*

Recent

Author Topic: The Most Important Massage Ever Voiced  (Read 12410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Deadly virus

  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
The Most Important Massage Ever Voiced
« on: January 20, 2010, 05:03:02 AM »
Just want to say thank you for putting down in clear inescapable arguments the strong notion I’ve carried since day one of activism
You are delivering the most important massage ever voiced!       
Don’t let flaming massages get to you, for every couple of loud morons there’s one that quietly go over the site absorbing every picture and word and they are the ones that really matter in the end (that I share your hope that will soon to come…)  
I’m sure this site changed the life of many activists. I can tell you it turned my and my friends’ life around. It wasn’t the first time we were exposed to the idea of course and as I said I am thinking it and murmur it for ages but as you know- words mean nothing action is everything.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 05:04:48 AM by Deadly virus »

Offline Earth to Venus

  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: The Most Important Massage Ever Voiced
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2010, 04:51:03 AM »
Great massage, just one important set back- words matter. This site is words
Words got you to where you are.
At first I thought why didn’t they invest all the time they have on this website on researching and raising a practical website instead? But if this group of people had sprung into the labs, as the obvious first tendency, instead of lunching this site, none of us would have been exposed to the annihilation idea as a relevant and practical option. Of course most if not all of us had thought about this idea but apparently none of us had made the decision to stop our current activism and start "the movement who will stop all the suffer in the world…"

Obviously the animal rights/liberation movement is most relevant if not the only relevant place to look for more people. There’d be more than a few activists that would attempt to hush down the OOS idea. I generally receive such an intolerant reactions to the relatively moderate criticism I voice, I’d hate to think what the reaction would be to the view that this world is inherently violent and no movement working within its perimeters is able to challenge that. Close minded can be found everywhere and with the reasoning of protecting the movement from outer criticism of extremism or even from the extremism itself some would wish to silent this call. 
Whatever their motive is, it’s up to us to make sure they won’t be able to. We keep this message alive, circulating in the more radical regions of the AR movement.

They O.O.S did their part reaching us and now it is our part reaching others. Our friends and ideological partners. We know who they are …
I know it won’t be easy it would probably be very disappointing to hear irrational reasons from our closest friends, we must consider it’s not an easy massage to face. It pictures the work and effort to have put all their lives as almost useless, it practically shatters views and believes and then suggest a mission none of us at the moment (as far as my knowledge goes) knows how to accomplish. It’s much easier to shove the massage aside.

There must be so many activists all over the world that haven’t herd of the idea yet, and it’s a first priority to reach them and the ones who did thought about the idea but swiftly rejected it. This site is the most organized kick in the butt I got, maybe it will awake a few sufferless world dreamers who will start materialize their dream.

tvbs26062

  • Guest
laven
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2011, 05:34:50 AM »
Yeah, that's right!!!

Offline KiSsMyKaNgArOo

  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Most Important Massage Ever Voiced
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2011, 12:33:27 PM »
Greetings OOS

In my opinion your "No-Prisoners, No-Compromise" message is an extremely powerful weapon with which to point at the human population and consequently open their eyes to the diabolical engine of suffer that they are complicit in cranking each and every day, either by directly participating in mass genocide and exploitation - or are at least complicit in by not rebelling against a system that commodifies living beings. (Including humans of course)

I must admit that I'm personally not quite ready to accept the incredible enormity of the pure "solution", (Not because I've some inbuilt contempt for such a plan but rather the sheer scale of moral consequence for such a solution I find to be quite overwhelming - it will take time to come to terms with) but I most certainly believe that every single human being on Earth must be made to face up to the truth of what is going on.

A great deal of that truth is right here at this website. It truly is a fantastic and mind expanding (shattering) experience.

I have a question for the OOS developers.

I'd like to include a document I favour for its attempt to construct a positive outlook on the human potential of diverse opinion and culture. The reading of the document will hopefully set the stage for my question.

http://www.nonhumanslavery.com/how-did-we-get-here-the-rise-of-the-dominatorherding-culture-by-will-tuttle#more-3859

The question is :

If we had been birthed into a society and upon a world whereby;
There is no war and no famine; There is no government and authority constantly applying stressors, laws and regulations; There is no property or territory issues so that individuals and groups can easily found their own cultures and belief systems and grow their own food with no fear of attack or dispossession from other groups....There is no economy that asks us to squeeze the life out of other living beings on lower rungs of social hierarchy in order to profit our greed and ego; No supermarkets and their shelves lined with products dripping of suffer... You get the picture...

Perhaps a Sci-fi Utopia of some sort.

Imagine if human beings were typically enlightened, egalitarian and were not tainted by selfishness, power structures, capitalist economic models, "What-I've-Got" is more important than "What-I-Am" paradigms, false belief systems, etc

... Such humans may perhaps be primitivist fruitarians (Perhaps Plants feel pain and should possess rights...but I've a suspicion that their fruits are designed to be attractive to herbivores and therefore to be eaten?) and/or use decentralised, renewable, green and sustainable technologies that have no "built-in-obsolescence".

I accede the point that human beings must still "take" something from the Earth as part and parcel of their very existence, and that they will still harm other living beings and themselves to some extent even with the best will in the world not to do so...and I accede that other living beings upon Earth will also continue to love, and continue to harm each other...

The point is that if human beings actually "tried" to do the right thing with their lives - a thing I feel they're capable of doing...and possessed open minds and open hearts with which to "see" the "right" thing in everything they do, and possess no ulterior agenda by which they might be motivated not to do so...Or imagine there was a day of rain all over the planet that sprayed liquid LSD from the sky and the human race had a mass awakening overnight and all thought simultaneously : "What the hell have I done!!! Down with Big Brother - Down with authority - Down with arrogance, cruelty, prejudice, exploitation and pain and suffer and profit"

{and all the other species thought "What the hell have I done!!! Down with humanity - Down with their chains and their beatings and egotistical screeching - 4 legs good, 2 legs bad}

If this were the case, the question is...would the OOS ever have been born?

Even if the "perfect" world still contained suffering and pain...was it the sheer "degree" of world suffering and pain, and the sheer "wantonness" of it and the sneering grins of human beings who thrive and profit from suffer, that founded the OOS?

I ask this, because for my own part...It's not so much the existence of suffer and death in the world that psychologically harms me...It's the wantonness of human beings going out of their way to perpetuate and justify suffer, and the human beings pleasure in causing such pain that bothers me. When human beings justify suffer for their own pleasure, or because they want to believe suffer is "natural" (Though what the F*CK is natural about a concentration camp and iron chains I'll never know)...that to me is when the OOS becomes an extremely attractive option, because if the majority of human beings justify a hedonistic lifetime of destroying, "taking" and murdering because they're too lazy and spiritually bereft to "give" and plant seeds with which to birth new life...then what is the point in existing at all?

We all "take" to some extent and some of us try to "give" in some way, whatever our species...but it's the human beings who "take" in order to satisfy a desire to dominate others and satiate their ego that really makes me feel the OOS could well be a morally viable option. If the human race as a whole can not act beyond the moral proclivity nor social genetic patterning of a destructive bacteria colony and arrogantly hides behind a God that in their image tells them to take slaves and rape women, then...really...what is the point in an existence like that?

If human beings never question reality...and while not doing so only seek to perpetuate a life of wanton suffer, then perhaps they may as well not exist.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2011, 12:39:11 PM by KiSsMyKaNgArOo »
We do not see things as they are; We see things as we are.

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: The Most Important Massage Ever Voiced
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2011, 11:39:16 AM »
On the one hand your question can be summed up with, "would it be different if everything was different?" But since we guess that you don’t ask this in a rhetorical or totally hypothetical way, we must assume that you seriously believe the world can be changed into the model you have described.
If so what you are actually asking us is why not work hard to make a perfect world? which is very similar to the first question we addressed in our FAQ (regarding a vegan world) and the answer is you shouldn’t since a perfect world is not possible and even if it was possible, unfortunately as dreamy and wonderful as it would be as you describe it, it won’t be sufferingless world and that’s the only world we can morally justify.    

But we’ll start with the impossibility.
Most humans haven’t even made much more basic ethical decisions than the extremely radical and complex changes you suggest in your description. It is impossible to educate most humans not to objectify each other, not to discriminate each other on the basis of race, gender, ethnical orientation, class, weight, height, prettiness and etc.
You’re talking about a world free of war for example while the fact is that there is always a war going on somewhere in the world. As written in the slideshow World Peace,  the hopes for world peace followed by the United Nations establishment after World War II, were broken 150 times till now by the 150 wars that broke since then. Every year there are more than 3 new wars. In the slideshow you can see the list of wars in the last 100 years. Do you need a stronger proof?

You mentioned famine as well and we ask you to please read/watch our articles about world hunger , poverty   and world debt  which are all directly connected to famine and are supposed to sober your delusions of a world free of it.

You can’t seriously discuss "decentralised, renewable, green and sustainable technologies that have no "built-in-obsolescence"" while no matter how irrational and how many derivative harms its use got, the whole world is still addicted to oil. There is an endless list of reasons why not to use it but it still is the most popular energy source in the world.

You cannot seriously suggest social and economic paradigm while the world is changing in the opposite direction. In the last couple of decades a tremendous middle class is formed in several countries and among them huge ones like India, Brazil and China which is comprised of people with consumption desires similar to the American and European, meaning from that perspective more personal cars (which will increase the global oil addiction), bigger houses and most importantly much more animal derived products.

In your ideal world everybody grow their own food and so don’t use any means of disinfestation, no packing, no further processing and no transportation of food but that can only be technically relevant for a relatively tiny group of people.
And if equal distribution of the resources was such a failure when it was examined in relatively small scale human societies for a relatively very short time and regarding one species only, how can it be implemented on the whole world with all its inhabitants?

Anyway the global course is exactly the opposite for that matter as well. More urbanization, more huge supermarkets and less small retails, more industrial food, more corporate rule over every existing plant, more chemicals inside the food and inside the land it grew on, more packages, much more transportation and etc.
Not only that less and less people in Asia, the most populated continent in the world, grow their on food, the fast urbanization process the Asians undergo highly increases their per capita animal consumption and it is part of a rapid and persist increase all over the world. The world per capita consumption has more than doubled over the last 40 years and in the developing countries it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.  
You are talking about fruitarian primitivism while mass populations are moving from rural to urban areas, a structural change which unfortunately also uttered in food demand patterns because a wider choice of foods is available in urban markets, because urban lifestyles prioritize on foods that require less time to prepare and because urban residents do not grow their own food.

People in developing countries currently consume on average one-third the meat and one-quarter of the milk products per capita compared to the richer North, but this is changing rapidly. More people everywhere are eating more animal products as soon as their incomes rise above poverty level. The animal rights movement can’t deal with the current enormous amounts of exploited animals and it will only get worse. In the future many more animals will suffer much more.

You can read more about it here

Speaking of animal consumption, we are sure that you are a vegan and we are all vegans for years and we are sure that all of our readers are as well so all of us know how easy it is to become one. It is not that humans have to do something unusual or difficult in order to become vegans, only to replace some of the ingredients in their food with some others. You know the facts. There are so many good reasons including egocentric ones to go vegan but still you constantly hear from humans that they are a part of the food chain, that eating meat is natural, that in the bible it's written that it's o.k to eat animals, that you should focus on humans' problems first, and that if everyone become vegetarian, then what will we do with all the farm animals and etc, while they insist on systematically torturing non-human animals, spit in the faces of the world’s billion hungry people, harm their own health and "bequeath" their children a destroyed planet.
You are expecting humans, who are too lazy to recycle, such an easy and undemanding task, to maintain a moral life?! They hardly go through the trouble of separating paper from plastic or just to try soy milk. They fail to cut down their weekly meat quantity when they get a direct order from their doctors. They fail when they are told that their own health is in danger, so you expect them to do it for other species?!  
Humans prove again and again that their profits, taste preference, convenience, entertainment etc, are much more important to them than morality. Most of them are not even willing to hear the facts and listen to the arguments, not to mention stop financing animal abuse.

Things change in the world when there is an interest, money and a market for the change. Three elements that unfortunately the animal rights movement doesn’t hold. Humans don’t have an interest in going vegan, the animal rights movement doesn’t have money and the market wants steaks not tofu.
The change that you are asking for is the same as a vegan world quest for that matter. There is no interest because the ones in power benefit of the current state of affairs. We think it is pretty clear that you know that as much as we do and the LSD falling out of the sky indicates that perfectly. You used such an illusional example of how reality can change because you know that the chances to change reality with something real are zero.

The LSD example naturally reminds us of the BLTC project and our fundamental opposition we have towards it. Your idea same as the BLTC idea, entails human participation, meaning it is still a social change idea since a social change is required for its success. And by social change we mean in this particular issue and as mentioned before an extremely radical social, moral and conceptual revolution.
This is our fundamental ethical problem with the project. It still relies on humans’ compassion and willingness to cooperate. It still gives human the power to decide whether to stop torturing others or not.
Any idea that relies on humans’ compassion is doomed to fail. We don’t say that because we hate humans but because we read the newspaper today. And it looked just like the one we read yesterday. Just a cursory glimpse of history, biology and other species behaviors and character and you don’t really need much more to understand the basic principles of life.

It is not humans’ wantonness that should convince you that there is only one solution but the fact that your perfect world is so simple and right that nobody can confront it rationally. But still it is far from our reality. In this world rationality is not enough and good arguments are not relevant. In fact, the fact that the animal rights arguments are so strong and so well-based but still fail again and again, is the exact thing that should wake you up. Animal rights activists shouldn’t get strengthen from their strong arguments but the other way around. When arguments that are so strong and so obvious don’t work there is something basically wrong with the addressees.

For example the Denmark argument we made in the Manifest proves that point and also that utopian expectation are false and dangerous.
Ironically some activists use the Denmark example as a proof that a vegan world is possible. But there is no question that humans, and we mean all of them, can maintain a healthy, cheap, satiating - vegan diet. There is no doubt about that. The question is not if they can, but if they will.

And Denmark was “only” vegan not a society where “there is no war and no famine; There is no government and authority constantly applying stressors, laws and regulations; There is no property or territory issues so that individuals and groups can easily found their own cultures and belief systems and grow their own food with no fear of attack or dispossession from other groups....There is no economy that asks us to squeeze the life out of other living beings on lower rungs of social hierarchy in order to profit our greed and ego; No supermarkets and their shelves lined with products dripping of suffer...”As you desire.

Reading the women argument in the manifest and the article The "Wrong" gender  you realize that it is not very realistic that once there was and egalitarian human society. How can humans have changed from the society that is described in the article you have linked to the current one? But even if it did, the fact that it changed into the current sexist, chauvinist, violent, objectifying and patriarchal society is so scary that we wonder why would anyone consider giving humans another chance? and don’t take this the wrong way it is not punishment nor justice that we are looking for, it is simply a rational realization that things are only getting worse (the fertility rate of societies in which women are simply means to men aims subjected to their desires and decisions, are much higher then the ones in which women are "only" systematically discriminated against) and there is no reason to believe they’ll ever get better.

And even more powerless than women are children which you can read a little bit about their situation in the article To Their Own Flesh And Blood .
With such terrifying amounts of violence that humans inflict on children, their own species continuation, and in so many cases to their own children, their own flesh and blood, it just leaves no room for hope to anybody else.

We can go on and on specifying the world suffering but the point is clear and we think that with such a violent and abusive record that humanity holds there is absolutely no room for wondering.

So the immediate reaction was obviously a bit of a shock that someone who knows factory farming can really believe in any kind of utopian society, but after it passed, many "how to" questions came to mind. But your world is too imaginary to seriously discus how it can be accomplished and you haven’t written a single idea how to create it (we allow ourselves to omit the LSD option), so there is no point in specifying these questions here.

We would like to say that as hard as it is to imagine the world without speciesism (which is what we have tried to accomplish before we initiate the O.O.S movement) it is even harder to imagine it without violence. It is too basic and inherent. If it is not speciesism it will be powerism - discrimination on the basis of weakness. Equality is not an option even theoretically because all the creatures are in a constant fight over the same resources (not just food). The stronger will always prevail. This is how humans got their current total dominancy in the first place. And the article you linked doesn’t contradict but fortify this argument. Even if the theory the article suggests is true, it serves as a proof to the point that we mustn’t lay our hopes on social changes since they are fickle. Things change and in most cases for the worse as broadly mentioned here earlier.
Even if the world was that great place described in the article, it was ruined and if you don’t believe in the supernatural then it is all human made. No matter if it is social forces that overpower humans’ individual rational thinking or humans’ true nature, it is a human phenomenon solely and a one that last for thousands of years now.

By commodifying and enslaving large, powerful animals, the ancient progenitors of Western culture didn’t establish capitalism, they performed it.
Such a fundamental human phenomenon which nowadays is more than another economic discipline but a way of life, didn’t come out of the thin air. It is biologically originated. Gathering capital (food, water, land, cave, shelter, clothes, axe and etc), was and still is in many senses highly significant in fitness terms. The more one got the greater the chances of his survival. And you can observe direct proportion between the willing to share some of the gained capital and the biological relation. Obviously nuclear family comes first, then extended family, tribe, race, nation, species and even taxonomic order (mammals first obviously).

Even if Riane Eisler is right that there were such societies that "lived in partnership between men and women made communities in fertile valleys, use metal to make bowls rather than weapons, and did not engage in war". and they were conquered by the “The invading dominator cultures herded animals and ate mainly animal flesh and milk, worshiped fierce male sky gods like Enlil, Zeus, and Yahweh, settled on hilltops and fortified them, used metals to make weapons and were constantly competing and warring” where did the later came from?

Humans prove all the time (and so does many other creatures on earth) that they are basically opportunistic. Humans are highly sophisticated omnivores so it makes a lot of evolutionary sense that they would be opportunistic much more than partnershipistic.
And if violent conflict, competition, oppression of women, and class strife, don’t characterize human nature how come these traits are expressed everywhere all the time and the ones she bounds to the original human societies are extremely rare?  

Another way to tell that story, which by the way the article’s author seems to be unsure of himself ("Whether there actually were earlier cultures that were more peaceful, partnership-oriented, and egalitarian, as Eisler and many others assert, or whether violent conflict, males, and competition have always dominated human socioeconomic cultural structures is still a hotly contested issue among academics”), is that instead of relying on successful hunting every once in a while, which is not reliable enough for the growing human species, unfortunately humans thought that maybe they can live with the animals they live off. It was an efficiency decision that we disagree that significantly influenced the way humans seize animals. They were always means to their aims, the change was of a degree not kind. Humans started to enslave animals because it was more efficient from their perspective and because they could have. They didn’t kill the aggressive males of the herds because they are evil but because it made much more sense. Same as the European conquers didn’t hate the indigenous of the new lands they discovered and so enslave them, they simply could. They saw weaker creatures so they exploited them. As simple and as cruel as that.
This story does by no means make things prettier, on the contrary. The indifference efficiency which perfectly demonstrates modern capitalism is much scarier than hate.
Its battery cages, gestation crates and castration rubber bands that made us internalize that this world is hopeless. If Eisler was right and it wasn’t humans’ natural character, the daily routine nonchalant torture that billions upon billions of creatures suffer year after year after year, relatively silently, wouldn’t have happened.
Whether you agree with us or with Eisler, this article is supposed to convince you to be in favor of an absolute and irreversible solution since utopians (and this society was definitely not utopian…), can be easily changed and in our case into a nightmarish reality.

Why do you ask to give the abusers more and more chances?
We know you wrote that if it is chanceless that humans ever change then “perhaps they may as well not exist”. But it is chanceless as we tried to prove here and all over our website. Article after article and paragraph after paragraph in the Manifest   and FAQ , we proved it is impossible to change society and we argue that even if it was, it can easily reverse or become much worse.

Your general perspective sounds not anthropocentric and definitely not speciesist but for sure human oriented, while it should be suffering orientated or victim orientated.
We don’t see the importance or relevancy of the intention or well being of the victimizers. For example you are overwhelmed with humans’ wantonness, but do you think it matters to the victims whether humans are abusing them because they want to or because they have to?

For some reason you give humans an automatic chance. You suggest that activists should devote their time to changing humans and actually refer to their power and control as obvious.
Activists should try to “dethrone” humans, not try to convince “the masters” to change their treatment toward their slaves. Human superiority should not be considered inevitable but unfortunately it is. It seems that the natural tendency and the first and last plan of action, is to explain to humans that their daily torturing of the weaker for their own minor benefits, habits and pleasures is wrong. But the natural tendency should be to stop the suffering in the most deep rooted and fastest way, and the most efficient way is definitely not by asking the oppressors to be more considerate and fair.

The presumption that life should be no matter what, and that humans have a substantial, self-explanatory right to exist is oppressive and violent because it’s necessarily on someone else’s expense. It is impossible to justify the existence of whom who will necessarily hurt someone else.

Minimizing the suffering causing is personally impressive but is morally unallowable. Suffering is bad and it’s got to stop even if it is caused only for the causer to survive. Why must the sufferer suffer for the suffering causer? Why must he be sacrificed? What is the moral basis for this systematic forcible immolation? How can it be justified? What permits such dynamics? The answers are respectively, that the sufferer mustn’t suffer, he mustn’t be sacrificed, there is no moral basis, it is not justified and power is what permits this dynamics.

And it doesn’t sum up with humans’ extremely massive and inevitable footprint.
In a world of constant tension between creatures drive to multiply as much as possible, a nonviolent world is technically impossible.
In your dreamy world trillions of creatures would still suffer from rape, hunger, thirst, dehydration, infanticide, violent dominancy fights, constant fear of being hunted, diseases, torture, slavery and caducity.
In your dreamy world, hyena cubs would still viscously fight each other, tearing slices off other cubs’ faces including ears and lips, to get more food.
In your dreamy world wasps would still inject their eggs into a live caterpillar’s body to ensure that when their descendants hatch they will have breakfast (the wasp larva will eat the caterpillar from the inside out).
Your dreamy world is definitely not a masculinityless world. Brutal fights for territory and for the "right" to mate would still occur in immense numbers. Walrus would still fight each other over territory like sumo fighters with giant teeth that can reach up to one meter long and more than 5 kg weight.
In your dreamy world billions of insects would still get chemically liquefied before they are eaten by spiders. And snakes would still swallow whole animals and slowly digest them until red tailed hawk would hunt them, digging in with their talons into the snakes’ body until they give up fighting back and then start to cut pieces of their body and eat them. And duck, dolphin, sea lion females would still be gang raped.

Every single second somewhere in the world, a giant hornet fights a mantis, a shark fights an octopus, a white belly sea eagle fights a banded sea snake, a giant weta fights a bat and if the bat prevail the other bats will fight him over the weta, thunder lizards fight each other, a crown eagle fights a chevrotain, a blue crab fights ameloctopus, a giant centipedes fights an iguana, a galapagos snake fights a marine iguana, a polar bear fights a ringed seal, an arctic tern fights a polar bear (beating their noses when they come for their eggs), bat falcon fights other bats, a hawk fights a viper, a numbat devour termites, a crocodile an egret, a shoebill a lungfish, the mexican long tailed bat an insect, a coyote hunts a rabbit and an anaconda crushes a capybara to death or griping so tight that the blood can’t even circulate and so the poor capybara slowly suffocate to death.
And the tiny fraction of animals that will escape their enemies will suffer from droughts, floods, diseases, hunger, thirst and the pain and misery of growing old.

The history of the evolution of life on this planet has been written with pain and suffering. Survival and reproduction have been the only imperatives guiding the gradual changes in morphology which have given the various species their present forms and behavior. All the organisms are selfish. They all have been, they all are and they all will act in order to promote their own genes. That is what life is all about and consequently that is what all the living creatures are about. No criticism just mechanism.
We see things through binoculars and tend to think in terms of purposes and goals, even when there are none. In life there is no such thing as a purpose. Things simply occur. Just as there is no purpose behind a chemical reaction, burning of sugar for instance, there is no purpose behind birthing, metabolism and DNA duplication. It started out as basic organic chemistry, and along billions of years acquired more and more complexity. One of those "upgrades" was the ability to suffer, feel pain and fear. That’s life. Technical chemical mechanism. Animals are the victims of chemistry.

It is very cruel and cynical to think that it’s part of life so there is nothing we can do about it. The fact that all these atrocities, all this suffering is part of life, is exactly the problem.
As soon as sensibility developed among the living creatures life became a living hell. You can’t nullify sensibility and since no creature can live without inflicting pain and suffering on other creatures directly or indirectly, life is not moral.

Like in any other situation, only when we acknowledge the roots of the problem, will we be able to solve it, and the roots of the problem, the origin of the suffering, is in the mechanism of life itself. Every day you choose not to destroy this world you choose to approve it. Moral people do not stand idly while helpless creatures suffer.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 03:11:32 AM by O.O.S »

Offline KiSsMyKaNgArOo

  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Most Important Massage Ever Voiced
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2011, 07:17:59 PM »
Thank you for favouring my admittedly ill-conceived post with such an incredibly powerful, educated and charismatic response. It's much appreciated.

I will try to answer with more detail at a later time - with an attempt to reciprocate respect, your response deserves a great deal of attention.

Another Question : I possess a copy of all the OOS text documents, including forum posts. Would the OOS grant permission for the re-posting of these documents in alternative venue, both for reasons of safe-keeping and discussion? I would take great care to ensure that referrer links and credit are always given directly to the OOS. I would also be willing to formulate and collate any constructive discussion and/or criticism into posts for the OOS to observe and respond too as and if they'd like.
We do not see things as they are; We see things as we are.

Offline KiSsMyKaNgArOo

  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Most Important Massage Ever Voiced
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2011, 08:59:56 AM »
The theory we're working with at the OOS suggests that while life exists there will be many and varied forms of exploitation taking place among those lifeforms that will inevitably lead to some degree of suffer.

In any social group there will be one or more individuals who possesses more testosterone; more aggression; more psychosis or more lust who will strive to force or cajole others into doing his/her bidding by one means or another. Someone "weak" is always getting "squashed" in order to elevate and satiate the ego and desires of someone "stronger".

When a tyrant becomes too dominating, a war takes place, leading to yet more suffer. The crazies who lead the charge whom didn't want to be dominated are now the dominator's and tend to adopt the vices of their enemies given time. They're merely obeying the patterns of their genetically programmed biological imperatives to establish social order and control.

(While maintaining power, those at the top of the social pyramid of power possess an opportunity to skim ever progressive amounts of "cream" from the efforts of their subordinates with which to fuel their vices - this means they're taking more than their fair share of resources which leads those on lower rungs of the social pyramid to follow the example set by their social "leaders", e.g. Communists hoarding resources from their "comrades" in order to profit and become "leaders" at a time when Capitalism is re-established)

Even if we go our separate ways and abandon the hive; Every move we make, every breath we take as individuals is part and parcel of the great engine of suffer operating upon this planet.

We chop down trees to make our homes and build fences to protect our gardens. Those trees are homes to other forms of life therefore with even the best will in the world we still cause harm for those lives and for the tree. The tree is no longer able to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and we've therefore broken the deepest and most sacred symbiotic relationship possible upon the planet by harming that tree. If we're able to justify harming those who sustain us, our mother so to speak, then we've take a step towards finding it acceptable to be the perpetrators of ever greater harm. If we numb the pain of our actions and engage a form of psychotic indifference then we cease to be sensitive to "the golden rule". It's all a downhill slide from there.

As we tramp around we walk upon insects. We cause cave-ins at the homes of ants and crush them under our feet.

We come into conflict with other forms of life and may be forced to effect suffer in order to defend ourselves, our children, or "our" foraging territory...or suffer may be inflicted upon us as others attempt to take and control what we would like to call "ours". If we survive conflict and accede our "conquerors superiority" then we may be forced to relocate to less fertile lands where we may become plagued by ailments and disease due to worsening nutrition and climate which in turn lessens our chances of surviving further physical conflicts and adverse weather.

There isn't just a great deal of physical suffering involved in such conflicts, but physiological and emotional trauma also. Feelings of failure, depression, lack of confidence, hatred, rage...

It may be possible to make certain alliances with other forms of life which will break the loneliness and could offer greater survival prospects, but such relationships take a great deal of time and patience to formulate which we may not have, and they require us to let down our guard as we let other alien strangers come into close contact with us in order to interact. A social struggle will likely take place where the two beings attempt to "size each other up" and physical conflict can enter the equation, and we have to ask ourselves : Is it worth it?

We could die or be severely injured during social conflict meaning we loose strength with which to survive and defend ourselves for days or even weeks. The chances are that any social group we join operates a hierarchical social "pecking order" and that if we're accepted into a social group we will likely be "at the bottom" of the social order, and to socially climb (As we're genetically programmed to do) we will be forced to engage in contests of will and strength that leads to suffer in one form or another for someone.

Then there will be ideological differences in the "tribe" that make living in the group or society intolerable for some individuals, and the "tribe" may split into two groups, and the contest of will and strength now becomes war between entire "tribes" often leading to brutal bloodshed, objectification of others and thus depravity.

For everyone. Everyday. Each and every minute entails suffer.

We can remove ourselves from as much of that suffer as possible, or even remove ourselves from it to an incredibly great degree so that the suffer is not "in our name"...but by not aggressively fighting against the hive that subsidises, propagates, profits from, and condones suffer, we permit those injustices from which we seek to escape to continue unabated.

If you fight the injustice...then you're now considered a terrorist by the human hive who profit from those injustices. If you're considered a terrorist then you lose your freedom and even your identity and "rights" as a "human being". Then you get put into a hive called prison where all those things I've mentioned above become an inescapable reality. You have to trample or be trampled upon. You have to inflict suffer or have suffer inflicted upon you, and that's merely talking about the other beings who you share your prison with...what about those with the guns who have absolute authority upon you? - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment (The Lucifer Effect | P. Zimbardo - http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html)

That's the reality we must face. That's the reality that we and every living being upon this earth must acknowledge as the truth.

Is it all worth it? Are our lives and the conclusions of them worth the suffer we cause and the suffer we experience? Is all the technology and the religion and the morality humans dream up nothing more than extensions of our inbuilt desire to justify the effectuation of suffer upon others? Do we wish to make spaceships only in order to dominate, populate and enslave the beings of other planets and suck those worlds dry of resources?


NOTE : I've attempted to structure this post to analogue for other species societies also. e.g. The incident whereby an elephant is shot to death merely for "breaking free" from the tyranny imposed upon him/her could analogue to the seemingly indomitable power of human governments that create such social control structures as the AETA. The AETA is a "crime against nature" insofar as it makes the fundamental feeling of natural empathy (That most species possess, probably with the help of mirror neurons) with those who suffer injustice, a criminal offence. Is it a criminal offence to feel empathy with those who suffer? Is it a criminal offence to attack and flee those who beat and beat and beat and beat you...
We do not see things as they are; We see things as we are.

Offline E.A.S

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 173
    • View Profile
Re: The Most Important Massage Ever Voiced
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2011, 09:52:18 AM »
Another Question : I possess a copy of all the OOS text documents, including forum posts. Would the OOS grant permission for the re-posting of these documents in alternative venue, both for reasons of safe-keeping and discussion? I would take great care to ensure that referrer links and credit are always given directly to the OOS. I would also be willing to formulate and collate any constructive discussion and/or criticism into posts for the OOS to observe and respond too as and if they'd like.

We don’t hold any copyright to any of our materials so you can use whatever you want and we don’t ask you to take great care to ensure that referrer links and credit are always given directly to us but to take great care that you use them responsibly.
We don’t care much about credit but we care a lot about the credit to continue to work freely (freely in a very free translation…)
So please notice who you talk to since we are not very popular among the animal rights movement not to mention outside of it. Please be sure you can count on whom ever you contact regarding these materials (you can go ahead and make it a general advice as well).

Regarding the forum discussions, obviously we can permit only our own forum posts and not others. Anyway again, please use them wisely since, although online, some of the posts are not exactly suited for the general public.

Offline KiSsMyKaNgArOo

  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: The Most Important Massage Ever Voiced
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2011, 03:43:29 PM »
My use of OOS materials will be dependent upon my access too and membership of an organisation that I do not believe to be fully functional at this moment. Given the uncertain social circumstances of those involved with the organisation - including myself - I can not be certain that I'll be participating.

The organisation intends to examine interactions, differences and similarities between co-evolved species and I intend to include a section stressing the imperative necessity of the plant based diet for moral, ecological, evolutionary and environmental reasons. With regards to interspecies "interaction" in the form of "factory farming" I propose to demonstrate that the enslavement and commodification of which human beings partake in, justify and profit from, sets an ever diminishing, regressive and detrimental standard of spiritual, ethical and intellectual integrity.

(Intelligent, free and moral individuals should not be puppets to psychotic and exploitative industry propaganda, unless of course those individuals aren't the intelligent, free and moral individuals human beings like to think of themselves as)

I also believe that as the incredible engine of perpetual injustice, mass genocide and mass enslavement continues to grind along its present trajectory (with the accompanying materialistic and Skinner/Descartes mindset whereby "possessions" are worth more than "living beings") this global state of affairs will result in the most empathic, compassionate and responsible human beings forgoing breeding, committing suicide and otherwise "checking out" of the social struggle for justice and equality. This leaves only the criminally insane (or just normal human beings) behind to continue breeding their "demon seed".

With such thoughts in mind, and for those who can empathise that far...An introduction to the OOS will become a step in the process of allowing the reader to comprehend the untenable position that suffer is forever inevitable; that life entails suffer by its very propagation, and that we're forever descending into a hellish and irredeemable form of "karmic debt" from the moment we're born.

Only a lazy, irresponsible and wholly self-serving form of life would not wish to instigate some form of "positive" action to pay a penance for their suffer inflictive actions (Consequences of being unfortunate enough to be born). I'm hoping that penance will precipitate by means of many methods, including;

+ In the form of non-complicity with capitalism's unsustainable "continual growth"
+ In the form of non-complicity with castes, class, speciesism, slavery and debt bondage.
+ In the form of non-complicity with corporate-government who perpetuate, encourage, justify and subsidise "suffer4profit" paradigms and social mores and whom dubb the mere philosophical debate of alternatives as "terrorist activity".

... and all the rest of such tripe we've all heard before. Such talk is spiel because it only asks us to recognise and slow down the process of global suffer for everyone, everywhere, whatever their species. Such talk does not end the suffer, nor does it solve the problems that other species are forced to contend with as they experience what can only be described as a daily torment.

I can work upon countless co-operative, anarchist social strata's that work towards social upliftment, high levels of education and ecological awareness (Thus negating poisonous hierarchical thought patterns, illuminating interdependence, and establishing equal "worth" for all life), egalitarian and consensual work programs, the replacement of the nuclear family with a co-operative, supportive "tribal" structure...

...and all the rest of such tripe we've all heard before.

I can encourage humans to think of their present actions in terms of how their presumably more enlightened children will come to perceive those actions in the future. With such thoughts one is therefore forced to the conclusion that they can not pollute the environment nor perform other short-term, short-sighted "bodges" (e.g. Nuclear Power, Cannon Fodder Producing Education Regimes, Fractional reserve programs as opposed to resource based economies, etc) that denigrate the chances for their own children to live autonomous, healthy and decent qualities of life.

(e.g. How can anyone with a forward thinking, progressive and ethical conscious sit in a closed room and smoke a cigarette while their own child is forced to breath in the toxins? If human beings as parents value themselves and their children with such scant regard and do not care about their own health and future they inevitably create a depressive atmosphere that is physically and mentally damaging for their children who absorb their parents 'vibe' which reverberates the message : 'Life is worthless', and harmful, hedonistic addictions that hurt others are more acceptable, more comfortable and 'easier' than taking responsibility for one's own actions)

None of these social change "solutions" stop the suffer. However, the journey of achieving those aims - at least for myself if nobody else - gives what life I have left to me a little selfish "I-did-the-best-I-could" solace, assuming of course I don't happen across a little red button in the mean time that throws this merry-go-round off its axis, once and for all.


NOTE : Ironically, if my 'social change' plans were followed it would likely take a protracted amount of time to fulfill the OOS. I recognise this, however, in the same way as "LSD From the Sky" is "an illusional example of how reality can change because you know that the chances to change reality with something real are zero." I also recognise that even common sense, "real" and easy-to-implement 'social change' solutions to societies problems - that even I could devise - are also illusional examples of how reality can change because I know that the chances to change reality with something real are zero. As a planetary citizen who has nothing to lose and everything to gain by reducing suffer and exploitation, my solutions are implementable "common sense", alas, to the exploiters who sit atop the hierarchical pyramid of power and hold all the cards...they have everything to lose by employing common sense solutions and so therefore common sense solutions will never prevail. Due to the nature of humanity as a social animal, those exploiters will inevitably rise to the top of the social pyramid that human beings - by the recursive pattern of their genetic programming - will inevitably create over, and over, and over again.

NOTE : The organisation I intend to share OOS material with will not permit free-speech and philosophical perspectives to be removed from the internet without long-winded legal conflict. If anything, any action - the more draconian the better - taken against the OOS and their tenets will only strengthen the OOS case and bring such plans and the reasoning behind them further forward to public attention. Authoritarian government - as well as authoritarian religion - does NOT want "the people" to realise that they have ultimate power over their reality. Any Orwellian authority that attempts to control and filter the potential of our ability to employ conceptual symbols in our communicative thought-processes deserves to be removed by any means necessary and with extreme prejudice.

NOTE : Consider the use of decentralised and anonymous Darknet and Torrent technology to "spread the word".

NOTE : Circular thinking (The Greater Whole or Law of One) asks that we do not outright condemn individuals for who and what they become. Creating a metaphorical microcosm of a village; the village comes together and perceives "difference" in the individuals born to the village, and asks : "How did we create this situation whereby certain individuals are deeply unhappy living with us?".

Everyone on this planet must ask : "How did we create the OOS?".

It is no good to bury heads in the ground...The human race created the OOS out of a need to stop suffer and is perhaps the ultimate demonstration of love and compassion ever conceived. The OOS is as much a philosophy as it is a real and rational solution to a hellish reality fraught with undeniable pain, anguish and suffer.

If it weren't for battery cages, factory farms, supermarkets loaded with blood, guts, carnage and the products of slaves born to lives of eternal misery and bondage. If it wasn't for materialism, hedonism and fraudulent, hierarchical power-hungry authorities, religions and governments whom prey upon the ignorant, the weak, and those who lack the strength, arms and technology with which to defend themselves. If it wasn't for the lies, the deceit, the self-righteous justifications made by slave-holders for their heinous acts of cruelty, torture and debasement of living beings. If it wasn't for the constant pain, suffer, anguish, misery and cruelty that life entails, and the tortuous and inevitable deaths that the existence of life makes possible...

Perhaps the OOS would never have been born.

It was. The OOS was born. With a good reason.

Because it really is the one and the only solution to the greatest and most diabolical catastrophe ever to grace this reality we're capable of perceiving. The catastrophe that is life itself and the misfortune of being born into an existence so incredibly tragic and morally inconceivable that our very psychologies - upon being born in this place - are forced to ever progressively numb us to the tortuous suffer of mere existence, from our very first day of coming into being.

What kind of world is this? It's Hell, surely. What else could it be?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 03:57:18 PM by KiSsMyKaNgArOo »
We do not see things as they are; We see things as we are.

Re: The Most Important Massage Ever Voiced
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2011, 06:31:10 AM »
I am a little confused by you KiSsMyKaNgArOo. If you believe in this:
Because it really is the one and the only solution to the greatest and most diabolical catastrophe ever to grace this reality we're capable of perceiving. The catastrophe that is life itself and the misfortune of being born into an existence so incredibly tragic and morally inconceivable that our very psychologies - upon being born in this place - are forced to ever progressively numb us to the tortuous suffer of mere existence, from our very first day of coming into being.
Then why work on and hope for this:
I'm hoping that penance will precipitate by means of many methods, including;
+ In the form of non-complicity with capitalism's unsustainable "continual growth"
+ In the form of non-complicity with castes, class, speciesism, slavery and debt bondage.
+ In the form of non-complicity with corporate-government who perpetuate, encourage, justify and subsidise "suffer4profit" paradigms and social mores and whom dubb the mere philosophical debate of alternatives as "terrorist activity".
« Last Edit: October 17, 2011, 06:35:55 AM by Euthanasia brigade »

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2015