|Murder and genocide are natural, therefore rebel!|
A socio-biological critique of First-World middleclass activism
Evolution can be societal. Here I argue that we must recognize our primal drive for murder and genocide and society’s propensity for violently oppressive hierarchies in order to react with the needed determined and sustained individual-based rebellion. This rebellion is against the rogue warlords and hierarchies that dominate us. Warring and its hierarchical support serve no useful purpose now that the human species is not ecologically threatened by natural competitors and now that there is no need for genetic selection (otherwise imposed on a small gene pool by an unforgiving natural environment).
This is a critique of First-World middleclass activism, in the hope that it will start contributing to human evolution.
I argue that laws and ethical systems are diversions that serve hierarchy and I argue that a victim mentality induced by hierarchy makes us susceptible to the appeal of canned justice and to various escapes into cowardice; rather than allowing us to perceive the otherwise obvious possibility of rebellion and self-defence.
I describe a positive feedback trap in which perturbed activists respond to perceived threats by launching into behavioural rule generation (an anxious quest for the perfect model) which in turn supports the system causing the threats. This leads to off-target and co-opted actions such as ineffective appeals to politicians, lobbying for new laws and regulations, adopting extreme personal lifestyle rules, and extremes in applied political correctness (“inclusive language,” “safe space,” etc.). The more the activists feel threatened the more they spin pseudo-comforting behavioural rules and make requests to the hierarchical oppressors for better rules, thereby increasing their societal isolation and further distancing themselves from effective means.
The gargantuan failures of First-World middleclass activism in the face of advancing soul-battering corporate fascism, murderous militarism and exploitive finance globalization since the 1970s should be cause for radical self-examination. Canadian queer pride parades (that can’t agree on whether Israel is an apartheid sate), reparationless apologies for aboriginal residential schools, zero-impact demonstrations and petitions, and tolerated and disappeared public musings about proportional representation and parliamentary free votes just don’t cut it; whereas corporate greening counts negatively. It’s like the activism was designed to fail. There is little sign of actual resistance from the First-World middleclass.
MURDER IS NATURAL AND HEALTHY IS SICK
Animal rights activists believe that abstaining from killing animals is a higher moral state to which humans should aspire. But is it helpful and productive to aspire to a state that is not natural?
On the other hand, some animal rights activists internally accentuate the murderous ways of humans and react by acting externally on behalf of other species to concretely oppose the killing. These resistors, such as members of the Animal Liberation Front, are among the boldest and most effective direct action First-World activists around. They act in true solidarity with the animals with which they identify. 
Most other First-World activists prefer to believe that humankind has a natural tendency towards cooperation and altruism that can flourish given a sufficiently humane system such as socialism or communism or constrained capitalism infused with more participatory decision making, and so on. 
But is it helpful and productive to aspire to a state that is not natural? And is it not harmful to be deceptive about one’s nature rather than practice honest self-appraisal? 
Should we not first ask whether or not humans have a natural tendency to practice murder and genocide? After all, genocides are far more common than the Israel lobby would have us believe. 
Certainly the spider, with its complex behaviour in hunting, stalking, and ambushing prey, is a sentient being. Presumably the spider could not survive on tomatoes and grass. The spider thrives on killing and devouring (alive) other sentient beings (including birds and small mammals when circumstances permit). Is it immoral for the spider to practice this behaviour? Has evolution privileged humane killing methods in the spider?
What about the killer whale? Is it not often observed to play with its prey for hours before killing it or simply letting it escape? We’ve all seen the documentary films where a live seal is repeatedly thrown like a rag doll; and the monkeys who torture a captured bird before eating it, or not.
Among large apes, dominant males maintain harems and violently prevent most other males from reproducing, while expecting complete submission and sexual favours from the females. They kill offspring that are not their own.
We know that birds mob individuals from their flocks and kill the undesirables for no apparent reason related to flock survival. And we know that human groups also practice mobbing.
If something is natural can it be wrong? Would it not produce healthier societies to recognize what is natural human behaviour and to make practical decisions based on realistically evaluated primal impulses rather than mask it all with moralistic rituals and myths?
We determine that an animal behaviour is natural by correctly supposing that animals left to themselves exhibit their natural behaviours. We can supplement this by physiological arguments. For example, we know that carnivores do better when they eat meat and that herbivores do better when they eat grass.
Let us apply the same rules to humans. Throughout history and as far as we can deduce, humans have predominantly been omnivorous and competitive for territory, resources, and reproductive projection. Clans have killed clans. Families have feuded. Patriarchies have maintained themselves. Nations have invaded other nations and taken slaves and resources at will. Entire peoples have been exterminated or enslaved every time superior war technology or tactics have been developed. The present is not excluded.
Human history is a story of human carnage. Is this not the first truth about humankind? Stable societies established by military strength are characterized by slavery, serfdom, kingdoms, prisons, mental institutions and every form of domination and exploitation; now including globalized wage slavery and resource expropriation.
On this backdrop, are philosophical discussions about morals and justice mere camouflage and deception only intended for temporary and superficial relief from reality? Or do they have another utility?
Canadian society’s crimes include, a continuing genocide against aboriginal peoples , a geopolitical war in Afghanistan, support for the US Empire, support for the genocidal and apartheid state policies of Israel , overturning the democratic popular government in Haiti, corporate and finance predation throughout the world, an immoral prison system used to maintain social inequities , vast structural social inequities with mass public health consequences, mass civil rights violations perpetrated at will and without consequences for the decision makers (e.g., G20-Toronto), mass indoctrination and pacification of the youth , continual social engineering manipulation, universal pharmaceutical and medical establishment predation  and much more.
And as I write this there is a cultural and racial global war of dominance raging. Geopolitical alliances are defining boundaries and leveraging control of energy resources. Enemies are formed in the ape minds of our leaders who distribute territory and privilege to their ape friends.
All of this appears thrust upon us by the natural world where predator species fight for territory and dominance. Don’t ask the lions to get along with the hyenas. A balance of forces is the only justice. The only thing keeping a dominant male from killing another male’s offspring is the birthing female’s teeth and wits.
|< Prev||Next >|