Birth Control- All or Nothing

It is well known that the Catholic church disapproves of birth control.
It is less well known that Orthodox Jews, some Protestant groups and elements of Islam are in broad agreement.

It is also obvious that most of us disagree- even most Catholics, in private.
And yet birth control as it is currently practised, may be the most damaging long term phenomenon of our time.

We are using a social advance irresponsibly.
In fact, we are NOT practising birth control at all.

This post is going to enter uncomfortable ground. Uncomfortable ground, because we must come to terms with a shadow that hangs over much of twentieth century political debate.

I said before that one of the problems with Nazi Germany, is a blanket abhorrence of any idea that came to fruition in that society.
This is often called the 'reductio ad hitlerum'- the rejection of any idea, on the simple grounds that it was the advocated by the Nazis.

Well, the Nazis advocated a lot of things. And whilst many of them were plain wrong, we have tacitly adopted motorways, rockets, and a host of other Nazi ideas which actually turned out to be advances. Whatever else you say about them, they were advanced in terms of science. Often, in misusing it, but use it they did.

And one of the most worrying features is, how Nazism, by its misuse of science, killed stone dead, a very important socio-political point.

Planned birth control.

Shock horror.
Before you turn away in disgust thinking I'm justifying something appalling, let's look at what the Eugenics movement was saying, before the Nazis hi-jacked it, and turned into a plan to breed lots of Aryans and sterilise all Jews and black people.

Please remember Marcus Garvey supported Eugenics too.

Darwin's laws of evolution state that life is a battle to survive. Each human couple may produce eight-ten children. The population booms until resources die out. War, famine and disease take out those elements of the population on the whole less equipped with the necessary skills to survive such hardships.
In other words, simple existence is its own birth control. If you don't mind living in such a brutal world, then one thing you can be sure of, evolution happens.

Nature red in tooth and claw.

Up until last century, human culture had pretty much followed the ancient laws of survival of the fittest. On the whole the strongest, the handsomest, the cleverest, were more likely to pass on their genes than their less talented brethren.

But this happened because in poorer families, the majority of births didn't make it to adulthood.

Would I be here had I been born two hundred years ago? No. I'd have lived for a few minutes.
Nature would have consigned me to its waste basket.

On the whole therefore, it is probably true to say that during recorded history people have, on average got cleverer, stronger, more sensitive, better communicators, etc.

Now, modern science removes that.
We are able to create a world without war, famine and disease.

The disease, because we eradicate it, the other two because we are better able to control the circumstances that cause such situations.

The majority of children born CAN reach adulthood, and can themselves breed.

Now left to itself, the population would spiral out of control, and undoubtedly, though disease would still be less likely, war and famine would return to the equation.

So birth control, is undoubtedly a good thing.
To a degree...

People go on about the virtues of the nuclear family. I maintain it no longer accords with our social needs. It cannot work in a society which has discovered birth control.

Because here is the deal we offer.

Get a degree, get a good job, be two responsible people, with much to offer society, every child you have will eat up a large portion of your efforts for twenty years. Each one will cost you about £100,000.



Be completely useless, the state will deal with it.

Darwin's laws in reverse.

Because the very people who in nature would provide the largest share of the next generation, choose not to breed.
And those who, for the most part, would contribute least to the gene pool in nature- due to their elimination- now provide an ever increasing share of the human genetic stock.
Unpalatable, but undeniably true.

This isn't positive birth control. What we are doing is asking our brightest and best NOT to breed, so that the human population can be restocked by those who's genes wouldn't be being passed on if the competition really was as brutal as nature made it.

Now let's face it, birth control is a good thing. But it HAS changed society. In one sense, it has rendered obsolete old sexual taboos. I know some love to cherish them, but fact is, we just don't need them. Sex really CAN be just for fun. It need have nothing to with love or relationships- or reproduction.

The problem is, we still have STDs on a large scale- notably AIDS- and whilst that remains, it skews our thinking.
But expecting that ultimately ALL STDs will be a thing of the past, is not unreasonable.

And then, where does that leave birth control?

We can't use one bit of the knowledge we have, and not others.
We have taken away the survival of the fittest aspect of life. Now, everyone can survive to live long, happy lives.

So in that case, we need to always ensure that we plan that the size of the next generation, will fit expected human capacity to provide for such population.

And there are two responsibilities in my view, we need to bear in mind.

Firstly, we should never use our ability to restrict population growth, as an excuse for attempting equilibrium. Thankfully, I don't think that will happen, but the need to feed an ever increasing number of human mouths is a powerful incentive towards social and technological advance.
I can forsee in the future birth control allowing for substantial jumps in the size of the next generation it allows for, on the basis of advances such as say, the terraforming of Venus.

Secondly, if we are agreed that we are GOING to limit the birth rate by artificial means, we can't allow this to be random.
Natural selection decides who has sex. It doesn't decide which sex results in pregnancy. And right now the people having sex who would probably produce the most talented children, decide that their lives are better off without them, or with only a tiny number.

Again, this is another advantage of communal living. Reverse the deal. Allow the best to breed by society taking over the responsibility for bringing up the children it wants to see born.
It's not much of a step- we're moving there anyway. The point is to make it so that no one feels that having a child is a burden- but that everyone understands that bringing children into the world is a big thing.



Ultimately, the test of nature has been removed as to who survives and breeds, and what we have in its place is a system which basically says; if you're responsible, don't breed, or not too much, if you aren't, breed like rabbits.

Now that isn't sensible. But putting the genie back in the bottle will lead to Argeggedon.
So like it or not, one day we're going to have to sit down as a society and work out criteria for issuing licenses to breed.

That doesn't mean licenses to have sex- but licenses to produce children.
And to make that work effectively, there should be no disparity shown in the responsibilities of the parents of lawfully produced children towards their offspring- or the support offered by society as a whole.

Because by guaranteeing that every child born lives to breed, and by making sex without childbirth possible, we have nullified the laws of nature.
And we have to take responsibility for that.

It makes for a nicer world. A world without war, famine and disease.
And where sex can be something much more beautiful than just a breeding mechanism- it can be a carefree expression of affection, it can be an unfettered pleasure, it can be a powerful expression of love.

But we need to be responsible for what having these abilities means.

If we have cut the apron strings of nature- and we have- on something so fundamental as the reproductive process, then we need, as a species, to do the planning nature randomly did.

We need to take control of planning the species of the future.

Or the future will be Wayne and Waynetta Slob.

Internet Eden

Its rare that in one weekend one reads several posts all of which raise interesting points that really deserve posts of their own.

Nunyaa's post of Yesterday raises points that I'd like to expand on at some point next week, but two excellent posts- one by Ian Appleby, one by X-dell, both raise good points.
I think so often when I read posts like these, they actually aid me to clarify my own perspective, in this case, to say exactly how we see blogging and the internet.

I've said many times, we're all beginers at this. But actually, I'm going to get all grandiose and use a better word. Pioneers.
We are part of building something that is going to change human existence forever.

And most people just don't get it. You hear things like 'Real Life is more important than blogging.'

So- your blog is a figment of my imagination, is it? I just dreamed it? In the case of the blogger in question, I wish I had.

It's people communicating. It's real. OK,we use pseudonyms, we hide portions of our lives, that's necessary for this particular aspect of the internet to work, but real people input the text, real people read it.

Now Ian's point about the media is a good one. Here we are all typing away and reading eachother's stuff, but we're not really reaching mass audiences. The MSM have that covered.
But of course, if you think about it, we don't NEED an MSM anymore. All we really need is News agencies, like Reuters. We don't NEED TV. Programme makers already put their stuff online.
The modern world could exist with all non-fact TV and film just being put straight online, and all News simply released in terse statements by Reuters, and we, the blogosphere, do the interpreting, commenting and diffusing.

So the blogosphere really does have the POTENTIAL to replace all existing Media. There are sound reasons why this won't happen, under the current system, because MSM is the primary mechanism of thought control, but that's the reason why so many of us- me included- are prepared to invest our own free time interpreting things our own way.

OK, many of you won't agree with the angle I put on things. Or the angles elsewhere. But read enough blogs you're more likely to get a true picture of things than if you rely on TV to tell you what to think.

You know that, I know that. The general public out there, don't.

And of course, unlike the MSM, it's a multi-way discussion. The story can be dissected further by other bloggers and linked. And debates can emerge in the comments sections.

What we are witnessing- and we don't yet see it- is the foundation of a central nervous system for the species.
Where any human being can instantly communicate with any other.

Do you realise, when we colonise Mars, we won't use radio communication- it takes too long. We'll keep in contact via the internet, because it takes place at the speed of light.

Initially, the inernet was the preserve largely of the socially inadequate and the deviants, but now we are finding that others are taking to it in droves, for differing reasons.
Because it is the mode of communication of the future, and its existence irrevocably changes the way we live at a deep level.

And how, is something we are just grasping.

I don't think we've reached internet adolescence yet, in fact quite often the way we're behaving here is like children.
Don't assume I'm saying that any of you are people who behave like children.

What I mean, is that children behave like children, because they haven't yet worked out how society works best.
We, here, we're like children with no parents. We haven't yet worked out how to work out ways to make this wonderful medium- and in many ways I think it is wonderful- work best.

So we run into it with the mesmerised awe of The Coral Island and it can turn into Lord of The Flies.
We've succeeded in creating a medium where finally, we have achieved that ancient dream of humankind, a medium where we can relate on terms of mind alone, and how do we treat it?

Look at the comments people leave in eachothers comments sections. Would you leave them in real life?
No. For two good reasons.
First, is a sad but true fact. In real life gut instinct tells us when we've overstepped the mark. Put bluntly, you don't behave in a manner that might get your nose smacked. Generally, it's socially inadequate male bloggers who like to do this. But not always. I'll put my hands up and admit I've got a temper on me, and I can over-react when provoked. And if the reaction was face to face it would probably result in a stand off, then a cooling down of tempers, and then some back slapping and a we'd buy eachother a pint. Here, these things just deteriorate into grudge match games of oneupmanship.
The removal of the underlying reality of five clenched fingers should be a positive, not a negative.

But second, and actually, I like to think, the more compelling reason, is the facelessness. You don't see the other person wince. You don't see the anguish in their eyes, the hurt at what's been said. You can sit there on the other side of your terminal and say to yourself 'Take that, f**ker' and feel proud of yourself. Because the avatar you're cyber-kicking, has no expression.

So this is one of the problems. Because this bickering, is done in a public medium. Is this how you want to be remembered by your descendants?

Really, people need to think before they leave a comment, anywhere 'Is this appropriate to say in public?'.

Like I say, we ARE all learning. But very often, I think- and that does go for myself too at times- there's too much falling out over petty trivia- or stuff that will seem petty in years to come, a bit like when children fight over who's going to sit by the popular girl or who hid whose marbles.

You can't expect the rules of normal three dimensional society to work here, and right now what we have is total anarchy. We need to get to grips with how we engage with eachother.

And now onto something in many ways more positive. But underpinned by pitfalls too. Many of them. And to those who were, up until early 2007, essentially internet virgins, this is a huge learning curve. But don't forget that everyone else is still on it. And no one went before to show us how it's done.

Not real? Then please tell me how people get so emoted. Of course it's real, real people, real emotions. I have posted on this before, but that was earlier in the learning process, so consider this the most recent set of conclusions. And certainly don't see this as a FINAL conclusion. Just the full update of what I've concluded over just over a year at this game.

The connections we form here ARE genuine, or can be, but what we don't yet quite understand, is WHAT they are.
I'm aware that there are people who come online, because they prefer to interact in this way. Now let's look at this objectively. This shows in itself, there is something different about it.
Yet someone once said to me, that people who devote large amounts of time to blogging, are by definition single, though not out of choice, and that if they find a partner, blogging tails off.

Hmm.

Maybe. One of the attractions for me, is that it actually fills in all the gaps when I'm NOT receiving stimulation from another source. It enables me to receive a continual flow of conversation, one way or another.
In other words, I probably spend less time at home than most people. But I spend most of that time online.

And my experience is these internet friendships are just as real, though very different, to ones in the flesh.
I was explaining to the Chimney Sweep recently why initially, conversing by Internet Messenger is strange. Hard to figure it. It takes a while to work out nuances. But in time, you learn to perceive, to read between the lines, to SENSE the other person. And to be able to communicate yourself, in a medium in which facial expression and body language are unavailable.

And though there are people I've never met, and never heard their voice, they're real to me. And friends too. Different type of friends to the ones I go drinking with, but friends nonetheless. It's just a type of friendship that, only having existed within human culture for a short space of time, we're still getting our heads round.

The dynamics of conversation are different. Its in the silences. Its when you see the typing stop. What DID they say, and then change? You can't do that in real life.
And the fact that often, you find the conversation fractures. While you were typing your response, they asked you a question.
And the fact that you're reading a blog at the same time. Or surfing YouTube. You couldn't do that with an RL conversation. And when you make a point, you can copy and paste a link in to show them what you mean. You can say 'But have you got this track?'
And play them it from YouTube. Or you can SHOW them the painting you mean.

The conversation is there, you can't miss bits by averting your attention for a second. And yet you still feel like its a real conversation. You pick up the nuances, if you know the person well, you can pick up their mood, its quite scary really. I've had people almost finish my sentences for me. Only the other day, I had someone tell me, before I said it, exactly what was on my mind. And it was something I'd have been surprised anyone would have picked up on.

These are people you talk to, and have conversations with, most days. More often than several of your real life friends.
Do we get the implications of this?

Because you DO know eachother. It's just a VERY different type of knowing. I think perhaps, we show the sides of ourselves we hide in 3D form, and vice versa.

Now let's look at what the ultimate benefit is to humankind. In the 3D world (I'm going to start to use that in preference to RL), our possible communications with people are linked to proximity. The internet means we can discover, and be discovered by, much vaster potential group of like minded people. And form genuine connections.



And there is bound to be, in these cases a genuine emotional connection.
We may even decide we like some of these far off folk more than many people who we regularly spend time with in 3D form.
Now that's something new.

Problem is, when we start to see this in 3D terms.

We're human and we're engaging in human interaction. Human interaction that would not be possible if the medium didn't exist.
Think about that. If the medium didn't exist, you couldn't do it.
You can't expect it to apply to the 3D world.

Don't forget, you're interacting in an all too human way, with people that are in some cases on the other side of the world.

Now, bearing in mind that you're coming into direct contact with the personal thoughts of a lot more people here, than you do in 3D, where people hide a lot more, the chances of you coming into contact with minds you feel a connection with are a lot higher than in 3D world.
The realistic chances of anything more than that making any sense whatsoever is downright slim- the odds are stacked against it.

And its a huge problem. We're bumping into people all the time- especially of the opposite sex- and thinking 'This is exactly the type of person I've always been looking for'.
But you're not down the pub.

They don't live in your area, often they don't live in your country.

Of course it IS possible to turn it into a 3D connection. Hell, there are sites on the net solely for that purpose. Though even these, the idea usually is to pick one of '20 hotties in YOUR area up for it now'. The other side of the Atlantic, well, you're talking about taking a holiday specially. And what you'll have is likely to be a holiday romance.
To make it a permanent 3D connection, would ACTUALLY mean one, or both of you, kissing goodbye to their entire life.

And I'm not saying people might not do this. But let's be honest, a lot of 3D connections end, because one party gets a career move that entails a geographical relocation, so let's be honest, if both parties are geographically separated to begin with, the odds against it ever amounting to anything in the 3D world are slim.

The problem is, normal human emotions are involved, but 3D world solutions aren't available.
The point perhaps, is, that treating them as you would were they to take place in 3D world, is a huge mistake.

I've come to the conclusion that it's not a good idea to EXPECT there ever be a 3D connection, or ever make definite commitments to such effect.

Commitments made in 3D have some validity. If you're in a 'committed' relationship in the 3D world, your girlfriend is away for a week, and you're at a party where a very attractive girl is throwing herself at you, I guess you might turn her down.

But are you going to turn her down because of a 'commitment' you've made to some person you've never met in the flesh and have vaguely agreed to meet up with at some undefined point?
This is the reality.

I guess we should understand the reality. I was playing scrabble this afternoon with a female blogger who is a lovely girl. If she lived down the road, I'd love to take her for a drink.
She doesn't.
She lives across a wide stretch of water, so I wished her luck on the date she WAS going on tonight.

That is of course, what she SHOULD be doing. Going on REAL dates with REAL people who she can actually share REAL physical contact with.

You see I think, once we get our heads round this, there is something amazingly new and special offered to us.
A chance to meet purely as minds. Once we stop trying to force these down paths that ultimately lead to our reaching 3D conclusions, we see that the conclusions of 2D world (I prefer that to cyberworld) are just as rewarding.

I'm not saying they CAN'T lead there. Just if they do, they do. And if they don't, they don't. My opinion AS IT STANDS (I emphasise this is the CURRENT position, just so no one refers to the fact it may once have been different), is that none of us here should ever make commitments or promises to eachother, but if the opportunity ever arises to convert a long standing and rewarding 2D connection into a 3D meeting, then perhaps it might be worth taking it. And if it turned out then that the 3D connection complemented the 3D connection, then perhaps the 3D connection should be continued. But then, and only then, should it be considered as 3D. And it's still worth bearing in mind it would probably be hard to sustain. Long distance relationships inevitably are.

But as I say, maybe we ARE offered something new.
I can see a future where these online friendships are a regular feature of society. Where we all have close friends across the globe, who we never meet, but are as much a part of our lives as our 3D friends. They are people whose lives we share, whose daily routines we get to know. To me, that's the rewarding bit. That I never, ever have to be NOT in a two-way conversation. I can continually go through life till my dieing day, in conversation with one person or another.

Is this the future? Mankind, the compulsive communicator?
Yes.

This is the nervous system of a truly collective species, we are creating, a collective CONSCIOUSNESS, this, here is the brain of Mankind.

And we here, we are the first ones coming to terms with it, learning how to make it work. And we're doing it by trial and error.

Maybe in a hundred years time MOST of the people MOST of us know and consider friends, are people we've never met.

I was talking to someone recently who told me perhaps what many of you might think the bizarrest thing you've ever heard. At one time, I too, would have considered it a little, well, mad.
But now I disagree.

He reckons he's in love. With someone online. Someone he's never met and never actually spoken to.
He actually thinks they are the love of his life. His actual words were that he loved her so much it hurt.
Now, I pointed out this sounded much like a crush to me.

Until he told me he'd felt that way for her about nine months. That he spoke to her via e-mail every day. That he had a picture of her as his wallpaper on his PC.
I asked her if she knew this- the extent of his adoration.
He said she did.
I asked him if she thought it was a little freaky.
He said she was quite sensible about it. She thought he was deluded, but didn't seem to mind.

I asked him what he intended to do about his devotion. He said, absolutely nothing, he had no need to.
He said she was the most beautiful mind he had ever come across and he had access to it every day, what more could he want?
Everything, as far as he saw it, was perfect.

I asked him if he thought he'd ever meet her. He said he doubted it- she lives in a different country, where she's very settled and has a good career. He lives here and likewise, has a career.

I asked him if he was content just having 2D contact with a woman he thought he was in love with, a woman he'd never met in the flesh and more than likely never would. Was he really content with that being his relations with what he thinks is the love of his life.
And if it bothers him that she's having actual 3D relationships with real men. And actually wouldn't give him a second glance anyway.

It seems not.
Seems he's happy as long as he has that contact with her, day in, day out.

I told him he must love her very much, to be happy with that. Apparently, he thinks he does.



I asked him if he had a real 3D relationship with someone else, and they gave him an ultimatum, end the 2D friendship, or the 3D relationship with them, which would he choose?
He'd choose the 2D friendship.

Apparently, he'd rather have just the mind of this girl, than the mind AND body of anyone else, given the choice.

Hey. Life is never simple, I guess.
I'm not saying I agree with him, but I believe he means what he says.

We are changing human existence by what we're doing, of that I'm sure.

This internet is going to change the way we live, the way we think, the way we feel.

It is going to restructure society, it is already restructuring us.

And we're in at the begining.

Let us not forget that.

This is Internet Eden

Do You Truly Want To Enter?

Do you?
Then let's go.

Do you see the walls of adamant, stretching to the blackened sky? Do you see the searing lightning bolts, do you feel the torrential rain?

Walk carefully across the bridge, it's wide enough for one. No rail to stop you if you slip and the chasm has no floor.
And watch you are not disheartened as you hear the dragons roar.

Walk on at your peril.

Do see the iron gates, do you feel the minotaurs breath?
Do you dare raise your voice and ask for permission to pass?

The password, the password.
And do you know the words?

Do you see the carven runes above the gate and can you heed their meaning?

'In the midst of darkness, there is light. Out of death comes life'.

Stride on, stranger.
The passage is dark, the echoes haunting. Do you feel the cold, do you feel the shiver down your spine freezing your very blood?

Do you see where you have come to?
Do you see Pleasure to your left and Pain to your right?

Euphoria, Euphoria. The calm at the eye of the storm, dancing on the stage, blowing kisses to the crowd, holding court at parties, screaming at the touchline, punching the air as a deal is closed, lovemaking, Depeche Mode concerts, Joanna, the dogs, pubs, mates, highs, Lord of the Rings, Music, feeling ALIVE, LIFE is for the living. You're a long time dead.

Now face the other way. Do you see it?
Do you WANT to see it?

It will chill your bones.

Do you see the aborted child, do you feel the tension, can you hear the clanging of iron doors, the smell of sweat and urine, can you feel the panic, the disquiet, the unease?
Do you feel you dance with the devil in a life that is not your own?

Feel that whip crack across your back, feel the nail catch your cheek.

Do you feel the weight of the world weighing down upon YOU?

Do not look too long into the abyss, it looks back into you.

Move on, traveller, move on.

Let's see the citadel.



Can you see it? History?
Can you see the flame of the Big Bang? Can see the volcanos of the Hadean? The emergence of cellular life? Can you see Trilobites, Ammonodonts, Dinosaurs, the KT extinction event, can you see the Mammals evolving?
Can you see the emergence of big brained man from small brained ape?
Do you see man cultivating emmer wheat, do you see him carve his idols, do you see him building Jericho?

Egypt, Greek myth, Babylon, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Buddha, Rome, Christ, Catholicism, Byzantium, Charlemagne, Islam, Anglo-Saxon England, Norse myth, the Middle Ages, the Rennaisance, Conquistadors, slavery, religious wars, civil wars, Galileo, Newton, the Rise of the British Empire, Rousseau, the French revolution, Capitalism, Darwin, Marx, Nietzche, The First World War, The Second World War, The Cold War?

And can you SEE it? Do you see the side branches, can you see it as a whole?

Do you see Today? Do you see a continent with transport systems that serve only to take the resources from within to the ships waiting at the coast? A continent administered by madman and their tribal mobs, armed with weapons that cannot threaten us, but can keep their own people down?

Do you see the underclassess of the west, written off to heroin, crack and prostition?

Do you see yourselves running on a treadmill to rent a life from those who use you as pawns in a daily game of power stakes, where the aim of the game daily, is to own a larger share of the world's actual material infrastructure than you did the morning?

And can you see how few people sit behind the chessboard?

And can you see how they do it?

Can you see the hate they spread?

Turning us against eachother so we're too busy fearing eachother to realise, we're being screwed.
Humanity in chains.

But can you see the vision?

Can you see the vision?

Mankind and Womankind unchained. Where the colour of a persons skin, means no more than the colour of their eyes. Where what consenting adults choose to do to find fulfillment, is judged only in terms of harm done to others. Where the world and everything in it is governed for us all, by us all.

Where Mankind and womankind are not kept down by fear of a vengeful deity, or fear of the armed thugs of a police state, but genuinely understand- because they can see it to be so- that the efforts of all, will make us all better off. Because we're all getting a good deal. United we stand, divided we fall.

A Humanity no longer looking seeing itself as a kind of poor version of a perfect person, nor embarrassed at being descended from animals, but proud of itself as the pinnacle of creation, striving forward to continually achieve more and better, to reach for the stars, to BE the beings it once thought created it.

Do you see that vision?

Come, let me show you the inner sanctum.

It's OK. Just this once, the guards will let you past.



Do you see the pedestal?
Do you see the goddess on it?

And do you see the child kneeling down in front of her?
Scared, frightened, alone?

You wanted to see.
I showed you.

Not Bad For a Thirty Year Old

Still don't look too bad, do I, for a thirty year old?

Don't think my physique has gone to pot yet.

And thats after half a life of serious bodily abuse.

By the way, don't be e-mailing me saying you can see the ghost of Jesus in the mirror.
That really IS my T-shirt...

Having Control of Your Life- Too Much to Give Up

We get little enough control over our lives as it is.

So much of it, is not the way we want it to be.
What little we DO have, is worth treasuring.

Or maybe it's just me.

Heart thinks that settling with someone just for the sake of it has it's own rewards. That being in a 'committed relationship', even if it isn't everything you want it be, is something in itself. And there are people who think these things are worth working at.
Sorry. I don't agree- I can't agree.

Because that's not my experience.
For a 'committed relationship' to genuinely be worth everything that is being asked, it must be offering things it is not my experience it can offer.
I wait to be proved wrong, but I doubt it.

The price is too high.

Why should I, or anybody, bind their lives to someone that way? Tried it many times, it's misery. It's not that the grass LOOKS greener on the being single side, in my experience, it pretty much always is.

Yes, no one wants to live alone. It's not always great. I guess the best arrangement I ever had was sharing this flat with D in a platonic friendship. All the benefits of living with someone without the disadvantages.

I suppose I value the life I have spent years creating too much.

My home is mine. Mine, and mine alone. I go to great lengths to retain total control of people's access to me.
OK, put another way, I go OUT most nights. I like spending time in people's company. But don't be ringing my doorbell. If I owned the property, I'd have it removed. No point it being there, really. I don't answer it, on point of principle. If you're ringing it, it means I don't know you. My flat. My space. I'm not answering the door to someone who doesn't know how to get me to open the door. You have to know my phone number to get me to open the door.
And don't think if you ring, I'll always answer. I decide when and if I want to take your call. If you withhold your number, then I will not take it. If you're one of a handful of people then I'll usually answer, but often I'll let it go to voicemail, and I'll ring you back when I feel like it.

Basically, I see who I want, when I want, I speak to who I want, when I want.

At the other end of the scale, I have close friends who have keys. But they are people I trust implicitly. And there are reasons why.

I'm very cagey. I can be very frustrating to have a conversation with, if you decide you want to make ME the topic of conversation. Because when it comes to that topic, I'll tell you what I feel like telling you. Questions is something different. Several people have observed that my instinctive response to question is to evade them, change topic, or answer with a question. No matter what question you asked. The fact you asked a question of me, ABOUT me, makes me suspicious. So in spite of the fact in many ways, I'm very open and don't appear to have much problem telling people things others wouldn't, in other ways I'm notoriously secretive.

The idea of anyone having too much of a hold over me, is my greatest fear. My closest friends are able to deal with that fact. That very often, I don't share things. I treat myself as a topic about which information is given out on a need to know basis. That the only person I'm comfortable having a complete picture of me, is me. So everyone has a choice WHICH aspect of me, they want.

I'm aware family members find this hurtful. But fact is, I don't trust them. That may seem bizarre. But it's how I like things. You saw me grow up, you know my potential Achilles' heals. I'll not let you see more than you need to. I'll not let you know any more about the person I am, than I absolutely have to. I do not introduce friends to my parents. I've only ever introduced them to one woman, and that was because I had no choice. I don't even like them knowing NAMES of exes. They don't know the name of the company I work for.

I recently gave my phone number to my Gran. I told her it was on the understanding she didn't ring, unless the old folk's home was on fire. I told her I was loathe to give it out, because I actually found it unsettling being rung by her.

I find the idea of someone always knowing where I am, who I'm with and what I'm doing to be something that frankly, oppresses me and makes me feel downright uncomfortable.
I quite like being able to go to a pub knowing that no one knows where I am.

I like the fact that only I can see my life.

You, the readers of this blog are trusted in a way I'd NEVER trust anyone in Real Life.
You are trusted, because you do not know me in the flesh.



I discovered the other day that D reads this blog sometimes. A reader asked me how I feel about that. I don't know, is the answer. A little uncomfortable, perhaps. Not that there's much here she doesn't know, but certain things, no, I'm not sure I AM comfortable with her reading.

You see, amongst the things I don't like talking about at all in Real Life, are actual emotions and feelings in the present tense. Or even past tense, actually. And the closer you are to me, the less likely you are to hear it. I'd never feel comfortable saying to my parents that I loved someone. Or feel comfortable saying it to anyone apart from the person concerned. And if it ACTUALLY was true, not even then. Not in Real Life. Because it exposes you, it shows you up as vulnerable. And I don't like appearing vulnerable to anyone.

I have different friends for different things. I split my own needs over a variety of people, so that no one person is indispensable. It works for me, it's safe. It means I'm always protected,yet ultimately in control.

So if I actually REALLY did love someone?

It would make it so much easier if they didn't love me back.
What would be the point?

Couldn't REALLY serve a purpose. Because I couldn't really give them what they wanted. They'd be committed to someone who couldn't cope with that pressure being laid upon them, that felt caged.
And I wouldn't be able to give them the happiness they desired. It would be too much pressure. The responsibility of being solely responsible for someone else's fulfillment is too much for me, it's a burden I can't accept.

You see, I don't actually mind loving someone and not being loved back. I don't get jealous. It doesn't bother me that they'll find fulfillment with someone else, why would it? After all, I can't give it to them. I can still love them selflessly in my own way, just not commit to give them something I can't.

And what do I want from them?

Nothing.

It can be selfless, if its true. If you demand nothing from the person you love, and they demand nothing from you, these things aren't so bad.

If you have access to someone's mind and feel they are always there with you, even when they're not, what more do you want?
Why DO you expect them to love you back?

Would it make your life better?

If you can learn to give your love freely, it doesn't hurt. Problem is with the idea of commitment, people offer love at a price.

So if they loved you back, the price might well be too high.

I have total control of my life. My flat. My bank account. My financial affairs. My time. I go where I want, when I want, see who I want, have total control over my free time, and no one else has any say in this, and no any else can expect to know any of it, as a matter of right.
Could I give that up?

If you could love someone and not lose this, then everything is perfect.

It only becomes a problem if you expect them to love you back.

And if loving you back carried a price.

And the way people generally interpret these things, the price is ALWAYS too high.

I wish life wasn't like that.

Baby After Two Weeks

I must admit to finding Baby fascinating.
Woe betide that I'm simply studying her for the purpose of writing about her, but let's face it, that was bound to happen.

She's the first case I'll ever have of actually following, step by step, human cognitive development.

Really, she is tiny. Until you actually hold her, it's hard to believe she's real. But perfectly formed. She has dry skin, but apparently Olive oil does the trick.

Babies aren't as difficult as I thought they would be. She doesn't cry when I hold her, though it does worry me sometimes, well not so much worry, but slightly disconcert me when I contemplate what she's living through right now. Because you can see it in her eyes.

Fear.
Apprehension.
What's all this that's happening?

Because that's what her life is like right now. There's a sound reason why the human brain pretty much wipes the memory in full shortly before the third birthday. What the human brain has just been through, is pretty traumatic. We don't need to carry through life the memories of how our brains first started to master things.

Every day is full of strange new experiences for her. And she's utterly helpless. It took her two days to realise that the way to stop the pain in her stomach was to put her mouth round the teat of the bottle. All these sights, these sounds. Lot's of things in front of her to master that are going to be traumatic.

So far, she can pull her mittens off by herself. After ten days, I think that shows quite a bit of cognitive intelligence. But I reflect on just how big a step working out how to use those limbs of hers is going to be.

God, it must all be total confusion. Not just WHO are we, WHAT are we? Does she even have an idea yet she's one of us? I'm not sure she does. She focuses, all well and good. And going and singing, 'Who's a nicey, wicey little *******, who's a nicey wicey little babe?', all gets her gurgling and smiling, and she responds well to being stroked on the cheek, and having her nose poked, so I guess she does respond to bonding. I think that this point it really is purely rudimentary. Her thought processes really are at the start.

Each thought we have is the result of all the ones that went before. Well, she's at the start. Right now, she can't really distinguish between people. And to be fair, she hasn't met many yet.

When you hold her, it's as if she really is just made of flesh, with no bones inside. She's so soft, but so warm to the touch.

And I look at her and think, I'm sure it's not much fun being a small person, but it's sad to think that one day you'll be a big person.

That you're going to be messed around by men, you're going to get hurt, you're going to make mistakes, you're going to have people do horrible things to you, use you, and you're going to do all those things back.

That one day you won't be an innocent baby in my arms, you'll be a hardened, calloused, cynical, adult.
Just like we all are.

And I find that so sad.

Basic Lies At The Heart of The System- We're Not Governed By Consent

The system works basically, by covering over falsehoods.

It works by trying to hide the logically indefensible. There are certain blatantly obvious facts that it would rather you didn't sit down and think about. That's why they put Coronation Street on the TV. So after your hard day at work, you won't sit there mulling over the way your world is structured.

And actually ask questions like 'On who's authority?'

But ultimately, the system creates little logical questions that confuse us. At heart we can see that the fact the system raises the question, shows there is something wrong with the things we take for granted.

And the classic case is 'Should western leaders, apologise for the slave trade?'

Most people think that there is something bizarre about the idea.
Should we the living apologise for the actions of the dead?

And who are we apologising too? Because the vast majority of the descendants of slaves carry the blood of slave owners in them too.

So most people scoff at the concept as a ludicrous example of political correctness gone mad.
But is it mad?

Yes, in a sense it is, the living apologising for the actions of the dead.

But logical.
Logical if you're going to in the next breath say 'We must keep immigrants out. This land is our birthright.'
Our birthright? See, now it suits us. Now it suits us to claim rights we acquired due to the actions of the dead.

And we live in a world where the distribution of power, authority and control is controlled by the mandate of the dead.

Much of the labour and the intelligence that has gone into creating the infrastructure that feeds, houses, clothes and transports us, was provided by the dead. And they appointed their heirs. But should we consider the wishes of the dead binding on the living?

The main flaw we'd say that Monarchy has, is simple. Whilst the founder of a kingdom is usually a man of talent, his successors may not be. We reject the idea of having the heads of our executives being hereditary figures. We also reject the idea of any ruler having the sole say on his successor.

And yet governance over a large part of the infrastructural environment of this world is decided this way. The existing cliques who rule over any corporation do so by being co-opted into the clique by those already in it. They are self-selecting elites, who's ultimate authority to govern over that part of the world's infrastructure, is a mandate from dead people.

Not us, the living.

Now they tell us that we kind have a say, consumer power, the invisible hand of the market.
Not really, we need this stuff to live our lives. The fact is, we have no control over any of the decisions made relating to say, the extraction and refining of oil.

Our so-called 'elected' governments can try regulate the companies concerned, but that's as far is it goes. The actual executive decisions made governing such an important part of the human infrastructure, are made by people who derive their authority from a kind of apostolic succession proceeding back to people who have probably fertilised full grown trees by now.

So the idea of government by consent is kind of a lie. These governments we think we elect, don't actually control much of the infrastructure.

Ah but, they can pass laws. They have the power to lock up even the masters of these corporations.
Er- Enron? Worldcom? These corporations have to screw up bigstyle and even then, it's just a token punishment to hide the fact these guys run the show.

Because basically, no party is ever going to win an election in the civilised world, unless it has the tacit support of these corporations. It's not happening.

Where do you get most of your information from, in the run up to an election? From the Media. Who funds the Media? The people who make the adverts.

All Media has an interest in pushing whatever message its sponsors want you to hear.
It's quite clear that the opinion of these interests now, is it's time to let the Tories in, they think Brown is a liability. But they trusted Blair. They made us trust him, because he did what they wanted. As in, not very much, but he looked caring and sincere and at the end of the day, could be trusted to create an economy based on a bubble that ultimately would make the banks richer and everyone else in debt up to their eyeballs.



And these corporations can throw their rattle out of the pram and pretty much BULLY us to vote the way they want. Because we don't have control over them.

They can- and do- say 'If X party wins the election, we'll close down all our plants in the UK, shedding 200,000 jobs. And move production to Poland.'

And we just sit there and think that's OK. In fact the supporters of Y party will trumpet this fact as a fact in their favour.

Yet what it actually is, is blackmailing at LEAST 200,000 people.

And so much of the actual election campaign, is pretty much bribery. When we elect one or other of these teams to govern, what we're actually electing them to do, is negotiate with our REAL paymasters. Ones we have no power to appoint. The ones who actually inherited the earth. And inherit is the term. You and I are now communicating on one of the few aspects of global infrastructure largely created by the living.
But will their efforts give them right to appoint their successors till the end of time?
Why do we all, on our birth, not equally inherit a share in the labours of those who went before?

The fact is, the teams have to keep the corporations happy, first and foremost. If they keep the corporations happy, the corporations keep us happy, we vote for who the corporations tell us to, they stay in office as a result.

That's the pretence of government by consent.

And it's a pretence, because they won't allow us to actually make the decisions. We're too stupid to do that, apparently. We need to choose representatives for that. We abdicate our rights to legislate to others, and they condition us to think that you have to vote for a person wearing a coloured rosette. A 'politician'. If they don't wear a coloured rosette, we shouldn't trust them with our votes.

And how much of what they discuss actually affects us? Very little. They wonder why people are so apathetic towards politics. The reason is simple. Not much of it any longer achieves very much. Unless it comes to places we can send our armed forces to prove in some bizarre kind of way, that creation of warzones is somehow a validation of the benefits of the western way of life.

INGSOC is real. You are ruled by a shadowy elite, the members of which are known to you only through reading the second section of the Daily Telegraph, or the equivalent. The inheritors. Members of the co-opted elite. These people call the shots. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the way it is. They inherited their authority, not always in the sense they were born to it, but they inherited it because they were given it from above, the powers that be always having the right to decide who comes next.

And the whole thing is maintained by making sure nobody ever asks the obvious question; What does OWN mean? What does POSSESS mean?

And it means 'Having the legitimate authority to make decisions governing'.

In other words, I own this PC. What that means is, I get to decide who uses it and how.
Now in the case of this PC, I don't think there's much of an issue to 'Having the legitmate authority to make decisions governing'.

But normally, when we see a phrase such as 'Has the legitmate authority to make decisions governing', we should be asking 'Is that authority valid?' 'By who's mandate?'

In the case of so much of our world, that mandate isn't ours, it isn't the mandate of the living. It's apostolic succession leading back to the long dead.

Most of the decisions made in our world are made by people who do not have a legitimate authority to make such decisions. The basis for their mandate to do so rests in a mode of doing things that most of us, if we thought about it, would recognise as invalid.

Owning, means having legitimate authority to make decisions regarding. The objects we acquire, our furniture, the things we class as private possessions, of course, by very nature, we acquire the right to have legitimate authority over. We have the right to hand them on.

But the fabric of the world the species has created? The infrastructure that is necessary for our basic survival? How can we think we're governed by our consent if we cannot control how decisions affecting this are made?

How can we think we are free when we have no power to decide who is responsible for deciding how to feed us, clothe us, house us, transport us?



If we have no control over these things, we have no control over ourselves.
If we sit here accepting the fact that these things can be 'owned' by self appointed cliques, we are accepting that WE can be 'owned' by self appointed cliques.

There is nothing democratic about how the west is governed. Our governments are little more than paid arbitrators between our real rulers and us.

And we didn't choose our real rulers.
Their mandate doesn't come from the living, but the dead.

We are NOT governed by our consent.
We are governed by our submission.