Giving the Masters More Money, Blood, Sweat, or Tears (Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 210)

Do you think that the american slaves were ever told by their masters that if they worked harder and helped their masters generate more revenue for themselves, that they (the slaves) would then be set free or at least have their standards of life significantly improved? Sounds good, doesn’t it? But isn’t a man (a corporation or any other institution), capable of having the power to be a slave owner and choosing to do so, almost always irrevocably going to remain a slave owner unless he is overthrown and stripped of his power? Giving a slave owner, a master, more money, blood, sweat, or tears almost always just emboldens the slave owner to double down on his oppression and plundering of others, doesn’t it?

Cribb          2017

Dunbar’s Number and the Bonding of Reciprocal Exchange (Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 151)

Pretext Cribb Comment: I performed some minor editing and paraphrased a portion of the first paragraph. The credit of content remains attributable to the authors. The principle of Dunbar’s Number and the ramifications of understanding such in relation to behavioral dynamics cannot be understated. This knowledge and observation is prime reasoning to argue against centralization (communism, fascism, democracy, corporatism, and whatever other forms). It explains the most common and probable nature of corruption in the human psyche regarding relationships and interactions. Turning humans and universal empathy into perceived “Its” which deserve only apathy or worst, monstrously destabilizes all of the perceived, as well as all of the perceivers. It clearcuts humanity and the autocorrection of natural law. One wonders if such a behavioral change is not meant to promote war, killing, and carnage amongst people in some attempt to prevent overpopulation and the exponential loss of our true inherent humanity.

Cribb          2017

What allows chain-linked tragedies in “communities” or “groupings” of people is the absence of local (direct) personal shame. Auto-correction or natural correction of personal/individual behavior within a group occurs much more readily in small scale communities where no one can escape public scrutiny and judgement. Such tragedies become inevitable only when the group size exceeds our species’ capacity for keeping track of one another, a point that’s come to be known as Dunbar’s number. In primate communities, size definitely matters.

Noticing the importance of grooming behavior in social primates, British anthropologist Robin Dunbar plotted overall group size against the neocortical development of the brain. Using the correlation, he predicted that humans start losing track of who’s doing what to whom when group size hits about 150 individuals. In Dunbar’s words, “The limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained.” Other anthropologists had arrived at the same number by observing that when group sizes grew much beyond that, they tend to split into two smaller groups. Writing several years before Dunbar’s paper was published in 1992, Marvin Harris noted, “With 50 people per band or 150 per village, everybody knew everybody else intimately, so that the bonding of reciprocal exchange could hold people together. People gave with the expectation of taking and took with the expectation of giving.” Recent authors, including Malcolm Gladwell in his best-selling The Tipping Point, have popularized the idea of 150 being a limit to organically functioning groups.

Having evolved in small, intimate bands where everybody knows our name, human beings aren’t very good at dealing with the dubious freedoms conferred by anonymity. When communities grow beyond the point where every individual has at least a passing acquaintance with everyone else, our behavior changes, our choices shift, and our sense of the possible and of the acceptable grows ever more abstract.

The same argument can be made concerning the tragic misunderstanding of human nature that underlies communism: community ownership doesn’t work in large-scale societies where people operate in anonymity. In The Power of Scale, anthropologist John Bodley wrote: “The size of human societies and cultures matters because larger societies will naturally have more concentrated social power. Larger societies will be less democratic than smaller societies, and they will have an unequal distribution of risks and rewards.” Right, because the bigger the society is, the less functional shame becomes. When the Berlin Wall came down, jubilant capitalists announced that the essential flaw of communism had been its failure to account for human nature. Well, yes and no. Marx’s fatal error was his failure to appreciate the importance of context. Human nature functions in one way in the context of intimate, interdependent societies, but set loose in anonymity, we become a different creature. Neither beast is more nor less human.

Sex at Dawn

Ryan and Jethá          2010


Thank You for your Enrollment in our Life-Sucking Apathy Torture Plan (Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 146)

Pretext Comment: I am a Veterinarian who is currently witnessing corporate America invade and remake our industry into the same immoral pillaging demon that they turned human health care into many moons ago…and it is more than obvious that it has nothing to do with Government interference, now as it was originally then. This wayed on my mind heavily during my supremely blissful and oh so brief engagement with my open healthcare insurance enrollment that I was forced to be drawn and quartered with yesterday. My original thoughts and obscure humor regarding these matters follow. Laughing at the insanity is surely part of it’s cure.

After navigating once again through the life-sucking process of deciphering the misleading fine print of various levels of denying care Health Care Plans and tolerating unavoidable misdirectional pisspoor customer service, including being endlessly accosted by the demonic gatekeeper of automation and hangup/disconnect hell, not to mention, being blessed by the ridiculous required financial raping of being mandatorily charged a month prior to the beginning of whatever service will actually be rendered, I would just like to remind anyone stupid enough to read this of 3 points;

1) The insurance company created this tortuous, complicated, confusing, outsourced, automation plagued, fineprint activity, all on their glorious own. This absurd process, that I just went through and barely managed to survive with my somewhat of an above average intellect, is a quagmire and tarbaby of the worst intent and the most obscure clarity imaginable.

2) The cost of Veterinary Medicine is currently being exponentially raised right under your noses, as the true quality declines, by numerous sly, parasitic, and super-misleading-marketing, corporate entities who are invading the field. They are selling you a lot of glittering shit and setting their hooks solidly, while making you feel all nice and cozy and special with their psychopathic pseudo-charm lullaby. It ain’t be the government that be bastardizing the hell out of veterinary medicine and that will most assuredly continue to aggressively generate super-duper-revenue off of your love for your pet. You ain’t seen noth’in yet in regards to Fido’s future bills.

3) The most real and polite and dare I say organic part of all this madness, was when I spoke to one particular customer service person on the phone. I don’t know where she was sitting, but I would lay money down on the country of India or Pakistan. She actually spoke to me like a real person and appeared to be genuinely interested in helping to end my Blue Cross Blue Shield torture session. Those damn foreigners, so lazy, and just so damn unAmerican.

Cribb          2016

How Women and Paternity Became Private Property along with Everything Else (Love vs Sex 233)

Clearly, the biggest loser (aside from slaves, perhaps) in the agricultural revolution was the human female, who went from occupying a central, respected role in foraging societies to becoming another possession for a man to earn and defend, along with his house, slaves, and livestock.

“The origins of farming,” says archeologist Steven Mithen, “is the defining event of human history—the one turning point that has resulted in modern humans having a quite different type of lifestyle and cognition to all other animals and past types of humans.” The most important pivot point in the story of our species, the shift to agriculture redirected the trajectory of human life more fundamentally than the control of fire, the Magna Carta, the printing press, the steam engine, nuclear fission, or anything else has or, perhaps, ever will. With agriculture virtually everything changed: the nature of status and power, social and family structures, how humans interacted with the natural world, the gods they worshipped, the likelihood and nature of warfare between groups, quality of life, longevity, and certainly, the rules governing sexuality. His survey of the relevant archaeological evidence led archaeologist Timothy Taylor, author of The Prehistory of Sex, to state, “While hunter-gatherer sex had been modeled on an idea of sharing and complementarity, early agriculturalist sex was voyeuristic, repressive, homophobic, and focused on reproduction.” “Afraid of the wild,” he concludes, “farmers set out to destroy it.”

Land could now be possessed, owned, and passed won the generations. Food that had been hunted and gathered now had to be sowed, tended, harvested, stored, defended, bought, and sold. Fences, walls, and irrigation systems had to be built and reinforced; armies to defend it all had to be raised, fed, and controlled. Because of private property, for the first time in the history of our species, paternity became a crucial concern.

But the standard narrative insists that paternity certainly has always been of utmost importance to our species, that our very genes dictate we organize our sexual lives around it. Why, then, is the anthropological record so rich with examples of societies where biological paternity is of so little or no importance? Where paternity is unimportant, men tend to be relatively unconcerned about women’s sexual fidelity.

Sex at Dawn

Ryan and Jethá          2010

Some Choose Instead to Vote the Other 364 Days (Warrior Poet Mental Yoga 142)

Voting reminds me a lot of a person’s birthday or Valentines Day or even Christmas itself. It is a day in which we can loudly herald our passion and conviction; our ever vigilant effort and action, towards emphatically displaying our love for another or our commitment to making the world a better place for all…….or is it?

Three hundred and sixty-five or one? The awareness, the contemplation, and sincere effort, of three hundred and sixty-five or the same for just one? It’s a great marketing day and the approval stamp of the applauding and all too well compliant herd is all over it. It is a one that can supposedly wash away all the sins, apathy, and hypocrisy of the other three hundred and sixty-four. See how I love my wife…..I bought her some wilting picked over-roses, some discounted hum-drum chocolates, and a fabulous Hallmark card imprinted with a unique and exquisite message from the core of my being? How many people gloriously celebrate the Christ child’s birth by drinking themselves into oblivion on his namesake day as he requested in his eleventh commandment? I voted. I voted. I voted. Look at my sticker!…..I voted! and if you did not, you don’t have the right to say anything…anything, about our leadership or this country. People died for your right to vote, don’t you get that, how could you give up or discount such a privilege?

I don’t believe those people died or gave their lives, energy, and effort, to establish and support a deceptive and beguiling system where voting is in part, or perhaps in complete entirety, only a satiating illusion. That would be silly and suggest less of them, demeaning their character, awareness, and contribution. The Electoral College is deliberately complicated and deceptive to the general public. The frequent references to our form of government by our bipartisan leadership as a democracy is intentionally deceptive and misleading. Representation is not proportional, nor truly representative of the people. The blackout, smearing, misdirection, and propaganda of the mass media significantly sabotages Third-Party considerations and candidates. Political discourse is progressively dumbed down by our governing elite and their puppets to default the public into a perpetual state of destabilized fear, ignorance, and willful submission. And conversely, laws, public policy, and other matters of debate are also willfully over-complicated and bogged down with misleading minutia to hoodwink public perception and understanding. When such doublespeak, marketing, propaganda, inundation, limitation, complication, and multitiered over-organization is thrust upon the people and the process, I find it impossible to believe that a ballot can truly even be what it is suppose to be or that the powers of authority have any sincere concern or obligation towards protecting, defending, and preserving the viable merit, input, and ultimate consequence of the common man’s opinion and the legitimacy of his vote.

But I wonder how many of the sticker voters also voted the day before, and the other three hundred and sixty three days before that. How many voted profoundly for their family on all of those days; for the love, stability, peace, and nurturing of their spouse, and their children, and even themselves? How many voted for their clients and customers by being forthright and sincere, and offering the best product and service possible to them in a fair exchange of currency? How many voted for their employees by truly rewarding them fairly and appropriately with compensation and praise and encouragement? By being a positive and honorable role model who keeps his word to everyone even when he can get away without doing so? How many voted for the true universal freedom of all…..all people, all races, all religions, and all nations, versus their own egocentric version of freedom and acceptability?  How many voted to remove the plausible excuses and jealousy from their applied perceptions and assumptions relating to every one of their relationships? How many voted to forgive as opposed to crucify? For empathy versus condescension and scapegoating? How many voted for respect and stability and union with their fellow man and all life on this planet versus yielding to the temptable demons of overriding internal and interactive fear, destabilization, and isolation? How many voted against their own doublespeak and doublethink? How many live their vote in their life every single moment of every single day in hopes that that vote, that choice, that statement of  opinion and record, will make a difference in this world and how we all interact with one another?

If you believe voting at the ballot box really does makes a difference, I support you in that action. I’m not sure that I can agree with such an assumption and I worry that a vote of that nature is more about distraction and misdirection; having an excuse to feel as though you have done enough in regards to American society, as well as our foreign policy; that the rest of all of it is out of your control and that you can only do so much to contribute to the changes that the world needs to experience, at least for the next four years. You get the right to brag or complain or feel content for a short while, but most often that leads to a person to less awareness, less contemplation, and less actual implementation of the real difference that they can make in the world.

A ballot may or may not produce significant change, but such a national or centralizing vote is far-removed from direct interaction and the comprehensive ability to truly assess its genuine effectiveness. There is too much misdirection and separation and plausible excuse in such a system to allow for the definitive assessment of the reality, impact, and consequences yielded on a personal level. As a result, the “truth” of that experience gets to be rewritten by our psyche outside of our sensational existence. Levels of separation via a pyramid of centralization create that dangerous and tragic dynamic of a perceived or subjective reality outside of immediate and direct experience.

If you make a genuinely uplifting and stabilizing difference in the lives of the people within your direct contact, you will change the world for the better, and the world will in turn, bless you with the same nurturing and stabilizing energy. That becomes a union of change, direct impact, and direct experience. It is undeniable, unmistakable, and irrefutable. Nothing can stand against such, not even a real or an imaginary ballot box.


Election Day 2016

The Orwell you don’t know – 1 (WPMY 133)

We may take it that the return to a simpler, freer, less mechanised way of life, however desirable it may be, is not going to happen. This is not fatalism, it is merely acceptance of facts. It is meaningless to oppose Socialism on the ground that you object to the beehive State, because the beehive State is here. The choice is not, as yet, between a human and an inhuman world. It is simply between Socialism and Fascism, which at its very best is Socialism with the virtues left out.

The Road to Wigan Pier

George Orwell          1937

Replacing Natural Community with Ritual Conformity and Persecution; The Salem Witch Trials, Nazi Germany, America of 1950, and Today (WPMY 130)

What replaces the sense of natural community in The Crucible, as perhaps in Nazi Germany and, on a different scale, 1950’s America, is a sense of participating in a ritual, of conformity to a ruling orthodoxy and hence a hostility to those who threaten it. The purity of one’s religious principles is confirmed by collaborating, at least by proxy, in the punishment of those who reject them. Racial identity is reinforced by eliminating those who might “contaminate” it, as one’s Americanness is underscored by identifying those who could be said to be un-American. In the film version of his play, Miller, free now to expand and deepen the social context of the drama, chose to emphasize the illusory sense of community: “The CROWD’s urging rises to angry crescendo. HANGMAN pulls a crude lever and the trap drops and the two fall. THE CROWD is delirious with joyful, gratifying unity.”

Alexis de Tocqueville identified the pressure toward conformity even in the early years of the Republic. It was a pressure acknowledged equally by Hawthorne, Melville, Emerson, and Thoreau. When Sinclair Lewis’s Babbitt abandons his momentary rebellion to return to his conformist society, he is described as being “almost tearful with joy.” Miller’s alarm, then is not his alone, nor is his sense of the potentially tyrannical power of shared myths that appear to offer absolution to those who accept them. If his faith in individual conscience as a corrective is also not unique, it is, perhaps, harder to sustain in the second half of a century that has seen collective myths exercising a coercive power, in America and Europe.

Introduction to The Crucible (Miller 1952)

Christopher Bigsby          1995