Aggression

While the most graphic, even sadistic violence on TV can be easily viewed by children, even nonsexual nudity is censored. In order for Civilization to exist, human interpersonal relationships and reproduction must be tightly controlled to ensure that no humans develop genetic immunity to its false concepts. By repressing sexuality, Civilization has gained control over human reproduction in order to advance its agenda of human domestication.

-- Primal Sexuality (unpublished)

The most prevalent memeplexes in the "Western" world are characterized by repression of both sexuality and aggression. Strangely however, simulated graphic violence is not censored nearly to the extent that sexuality is, which may be explained in that a certain level of violent tendencies must be maintained to produce effective soldiers and police. However, effective soldiers and police must also be compliant, obedient and unquestioning and Civilization relies on the strict control of reproduction to genetically engineer these qualities. 

The capability for brutal violence is certainly present in our closest relatives -- the chimpanzees (and many other nonhuman animals). Therefore, we cannot regard aggression (even offensive aggression) as unnatural or immoral. However, we have another close relative (the bonobo) that displays much lower levels of aggression, probably due to a more frequent use of casual sexual activity to diffuse conflict. Which primate more accurately reflects human nature? Humans are even more adapted (mentally and physically) to carnivorous diets than chimpanzees, and all nonhuman social carnivores have enhanced aggressive drives that aid them in both hunting and indirect population control through territorial dispersion.

However, aggression and sexuality are not mutually exclusive -- dolphins are a prime example. It is entirely possible that early humans such as Neandertals experienced both -- using sexuality to diffuse in-group conflict like bonbobos while tapping into aggressive drives that rivaled that of lions to bring down large game. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Western individuals suffer from extreme sexual repression, and even though they may intellectually recognize that sexuality is natural, they are not prepared to embrace a form of living with a strong focus on sexual liberation. However, a specific subset of this population possesses aggressive qualities and the innate capability to become effective hunters. Unable to find an ideology that provides an outlet for their aggression, many of these people flirt with fascist groups that present a "warrior" ethos, but feel extremely conflicted due to their co-existing skeptical and anti-authoritarian tendencies. 

Civilized vs. Primal Aggression

An important distinction must be made when discussing "dominance" in animal societies. While some societies have one or more "dominant" individuals, and these individuals might throw their weight around (often literally) to procure territory, food or mates, they do not rely on a "moral" or "legal" right to do so. Other individuals are not bound by any code of morals to respect the dominant individual -- they will go behind its back when the opportunity presents itself and will inevitably directly challenge the dominant individual when it is weak or they have matured in strength.  Those who wish to achieve a truly anarchist society must totally free their minds and embrace their primal drives. This is not an artificial rule as there is no need to enforce it. Even though the legal and moral bulwark of civilization often protects and even promotes them, pacifists, vegetarians, antisexuals and ideological primitivists are continuously weeded out through natural selection.

Ted Kaczynski (better known as the Unabomber) presented superficially similar but fundamentally flawed conclusions. Kaczynski despised "leftists" seemingly more than he hated technology. He defined "leftists" as people who are "drawn indiscriminately to causes" and serve to divert anger away from "the System." He lamented the influx of these "leftists" into the movements that he inspired, yet failed to provide a set of coherent motivating factors that would appeal to anyone other than idealistic environmentalists (who focus on his anti-tech rhetoric) and power-hungry fascists (who focus on his anti-"leftism"). He harshly criticized the "sexual liberation" movement yet failed to understand the critical role that memetic sexual repression and gender-based division of labor played in the domestication of humans and genesis of civilization. He also failed to precisely define what constituted "the System" or explain its origin. On the other hand, he recommended a system of humanist morality that is outright contradicted by the utter ruthlessness prevalent in nonhuman animal societies (Technological Slavery p. 234-244).

It is shocking that Kaczynski promotes humanistic morals when one considers the fact that he spent years living in the woods. Perhaps if he had spent less time making bombs and reading anthropocentric books he would have opened his eyes to the ravens and the wolves. Today, his philosophy survives primarily in the circles of national "anarchists" and radical environmentalists, who might do better to discard Kaczynski altogether in favor of Pentti Linkola, an obscure Finnish philosopher and fisherman who argues (far more coherently and convincingly than Kaczynski) for an all-powerful fascist government tasked solely with the mandate to reduce human population by any means necessary.

Indeed if one's goal is to "save" wild nature or even "free" humanity (Kaczynski's own "causes"), attacking technology or even the "System" would prove to be a fruitless undertaking -- as long as Civilization lives within the minds of humans and has a cheap source of energy (oil, coal, etc.), its superficial technological infrastructure is practically invincible. Of course, we can think of one scenario in which a determined group of approximately 2,000 people might be able to cripple a single nation-state through technological sabotage, but to do so would require mass organization, behavioral repression, advanced communications and high-tech weaponry -- such a "revolutionary" group would be indistinguishable from Civilization! Once they have tasted real power, it is also unlikely that the leader(s) of such a group would simply give it up. 

The are only a few ways in which Kaczynski's techno-industrial "System" could be permanently destroyed:

  • Creation of a biological virus that deletes the genes associated with language
  • Creation of self-replicating nanobots that feed on technology
  • Killing off (or sterilizing) 99.999% of the human population and genetically re-engineering the survivors

Obviously, the only way that a techno-industrial system can be defeated is by an even more advanced and ruthless techno-industrial system (or cosmic forces beyond human control).

Animals do not attack civilization, because Civilization is not an entity that exists to them. When one truly believes in false concepts of any kind (ex. A owns B, technology is evil, spirits cause sickness, morality is objective, god is a personal genie) then Civilization is born as a living entity -- a parasite in one's own head. On the other hand, animals often take extreme direct action to protect their families and territories -- they simply do not suffer from any delusion that they are fighting "Civilization" to "save the planet." The "direct actions" of "ecowarriors" and even Kaczynski himself pale in comparison to those of a mother bear, who without the slightest hesitation or remorse will rip the living flesh from the bones of any who threaten her cubs.