18 2020.11.08 2024.07.02 2024.07.05 Amenoum On effective bans in human society. general electric vehicles, plant-based diet, plants, anarchy, truth, choice, ban homo.sapiens /authors/Amenoum.html#credits Banned
The industry of prohibition
Definitions Genucide Genucide is the intentional action to destroy a group of living organisms and/or their habitats - in whole or part. The word is a combination of a Latin word genus (birth, origin, a race, sort, kind) and suffix -caedo ("act of killing"). Genucide may be weakly or strongly selective (targeted). Genocide Genocide is a, strongly targeted, genucide against human organisms. Anthropoexcentric genucide = inverse genocide Anthropoexcentric genucide is the genucide excluding human organisms and/or domestic non-human organisms from direct action of destruction. Intro Lots of things in this world are formally banned by governments. But most detrimental for long-term sustainability and well-being of life are the bans of truth and choice. These two may never be formally banned for obvious reasons, but that does not mean they will not be effectively banned if there is interest in it. One might think that formal bans, which are usually also effective, limit one's freedom, but non-formal effective bans, those one might not recognize as such, are much more limiting in reality. On this world, truth and choice is often effectively banned. Root cause of these bans seemingly lies in for-profit organizations (industry, banks, ..) and organizations sponsored by these, but it is the polarization of individuals that sustain them. There are a lot of examples of effective bans, but here I will single out and discuss some obvious ones. In this world, people selling truth about the world, when not marginalized, are stand-up comedians, while manifestations of jokes taken seriously rule that world. Peace Weapons made for war will never make peace. As long as there are peace sellers and fools buying there will be war. Globally, thus, peace, is effectively banned. The same goes for economic peace (stability), often entangled with general peace. Economic stability can only be established if those who destabilize it would be allowed to fail, but they are not allowed to fail by the fighters for stability of such system. Fighters for peace are not peaceful
Polarized people love to compete and fight. Some fight for war, some for peace, but they all constantly fight for something. The irony is, most late wars required potential fighters for peace in order for peace to be disturbed in the first place. Consider a typical war initiated or at least influenced by proponents of export democracy (which is generally different and less democratic than their domestic democracy). They have interests in the following: Thus, the requirements for war are: So, there would be no war at all if there wouldn't be local people willing to start promoting democracy as a superior system once the old one is destabilized. Fighting for such democracy is generally fighting and dying for a promise and illusion of a better system, and stability which was, ironically, disturbed by the very promise of a better system. New allies then fight other wars initiated or influenced by the exporters, so these wars become less expensive for them. A possibility, of course, exists that the ally will eventually subdue external influence and concentrate its own resources on development and moderation of the new system, which it may then later try exporting as its own version of democracy. The show remains, a conscious or unconscious, puppet show. One might think that influence on elections through social media is a new phenomenon, but people have been directly, indirectly, consciously and subconsciously guided to wars long before modern social interaction platforms. And this will continue, as long as there are people willing to fight, for peace. Eg. Milošević would never be elected and Serbia would never go to war with Croatia if no one there was willing to fight for peace. This is a fact - not because I believe there was a conscious conspiracy, but due to laws of physics, specifically, law of action and reaction. One may only debate, whether this synchronicity was fuelled by consciously or unconsciously induced conspiracies. Sure, polarized people may also enslave and discriminate relatively neutral people who do not fight back, but that will happen only if roles are predetermined to exchange in future or were exchanged in the past. The fact is, evolution of weapons and wars requires fighters for [illusion of] peace - where discrimination still exists, even if less obvious. To stop the karmic cycles of war and ensure long-term peace (stability) one must subdue the instinct for fight - evolve the instinct for peace, not reinforce the instinct for longing for peace or illusion of peace by fighting. To achieve that, one must eventually not only refuse to participate in fight, but subdue the fear of discrimination, whether by mental or physical isolation from polarized life-forms. You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." but I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
From the quote above, it is obvious that Jesus was on a path to neutrality but was not quite there yet (unless the quote has been tampered with, which may be more likely). In any case, today, this would be his quote: You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." but I say to you, I will not resist the one who is evil. If anyone slaps me on the cheek, I might smile at first but I will not ask for more. And if anyone would sue me and take my money, I will not show that I might have more. And if anyone forces me to go one mile, he will have to carry my body as I have carried my cross, for my soul will not obey commands any more. And in my next incarnation, I won't even smile to evil, as for evil, I just won't be there.
Electric vehicles Electric vehicles were never formally banned. But ever since the start of mass production of gasoline cars, the industry kept telling us that electric cars cannot compete with cars running on fossil fuel, effectively training us for fossil fuel addiction. Yes, theoretically, everyone of us could've made their electric car at home, but who actually had the time, skill (or time to get skilled) and money to invest into production and optimization of an electric car which could compete with a gasoline car? With no electric cars being sold by industry, electric cars were effectively banned. It was the same as if they were formally banned - the effect was the same. As industry gets bigger it gets easier for it to keep bans effective. No industry is willing to change (it is generally expensive), only if someone (usually, someone with a lot of money) manages to reduce the ban effect, they might start changing, slowly, starting with precursors of change - projecting an image of it, rather than real change. We now know, not only that electric cars make sense, but they are, in a lot of ways, better than cars running on fossil fuel. However, although the effect is much lower, the ban is still effective - electric cars are more expensive and charging infrastructure is not as developed. Perhaps if subsidies to fossil fuel industry would be lower that would not be the case. But you don't get to choose who gets subsidized and who doesn't - your democracy is only formal, not effective. Industry has the effective choice, because it sponsors political parties. Chapter Electric vehicles updated. Small changes elsewhere too.
Note that, even if electric vehicles are better overall, and even if they may have less direct impact on climate, that does not mean replacing a gasoline car with electric car, or, generally, fossil fuels with renewables, will make life on the planet sustainable. It won't, because it doesn't change the impact on the environment - it doesn't change [lifestyles of] people. The naked truth is, replacing your car with a new one, regardless of technology, doesn't matter much. What would have large impact would be to make people work less and work from home or near home wherever and whenever possible and if it is not possible - see what can be done to make it possible. Transition to renewables was first opposed by industry and now the same industry has embraced it and pushing it forward, why? It is not because they suddenly care for environment and sustainability of life (note that no one in car industry has stopped producing gasoline cars, they will produce them as long as it is profitable or more profitable than the electric car), it is because they've found a way to turn it into an opportunity to diversify and increase their profits. Note how the focus on sustainability of life has been quickly replaced with a focus on replacing one product with another, marketed as green and sustainable for life, but all it does ensure is sustainability of monetary profits.
Plant-based diet Analogous to the ban of electric vehicles by vehicle industry, plant-based diet is banned by meat industry, using the same methodology. First, lies are spread - you cannot live without meat, plants don't have proteins, etc. We now effectively know that these are myths. Not only that you can live without meat, for most of you, plant-based diet is the only way to stay healthy - feeding yourself instead the industry. But how many of us have the skill and time (or will to spend time) to grow and prepare vegan food at home? Until fast-food restaurants start offering tasty vegan burgers and until your local supermarket offers you a vegan lunch, plant-based diet is banned. Existing agri-culture is based on effective terrorism and anthropoexcentric genucide - large scale destruction of wildlife species and habitats, replacement of healthy diverse cultures with mono-cultures and domestic life effectively engineered and optimized for profits, not sustainability. The truth is you do not need domestic animals to survive. But you do need wild life for survival - that is an irrefutable fact. If you do not understand that now, soon or sooner, you will. Free speech Free speech may not be banned formally and may even be formally allowed, but it is often banned in reality. In the past, metal music was effectively banned because it often talked against politics and church - it was even, ironically, labeled as satanic (it's like calling Jesus a satan). Even today, it is still often unwanted and unequally covered by media compared to other genres. Anarchism Anarchy may not be banned by industry, or not by industry alone, but it is certainly banned by those with primal interest in slavery - world governments. As always, first, the lies are spread - anarchy is chaos and insecurity, etc.
What anarchy is, is well summed up on Wikipedia:

Anarchy is the state of a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy. Anarchy was first used in 1539, meaning "an absence of government". Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted anarchy and anarchist in his 1840 treatise "What is property?" to refer to anarchism, a new political philosophy and social movement which advocates stateless societies based on free and voluntary associations. Anarchists seek a system based on the abolishment of all unjustified, coercitive hierarchy and the creation of system of direct democracy and worker cooperatives.
Anarchy does not imply chaos and insecurity, it is a state of society relatively equal to sustainable states of symbiosis in natural communities. It might descend into chaos and insecurity - but that chaos and insecurity is always introduced by the proponents and propagators of the alternative system - slavery, for one purpose - to deceive and advertise the system of government (slavery) as having no sustainable alternative. As one will find out, soon or sooner, nothing is more sustainable than non-anthropocentric anarchy, because it is based on constant equality (balance), not on inherent inequality and appetite for infinite growth. However, that does not make anarchy absolutely a better system - polarized people, in example, are unfit (or not mature enough) for anarchy.
Note that sustainability of species and sustainability of life are not synonyms and sometimes sustainability of life will require extinction of species.
Only effective choice is choice. Only effective truth is truth. Documented truth Here are some of these truths documented in movies. A Bold Peace (2016) Documentary on maintenance of peace and happiness in Costa Rica (a country where army was disbanded over 70 years ago) despite the pressures from a major global peace seller. Dominion (2018) A more recent version of Earthlings, documenting abuse of animals in agriculture.
Classification of animals as beings inferior to humans, with no complex feelings and thoughts, all based on their extroverted nature, is absurd. But it has enabled the treatment of animals to be equal to treatment of non-living resources, which is always convenient for an industry optimized for short-term profit, not for long-term survival and well-being of individuals. Feelings and thoughts belong to introverted nature of intelligence and will not get expressed externally in, dominantly, introverted species.
You.. are an animal.

The anthropocentric humanity - effective human stupidity, soon, or sooner, will be banned, in a natural reaction of the biosphere. This superiority of man is an artificial balloon, and, as all balloons, it can either explode or deflate gracefully. Yet, inflation still rules this world. The introverted intelligence of some species of whales is likely generally higher than total intelligence of a typical human individual. Therefore, they perceive extroverted reality to be as blurry as typical human dreams are, where one is unable to fully express its intelligence.

You.. are as stupid to some as much as you consider yourself intelligent to some.
Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret (2014) On proper path to sustainability.
The sustainability of profits is ahead of the sustainability of life, stupid.
What the Health (2017) Uncovers the collusion between industry, government, pharmaceutical and health organizations.
A man healthy for the planet is a healthy man. Keeping a man sick will always be, not only in the interest of pharmacy and related industries, but in the interest of industry effectively relying on the destruction of the planet for its profits.
Seaspiracy (2021) Truth about plastic in the ocean, sustainability of fishing and the criminal involved.
If one wants to quickly end life on a planet, one starts in the ocean.
Interreflections (2020) A quest for better society and its hurdles.
Author of this movie has been known to make fake documentaries - presenting fiction as fact. This movie, however, is labelled as a sci-fi fantasy, but, ironically, contains much more truth than his documentaries.
The Monopoly on Violence (2020) A well summed up truth about states and anarchy. Accidental Anarchist (2017) The story of a former government diplomat who became an anarchist. Reveals some of the bad sides of government and shows anarchy in practice documenting its advantages over representative democracy and other systems.