The Therese Defarge school of Social evo

History for those engaged in creating it. Comprehensive activism and applied memetics.

In search of responsible design.

I want to first establish who I am, or rather where I stand in relationship to the institutions and parties involved in this issue. I am not what one would identify as a member of the Christian right, I am a strong support of a womans right to choose, I have been bisexual for what is getting far to close to half a century, and part of my social anarchism has involved the exploration of new forms of social interrelationships such as redefining family. I do commit a good deal of time to bible study, particularly critical bible study. Although an anarchist and not at all associated with the establishment of the church I am a catholic in the understanding of the universality Agape feast, and the breaking down of class and other social barriers as consistent with Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. I believe that Paul's 2^nd letter to the Corinthians can be seen as rebuking the concept of fundamentalism. I also believe in the veneration of the mother/lady that was handed down through my Italian and Irish heritages.

I want to also identify myself in relationship to science and to schools. Science is part of my life, as I work in the field of survey and public opinion research. I am very aware that most American's who graduate from the school systems are almost totally unaware of the hows and whys of basic scientific method. We should all be aware right now that the inability of most Americans to understand the basics of how science establishes proofs greatly hinders that average American in establishing an informed position on the controversies around vote counting and e-voting. There is a significant amount of evidence that demonstrates that elections are likely to have been tampered with, but the average American is unequipped to understand the significance of much of this evidence. The growing concerns around peak oil and global warming are also issues where many people are ill informed in part because they are essentially uneducated in science. Science is not very well taught in public schools today, not because evolution is not taught but because science is not adequately taught.

When I was young I bought without question the image of the Scopes trial that was taught to me and most Americans in the Play/Movie “Inherit the Wind”. This story most likely shapes the views of many American's both toward the historic event of the trial and the legal battle over evolution. “Inherent the Wind” lied to us, William Jennings Bryant's answer to the questions asked him by Clarence Darrow were change to make him seem foolish, we where not told the reporter H. L. Mencken who paid Scopes fine, was a racialist in his understanding of eugenics. We where not told the textbook being taught out of was “Hunt's civic biology” a book on eugenics that promoted state intervention to discourage inferior families which he labeled as “parasites”, from reproducing. What was being taught at that segregated all white Dayton Tennessee high school by John Thomas Scopes was the same understanding of evolution that would eventual lead to the genocides in Europe under the Nazi. At that time people like Harvard president A. Lawrence Lowell would embrace eugenics, and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes would rule in favor of involuntary sterilization. William Jennings Bryant had reach the conclusion that evolution as interpreted by individuals such as Friedrich Nietzsche had led to a brake down of morality that led to the 1^stst and 2^nd world wars. It is also true that the eugenics that dominated evolutionary theory, such as that taught by John Thomas Scopes, guided America down the same road, toward decisions that where as brutally immoral. world war. There was a great deal of truth in this evaluation, Darwinism emerged during the rise of imperialism and industrialization. It provided a rational to defend the exploitation and deprivation of lower class' and subjected peoples. Form the Victorian age to today the idolization of competition within it's claimed role in the advancement of humanity is seen as a reason to negate values such as Compassion, Justice, Mercy and Co-operation. Nietzsche views on evolution, framed by himself as rejection of Christianity and it's moral doctrine, did in part drive German militarism in both the 1

So, that was evolution then taught in schools, but what about schools today. I remember something I learned when I had left high school, before I returned to finish. The soccer great Pele had been recruited to a US team, but the season was something of a failure economically. A commentator was noting that with soccer being an important part of the physical education program an educated audience was being created for soccer in the long term. I was a young commie at the time so I noted that the education system in the public school, at least in terms of physical education, was focused not so much teaching students methods to stay fit throughout their lives, but rather to create an educated spectator or audience. It may be that at times science as it is taught in public schools, may serve to create the educated audience, or perhaps the trained citizens for the scientists of the future. During the Scopes time, people like Hunter where teaching their eugenics to the citizens of the future in the hopes that they will influence citizens to accept the civic policies advocated in his civic biology. They where not being taught how to reach a scientific conclusion, but rather to accept certain dominate conclusions that some influential lobby has included in the teaching agenda. Eugenics as positive eugenics has had something of a rebirth, the trouble is that in presence of inequality and power imbalance people with an advantage tend not to recognize their advantage and I would be highly suspect of any eugenics program. Far more controversial is the question of Genetically modified organisms, which to some degree through lack of labeling requires and other such advantages, has been forced into a less than willing market. Many see a significant threat to the ecology and the survival of our species, but the progress GNO have had in economy, and the influence of genetic science with government Has ensured public protest will for the most part go unheard in the rush for profits and for research dollars.

Now I realize my argument seems pretty disjointed at this point, but underlying both the marketing of GNOs and the teaching of civic biology is a rejection of intelligent design. What I mean is that with an understanding that evolutionary change is random and slow, and with this changed judged solely beyond it successfulness in surviving, a eugenicist can argue that changes that are decided on through an improving of natural selection with a program of civic biology, being driven by reason not chance would better the species. If it was all random anyway, a society that placed a fair amount of faith in reason could easily decide that a reasoned decision my by that societies best leaders, all with that societies invisible prejudices, could be trusted to make a better choice than random chance. The promotion of natural selection as if it was a scientific statement of right makes right and ends justifies the means, evolution requires we look at the success of each species only in terms of it's survival. Individual like Nietzsche saw from this that morality and laws that protected the weak from the strong were not a good but were an evil, his idea is not dead today. It's really very parallel thinking that if all that matters is that a tomato is ripe on the shelf for a longer period it perfectly fine that it has chicken genes in it. If there is no guiding force or forces, no plan, no direction, if all that matters is the success of an individual in the fight of all against all, Wolf Larson's organism struggling to the top of the slime, then as long as such a tomato benefits humanity as determined by it scientific, business and government leaders it is the right decision for mankind. Look and you can see if there is any kind of basic plan for life it would likely prohibit chicken genes being introduced into the genetics of a tomato. If the genetic material is just the outcome of random mutation process through a natural selection based on competition, there is just not the same sense that such technology defies prudence. I am concerned to what degree the teaching of evolution in school, as it is taught in school today, may serve by establishing the authority of geneticist and so strengthen there position in political and social controversies their science is engaged in. That science in public school teach the validity of evolutionary theory without equipping their students to understand scientific methods of establishing proof, looks very bad within that context. In the absence of the individuals ability to determine on their own the validity of information they become dependent on the views of experts deemed authorities. I know many individual scientist who are men and women of integrity, but I am also aware that to a great degree the integrity of science is undermined by the funding driven nature of it's policies and the development of it's institutions.

I don't think it can be said that intelligent design is a scientific theory, but I think it is a natural argument to make within a historical context. Evolution is different than other sciences that have at times disagreed with the teaching of a prominent religion, such as the understanding of a heliocentric solar system or a round earth. We have to remember that the Victorian age in which evolution was introduced was one faced with the moral contradiction of both the industrial revolution and the height of British Imperialism. The Malthusian shadow of evolution has always linked it to an apology supporting the disenfranchisement of those oppressed and exploited for the cause of economic progress without regard to their humanity. Evolution always seems to have a rule of right and wrong based on the success in the struggle for survival, intelligent design states that their may be something more. The reality is that their may be many things more. The rate of growth in rye grass is far slower than the rate of change within an evolving plant or animal, with changes observable in days weeks and months instead of over generations. Yet it would be absurd to sit in a field and try to observe the grass growing, the change is just too far beyond are perceptions. The evolution of the human species over tens of thousands of years involve so large a range of random effects that any small yet significant tweaking would be beyond are ability to observe or comprehend. I don't want my argument to be confused here with an “if god meant man to fly he'd be born with wings”. I am not saying this but what I am saying is that for any designer to be intelligent it would need to exist beyond the limitation of an individual entity within the biological change in question. That the CEO of Monsanto, that some official in the FDA, by a scientific community whose research is funded by corporation or governments could make a wise decision within the scope of redirecting a evolutionary chain involving hundreds of millions of individuals over hundreds of thousands of years and speak with the authority of scientific truth is as arrogant as thinking the sun and star revolve around you. It is only possible to rationalize such a position within the context that everything is random and that there is no designs, and success which becomes the power to force your understanding as the general assumptions made by those who govern human society. Nor is this a question of godhead, I see in memetics a possible understanding of an evolutionary design mechanism involving a consensus of thoughts and feelings over more than one life time. I can see, not as a grand designer but as a significant designer, how both the Gaia theory and Jung's concepts of archetypes playing significant roles in the design of evolutionary development. These may not include the strongest science, but how scientific is the concept of allowing markets to determine social and political policy, because this has a lot to do with what science is funded and grows within our world today. A Buddhist's understanding of compassion and emptiness as the road to ultimate happiness at least approaches design from the prospective of intelligence and responsibility.

I want to point out that the understanding that although the Neo-conservative might be associated with the religious opposition to evolution, the principle that honors market based solutions to public policy questions is itself based on survival of the economically fittest. Monsanto power that allows it to continue to profit at the risk of global ecological disaster is tied to the Malthusian conclusion that humanity most always over-populate is that they are both tied to the understanding that markets and the competition for markets, that economy and that wealth most all grow. The understanding that profit is not only acceptable, not even only desirable, but a necessary component of advancing human welfare through myth of Progress as the manifest destiny of the evolutionarily advanced form of humanity. In a sense this is an intelligent but irresponsible design. It is making a decision based on the most immediate aspects of self-interest within the context of a social abstract concepts of wealth and money above the ecological balance on which most of life is dependent. I have sincere and deep concerns over how evolution and how science are taught in public school today. I would feel much more satisfied with a science education that produced students who understood basic concepts like controls, variables, samples, qualifiers, things that might allow them to determine if we have used up half the worlds oil or if the last election was stolen, then one in which evolution succeeded over intelligent design.

Elizabeth Parenti-Soba

posted by: EzizabethParentiSoba at 01:37 | link | comments |
evolution, babylonian renaissance, kansas school board

email from a former Largo cadre
            A little while back a former cadre posted a email about largo in the xNatlfed list. As we are two of only a few cadre who have admitted participation in the closed section, and since it gives a unique and personal prospective on the closed section I requested permission to republish this letter on this blog. I hope to fill in some more with my own reflections, and invite other individuals who wish to speak on this subject to join in with thier own prospectives.

Hey,
      So Elizabeth and I have been discussing this half the summer, since the writer of "Bombshell" join the list saying much of what was said of Largo was a lie. (and yes Gino lied a hell of a lot, I knew this shortly after meeting him.) It's a complicated situation since not to many people are open about being part of the closed section, and it feels vulnerable hanging out thier alone. Elizabeth made a statement that Largo was more advanced than anything weather or the SLA had and Jeff promptly dismissed it with one of his stet lines on not being able to take the girl out of natlfed. I want to back her position up a little but it comes down to revealing more of my own role. Before I go on I want to be clear in pointing out that the organization and training of militias are a basic right define by the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights, and in such a contents the training of individuals in military skills is not in itself illegal, although any practical deployment of such a force may be seen as a crime.
       One of my positions within the party was senoir drill instructor for the closed section. My credentials for this included graduating at the top of my class and earning a meritorious promotion out of marine corps bootcamp, I also graduated near the top of my class in Non-commission officers school, and high marks in both Staff non-commission officers training and system of class instruction. This amounts to a fair amount of training given by an elite branch of the US military with the aim of being equiped to develope and run training programs to maintain essential military skills in enlisted personel. It is more than fair to say i had the credentials to run a professional level military training program. During my time in the organization I was involved in developing and implementating I beleave 6 differrent training programs at verious times and with various levels of success. As in I beleave everything in natlfed this was open to sabotage from Gino and others within the party leadership. However i would say that I succeeded in providing some level of professional military training to at least a dozen cadre, and thier where two I was particular proud of as having produced reliable soldiers. I am fairly confident that with two or three months I could have trained at least a platoon and perhaps a company of cadre up to regular military stadards. This may be very little in terms of the hundreds of thousands within the US military and yet it outways anything Weather or the SLA could have mustered.
        Before this some level of training was in effect under Gino. I have heard second hand about his training of GH, and I have to say that I was impressed with GH. It also should be understood that in military training, maintaining a rifle, being sure that it can function, somewhat outweighs the ability to shoot a rifle. This was an area Gino trained Polly and LA in and i think they where adequately enough trained.
          I think this, the idea of training cadre to regular military standards, was the concerned mentioned by the FBI in thier legal documents that the organization reached level of abilities beyond that ussually accomplished without foreign assitance.
           Something underlying this training was the ability to communicate to US military personnel on professional terms. Anyone  whose read 10 days that shook the world knows that the insurrection did not beat the russian military but rather won a significant number of soldiers and sailors  onto thier side. The organization in at least a few occassions began sending cadre into the US military both for professional training but also to begin learning to communicate effectively with members of the US military as workers. I want to mention something about one of the FBI informents mentioned in the files robin provided. He was one of the individuals I trained for a number of months when suddenly during an NLC I was notified that he was about to leave for basic training. I was given about 20 minutes to talk to him and provide him with any tips I could as to how to survive as a communist within the military culture. I was more than a little outraged. It was clear to me that neither I or Elizabeth had been informed that he was enlisting because Gino wanted him to be independent of the operation within the military we had been developing. I want you all to understand that working within the US military was a whole differrent scene than most of the organizing in natlfed, the legality of it always dependent on functioning within a grey area, and the fact that violence is a part of the military culture the danger of challenging the power of the state in this arena was very real. That kid should have been given access to every cadre who had made it so far for advice and instruction, beyond that how he enlisted and how he moved into the arena should have been done with the insights of people who new the military culture and knew how to minimize risk. As I talked to him i realized he was going in blindfolded because Gino wanted apparratus outside Elizabeth conrtol. Eventually NOC control of the bank account for Elizabeth organization allowed them to disrail it, mostly just to undermined us. To me the New Brunswick temporary workers stuff was the same. Gino Sabotaged BL, because if the offensive became successful BL would have a lot of real political power and Gino would not have had absolute control over it. In the end this was always the thing, if Gino could have made a revolution and come out on top he would have gone with it, but he was committed to controling the organization through NOC, without any real connection with the masses. Anyone doing something real developed a constituency outside the organization that threaten him because it meant they had power beyond the organizations interrior. The problem with Gino is that his having power always came first and that should have been obvious to anyone who was in the organization for more than two years. In every single arena, in every single fraction making anything real happen meant fighting Gino and NOC tooth and nail. From what I understand Ribar does not even have the past credentials Gino did ( and by the raid gino hadn't done any serious work building an exterrior constituency for almost a decade.) I imagine it is a dozen times worse.
       Sorry to get so emotional, it was something that often bothered me, that cadre being sent into the military underequiped because Gino was Jealous of his power. It was set up wrong from the begining, and I knew even when I was talking to him that he would not last very long before the government would be on top of him, I was not surpriced when I heard he went awol and i blamed it right then on Gino's jealousy over his power.

name withheld

posted by: EzizabethParentiSoba at 21:31 | link | comments |

In Solidarity for a desperate act

Dearest friends and dearest Strangers,

On November 3^rd 2006^th Malachi Ritschers step out into Chicago's rush hour and lit himself on fire in protest of the war in Iraq. At first the world did not known the meaning of his protest, the sign he left behind only said “thou shall not kill”, but after a few days his suicide, a mission statement was discovered. http://www.savagesound.com/gallery99.htm In this statement he made clear that he had lived a full life, a life he was compelled to take because of the injustice of the war, expressing some small hope that his death may have an impact that will contribute to ending the many deaths that happen every day in Iraq. For the most part the US press has censored his story or coverage of his act that now a month latter and even most relatively well informed Americans remain ignorant of his act.

Many American's have a difficult time coming to grips with death, I have met some who very seriously want to live forever in a “back to Methuselah” sort of way. Without a draft most Americans escape the reality of US military aggression in a way that was impossible during Vietnam and still impossible for those economically pressured into the US “voluntary” military force. In the small college town I live in the anti-war movement is focusing on counter-recruitment campaign. At the locale high school an average of two students enlist a year, and I can't help comparing that to The High school I graduated from where about 50 kids would be enlisted before graduation and nearly a third would be enlisted by the end of the summer following their graduation. I seriously doubt the president takes a death in Iraq much more seriously than a death in the video game's he so likes to play, but how much more seriously do those standing politely on the corner with anti-war signs but refusing to stand in the way of business as usual. Many return to lives where for the rest of the week the war does not impact them at all, with no day to day reminder that our country is currently engaged in occupying two foreign country's resulting from the two wars we are still conducting. Self-immolation was a significant part of ending the Vietnam war, it was first done by Monks in South Vietnam but was eventually taken up by an american. Malachi's act is repugnant to many of American's anti-death “we value life” attitude, but how seriously can we be about this when we close our eyes to the reality that the US is recognized by most of our allies as the greatest threat to world peace. Malachi's act was extreme, and in his Mission statement he regrets having missed the opportunity to commit another act many American's would label extreme and insane. Historically the fewer who stand in the way of injustice the more extreme the stands of those few are forced to be. If even one third of the people who opposed the war as immoral refused to participate, refuse to work, the politicians would be forced to end the war. The timidity of the many to step out of line with authority may leave little but extremism or cynicism left, before dismissing the act of Malachi as irrational we must look rationally at what our nation is doing. George W. Bush lied to bring us to war, he has pursued a policy of aggression and approved policies that have led to war crimes. With two years left in his last term America is just going to let this war criminal finish out his term in the very vague hope that some future president will end the wars he has begun. Meanwhile there are soldiers and Marines in Iraq who where expecting to be out of the service but are still on tour in Iraq, many of them have turned to suicide in their despair. How much of reality is the average American ignoring in order to maintain a grip on reality. It is vanity and pride to dismiss another as crazy or cowardly from a position of ignorance or privileged or in some cases both. I urge others to read Malachi mission statement and spend at least a moment seriously considering what we can and what we must do to end the unjust war we as the aggressor nation continue to wage. Regardless of what our individual feelings or opinions are toward acts more extreme than we are comfortable with we must realize that if many of us, not even all just many, expand the envelope of what we can and will do to end an unjust war, the less pressure for more extreme acts will exist. We must do more than pass resolution we must be resolved to take a stand. Not just standing with a sign but standing with a side that confronts what we understand is wrong, we must be willing to boycott, strike, sit-in, blockade, and riot, we must each expand what we are capable of doing, as well as expand what we accept others will stand forward to do. We must at least share the level of solidarity that we will not allow the filter of the US media to allow Malachi's act to go unheard of by most Americans.

posted by: EzizabethParentiSoba at 19:35 | link | comments |
iraq war, cut and run, anti-war, malachi ritschers

Template by motime.com  |  header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de