on the web of life that keeps the planet habitable for a demanding animal like us.

What I’m seeing there is the result of people who want things both ways—there is no marriage between “economic growth” and “the natural world.” It’s oil and water. Both cannot exist in the same space. They can’t live in harmony. It’s not possible. The “economy” fucking comes from, is based on and dependent upon, “the natural world.”

Without Nature, there would be no more “economy.”

The “economy” and its inherent business model is based on infinity—infinite growth—and this planet is not infinite. Show me an economic theory in practice somewhere which is not based on growth—which in fact has an end, a point in which the folks and business types can say, “Well, that’s enough. Let’s stop.”

Who says that? Who says, “We have enough wood. Let’s stop logging—let’s never do it again. No more trees will be cut down. Shut it all down, boys”—?

Who the fuck would say: “Well, we have enough money. Let’s stop.”

Who says, “We have enough plastic, we have enough oil. Let’s cease drilling, polluting, stop it all and let’s all make we have last”—?


I’ve never heard such a thing before. I’ve never heard anyone write, speak, or even hint at the words “We Have Enough. Stop Now.”

Economics does not stop. Nations do not stop. Progress does not stop. Power is fueled by greed, and greed never sleeps. It is all based upon more, more, and more, and fucking MORE.

And this doesn’t bode well for the forest. All that “more” has a price. All that “more” has to come from somewhere. Like a cancer, “more” slowly eats away at green, living places.

Anyroad, like the Bible points out clearly (and what almost all Christians—and most other religious and non-religious folk—completely ignore, don’t understand, or don’t give a fuck about) and correctly: “You cannot serve two masters.”

You cannot serve both God and Mammon, a Higher Power and Money. You cannot serve both good and evil. You cannot serve both the environment and industry. You cannot serve both Nature and Economics. You cannot serve both the wild and the tame. You cannot serve both the Spirtual and the Material.

No, I’m sorry, kids. You can only pick one. We all serve something in life, and it can only be one thing—not two opposites.


I was a tool. In the 90s I noticed climate change in a few regions, so I was kinda sucked into to the “global warming” hysteria. But the more I looked into it and thought about it, the more I realized that climates are constantly changing on this planet.

Now I don’t care. So what? It’s warm, the seas swell, there are floods, then it’s cool, then colder, sea levels drop, ice caps grow—and it happens all over again. It’s been going on since way before humans were around. It’s normal.

Yes, abnormal is normal.

The question is: are we causing this particular change in climate?

And I have not seen much evidence to support that we are. The ice on Mars has shrunk along with the ice on Earth. How can what we’re doing here have an impact on a planet so far away? There’s no doubt that climates change, but humans are not to blame for it. There is a lot for which modern, civilized humans are to blame, yet climate change is not among them. There’s no real evidence for this.

“What about greenhouse gases omfg?!?!?”

Yeah, well, there have been such gases (going by ice core samples that have been studied) around for as long as there’s been life on this planet, and these levels rise and fall in different eras, periods, according to what the life on the planet is doing, what the sun is doing, et cetera. There is in fact evidence that carbon levels in the atmosphere follow climate change and do not precede it.

In the 1970s, the frantic hype was about Global Cooling, if you can fucking believe that. From the 1940s through the 1970s the earth was in fact getting colder, and there were doomtards writing about it and begging for government and public funding for this or that. And then through the 1980s, the cool period ended. By the late 1980s, early 1990s, the global average temperature was definitely up. And this produced the current collection of freaks frothing at the mouth and shrieking at us from every available sounding board—that the fucking sky is falling and we have to do something about it now! Oh my fucking god now! Now give us money!

Well, guess what, assholes? Over the last fifteen years, the global average temperature of the earth has not sky-rocketed, as we were all told it would. In fact, it’s basically leveled off. So, if you’re like me and are sick and fucking tired of alarmist spastics ranting and raving and spitting in your face about “Global Warming,” you can officially tell them to “SHUT THE FUCK UP!” and have evidence to back it up and challenge their parroting of their party line. Their religious dogma.

Global Climate Shifts are facts, they happen all the time and have happened for eons, and will continue to happen long after our bones are fucking dust. “Global Warming” is a myth.

Many people won’t accept this—lending evidence to the notion that Environmentalism is indeed just another religion—and I think many will deny the facts simply to continue to oppose those suited, greedy cunts whose only desire in life is to fuck everyone and acquire wealth at the expense of nature and poor people and life itself. Because these suited cunts are howling hysterically now that “they” have been proven correct in their claims that “global wamring is a myth!” But their interest in this subject was only in regards to profit, not truth. I doubt most of them ever saw any evidence, or cared to; they lied, too.

It seems that they’re all dirty, stinking, greedy, hypocritical fucking liars…

Environmentalism is not a religion

I’m so sick of all you lying fucking cunts…

Anyway, why do I find Environmentalists creepy and scary? Here’s some great examples…

Global Worming…

We will have to start feeding or killing polar bears…

No comment…

This former co-founder of Greenpeace (Patrick Moore) now says the ‘logging will save the world?’

I saw the article in the magazine, “Building The Coast.”

BTC: “Do you feel there’s a promising future for nuclear [power]?”

PM: “Absolutely, because it’s the only non-fossil alternative that’s almost unlimited in its ability and has proven to be one of the safest technologies. We tend to think of hydro-electric as being safe but 126,000 died in one hydro-electric accident in China in 1975. And the biggest loss of life from a man-made accident in the US was a dam bursting in the late eighteenth century in Pennsylvania where over 2000 people died.”

Ah, I see. So this is about trying not to break any records on losses in human life. What a worthy goal.

This corporate sell-out has also been quoted: “The best image that came out of that Occupy movement was this guy who had his jacket off and was wearing a tie, standing there with a sign that said, ‘Occupy a Desk.'”


I guess if you’re religious, and a fanatic, it’s easy to convert to another religion—from the environmentalist cult to the corporate cult. A hippy to a yuppy. Pagan to Catholic. Catholic to Protestant. Protestant to Jew. Jew to Hindu. Hindu to Muslim. Muslim to Atheist. Atheist to Satanist, which is just a new age Pagan.

Anywaty, one more:

Fracking: the monster we greens must embrace

Most environmentalists are in no doubt. The new technology of fracking to extract shale gas from the rocks beneath our homes is both a nasty neighbour and a sure recipe for climate Armageddon. Not only that, fracking was pioneered in the US, the gas-guzzling land of climate sceptics.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, uses high-pressure water to shatter shale rocks and release natural gas lurking within. The gas is then piped to the surface. Shale rocks are widespread. But fracking requires lots of water; the toxic sludges brought back to the surface can cause pollution; and the extraction has even triggered minor earthquakes.

However, I can’t bring myself to condemn it. These drawbacks mean there are plenty of places where fracking would not be a good idea, especially in crowded Britain. But that is different from the blanket ban that most environment groups demand.

Frightening. I doubt that the maker of this documentary—Gasland:

—and all the people suffering the horrible fucking side-effects of fracking would feel the same way.

Saying that Fracking is good for the future of energy is like saying what Monsanto’s doing to food is good for the future of food. Hey, fucklehead, a lesser evil is still fucking evil.

And I’m not even sure that it would be a lesser of two evils…

(By the way, watch that goddamned documentary. You can find “Gasland” on torrents, apparently.)

Here’s another fucking gem:

Earth Hour: millions prepare to switch off the lights

Sigh. This is the break from reality—the separation of action and consequence, sure, but it’s more a rift between words/thoughts and action—that I always talk about people having.

“I dropped a dollar into the can in the store—I’m supporting the fight against breast cancer.”

Why isn’t anyone looking at why cancer rates keep climbing, in spite of the modern techno-wonderland in which we live? Why is everything geared towards Treament, and even a Cure, when nothing’s being done about where it’s coming from in the first place? Fuck the cure—what’s causing it?

“I care about the environment: I recycle.”

How the fuck is that a solution? Why not use less, stop buying so much fucking shit to begin with? We shouldn’t be producing so much crap—recycling doesn’t teach people to be “content with less.” It’s horrible because it teaches people that they can buy whatever they want, consume as much as they want, do whatever they want…all as long as they recycle their cans and plastic. That makes them good responsible citizens. That clears their conscience, more like…

Is this slowing down the manufacturing of plastic? No. Of anything at all? No. Is this slowing the deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, or stopping any logging operations whatsoever? Not at all. Are less cans being produced? Are you fucking kidding me?

Is there less packaging to begin with compared to ten years ago? Are you serious?

The “green” movement is a fucking joke. A cop-out. A gimmick suckering in people for murky reasons. I sense it has a murky agenda. Control always stinks. I can always smell it.

Aside from that, it’s solving nothing. It just slows down the inevitable…a little bit. Benefitting nothing but our egos and the corporations who have jumped onboard this shit wagon to sell us junk. It’s harmful to make people feel so proud about their piggish excess, their decadence and rampant consumption. It’s a terrible lesson for kids:

“Be pigs!—just makie sure to recycle your pig shit.”

Yeah, shutting off our lights for an hour will do a lot. Show our “support” for the environment—like putting a stupid coloured ribbon sticker on the ass end of your gas-guzzling, pollution-spewing, wars-for-oil-causing metal dinosaurs on wheels. People do not have any notion what *support* fucking means.

Piss on your fucking Earth Hour. I’m going to turn more lights on just to protest you annoying, pushy, hypocritical, evangelical, deluded fucking cunts.

I’m going to live in an environment—“caring” about it isn’t a choice. It’s my home. I won’t shit in my bed. I won’t piss in my water supply. The forest is my home. I don’t need to recycle because I won’t be rushing off to a mall in my fucking SUV to stuff the monstrous thing with slave-labour-made crap at fucking Walmart that I’ll haul back to my massive press-board Ikea castle, unpack everything and fill up three garbage bags with paper and carboard and plastic and foam.

I don’t drive or use gas or oil—that’s my way of “supporting” the fucking environment. If a third of the people on this planet thought and behaved like I did, do, and will, then we’d be using a third less steel, concrete, plastic, oil, wood, tin, alluminium, gravel, glass; there’d be a third less pollution, a third less homes being developed and a third less natural ground being annihilated to make way for such development; a third less landfill waste, a third less cars farting smog, a third less factories coughing out toxic plumes because they’d be a third less demand for all this fucking crap we don’t need.

I resuse everything I have anyway—I don’t need some smiling suited cunt to convince me of its economic benefits or that it’s fucking “saving the world.” I need only look at pre-history and how Natives lived, and the respect and reverence they had for the environment in which they lived.

And that’s the point right there: if you don’t live in a forest, why would you give a fuck about it?

You know nothing about it, see no value in it—and must be taught (read: emotionally manipulated into caring) that it must be “preserved” for future generations to enjoy.

Really? Is that why it must be “preserved”—for the offspring of our own species? Not for its own sake? Not for any other ideal or reason? It should be spared utter destruction just for our kids to be able one day to load up their Jeep with camping shit to go off driving down a wilderness road, to laugh and yell with music blasting as they spew exhaust and send every living creature running away in a panic, all so these spoiled brats can drink beer and fuck their girlfriends in a tent later, hopefully not leaving their beer cans and used condoms lying around after they do the forest a favour and fuck off outta there back to the loving golden arms of Mater?

Fuck off.

And what does “preserve” mean exactly?

Control. Manage. Organize.

More bureaucracy. Parks. Fenced off, their borders visible on a map. Cameras. Specific roads for use with specific vehicles at specific times of the year. Rules and people in uniforms enforcing these rules. You need permits, licenses, papers, permissions—for every fucking thing you do.

You may hunt, but you must have the correct weapon, the corresponding documents, background checks, valid ID and other information, approval from a psychiatrist, and you can only hunt this specific creature at this time of year, and you may only hunt this many of them. And all this costs money, of course. No money? Fuck off back the city slums, maggot. Nature is for rich kids, don’t you know. We’re warning you. Keep out.

Or else we’ll put you in a cage and poke you with a stick. Right in the ass.

You want to live in the forest and live off the land? In a Federal Park? In a Provincial Park? In a United Nations Approved Conservation Area? Are you insane?


No. No, my silly friend. No. Nature is a business, and a playground for urban dwellers, and you are only free to live in a city or town and use these natural facilities, provided you have the necessary documents and permits, and follow the regulations.

You are free to live where we say, how we say. You are free to do what we tell you. Or else.

“You want to cook the food you have, eh? Did you get permission to make that fire? Do you have a permit for moving those stones into a circle and digging that pit? You have no papers whatsoever? Any ID? Credit Card or Debit Card? No? I’m sorry, son, you’re breaking several laws here. Put that fire out, put your hands behind your back; you’re under arrest for Vagrancy, Endangering a Conservation Area, Starting A Fire Without License, Upsetting The Earth Without Permission, and Failure to Produce Proper Documentation and Permits Within A State Park.”


That’s all it’s about. It’s all it’s ever about. And it will only get worse. Environmentalism, when you really start looking at it, is fucking ugly and twisted at its core. It’s a hideous, lying control freak.

Here’s another example:

Agenda 21 America

This is part of Agenda 21 regarding the redistribution of wealth and property in the United States. See all that red? That’s for Nature: you are not allowed in these areas. Only authorized personnel. How are we going to know precisely what they’re doing with that “Nature?” How are we to know if it’s going to be natural areas at all?

Not that we’ll have a say in anything, because personal freedoms will be sacrificed in the name of saving the world.

See the yellow areas? These are “highly regulated” areas. You’ll need pretty detailed papers, indentification, and permissions to be in these areas. Want to go camping? No. That is a non-sustainable activity. No more camping, fishing, hunting, skiing, waterskiing, canoe trips, backpacking adventures. You can only play in a city park, under supervision. I am not kidding. It’s in the works, coming to a country, county, and town or city near you.

Speaking of which, guess where humans get to live? I can’t even see the areas on there—probably because they’re too small. Tiny black specks—massive cities in which we will be herded.

Remember the movie Nineteen-Eighty-Four? The scene in which Winston and his lady friend want to go do the unthinkable in the woods? Well, they have to sneak off—sneak away from the city into a forbidden area—where there is green grass and trees.

Here is a short list of human activity that will no longer be allowed due to its new classification as “not sustainable”—in other words, these things will be illegal:

1. ALL private property rights (ownership of private property)
2. ALL forms of irrigation, pesticides & commercial fertilizer
3. Livestock production and most meat consumption
4. Privately owned vehicles and personal travel
5. Use of fossil fuels for power generation or mechanized travel
6. Single family homes
7. Most forms of mineral extraction and timber harvesting
8. Human population (it must be reduced to fewer than 1 billion people–from the present population of over 6 billion people).

Yes, you saw that right—number six means families are not sustainable and thus will be illegal. No more moms and dads. The New Order will raise your kids. The New World Order will decide what’s best for you, at all levels, and decide what’s best for the world, at all levels.

This is control never imagined before on this planet.

I am pro-freedom, and thus must be against control. I am pro-independence and pro-self-sufficiency, and thus must be anti-corporation and anti-government.

I am pro-Nature, pro-Truth and pro-Freedom, and thus must be against Environmentalism and against Anti-Environmentalism.

Here’s a good place to start seeing the underlying sketchy nature of the entire movement—it is called Agenda 21:

Talk about murky agendas…check this out:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us [all of humanity], we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

Alexander King, Co-Founder, Club of Rome.

What is the Club of Rome? Go look it up, do a little research and see. Check out the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the Sierra Club. They’re all connected to the United Nations. Don’t believe me, do your own research…

Okay, I’ll lay off Environmentalism and its zealots for a minute, and move onto Anti-Environmentalism and its zealots…because they are almost as bad, just a bit different.

Environmentalism is the greatest threat to civilization

A representative for an evangelical group that doesn’t believe in man-made climate change has suggested that the modern environmental movement is harming civilization.

Speaking on the Janet Mefferd Show on March 18, Dr. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance laid out four reasons why environmentalism is “the greatest threat to Western civilization.”

Environmentalism is insidious, Beisnser explained, and it dangerously “speaks to the inherent spiritual yearnings of human souls and it provides plausible answers to dogged questions.” It also incorporates the similarly dangerous threats of utopian Marxism, the secular humanism and the “religious fanaticism of jihad.”

I can’t argue with most of that, yet I really don’t care about civilization. The disgusting sick mass-structure people inhabit doesn’t interest me—people do; animals do; plants do. Living things do. Civilization can burn in fucking hell, Mr. Beisner, for all I care.

—incorporates the similarly dangerous threats of utopian Marxism, the secular humanism and the “religious fanaticism of jihad.” Lastly, “environmentalism encompasses all the vague spiritualities that have frankly overwhelmed secular humanism in the West and now threaten the Christian faith.”

I’m always skeptical regarding motives and the agenda behind religious types—who pretty much collectively view “nature” as an evil entity which must be tamed, conquered, or even destroyed entirely.

Why? Because the Bible was written by farmers. Native peoples and nomadic peoples, hunters, et cetera, were always viewed biblically as barbarians, evil pagans, sinners who must be civilized and shown the True Way (farming and kneeling before our god(s) and goddess(s)).

And most of the Bible was written by (edited by), and employed by, the rulers of States (see: the Eastern Roman Empire and the rise of the Catholic Church in Europe) in order to demonize a wild group of people so that they could be assimilated (turned into tax-paying farmers; serfs) and so the State could absorb them and their resources. The Bible was a tool used ruthlessly to conquer people and steal their land.

And so that mentality still stinks in the breath of its followers, even if they do not support such actions today.

In November, he told the hosts of the American Family Association “Today’s Issues” program that humans could not possibly be causing the “catastrophic consequences for the climate” warned by global warming scientists.

“That doesn’t fit well with the biblical teaching that the earth is the result of the omniscient design, the omnipotent creation and the faithful sustaining of the God of the Bible. So it really is an insult to God,” Beisner said.

The professor, who has a doctorate in Scottish history, was also featured in Bill Moyers’ 2006 documentary “Is God Green?”

During interviews for the special, Beisner said that Genesis dictates humans should “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” This disproves the opinion of the “anti-population growth” activists, according to Beisner, who adds that pollution is a natural byproduct of reality.

While modern humans are not causing climate change, we are (fucking obviously) causing a lot of other kinds of “changes.” One could deny this easily (and defend it okay) fifty years ago, but since satellite images are available to the general public, we can see.

Yeah, you fucking greedy shit-faced lairs, I see you. I see what you’re doing. I’ve scanned most of the world and have seen the devastation, the dead zones of human development, the vast atrocious chunks hacked out of the planet, swathes of destruction, where great grey deserts replace green places.


Naw, there’s no real deforestation—especially in the Amazon, as seen above. Keep moving, nothing to see here…

Fucking liars. I see you.

—pollution is a natural byproduct of reality?

No, wait, let’s think about that. Odd that a Christian would cling to something “natural” to prove a point—but, hell, what’s that expression? “Even the devil can quote Scripture for his own purpose?”

Yeah, that.

I think we are naturally slobs. Think about it. Look at a monkey in a tree, eating fruit and nuts—it tosses everything down to the forest floor. Look at any animal in the wild, it’s a slob. It’s messy and careless. Shit gets thrown everywhere—what we call “littering” and “pollution” today.

What’s the difference?

Natural materials get broken down on the forest floor and become soil. There’s no need to be tidy and concern yourself with recycling because what you’re using came from an ecosystem in which everything gets automatically recycled, unconsciously, naturally.

The difference is this and the fact we are aware of ourselves, and are now using artificial materials that don’t get broken down and have terrible fucking side-effects when dumped and poured into a living and growing natural region.

The difference is that we are (and what we’re doing is) not natural, asshat.

I can put this in terms a seven-year-old should be able to understand, but I don’t know how to put this into terms a two-year-old can comprehend.



“Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.”

This is and has always been where I drawn a line in the fucking sand. This fucking pisses me off.

I can agree with Christians, surprisingly, on all sorts of things, but not here. The average Christian who supports this, blindly obeys without questioning, has no fucking clue what it was like back then, no clue whatsoever where the Bible came from, who really wrote it, how many different versions existed and how far they go back in time—I know: I spent years researching this—and why it was pieced together from so many other sources. And it had nothing to do with its content.

The average Christian can never admit to any fact of that time, and before it, due to the probable total breakdown in the Creationist time-line and nature of the persona called “God” in the Bible (his—or should I say her—origins), and, as a result, the complete collapse of the most of the early parts of the Bible—a domino effect that would cause him to question his entire faith.

So very few Christians will be brave enough to look deeper into any of it, and so here we are. And I have no energy for a multi-page rant getting into all this crap again. Fuck it. It would be pointless. Moving on…

First of all, that was at a time when human populations in the Middle East were not great, and life spans were short, and disease was fairly persistant and nasty—no one back then had any idea how big the world really was, or that it even had a limit in regards to space and resources.

Second of all, it was the process of States to produce massive amounts of people—the more people, the more gold from taxes, the larger workforce, the bigger group of worshippers (customers for the temples), and the larger the armies could be…which could be used to expand and steal from neighbouring tribes and villages, towns, and later cities and city-states.

Who cared how many people they had? There was so much land ready for plunder, and besides, any excess in population could be offered up as sacrifices and hacked to death in seasonal wars. The spring was the best time for such slaughter of men. Mars. March. April—Aphrodite, Venus, Ishtar, Astarte, all the same goddess. Look it up. Look up the origin of “Easter,” just for starters. I fucking dare you.

Third, “subduing it,” well, this is clearly what a ruler wants—not a group of people respectful of natural ways and living things and each other, not a peaceful people living in harmony with their environment. No, only a king or queen who wants more wealth.

But Christians don’t care about what parts of the Bible were added by the rulers of the day to serve their desires, not the needs of the people, not the needs of the ecosystem. However, I’m sure many Christians have doubts about this, or have even given it more than two minutes of thought…it doesn’t matter, though: most Christians live more like the Romans in the Bible than any other group of people or type of individual (least of all Jesus) and anything that supports their greedy, ego-driven, willful lifestyle will be framed and put on their wall.

I love it how many Christians will snub their nose at the Old Testament, or parts of it, where it might conflict with what Jesus said…but when other things come into conflict with their decadent, diversion-filled, material-obsessed shitheap they call a lifestyle, they’ll get wide-eyed and grab some part of the Old Testament to stuff into someone’s face to support their life and the status quo, and what Jesus said or did be damned.

Fucking hypocrites.

—“subdue it.”

Control it. Enslave it and milk it and say it’s “God’s Fucking Will.”

Conquer, mutilate and murder and call it “Progress.”

Just like good Romans. May Jesus come back and spit in your faces…

What did he say?

New International Version: “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?”

KJV: “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?”

GOD’S WORD Translation: “Look at the birds. They don’t plant, harvest, or gather the harvest into barns. Yet, your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you worth more than they?

—Matthew 6:26

He’s talking about agriculture. Farming. Work. Labour. The backbone of the Roman Empire and every empire-state-nation before and since. Jesus, a wandering ascetic fisherman, is talking about the very essence of “subduing” the fucking earth, asshole. He’s talking about your fucked-up way of life today. You, Mr. Beisner, and anyone who lives like you.

How’s it feel, asshole? To become the very thing that Jesus warned everyone about? A fucking Roman living a corrupt, diseased, material lifestyle? How’s it feel to know that a fucking non-religious loser like me lives closer to how Jesus lived than you have or ever will? How’s it feel to be a fucking cunt?

He’s talking about something deeper, too. He’s talking about a greater issue—the spiritual versus the material. But whatever. They’ll never listen.

Like I say, it’s easier to believe bullshit.

Whether you’re a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, New Ager, Environmentalist, Anti-Environmentalist, Pagan, Satanist, Feminist, Marxist, Fascist, Creationist, Anarchist, Flat-Earther, Capitalist, Evolutionist, or Racist…it’s just easier to eat shit, isn’t it?

Why all these fuckers hate each other is because they’re so much alike. They all lie, don’t practice what they peach, trying to serve two masters, and they’re all utter hypocrites.

Fuck all you phonies.

Well, seeing how I just offended most of the civilized population of the planet, I conclude that here’s a good place to end for now. I said all I wanted to say on this creepy subject, anyway.

I’ve never left off with any quotes from the Bible, but what the fuck…there’s a first time for everything, and it fits. So, here’s some good stuff from my man, Jesus. Christians could learn so much from this guy—I guess we all could. Enjoy.

19“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.

20“But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;

21for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

22“The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light.

23“But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

24“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

25“For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

26“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?

27“And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?

28“And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin,

29yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.30“But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!

31“Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’

32“For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.

33“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

34“So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

—-Matthew 6:19-34, International, top, and King James Version, below

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”


Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

—-Matthew 7:1-7:6, International and King James Version

Yeah, fuck you, John Zerzan.

Cave Men

There. I finally had to say it, and in the following I shall strive to put this subject—and the douchebag himself—to rest. But that can’t be it—I need closure.

Heh. Now, I have to admit that there was a time when I agreed with Mr. Zerzan, back when I felt utterly alone in my ideas (with a few key exceptions, though it was never regarding any “Return To The Primal” sorta stuff, and I’m not much into that any longer), back when I seemed to need something to belong to, some sort of group (tribe), and back when I first looked at what he was writing as a blessing. Finally, someone was on the same page as me. At last there are others who are about the same thing as I was…

So I read and read, and …some things started to rub me the wrong way…and I could not put my finger on it. I ignored it—some funny feelings are a small price to pay for a metaphysical alliance, no? After a while I began looking into John Zerzan’s life—trying to ascertain where abouts he lived in the woods and what he was doing.

He didn’t live in any woods. Nor did he live in the mountains, or the wild. Nor did he really practice anything at all that he preached. And what was it that he preached? Civilization = bad; technology = bad; wilderness = good; primitive peoples = good. Hell, he was against civilization…couldn’t I let a few things slide? Like the accumulating evidence that the guy might be some anarcho-marxist has-been and was now some extreme “green” anarchist?

Show »


Yet when I got deeper into his essays, more stuff started to turn me off. It seemed he preached: art = bad, all language = bad, all symbols = bad, all tools and weapons = bad, eating meat and hunting = bad; living exactly like a monkey = good.

Even if I agreed with some of it, it played no part in what I was doing—I didn’t want to live like a monkey…perhaps because I wasn’t one, and that wouldn’t be fucking possible unless we hit a time warp and went back a million years…

Confused Ape

But even then I pushed that aside, even though I had lost a huge degree of (most of the) respect I’d had for the guy. Nobody’s perfect. Even radical, border-line lunatic hypocrites had something to offer. True, I did not think of him as an ally in what I was about, so basically I just quoted some of his “primitive people = awesome” bits of text and research for my own selfish purposes. And I didn’t quote anything, from him or other sources, that shat on my beliefs or what I was about, or put anything else into question.

In a way, I was doing what he had done—picking and choosing to include in my work only that which supported what I was saying, and ignoring the rest. Running all information through a very selective filter. At least I didn’t start lying, though. Phew. Once you start down that dark road, it’s a long despicable journey from which you may never recover. The lies will take you over until you start believing them, because such lies are born of memes—“lies become you.”

Later on, I came across a bit of text of his that suggested that agriculture was always a means to subdue women…

Women? The blood drained from my face, my mouth fell open, and I had to re-read, and re-re-read that. I could not get my head around it—it was like being told a cube was easier to swallow than a sphere. And the first pills were really perfect little cubes because the hard pointy edges made them easier to swallow. And men changed them into rounder edged ones because men were evil; so they should go back to being cubical again.


No, really, the idea was like square peg trying to fit into a round hole. Or it was as if I were being told that the sky was pink. When in fact it’s nearly the opposite colour of that, blue, and that only 25% of the people know it’s blue, so the other 75% will continue believing it’s pink…so saying it’s pink, even though it’s a lie, isn’t really controversial or secret knowledge, since most people believe it, thus it’s just a cheap ploy to gain support for whatever by appealing to 75% of people who believe the lie…

Make sense?

Confused Ape

It was something that one would not think about twice if one hadn’t spent years researching and investigating the slide from pre-history into history, from nomadic to semi-nomadic to fully sedentary; the factors and possibilities, but, moreso, the strong healthy male traditions of hunter and hunter-gatherer societies before all this farming. Zerzan doesn’t get much into nomadic ways of life, since these are driven by hunter-prey relationships. See, migrating herbivores are not truly nomadic because they’re basically what Agent Smith in The Matrix accuses humans of being: a group of creatures that move to an area and consume every natural resource (grass, green shoots, and water) until nothing is left, so the only way they can survive is to spread to another area.

The only difference with true gatherers (semi-sedentary) like herbivores, like wildebeest, and modern humans (sedentary farmers), is that wildebeest do not set up shop on the ground they are turning into a desert, they do not build structures, they do not plant grass so they can stay there and no longer migrate.

Wildebeest and other ungulates (herbivores) have to spread to another area, else there would be no more food or water—but when they do migrate, the area is left to recover, and they return to it the following year.

Then again, predators are not truly nomadic either, since they simply follow the herbivores, and if the herbivores stayed in one spot, so would the carnivores.

Perhaps nothing is truly nomadic except for something that decides to be…or maybe plants—what other form of life wanders around without rhyme or reason, totally without purpose other than to get around and stay alive, at the mercy of the elements, of chaotic forces?

I dunno. What I do know is someone who knows nothing of all this would simply nod and keep reading (after Zerzan’s historically flippantly evidence-free and ironical statement that women are oppressed by agriculture), oblivious to the lie, which seems to be, well, it’s becoming engraved into conventional thought anyway. Part of the same set of memes that make the word “harvest” so popular these days.

I even heard the following mind-boggling statement once:

“Harvesting game.”

Show »


Seriously, I shit you not.

To harvest is to reap what you’re sowing, to cut the planted fields—that you planted. Gathering mushrooms is not “harvesting” them unless you planted them. Picking wild berries is not harvesting them, and for fuck’s sake, hunting deer is hunting, not harvesting…

You only harvest what you’ve planted. That’s what the fucking word means. But people don’t care about what anything means any longer; they just parrot what they’ve heard without ever thinking about it…

And that doesn’t apply to fucking animals, just fucking plants. Even if you have critters penned up and ready for slaughter and butchery, that’s still not harvesting…Jesus. It’s just killing them. In the most dishonourable way possible—helpless and fenced or walled in with no place to run—but still not harvesting.

It’s sorta like “murder” and “killing.” Swatting a mosquito is killing; stomping on the head of a newborn baby is murdering. It’s kinda like this difference, but way more pronounced when you realize that the memes involved here seem to be seeking to confuse meanings, between gathering and farming…

And of course nobody really cares, because even those who do realize even a bit of what’s going on, well, it’s just more of the same bullshit that’s around now—all to make women smile and nod, who cares what’s true or not, as long as women are appeased momentarily and shut up for a few minutes as they feel their egos swell, and get high off it…

Anyway, I’m not sure how many times I read it, but it still made no sense.

I felt quite foolish suddenly, and the realization dawned on me as I continued reading similar things, the realization that this guy was actually a feminist.

What the fuck?

A feminist!?

Show »


I could hardly believe it. (He was also a vegetarian who praised the gatherers, believing that gathering alone was “pure” somehow. If he ever tried to go off into the wild and live in “Mommy Nature,” as a vegan or vegetarian, he’d be dead inside a month unless he farmed.)

It was like finding out the star quarterback of your favourite team was a member of NAMBLA. And that he had AIDS. And that he gave it knowingly to little boys. You just couldn’t cheer for the guy anymore—he was part of something that every instinct you had told you was fucking evil. It was a little crushing, and felt like betrayal, as though he sold out his brothers to gain female support. For we all know if you want support for your cause, you gotta bring in the women, because the men will follow them (just ask the Catholic Church how this works—or better still, study the rise of The Mother Church from about 500 AD to 900 AD).

It turned out that he’s really a shifty little cunt, and if it were not for having contact with the Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski,), no one would know his name today; he’d just be another bitter, tedious, hate-filled, poverty-stricken asshole raving on the street-corner, holding a sign with unintelligible words scribbled in feces. Or so I thought back then, a little pissed off. More like betrayed, though, sold out.

Well, it all it meant I had to go it alone again, with no allies.

So, I stopped reading any more and ignored Zerzan for years, didn’t even think about it all, or very much.

Time passed, and I got over it. No longer upset, and no longer needing allies or something to which to belong, content to be alone in this. And a year has passed, and I don’t feel anymore animosity towards him, at least no more than any other lying, pandering, manipulative douche out there.

Thus it makes this a great time to be honest—right now. I’m not proud that I ignored lies he wrote about, and other things, and basically believed some bullshit because it supported my then-cause, back when I still felt it needed support, so here is a way to come clean. Now that I no longer have any cause, and do not believe we should “go back” to some primal state.

When I thought about debunking some of his work, I discovered that someone (a French communist of all people!) had already gotten there before me. So, hey, let’s try something different—a review of a debunking—and let’s examine that work…

French communist group En Attendant’s critique of two key text by anarcho-primitivist John Zerzan.

The publishers L’Insomniaque recently put out two collections of articles by J. Zerzan: “Futur Primitif’, in December 1998 (“Future Primitive” first published by Autonomedia, New York, and “Aux Sources de l’Alienation”, in October 1999 (“Elements of Refusal”, Left Bank Books, Seattle, 1998). We say that these two texts are an ideological re-writing of the history of humanity, that J. Zerzan makes use of different research works by prehistorians, anthropologists and philosophers with the sole aim of establishing a pre-conceived idea of what humanity is all about, what it has been and what it will become. The ideology of J. Zerzan is without doubt generous, and besides throws up some interesting problems, but it is only an ideology.

The theses of J. Zerzan however, among the small circle where they have been distributed, do not seem to have stirred any debate, and have only met with an approval or vague reprobation, as far as we know. The aim of this pamphlet is equally to launch this debate, but on a more concrete basis.

1. Manipulated prehistory

All that we know of the dawn of humanity, we know by the study of the material traces that the first men have left, and which have reached us. These traces from early times, are essentially, animal and human bones, and carved stones. Their arrangement in the particular sites provide equally precious information. The essential fact is that these traces are extremely fragmentary, impossible to date with any great precision. Starting from these traces, prehistorians establish hypotheses, and then set up theories, often challenged by later discoveries. Prehistory is a field of very shifting knowledge, always subjected to changes: the idea we tend to have of this period, or rather these periods, cannot be as precise as the ones we tend to have about more recent periods. Certainties are rare, and more general than precise. The last thirty years, with numerous discoveries and the evolution of methods, have considerably tuned the stereotypical image of prehistory, which has prevailed up to the middle of the XX century. At the same time, other problems have appeared, tending to render these questions even more complicated.

Even the definition of man poses a problem. It is generally reckoned for all the Paleolithic period, which spreads over 2.5 to 3 million years that there are four representatives of the Homo type: firstly the most ancient, Homo habilis, from which three more recent species descend, chronologically: Homo erectus (Pithecanthropus), archaic Homo sapiens (Neanderthal), and lastly “modern” man, the only one who is present today on this planet, Homo sapiens sapiens. Before the most ancient Homo type, we had a different species of Australopithecus that Homo habilis was for a long time close to, himself being a descendent of a type of Australopithecus called slender. These anthropoid primates used tools made of stone and bone and no doubt practiced organised hunting, but are not part (for the time being at lest) of the Homo club. It must be equally noted that whilst belonging to the Homo type, Homo habilis is generally not considered to be part of the same species as Homo sapiens sapiens.
Starting from these basic facts, one can already be aware of the manipulations operated by Zerzan. In view of the numerous quotes which he has recourse to in his articles, one cannot suspect him of being ignorant of the subject of which he speaks. The omissions, or rather the choice he makes of certain theories, to the detriment of other theses, show a deliberate willingness on his part. Zerzan wants to paint an idyllic picture of the origins of humanity: he is going therefore to seek the elements that will permit him to paint this picture.

It is first important for our ideologue to date humanity as far as possible, and this for one precise reason: the more man evolves towards his “modem” form, the more the elements showing the existence of what Zerzan calls “alienation” (religious and artistic practices, articulated language, sense of time and project, etc.) become unquestionable. He must then turn towards the most archaic moments of human history. The Neanderthal even (300 to 400 000 years) seems a bit too “cultured”. He will thus seek his examples preferably among the very first humans, the famous Homo habilis. But even this solution poses quite a few problems. Zerzan will manage to pull through at the price of intellectual contortions verging on honesty.

Besides he himself foretells what his method will be at the beginning of “Future Primitive” after having voiced some worthy reservations about separate science, he agrees to acknowledge what he calls with contempt “specialised literature”, that is to say scientific, “can nevertheless be of an highly appreciable assistance”. And who else “could” give us this “assistance”, unless we ourselves become archaeologists, that is to say holders of the dreadful separate knowledge? Does he imagine that the first men are going to resuscitate in order to tell us how they lived? Archaeology is the sole available source for anyone who wants to know what early humanity was like. And thus, whatever one may say besides, we are compelled to reason from these discoveries onward. It is not an “assistance”, it is all that we have.

But for Zerzan scientific discoveries are just a way to develop his ideology. That is why he intends to tackle science “with the appropriate method and vigilance”, and that he declares himself “decided to go beyond the limits”. Clearly he will take no account of what hinders him; he will reserve the right of using the argument of scientific authority (with, one must note, more certainty that the scientists themselves) when it will be convenient for him, and to reject it when it will cease to be convenient to him. Here is the essential of Zerzan’s “method”, which can be found in all his texts. It is a matter of ‘instrumentalizing’ science, which, because it is nothing but a cultural institution, can never be objective, and must therefore be taken as such. This is an old conception of scientific activity put at the service of an ideology, which the brave doctors Lysenko and Mengele brilliantly illustrated during the past century.

This serious “method”, let us have a look at its development.

We can start with the problem of hunting: Zerzan is non-violent, most certainly a vegetarian, and thus he considers that eating meat is immoral, since it implies killing animals, and is bad for one’s health.

Why I cannot stand vegetarians is due to this exact hypocrisy: the killing and devouring of one form of life is all good, while the killing and devouring of another form of life is evil. And not just killing and eating: vegetarians have no issues keeping plant species captive, under absolute control, their property, their slaves, to be manipulated and messed with and then butchered when the appropriate time arrives. (The Harvest.) This is far more cruel then chasing a deer with a spear; that deer is free, and at least half of all hunts end in failure, which means that deer, that form of life, goes back to living free.

That is honourable. That is how Father Nature rolls.

Vegetarians and vegans have no honesty and no honour.

Anyway, “But for Zerzan scientific discoveries are just a way to develop his ideology” is something I discovered while reading his stuff, and ignoring some misleading shit is something I’m not proud of, and something I shall not do again. Things are what they are, for better or worse, and I know now they should not be made into something more appealing, for any reason. That’s deception. And I hate deceptions…

Moreover, it is tiring and it forces one to be organised. Gathering must have been the natural state of “good” humanity, which is to say the one that most resembles Zerzan. It remains to be proved. He does not prove it, he asserts it. According to him, “from now on it is commonly acknowledged” that gathering constituted “the principal food source”. Who acknowledges this, from what, he does not say. And the “principal” source does not mean the “whole” source. But this is not serious: this affirmation drowned in considerations about the non-sexual division of labour (Zerzan is also feminist of course.) allows, by a simple language effect, of giving the impression that the first humans were vegetarians.

Can you envision seven billion humans stomping and stumbling off into whatever wilderness they can find, and trying to survive on leaves, shoots, berries, and tubers?

Can you imagine all the people living in trees and grunting and wearing no clothes and using no tools?

That’s the scenario the “anarcho-primitivists” (or “Green Marxists” or “Earth Feminists”—whatever the fuck they call themselves) conceive. Except, no, not seven billion—they seem to support mass-murder of humanity first. Well, at least the men and the religious folk.

Anyway, the point is, this is simply impossible—there’s no word to sum up how impossible this is. It’s like an ant trying to swim to the bottom of the ocean carrying a herd of elephants…it’s toward that degree of impossible:

1. A human being, half his teeth used for munching grains and roots, the other half used for ripping flesh, is an omnivore—he eats plants and meat.

2. A human being needs both plants and meat; procreation, for example, could not take place with the fatty acids found in flesh, animal flesh, and neither could many brain functions. The body needs fat, and meat protein. As someone who went without meat in the wild, trying to live as a hunter-gatherer, let me tell you that you’re not healthy, you constantly sense-feel-know that something’s missing, no matter how much green stuff you eat, you don’t recover from the demanding and extremely draining life in the wild, not without proper meat. Red meat especially. Eating pork and chicken, as well as fish and shellfish, out in the woods enters into the same unhealthy arrangement. You don’t recover properly…I’ve fucking tried it.

I’m sure that vegetarians will argue—even the ones that go jogging—that they can get by with artificial types of protein. And for an existence indoors, sitting in an office, driving home in a car or taking the bus, yeah, sure, it probably must just do. Just. I doubt they’re as healthy as they love to claim, but anyway, not the point.

3. The point is we’re not talking about vegetarians who dwell in towns and cities; we’re talking about Zerzan and his rabid croonies, out in the bush, with seething hatred for technology and farming and hunting and language and art. I’d love to watch a series on these fucks trying to survive out in the wilderness without proper protein, trying to do everything without technology. I’d pay every last cent I have to watch that.

There’s a reason there is no such series and why none of them have ever tried it—it cannot be done!

And I bet they fucking know it. That’s why they’re so bloody angry…

But he goes further: he asserts, with a certain Binford, “that no tangible traces of butchering practices indicate a consumption of animal products until the appearance, relatively recent, of anatomically modem humans.” Here they are these goddam Neanderthal, bearers of all the ills. There is nevertheless a problem. As we indicated at first, the knowledge of prehistory rests on discoveries of archaeological sites. I do not know on what Binford relies in order to assert the absence of meat consumption, or more exactly “butchering practices” before such a “recent” date, but there is at least one site, amongst the most well-known and the most ancient (1.8 million years) which would demonstrate the contrary: the site of Olduvai in Northern Tanzania, where remains of the first Homo habilis were discovered between 1953 and 1975, our most distant ancestors, therefore. The remains of an elephant have equally been found mixed with more than 200 tools used for carving-up. One could say that this does not indicate hunting, but maybe a carrion practice, the fact remains nonetheless that carving-up is indeed a “butchering practice”.


On the same site, three skulls of the same species of antelope bearing the same fracture were also found, resulting from a blow struck with the aid of a pebble or a club. This indicates no doubt an already codified practice of slaughtering, following precise rules, and denies in any case the thesis of only an occasional consumption of meat, and even more of a generalised vegetarianism until the appearance of “modern” man.

The debunking has begun—this guy’s doing all my work for me so far. Thanks, you pinko frog bastard!

All the same, on the site of the Vallonnet, discovered in 1962, and going back 950 000 years, the remains of a whale, most likely stranded on a nearby beach, were found, which was dragged to this cave where it was carved up. The first stone tools therefore have not solely and all been used, as is quite evident, to “work with plant matter”. The quotation that the author makes on p.38 in “Future Primitive” of tools earmarked for this use, is thus valid, if it is exact, only in the particular case he quotes, particular case which he attempts, by a classic oratory method, to make out to be a generality.

Our objective in this pamphlet is not to bring debates to a close on prehistory: we have neither the means nor the desire. We simply observe that Zerzan, who is quite aware of the Olduvar site, since he mentions it on p.22 of “Future Primitive” in order to praise the beauty of the Acheulian handaxe, and certainly knows the one from the Vallonnet, purely and simply forgets them when it is a matter of speaking of the theses which do not satisfy him.

When one puts forward a thesis, in archaeology, as elsewhere, it seems evident that one must at least quote, or at least dismantle, the thesis that would contradict the one we put forward. Zerzan ignores the contradiction, or more exactly, he says nothing about it. Not wanting to bring up the contradiction is a current practice of the organised social lie that Zerzan would like to denounce. Using his methods, even with another aim, Zerzan is part of this lie.

One can equally evoke the question of Zerzan’s feminism, and of its projection in the study of prehistory. In order to back up the thesis of the non-sexual division of labour, Zerzan advances firstly the predominance of gathering as, as being “naturally” an activity non-sexually divided. Despite what we have said earlier, the predominance of gathering is more or less certain. We have only made clear that it certainly was not the sole nourishing activity of the first men. But what can we know of the sexual division or not of this task at that time? We can extrapolate from today’s existing hunter-gatherers. But today’s hunter-gatherers are not more “primitive” than we are ourselves. Clearly, they are as much sapiens sapiens as us. All that we can say of the culture of the first men from about two million years ago is that it will be nothing but extrapolations and suppositions. It is as absurd to suppose that the social conditions of these first groups have not evolved in two million years than to speak of “prehistoric man”, as one sole and same species, a unique entity. Let us not even speak of this framework of trying to evoke “the condition of woman” in prehistoric times.

Zerzan also offers us an argument, appealing this time to Joan Gero, saying that “stone tools could have belonged to men as well as being those of women”. Indeed. But this does not signify absolutely that they were. In this case, the most honest thing to do is to say that we know nothing about it. But honesty, as we have seen, is not the principle concern of Zerzan. At the same time, Poirier tells us, there exists “no archaeological proof to back up the theory according to which the first humans have practiced “a sexual division of labour”. That, which for Poirier is nothing but an absence of proof, visibly constitutes one for Zerzan. What emerges simply from all these quotes is that only we cannot say that such a division has ever existed. It is equally possible that women participated in primitive hunts, indeed even children. The problem is that in the absence of archaeological proof, we can say nothing.

As much as I dislike using logic too frequently, I have to here. We can also infer that men were outside a lot longer than were females, and they were scavenging and hunting.

How do we know?

Some basic knowledge of predators and prey helps us along—even today men still have more aspects of their behaviour that harkens back to the days when we absolutely had to hunt to survive. Women don’t have very many of these; they behave more like prey (when danger rears its head, the “fight”—scream or, more rarely used, actually fight back—“flight”—run like hell—or “freeze”—the deer in the headlights—comes heavily into play). Movement, for example, means two things in the natural world—“food” or “threat.” Something moving around can either be eaten or it’s going to try to eat you. With women, they’re more concerned with the threat prospect of movement; it’s been proposed that the eye-sight of women is a lot more like a deer’s eye-sight.

Men are more concerned with the prospect of prey. Why do you think sports is still so goddamned popular? It’s been proposed that men’s eye-sight is more like a lion’s, that we detect potential food better than women do. I wonder why…

Toss a ball to a dog, kick something past a cat, and you’ll see this—it’ll chase it. It’s no different for boys.

Watching a girl and boy play catch once, while I was playing catch also with a girlfriend, I observed something—the boy will naturally chase that ball, get into a position to catch it, anticipating where it will go. He’ll do almost anything to get it.

The girl will watch it fall, standing still, and give the boy crap for not throwing it exactly to her. How dare he make her move!

If you’ve ever played catch with a girl, you know exactly what I’m talking about. Girls just lack certain things that boys seem to inherently possess. The ability to hit a moving target is another—and, like the ball example, it comes down to the intuition we’ve developed out in the wild all those years…

But enough of that for now. Let’s concentrate on inference.

Men were (and are still) bigger, stronger, and had special physiological advantages for dealing with very hostile conditions, situations, and environments. Large bodies hold more heat, generate more energy when moving, which is necessary if you’re outside a lot. Great strength and endurance is required to trek over vast distances of rough, rugged terrain and deal with some pretty large and ferocious predators (lions and other big cats, for example). Men’s bodies were designed by Nature to withstand a helluva lot of punishment—watch a boxing or UFC match, or a football game, sometime. Or read about tales of survival from settlers over the centuries, or stranded ship crews, or soldiers caught behind enemy lines, or fighter or bomber pilots brought down into similarly hostile territory…and you’ll get the idea.

Not to mention that men were (and still are) hairier than women, a fact that hardly escapes any woman today. What does body hair do? Helps keep heat in, sure, but it’s also the warning system for the animal—it makes the skin react when the slightest breeze comes by, or when an insect lands. It increases, adds to, or magnifies the sensory input of an animal outside in a natural environment.

Men have larger brows than women—what is a large brow used for? Shedding rain and blocking sun, preventing forest debris from falling into the eyes, aided by thick bushy eyebrows, as well, of which men have had more of than women. A large brow is there to protect the eyes, basically; you don’t need one if you’re indoors a great deal of the time.

Taller stature. Even a few inches of extra height gives a big advantage when spotting things off in the distance.

A deep voice. I never really thought of this until now, but it also fits. In a realm in which you will hear blood-curdling roars from vicious meat-eating carnivores, it might help if you had a deep voice with which to bellow back now and again, no? Plus, being outside more, your voice must be louder, say, to call a friend a long ways away.

A tiny squeaky voice is just not intimidating, no matter how shrill the scream. Not to say that women’s shrieking isn’t effective; it can be. It’s basically all females seem to have—no matter what happens, a chick will scream first and ask questions later. Literally. This is because little girls do this. Go anywhere and listen to a bunch of kids playing—the garbled mix of voices will be punctured by female screams. It’s how they seem to deal with everything. Surprise, fear, pain, anger, you name it. Unlike most mammals’ young which have some sort of cammo, the human female needed to develop something; the more high pitched the scream, the smaller and more helpless the female.

A man doesn’t need to scream; he knows what to do. This is why boys used to stop squealing as they entered their teen years, when they developed the skills to deal with something using their hands and heads. Women never grew out of this, it appears.

And it’s a pretty clear indication of a defense mechanism of a gender that is not naturally suited for hunting or fighting. Better to shriek, stun the predator or enemy for a moment, and alert the nearby males, who will come running.

But the bonus of this is that small soft voices (talking, not screaming) don’t carry as far, such as a pregnant woman in a shelter speaking to her offspring or sisters or whoever—not as likely to be heard a mile away by a brown bear or cougar.

Not that men were so noisy; it’s already been proven that women today speak over three times as many words per day than men. The strong silent man of few words a few centuries ago (I’m not referring to yappy bitch men in politics; I’m talking real men here) must have spoken even fewer words. And a few thousand years before that, even less words.

Piss. Yes, piss. Urine is “the” territory marker in the natural world, and women are at a severe disadvantage—human male and female piss is different, and a human female alone in the woods cannot mark territory since a large predator, like a bear, will know it’s bullshit. It won’t be respected. It’s missing something that makes it a valid territory marker. Probably testosterone.

Not to mention that menstruation pretty much displays to every predator that she’s a wounded animal…

(When I’m with a chick in the wilderness, I know enough to piss wherever she’s been in order to validate it as an actual territorial border.)

There are probably other bits of evidence, aside from the ancient objects we find, to help illustrate that Man The Hunter has been outside hunting a very long time, and has had to be out there, while Woman was safe and warm indoors. It’s just the way it worked out.

Team work is another example…men are best when working in a team. We can accomplish anything; we can land on the moon.

Imagine a long, long time ago, say, ten thousand years: five men are stalking a buffalo on the plains of Eurasia, maybe using buffalo skins to hide, maybe just fur and using whatever cover was available. Maybe it was elk. Or deer, in a forest. But bigger prey gave the tribe more meat yet required immense team work. Like a pack of wolves hunting caribou, it’s all team work.

Do you honestly think they were gossiping about weather and shoes while doing this? You think women in the safety of the village or camp were staying absolutely still and quiet? Or were they moving around, getting camp chores done, organizing the children to help, talking constantly and trying to manage everything in their vicinity? The latter, obviously. They had the freedom to speak liberally. To chatter and gossip, just like today.

Ever watch a survival type show in which there’s a woman out in the woods? Not even when she really, fucking seriously needs to be quiet can she shut her yap… This is why the Greeks denied women access to certain theater and other events—too noisy.

But hunting is not just about buttoning your lip—you can make certain sounds to attract the attention for whatever reason of your team mate, then make a hand signal once he’s looking at you (watch a military squad in hostile territory, and you’ll see this in action). It’s also about being quiet—wearing things (like how leather used to be worn) that don’t swish and scrap through the brush, watching where you step and how you step, and so on.

Now, even hunters today know to be quiet while hunting. Fucking silence is everything. Women never learned this over the course of evolution and really couldn’t care less.

And fishing? Same bloody thing. Be fucking quiet. Be still. Be patient. And use the Force…

Now, I dunno about you, but I’ve rarely come across any women who possess any substantial degree of patience. I’m not saying it’s something we’re born with; but it is something we develop as we grow into teenagers. And people who get everything they want, are spoiled and coddled, without having to wait much…well, they develop little patience.

Any boys who play sports learn patience—you cannot hog the puck all the time, you have to pass it and wait for what might happen. You may get it right back. Or your buddy could score, or miss. You may be down five-nothing in a baseball game, and that takes a lot of patience to climb your way back into it. Playing other games also develops patience.

School is the only real “lessons” kids learn regarding patience today; but I don’t really think they’re in fact learning as much as they’re tolerating, suffering, through it so they can freak the fuck out afterwards. Going by how little kids develop any degree of an attention span, need to shorten so many words to save time (?), and by how slight their patience really is well into so-called adulthood, it’s hard to believe that they learned much in school…


And, up until a hundred years ago, boys learned how to hunt and fish from their fathers, probably the best lesson in patience known to exist. The best lessons all-around can be learned from just these two activities.

Where are they learning this today? Where and how are they learning anything?

Boys In School

Anyway, Zerzan knows nothing of hunting or fishing, and I’d bet he didn’t play sports, either. At least not team sports—or else he was the nerdy gimp who never got picked for the team and so went home and shoved his face in books and plotted revenge…which might explain some of his hostility towards men (yet I’d bet everything I own that it was about his father; it usually is). However, I’m not here to psychoanalyze the guy. Just rip him an new asshole…with some help from Frenchie.

Men are the dreamers, the mavericks, the comedians, the outlaws, and the outrageous and in-your-face component of humanity. Women’s good sense and practicality balances this—or used to. We’re the original artists and musicians and the fucking crazy buggers who came up with all kinds of screwy ideas over the ages, each of which women pooed all over.

But Zerzan hates art, as well as all technology, obviously knowing all about Man the Artist. Women are good at left-brained art; using their superb motor skills well, they cannot truly create and merely copy. A female surreal artist would be an astounding thing, a rare thing. Most women just work with crafts. Why? Because they’re oppressed? No, because it’s something they’ve always done. Multi-talking (edit: I meant, multi-tasking…heh) and motor skills—and little imagination required. Women were the first manufacturers—making clothes and pots and weaving baskets. Nevertheless, men are the true artists.

Like cooking, women are good at it—although the best at it are men. Because we use creativity, imagination, and intuition—we use our right brains more; we experiment and try new shit out. We don’t just follow a recipe. We don’t ask questions and don’t like following directions; we play to our strengths and figure shit out for ourselves, find out for ourselves and use intuition as a guide, we “use the Force” all the time and are hardly aware of it—that’s the ancient explorer in us. Not all men are better cooks than all women, but the few best chefs are always going to be men.

Like logic—women are better with it in general than men. That is to say they rely on it heavily, since they’re left-brained—using their left brains far more than men do, on average. But the most analytical and logic-driven people who are aces with it are men. A few men are the best with all areas of the mind (but the majority of men are not so good with it), even though all women collectively are far more practical, reasonable, cautious, rational, analytical, and logical than are most men.

As boys, we’d rather be out doing what we’re naturally suited to do—hurling spears around, using our imaginations and creativity, exploring things, playing sports, building forts and treehouses, catching frogs, working on our bikes. No masculine child wants to sit still and be bored to tears with words and paper and shit we just don’t care about. Getting shamed or praised for our behaviour in this tortuous environment, this feminine environment. All to get good grades to make Mom happy.

School Sucks

Boys have a fuck of a lot more trouble in school than do girls. A “patriarchal” education would consist of male elders (not women) teaching boys using experiential learning—doing, not sitting and reading and talking, all the things which are the domain of the left brain.

Right Brained Learning

This is undoubtedly a right-brain/left-brain dominance thing.

What Zerzan would have us believe is that language itself is bad, probably because he believes (hanging around mostly chatty unmanly intellectuals his entire life) men were/are better with it and women were/are the strong silent types. Is it just me or does this sound especially lunatical? He can’t prove it, of course, but he’ll claim it as fact to support his bullshit.

But Truth doesn’t work like that. Men are the quiet ones, the listeners; they had thousands of years of practice out hunting deer and elk and buffalo. Patience, quietness, stillness, listening skills, perception, taking in an environment, sensing it all, and getting tuned into it, connected to it, and they used the ability to size up something quickly and—not thinking—react quickly to deal with it. Problem solving is another trait, but intuition was the biggest by far…

All of these things developed in Man’s brain over a million years. And Woman developed differently; even today women are more communicative (verbally), expressive (verbally), and talkative. How can any honest man say women today don’t talk much? Go anywhere and fucking listen to them! Are you fuckin’ shitting me??

Yes. Yes, they are shitting me, because it’s a fucking lie. And John Zerzan is a fucking liar.

In the framework of his feminism, Zerzan also produces a theory of the reduction of sexual dimorphism, and in particular the decrease in the size of canine teeth in males. He says “the disappearance of the big canine teeth in the male backs up greatly the thesis according to which the female of the species would have operated a selection in favour of “sociable and sharing males”.

But the disappearance of the big canine teeth in no way “backs up” anything of the kind, and even less “probably”. The disappearance of the big canine teeth is the result of a process; it is not there to “back up” anything whatsoever. It is hard to see how the young who “have got their fangs out”‘ would be less ‘sociable and sharing” than the others, and above all, ” being sociable and sharing” would in itself shorten their teeth. Loads of “sociable and sharing” primates still have fangs to this day. But Zerzan tells us it is so because amongst primates, the female “has not got this choice”. One of the results of the liberation of woman in Palaeolithic times would have been to shorten the teeth of young males. It is quite confusing, but this reveals above all the idea that Zerzan, American feminist, has about the “war of the sexes”, and his projection of this idea in the study of prehistory. In passing, and despite once more that our objective is not to discuss archaeological theses, we will simply point out that another thesis commonly accepted considers that the reduction in the size of the dentition at that time is due to the lengthening of the period of childhood and adolescence. The child being thus placed under the protection of adults longer, which permits him to acquire complex technical skills that Palaeolithic industry requires, later meets his needs in matters of food, which enables his dentition to grow more slowly as generations come and go. This theory is as valid as the one of the direct selection by females. But is less spectacular, less feminist, and above all it tends to show that the social organisation in these distant times had already reached such a degree of complexity that something like a specialised apprenticeship might have already become necessary The folkloric thesis of selection by females is thus there to mask the “problem” of a complex socialization frorn the very beginning of humanity.

Not a thing to add there. Go, Frenchie! Go!

At this stage of our analysis of the Zerzan text, one can see clearly that even by dating back humanity to its most ancient representatives, he does not manage, and for a very good reason, to demonstrate the existence of the “good” humanity which he is looking for. Not finding it, he suggests it by different means, essentially of rhetoric nature, and by the dissimulation of information that he unquestionably holds.

We do not say that everything he puts forward is false. We say that he seeks to draw up a uniform picture of the life of prehistoric man, based on a priori and on projections of his own ideology. Which is an essential danger when one studies other cultures, and even more in the case of cultures so remote in time, and on which we have so little information, such as the Palaeolithic culture, namely the danger of projecting one’s own culture onto other peoples, Zerzan sets it up as a method. This inherent tendency of all human sciences, from which no human science will ever be able to rid itself off (man takes himself to be subject of study being equally a subject being part of a culture, and reasoning from it), requires the greatest prudence. The surest way of being wrong in the face of whatever reality is to want at all costs to make it say something. We also do not say that it is forbidden to take risks, nor that you must banish all intuition. A number of great discoveries are the fruit of a first intuition. One can nevertheless, starting from concrete facts, formulate some hypotheses, and if these hypotheses are proven, one can even reach theory. But Zerzan does not reach towards theory, since for him the hypotheses are already the answer. And, by doing that, he is not even “mistaken”. It is worse than that. He deliberately manipulates some information. In a word, he lies, that is to say he wants to deceive others.

The cases that we have studied, the one about hunting and the one about the sexual division of tasks, are finally, nothing but details in Zerzan’s ideology. In “Future Primitive” a thesis is expressed, which one finds in all his articles and truly seems to be the central thesis (cf. “Elements of Refusal”) of his clumsy historical reconstruction. This thesis, he expresses it like this, on p.23 of “Future Primitive”: “It strikes me as plausible that intelligence, informed by the success and satisfactions of a gather-hunter. existence, is the very reason for the pronounced absence of ‘progress’. Division of labour, domestication, symbolic culture – these were evidently refused until very recently.” Once more we can admire the manner in which he uses language, which he denounces elsewhere as an instrument of domination. Once more the hypothesis becomes immediately conclusion. One goes from “it seems plausible” to “evidence”. Between the two, there is nothing, just the point that separates a phrase from another, just the void of a thought that talks a lot of hot air. The sole shade of argument which he gives in order to back up this central thesis, the thesis of the conscious refusal of progress by humanity, namely that 1) the Paleolithic humans were as “intelligent” as us, and thus they had the intellectual means of this progress 2) this progress did not take place, during more than two million years. It is thus, “evidently”, that humans have refused this progress. As one can suspect, things are a bit more complicated that this. Besides it is not necessary to possess detailed knowledge in the field of prehistory to grasp what is nasty in this “reasoning”. It is not so much that the starting point appears to be absurd as that: after all, why not? Only, you ought to be able to prove it. How could we prove this thesis? : simply by archaeological discoveries, and logical reasoning from these discoveries, since we have no other means to prove anything whatsoever about this period.

Everything is as intelligent as it needs to be. We modern humans are such fucking arrogant snobs when considering “intelligence”—which accounts only for the left hemisphere of the brain, in fact.

Nothing is stupid. No creature or being is stupid. The young seem “dumb” because they are inexperienced and ignorant. Only the mentally retarded can honestly be called “stupid”—but they are bloopers in Nature. They’re fucked in the head. In the wild, nothing survives that is retarded, limp, lame, defective. It dies, as it should. No other way to keep the species strong—it’s cruel to be kind. It’s brutal to be strong. It’s a jungle out there, folks. No room for weaklings and defectives. And that’s where predators come in—the retard won’t starve to death. It’ll serve a purpose and help out in the web of life.

Anyway, squirrels cannot “fetch” a ball, like a dog, or understand voice commands; but a dog on a leash will be tangled in no time. A squirrel will never be tangled. Each of them is as intelligent as it needs to be.

The fact that modern humans need to be “so intelligent” just to survive only proves that we are simply defective, inferior forms of life that could not adapt and survive any other way. Our senses—all of them—hearing sight, smell, et cetera—are incredibly inferior to other mammals; our strength, our running ability, our agility, our climbing and swimming ability—all suck total ass when compared to other mammals.

All we have going for us is our big old brains—no wonder we praise them so divinely; it’s all we really got to brag about! We are specialized in left-brain usage, which we call “intelligent,” and we are quick to view with disgust and drum insults into and scoff at anyone or anything that does not meet or criteria for intelligence.

I suppose this must be why so many men today cling to the “men are logical” mantra, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It’s all ego, I know, but as men turn more and more into women in almost every way, losing the physical presence and as are abilities fade, all we really have left is to try to “own” some part of the brain. Hence so many men pig-headedly fixed in the “Logic is ours!” camp.

Most men figure shit out using little to no logic at all—but when they need to explain how they know, especially to women, then they need to stop and think and rationalize and find the words (left brain hemisphere) to describe what they ideated (right brain hemisphere), and they use logic to explain it until it sounds plausible.

But logic typically had little to do with it—it just gets all the credit. The left brain gets all the credit.


It’s all right here.

Anywhat, this smug, almost defensive reaction, we do with greatly regularity and purpose when it comes to “primitive” humans.

But the fact is that they were (and even today still are) actually far superior to us in many, many ways; they had all their full, undiluted senses we do not possess, all the strength and stamina and speed all but the best athletes lack. On top of it all, they had the same brain size (the commonly portrayed plodding oaf of a Neanderthal in fact had a larger brain than we do now); but more telling is the fact that they survived the harshest possible environments and against some pretty staggering odds, as they roamed across Eurasia.

(More importantly, I think, they used and trusted their instincts to a degree that today we’d just call “ESP” or some psychic shit. These “supernatural” abilities we at times face today among humans are tiny sharp edges on an otherwise dull blade. This is how we all used to be—I’m not talking about reading minds or levitating or any of that retarded twaddle; I’m talking about knowing things we could never know using reason and any scientific methodology. There’s no such thing as a “sixth sense;” there’s just ancient perception and intuition that gets absurdly focused in some rare individuals today.)

This alone tells me how bloody smart they were—look what it takes for one human today to survive in the wild (before running joyfully back into the loving arms of Mater, civilization). Odds are she won’t. She’s a twit out there. She’s only functional in the ease and safety and comfort of a city or town, where everything is ordered and controlled; where she’s protected, provided for, and kept away from anything challenging.


This isn’t “intelligence” as I see it; this is infantilization. We’re all smug brats who never grew up, stuck in a play pen until we’re ready to be groomed for corporate slavery.

But, that’s another rant…back to the action.

Thus let us propose a problem. In order to be able to speak of “refusal”, it is necessary that the person concerned or group have knowledge of what they refuse. One only refuses that which is “proposed” to us, that which is presented to us. One can, for example, speak of the refusal of the weaving looms by the English textile workers of 1830. One would thus, in order to speak of the refusal of agriculture and rearing of animals by Paleolithic humans, that these practice which presented themselves to them, would be experimented with by them, then rejected.

Now, through my own research, I’ve seen that many aspects of early farming did spread through mainly trade—almost over the entire globe. More here.

But this agricultural system was obviously rejected, most likely due to strong tribal traditions or hearing about the social decay and enslavement of those who began incorporating bits of it, or both (even today there are still hunter-gatherers about who doggedly refuse to accept modern notions, probably for the same reasons that ancient peoples’ refused). It was force, conquering these peoples, which decided their fates; not choice.

Only the most distant tribes were barely affected or faced a diluted, distorted “product,” which they also rejected.

However, as he is about to get into, when all this started, exactly, and how it all unfolded, is not well known.

One would need thus in order to prove this thesis that a site be found proving that humans had started, at a given time in prehistory, to practice the rearing of animals or agriculture, then had brutally abandoned them to resume their life of hunter-gatherer. One could well speak in this case of “refusal”‘. But for the moment such a site has not been discovered.

There are tribes in Africa that actually were encouraged onto their own land and told to take up farming; they later abandoned it and returned to hunter-gatherer ways. If I recall the name of one of them, I’ll post it. But this has happened—there’s just no concrete proof that it happened twenty thousand years ago.

If it had been, Zerzan would have been eager to point it out, and he would have been right. But it is not the case. In fact, as soon as humans have practiced agriculture or the rearing of animals, they have never gone “backwards”.

No, this is false. There are examples and it did occur—perhaps, as I said, there is no evidence of it in pre-history, but there is in history. So, no, they have gone back.

Plus, the Native North Americans wanted to return to their ways but were not allowed. They can sorta-kinda do it on some reserves now, but it’s not the same—and it’s not nomadic. A nomadic way of life is the most loathed and—in the West—a criminal way of life in modern humanity. You can hardly control and profit from what doesn’t sit in one spot all the time…

We have cases, at the beginning of the Neolithic era, of sedentary humans practising also gathering and hunting, but these groups have afterwards evolved solely towards agriculture, and have not, to our knowledge, destroyed their “permanent” house, abandoned their fields and gone back to their nomadic life. Here is what ought to have been the thought process of Zerzan: from an original hypothesis, to search for concrete elements, articulated in a logical process, allowing it to be confirmed. For as long as no element is there to prove it, a hypothesis is only what it is: a purely theoretical view, which can be fruitful, or on the contrary proves to be inoperative. For the time being, the hypothesis of Zerzan is inoperative. We do not reproach him for having put it forward; we do not say that it will never be proved. We say that it falls within the province of a lying and ideological practice to put forward a hypothesis as “evidence’ whilst there is not a glimmer of proof to back it up.

Zerzan could have also explored another course in order to prove his hypothesis (by the way, it is quite scandalous all the same that we are forced to do this work instead of him). There are regions, even today, where hunter-gatherers mix more or less with settled farmers. One can speak for example of certain Bushmen from Africa, of which some ethnological surveys have revealed that they found agriculture to be “useless or exhausting”. [Ah, here it is. Well done, Frenchie.] There would be thus a “refusal’ with the full knowledge of the facts. However, to our knowledge, these Bushmen themselves have never gone through agriculture, which they would have rejected from “the inside”. One can say thus according to this point of view that they reject herewith, above all, a way of life that is external to their own culture. It is however noteworthy on this subject, that if nomads do not go towards settled people, settled people do not go also towards nomads. What arguments farmers would give to justify their “refusal” of the state of hunter-gatherer? Zerzan would say without doubt that they are already immediately damaged by alienated culture, and that they are incapable of returning to a “good” humanity. That may be so, but we really do not have any means to estimate the degree of alienation of a culture in relation to another one, nor even to know if the concept of alienation is pertinent in this very case. What is striking in this scenario is that groups seem to be “impenetrable” from one another and that the “refusal” of settled people to ‘re-nomadise’ themselves indicates the fact that they “prefer” their own culture rather than adopt a radically different way of life, despite any satisfaction it might give them, individually. Settled culture, once it is formed, is never abandoned, whatever the prejudice endured by the individuals who make up this culture.

As far as masses of people, perhaps—I doubt this, but let’s say “perhaps.” Now, I turn your attention to individuals who abandoned their sedentary culture and hit the fucking road. Not just settlers and explorers coming to the New World from Europe but also modern examples—gypsies, drifters, hermits, mountain men, even bikers can be viewed at least as semi-nomadic. But far more often there are single persons who give it all up and go off alone or try to join a hunter-gatherer clan.

I think Frenchie is showing some bias here; as if he were insulted by the very thought of someone rejecting the way of life he obviously adores. Or it’s as if someone were insulting his mother. Now, I’ve insulted people’s mothers, and I’ve insulted Mater—civilization—in front of people, and I can tell you the reaction is almost the same. To many (most) of us within civilization, it is very much our Mother; it is everything material, how can it not be? The ancient symbol for city or town is this:

Ancient Symbol For A City

And here’s some other female symbols, just for the hell of it…but really because Zerzan hates symbols. Seriously, though, they all came from the first symbol for “city,” which was and still is a female place.

Celtic Cross

Christian Cross

Female Symbol



And this one has loads of ‘em all rolled into one mess…

Besides, Zerzan knows this case of the contact between settled groups and hunter-gatherers, since he quotes the example of settled people who resort to the help of hunter-gatherers to pull them through in times of food shortages. However he does not reach any conclusions as to his “refusal” thesis, whether it is a matter of trying to prove it or to call it into question. In fact, Zerzan never draws a single conclusion, since a conclusion is the fruit of reasoning and that he seems to be allergic to all reasoning. He contents himself with quoting the conclusions of others, or at least the conclusions that please him most.

With the passage to the Neolithic one notices a real “revolution”, as it is usual to say. One can equally speak, in a less implied manner, of a gigantic rupture. A way of life, which remained more or less stable, at least in its broad lines, during 2.5 million years, transforms itself brutally in another way of life that, by pursuing its evolution, ends up by becoming radically different. All this was not done naturally in one day, but the rapidity of progression of the Neolithic rupture is, in the face of the slowness” of the Palaeolithic, nearly exponential. Three to four thousand years were enough to generalize it.

Zerzan points out, by quoting Binford that “the question to ask is not why agriculture did not develop everywhere but rather why it developed in the first place.” And this is really the question, to which our ideologue is careful not to try to answer. In order to do so we would need to put to one side the purely negative question of “refusal”, and to start getting into the details when in fact, it is well-known that “the devil lies in the details”, that it to say doubt and difficulties.

The devil’s in the details. Excellent.

Well, in order to answer it we must place ourselves back in that time and understand as much as we can about what was going on. What forces were at play that edged humans from the fully to the semi-nomadic, and then finally into the sedentary.

He can’t answer it because even if he had the answer, he’d never divulge it; it would blow his entire belief system into ruins. He’d have to admit that women were the first farmers, and they ran it all, including the government and religion, which were one under the Goddess; and that men (as worker/slaves) were seduced out or yanked out of the forests, shaved, cleaned, and put into dresses, then forced to work; that boys were raised solely by women now and had no father-son connection to the old hunter tradition of men, and that often these boys were sacrificed to the Goddess, their private parts burned as offerings or their blood drained after castration to enrich the fields and assist fertility (since this was the first religion, the fertility cult), and men were also castrated and turned into sexless effeminate personal servants of royalty, as well as being burned alive in large twig and branch structures called Wicker Men. These types of male sacrifices varied per region.

Moloch-Baal-Astarte Cult

Wicker Man Sacrifice

Wicker Man Burning

The bull mostly replaced the boy, and this animal became revered throughout the Middle-East, and even as far away as Spain and North Africa. As well as in India, where it’s sacred even today and not eaten.

It became sacred because it spared the sons who used to be butchered to some female deity.

Israel Bull Sacrifice

[Preparing the bull for sacrifice in ancient Israel.]

Minoan Bull Sacrifice

[This is an image from the Sarcophagus of Ayia Triada, showing a ritual bull sacrifice. “Minoan religion…but it is clear that religion was an important aspect of Minoan life. There were only minor male deities; the goddesses were supreme. It is unclear whether the goddesses represent two or three goddesses or only one with different aspects. There are several distinguishable goddess identities – a goddess associated with animals, sometimes called the Mistress of the Animals, a snake goddess

Minoan Snake Goddess

who typically has snakes wrapped around her arms, a household goddess, and others.”]

Bull Sacrifice

He’d have to conclude that it was in fact men who were brutally oppressed until the Flood era (circa 5600 BC), and then everything changed, gradually: kingdoms emerged; polytheism emerged. This was the first civil rights movement, allowing men to take first the throne, as King (see Gilgamesh), and later other positions of power and business, if they were part of the right blood-line. The rest of the men were still slaves. I think this “covenant” was due to the Goddess and women being blamed for the Deluge in Turkey and Mesopotamia, and their entire decadent and despicable culture and system were nearing collapse anyway; people were frantic and desperate, as villages and towns elsewhere were being wiped off the face of the planet by rushing water caused by the Black Sea and Caspian Sea over-flowing.

It’s sketchy, though. Part of this covenant involved the emergence or continuation of the circumcision practice; I suspect it was a replacement, but there’s really no evidence one way or the other, and there is no evidence as to when and where it began. We can only piece some things together and inference it into context.

However, it all makes sense: the female aristocracy was helped by putting a man on the throne—he now assumed responsibility; never again would women in power be held responsible for anything, since they were going to be denied access to those positions of power, left to rule by proxy, as “Shadow Rulers” from their bedrooms. Again, women benefited from this arrangement. Men were still sacrificed, in seasonal wars. Women were not.


Roman Legions

Hundred Days War




The Great War




Korean War

Dead Vietcong

Vietnam War

If it were women who were conned, forced or shamed into military service and hacked to pieces in battle, year after year, century after century, millennia after millennia, all over the world, for the last nine thousand years at least…we’d never stop hearing from feminists screaming about this horrific and systematic slaughter of only one gender—gynocide? But since it was technically androcide, nobody cares.

In short, Zerzan would have to admit a lot, the most damning of which being that agriculture is a female system and always has been, and thus civilization is also a female system, and feminine in essence and character and form. And this leads into the fact that Nature itself is not feminine but overwhelmingly masculine in essence and character and form. There are some small feminine characteristics of a tree, but it is hugely masculine as a whole. (Just look at its function, nevermind its phallic form; the object of a tree, ultimately, and spread seeds, which find fertile ground and sprout; the object of a penis, ultimately, is to rise up and inject semen into the female in order to fertilize an egg. It’s still spreading seeds, many, many seeds that look for one massive fertile location to become new life.

Got wood?

It’s not that a tree or a stem of grass is like our dicks; it is the opposite. All that came before mammals, and that masculine function became part of mammalian design in mammals, and, later, us.)

And this would devastate his vegetarian non-violent utopian ‘Mommy Nature’ dream for the future, and the past. His entire belief system would be upside down—since, no, it’s not the fault of men that civilization existed and became what it is today. It’s women’s fault. Women and their mangina servants, the Apollo who serves female values and enforces female memes, Mommy’s Little Soldiers, defending her farm.

He will never admit any of this; no feminist would. It’s heresy. Blasphemy. Memetic infections formed out of lies can never let Truth enter; it is not welcome.

One ought to start speaking of the climatic factors, of demography, of the very structure of pre-Neolithic societies, and of a heap of other things not too poetic. It is to be noted all the same that the passage to the Neolithic era remains quite mysterious in the current state of knowledge. There are as usual, only theories. There is the theory of a climatic change having modified profoundly the human environment, which would have driven humans to adapt by practicing agriculture. One can oppose to this theory the fact that during 3 million years, there have been enough climatic changes of this kind to permit about fifteen Neolithic revolutions”, which have however evidently not taken place.

On the relations of man and his environment, we have here interesting elements. As early as the middle Acheulian era (between 400 000 and 300 000 years ago), at the boundary between erectus and archaic sapiens during the Riss glaciations, one observes the same progression in the size of tools (the famous Acheulian handaxe which Zerzan speaks highly about), whether it is in Europe, Africa, or the Near East. This signifies therefore that we have here a similar culture, which evolves, at least in its technical aspect, independently from the constraints of the natural environment.

The much-vaunted “harmony with nature” is thus seriously put in question. The natural environment seems in fact to act very little on Palaeolithic cultures, even if these cultures do not yet bring pressure to bear massively, as with during the Neolithic, on the natural environment. But “rupture”, at least in an underlying way, is more or less sealed. That is to say that human evolution is more conditioned from the start by its own social structures than by the influence on the natural environment.

It is equally interesting to note that in this framework, the ideas of Marx on the “mastery of nature” which have contributed to the foundation of the progressive ideology of the old workers’ movement, are equally called into question, but in a different manner than Zerzan’s. The domination of nature is not inscribed in the destiny of human societies. When men carve tools, they do not seek to master “inert matter”, but to produce that which their societies need. They do not seek straightaway to master the natural environment which they found as it was during the entire Paleolithic era, that does not mean that they were more in “harmony” with it than later with the rearing of animals and agriculture. One could say almost that the “natural milieu” does not exist for human societies, if one was not afraid of lapsing into an extrapolation A la Zerzan. Human societies seem in any case to aim more to their own conservation, to the upholding of their own structures, than to the domination of the surrounding environment. What took place during the Neolithic era, is that the conservation of the social structures went through the domination of the natural environment, domination that brought about in turn the creation of new structures. This domination was not therefore the aim of humanity (its “historical task” like the one of the proletariat would be of making the revolution), but the consequence of a new socialization.

True. Using a tool is something many animals do; chimps use and form smooth twigs to coax out ants or termites, and some monkeys use special rocks in an ancient stone area to crack a certain type of nut. And these creatures are “in harmony” with their environment. Tool creation, hunting implements, and their usage do not indicate anything in terms of some urge to “dominate”—but, rather, simply survive.

What matters more is what were they used for? Tools made and used for farming might be viewed thusly; tools made and used to clear large areas of tree, also. One could say that a gun has one purpose—to kill—but there are types of guns. Handguns cannot be used for hunting—only for a human person, up close. Not many things in nature let you get so close. Rifles can be used to hunt just about anything. Is a rifle a tool made to dominate or is a handgun? Or is it neither?

Neither, I says. The use itself indicates intent. Even a pencil can kill if the intent and strength is there. You can use a large raven feather to poke someone’s eye out—something soft and fragile employed with malicious intent to maim and cause injury, suffering. That feather was not evil before it was employed as an implement to do evil. And even then, it’s not evil; the intent of the person who used it was…

According to this theory, the passage from the Neolithic period thus would neither be an adaptation to the constraints of the environment, nor, as Zerzan seems to suggest it – a kind of conspiracy of the Spirit of Domination against the Spirit of Freedom, but a mutation linked to a modification of social structure itself to what can we attribute this modification? The most probable factor is an internal social factor but also a “natural” one (although one could seriously discuss the “natural” aspect of this factor for human societies), namely the demographic increase.

It is known that the societies of hunter-gatherers, when the internal tensions or the pressure on the environment become too great, “split-up” to form another group. One can imagine that at this given time, demography, having become too important in order to allow this “split”, the process of settlement then imposed itself as the best possible solution. One would have here, with the construction of “permanent’ houses, the first appearance of “private” spaces, which allow the tensions within the group to be limited without however having recourse to a “split”, which had become problematic.

This thesis implies that humans initially were settled, and would have practiced much later the rearing of animals and agriculture. One can back it up archaeologically thanks to the Natoufian sites, in the region of Syria-Palestine, which date back to about 10 000 years, thus at the very beginning of the Neolithic period. The Natoufians used to build permanent houses, but did not practice, at least at the beginning of their settlement, neither agriculture nor the rearing of animals. In fact they still had recourse essentially to gathering and to a lesser degree hunting. But the village had become their essential anchoring point. They were still hunter-gatherers, but settled. And as they nourished themselves essentially with wild cereals, one can suppose that it is the stocking of these seeds in fixed premises that made agriculture possible. One can equally think that a village of this kind must have drawn on all sorts of animals, some of which maybe progressively domesticated themselves.

Yes. This is a subject which has deeply interested me for many years, and has driven me to explore sources and books and do research and think and write and think some more, for months on end…all to answer the question: how did agriculture begin, and why? Why especially.

It simply is not known. There are fragmented specks of some evidence of this or that, but it’s all unclear. The answer is lost in time. All that remains is speculation. It was either intentional, meaning that children were no longer initiated into the male hunter group, probably because the men had all been killed in some fight somewhere (the Greek historian Herodotus found evidence that this happened once, in Scythia, near the Black Sea; the men were off for a couple decades, fighting an Eastern invader, and when they returned, the women, having fucked their salves and raised those boys themselves into workers (farmers) and soldiers, had their sons fight the strange men returning and they killed them all—this seems to be one of the slight scraps of evidence supporting the old Amazon women myth).

Or else it happened naturally, as a result of climate and overhunting due to population increases. Or something else.

It doesn’t matter any longer to me. It’s now just trivia. Gathering became full time and hunting was phased out; for whatever reasons, the hunters were edged out of the hunter-gatherer social structure (in only that region) and a female way of life emerged, becoming the template for all societies to come, right up until present day. And the masculine memes became an endangered species in the modern human consciousness.

However that may be, this type of site seems to confirm the thesis of settlement initiated by the modification of certain social structures, a “revolution” brought about by the danger incurred by human societies for not being able to reproduce previous socialization. Paradoxically, one could say that the Neolithic period appeared because of the attempt by Paleolithic society to safeguard itself The Neolithic revolution was first the instrument of this new socialization, which would bring about the consequences that we know.

However that may be, we are in this model and it is worth what it is worth but which presents, all the same, the advantage of being able to be proven really far away from Zerzan’s thesis of “refusal”.

We are going to leave “Future Primitive” to concern ourselves quickly with the other collection of articles by Zerzan, “Elements of Refusal”. The ideology of Zerzan is essentially based on the conception that he imagines of the early time of humanity. We have proven quite clearly that this conception was biased, partial, and that the central thesis of “refusal” rested on nothing. In this case, what remains of “Future Primitive”? Not much. Almost everything in it is set out in the book of Marshall Sahlin’s “Stone age Economics”. One will gain more by reading it. To take apart “Future Primitive” there was no need to be a specialist of prehistory, or anything else for that matter. Without much preliminary knowledge, a week’s work, a bit of logic, and a sole book of reference, “l’Introduction a la Prehistoire” by G. Camps, accompanied by “Dictionnaire de la Prehistoire” by Leroi-Gourhan, was enough for us. Anyone else could have done it. Zerzan has in all likelihood bet on the fact that no one would do it. That is to say he bet on the ignorance and the lack of curiosity of his readers. He has essentially bet on the fact that his word would be believed. This attitude falls within the lowest realm of propaganda.

Right on, Frenchie.

Well, that does it for me. I was going to do two more parts, since Frenchie-Commie guy there goes on and on for a while, really tearing Zerzan a new asshole. Read the whole thing here.

But why should I? I’m satisfied and it’s long enough. Now I can get on with my life without feeling guilty or having anything unresolved regarding this twat.

Here is another essay-ish deal on the same subject of Zerzan and his Green Bolshevists.

Good work, Frenchie…you helped me despite having questionable motives and dubious beliefs…

Commie Dogshit

I am now at peace. Thank you.

[Otherwise entitled, “On Religion, the Primordial Masculine, and “fucking farming.”

It’s a digressionistic gibberishing ranty-stink-fest of a conversation I managed to reconstruct, entirely from scribblings on toilet paper and bubble-gum wrappers, of Dunce’s and Nihilium’s…this will make you puke. No, seriously, don’t read this. Go away.]

[Edit, March 25, 2007: Last additions, spelling cleaned up.]

Duncelor: “Goodbye.”

Nihilium: “Hello.”

Duncelor: “Religion sucks.”

Nihilium: “I feel a long, boring subject spawning out of this…”

Duncelor: “Boring? Who cares? You got something pressing to do?—iron your panties or something? Watch cartoons? How ’bout ya give your flabby-assed brain some exercise and give your stupidity a rest?”

Nihilium: Sigh. “Okay: No, farming sucks. Religion ain’t that bad—it’s the followers, those goddamned zealots who suck ass.”

Duncelor: “True, but what’s wrong with farming? My grandpa was a farmer, good guy.”

Nihilium: “Nothing’s wrong with ‘farmers’–like when I say ‘America sucks,’ I ain’t sayin ‘all Americans suck.'”

Duncelor: “All Americans do suck. Heh. Or was that all Norwegians?”

Nihilium: “Okay, well, that includes you, in any case—, point is: I’m not saying all farmers suck. I’m saying farming sucks. Farming can rot.”

Duncelor: “Why?”

Nihilium: “Where do you think religions came from? There’s one reason to hate farming…”

Duncelor: “Fuck off…”

Nihilium: “No, really.”

Duncelor: “Religion is cancer for the soul.”

Nihilium: “Sure, but it’s an invention, like farming; farming is a tool for control over people—like farming controls, subdues, the Earth, fences it in and scars it, manipulates it, well, religion does that to people. Religion is a belief in and worship of a deity. That’s all it is. And that’s the criteria for what constitutes a religion—technically speaking. That’s saying a lot, since most people say they are religious …according to government dogma, that’s about 6 billion religious followers on this planet…nearly six fucking billion!—but probably only two-thirds of all people BOTH believe in and worship a deity.”

Duncelor: “Six billion of us praying to some useless fucking–”

Nihilium: “There is a difference—believing in something and not worshipping it, yunno.”

Duncelor: “Yep. Santa Claus? Sure—he’s not a deity, even though he apparently has ‘magical’ powers and shit; and can drive a flying sled, ‘powered by happy!’ around the entire humanly-populated globe, delivering billions of presents to billions of children in a single night. (Obviously, this might have become a religion if it weren’t for the numbers, overpopulation: the potential factuality of Santa Claus diminishes with the impossibility that arises from the math involved. Religions work better with maximum ignorance.) And he does this all from his home-toy-factory in the North Pole—and even though we tend to put out milk and cookies and write him letters, we don’t pray to him, we don’t built golden temples to him and call ‘Christmas Day’ “Santa Claus Day,” do we? Nope.”

Nihilium: “Indeed. Living in Old Testament times, it was easy to believe that the sky was a dome, and water collected above it like galactic ocean, flooding down through the holes in the firm-ament, the heavens. We couldn’t fly up there yet to see the sky, the atmosphere, et cetera. We thought the world ended somewhere, off a great cliff into a void. We used to think women ‘created’ babies, without knowing what an egg, a cell, was—or sperm cells. We knew what fertilization was, but we didn’t know an army of sperm cells got unleashed and battled their way to find this other cell in the female—the whole thing is “magical,” not solely the female part. But that was easy to believe, in ignorance: we had no microbiology back then. Mother Goddess worship and Mother Earth worship were as based on ignorance as much as monotheistic—-“exalted Father Figure” as Freud called “Him”—“God” worship was, is. “Him” or “Her,” it’s all based in stupid shit.”

Duncelor: “Like twisted layers of a rotting onion: you can peal back the history of religion and see each uglier, more disgusting mess under each successive layer, each earlier type, until you find the stench coming from the core, the root. The mushy black, fuzzy, worm-wriggling heart of it all.”

Nihilium: “Yuck. And worshipping something and not believing in it?”

Duncelor: “Like women? Like feminine worship—like today? A young guy, well, he knows nothing about them, he sees only an illusion of beauty, her make-up and hair and clothes and style—and the possibilities under those clothes, which she milks—and potential behaviour from her—based strongly on former experiences, basically from his mother, and the rest is sexual…and, strictly speaking, he worships her aside from his profound ignorance and, by default, lack of belief.”

Nihilium: “Why doesn’t he ‘believe’ in her?”

Duncelor: “Because she’s there? Sure, he can see her, but it’s all illusion. He’s not stupid—he knows that make-up comes off. Teens usually don’t, though.”

Nihilium: “One has to ‘know’ before belief is possible? Hmm. Let’s see… How can you have faith that you will wake up the next morning? Everyone has this faith, this waking faith—it is a faith all humans share, and we all believe in it …it very simply being: waking up the next morning; because we know. How do we know? Well, we woke up the previous morning. (Praise the dawn!…but we don’t praise the dawn, do we? We praise the sun, but that’s another story.) So, we believe in waking up but hardly ‘worship’ waking up—it would be silly to even consider that.”

Duncelor: “I’m considering it.”

Nihilium: “You do that. It’s a simple process of a beginning a new day after an unconscious rest period of typically 8 hours. Big hairy deal. After a few thousand times, we kinda tend to take it for granted…kids sometimes fear going to bed because of the unknown, the blackness, the unconscious time we are asleep, dreaming or not. We develop faith in waking up even though it’s not a fact. There is no guarantee we will actually wake up—indeed, many people simply die in their sleep, especially children, crib death, et cetera, and others never wake up, for whatever reasons. We might pray that something “good” takes us if we do die in our sleep—“Now I lay me down to sleep…”—but this faith, belief, is not a religion. There’s no deity. Women are a type of religion but not a belief system. How many men have ‘faith’ in women, as a group? It doesn’t make sense to me, anymore than a religion worshipping ‘waking up’ would make sense.”

Duncelor: “So, you can’t believe in something you take for granted, something you see every day?”

Nihilium: “Not if it’s an illusion. It becomes merely an object. A statue, real or virtual.”

Duncelor: “Ah, you’re full of shit.”

Nihilium: “No, I’m not. There’s been a zillion religions in a short time in human history—in fact, pre-‘pre-history’ is the non-religious time, the spiritual era of humanity. It wasn’t written down and never developed into a religion.”

Duncelor: “But religions, there’s only a few main ones left, the rest is mythology. Who the hell knows what people really believe or believed anyway…”

Nihilium: “How do you mean?”

Duncelor: “Religious stats are always wrong. Always will be. One reason, people scarsely know what they actually believe—kids never do because kids can believe in almost anything and change frequently as they grow up, especially come the teen years and in particular the college years; another reason we’re not clear on what humans really believe is that children are included in religious stats, and they believe whatever their parents believe; another reason is that people in their teens and even early twenties often check off a religion for other reasons—often to remain loyal or supportive of their parents’ or family’s faith—if they believe or not. How well do people really understand the religions they profess to believe in anyway? I’ve heard people call themselves this or that but do not live up to what their faith calls for. Has the average believer studied every religion and the roots of its own, intensely, for years, finding out as much as possible about it? Looked up root words and phrases in the original language? Not many, I expect. Just the priests and ‘scholars.’ Same thing. How many have critiqued their own religion?”

Nihilium: “Few. Of course the nature of belief is believing without reason to do so—like waking up each morning…like the sun setting, there’s no evidence that it will rise again and yet we plan the next day as though it will be there, as though we will be there. Anyway, point is, so many believe whatever without much to go on. I think most people have not a clue what they believe, they just do whatever seems like the “in thing” to do, to be praised and be accepted. Followers are always sheep.”

Duncelor: “What the fuck do you mean?”

Nihilium: “Religion is a type of self-deception to replace the comfort of not knowing of, or not facing, death. It’s a trip back to kiddie-land, indulging the feminine. It’s a manifestation of the quest for permanence, and thus it’s entirely feminine. Permanence — isn’t immortality the ultimate manifestation of this?”

Duncelor: “Whuh?”

Nihilium: “Why would something finite and limited wish to be infinite and unlimited?”

Duncelor: “The species must go on—the male drive to be free ensures the scattering of humanity’s seed—but it’s gone too far, consumed by the feminine vortex of civilization, sucking everything in sight into it—this wasn’t Nature’s way of balancing our species: we were only supposed to settle down to have kids, or seasonally, and then get back on the move. Males resist, females attract. Hunters were men who were always following herds, game—game, remember that word—and fishing and working on music or art in our spare time, while women were gatherers who looked after the little ones, who sewed and cooked, and who did a bit of seed-planting when there was good earth for it. Neither side chose those roles, they were Nature’s way of dividing things up. And they kept our species alive and strong and healthy for two million years, before religion was shat onto the scene.”

Nihilium: “Okay, I’ll ask again: Why does something that knows it will die suddenly wish to never die?”

Duncelor: “Because it grew up believing, raised, taught, that something all-powerful and wonderful and invisible created it. A “human being” wants divinity, immortality because it wants to imitate its creator. Basically, we want to do what god does—because we’ve lost our real role models as a people, as a species. We want to be a god now. We want to be a goddess. We want fame and riches and credit for 2 million years of biological evolution as well as for the hundred thousand years of technology we’ve developed. In many ways, we are gods. Compared to other primates, we are, technologically.”

Nihilium: “And what is the gender of the creator? Long ago, there was no creator, no gender for the mysteries of life. It had no human form at all.”

Duncelor: “Protestant is male, more or less; Jesus and God are male, and the Holy Spirit is genderless, I guess. Catholic is female—Mother Mary. Islam is Allah and Mohammed, both male. Judaism is male, but that’s the most feminized religion around—it’s no wonder Jews were persecuted for so long: they come from the most historically feminized system the world has ever known, worse than today. They were around in the ‘whores of Babylon’ times. One of the most purely decadent and excessive, wasteful cultures in history.”

Nihilium: “Jews are probably not respected for a few things, but some of the hate is from the fact that they simply resist other cultures—and religions. They never bought any religion once they established Judaism, not Christian or Islamic, and stuck with their own religion stubbornly over the years. That’s a big reason for the hatred—other stuff is indirectly linked to this stubbornness, unwillingness to submit, denying Jesus as the Messiah, et cetera. It goes back to the Amorites and Sumerians, who despised those nomadic fishermen. It’s probably a similar reason why most people hate any sort of rebels.”

Duncelor: “Also, their arrogance as a chosen people.”

Nihilium: “Yeah, somewhat, I suppose. Genetically, Israelis-Jews-Semites are no different than Palestinians—they come from the same root stock, the same people, just different cultures. The Semitic tribes in the Levantine have suffered the farming culture the longest. Slaves to Sumer, slaves to Egypt. As an ancient group, the Hebrews must have tested out more governments and religions than any other people—”

Duncelor: “—and Jesus was the first Jew? Before blacks were rounded up as “niggers” we had men from around Sumer who were rounded up and put to work on the farm. The Amorites were Semitic and served in Sumer’s military, much like other peoples would in Rome—as it indoctrinated them into their religion during this conscription.”

Nihilium: “Of course. The Goths, for example—they were farmers around the Black Sea, pressed south by Hunnic-Mongol nomads, who were—like a stick inside a wasp’s nest—poked and prodded by the Chinese until they got fed up and started invading China—”

Duncelor: “—hence the Great Wall—”

Nihilium: “—Yes. The masculine getting warped again. Just like what the Ubaid culture in Mesopotamia did to its neighbours: trying to subdue them and steal their shit, and guess what? They were eventually overrun, too, and conquered by pissed off nomads, who became exactly like their one-time oppressors… Back to the Goths: they kept moving south until they reached the Eastern Roman Empire’s northern border, along the Danube. When they ran out of food, they went grovelling to East Rome = Byzantium, now fully Christian, who told them first to get bent, then saw them as potential converts and future soldiers, so they let them into their borders, fed and sheltered them, and were nice and friendly…providing they submitted to their Christian God. Here’s where Christian Conversion became a system: two-fold purpose—to subdue “primitives” and convert them, swelling Christian ranks and, like farming itself, spreading and infecting every culture it touched, gobbling up resources as it did so. Dominion. Make everyone the same, make everything a wasteland, and set it all into permanence…”

Duncelor: “Catching flies with fly-paper.”

Nihilium: “And the fly-swatter failing that…”

Duncelor: “And hatred?”

Nihilium: “Hatred, object-oriented hatred, is a projection of self-hatred, too—often we hate others to give our own self-hatred a break, but it never works, it eats away regardless. Anyhow, the Sumer-system was continued by Egypt. Christ, what fuss over mortality—the pharaohs, like fatherless Gilgamesh in Sumer, were told by Mommy they were gods and so, they thought—they bought, as in swallowed—that they were immortal, but alas, as Gilgy discovered after the gods’ experiment, Enkidu failed and he died, and he soon realized that he was next—that ‘two-thirds’ divinity, as women convinced him, was not enough to live forever. They realized that being a ‘homo sapien’ wasn’t going to get them to ‘heaven.'”

Duncelor: “The special perfect happy place where it’s fun all the time. Eternal milk bone for being a good doggie.”

Nihilium: “Yes, with a million virgins and happy-happy-joy-joy all the time, yadda yadda… So they built massive tombs—partly to Osiris, god of the underworld, reincarnated Enkidu, Orion, the constellation and the hunter, a newer symbol of the primal masculine, the Deep Male—they built these pyramid sepulchers in the desert that was once a rich, forested wilderness, like Sumer did, where hunters used to hunt. Poetic and pathetic.”

Duncelor: “So, anyfuck, through all this humans started trying to be gods?”

Nihilium: “Before. Farming was about control, total control, total organization, and total manipulation of the earth—the feminine, sir. The left-brained controlling itself silly. Once they got it all organized, probably on some subconscious level, then came the grand temples, human figures as tall as the clouds…greedy ego-driven dreams of giants of gold and marble.”

Duncelor: “What makes us gods?”

Nihilium: “Wealth, glory and admiration…. Technology, ‘power.’ Power over others, service to others. To control life, create life, end life. That’s dominion, that’s what the masculine gets perverted into when it’s serving the feminine (when it’s absent to offset the feminine—when Mater is unrestricted). A king is the biggest tool of all—the biggest “nigger”—he serves everyone, for a king to reign is to serve. To a chimp, we are sterile and tall, slender creatures, balding beings with funky mojo. Flashing lights and large structures everywhere. Our cities are specks of heaven to a chimp. At any rate, it’s not just chimps we want to appear god-like for—it’s each other.”

Duncelor: “For the applause, the ego buzz. The praise. It wasn’t always like this, though…”

Nihilium: “No. Why would the masculine seek power? What power does a wolf desire except that which is necessary to live, to survive? It needs its teeth, its legs, and prey. Not even tools or weapons—hence its superiority to man. Men had all the ‘power’ they ever needed back in the fucking Stone Age—the drive to stay alive and survive, keep the tribe going, and develop art along the way. What power did Paleolithic man desire except that which would help his tribe survive, except that strength to hurl a spear accurately, to fire an arrow into bison, yadda yadda, to feed his people, his mate and children?”

Duncelor: “Yeah, he also fished. Didn’t the women fish or did they mainly gather?”

Nihilium: “Depends where—and when. Women began doing less and less—around 10,000 BC I doubt women were doing very much gathering either around Mesopotamia: that’s when men started doing the gathering instead of the hunting—which makes sense, if you consider that women became the first aristocracy, the oldest one humans have.”

Duncelor: “Well, not all women. It was probably only certain women—those from neighbouring tribes might have suffered the same slave fate as the men. I know that kingdoms didn’t exist until Sumer. At that time, there were female and male slaves—the roles of the female slaves were nothing compared to the males, unless you count the temple harlots. The temple was literally the center of the farming city along the Tigris and Euphrates—it was the center of everything, the entire community was built around the temple. The priests and priestesses must have had tremendous influence and authority in this ‘pagan church.’ They must have installed the first ‘king.'”

Nihilium: “Sure, the religions started kingdoms—and farming started religions—but I meant women collectively, compared to a couple thousand years before that. You’re right, though. And things got quite complicated—hence written language popping up, wedge-shaped letters, so the king’s slaves could make better administrative records—mainly for trade, I expect.”

Duncelor: “Social structures were fantastically simple up until 7000-5000 BC—sometimes they developed into “chief and commoner” tribes, which weren’t too bad either (it seems more of these developed in more semi-tropical areas, especially in heavily rainforested areas, than they did in north Asia, northern Europe, and North America). Most were nomadic and shamanistic hunter-gatherers. The class system—the rich, the poor-to-very-poor–but-trying-to-be-rich, and slave caste—was organized under the advent of the kingdom. It’s not clear what systems were most common in the area before Sumer, but it was strongly religious and weird—and cruel: here’s where slavery came about. I can’t fathom how feminists can view pre-Sumerian times as some fairy-land perfect paradise in which females ran everything, before ‘men came with their gods.'”

Nihilium: “Men didn’t come with gods until later, much later, and it was only one god, ‘God,’ that masculine monotheist Abrahamic thing developed the same way the Blues developed among blacks enslaved. Why?”

Duncelor: “Because people were treated like dogs for a long time under goddess-worship; men and boys were physically castrated and emasculated in other ways—here’s where eunuchs came from, as you know. Eventually, generations past and enough of these dickless priests started to change things and create a religion, a civil rights movement, which is called “the patriarchy.” It became a counter-religion, a warped stab at balance, and got fucked up fast. They invented a heavenly Father to offset the female invention—Mother Earth. Sumer was a matriarchy, with an appointed effeminate momma’s boy, a mangina, a dress-wearing bejewled “king” on a tall chair. Essentially, a king is female puppet, a feminine tool.”

Nihilium: “Yeah, you told me that before. Anyfuck, to think it all came about because we didn’t know where babies came from…”

Duncelor: “Yep. Woman as “life giver” is still around.”

Nihilium: “Really. Man is still a sperm bank and a wallet. Long ago, they thought women ‘created’ life magically, hence fertility religions to come; they didn’t know that females possess an egg, a cell, and males possess sperm, also cells, and only together can this new human life be ‘created.’ They didn’t know that these cells are life. Ignorance is the foundation of religion. These were-are seeds of human life, and both men and women have them. Neither gender is blessed as ‘holy’ or some shit. Neither of us create life by ourselves.”

Duncelor: “Sure. Women are not magical because they house an embryo and such for nine months—and men are not special because we house the semen that eventually gets deposited into the female that finds her egg and becomes that embryo.”

Nihilium: “True enough. We both have different roles, and we’re unique from and for each other, but we’re nothing special; it’s just biology. We didn’t invent that, we just take part in it. We just took this ‘magic’ and put a human face to it—stupid. However, semen is mentioned, associated with a water-fluid god, Enki, in one of the oldest creation myths—Babylonian, based upon earlier Sumerian, which was based on their ancestors from Dilmun, who came over from the Levantine at some point. This next bit is about the Old World Order—literally, the first conception of those Levantines who came up with a fully sedentary existence…:”

The Enuma Elish, the Babylonian Creation myth, explains how natural phenomena and social institutions on Earth came into being and were regulated. In an earlier Sumerian source, however, the story is different – everything is established by the god Enki, the clever craftsman who presides over the life-giving fresh waters, the patron of crafts and arts, magic and wisdom.

In this myth, Enki blesses the cities of Nippur, “the place where the gods are born”, Ur, Meluhha (in the Indus Valley) and Dilmun with abundant crops, flocks, precious metals and success in war. Then he organizes the sea, rivers, clouds and rain, turning the barren hills into fields and creating the rivers Tigris and Euphrates by filling their beds with a stream of his own semen. Enki also makes the sheep, cattle and crops multiply and establishes the skills of building and weaving.

As he creates each domain, Enki appoints a god/dess to supervise it. When he has finished appointing the gods their domains, Inanna approaches Enki and complains to him that he had failed to give her a domain. Enki responds by listing numerous powers and domains possessed by Inanna, adding each time “Young Inanna, what more could we add for you?” Finally, Enki says to the Maiden goddess: “Inanna, you have the power to destroy what cannot be destroyed, and to set up what cannot be set up”.

Duncelor: “Huh. Check out greedy little Inanna, once more yet again. They were right full of themselves, weren’t they?”

Nihilium: “Brats. Divinities based on—maybe even composites of—rich brats of old. Landowners are the “gods” that cities claimed to create. The old gods/goddesses were the dumbasses who built a new temple, founding a new city and a new religion-cult around that temple. They became glorified into divinities. Back then, religion was the same sham it is today—just another control tactic.”

Duncelor: “Land-lords. What egos they had! What lack of asceticism. Reminds me of today almost. Check out this text…”

Enki, king of the Abzu, celebrates his own magnificence –
as is his right:

My father, ruler above and below,
made my features blaze above and below.

My great brother, ruler of all the lands,
gathered all the me together,
placed the me in my hands.
From the Ekur, house of Enlil,
I passed on the arts and crafts to my Abzu, Eridu.

I am the true offspring, sprung from the wild ox.
I am a leading son of An.
I am the great storm the breaks over the ‘Great Below':
I am the great lord over the land.

I am the first among the rulers.
I am the father of all the lands.
I am the big brother of the gods,
the hegal is perfected in me.

I am the seal-keeper above and below.
I am cunning and wise in the lands.

I am the one who directs justice alongside An, the king,
on the dais of An.

I am the one who having gazed upon the Kur,
decrees the fates alongside Enlil:

he has placed in my hands the decreeing of fates
at the place where the sun rises.

I am the one Nintu really cares for:
I am the one Ninhursag gave a good name.

I am the leader of the Anunna-gods.
I am the one born a leading son of An.

After the lord had proclaimed his loftiness,
after the great prince had pronounced his own praise,
the Anunna-gods stood up in prayer and supplication:

Lord who stands watch over the arts and crafts,
expert at decisions, adored one –
‘O Enki, praise.

A second time, for the pleasure it gave him,
Enki, king of the Abzu, celebrates his own magnificence

Duncelor: “Blah blah. Ego-filled tripe…holy hell. Sounds down-right biblical. ‘Big Brother?'”

Nihilium: “Or, rather, ‘Big Sister?’ This is the source of so many religions to come, based upon earlier religions of course. The ‘I am the one Ninhursag gave a good name’ bit is interesting, because I get a sense that, aside from either outright inventing language or developing it into more complex forms, women were the ones who started naming everything. Ninhursag was the Sumerian ‘Earth Mother’ or fertility goddess—and in the Old Testament we see “God” taking over her role, as well as all the older gods and goddesses; the ‘patriarchal’ re-writing of how things got names: ‘Adam,’ the first man, is suddenly written in to do this. Way, way back then, some believed that ‘power’ came from names: indeed some believed that by calling out someone’s name, you could weaken or take away their ‘power.’ Stems from older Wiccan, with curses and hexes and shit. Names were crucial for magic crap.”

Duncelor: “I always thought it was odd how “God” never had a name…”

Nihilium: “Good point. This was what the paranoid, ignorant men did, consciously or on some level, to try to ensure that their deity would last—no one could take ‘His’ secret power away if no one knew the real name…”

Duncelor: “Such as the paranoid, ignorant women trying to re-establish their old religions?”

Nihilium: “Right. Which they no doubt tried hard to do when monotheism dawned. There’s a few scattered myths about this. From our perspective, it seems like quite a male-female battle going on, but I doubt they had much conscious awareness of this; I see it as a recalibrated phenomenon, a metamorphosis of a far deeper, unconscious struggle between the feminine and what was left of the masculine, expressed religiously. ”

Duncelor: “Sedentary versus nomadic—two collective unconsciousness? Hmm. Another thing I just thought: all the old male gods were humanistic, and guess what? Their names changed. Each conquering culture just sucked up the previous religion, re-formatted it and took it all over—took over the system and used religion to keep the drooling masses in line. Greco-Roman ones are the most famous examples, but this happened often—Kebaran to Dilmun to Sumer to Akkadian to Babylon to Persian, spinning off south to Egypt, then east into Indus-India and further…”

Nihilium: “Here comes the new boss—”

Duncelor: “—same as the old boss. But with a new name.”

Nihilium: “Same game. The ‘patriarchs’ might have had this in mind, consciously—a god with no name, totally separate and all-powerful, clearly distinct from older divinities, absolutely perfect with non-human characteristics…well, hell, this sucker might stand the test of time. And it did. But subconsciously, there is always more going on. Things most important to us on basic phrenic levels always have a way of bubbling up to the surface. Paganism really was a compromise—a grotesque, cockeyede one, granted—between older Mother Earth worship and, later to come, Father Sky worship….”

The great prince who had drawn near to his land,
the Anunna-gods speak with affection:

Lord who rides the great me,
the pure me,
who stands watch over the great me,
the myriad me,
who is foremost everywhere above and below,
at Eridu, the pure place,
the most precious place
where the noble me have been taken in –
‘O Enki, lord above and below, praise!

Nihilium: “Praise. Fucking praise… Wanna see what O Great God Enki looks like?”

Duncelor: “Sure…”


Duncelor: “Which one of those skirt-wearing ponces is he?”

Nihilium: “He’s the skirt-wearing ponce showing off his leg. With the bird on his hand.”

Duncelor: “Sexuh. That’s what Christ eventually looked like, too. The messenger always seems to become more important than the message—objectification again, left-brain. Stuck on details, missed the point. In seeking permanence, the feminine always changes things back over the centuries to the object of itself—like a timeless attention whore.”

Nihilium: “True. Another thing: “God” never had any image either—which made future generations less likely to look at a depiction and think, Hmmm…he looks like quite the ponce. Start asking questions. What the Dark Ages did was keep everything somewhat as it used to be: this made it easier for peasants to relate to characters in the stories. Same thing with divinities—times change. Maximum ignorance…this is why feminism today won’t discuss a thing, doesn’t want females looking into the lies and distortions—they got that from Marxist-Leninism—”

Duncelor: “Yeah: ‘Just believe. Don’t think. And give us your money.’ But I can’t stop wondering… why male spirituality simply vanished in Eurasia, replaced by bearded fruits in dresses? Why do I care about male spirituality? Because it’s cool and pre-dates civilization and shit; it was alive and well across Eurasia, as well as just entering North America, 50,000 years ago (gradually skrinking up into northern regions in Europe, then forced south due to climatic shifts, where it died out), and because I’m interested in the fundamental similarities of environmentally sound, peaceful, nomadic ways of life that evolved over the world, eventually into North America, where it stayed preserved for centuries.”

Nihilium: “Was male spirituality overrun by goddess worship and fertility cults? Or did the fertility cults replace Eurasian male culture (from Mesopotamia to North Africa, through Europe and into Persia) by 15,000 BC, and eventually develop independently into full-out goddess worship, centered around Mother Earth-farming culture? If we are to take the Venus figurines as evidence of the “primal mother goddess” worship, or if not worship then represented belief in and thus not a religion, then we’re left with no chain of evidence—what came before?”

Duncelor: “I found something of interest…”

Before The Flood

Nihilium: “Hmm. It shows a mostly accurate picture of Eurasia at the time of the last glacial maximum, and says:”

Ancestral Stomping Grounds of Our Mother-loving Mammoth-eating Ancestors

Duncelor: “Oh crap, stop right there. It’s a chick site. Maybe even feminist revisionist crap—”

Nihilium: “Now, now; let’s give it a chance…it says…

Around 31,000 years ago our Cro Magnon ancestors painted the mammoths of the above left in a cave in Vallon Pont-d’arc, France. 16,000 years later in a cave in the Ural Mountains of Russia, NE of the Caspian Sea, another Cro Magnon ancestor painted the mammoth pictured above right. The map in the center depicts the vast area south of the receeding glacier ice cap where the hunters followed the mammoths, north in summer, south in winter. See the mighty rivers, the Volga, Dnieper, Dniester, Danube and the river that later would be the Baltic Sea, roadways of prehistory, with grasslands and forests inbetween them, full of herds. Here is where the goddess figurines are found today by archeologists. Scientists tell us that in the earth’s entire history four great ice ages have come and gone. The most recent ice age has occupied the past four million years. So, all the human race ever knew from the time of its first entrance into Asia was these river pathways and grasslands and the mammoths. Milleniums passed one after another unchanged, human hunter tribes wending their way along well-known river banks, sometimes taking the time to carve the image of a woman from a piece of mammoth ivory along the way. It’s awesome to think of all the thousands and thousands of years that passed where humans and mammoths shared the same world together.”

Duncelor: “Dude, wait a minute, we don’t know they’re ‘goddess’ figurines. Some people are just assuming that. How do we know?”

Nihilium: “Precisely. If men were totally obsessed with females back then, their cave art would be filled with naked women, but they’re not—there has yet to be found a female form depicted in a sacred cave that males used. Anyway, despite her obvious bias, she’s right about everything else there. That’s how it was.”

Duncelor: “So what’s the deal with these—

Venus Statue

—little statues? They look like completely obese women. How unhealthy is that, eh? Were fatass women held in high regard for some reason? Was this early fetish porno?”

Nihilium: “Perhaps she’s pregnant, and not just fat. Here’s another point of view…

The beliefs and practices of our distant ancestors are for the most part lost in the mists of antiquity and archaeologists do not know for certain what religious and social traditions were adhered to 20,000 to 30,000 years before present. Certain glimpses into this ancient past are however possible through the analysis and interpretation of archaeological sites and artefacts. In this way it becomes possible through systematic investigation to reconstruct aspects of European prehistory through the vestiges of human activity.

Of particular interest within European prehistory are the remnants of the earliest known artistic depictions and in particular the female statuettes known as ‘Venus’ figurines, the presence of which was evident in their dispersal across vast regions of Europe. By looking at occurrences of ‘Venus’ figurines, the wider climatic and cultural context and the various interpretations that have been proposed by archaeologists it is possible to gain insight into aspects of this phenomenon and gain an insight into European prehistory.

The forms of aesthetic art that emerged during the Upper Palaeolithic are divided into ‘parietal art’ such as cave wall paintings, engravings and relief sculpture and ‘mobiliary art’ such as figurines and portable objects (Fagan, 1998). The earlier mobiliary art focused on vulvas, animal depictions and human figurines, generally of the female form (Collins and Onias, 1978:11, cited in Dickson 1990). The animal statues and other mobiliary art were by no means as prevalent as these so-called female Venus figurines, which featured prominently over vast expanses of Europe and were found from the Russian steppe to south-west France and northern Spain, covering a distance of over 4000 km.”

Duncelor: “So, men were carrying around little bits of female imagery with them. That doesn’t signify goddess worship to me. It signifies isolation from said women, and extreme horniness. I think they were cave-man’s idea of a Playboy poster for wanking.”

Nihilium: “Heh. Could be. It is by definition an objectified woman, only the sexual parts on some of the items. A sex symbol. Perhaps they were used for instructional purposes, too, though, serving as visual aids. Why not? Maybe both. Maybe the medicine men had these, or the prehistoric mid-wives. Stuff for doctors and nurses that got misused as religious objects later—that’s usually how it goes.”

Duncelor: “Why no big cocks for the ladies, though? Weren’t women carrying around carved penises and little male figurines? If it was a primitive man’s world, why was male culture restricted to caves and paintings?”

Nihilium: “Good question. Very good question…let’s see what the blog one says…”

About 18.000 years ago the icecap began to melt and withdraw from the great masses of land it had held for so many eons. The receeding icecap fed the rivers. The rivers in turn created and filled the huge freshwater lake in the center of the map above, and from here the waters flowed into the sea. The confluence of the main rivers was this amazing lake, a veritable Disneyland, an incredible Eden, for hunters such as our ancestors. For it is here the winter herds would bring them. What a wonderful place it was! The lands to the west of the lake were full of thousands of hot springs for wonderful bathing and relaxing and dreaming and story telling. All around them the winter herds of every kind of creature — so full that hunting was never difficult. And the land abounded in vegetables and fruit. The Carpathian mountains around the Tisza river were rich in obsidian and flint for stone axes and blades. And in the land south of the lake there were great quantities of salt and volcanic obsidian. From about 12,000 BC onward the wandering tribes of hunters began to settle into continuous communities in the lands around the lake.

Duncelor: “She’s talking about this lake, of course, the current Black Sea. Anyway, it doesn’t answer my question….Unless…okay: women are more verbal, they’ve always been, and I’ve long speculated that, being more left-brained, it follows that they were much more likely to develop language—so, perhaps no visual aids were required. Women discussed sex with their daughters…”

Nihilium: “That or their objects were made of wood or something else that hasn’t survived over time. Or we simply haven’t found any objects of theirs yet—but, as you say, it is very likely that females starting talking more; at home with the children, they’d be the ones who would need to do that—men quietly hunting would not. Probable… Well, anyway, she has the rest right, if not slightly glorified. The semi-nomadic life was only slightly easier than the fully nomadic one—here might be why gathering took over: the left brained, logically, decided it was easier…can’t argue that once hunting and the necessity of hunting seems to have gone—the way of life began by the Kebarans spread to Anatolia and this region, from the Black Sea to France to southern England, that’s where they got it from, as well as the technology to live like this—through primitive trade and such. Culture arrived here from the south. Check out the dates of types of pottery throughout Europe—eventually every native population adopted another culture or they were, especially later, invaded.”

Duncelor: “True. Check out this gif showing the spreading of farming…I know you’ll like this…”

Nihilium: “Like a plague…look at how it spreads, infecting every culture it touches, like a virus, converting it into farming bullshit, turning it into shit, killing the male spirit. All the way to the Pacific Islands.”

Duncelor: “It even reached across the Pacific, via island-hopping Polynesians, as far as Mesoamerica…”

Nihilium: “It’s quite probable and explains much. By 500 AD they were nearly in Hawaii. We know that those Polynesian Easter Island guys traded with mainland Chile—the Nazca-Inka types there. And both started doing weird shit, standing still as a people…”

Duncelor: “At least the Mesoamericans didn’t make a stinking shithole out of their environments.”

Nihilium: “That’s because whatever culture reached there was diluted and gnarled into who knows what—it was weird, but not El Destructo Stupid Weird like in Eurasia. Anyway, that map above—it’s accurate but incredibly misleading: where farming spread the natural world was picked clean (farming needs room = deforestation, soil erosion, inevitable desertification), slightly less as it expanded outwards and changed, evolving culturally into different, independent systems and different religions. Natural environments were either made a desert or, later, converted into grazing land, soon to be razed by pastoralism = ranching, herding (like how the Saharan and Arabian deserts were formed). The flat fertile river areas—before irrigation—were turned into more crop-land, and trees were plundered as populations soared. I have another gif I’m working on that shows the three main things that tranformed the natural world into this human world: (1) human population growth from farming/religions and their ecocide, (2) climatic shifts, and (3) the historical—and pre-historical—dynamic of the masculine-feminine dichotomy—the ‘battle of the sexes’ originated as a cultural battle between sedentary and nomadic. Hunters versus gatherers…instead of working together in harmony, under farming they were enemies…”

Duncelor: “Here’s the link to that farming stuff, by the way…”

There was another reason the great clans of mammoth hunters were beginning to settle into one place: The woolly mammoths were becoming extinct. There was less and less reason to remain on the move following the herds north in the spring and south in the autumn. With each passing generation there were fewer and fewer mammoths. The reason for their disappearance were that humans were evolving into perfect predators.

Nihilium: “Ugh…well, it could be partly because of that. The climate was rapidly changing and men were adapting quickly to this—mammoths weren’t. They began dying out along with man’s hunting effort. If mammoth tusks were becoming valued items—perhaps that’s what these ‘venus’ figurines started out as—then it stands that mammoth was doomed as demand grew and supplies dwindled.”

The woolly mammoths shed their wool once a year leaving the two foot long strands in piles against trees and among shrubs and brush. Humans covered themselves with pieces of this abundant wool and stealthily crept up on herds. (Thousands of years of such mammoth hair covering no doubt evolved into the first clothing.) The Siberian mammoth was smaller than the modern elephant, about nine foot tall at the shoulders. Covered in mammoth wool the hunters would appear the size of young mammoths and could get very close to their prey. In every way the human’s hunting skills more refined and their blades and axes became sharper. They worked as teams better than ever before and there were more humans than ever before, all searching for mammoth steaks. The climate also played a part in the demise of the mammoths that lived in the vast Siberian lands to the northeast. When mammoths roamed Siberia there was no permafrost as there is today. Because the glaciers sucked up all the moisture in the air and the ground did not freeze. This made the subarctic steppes a land of rich food supplies, grasses and vegetables for human and mammoth alike. But as the glaciers receeded the climate changed.

Duncelor: “That’s another reason why humans started going bald in these regions—clothing. What good is hair when you’re wearing fur from your revered animal prey?”

Nihilium: “Well, sure. That started a while ago though—it only accelerated during the climatic shifts from 50,000 BC to 10,000 BC…by then we were, nearer to Mesopotamia and the Levantine Corridor, et cetera, almost as they are now in terms of hair and overall size. Humans were hunting pretty well before this, though—they did the same thing in North America over the next 30 thousand years without causing, or assisting in, a mass extinction. It’s not that the men in this region were hunting better—they were simply specializing in specific animals to kill, and killed a lot of them, no doubt for growing trade needs in areas where demands were high.”

Duncelor: “At least she mentions the climate there. Another thing: when clothing started, men wore pants, which came in handy in the rugged areas they went to do rugged things—while women, in safer, quieter areas, relaxed in dresses made of skins. But in other areas, where climates are warmer, men didn’t wear much, neither did the women. Tits hung out and guys stood with their forest-made spears wearing loin cloths. In some areas of course, people still live this way. What a culture shock. Let’s see more from that other one now…”

Numerous similarities and correlations seem to occur across different sites, seemingly pointing to a somewhat universal symbolism and a sense of uniformity throughout European female figurines. Although asserting that the central archaeological message and the mythology of the ‘Gravettian’ group has to do with woman, Delporte warns against all- encompassing generalisations with regard to these matters and asserts that the concept of ‘woman’ personified in the figurines is not homogonous and alludes to various roles and representations[.] He states that these diverse roles included woman as generator of life; as generator of pleasure, and as a sort of central axis around which are organised different manifestations of thought and expression (1993:256).

The very magnitude of distribution over vast areas of Europe shows that understanding the nature of the ‘Venus’ figurines is a crucial step in understanding the beliefs and social system of the earliest anatomically modern humans in Europe. Hahn reiterates this by stressing the importance of analysing the complete archaeological context when trying to gain an understanding of such mobiliary art; in particular [its] function in the correlated behavioural and cultural systems (1993:229).

Although there are reported dates for ‘Venus’ figurines ranging from 29,000-14,000 years B.P, by far the majority of the ‘Venus’ figurines appear between 23,000 and 25,000 B.P (Gamble, 1981:97, cited in Dickson, 1990), at a period that is referred to in Eastern Europe as the ‘Gravettian’ and in Western Europe as the ‘Perigordian.’ Dickson suggests that the remarkable similarity of the figurines over these vast geographical areas points to these two archaeological traditions being part of the same extended cultural province (1990:65).

Famous ‘Venus’ statuettes include the ‘Venus of Willendorf’ from Austria, the ‘Venus of Lausel’ and the ‘Savignon Venus.’ There are many theories as to what the figurines represented and the relationship that these had to society as a whole. The depiction of the female form that is common in the mobiliary art of the period points to wider societal and cultural issues of great importance. Many scholars have assumed that figurine features such as exaggerated breasts, sexual organs, hips and buttocks allude to these objects being used to signify and encourage fertility, to represent an idea of female beauty or alternately to portray an ancient ‘Mother Goddess’ (Berenguer, 1973, cited in Dickson, 1990:102-3).

Duncelor: “Since it appears to be a pregnant woman depicted, it makes sense that these were connected with fertility.”

Nihilium: “Indeed. A Pathleolithic man might have carved one to ensure the healthy birth of his first born, for instance. But now that I think of it, what evidence is there that men made these? Would not it be sexist of us to assume that men made these things? Women had functioning fingers…”

Duncelor: “Good point, dipshit…I’m impressed. But I still think it was porn.”

Nihilium: “Oh you! Okay, A: men might not have even made these; B: if they did, it might have been for reasons of most likely fertility or something sexual…or C, even the Ice Age version of a photograph, although I highly doubt all women were that obese, unless they were pregnancy depictions, which is likely. Aside from other possible explanations, it might have been a teaching thing for mothers for their daughters, something that might have served another purpose later on. Check this out:”

Venus (?) of Laussel

Nihilium: “This, lending evidence that women, and not men, made these, is:

The “Venus” of Laussel was discovered in 1911 by a physician named J. G. Lalanne carved into the wall of a limestone rock shelter (named Laussel) in the Dordogne not far from Lascaux. The shelter, under an overhang, is a terrace over 300 yards long which looks out over the valley below. Although originally thought to have been a dwelling site, it is now believed it served as a ceremonial center.

The carving, which is 17 inches high, was fashioned using flint chisels. The art historian Sigfried Giedion describes the figure as follows:

“The figure and the block are inseparably interlocked. In the position selected by the artist for this relief, the block had a slight overhang, so that the figure swelled forward gently. When seen from one side, the curve appears as taut as a strung bow. It swells up to a supreme point, the maternal belly, then falls away at either end and sinks slowly into the rock, in which the feet seem to melt. The upper part of the body curves gently backward, and the head, resting between two rock projections, seems to be reclining, as though on a cushion.”

Nihilium: “It’s approximately 20,000 years old, in prehistoric France, at the same time men were painting in caves—one of which was quite near to this thing, the sacred cave at Lascaux.”



Nihilium: “Obvious evidence that there were two distinct cultures operating in prehistoric France (which was the edge of the glaciation, the most northern region of Europe at the time), at the same place and at the same time, hunting (male) culture and gathering (female) culture, as if we needed even more proof of this. Guess which one eventually dominated? Duh… That’s some horn she’s holding—with thirteen notches on it, apparently, maybe twelve and an end line, while holding her belly—pregnant belly—in the other hand. This indicates a fertility deal, obviously, perhaps the earliest beginnings of the fertility cults to come or something practical, instructional, perverted for that purpose later. From birth cults to farming cults? Hmm. Guess what kind of horn that is?”

Duncelor: “Umm…horn of plenty?”

Nihilium: “Give the man a prize! The cornucopia is also known as the Horn of Plenty and also the Harvest Cone.”

Harvest Cone Sorta

Duncelor: “Heh. Anyway, yeah, I guess on the Horn are notches, 12 or 13 of them, that may symbolize the number of full moons per year, or perhaps how many menstrual cycles there are in a year, or some damn thing. Fertility stuff creeping into gathering consciousness. A bit of trivia: the cornucopia is also used in the coat of arms of the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. Know where that is?”

Nihilium: “Hmmm…near the Black Sea?”



Duncelor: “Yepper. Another thing I just thought of…the appearance of clothing correlates to the appearance of these portable ‘venus’ objects, one dating back hundreds of thousands of years—might it be that—if men actually carved these, and there’s no proof they did—men carved these in areas where women were now wearing clothing? Is this were “titty-fascination” originated? Because it didn’t catch on in the New World and other places, wild places—nowhere on this continent, North America, were breasts worshipped or prized or thought of in any religious way. Why? Because here Natives saw them often, except in the far north or during winter. Clothing was always optional for pre-Paleolithic man.”

Nihilium: “Nudity was no big hairy deal.”

Duncelor: “Well, according to this gender politics stuff, the “patriarchy” starting covering up women for religious reasons, and that’s probably how it turned out, but initially, I think the idea might have been that these “patriarchs” realized what stupid ninnies the male population became during these decadent times. A few hundred generations of men not seeing female bodies, when before they were common, might have led some to place more significance on feminine appearance than ever before—”

Nihilium: “More significance than they deserved…instead of valuing women’s minds, they drooled over their bodies, which seems like the way women wanted it—men don’t do a thing now unless a female either says he can or inspires him, so… But I can understand why they would freak out and cover them up. Look at Sparta; Rome, things fucking imploded from within. City dwellers and farmers worrying constantly. Caesars threw them bloody games for months to quell their fretting and rioting and rabble-ing mob behavior.”

Duncelor: “Rome is the mob is spot on. The populace, the hungry millions in stone boxes on grids along farm-squared rivers. Bored senseless working drones in the cogs of the world’s first superpower, the first kingdom needing to really deal with the “mob.” Alexander taught it everything it knew. So Rome just expanded and kept expanding to make room for it all. It was all dependent upon trade, so foreign manipulation developed through Rome into the real fucking cunt it’s become to—”

Nihilium: “Oh, how you go on. Anyfart, enough about clothing and its potential psychological effect on the Eurasian men in the Paleolithic. Back to that other blog thing…”

By 10,000 BC the permafrost began to set in and far less food grew on the year-round frozen earth for the voracious eaters to consume. With the dwindling numbers of woolly mammoths migrating along the rivers with the seasons the hunters had no reason to wander anymore either, at least not on the scale of the past. The warming climate had on the other hand enrichened lands to the south with legumes and fruit trees. Oak forests spread upon the earth and in particular along the Levant which was not dry and barren as it is today but was covered with rich vegetation as were all the Mediterranian coastal plains. Here we find the first examples of the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic, that is from wandering tribes of hunters and gatherers to the new age of farming and the domestication of animals.

The Natufians of the fertile Lavant were the earliest people to arrange their lives around the gathering of wild cereals and storing them for future use. Yet they had not entirely left their wandering ways. Seasonally Natufian hunters followed herds of deer between Anatolia and along the eastern Mediterannean coast. They congregated in caves and on hill tops and in open air areas that were rich in wild cattle and roe deer and fish.

Nihilium: “Fucking farming…what animals that weren’t prized for ornamental value, the forebearer of cattle especially, the bull, were enslaved for food. From hunting to mindless butchery. At least in hunting the animal has a chance to get away—it is honourable. If it does get away, it goes back to Nature and lives free—at risk of other predators, but so what? That’s how life works. Farming, ranching, domestication…fucking obscene. Shooting a defenseless creature in a fenced cube has no honour.”

Duncelor: “Word. Well, that’s all accurate. She doesn’t get into why exactly we ‘had no reason to wander anymore either, at least not on the scale of the past.’ It wasn’t like taking out the trash, throwing something away when you no longer need it. Shit, hunting was deep male culture—it was a part of them for untold hundreds of centuries, ever since they left the trees in Africa—over a million goddamned years of culture. Refined over thousands of generations into the nearly perfect bow and arrow. And now suddenly the women are saying, “Hey, no more wandering, boys, let’s make with the farming. Here’s a shovel—get rid of your hunting things and build me a nice house.” And the men just chuckle in lively, carefree way, and agree? Fucking hell that makes no sense to me. They had sacred caves dedicated to this way of life. But clearly the shift to sedentary life had begun by this point.”

Nihilium: “If there’s no animals to hunt, there’s none to hunt. What are they supposed to do? Besides, it didn’t end so suddenly—not all animals were gone. Men still kept hunting, fishing, specializing further to a specific type. But all their values changed. Trade and currency became important to them. More and more men were switching to farming, gathering, full time. And here’s where men stopped being men. This is where the masculine began to go extinct in most of Eurasia.”

Duncelor: “Everything became feminine after hunting and nomadicity stopped…Male spirituality died with it.”

Nihilium: “No, no. It’s around. What we seem to call ‘male genius’ I think is the masculine twisted, gnarled over generations within Mater’s roots, in some specialized area—math: Einstein, right-brained, called stupid in school, as one example. Da Vinci, another right-brainer; utter brilliance here in a few areas in Church-run kindomized Europe.”

Duncelor: “But where’s it gone? One would think it would be most strong in North America.”

Nihilium: “Every generation all over the world breathes new life into it—every boy born tomorrow carries within him its seed. Here’s some stuff relating to this…writes Rich Zubaty:

We need a Deep Male Spirituality on the order of a Deep Ecology.”

Duncelor: “Ah, I’ve been re-reading him here and there lately. Good shit, that one. His writing style is also masculine (no long, winding sentences—short, curt ones instead, concise and quick to the point overall). It still surprises me how many ideas and points I agree with in his masculine manifesto, “What Men Know That Women Don’t (How To Love Women Without Losing Your Soul).”

Nihilium: “Same here. Continuing, he goes on to quote Ray Raphael:”

“Our pluralistic culture gives only a loose and pluralistic response to the problems faced by developing young men. And so it is that we have become a nation of makeshift males… But, the problem with traditional initiations is that they encourage an elitist, xenophobic, “us versus them” attitude, and we can ill afford this kind of tribalism today.”

Duncelor: “Yes, especially since the ‘human tribe’ has gotten so ugly, greedy, filthy and utterly bloated, a Great Human Blob our species is…seven billion cells in one creature…the human organism is one hu-mungous blubber-layered couch potato—returning to any previously tribal system would be utter suicide for a species with our numbers. This is why I am not ‘for’ some immediate return to hunter-gatherer ways of living. Again there’ll be nothing left to hunt and we’ll be left with fucking farming and the same shit all over again. The overpopulation needs attention first. If we can ever bring our numbers back down to sane values, we might stand a chance. I really doubt it, but we *might* if I can be a bit positive for a rare moment.”

Nihilium: “I’m all for it. Yes, the population thing is the main problem. Inbetween religions telling us to “go forth and multiply” and females shaking their tits and asses everywhere—-with women in control of sex on nearly every level, from its stimulation to its access and everything that happens afterwards, including a feminized public education system for the kids, raised by females, taught by females—-leading around 90% of the male gender about like puppy dogs, there’s little hope of getting this 7-billion-human disturbance on this planet within sane parameters. And how we got this bad is the point. What we call “spirituality” seems incredibly feminine…and those in it seem to specifiy it that way—in that I mean there doesn’t seem to be any masculine components in spirituality today. Those in it are against the “maleness” of religions, and rightly so—because that’s not maleness at all—but in constructing their spiritual beliefs, they’re still mentally stuck in farming times, seeing “mother earth” as a fucking garden. No, “she” is not a garden. IT isn’t. Nature is neither he nor she—it’s both: a wild, brutal world in which only the strong survive. It’s no ‘paradise.’ It is and it isn’t.”

Duncelor: “Whoa, calm down.”

Nihilium: “Hey, if I’m wrong, feel free to correct me—seriously, show me some masculine side of any spiritual lifestyle or belief system or even a philosophical approach to life. Where is it? I’ve been looking for years, so don’t keep me in suspense—if this is a man’s world, male spirituality should be strong and healthy, and should be clearly evident absolutely everywhere. Every place there are men it should be glaringly evident.”

Duncleor: “Hmm…”

Nihilium: “But…it isn’t, it is? In fact, I’d bet you couldn’t find one single masculine aspect of any spiritual outlook, especially not in North America. If so, go ahead. I dare ya…”

Duncelor: “That’s because no one really knows what masculinity is anymore, so how could they include it? Goddamned snot-nosed, tie-wearing fruitcake—”

Nihilium: “Continues Zubaty:”

“In fact, the two are the same order of phenomenom. No more mater-ialism, nationalism. An initiation of nothing less than a ‘revelation of the sacred.’ This is where street gangs and the army miss out.”

Duncelor: “Street gangs and the army—the last remaining pockets of anything resembling “male culture” since we abandoned hunting 20 to 30 thousand years back.”

Nihilium: “Our domestication; yunno, the perversion of forcing or coaxing strong, proud hunters to work on farms, doing what was formerly ‘women’s work.’ In terms of male initiation—an ordeal that brings about or just symbolizes the boy’s move from boyhood to manhood, the pivotal death of the boy and rebirth as a man—other than sports, the army-military, and gang-culture, there is nothing any longer. Instead of being baptised in Nature by the elders—the old men—as before, we are now baptised in beer and bootlegged whiskey, drugs, shame from mommies, gambling, violence, murdering each other, by pure stupidity…all the work we’ve put into living longer lives doesn’t seem necessary: the non-feminized males, the ones with any balls or spark of resistance whatsoever, these uninitiated males do their best to burn out like a comet before their 30th birthdays.”

Duncelor: “Some stumble onto a self-initiation that nearly kills them, too—and if they survive, if they’re extremely lucky, they’ll be plenty wounded, and plenty jaded and bitter—yeah, like me. I would never recommend my approach, not to any male; some of it was crucial, but most was redundant, my thick skull and stubbornness that causes me to learn slowly sometimes. It took over a decade to get back in tune with my instincts, to trust them, to really identify that masculine part of myself and avoid the ego-traps along the way. This is why I would never advise anyone to do what I’ve done—it’s a mere fluke that I survived, and so it’s a sloppy, far too risky (risk is necessary, but not complete self-recklessness, suicidal spasticity) and inefficient way to go about it.”

Nihilium: “This is about how we deal with wounds—Zubaty gets into that as well…”

“Through our wounds, and through our acceptance and understanding of them, do we grow and evolve. In To Be a Man, Keith Thompson has made a hypothesis that each wound a man receives at any point is but a localized instance of the One Male Wound.

Duncelor: “How does he mean?”

Nihilium: “I was getting to that…”

“Essential to every man is his wound. All men are wounded. Some manage to spend their lifetime dissembling, avoiding the admission.”

Nihilium: “The inherent male ‘I’m fine; no worries’ complex of denial…that we all know and engage in at some point…”

Duncelor: “Grin and bear it, suck it up, develop thick skin, build a wall; what did Pink Floyd say? Silent desperation is the English way? You better believe it—Canadian and American, too.”

Nihilium: “Enter alcohol. Counter-shame and self-shame. Both intended to perpetuate the silence, both at the whim of the ego, both avoid the problem and make it worse.”

Duncelor: “What men—and women—say in silence is utterly deafening…”

“But the only way to spiritual growth is crawl right through the wound. Who cares about spiritual growth? Anyone who is in a lot of pain—who wants to transcend his agony of body or mind—cares about spiritual growth. According to Joseph Campbell, the wound is a hole where the soul enters the body. The wound is a doorway into our souls, and without it we are just boys with guns—potential villains. Knowing our wound is knowing our openness, our humanness.

“Our myths, our poetry, our literature, our religion are supposed to teach us how to experience our wound. Do they do that? Yes, to some extent. Blues music has always been my doorway into the Wound. Just knowing that other men have been there, have put up with that much shit, makes it all a lot less frightening and a lot easier to take. You need plenty of courage to sing about your pain and that’s what bluesmen do. Drugs kill the pain, but mask the problem. An uninitiated man is a prime candidate for drug abuse.”

Nihilium: “That fits for me.”

Duncelor: “Me too—in fact, almost every man I know. That’s why alcohol came about in the first place…there is no difference essentially in what ancient men went through deprived of their culture, slaving away on farms instead, compared to what Native Americans went through for precisely the same reasons and same ultimate motivation…”

“We don’t want to be sissies complaining about our wounds, and yet there are equal risks in not speaking about the wounds and thereby allowing them to steer us blindly through our emotional lives.”

Duncelor: “This inevitably leads into the pretense or facade of strength we feel must keep up at all times, to appear strong.”

Nihilium: “Right. By not wanting to show weakness, we actually grow weaker and weaker over time, more scattered as male beings. We lose cohesion. We act out and take it out on others—we become tyrants. Tormented, cowering tyrants, brittle through and through.”

Duncelor: “Sometimes quite devious ones…”

Nihilium: “Damn your personal references!”

Duncelor: Burp.

Nihilium: “And we rush out to find a mother-figure for solace, comfort, understanding, and Ego Chow—praise—and become putty in the hands of women…”

“A man who is not allowed the humanizing experience of failure and defeat becomes a prisoner of perfectionism—an ignorant perpetrator of his own shame.”

Nihilium: “Didn’t you say before that’s been the toughest part for you?”

Duncelor: “Yes. The ego can be so tricky that way. We see this in males who are wholeheartedly preoccupied with winning—well, not losing—as well as with appearing without fault, not wanting to make a mistake, frantic to avoid the shame of that. The combination is entrenching; attachment of fault signifies this self-perception of weakness, which feeds the need to hide it—the wound—better. Thus, appearing perfect is pretty camouflage for wounds and weakness. It’s diabolical. The denial and rationalization for behaviours, et cetera: putrid webs tangled up in your head…”

Nihilium: “Hence you are both spider and fly…”

And shame is the most all-pervasive wound in American society.

Duncelor: “It’s damn near exclusive to males, as well. Unemployed men are twice as likely to kill themselves compared with employed men, while there is no real difference between suicide rates among employed and non-employed women.”

Nihilium: “Well, we have more expectation, so shame enters into it far more often—at a primary level, adult males have double pressure: to be distinct from female and be distinct from boy. Females have different, and I think lesser, types of pressure—stress; life expectancy illustrates this adequately. I’m sure women feel shame, but it seems more like guilt in my experiences. Fault and blame they tend to avoid like a plague. When men value their worth, are valued in worthiness, in terms of currency and Mater-ial possessions—now you got me using it—this is what results. In the Great Depression, for example, men were 650 percent more likely to kill themselves than women were. They couldn’t provide, they couldn’t prove their value—they could live up to expectations. That, folks, is shame hard at work for the ego.”

Says Francis Weller:
‘Shame is a bodily-based archetypical response to a man’s ruptured sense of adequacy and worthiness. When we experience a failure of bridging with the father, for example, we feel shame; what’s more we feel that we are to blame for the failure. What is wrong with me that my father is not closer to me, does not touch me, does not love me? Three shifts are necessary to initiate healing. First we must move from feeling worthless [shamed] to seeing ourselves as wounded. We must move from feeling contempt for the self to feeling compassion. And we must move from concealing our shame in silence to revealing ourselves in sharing.’

Or else, you can just get rid of your ego. The only thing that ever hurts when you are hurting inside, is your ego. Shame is ego in reverse. It’s making a big deal of the fact that you’re not a big deal.”

Nihilium: “Excellent points, all. I added bold on that particular point there.”

Duncelor: “Yep. What’s called “getting rid of your ego” doesn’t mean trying to rip it out of yourself—that never works. It’s always there. “Getting rid of” is figurative. It should be considered like a vicious, ravenous beast within you that requires constant guarding, watching—and lack of attention. Paid attention to but never fed. Attention meaning the sort of attention you pay to where you’re walking if you’re on a frozen lake, not the sort of attention you give a baby. Picture the most horrible, vile, evil, filthy, corrupt, greedy, lie-churning, murderous creature possible in your imagination—that’s your ego. Never turn your back on it. Like an organ, like tonsils perhaps, which you need in youth yet which starts poisoning you, killing you, as you approach adulthood, because the process of keeping it in check has been lost over time—so is the ego. Obliviously letting that thing do whatever it wants inside you is disrespecting yourself as a person. It’s self-abuse. Maybe envision your ego as a pedophile, and all your thoughts and emotions are little kids…”

Nihilium: “Yikes.”

Duncelor: “Uh huh. Like I said: Never turn your back on it.”

Nihilium: “A friend once told me a story of a guy explaining he had two dogs inside him—one dark, one light—constantly locked in an epic struggle. The other fellow asked him, ‘So, which one wins?’ The first guy says, ‘The one I feed the most.'”

Duncelor: “Nice way to put it.”

Nihilium: “I hadn’t much insight into what he meant at the time—cool how things come back to us after a decade and suddenly make complete sense—and thought it had something to do with good and evil, so I ignored it, forgot about it. But we can expand and split that that apt analogy-tale into: right-brained and left-brained, since both are at the whim of the ego in different ways. The right-brain seems most inclined to addictions like alcohol, while the left seems inclined to the rationalizational, denial, perfectionism, and other types of addiction; strictly speaking, there’s no major difference in addiction between men and women except how we go about it. Each feeds a different beast different foods. One wanting to escape it, one wanting to control it. But neither work.”

Says Carl Jung:
‘There appears to be a conscience in mankind which severely punishes the man who does not swallow his pride [shrink his ego] and admit that he is fallible and human. As we heal our isolation we experience a connectedness that exposes a sacredness of all life. Thus healing our shame becomes not just a personal challenge but a transpersonal challenge. When the cloak of shame drops we find we are all men of soul.’

“Women seem to have very little desire to know their woundedness, and even less to do anything about it. This is not true of all women, but what we are talking about in this book are tendencies that shape up along sexual lines. Women like to chatter, they like to complain, they like to criticize and judge. But their very facility with language often operates as a barrier which prevents them getting down into themselves. They don’t take naturally to spelunking: exploring the caves of Father Earth or their own psyches.
“Women have a life form which is almost identical in every society on earth. They are the basic unit of the species. They are tradition and stubbornness and defensiveness and resistance to change. In a decadent society the bravest, smartest women don’t reproduce. Guess what we are? Men, however, have very little in common, outwardly, from culture to culture. What all men seem to share in their creative, intuitive, risk-filled sorties through life are the soul wounds, the injuries that accrue to the emotional body, that come from living life on the edge. These are readily transcribed from culture to culture through art and poetry. Men who eat octopuss easily understand men who eat mung beans when they sing about these wounds. Herein lies my precarious hope for a global male culture.”

Duncelor: “Wise words. What Jung said: why many discourage others from starving their egos is, simply, because it will no longer benefit them. Modern economics, commercialism, corporatism, consumerism, are all based upon this principle—want—whether consciously intended or subconsciously, or unconsciously. Someone who only needs and doesn’t want is of no use to the system. One who can’t be shamed—and one who doesn’t give into being praised, giving into pride—is one who is completely free of the slavery to this system.”

Nihilium: “Right: ‘You’re not complete, my friend.’ Smile, smile. ‘You need this thing here—it slices, it dices, it mixes, it fixes, it does your laundry, makes your bed, clips your toe nails, drives your car, freshens your breath. You can get 15 million channels on this puppy. Everyone’s got one—only dorks don’t. Everyone who’s anyone has this thing. Now, cash or charge?'”

Duncelor: “Keeping up with the Clones’s…”

Nihilium: “Egos make the world go round….”

Duncelor: “Leggo my Ego!”

Nihilium: “Ugh…”

Duncelor: “Male-as-protector has been exploited by militaries since Sumer—the Ubaid culture started this and slavery, “divisions of labour”—using this as well. What happens in boot camp? The male is initiated—in a perverted way: his ego is ripped apart, his male being is torn to shreds, which is okay, but then he’s put back together in a new form—praise for how well he fires his rifle, takes orders, fights and kills, and ultimately dies, is given. Through promotion he’s offered the illusion of getting somewhere—a point for all of it. Advancement. Status and lack of shame and pomp. And a chance to do to someone else what was done to him. The fomerly small male heirarchy back in hunting culture, still observable in sports, explodes in left-brained complexity and intricate systemization.”

Nihilium: “The ego is the main tool used to push him down into the muck of himself and then it’s reconstituted in him into forms of the rulers’ choosing: murderous, hate-filled weapons of war. Like guard dogs. Okay, let’s get back to what he was saying before…”

“A group of men voided of their youth and programmed to do battle without obedience to a spiritual realm are dangerous to everybody. Roman soldiers killed Jesus. The Government of Athens ordered Socrates to kill himself. Had these men not endured these travesties of justice we would not have Christianity or Democracy today. They died for their beliefs—the ultimate battle of the Spiritual Warrior. Either of them could have avoided the penalty, and thereby negated their entire life’s work and condemned their followers to extinction but, unlike their oppressors, they fought for a higher goal.”

Duncelor: “And Jesus, whoever the guy was, was wise and had some good ideas, as I’ve always said. Even when I slammed him in forums and such—my old, nasty Christian-baiting tactics. Jesus was not a Christian, though. He didn’t want churches and temples and idols—or crosses—or religion. He hated farming, too; he was a nomad, a carpenter when he needed money, and a fisherman. I don’t mind him. It’s Christians I can’t fucking stand.”

Nihilium: “Seen simply as a man who lived in Roman times—-an ordinary, hairy, smelly human male, not some ‘son of God,’ some blond-haired, blue-eyed Euro-conception, a fem-boy king—that’s what Christians turned Jesus into—what fucking rubbish—-yes, same here; it’s his followers I’ve had issues with…”

“In midlife men arrive at a crisis that is another experience of initiation. Here we metamorphose into an entirely different idea of manhood. We distance ourselves from the female values that have made such inroads into our lives in the past 25 years, and we seek the Deep Masculine. The midlife crisis, faced alone and in private, is a life-threatening experience for us uninitiated males. Hunter/gatherers were dead by forty. We’ve extended our lives in such a way that, in a great cyclical movement, we begin to pull back on ourselves. This midlife crisis is foremost a reaction to being trapped into enforcing female values for the past half of our lives. For men it is a second initiation, a time to look past mater-ial things and find deeper meanings. With a lack of cultural institutions and initiations and an agreed-upon value system to take us through this period, divorce has become the mechanism for kicking off the midlife crisis. Allen B. Chinen has described a life movement from heroic masculine in youth, to feminine in middle age, and then into what he calls Divine Masculine in later life.”

Nihilium: “Think about that: heroic masculine in youth, to feminine in middle age…. What do you think? These 20-somethings clinging to their comic books and PC game-inspired movies with superheroes in them…what’s on their minds? What happens to them after a decade of monotonous office-toil on their backs, drenched in a lifestyle of utter femininity?”

Duncelor: “Oh, they become drunken businessmen. Japs have those weird singing bars in which to drown their sorrow and emptiness, Brits have their pubs; Romans had wine; Germans, Americans, Australians, Canadains: beer, anywhere and everywhere, beer o beer. Man, did I used to love beer. Beer, beer, almighty brew… We’re a gender of fucking alcoholics. Mankind is on a reservation called civilization. Look at Russia. The men there blew away Hitler’s left arm in Europe and challenged the US for the next 40 years. 65 million Russian men were disposed of in war inbetween 1914 and 1946, fighting for left-brainer wanna-be czars, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and company, all the fussy, officious dickless Spockites. They survived Communism’s grey smog and meltdowns, and now have Democracy—and now, drenched in Russian corruption, its mafia and disco lifestyles and mail-order brides looking for rich Westerners—and trust me, there’s a lot—now they only live 67 years. Vodka suicide. Yunno, the amount this stupid fucking world spends on alcohol in one year, we could go back and forth to Mars six times?”

Nihilium: “Fuck, that’s shitty. Talk about fucked up priorities. Also, look what happened to Irishmen after those English dress-wearing kings got done with them—”

Duncelor: “And Elizabeth—”

Nihilium: “—Correct; she gorged herself upon Ireland as much as James did: the Irish men ended up practically pickled in alcohol.”

Duncelor: “The patterns repeats—the Natives in Canada and the States went through the exact same spiritual decay…”

Nihilium: “And heart disease, liver disease, headfuls of brain cells no longer functional. Most men in North America and Europe live into their 70s if they don’t work labour jobs—white men, anyway. Some rich white guys live to 80 or more.”

Duncelor: “Not that guy in American Beauty, though.”

Nihilium: “No, the closet homo-military dude next door shot him…and his wife was about to, too…”

Duncelor: “‘To too?’ White men live only slightly longer than black men now—in developed nations, anyway. Russian men’s life expectancy is as bad as blacks in America. For nearly a century Russian men worked in the factory and collectivized farms during the day, and steeped themselves in vodka every evening to kill the pain of it all. In a way, we’re already dead, and we know it—that might be why or part of why we drink—we’re just waiting to fall over. Our soul is fucked.”

Nihilium: “I know. The city is the gaping hole of the feminine; it is Mater’s ravenous, stinking maw. Instead of wilderness and green trees and animals…Vegas. A temple in the desert, whores and greed. It began as a farm, the whole pattern begins as that and then it sprawls, creeps out over time, turning the landscape into deserts and dumps and shit. And it’s pure poison to the masculine spirit. What happened to Natives after a century on reservations?”

Duncelor: “Microcosm—any male’s life…’to feminine in middle age…'”

Nihilium: “Hooked on some addicition, the soul of the former tribe nearly deceased. Stuck in one place, the only hope a stupid casino to earn bits of stinky paper slips; the male spirit is zapped, twisted, mutated, perverted. It’s consumed by the feminine, destroyed. The masculine we’re fed in youth is a plastic toy, buddy; games; it’s army men and X-men and Superman. Cowboys n Indians. Good guys n bad guys. Moral precepts. Pop-culture rubbish for boys. Most of these boys will never grow up—as one can see in how old guys are who are still into childish things these days, like comic books.”

Duncelor: “I have noticed over the last century how big this toy business has gotten—video war games are just military recruiting stations. Toys are social engineering visual aids—and I’ve noticed how old the kids are who still play with toys, games . . . there’s that word again: games replaced game—considering that twenty thousand years back, boys put away their toys, and were torn away from their mothers—with the mothers participating—as soon as they got pubes. Sitting in class at age 14? Not a chance. From wilderness, right-brained, experiential learning to left brained, farm-u-cation churches to Euro-classical public education centres, box-learning, information sifting and memorization, number games too–”

Nihilium: “Yeah. Away from the girls too.”

Duncelor: “I guess; the least number of distractions is best. Before the Box Age, the boys were off with the men after initiation, living a new life as a hunter. ‘School’ was taught out there, without many words—by doing. What use is play when life is an on-going adventure? Men back then couldn’t define ‘boredom.’ Sports eventually replaced male culture in Eurasia; a crowd cheering the “score” that was once the fatal shot that brought the prey down and fed the tribe—perversion. But what the hell happened?”

Nihilium: “It changed. Look at Gilgamesh. King of Sumer, archetype of the first king; Sumerians invent sports and beer. What was their thinking on Enkidu? Anu made him to give Gilgy a ‘buddy,’ someone with whom he could be man again and do masculine things—as much as Sumerians understood that alien concept. Why? He was a ruthless twat with no friends and the people suffered horribly under tyranny and hated him (vaguely reminds me of Dubya today, which is why I keep harping on Gilgy); he was (p)raised by his ‘holy’ Mommy alone, an uninitiated male, and eventually sat upon on a throne. It was about how he was (p)raised. Enter school. We were taught, inside—”

Duncelor: “Inside the boxes—”

Nihilium: “—as boys, to manipulate environments for women (construction worker, carpenter, etc), and given Tonka toys in youth; we’re taught to protect and defend these material things, these buildings—yes, boxes—and women and children (fire-fighter, policeman, soldier), of course, as we’ve always done, always volunteered to do, and given army men and all the rest of it to play with. Play, preparation for adulthood. Girls are given dolls, which they obliviously and carefreely maneuver about amid their fantasies and romantic intrigues—the ones poured into her from her mother—like a director organizing actors in a play—there’s that word again.”

Duncelor: “But it’s not too late. One thing we’ve gained through a longer life-span is a second shot at manhood. A time to stop playing and start being men.”

“He detects this movement in the lives of men in Homer’s Odyssey and Dante’s Divine Comedy. It sounds to me like some kind of literary testosterone curve—the place where our balls touch our dreams.

In all cultures dreaming is considered one of the primary functions of grown men. This is male intuition properly understood and exalted. It was the dreams of the shaman that told the people an ice age was coming and they had to move south. They didn’t have the scientific equipment to deduce that. Their wives resisted them and openly revolted against moving the camp away from that handy blackberry patch. But male intuition was respected. They moved south and thereby survived the climatic shift and populated the middle Americas.”

Duncelor: “He’s talking about the northern ‘American Indian’ tribes of course. When the Ice Age hit Europe, it’s clear that many moved south, but some didn’t—those who stayed behind either froze to death, starved to death (or some combination of the two) or (less common) adapted to the harsh cold conditions and a more meat-heavy diet, from whatever was around, and became Eurasian nomads themselves.”

Nihilium: “Obviously, the power of the shaman was already in decline (with the fertility cults—originally regarding human fertility but perverted into ‘mother earth’ farming cults—no doubt) in Europe around 20,000 years ago. From the Levantine Corridor outwards, along the Nile and along the Tigris and Euphrates, gathering-heavy cultures increasingly tended towards fertility cults, no longer respecting either the shaman or men or the masculine.”

“Thomas Edison’s intuition was respected and now we have the light bulb and the cinema and talking cars. Men who are not encouraged to dream are dead. Jefferson’s dream was respected and so we have Democracy reborn, after 2000 years of hibernation (with the notable exception of Switzerland), on a continent unknown to Athens at the time of its conception. [And with the whole world ensnared in the soft machine of corporate colonialism it’s time to dream about Democracy again. What it is. How we do it.]”

Nihilium: “Well, I disagree—it’s time for a new idea, frankly. Democracy’s had its chance again and again, and like any system we try, it just turns to shit because we can’t keep our numbers down—”

Duncelor: “Because we end up sitting still as a species and turning into a fat blob…because these systems are developments of the farming system, the micro-organized materialist culture, and encourage growth—far more growth than the natural earth can manage—farming is essentially unnatural. No doubt about it. You don’t see other mammals planting seeds, do you? Why not?”

Nihilium: “No reason to. They get what they need living the way they’re living, naturally.”

Duncelor: “Says you! No really, another system isn’t the answer—more government or new government isn’t the answer; we need not ‘new ideas’ but the collective genius, common sense wisdom, less-is-better thinking, to sift through all the ideas we have and one by one annihilate them—“

Nihilium: Now you’re talking my language.”

Duncleor: “—until we reach the root.”

Nihilium: “Then what?”

Duncelor: “Then nothing—yank out the root and leave it behind, and keep moving this time. I’m talking about human deconstruction, I’m talking about returning to evolution—starting to evolve again, in natural surroundings, not fucking boxes—and if it takes destruction to accomplish deconstruction, then so be it. Nature’s ‘will’ be done. Let balance be restored whatever the cost.”

Nihilium: “Wow, you’re extreme, dude.”

“Our definition of the male image must revere this quality of intuition and, indeed, place it right at the top of the list of positive male attributes.”

Nihilium: “Now there’s a list I’ve never seen. Anywhere. How can it be that in such a ‘man’s world’ there is no such list? Men can be pretty ego-filled and boastful—where’s the global “men rule!” list? Huh? Aren’t boys learning about “guy power” in school? No? I wonder why not… When’s the last time you heard anyone note even three positive male attributes? About 50% of what I hear is about what pieces of shit we are. Another 25% is (being seen as bumbling clods compared to women—so, inferior) that we’re not ‘hopeless,’ we just need to be more feminine, of all fucking things—like giving a drowning man a glass of water. (Women nearly hate us—at a subconscious level, despite all they say, I know they hate feminine men; respect is just not possible—for being so bloody womanly, and some of them think the answer is being EVEN MORE womanly—fucking hilarious!) And the rest is comical (comedy is resentment’s fist in humour’s glove) or neutral, apathetic. Watch any sit-com and you’ll see the modern, global overall male image….”

Duncelor: “He’s a blundering geek/oaf, a lovable goof (a good boy), or a jerk. None of these types of men existed as archetypes 20 thousand years ago. They are solely modern perversions of man, and strident evidence of how men are not only respected anymore, they’re openly disrepected as walking self-parodies; fucking jokes. Look at how old men are treated, depicted and thought of; never before were old people so insulted, shunned and ignored…maybe partly because we’ve scarsely had old people this old before, but that’s only one small bit of it.”

“Men are supremely, overwhelmingly, organically intuitive. Men’s intuition is to women’s intuition as the night sky full of galaxies is to a flashlight. The flashlight looks brighter because it is closer, but that is just an illusion. Competition is the game of boys. Dreaming is the game of men.”

Nihilium: “Had to bold that part, didn’t you? Bastard…”

Duncelor: “Yes. About the intuition thing—I have thought about this for a while now, just based on my own experiences, my own intuition, which is regarding that fuzzy word, instinct.”

Nihilium: “Fuzzy why?”

Duncelor: “Because it’s blurry—not because it’s soft and warm.”

Nihilium: “I think women definitely have intuition, but it’s more focused and individually employed—they don’t use it much on large scale, right-brained ways, that is for certain. Some do somewhat; I’ve met a few, but only a few.”

Duncelor: “Right-brained women are rare.”

Nihilium: “Well, if right-brainedness is indicative of the masculine—a person sitting still by default will use his left brain…someone moving around is mostly right-brained. Men are more active than women, that’s part of it—how do you think we’ve gotten so muscular? By sitting in chairs, by sitting around bushes picking berries?”

Duncelor: “No, by working our asses off—risking our asses every day out in a dangerous environment. Staying sharp, looking out for predators.”

Nihilium: “Now where are the predators? Downtown or in the temple?”

Duncelor: “Sometimes in the bedroom. And where are we?”

Nihilium: “Managing the crops and trade and next campaign into a neighbouring area to cut down their trees, since ours are all gone…”

Duncelor: “Well, not all. And now back to Zubaty…”

“Historically, the Trickster/Shaman/Magician represents the Divine Masculine. He is not robust but he is clever and he has hidden forces that he can call to his service. He lives in the paradox. Carlos Castenada’s Don Juan is the figure nearest to this we have in our popular culture.”

Duncelor: “He goes on to quote Patrick Arnold, from Wildmen, Warriors, and Kings…”

“Many modern men are appallingly unaware of the tremendous psychic potential that lies within them unused; educated in a left-brain/mater-ialistic worldview, they insist that things are just what they appear, that what you see is what you get, and that any other viewpoint is just superstition and religious hocus-pocus. [Manholes.] Other men, however, in developing an interior prayer and meditation life, begin to conjure their inner Merlin and experience the enhanced ability to “know” through a sixth sense. We call this psychic phenomena as extrasensory perception and clairvoyance.”

Nihilium: “We’ve just reached a paradox…”

Duncelor: “Such as…?”

Nihilium: “If modern men are still predominantly right-brained (slightly, except for a handful it’s moderate), how can we be so materialistic?”

Duncelor: “Well, we are and we aren’t—most single men are not wealthy and encased in extra-ornate surroundings…even a man who doesn’t like sports is masculine in this way—think of the “patriarchal” minimalist Japs—but what happens when he gets a girlfriend? He changes, he adapts; he shaves more regularly, grooms himself better, goes shopping for new clothes, starts spending more money on items to make himself, his outward image—his “male objectified self”—and appearance presentable and acceptable to the female. “Dating” is big business. It’s entirely a female deal, all their rules; men are n00bs in this thing. He may go about immediately with the nest—the apartment, condo, house, the “box nest.” In short, he gets materialistic and inherently effeminate because he has to play the game with females and this requires money; coin; gold; currency; trade, et cetera, in this box lifestyle. Diamonds are girls’ best friends, and they ain’t cheap. In childhood you can see which girls are extra-left-brained: the ones who never share, the tattle-tellers, teachers’ pets especially, the neat-and-trim rule followers, good at math; same with boys and men. With men, this is called ‘being feminine.'”

Nihilium: “There’s levels to it, it’s not black-and-white; those who make the best managers of our system, our “box system,” are those who are most left-brained—that’s overwhelmingly women. See them in managerial positions along with fussy, officious men?”

Duncelor: “Yep. In the extreme, a fem-man is an object-grabbing, greedy, spoiled sissy. It’s worse when either boys are raised solely by their mothers or their fathers were there but extremely pussy-whipped—in other words, Englo-Romanic or Indo-European after 1000 AD; Mummy wearing the pants, priests and judges wearing dresses. At least the common men started wearing tights, hey?”

Nihilium: “Yeah, men in tights…almost as bad as these knuckleheads…”


Duncelor: “Freakshow.”

Nihilium: “Just before 1700. So, tights—a good start, anyways. Then eventually trousers. Like the barbarians north of Rome used to wear…but not skins.”

Duncelor: “No, not skins. Leather rules, though, it lasts a lifetime. Anyway, in other words, those dress-wearing Romans, and before them the dress-wearing Greeks and dress-wearing Persians, and before them the dress-wearing Egyptians and so on back to those squirrelly dress-wearing fussy Sumerians. It’s the king archetype. The man acting like a girl. The civilized, tamed male. All of this is told in the Epic of Gilgamesh.”

Nihilium: “Right. This ESP he mentions is just wickedly high perception, by our dull modern standards. It’s considered ‘mystical’ and exagerrated because we as a species have lost our senses over time—this is about perception, the mind’s many eyes; perception is a sensual function of the intellect, coordinating intellect with sense and stimulus, helping it make sense of the input, helping it create reality. And where is that physically located? Where have we mapped that? What hemisphere have I been going on about here for a while now? In the brain? The not-left-side…? Yeah.”

Duncelor: “From what I’ve read, the right brain does not tend to dominate hemispherically—before, there was a balance in the species: women were only slightly feminine 20 thousand years back, and men were very masculine, very right-brained; over the many centuries it began to change, men began to change, adapt to their new environments which required more of the left brain and less of the right, eventually the left dominated as civilization dawned. It had to in order to create civilization—making a blueprint requires heavy left brain activity, even if building the monstrous stone thing requires the right brain, or the manual labour that part of the right brain coordinates—”

Nihilium: “—the slave brain almost.”

Duncelor: “Yeah, maybe. The box-obsessing half of the mind directing the box-stacking part of the mind—”

Nihilium: “And box inventing—and destroying—part of the mind.”

Duncelor: “True. And women?”

Nihilium: “They got more and more feminine, in every way—look at how attractive women have gotten collectively over time, over each century…look at models over the last 100 years for crissakes: that is cultural human evolution: men bred more with the feminine ones, and that’s what resulted; women began to breed more with the more effeminate male types, and they came to out-number the stronger, more masculine types. And the dainty, soft feminine women out-numbered the more hardy and probably hairier varieties. Real men were bred away like dogs. Enkidu in Gilgamesh represents this primal man, Green Man and Wild Man, who was gone from Mesopotamia (and indeed Eurasia and northern Africa) and depicted as he was corrupted-civilized by Sumer. Thank fuck the New World escaped this fate, until recently, I know, but at least we saw what we used to be like and what made sense, what didn’t wreck everything in sight. Imagine what men would be like without discovering the Americas? No American continent at all—no “wild west,” no colonies, no ‘cowboys’ and no ‘Indians?'”

Duncelor: “Good holy fuck, just Eurasia alone… to wither in its hostile Islamo-Christo-Catholic culture, its Pax Romano, Pax-Britainnia-three-class-effeminate tangled left-brained web of imperial-golden-drunken self-obliteration…a shiny clockwork of artificial tides of cyclic war and environmental rape and human decline and misery. Not as bad as what Americanization has ensured, but still…it would have gone that way, sealed in with nowhere left to go, like a beast with nothing left to eat but itself—the snake devouring its tail again…”

Nihilium: “The Wall… Every kind of wall imaginable. Nature would be dead by now if not for the Americas. There would be no “national parks.” Just farmland and a few holy trees maybe.”

Duncelor: “Well, the world was bigger than they thought.”

Nihilium: “Sure was—by the 1700s, they’d been around it and began, as a people, to acknowledge that this was it…nothing more to explore. Maps stopped being expanded. Satellites later filled in the details.”

Duncelor: “That had to suck. The explorers became obsolete, or branched off into the inner working of things—and astronomy—and now video games and the Internet, our virtual graves.”

Nihilium: “Like this..?”

Human Evolution

Duncelor: “I’ve seen better…”

Nihilium: “Oh, piss… As the Frontier was ripped to shreds by human expansion westward, the Gold Rush days and such, Jacksonian Democracy, as the Indians were starved as white “hunters” (read: farmers) shot their food sources, and as farming communities sprung up along the way, it was no mystery that the Wild West was tamed—”

Castrating Father Nature

Duncelor: “—or soon to be tamed, castrated. The castration of Father Nature. About the time of Wyatt Earp, Tombstone, and such, it was declining, all of it, in way of modernization—the railways replacing the horses. Hence the preoccupation with the “good old days”—the Frontier.”

Nihilium: “Yes. We got a blast from the past when we landed here. We started roaming about on horses—some of us even lived with the indigenous populations and rediscovered themselves as men. We got into our right-brains again for a while. Ya think Clint Eastwood’s character is still the most popular masculine figure next to John Wayne because he simply carried a gun? Nope.”

Duncelor: “Yeah. He’s the man.”

Nihilium: “1. He’s tough. Just overall kickass. Adaptable and resiliant. Look at how many times he gets shit-kicked—he recovers and comes back stronger.”

Duncelor: “And he’s not really an invention—he’s no Superman. He’s a mortal guy, a composite of characters that actually existed in that time. He doesn’t even have a name.”

Nihilium: “Sure: 2, he’s believeable. He’s possible. Merely human. A new male archetype. Many men today could be very much like him. 3. He’s a drifter—a nomad. Never settles down, never gets married. He wanders about, looking for whatever he needs—adventure, cash, revenge at times, a stake, a bath, a drink, ammo. He answers to absolutely no one.”

Duncelor: “The ‘man on his horse’ nomad later became of course the ‘man on his bike’ nomad, into the 1950s and such. Bikers. Beatniks, drifters, and later those hippies. All hated by the establishment the way kings hate gypsies, the way any feminine civilized society hates people who won’t get with their stagnant farming and god-or-goddess program.”

Nihilium: “4. Speaks few words. But his words are carefully chosen, meaningful, and usually witty or smartass; he takes no shit from anyone—especially women.”

Duncelor: “True, that. He gets respect through his actions, not his words. 5. He’s honourable, does what’s right—even if he’s playing a scoundrel like in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. He’s a man of his word.”

A Masculine Man

Nihilium: “When he’s bad, he’s still right. Right? Right. It’s because he plays by his own rules which are instinctual—his conscience is his ethics. He goes by feel, not by regulation or scripture.”

Duncelor: “We could go on, but his character has become a new archetype of a Real Man; he’s not “psychic,” or a genius in our modern sense, but he is extremely right-brained; he’s got keen wits, sharp senses, and you can’t bullshit him. Anyway, his popularity hasn’t faded. Many Americans and even Canadians still regard with great sentiment that era, that Wild West, the Frontier Days, but they mostly miss the point—it was civilization that ended it: what was ‘great’ about it is that it was Wild still, a paradise here…before we all fucked it up. It points dramatically to what man’s become since there was a Frontier in North America, that last wave of masculinity that blazed across the prairies here in an ever-growing-ever-approaching farm culture and city culture, governments and slaves = Mater-ialism.”

Nihilium: “You never get sick of that word, do you?”

Duncelor: “Never. Not even when I watch the “MATR-ix.” Back to Arnold:”

Intuition is a function just like thinking: it needs to be valued, developed, and practiced if it is to do anyone any good.”

Nihilium: “Just a quick interruption: it needs an environment—not a sterile box—as well in order to be fully realized…I mean, drugs can open only so many doors. Hence:

“Ancient hunters depended for their survival on intuition to a high degree; one still finds in primal cultures, such as the natives of Australia, amazing psychic perceptual powers. Much of this ability has been forgotten among modern men, but a number of training exercises exist that can develop it.”

Nihilium: “Australia is an acceptable example—although farming did reach the tip of Australia, seen above in that gif.”

Duncelor: “Yeah. We have no idea what diluted farming culture spread over to Aussieland when it finally penetrated the continent. We know they practiced circumcision for a long time, definitely a hallmark of the fertility shit that plagued Eurasia. Morris, 1985, p. 218:

One might imagine that an intelligent species like man would leave them (the human genitals) alone. Sadly, this has never been the case. For thousands of years in many different cultures, the genitals have fallen victim to an amazing variety of mutilations and restrictions. For organs that are capable of giving us an immense amount of pleasure, they have been given an inordinate amount of pain.”

Nihilium: “No one’s really sure what came first—men and boys being de-sexed—castrated, physically made non-male—or circumcised.”

Duncelor: “The chicken or the egg.”

Nihilum: “Right, but it seems that circumcision lingered longest and was residual of the ritual castrations that were common for thousands of years under goddess-worship. The Jews were big on circumcision, being a people that went through the worst of Sumer and company.”

Duncelor: “It developed into their own culture—culture is so insipid that way…”

Nihilium: “Cult…ture. And their religion set it into permanence. More from Joseph Zoske…”

Ritual circumcision (as differentiated from modern medical circumcision) has existed throughout history. Among the many 19th and 20th century authors who have studied its historical, religious, and cultural aspects, there is a consensus that its roots originated thousands of years ago, predating Judaism, with depiction of circumcision found even in Stone-Age cave drawings (Bitschai, 1956; Wallerstein, 1980; Wrana, 1939) Rites of initiation, fertility rituals, control of sexual drives, and tribal identification – for men and women – are considered the primary purposes for circumcision’s many variations (Campbell, 1988; Zindler, 1990).

Duncelor: “How old were these alleged cave paintings of this?”

Nihilium: “Doesn’t matter: I checked into it and it’s all interpretation, like this—

What The Fuck?

—is supposed represent that…?”

Duncelor: “Oh, fuck off.”

Nihilium: “I know. What the hell is that, really? Could be anything. That’s a carving from a cave just east of Madrid, Spain. Los Casares, to be precise. It’s Solutrean culture, about 20 thousand years back. There is a dude there with a big fat dick, apparently, and what seems like someone on her-his knees…maybe this was instructional, too. Maybe it showed what oral sex was, or was representing something sexual—see the “penis” and how it’s half-inside the belly of the other person? That’s not circumcision. So, there are depictions of male genitalia in some cave drawings—I’ve seen plenty—but only a Jew would say it’s definitely circumcision—”

Duncelor: “Anti-Semite! Anti-Semite—!”

Nihilium: “Yeah, good one. What I mean is that only an avid supporter of the practice, like Jews, would interpret it so to mean that; hence bias due to their religion—as I mention, they are very stubborn about that—but it could be an instructional image to show young men what’s what down there and what happens—‘birds and the bees,’ for crissakes—you politically correct sack o’ crap—”

Duncelor: “Thems fightin’ words…but you’re right—that could be anything and nobody knows for sure. Many from there are anthropomorphous—blending of animal-hominoid forms. Maybe this was to show that they were different from other animals, or maybe an early rule about beastiality.”

Nihilium: “Yeah: “Don’t fuck the sheep.” Compare with this…”

Duncelor: “Point made. These are also clearly different; crude carvings, not paintings, and there’s barely any animals in these Spanish ones—and the ones that are there are fucked up. Something else was going on there; it was weird. Perhaps they served some other purpose. Here’s something…”

Both the foreskin and the placenta are often called “doubles,” both are often eaten, and both are often put in trees or are saved by the group. In the present-day Jewish bris, the moyel (circumeisor) gives the infant a yarmulka (placental disk) as compensation for his cut-off foreskin, along with some blood-red wine – exactly as the aborigine gets a bull-roarer disk and some real blood to drink in exchange for his foreskin. In fact, the Australian aborigines actually color the cut-off foreskin red, and either place it in a bag for the boy to keep or put it on the totem tree (Tree of Life) to make the totem animal reproduce. Thus the foreskin, the placenta, the “double,” the bull-roarer and the menstrual blood all are symbolical as the placental “Red Serpent” which the aborigine says “controls the heart and blood of man [and] his totem place [and] is the source of men’s blood supply “

Duncelor: “It’s clear that it was a similar culture—it spread as far as Australia and that’s where they got it from. Here’s some Wiki stuff on Circumcision in the ancient world…”

The oldest documentary evidence for circumcision comes from ancient Egypt. Tomb artwork from the Sixth Dynasty (2345-2181 BCE) shows men with circumcised penises, and one relief from this period shows the rite being performed on a standing adult male. The Egyptian hieroglyph for “penis” depicts either a circumcised or an erect organ. The examination of Egyptian mummies has found some with foreskins and others who were circumcised.

Egyptian Circumcision

Circumcision was common, although not universal, among ancient Semitic peoples. The Book of Jeremiah, written in the sixth century BCE, lists the Egyptians, Jews, Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites as circumcising cultures. Herodotus, writing in the fifth century BCE, would add the Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, and Syrians to that list.

In the aftermath of the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek dislike of circumcision led to a decline in its incidence among many peoples that had previously practised it. The writer of the 1 Maccabees wrote that under the Seleucids, many Jewish men attempted to hide or reverse their circumcision so they could exercise in Greek gymnasia, where nudity was the norm. First Maccabees also relates that the Seleucids forbade the practice of brit milah (Jewish circumcision), and punished those who performed it–as well as the infants who underwent it–with death.

Nihilium: “Yeah. Bless that semi-feminine Alexander and the Greeks for at least trying to respect men again. Anyway, look how fucking weird we got. We started hacking away at a baby boy’s sex organs. What the fuck? How could you do that to a helpless form of life of your species that needs nothing but your help, not your fucking butchery and cruelty?”

Baby Boy

Nihilium: “Look at what the Clovis culture became—North American Natives—and look at how not weird they are compared to the Aborigines, for example.”

Duncelor: “Hey, there are other and better ways to steer boys into manhood, and slicing into one of our very symbols of masculinity is unnatrual and fucked up, but don’t be knocking the Aborigines, assface…”

Nihilium: “Chill, you fat, loud-mouthed prick.”

Duncelor: “Well, okay then.”

Nihilium: “I ain’t knockin Aborigines in Australia—I’m saying they’re weird is all, and they are. Cool weird and funky weird—and just fucking strange weird, too.”

Duncelor: “The Natives in America and Canada aren’t perfect, buddy.”

Nihilium: “No form of human is ever perfect—we have to go back in time to that near-perfect, dawn of man stage—exactly when we left the trees.”

Duncelor: “After we left the trees? Why not before? Are chimps in danger of destroying their habitat because they (a) can’t keep from over-breeding or (b) over-use, over-manipulate, their environment, with tools, to the degree from which Nature can’t recover?”

Nihilium: “…Thus depleting their food source before it can grow back. Essentially, yes, you’re right—but we’re not chimps anymore—yeah, that was better—that was paradise, oblivion: no knowledge of death or awareness of awareness. Garden of Eden, pal. Innocence.”

Duncelor: “By the time we left the trees, bipedal, upright—that’s where we reached perfection…?”

Nihilium: “Well, arguably. One thing’s clear, 50,000 years back, we weren’t chopping off or otherwise hacking away at our dicks or balls, and we were wiser. For crissakes, it’s no mystery that Native North Americans did no such thing to their genitals.”

Duncelor: “Nicaraguan Indians did it. Apparently so did some South American ones.”

Nihilium: “They weren’t doing that at the time they crossed into North America—that’s my point. Plus, I said “north”—things always seem to stay sanest the further north you go, ever notice that?”

Duncelor: “It’s the snow—it’s pure and frees the mind of…”

Nihilium: “You have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?”

Duncelor: “Not a clue.”

Nihilium: “Thought not. The closer to the equator (not necessarily northernly) we get, the freakin weirder we seem to get. Must be the heat or something.”

Duncelor: “Plenty. Ease. Seasons don’t even change—static and stagnant, slower. Whenever humans have adapted naturally, it’s been due to climatic shifts—cold weather. Difficulty—we’re taxed to adapt, change. An Inuit educated in our system blows away most “civilized” peoples’ IQ, and that’s only measuring half of his actual intelligence. Wicked smart. Southern Australia? Pretty swift, too. Near the equator, evolution tends to get time-capsuled: no need to evolve…”

Nihilium: “Except in levels of weirdity. Anyway, might be, but the Americas were influenced by Eurasian farming culture, that much is clear. What went ‘wrong?’ It depends on your point of view, … biologically speaking, after humans appeared and began using tools—”

Duncelor: “You’re forgetting: chimps are only slightly omnivorous; they largely eat veggies; occasionally they will attack a monkey or something, kill and eat it, or scavenge for meat…but they get their protien from their forest plant diet.”

Nihilium: “You betcha. That posits the first, huge switch from “ape” to “human” or “homonoid” at least—the “human” is ‘homo sapiens,’ by definition socio-civilized.”

Duncelor: “Meat-eaters. We hit the plains—for some reason—maybe tribes of us were forced there, maybe forests dwindled for climatic reasons, maybe there was a disaster, and we began hunting as well as gathering—which is not to say we weren’t hunting before we left the trees—even ancient man had two sets of teeth, one for cutting meat and one for grains. And gradually developed more and more bipedally, for following herds, needing to get taller to house our expanding neo-cortex and see further to the horizon.”

Nihilium: “That original hunter is the Wild Man, the primitive, root male form. It’s our first archetype of man. Well, one of a few primordial ones—Protector-Warrior, Father/Provider, Builder, and Hunter. We left Africa—what?—100,000 years ago?”

Duncelor: “Something like that. Back to Zubaty and the question of what is an ‘archetype,’ because it’s still a bit foggy to me:”

“Well, now we’ve done it. We’ve tipped over the ant farm and freed our first archetype. If we’re not careful, 9000 more of the beasties will escape the oblivion of unknowing and crowd the dead wood of our minds like so many hungry termites. An archetype is a “brain picture”—a meme. All archetypes are memes but not all memes are archetypes. Archetypes are a type of symbol, though not all symbols are archetypes.

“The flag of the United States is not an archetype. An archetype is alive, it wants to merge your mind with another realm. An eagle is an archetype of vision, a fox of wile, a Witch of evil manipulations, a Black Hole of mysterious hidden forces, an amoeba of minute agendas. As you can see, there is no reason to limit our appreciation of archetypes to the current Euro-American bias of considering only human forms.”

Duncelor: “Hey, like “homocentricity,” yunno.”

Nihlium: “Shaddup.”

“Indeed, “accessing” the Black Hole or the amoeba or the red fox within you can be easily as powerful as “accessing” the Warrior. [“Accessing”—here we have a little computer-meme creeping into our understanding of our psyche—crazy.] And … deeper and deeper into this psychic swamp of archetypes, it is important to understand three things:

1) “Accessing” an archetype has never cured anyone of anything. No one has ever discovered their inner shaman and stopped doing drugs. Quite the opposite. At times I’ve been filled with the indignation of Jesus kicking the merchants out of the temple when I’ve witnessed very confused and hurting people blindly perpetuating their miasma of pain and insanity by jumping their minds and their egos through a carnival of archetypes on the costly advice of a self-styled “Jungian” analyst. Imagining yourself as a warrior or magician is easy. Surrendering your ego to the hidden agenda of the Life Force is a power of ten harder to accomplish, and a power of one hundred more rehabilitative.”

Nihlium: “Yes, what he’s talking about is what AA members call a higher power—something beyond yourself, be-fucking-yond your Self, your fucking greedy fatassed baby of an ego. What he calls “surrendering,” I call acknowledging: Nature does what it does for what proves to be good reasons, how it “manages” evolution of the webs of life on this planet…when humans are in control of it, dominion over it, and manipulation of it, and all the rest, well, we suck at it; Nature does a much better job and thus, I reason, should be put back “in control” of things, especially our species (this cannot happen with civilization in place, but that’s another story). I acknowledge that which I cannot—we cannot—control, being this very planet; if a fire burns through the forest next to me, I don’t put it out: I move out of the way and leave it be.”

Duncelor: “But what of floods?”

Nihilium: “If you’re not sitting still, no need to worry…”

Duncelor: “Ah.”

Nihilium: “Bottom line, it requires some humility—does an ego good—because you’re a blob of flesh and will be dead before you know it; you’re not divine or immortal and never will be—you’re an ape-oid and so guess what? Just like every other cell in this human organism. Individual little snowflakes we are not, in essence, except in that we also ‘melt’ rather quickly and are gone forever. So what matters? Matter, just matter? I think there’s more to it; Nature is a force, a Great It, not a thing or a god or entity, yet a compound living thing made up of a globeful of living things that I respect enough to ‘surrender’ to, as far as control goes, as one of its creatures.”

Duncelor: “It takes great strength to let go…”

Nihilium: “What did ‘Tyler Durden’ tell ‘Tyler Durden?’ Huh?”

Duncelor: “‘Stop trying to control everything! JUST LET GO!'”

“2) Carl Jung, creator of the archetype meme, said that if someone has to explain an archetype to you then it’s not an archetype. An archetype is a “brain picture” that strikes you with immediate meaning. It needs no explanation. Does this give you a bit of warning about the current spate of archetypal “Men’s Movement For Sale” psychobabble that is proliferating around us like a bunch of bunny rabbits?”

Duncelor: “Yeah. And there’s psychobabble just about everywhere now, breeding like little fluffy bunny rabbits.”

Nihilium: “You’re paranoid, dude.”

Duncelor: “Nu uh. One idea comes up, it gets sectioned off, left-brained away into sub-sections, geometric over-complexity in true civilized style—genre-tized. You know what a genre is, geek boy?”

Nihilium: “Lemme guess, an original idea and its imitators.”

Duncelor: “You’re cleverer than you look.”

Nihilium: “Thanks, paranoid fat guy.”

“3) Carl Jung, whom I greatly admire, also said, on his deathbed, that his life’s journey had been one of climbing down ten thousand ladders in order, at last, to shake hands with the lump of clay that he was. So his was a lifetime of unlearning. Unlearning what? Why, the European culture—by far the most feminized, mater-ialistic, rationalistic, sense-oriented culture the world has ever produced. That’s why the history of Europe is the history of warfare—too many people chasing too many mater-ialistic dreams. And just look at what they did to Christianity. They took the words of a wandering, ascetic, desert guru, and turned them into the biggest business, the largest landowner, the most sense-oriented pageant of archetypes—of virgins and saints and theological-babble—the world has ever seen.”

Nihilium: “Heh, nice slam, but really, that’s not just Europe—they got it from Rome, Greece, back to Egypt and, you guessed it, Sumer, which was the most feminized up until that point in history—Sumer was the first Nanny State.”

Duncelor: “Yeah, but Dilmun came before them—did that little port city-state that got washed away in a deluge?”

Nihilium: “Yes, think so—Dilmun culture was to Sumer as Etruscan was to Rome. It used religion to enslave its farmers and other workers; it used temple prostitutes to seduce and corrupt men. It used gold and technology and great walls and large-scale masonry to draw in neighbouring tribes. It raped a once semi-tropical Arabia until desert remained, all for feminine greed. Later Christian kings used their priests to use symbols and bold words of doom and hellfire, and then their knights’ swords.”

Duncelor: “Yeah, yeah…”

Nihilium: “Anyway, just nitpicking; the Middle-East, mainly, and Anatolia, Egypt, and Persia are the most historically feminized regions, thousands of years—Europe wasn’t until Greco-Roman culture, which apparently began a bit more “patriarchal,” even though they still wore dresses—the root Euro-culture, which is what he’s talking about there. Canada and Australia, sad but true as far as nations go, are the most feminist and feminized—the States and the UK, too, of course, but our two countries are just former-English colonies with a pop-culture borrowed from the States…we’ve never seen a war here—next to the Americans, we’re the most coddled and pampered middle-class population of Walmart clones the world has yet seen.”

Duncelor: “Gasp!”

Nihilium: “No, I’m serious. We know how pathetic we are—that’s why we make such good comedians. We tend to laugh instead of cry—at ourselves. At least America had the Frontier. At least they had Clint Eastwood. Who did we have? Hudson’s Bay Company trappers screwing Indians off their lands. Yep.”

Duncelor: “You Canucks are dark and bitter.”

Nihilium: “And we watch too much hockey.”

Duncelor: “Chipmunks watching hockey…?”

Nihilium: “Damn you.”

“Have you talked to a Frenchman lately? Most of them have the brain pattern of a Rubic’s cube. A German? A Swiss? A Dutchman? Rigid. Formulaic. Fretful. Chipmunks playing checkers.”

Duncelor: “Heh. I guess he means they… don’t have much soul or spirit…”

Nihilium: “He nailed that one right on. I have noticed a significant lack of passion, creativity in Europe. It’s not that Canada or America is some sort of fountain of it—but that depends where you look. There’s no genius there or really anywhere anymore—aside from teenage boys volunteering their time to mod games and such, quite ingenius stuff there. Generally, overall: No heart, hasn’t been for a while now. It’s Politically Correct-pluralist tripe, ad nauseum. It’s NannyLand over there and over here. I can’t believe I used to think the European Union would be a good thing.”

Duncelor: “It still has potential—not as a multinational ‘old-used-soaps rolled up into a new bar’ kind of way, of course; that’s just more of the same. Another Idiot Union of Socialist Republics. Maybe as a unifying force. But not as any sort of system. That’s a Soviet state or the Third Reich again, bunch of tiny nations bundled up into a super-monster. Monsters don’t do anyone any good—don’t we know that by now?”

Nihilium: “No. But the EU does make a nice wall for the US.”

Duncelor: “Wall?”

Nihilium: “Like the USSR—a challenger to keep the US even remotely, somewhat ‘honest.’ It’s called balance—that’s what I loved about the USSR. Every stupid thing the US wanted to do, well, before it had to ask permission from Moscow. Now, it just does them without even thinking. They’re running amuk now.”

Duncelor: “Well, I do hate to see the necessity for walls. Anyway, they’ll be back to making walls in no time. Here, too, I expect. Globalization means that we’re all going to be the same soon—clones… dull, thoughtless, uninspired, mediocre, drunken businessmen praying to tits and shopping at Walmart. Sectioned off in boxes surrounded by walls, and more walls—”

Nihilium: “Firewalls too—”

Duncelor: “I was just about to say that…”

Nihilium: “You were not.”

Duncelor: “Bite me, sweetie. So…like, what Europe was facing in the 1400s—no Nature, civilization closing in around them—profound spiritual poverty, which grew and grew until it really intensified as Industrialization commenced—when most real men were replaced by machines.”

Nihilium: “It seems men are striving to replace themselves entirely, until they’re utterly obsolete….”

Duncelor: “Probably a good thing—fuck this shit. Further than what Zubaty suggests for America, I say that every man in the world should quit his job today. All men, all real men—the ones who ‘run’ things by keeping the trains going and traffic lights blinking and power on, by building and stacking and drilling, and cleaning the garbage and saving our asses when there’s a fire or tornado—or flood—hurricanes, accidents, buildings blowing up, bombs falling on playgrounds, or other disasters—all these gears in the machine ceasing to turn would cause a human socio-civlized debacle the world has not yet experienced…all by simply ending their own slavery. Yunno, the ‘real work’ in the ‘glass cellar’—the stuff women refuse to do—”

Nihilium: “Dunce—”

Duncelor: “Not that they really had to refuse—Man to The Rescue! He’ll do it for her, as usual. Not in some shining armour but a pair of overalls or a tacky shining corporate monkey suit—with some gay tie to top off this absurd modern male image. The Gentleman, after tipping his hat: ‘Hello, ma’am, I’m an advanced chivalric sack of pathetic apeness, raised solely by my glorious mummy, a tech-loving excuse for a man: please allow me to be your nigger and grab that heavy object for you and spare you a little effort in your otherwise easy, lazy, coddled, sheltered, and spoiled little life!’ Chivalry is unfathomably sexist. Anyway, imagine the chaos resulting from a world in which no real work got done! Imagine all these—”

Nihilium: “Dunce, you’re rambling agai—”

Duncelor: “Sheep! Fucking huddled round their televisions awaiting the latest development regarding this calamity. Look at Europe—with their carefully-painted-nail-biting middle-class women left to run the tractors and road crews, imagine them replacing those crews themselves, build the houses and schools and hospitals, fix the roads, dig in the mines. Take out the trash. Fix the toilet. Imagine upperclass women doing that work?”

Nihilium: “Ha! Okay, okay—shaddap. Well, women did help out quite a bit, even in the Frontier days—it was no sweet picnic; it was hard fucking work, and bless them for that. But rich chicks? Not upper-class women, no, not even if you set her ass on fire. The genetic celebrities? The bimbos we take pictures of? No, I can’t honestly picture a feminine female doing real work—I mean, hard work. A female like that at most sits in an office, talking on the phone; this is perfectly suited occupation for a feminine female or feminine male—no real difficulty or responsibility or effort, and lots of sitting, gossip and yacking. Clicking on NSFW pics when the boss is gone. Twittering slackers!”

Duncelor: “Now you sound like me. I’ve seen a woman in a construction job—she was no dainty little thing—and it stunned me silly to see this female heaving away with a sledgehammer. Impressed me really. I thought that was cool. I never saw another one—99% of difficult, dangerous, life-threatening work is done by men. So rare, they are, women with some balls—”

Nihilium: “And brains. It’s a dry, academic, left-brained-materialistic, “me-me!” climate we have—”

Duncelor: “You’re punny—”

Nihilium: “—to match our square garden landscapes. Stupidity squared, insanity cubed. Not all Euro men are so different from men in this continent. But they seem better at tippy-toing around there.”

Duncelor: “That’s what we’ll—civilized North Americans—be like soon enough. Worse, I’d say. That oh-so left-brained Frenchie, Tocqueville, had the right idea about America. But he too, consumed with little details—missed the point and could not fathom the big picture in all this….”

“They need a little Black Elk or B.B. King in their lives…So, Freud and Jung discovered the insidious extent of the female meme’s penetration into European Culture, but they couldn’t figure out what to do about it.”

Duncelor: “Obviously! Two left-brainers organized the shit out of the mind, whipping up a storm of information that merely added complexity and solved nothing at all.”

Nihilium: “Made it all worse—just look at psychology today—pardon the reference. Christ on a spit, there’s no words for such moronic and needless complexity! PCified and, like anything, leaning heavily into the feminine over time.”

Duncelor: “Touchy-feely horseshit. Great for women, fucking terrible for men. Not that women have gotten any saner either—we’re all getting crazier by the minute in this shit…”

Nihilium: “A new diagnosis invented every day, buddy. Every single day. It’s a left-brain-invented problem, easily solved by the right-brain, though handled by the left brain, once more yet again.”

Duncelor: “—the Euro-culture, and now Ameri-Euro-culture, itself IS the problem—and the result is not simplicity, a “whole” or “big picture” solution—it’s sectioned off, specialized, in true left-brained fashion: detailed to fucking hell and back. The UN is the global manifestion, microcosm of the human mind. Put on a grid, cubed and calculated, classified, labelled… ad tedium; mental bureaucracy, branching off into smaller and smaller branches until it’s all flimsy and weak. Why?”

Nihilium: “Because we have fish building boats, talking dogs, and monkeys looking for pearls under the sea…”

“They didn’t have the tools we have: the rattlesnake, the bald eagle, The Doors, The Blues.”

Duncelor: “Aye. Or the rainforest-draped mountains to the west.”

Nihilium: “Or Fight Club. Or Clint Eastwood. They did have Marx, though—was he wise, brave, and straight-forward at least?”

Duncelor: “Heh. Negative, he was a fucking box-bred momma’s boy anal-retentive—Das Kapital took him 30 goddamned years to write and came out over 1800 pages or so. Simple, clear, less-is-better, masculine-thinking? Right-brained?”

Nihilium: “You gotta be fucking kidding me. I noticed that immediately with many authors—and again, not just European: Stephen King is an American example—of a hack, but still….”

Duncelor: “A hack like you?”

Nihilium: “I’ve read over a dozen of his books, and most are two or three times longer than they really need to be—over-complexity; left-brainedness. But I am not blind to what seems hypocritical of you, writing as much as you do, Duncelor…”

Duncelor: “Right…, but my working excuse is that I don’t talk much and make up for it in writing—I do need to learn to be briefer, though.”

Nihilium: “Don’t we all…”

“But even with these great and inspiring memes, it is essential to take care lest we get horribly burned by imagining we will find psychological salvation by “accessing” archetypes. Remember the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson:

‘Imagination cannot go above its model.
The imitator dooms himself,
To hopeless mediocrity.'”

Nihilium: “Cool. Next, he quotes Allan B. Chinen on the Trois Freres cave…”

Dr. Herbert Kuhn, who visited the cave of Trois Freres in southern France, in 1926, wrote of his passage into this Paleolithic Cathedral:

Once inside the cave there comes a very low tunnel. We placed our lamp on the ground and pushed into the hole… The tunnel is not much broader than my shoulders, nor higher. I can hear the others before me groaning and see how very slowly their lamps push on. With our arms pressed close to our sides we wriggle forward on our stomachs, like snakes. The passage, in places, is hardly a foot high, so that you have to lay your face right on the earth. I felt as though I were creeping through a coffin. You cannot lift your head; you cannot breathe…And so, yard by yard, one struggles on: forty yards in all…It is terrible to have the roof so close to one’s head…And then, suddenly, we are through! Everyone breathes. It is like redemption.
The hall in which we are standing is gigantic. We let the light of the lamps run along the ceilings and walls: a majestic room—and there, finally, are the pictures: mammoth, rhinoceros, bison, wild horse, bear, wild ass, reindeer, wolverine, musk ox.”

Nihilium: “Yes, there were once animals in France, and in Europe too. Imagine that? Check this shit out:

Lions Hunting Bison In Europe

Nihilium: “The image above is a pride of lions hunting bison—the European bison—but shit…lions in Europe!”

Duncelor: “Unreal. This link shows comparative images from 30-20 thousand years ago, from Spain to France to Italy, et cetera. These caves were male places; this was male tradition. Men went through untold trouble to set up these places and paint these creatures and carve other stuff a little later—they weren’t merely wall paintings hung over the fireplace in their cave-condo: most of these were barely lived in; they were special places, ‘sacred caves’… for reasons we have long forgotten—why have we forgotten? What happened? The caves were abandoned after 10-8 thousand BC…”

Nihilium: “Well, not really: they were sacred places later replaced (perverted) in man-made (artificial) form: temples, tombs, et cetera, for different reasons, and for different religions, for various dress-wearing, blood-thirsty gods and spoiled, vindictive goddesses. But in these caves were the first artistically expressed masculine spirituality. Think back at the good size most men were in the Paleolithic days—and yet above it’s described what a tight fit it was for puny modern man to get his pink ass through to this sacred area, where these images awaited. “Like redemption.” It’s proven that not all these animals (in many more caves like Trois Freres) were hunted; some were simply painted for other reasons (aside from the general ‘praying to their prey’ thing). Were they early schools for boys? Were they teaching tools as well as basic artistic representations of the world they revered? Not known. Maybe animal life itself was sacred to them. More Zubaty:

“Clearly, this cave was utilized in such a way as to lead the initiate through the claustrophobic and suffocating birth canal into the vast interior of a ritual chamber.”

Nihilium: “And after crawling for forty yards, what awaits in this chamber? Richard Behrens:

‘Nearby, fifteen feet off the ground in a dark apse, in a remote position not easily discerned from the ritual ground of the cavern below, is depicted the most powerful image of Trois Freres, and certainly the most controversial. It is a tiny creature, no more than two and a half feet high, with the ears of a stag, the eyes of an owl, the beard of an old man, the tail of a wolf, the paws of a bear, and the legs of a dancing shaman. Known as the Sorceror of Trois Freres clearly this is not a man dressed in the hide of a beast, nor is it a mere addition to the parade of fauna below.”



Nihilium: “Nobody agrees on what the hell it really is, of course, except that it’s male. A shaman wearing a costume? A depiction of a part-man-part-animal entity? A symbolic representation of what people are, standing upright but still animals? Was it painted first, then the animals–or the animals first, and it was added later? Or was it done at the same time, with some similar theme? Or maybe we’ve all missed—thinking too much in our left brains—the point and it’s more the maleness that matters…maybe this is ‘male spirit?'”

Duncelor: “If we were right-brained back then, and we were, then our art would have been ‘right-brained art.’ The details would be meaningless—it’ll comprise a few basic symbols. Here’s the original from which the above pics are traced, hi-lighted…”


Nihilium: “Zubaty says it’s the “Deep Male.” He might be right. I’m still unsure.”

Duncelor: “It is.”

Nihilium: “If not, it’s definitely part of it. It’s certainly not the only cave they’ve found with ‘strange shit’ in it, in addition to a vast array of animal paintings. Back to the cave…Behrens:

‘Generations of young boys were led by torch light down the meandering corridors, crawling on their bellies through suffocating tunnels, and then being brought into the awesome sanctuary where the secrets of the hunt were revealed with great solemnity, in a womb-like underworld appropriate for their death and rebirth as men.”

Duncelor: “Yep. In the ‘before-before’ time when men identified themselves as distinct from the female, when we had our own culture—in effect, when men really were men. No young man had to ask “what’s a real man?” or any other similarly silly question. No man was at odds with who he was, self-alienated, battling futilely with femininity; he knew. He had it all straight. He was the real deal. He didn’t need beer to pretend to define himself as he obliterated his brain cells. He had real culture—and not religion! It was passed onto him and he passed it onto his boys. He was fucking together, man.”

Nihilium: “True, true. If masculine were a colour, he’d be blue, deep sky blue…we’re mostly purple today if we’re lucky—if the feminine were red, of course—thanks to the New World, else we’d still be flaming pink like the Euro ‘boys’ in tights were before they came over here.”

“Here we have the creation of a profound ritual space, a timeless zone, whose images are “no less than the stone age mass, the flood of the gods, the herds of eternity…Only in the province of our own dreams can we feel the awe that no longer moves us in a world where secret places have been measured, catalogued, carbon-dated, copied and modeled in life-size, set up as exhibits in museums and photographed in all-revealing light.” Count Begouen’s son, the boy—one of the Three Brothers (Trois Freres) who crawled into this enlarged “rabbit hole” on July 20, 1914, entered “the very fount of conjuration, a place of deep magic and dreams that gives nourishment to the imagination. It matters little that he couldn’t “read” the pictures on the walls. They spoke to him beyond words, welcoming him as their first initiate after one hundred and twenty centuries of silence.”

Nihilium: “Pretty cool. ‘Beyond words’—a right-brained experience. Those three kids got an education no one has really gotten for ‘one hundred and twenty centuries.'”

Duncelor: “Got that right.”

“So, once upon a time Europe had soul, now it has the bearded lady.”

Duncelor: “Fucking classic—what Christianity made Jesus, a pharaoh, prancing king….”

Nihilium: “They certainly did; historically, even the very image of Jesus became more and more effeminate, royal—and this is mostly by the Protestants (the Moron–sorry, Mormon—depictions of Jesus are quite gayish too), nevermind those weirdo Mary worshipping Catholics. I bet by the time the US and the UK are done culturally replanting the Fertile Cresent (Israel’s neighbours), old Muhammed will be wearing a dress too.”

Duncelor: “I thought he was already. Anyway, in a decade do you think Allah himself might be wearing a greasy Starbucks’ bikini, yunno, like on a commercial selling computer-flavoured Freedom Fries, disposable electric toothpicks, or Mexican chocolate gravy? Whichever. Something important like that, which civilized humans need, to be sure.”

“Like to guess whose agenda effected this transformation? Europe, if you haven’t been there, is a big park. There isn’t a spot of wild ground left. When an Englishman talks of going into nature, he is talking about a walk on a farm. God help us stop that from happening here.”

Nihilium: “When I spoke of the masculine getting a revival, it was about this time—1400s, Europe pretty much the way it is now, except for clearer borders and Germany’s many states getting mass-organized, centralized, and there was hardly anything left in Spain. That queen funded Columbus with high hopes for plunder—gold, riches, or resources failing those. The New World was an Eden undisturbed, like a ripe blackberry for the plucking.”

Duncelor: “The only natural areas in North America now are along the coast —of BC and somewhat in Alaska— and in the far north, north of 60 anyway. The United States has only specks remaining, zoos, museums to Nature, rectangles on a map that yuppies drive off to with their yuppy-wagons and their little yuppilings. In less than fifty years, they’ll be exactly like Europe, a big park, like Zubaty correctly points out.”

Nihilium: “And Canada will be exactly like them not long after that. Alberta is pretty much ‘tamed,’ except for the mountains; the rest of southern Canada is on a grid, except for the coast of BC. What’s left is sectioned off in national and provincial parks “for conservation.” Yes, under our glorious managment, ‘safe and sound.'”

Duncelor: “Until we run out of shit…”

Nihilium: “Yeah, I guess. National parks are of course rainy-day ‘natural investments.’ Tree banks. British Columbia’s coast is too mountainous—

BC Coast

“—for human habitation, generally. That’s why I’m going back and why I keep going back there. See those white veins?—glaciers. Between one of those and a sea inlet, shrouded in mist, are the temperate rainforests I rave about often—that’ll be my final resting place. No other place is worth seeing, as far as I’m concerned. Nothing else would I want or need. People ask me where I’d travel if I could, and they’re stunned when I say—‘just West, man.’ They stand there and blink, like zombies. Then they figure out that I mean, to live there, and get the oddest expression, as if I had just told them that they had a can of beans sitting on their heads.”

Duncelor: “Same here—they ask what “attractions” I plan to visit.” Sigh. “Tourists at the zoo. Take a look at a BC government map of what they’re planning in the Coast Ranges, in terms of minerals and tree-harvesting, over the next fifty years—there’ll be no place wild left to go, in spite of scarse populations in those mountains.”

Nihilium: “I know, I’ve seen the maps, our beloved Canadian and provincial government’s plans. Remaining BC rainforest wilderness is a pie that several large forestry companies will be slicing up—or, I mean, have already begun of course, for a while now. If you think of the natural world in terms of masculinity, it’s clear that within a century, at our current rate, barring a world war or pandemic viral slaughter, there will be nothing left. Anywhere. Nothing. That’s when, if we survive, we’ll venture off into space, because we’ll have little choice…in search of either resources or a new home, a new piece of fruit to eat.”

Duncelor: “Might not be so bad…”

Nihilium: “I pray we die out before finding it out there. I don’t want this current culture escaping this planet—seriously, look at it…imagine it as some sick yet entirely likely corporate Star Trek mutation, UN stellar colonialism, exploiting every planet and infecting (after dissecting) every species we encounter…domesticating the sentient, enslaving the “lower life forms.” I’d rather see a million thermonuclear detonations here than see a repeat on other worlds, spreading of this materialist pig-deity, this ego-driven cunt of a civilization of ours…”

Duncelor: “Damn, you’re gloomy, and you’re jumping the gun…it might change before it’s too late—”

Nihilium: “Christ, let it die out. Who’s going to change it? How? Change it into what? Another logical system that changes back, always? Fuck it. Let its tomb be a lifeless globeful of cemented geometric ugliness, devoid of atmosphere and fresh water and complex life. Let our cities be rubble on which future creatures piss. Let our computers be dusty plastic shells in which ants gather…”

Duncelor: “Yikes. You’re extreme…let’s go back to that other blog for a second…”

The Natufians of the fertile [Levant] were the earliest people to arrange their lives around the gathering of wild cereals and storing them for future use. Yet they had not entirely left their wandering ways. Seasonally Natufian hunters followed herds of deer between Anatolia and along the eastern Mediterannean coast. They congregated in caves and on hill tops and in open air areas that were rich in wild cattle and roe deer and fish.

Food spoiled fast in heat. There would have been no way for early man to become sedentary without learning how to preserve foods to carry him through hard times. The Natufians learned that salt keeps meat from spoiling. But salt was not everywhere available, and those rare natural places in the earth where large salt deposits may be found became the centers of early man’s first permanent abodes. Salt came to have a value like gold and early salt reserves were as precious as gold. The locations of natural salt became regular places tribes returned to again and again. Catal Huyuk is located on the southern edge of a great salt depression and to the north is Tuz Golu, a salt lake. The area around ancient Jericho is rich in natural salt. For untold milleniums in the springtime migratory tribes followed the herds north from the area around Jericho up to Anatolia, from one great area of salt to another, and in the end of summer they left Anatolia and returned to Jericho. 12,000 years ago the very first manmade stone walls on earth were created in Jericho to hold supplies of salt, private hordes that wandering tribes collected for their own use. Among the first people to live sedentary lifestyles may have been elderly or injured members of the tribes who were too feeble to follow the seasonal migrations of the herds. These people, with more and more of their kindred, remained in the stone parimeters, guarded the salt stores, and claimed with their permanent presence the saltsite for their clan. The stone walls became stone bins, and the stone bins in turn became storehouses, and the storehouses became the ancient walled cities of Catal Huyuk and Jericho.

An even older resource equally as important as salt to these people was obsidian, the volcanic material which made for blades sharper than modern surgeon’s scalples. The greatest source for obsidian was the base of Hasan Dag volcano which was visible from Catal Huyuk. This valuable stone became the source of perhaps the most significant trading that went on in the upper paleolithic and neolithic. Just as the first walls seem to have been formed in Jericho as a means of safeguarding stores of salt for trading purposes the first walls near Hasan Dag were probably formed to storehouse the valuable obsidian. The Hasan Dag stone was traded to the [Levant] for lumber and Dead Sea bitumen.

Duncelor: “Yeah, that’s true. Next…”

Obsidian was a stone that required priests and priestesses. Because the obsidian blades and spearpoints must bear sacred incantations to insure their swiftness and true flight to bring down the kill, and to keep the hunter from harm. Half of all the buildings in Catal Huyuk were shrines. Not only was Catal Huyuk a major trade center but more importantly it was a religious center.

7000 people lived in Catal Huyuk at its peak. Carbon dating places the occupation of Catal Huyuk between the years of 7250 BC and 5600 BC. They cultivated three types of wheat and one of barley. They had domesticated cattle and goats. They hunted the abundant deer and wild cattle. In fact sustenance was so easy for the people that they were able to devote great amounts of time to their art and religion.

Marija Gimbutas in her book THE CIVILIZATION OF THE GODDESS says on page 8: “It is clearly evident that the practice of religion was integrated into people’s daily lives. Temples were found within the area of habitation in houses similar to those in which people lived. From 300 excavated rooms 88 had painted walls. Each painting was from 12 to 18 meters long.”

Nihilium: “Yes, obsidian was very important in this region—many stone age cultures used obsidian; even Mesoamericans. Not everywhere, though. It was polished to make the first mirrors, as well.”

Duncelor: “I doubt sweaty men out hunting on the Steppes bothered to stop and fix their hair in their mirrors—”

Nihilium: “No, these were for women obviously. There were also mammoth bracelets and other early jewelry found over Eurasia, obviously showing that it wasn’t only need of meat that helped this species off the face of the Earth; it was also for—clearly—female want. The beginnings of vanity, one might say—specialized self-awareness.”

Duncelor: “It didn’t get bad until about 10,000 BC or so, though. Anyways, men were pretty much pussy-whipped by 5600 BC, around the time of “The Flood”—-in the Black Sea-Caspian Sea areas, eventually soaking Mesopotamia too—farming fertility cults had given way to farming Mother goddess stuff. The first religion to spawn all others…”


There were sculptures and statues too including one of the Great Mother, Kubaba, later known as Cybele, giving birth. All the art in Catal Huyuk follows this theme. Marija Gimbutas continues:

“Burials of women painted with ochre were found under the floors of temples and under wall paintings. The rich burial of a woman interred with three tusked lower jaws of wild boars arranged around her head was found under the largest temple. The largest painting which it contained portrayed a town (presumably Catal Huyuk) with a volcano erupting behind it. The size of both the temple and the wall painting as well as the unusual symbolic grave items suggests that this woman had a respected position in the society, perhaps as a priestess-queen.”

Here in this first city of the world, on a vast prairie beside the active Hasan Dag volcano there existed a matristic and religious and art-loving people. On the left we see the sculpture of the Great Mother of Catal Huyuk seated with a tame lion on either side. She was sacred woman, the Great Mother of Nature, and the tamer and civilizer of the world as well.

Duncelor: “Ugh, what rubbish.”

Nihilium: “I know…I’m not sure what annoys me more, the amazement of how stupid people were back then, or how stupid they got tucked away in their little boxes by this point, more and more disconnected from “Nature”—which is fucking farmland in Anatolia by this point—-or the ‘tone’ I’m gathering from the author…as though all this was ‘good’ somehow. Cybele…Magna Mater:”

Magna Mater

Duncelor: “‘Great Mother Nature’ my ass—Great Farm Mother, more like. People in this region (modern day southern Turkey) were tearing away their natural environments, slicing up sections of land later owned by “lords” and “ladies” and so forth; gods, goddesses, enslaving neighbouring tribes, taking their shit, duping the masses with lies. Sucking in people with praise and shame. Over the next thousand years, most of their trees were gone. They didn’t know what the fuck ‘wilderness’ was, like Europeans later—and Can-mericans now. This is where civilization started, springing up in full blooming permanence in Mesopotamia after the Flood of 5600 BC. There’s nothing good about any of it.”

Nihilium: “‘Mother Earth’ worship commenced the Age of Ecocide. All through, and because of, farming. She’s still around today…”

Duncelor: “Yep. There she is. Well, shit. Too much gathering? Too much of the feminine? Like your old gif shows here…?”

After The Flood

Nihilium: “It hasn’t stopped, no matter what ‘gender’ possesses that spoiled fat ass on its throne. The problem with feminist bias and revisionist crap is this: they stroke it because they want women in control of everything and men to fuck off—they want sole credit for every “good” aspect of humanity while laying everything “bad” on the shoulders and backs of men. By painting the pre-Christian, pre-Roman, or pre-Sumerian eras as lovely and matriarchal and whatever, they’re distorting the facts; they want feminine dominance when it was feminine dominance that started all this in the first place! So, their solution to the ills of the planet is let women run it all, when that’s what initiated the first massive problem: fucking farming!”

Duncelor: “Calm yourself, sailor…it is ridiculous, though. Marxist feminists don’t want anything but wealth and influence (not necessarily ‘power,’ because that’s service, as they’re finding out right now). And they seem to genuinely want male populations at low levels. They don’t know what’s masculine or right-brained any more than men do—so don’t spew bile at them for that. They look at prison populations and say, “Men are bad.” And there’s the end of it; they don’t look for a ‘why?’ No, ‘bad’ is good enough. Yes, it’s childish and stupid, but they’re doing what they do best—blame another and not take responsibility; it’s habit—20 thousand years of habit. They say that and go buy twenty pairs of shoes, recycle their cans, thinking they’re saving the world, but they’re not conscious of it—if they are, they’re sick, but I don’t think they are. So, I can’t blame them for it.”

Nihilium: “I know, I know. What can ya do? Economics caters almost exclusively to their wants, always has….from mammoth earings and necklaces, wood for their beds and fancy chairs, to seven times the shelf space dedicated to them today compared to men. They spend billions in North America alone on cosmetics, keeping up their illusion of beauty, keeping men stupid and permanently frazzled sexually, working their asses off to buy them shit. Not much has changed, except we’ve destroyed 75% of the natural world in the process, and men just keep at it…”

River valleys had always been ancient pathways for mesolithic peoples who followed herds with the seasons. Another ancient route in continual use was the Danube river to the Rhine river which they followed to the sea, and from the sea the same wanderers in turn made the trip east and arrived at the great freshwater Euxine Lake and south into Anatolia to Catal Huyuk. We know this is so because a high percentage of the skulls unearthed at Catal Huyuk are of a type that come from western Europe.

Black Sea Flood

Travel between the Danube and Catal Huyuk was easy in that age with no Bosporus channel to cross.

To the west of the Euxine Lake along the great rivers that flowed into it, significant mesolithic cultures formed to gather the abundant fish and mullosks. Marshlands were thick with birds and their eggs were everywhere. There was no starvation in such a rich world. Archeologists today study these early neolithic communities and give them names: Hamangia, Karanova, Vinca, Tisza, Dniester-Bug, Dneiper-Donets, Lengyel — digging down into their middens and firepits layer upon layer to discover continuous communities of the same people living in the same place generations upon generations for many centuries and sometimes milleniums.

Nihilium: “Well, all that’s accurate.”

Thermal hotsprings have always been sacred places to the human race — hot water bubbling out of the earth, even in winter, surrounded by greenery, sacred oases of beauty and life. Surely nothing in nature more resembles the womb of creation. If you have never relaxed in a natural hotsprings you can not possibly understand what I am saying.

Duncelor: “There’s that ‘womb of creation’ rhetoric again.”

Nihilium: “Like I mentioned, aside from the evidence that human life is created equally by man and woman, some people insist to glorify the female part in it—also like I said, this is ancient ignorance.”

Duncelor: “Yep. That’s what feeds religion—stupidity. Jesus…womb of creation: how about Ballsack of Creation?”

Nihilium: “Ha! Go, brother!”

Duncelor: “Well, shit, dude—that’s where sperm is generated, and you can’t make babies without that, so it makes every bit as much sense…”

Nihilium: “True enough. What oblique perception and silliness that still pervades our minds from this time…Can’t blame them back then: “Hey, Grogak, look: baby come out of her hole! Magic! Praise Mother Earth!” And Grogak scratches his nuts through his pretty dress and replies: “Yes, Yarmlak, look—she even get milk from heaven to feed baby! Praise Mother Earth!”

Duncelor: “Yep—praise…. Well, stupid is as stupid does…what’s modern humans’ excuse for being such twits?”

Nihilium: “No idea. At any rate, she’s right, except it’s not the “human race” that liked luxurious baths—who does today?”

Duncelor: “Women—and gays. They get right ritualistic with it—suds and candles. Never met a straight guy who did that.”

Nihilium: “And the men in a feminized culture like this (just) pre-historic one—the farming culture—were becoming feminized too, so it’s likely they were ‘relaxing’ about, at least the ones in more powerful families—religion and priestesses means royalty = class system. If these hot springs were sacred, I doubt ‘common labourers’ were allowed near them. Yunno, the ‘rock monkeys’ digging away in the obsidian mines and such. Perhaps men weren’t even allowed near them. Let’s see if she mentioned the pre-historic rules of these feminine places…because they were feminine and thus they must have had rules.”

But to those of you who have, you know what I mean. The feeling is incredible and it must occur to everyone. The mysterious hot water percolating up from the subteranian depths of Mother earth and there you sit, in very warm water, surrounded by lush greenery, birds singing in trees, forest animals approaching at times if you are very quiet. Wilderness hot springs awaken the creature senses of the human spirit, put a person in tune with his or her most ancient roots.

Great sharing occurs at natural wilderness springs. For there are not separate springs for each person. Every person must share the treasure with others: the melting pot, –the place where everyone of all walks and languages and races comes and strips out of their clothes and gets into the pool with the others, and feels so other-worldly wonderful, lays back and looks at the blue sky or the starry night, and feels so blessed. The Womb that is the hotsprings. The people of hot springs consider them sacred places. These are universal hotsprings feelings.

The area to the west of the Black Sea now known as Romania has around 3000 natural hotsprings. And further west along the Danube in the land we now call Hungary there are another thousand natural hotsprings. Here in this veritable garden of Eden more than 7,000 years ago the most intelligent cultures of the ancient world came into existance — the Cucuteni, Lengyel, Karanova, Tisza, Vinca and others.

Nihilium: “Intelligent cultures, huh?”

Duncelor: “Well, that’s from our point of view—being able to further manipulate the environment for women was considered “wisdom” in Gilgamesh’s day, so it was back in Catal Hoyuk, too—just as it is now, in our homocentric worldview.”

The vulva stone on the left was found on an altar in Lepenski Vir where it has sat for 8000 years waiting for us. The image on the right, the goddess of Lepenski Vir was found on the same altar. Lepenski Vir is an archeological site located on the banks of the Danube river in Yugoslavia. Extensive radiocarbon dating shows that the Lepenski Vir site was occupied between about 6000 BC and 4560 BC — For well over a thousand years these people lived in this place — a prehistoric town a few feet from the Danube river, a place with many altars. The heart of their devotions was the womb of the universe.

Duncelor: “She’s raving about this thing…”

Vulva Stone

Nihilium: “Okay, first—that’s supposed to be a vulva? Could be, doesn’t matter—looks like a peach, but doesn’t matter. Yeah, it’s a pussy, very nice, nothing to be proud of, or ashamed of, it’s not like you have to earn one of those—you’re sorta kinda born with them, hey? See me running around saying, “Look, folks! I have a penis!” Second: the writer of this blog is not a she—it’s a guy.”

Duncelor: “I know. Another feminine-junkie, another female-worshipper—another religious gardener with tits and ass on the brain—from Oregon, yet, the fucking Pacific Northwest, home of the Coastal Natives, over 30 millennia of pure non-destructive culture…and this is what he’s into? Sumerian and pre-Sumerian and post-Sumerian goddess-worship crap? What a fucking—”

Nihilium: “What else does an uninitiated male (p)raised by Mommy do these days? Go hunting? With a shotgun and a nice Camper’s Corner tent? That’s supposed to bring out the man in him? In the absence of the masculine, spirituality finds its way back to the religious feminine.”

Creative Masculinity

Duncelor: “So, ‘feminism’ is really ‘the religion of women?'”


Nihilium: “Sure, it is—of, for, about, a grand glorification of a gender who looks exactly like us under that well-polished exterior: blood and veins and flesh and guts: meat-sacks…what a fucking delusion!—it fits all the criteria for a religion, with belief directed towards the object, the female form—sex. Flesh. Matter.”

Duncelor: “And masculinity = spirituality?”

Nihilium: “Energy. Think about it—mother earth…father sky. Instinct, Soul. Not a ‘soul’—Soul. The ghost in the machine—the right brain under the dominion of the logical, rationalizing, organizing left. What keeps moving around? Desert gurus, nomads, and air…spirit. Not matter—look at that fat pig on that throne up there: that is a perfect rendition of Mater—and I’ll never stop bringing this up—is the Latin word for Mother. Materialism. Matter. What’s matter without energy? What’s soil without water? What’s rain without gravity? What’s a female’s egg without sperm to fertilize it?”

Duncelor: “Dude, you are trippin…but it never made sense to me why anyone would worship a female—for what reason? Because she’s ‘pretty?’ Because she’s what, exactly? Biologically fit to grow a child in her belly after we worked hard to help put it there? For that she’s divine? Every female of every species, then, would be ‘divine,’ right down to plants. I don’t see anyone worshipping female dogs, do you?”

Nihilium: “Bitches? Nope. One would think we’d respect someone or something for what it does—function—not what it is: object. The author of that site is what I’d call a sexist pig who’s doing women a great disservice—not the least of which is feeding their egos by giving them credit for their own biological processes. As I said, humans didn’t invent biology; we are merely participants. The feminine must be deconstructed, therefore, and seen exactly as it is. The measure of a female is not a hole between her legs or two pounds of make-up and a bunch of fucking hairspray—girls need a different education along with men—we have to start doing the opposite of what we’re doing. Men acting like women isn’t working anymore. The masculine must reassert itself, located back in the Primal Male, or we’re fucked. Back to that non-agenda source for a moment…”

The role of women in society during the Upper Palaeolithic is not known, however the central role of female figurines in the artwork could point to a correlation with the place of women in society. There are some theories that suggest a possible matriarchal social structure and the worship of the divine in feminine form, or the increased role and social status of women in the populace. Dickson brings to light an interesting point in relation to this possibility by emphasising that the Upper Palaeolithic was the first time in prehistory that grave goods were buried with females (Dickson, 1990:214). Other theorists point to the statues as being fertility or cult objects, or that the enormous distribution of these ‘Venus’ figures could allude to a ritualistic exchange system with the figurines playing a central role in inter territory relations (Cunliffe, 2001: 69).

An important element in the appearance of such artistic traditions was the emergence of abstract thinking (that was previously lacking in the population) and the subsequent occurrence of rapid societal change during the Upper Palaeolithic period. Such drastic change is evident through the existence of art, jewellery and ornamentation, which reflect the complexity of the social systems and belief structures that arose from the beginning of the Aurignacian period (33,000-29,000 BC). The utilisation of such phenomena has been explained as being clearly indicative of diverse, differentiated and specifically organised social systems (Knecht et al, 1993). According to Dickson, the preponderance of such social systems characteristically suggests the existence of institutional forms of religious belief and practice (Dickson, 1990:12).

Duncelor: “Obsidian mirrors, luxurious hotsprings, jewelry, houses, ‘grave goods’ buried with females—this was a shitty time to be a man.”

Nihilium: “The beginning of the end for the masculine in Eurasia.”

Duncelor: “I think I respect the North American Natives’ way of life even moreso now.”

Nihilium: “Same here—it was sane and it worked along with Nature—actual fucking NATURE, not a goddamned garden or farm! Yunno, the wilderness? Solid, dark fucking forest? Where so-called ‘mother earth’ lubbers fear to travel—now, only ‘camp out.’ Anyway, it was a good article—both were—, mainly accurate despite the dude’s obvious bias. The next part’s the flood—the 5600 BC one; I’ll specify since there’s a lot of em—and I’ve been there, done that. So, we’ll bid this site a good day and move on…”

Duncelor: “Nah, I’m off to an AA meeting. Good stuff, anyway. Later.”

Nihilium: “K. Let’s wrap it up.”

Duncelor: “Religion sucks.”

Nihilium: “How about ‘religion/farming’ sucks, as we’ve demonstrated. It leads to nowhere but men doing stupid, fucking stupid things for women and fucking up the planet in the process.”

Duncelor: “Better. What’s the moral of the story?”

Nihilium: “I dunno…’Roam or die?'”

Duncelor: “Rome?”

Nihilium: “Roaming—nomadicity. Allie Fox said it best: ‘Dead things go downstream, Mother; life is upstream!'”

Duncelor: “Oh. His failure was again…?”

Nihilium: “Trying to control everything, make it like America—his ideal for it, anyway. He wanted praise and admiration for his genius and accomplishments. His ego was huge and it killed him in the end. Right idea—left approach…”

Duncelor: “And it all exploded, collasped, and he poisoned the entire area—I remember now. The Mosquito Coast was always my favourite. By the time he figured it out, he went manic masculist…”

Nihilium: “Huh?”

Duncelor: “He was obsessed with continung—keep moving. They kept going upstream and he wouldn’t stop…ahead, just a little further ahead. This is what happened to Alexander, Hitler, Napoleon, and other men consumed within their egos; the masculine nomad warped into feminine greed—more: they could not stop. Despite their arguable brilliance, they had not the wisdom to stop; to say, Enough!”

Nihilium: “Ah, right. Trying to get as far away from his own left brain…”

Duncelor: “And his shame. You can’t escape yourself, buddy. You can only change your mind. Well, gotta go…”

Nihilium: “I’ll leave off here with another quote from that movie, and then post the remainder of that unbiased article below.”

Duncelor: “So what’s the quote? Hurry up, I’m gonna be late.”

Nihilium: “Patience, grasshopper: in the book, as he lay dying, shot through the chest by the Christian missionary, he spoke to his eldest son: Man sprang out of a faulty world, Charlie. Therefore, I’m imperfect. What’s the use? It’s a bad design, the human body. Skin’s not thick enough, bones aren’t strong enough, too little hair, no claws, no fangs. Drop us and we break! Why, we’re not even symmetrical. One foot bigger than the other, left-handed, right-handed, our noses run. Look where our heart is. We weren’t meant to stand up straight—our posture exposes the most sensitive parts of the body, heart and genitals. We should be on all fours, hairier, more resistant to heat and cold, with tails! What happened to my tail, that’s what I’d like to know…. It’s humiliating to have a body with a design fault.”

Duncelor: “Right on. In the movie he said, Nature’s crooked, Charlie. I wanted right-angles, straight lines. He figured that out too late.”

Nihilium: “That he did.”

Duncelor: “Hey, I’ve got one: Goodbye, America!…and have a nice day!”

Nihilium: “Goodbye.”

Duncelor: “Hello….”

As well as representations of ‘Venus’ figurines carved from various materials such as ivory or limestone there is also evidence of the production and firing of ceramics. Fired figurines made from clay and pulverised bone has been found at one famous site, Dolni Vestonice (White, 1993; Gamble, 1986:324; Vandiver et al 1993: 259-272). The first excavation at this site was in 1925 and subsequent work has shown that clay figurines were exploded (possibly on purpose) within the kilns. The astounding discovery that 99.9% of these Vestonice figurines were broken has led some theorists to believe that remnants and rejects of production may have been left at the kilns or that the sites indicate a ceramic waste disposal area (Absolon & Klima, 1974, cited in Vandiver et al, 1993: 272). Other archaeologist s interpretations strongly favour the idea of ceramics being ritually broken or exploded within the kilns (Voight, 1983; Pearson, 1988, cited in Vandiver et al, 1993:272).

There are many ways in which the drastic changes in the archaeological record can be perceived with the emergence of anatomically modern humans. Such changes include social factors, art and the use of antler and bone tools. With regards to variation in the location of sites there is a definite shift away from the ocean-side to river sites (possibly due to transportation benefits), and there are also established structures that were previously lacking as well as a greater magnitude of sites (Cunliffe, 2001).

There are two predominant contrasting viewpoints with regards to the drastic changes that occurred in the Upper Palaeolithic and the cultural developments that emerged during this time. Some theorists have argued for a hypothesis that promulgates the evolution of the existing Neanderthal populations (Garrod, 1953; Neuville, 1951, cited in Knecht et al, 1993). In opposition to this theory however, many archaeologists have now come to believe that cultural replacement occurred by way of anatomically modern humans from external areas settling in Europe and this theory is now generally accepted as most probable. It is believed that an emigration of anatomically modern humans from Africa occurred approximately 100,000 B.P and that these people spread to the Middle East and finally arrived in Europe by 30,000 40,000 B.P. The reason for such late settlement of Europe would reflect the harsh climatic conditions from 100,000 until approximately 43,000 B.C during which time Europe was enveloped in a freezing glacial environment (Fagan, 1998: 129).

Theories that propose to ascertain the possible meaning of Upper Palaeolithic art tend to mirror the prevailing theoretical approaches of the day. ‘Classical’ theories have included those explanations that emerged early in the twentieth century often purporting that Upper Palaeolithic art was totemic in character; was an elaborate prop for rites of passage or hunting magic or was inspired by shamanism (Dickson, 1990:123). Anthropological theories promulgated by Emile Durkheim on totemism and by Arnold Van Gennep on “Rites de Passage” greatly influenced interpretations of archaeological findings (Dickson, 1990: 125-126). The elucidation of art being related to hunting magic or sympathetic magical principles was largely derived from Sir James Frazer s book The Golden Bough and this had a great influence on many theorists. (Dickson, 1990:128; Frazer, 1929; Hicks, 1999:258-260).

In all of the artwork of the Upper Palaeolithic there is a close connection between the animal and human worlds and between the living and spirit realm. According to Fagan, such a close continuum of the social, spiritual and natural worlds is typical of hunter-gatherer societies (1998:137). This earth-based totemic worldview is seen to be reflected in the ethnographic record and it has been stated that the archaeological findings pertaining to the Upper Palaeolithic religious life revolve around the shaman, who vigorously and directly sought to confront the spirit world in ecstatic encounters (Dickson, 1990:215). Such perspectives, which favour an interpretation of early prehistoric art (both cave art and mobiliary art) as an expansion of shamanic religious practice are also central to the views of Andreas Lommel, who further supports such elucidations (1967, cited in Dickson, 1990: 129-136).

Modern archaeological interpretations often dispute earlier classical theories and according to Bailey (1983:166) these modern approaches predominantly fall into two categorical perspectives of either internalistic or environmentalist (Cited in Dickson, 1990:137). Internalistic theories stress the notion of intellectual changes within Homo Sapien Sapiens and propose that advancements in cognitive ability at this time was the foremost cause of artistic depictions and ‘Venus’ figurines. Steven Mithen epitomises this view by stating that, ” the sudden appearance of art was connected to the development of human cognitive abilities ” (1996, cited in Fagan, 1998:137). Environmentalist theoretical modalities however are more concerned with social and economic factors that influence (or are influenced by) religion and art.

Theories of the past are not ‘whole truths’ but are methodological approaches and interpretations made from the available evidence. Whether ‘Venus’ figurines were ‘mother Goddess’ statues of religious or cultic significance, or whether they represented the role of women in society or a flowering of artistic ability due to increased cognitive development is somewhat of a moot point. What can be known for sure is that our distant ancestors had complex social systems and conceptual understandings of their world and this is reflected in the artwork and figurines that were left to posterity, which allows us to gain some understanding of the past.



[Must have been
Mid afternoon…
I could tell by how far
The child’s shadow stretched out and
He walked with a purpose
In his sneakers, down the street
He had…
Many questions
Like children often do…
He said,

‘Tell me all your thoughts on god…
‘Tell me am I very far?’

Must have been late afternoon
On our way,
The sun broke free of the clouds…
We count only blue cars
Skip the cracks,
In the street
And ask many questions
Like children often do…

We said,
‘Tell me all your thoughts on god…
”Cause I’d really like to meet her…
‘And ask her why we’re who we are…
‘Tell me all your thoughts on god,
”Cause I am on my way to see her…
‘So tell me am I very far—
‘Am I very far now?’

It’s getting cold,
Picked up the pace…
How our shoes
Make hard noises in this place
Our clothes are stained…
We pass many
Cross eyed people
And ask
Many questions
Like children often do…

‘Tell me all your thoughts on god…
”Cause I would really like to meet her…
‘And ask her why we’re who we are….
‘Tell me all your thoughts on god…
”Cause I am on my way to see her…
‘So tell me am I very far—?
‘Am I very far now?
‘Am I very far now?
‘Am I very far now?
‘Tell me all your thoughts on god…
‘Tell me all your thoughts on god…’

“Counting Blue Cars,” Dishwalla.]


Amazon Boys