Controversial Back To The Land Manuscript

Publisher Releases Serial Rights to BTTL Master Volume to

The Back To The Land (BTTL) Master Volume consists of 6 books, now put into one huge volume, over 500 pages.  This book covers many controversial ideas, philosophies, political ideas, Utopian concepts and activist anti-globalist objectives.  Nothing like it has ever been published.  The publisher is allowing us to present selected parts of this massive book for serialization, before the book itself goes on sale later this year.  Please note that the ideas presented in this volume are of the author, Mr. Mark Andrews, and do not necessarily represent the ideas of the publisher or of this website, and are presented for informational and inspirational use.



This entire book is copyright 2017 by Mark Andrews and Jasmine Publications

Outline of Books Contained in the Master Volume of Back To The Land (BTTL)

By Mark Andrews

The following is a rundown of the various parts that are included in the Master Volume of Back To The Land. Book One deals with the problem of agriculture. Throughout recorded history, humanity practiced a very labor intensive type of agriculture, and because of this, at the time of the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of farmers welcomed mechanized agriculture with open arms, in spite of the fact that it is destructive to the environment and human health, and it allowed for the concentration of capital. Masanobu Fukuoka was the first to demonstrate that agriculture does not have to be Technics intensive for it not to be labor intensive. Since natural farming is not labor intensive it is the answer to many people’s objections about living close to the land as being too much work. Fukuoka also states that what he calls “natural farming” must have been the original form of agriculture. Chapter one is an anthropological analysis of natural farming, which asks the question: If natural farming is a superior form of agriculture and is much more worthy of humanity than both the traditional labor intensive agriculture and also the new mechanized agriculture, then why did humanity abandon natural farming in our early history and prehistory, and why don’t we have any records, knowledge, or academic speculative studies of this transition?

Book Two deals with the fact that the architectural foundation for any decent terrestrial modern society is a decentralized infrastructure comprised of connected small towns. Throughout history we had a decentralized infrastructure comprised of small towns, but we still had governmental tyranny. This is because we were practicing labor intensive agriculture instead of natural farming. In a more modern situation, the key to avoiding governmental tyranny is to not only have natural farming as the chosen mode-of-production for the means of subsistence, and a decentralized infrastructure comprised of small towns, but additionally, if the small towns are connected with transportation and communication technologies, then a democratic dimension heretofore unknown to society is possible. Additionally, to repeat, as Ebenezer Howard famously explained his notion of Social Cities and the Town-Country Magnet, which is the virtual big city comprised of connected small towns: when small towns are properly spaced apart and connected with the correct communication and transportation technologies, all of the benefits of the big city can be achieved without the drawbacks, and all of the benefits of the countryside can be achieved without the drawbacks. Technologically connecting the small towns at the beginning and throughout the Industrial Revolution would have formed a lattice structure with the small towns, which would have transformed the farmlands of the world into a new fabric of society, to the point that it would be considered a completely different species of society than anything the world has ever known. Not only could the lifestyle have been enriching and enjoyable for a lot more of the worlds’ people than the actual lives lived, or that were prevented from being lived, around the world throughout the last few centuries, but there is great reason to believe that a much greater level of democracy could have been achieved, along with a much more even distribution of capital throughout the world, along with the strong likelihood that the Earth’s biosphere would have ended up in an incomparably better ecological state—then the people of the world need to face up to the fact that a great injustice has been foisted upon the whole Earth. But this injustice has come in the form, and has all the earmarkings of a hoodwink—and the hoodwink will continue until people begin to understand that the correct basic structure for society is physical decentralist. Once people understand this, then it will be possible for them to view Marxism, along with many other aspects of history, with a whole different perspective; but in particular, such a perspective would allow people to see the man Marx and his work, and entire promotion of Marxism as a whole, as an entirely different sort of beast than what most people have been used to thinking about, regardless whether they have liked Marxism or not—as the elite contrived Hegelian dialectical antithesis to get the worlds’ people off the land.1 The only hint there is that Marx and Engels’ attack on the utopians is very significant.2

Book Four deals with a conspiracy theory regarding the counterculture, and the fact that psychedelic drugs are a deeply profound gift provided by Mother Nature for us-humanity to explore, if we are going to unlock the power of our subconscious minds and unravel our neurotic impulses, which have been intentionally imprinted, conditioned and exacerbated by the ruling elite for the purpose of controlling humanity. A lot of the evidentiary forensics to support this theory is based on Jan Irvin’s research at (even though we don’t necessarily come to all the same conclusions). The following is an elaborate conspiracy theory, and some people would say that such a theory gives the elite too much credit, and they are not that smart. All it takes is for a few really smart people at the top to decide the policy agenda, and then all of their minions fall in line. They are often that smart because in case you forgot, they run the world, and they have massive think tanks doing game theory actuaries to figure how such policy agendas would play out in the real world.

The sixties counterculture was a movement against shallow materialism, in favor of a more meaningful existence, in harmony with the laws of the universe, and it was fueled by the use of psychedelic drugs. The establishment felt very threatened by the potential that psychedelics possessed, to uniquely help people in the Atomic Age discover the secret formula of the political back-to-the-land movement, which could threaten the power base of the elites. A lot of the top-brass within the CIA turned-on to LSD-25 shortly after its discovery in 1943 and they became obsessed with experimenting with it until at least the late 1950’s.3 As a result of these acid trips, being who these people are, they came up with a far less than savory action plan. (By the way, LSD, or at least the naturally occurring psychedelic drugs, could have a very positive overall effect if used correctly. Since it was accidentally discovered right at the same time that the Manhattan Project was underway, many people consider LSD to be the spiritual antidote to the atom bomb.) The CIA, the Tavistock Institute and the Rand Corporation felt compelled to adopt a pro-active strategy on psychedelics, because they knew that the Baby Boom Generation was historically destined to wage the first psychedelic countercultural revolution in the history of the planet, mainly, but still only partly because they were the first Atomic Age generation in the history of the planet. These elite think-tanks did not want people to become acquainted with psychedelics in an organic low-frequency-of-use low-key contemplative social milieu, especially with an emphasis on real education and character building, without a lot of hype. These agencies, along with the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) (which really meant anti-intelligence program) and especially the CIA’s project MK-ULTRA (the MK stands for mind control), were very much involved with the creation and manipulation of groups within the counterculture, and they helped to encourage the abuse of psychedelics along with the mixing of every form of vice, overindulgence, and bad New Age philosophy; all for the purpose of finally creating the counter-counterculture of the 1980’s “Reagan Revolution”, which was the first truly techno-fascist backlash in the history of the planet; where the meme changed from the apocalyptic Atomic Age to the progressive Computer Age; and it was a contrived hoodwink turning of a cycle ‘back to business—back to sanity, normalcy, law & order’; all of which we are still in the continuing phases of.

Book Four also deals with the theory and strategy of the proposal presented here for a new urban-based Back-to-the-Land Movement. Suggested here is the concept of protesting against what symbolizes the opposite of the broadest solution to the worlds’ problems, in order to promote and demonstrate for the solution, and not just to protest against in order to stop something. Since most of the worlds’ people live in big cities and we need to broadcast the Back-to-the-Land message to the worlds’ people, we need to ask the urban-based question that best relates to the Back-to-the-Land concept: Is stopping all big city housing development the ideal and correct position in all possible scenarios, in the short-to-medium-run? Because the universe is aligned with what is correct, the answer derived after honestly analyzing this question, luckily comes out a resounding yes, regardless of whether a cheap plentiful non-polluting form of energy is possible, and irrespective of whether it would help the Back-to-the-Land agenda (please keep in mind that a decentralized society is the best way to utilize solar-based energy sources due to the much reduced energy usage, passive solar design works better with low-density housing, and the lack of need for long-distance electricity transmission.) A yes answer on whether stopping all big city housing development is correct would in fact greatly help an urban-based Back-to-the-Land movement, because not having to allow some city housing redevelopment to continue helps make the Back-to-the-Land platform much more simple, and greatly helps clarify the Back-to-the-Land position on urban development into a much more radical and non-compromising perspective. The protest movement against city development is what makes this Back-to-the-Land Movement urban-based, and the protest against city development acts as a natural podium to present the solution, because city development is the opposite of the solution.

Some people might think that a protest movement against city development is a moot idea because of the imminent economic collapse that looms on the horizon. The rejoinder to this objection is that, the economy will have its ups and downs for quite some time into the future (unless, of course, we have World War Three), and the elite will want to redevelop cities for quite some time into the future to make them more compact and supposedly more “ecological” (luckily most people don’t want to live like sardines under surveillance, eating weaponized food.) When such economic upsurges happen, the Back-to-the-Land Movement should use such opportunities to protest against city development in order to promote the concept of physical decentralization, and to promote the Back-to-the-Land Party. During economic crises, the elite banksters will consolidate and confiscate more urban and rural real estate and drive more rural people into the cities, and city development might temporarily come to a halt; but the Back-to-the-Land Party should do especially well at the ballot-box during these times, because socially subsidized decentralist agrarian development—funded in large part by wealth expropriated from the super rich—is the best and most economically efficient way to house, feed, and provide a decent livelihood for the unemployed members of the populace.

Included in Book Four is a discussion of back-to-the-land economics which incorporates some of Henry George’s ideas regarding land tenure. Also covered is an analysis of the modern day environmental movement, which is really for centralized development, regardless of whether it is endorsed overtly through commission, or covertly through omission. A good example of such commission is the following arrogant quote by Roderick Nash from Wilderness and the American Mind, where he states that,

“There are two ways of thinking about the end of wilderness on earth. One might be termed the wasteland scenario. It anticipates a ravaged planet; one which is paved and poisoned (perhaps by nuclear war) to the point that the world dies with T.S. Eliot’s celebrated whimper. This nightmare of creeping urbanization traditionally fired the protests of nature lovers, conservationists, and preservationists. It could still occur, especially given the increase of technological capability, but the greatest long-term threat to the interests of people who covet the wild may reside in the garden scenario. It too ends wilderness, but beneficently rather than destructively. Rene Dubos points the way with his vision of a bounteous, stable and, to many tastes, beautiful earth that is totally modified. In a garden-earth the fertility of the soil is not only maintained but enhanced. Fruit trees support songbirds. Carefully managed streams run clear and pure. The air is unpolluted. Forests provide an endless supply of wood. Large cities are rare as people decentralize into the hinterland. Many live on self-sufficient family farms. The animals permitted to exist are safe and useful. A softer variety of technology enables man to live gracefully and gratefully as part of the natural community. There is a minimum of pavement, cows dot the meadows, democracy thrives, and the kids have rosy cheeks. It is an appealing vision whose roots run back through Thomas Jefferson’s deification of the yeoman farmer to the Garden of Eden. But wilderness is just as dead in the garden as it is in the concrete wasteland “Defenders of wilderness have traditionally regarded proponents of a garden-earth as fellow travelers, if not comrades in arms, against the wasteland. A reappraisal suggests instead a sharp divergence in objectives. The problem, of course, is numbers. There are simply too many people on the planet to decentralize into garden environments and still have significant amounts of wilderness. We can glimpse this kind of future in parts of the world where large numbers of people are attempting to live rural lifestyles…”4

What Nash and many other environmentalists don’t seem to understand is that corporate farming is decentralized and that centralized human populations and corporate agribusiness go hand-in-hand. Decentralists need to demand that any new human community should have a goal of healing the land, and there is no reason why humans need to move to wilderness areas when there is so much damaged farmland that needs healing. But if all future housing development is constructed on damaged corporate farmland, this will still mean that there will be less food for the big cities. The simple solution to this is a temporary stop-gap measure of doing indoor grow-lamp food production in existing urban skyscraper office buildings. Hopefully this will not be necessary too much for too long, especially if a lot of city people move to the country and a lot of urban land is opened up for food production. The human race as a whole needs to learn to self-limit their reproductive rate in a relatively enlightened, self-reflective way, so that population quality can replace population quantity. The elite that spawn from an urban world don’t want people to be sane enough to do this; but other than that, as long as humanity would be willing to consciously decrease reproduction, there is no reason why we cannot have a decentralized society and still have enough land dedicated to natural wilderness for species preservation, biodiversity, and ecosystem viability.

My own personal position on abortion is that, I am pro-choice but also pro-abortion, in the sense that people who don’t have the qualifications to be relatively quality parents should be encouraged by their peers, etc., to have abortions. Many people claim that human life starts at the moment of conception, I agree, and this is a good reason to encourage many people to have abortions because the Earth is overpopulated by humans. I do not consider this statement of mine to be misanthropic, and I only mean it to be constructive, because it is simply a matter of truth, that the world is overfilled with lower quality people than what there should be at such a late stage of human history. With all of the stresses of the modern world, the human race has been undergoing a sharp increase in certain types of degenerative processes for the last fifty to one hundred years, and during this time the birth rates have definitely gone up just as rapidly. At least for the time being, until the birthrate takes a big swing downward for a while, we do not have to encourage people these days to have more offspring. Maybe later the reverse could be true, and we will need people to reproduce at a higher rate to restock lost levels that might be needed for the job of Earth restoration. The only stipulation that I have about abortion is that, if someone is going to have an abortion, they should have it as early as possible to minimize the suffering of the fetus. I believe in reincarnation, and if I am going to be aborted as a fetus in the future, I would wish that it would be as early as possible. I don’t support post-birth abortions, i.e. infanticide, because such abortions will not contribute much to lessening the population levels, and it is not humane, and it goes past a certain basic level of decency. To achieve the correct population levels to optimize the health of the Earth and society, contraception is the preferred method of birth control, with abortion as a backup. But make no mistake, it is much better to use personal birth control than have external birth control, such as poverty, pestilence, famine, environmental breakdown, or elite extermination programs because we were not able to overthrow them and setup a decent society, which is somewhat contingent on not having population overload, because excess population will overflow from what the rural areas can handle and will continue to cause urban bloat, which will continue to act as a power engine for the globalist elites.

Much of the environmental movement is committing the logical fallacy of reification, which means treating an abstract concept or metaphor as tangibly real, and thus helping to convert a transitory miasmatic state into a more permanent congenital deformity. Such as, ‘humanity is a disease, so we have to quarantine them in the big cities in order to keep them away from and preserve nature.’ What is masked with many environmentalists unfortunately is a complete misanthropic non-holistic bias against civilization and technology that wants only wilderness. This bias will only hurt humanity by compromising with the Earth’s complete contradiction, which is physical centralization. Case in point, Dave Foreman, charismatic founder and leading spokesman for the Earth First! movement, whose slogan is, by the way, “No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth”. Back in the 1980’s Foreman once said, “I hope one day the word wilderness will disappear from the human lexicon, when there will be only wilderness and nothing else to compare to”; and I also think he referred to big cities as “ecological sacrifice zones”, although the reference currently escapes me. People like Nash are saying that we cannot decentralize before we depopulate. But there is no way that we are going to consciously depopulate—or consciously do much of anything for that matter—if we start with such an ignorant mentality as supporting demographic centralization.

I really do believe that this process of reification is the main reason why so few people have advocated physical decentralization, and it is, I think, why the radical environmental movement has not jumped on the decentralist bandwagon. Obviously a lot of radical environmentalists have a lot of common sense, but their fear of “the human plague” spreading out on the land like a disease completely overshadows and overrides their common sense. This mental reification is also the reason why permaculture and natural farming have not gained more play in radical environmentalist literature, because it relates to humanity spreading out on the land, and as a result, many radical environmentalists have completely overlooked the significance of the discovery of natural farming. With just the thought or casual mention of humanity spreading out to live subsistence lifestyles close to the land, the average radical environmentalist immediately cringes and visualizes the land-based subsistence lifestyle morphing into the ultimate dreaded environmental anathema—suburban sprawl. But the next logical question is: why don’t they think about what a disaster corporate farming is, and how much better things could be if organic farmers repopulated the sterile corporate farming landscapes? The answer, I believe is that, they are somewhat covertly hoping civilization will collapse, and they are visualizing the empty corporate farmscapes regenerating back over time into natural prairie, or whatever other natural habitats were there before agriculture began. In the meantime, everybody is trying to figure out how to live a healthy lifestyle in the midst of an insane civilization; but nutritional science keeps contradicting itself, because the ultimate nutritional health knowledge is that a people cannot be statistically healthy unless they are living close enough to the land to have rich soil and food that is fresh, pure and unadulterated.

To be a holistic thinker means to be a problem solver, and to figure out how humanity can properly live on the face of the Earth, and how we can align ourselves with the principles of nature. To want civilization to collapse is environmentally illogical, not only because we will have missed the opportunity for our souls to have learned how civilization can work well (which is in our own personal karmic evolutionary interest), but also because of all the toxic wastes that are presently being stored. Nuclear and other toxic wastes have to be constantly maintained, and their containment is a high-tech undertaking that requires consistent management by a stable civilization. Also, as Allan Savory points out in his book, Holistic Management, much of the corporate farmlands will not regenerate on their own for millions of years if abandoned, and these damaged lands will require human care and attention if they are going to have a chance of regeneration in any relatively short period of time.5 Radical environmentalists regularly quote professional biologists, who of course are funded by the elite in order to engender misanthropy, in order to create a mindset that wants to keep humanity penned in the cities. Environmentalists have got to learn not to be duped by the proponents of Agenda 21, who are the same elite that for centuries have been shaping the world the way it is, and who are greatly responsible for the exacerbation of all environmental problems.

When Nash talks about “decentralizing into garden environments” he is not talking about the truly holistic garden-of-eden mode-of-production that has been lost and unknown throughout history, which is dealt with in chapter one of this book. But rather, he is referring to the old Neo-Malthusian paradigm that he is stuck in, which says that quality organic farming has to be labor intensive, and therefore people practicing quality organic farming will automatically breed like rats because they will be ignorant due to the quantity of labor required. Even if there is a lot of work that needs to be done in the short-to-medium-run, at least now that we are in the computer age, a lot of people can listen to educational podcasts while they are doing their physical work, so there really are far fewer reasons why people will have to be uninformed with a labor-intensive lifestyle. There will never not be a good reason to begin and continue the decentralization process, since there is no shortage of corporate farmland. The bottom line is that we cannot have a true dialogue and true lasting education about the important issues in life as long as the elite are in power. And we cannot eject the elites from power without a political Back-to-the-Land Movement.

Book Five deals with a new theory of, how to determine what is true in regards to the large cosmological questions. Basically, the theory is that, the way we can know if something pertaining to a cosmological question is true, is if the belief would logically motivate people to create a harmonious worldly society, based, of course, on the concept of back-to-the-land and infrastructural decentralization. After the fundamentals of this theory are briefly explained, then a logical guess of a cosmological worldview is made based on the initial theoretical premise. The initial premise has some elements of William James’ epistemological theory of pragmatism.

Book Six deals with a method of voting, which has not received much media attention, called Score Voting (developed by Warren Smith at Score Voting is similar to how the judges score the athletes in the Olympics—scoring each candidate within a range of zero to ten and dividing the added scores by the number of scores—with only one addition, which would allow the voter to indicate a no-vote if they are not familiar with a particular candidate. The winner of an election would have to have at least fifty percent of all the ballots indicating a score rather than a no-vote for that candidate, so this way the winner is guaranteed to be well known to the voters but not docked for not being familiar to all of the voters.

Most people are simply unaware that the ‘plurality’ method of voting that is currently practiced in the United States, of putting one dot next to the name of one candidate, literally creates the one-party duopoly controlled by the Republicans and Democrats. Any well-known third-party candidate is automatically viewed as a “spoiler” and is strongly frowned on for even thinking about running. In a plurality system, if there are two strong candidates on the left side of the political spectrum, then the single well-known right-wing candidate wins; and, if there are two strong candidates on the right side of the political spectrum, then the single well-known left-wing candidate will win. Score Voting is the best system of electoral reform, so promoting Score Voting is a good reason why a third party, such as a Back-to-the-Land Party, should run, in addition to promoting the Back-to-the-Land agenda.

After reading all the chapters, a worldview, a big picture, or, a vision will emerge for the reader where a good and decent society is possible, and not just merely a better society. Reading about the solutions to the various world problems should dispel the notion that eternal vigilance is what is necessary to ward off governmental tyranny. Instead, what is needed here is an understanding of the sociological principles that need to be continually applied to prevent tyranny from festering after it is eradicated with the initial implementation of back-to-the-land principles. Yes, vigilance will be initially required to extirpate tyranny and fix the horrible problems in the world. However, once the problems are resolved, maintaining a good world shouldn’t require eternal vigilance at all, as long as the important sociological principles are taught to students in school throughout the various stages of their intellectual growth. A truly good world is one where there is plenty of room for play, leisure, art, fun, laughter, and a carefree attitude toward time. Eternal vigilance does not fit into this worldview.

People are not meant to work very hard! Unnecessary work is unhealthy because it stresses people out, because they know that they could be doing much more meaningful and gratifying things with their time. Avoiding work, of course in an honorable way, is why humans have a brain! So we can spend our time thinking about the higher things in life. What is nourishing for the soul is also nourishing for the body, and emotional health helps to keep the body healthy in an optimum fashion. As hunter/gatherers, in a lot of cases depending on the geographical area, humans didn’t have to work very much; two to four hours a day in many cases. The human brain evolved a lot faster than average in the geographical areas where humans were able to live with less work and had more leisure time.6 Of course this isn’t always the case, because some human tribes undoubtedly didn’t use their free time as creatively as other tribes. But also, to balance this discussion out, there was a quite a bit of brain evolution that undoubtedly took place when people were under survival related stresses, when they had to develop agriculture and technology to adapt to population pressure. Any kind of new stressful situation forces the brain to think about things that it is not used to, and this causes the brain to form new neuro-pathways. Such survival stresses also cause a certain amount of higher creative thinking, especially for people who have free time, so they can contemplate the meaning of the social changes and the most intelligent way to deal with the new situation. But even a lot of the people who have to do a lot of grunt work often listen to people who have had more time to think about the new situation, and this type of cognition within the mass public has definitely caused massive brain evolution within the bulk of humanity throughout the ages.

This leads back to the classical debate on biological evolution between the exponents of Darwinian “natural selection” and the Lamarckian “inheritance of acquired characteristics.” The Darwinians believe that nothing alters the parents’ germ plasm except selection played out on a mass basis over time. The Lamarckians on the other hand believe that environmental factors along with our personal volition affect our personal germ plasm, and thus the genes of our offspring will be somewhat mutated based on these Lamarckian factors. If this is true, then if the parent uses their brain or muscles in a certain way then not only will there be a good chance that the offspring will be smarter or stronger in the same way, but their genetic code in a small way will reflect these changes. Combining these minute Lamarckian mutations with Darwinian selection, over time there will be smarter and dumber strains of human genetics for example, and weaker and stronger strains, etc. According to new research, both the Darwinian and Lamarckian factors are valid contributors to the genetic change and evolution of a species (just do an internet search for “scientific proof of Lamarckism”.) August Weismann’s Neo-Darwinian germ plasm theory was officially smashed when science finally proved that the germ plasm is altered by the cells taking in information through the membrane via mechanisms called integral membrane proteins (IMPs).7 The problem has been, at least up until recently, that modern academia, ever since Jean Baptiste Lamarck published his Philosophie Zoologique in 1809, has vehemently denied the Lamarckian inheritance factor, and has insisted that evolution is attributed entirely to natural selection only, period; and occasionally there have even been derogatory epithets railed against Lamarck.8 Until more recently, before more scientific proof became available, the Lamarckians maintained that the inheritance of acquired characteristics is only a theory until more scientific proof is available. Academia’s main argument has been that the burden of proof is upon the progenitors of the Lamarckian theory, and they claim that Lamarckism is false because it can’t be proved. However, the logical fallacy with this is that the burden of proof is supposed to be with the person who is making a declarative statement about a fact, which is what academia has repeatedly done with many statements saying that Lamarckism is false.

Academia hasn’t wanted people to believe that free time is evolutionary, because when humans have free time they can cause their brains to evolve much faster. The last thing the elite want is for humanity to realize on a mass basis that thinking is fun and exciting; and this is exactly what it is when a person is following their heart about what type of thinking they want to do and what type of thinking they are interested in. But the biggest problem with the exclusivity of the Darwinian/Weismann/selectionist theory has been that it has denied environmental influences upon the germ plasm. How convenient is that for the elites? So they can dump chemicals ad infinitum into the environment and claim that it won’t cause our genes to mutate or degenerate. It’s sort of like that old saying, “what won’t kill you will make you stronger”, except the replacement clause is, “what won’t kill you will cause you to evolve.” (This way they can dumb us down, depopulate the planet without real education and an increase in consciousness, and prevent the people’s desire to go back to the land because the land will be so damaged—all so they can keep their big city model.)

All of the chapters, especially the first three, deal with historical information about why things developed the way they did. The more people understand how and why the history of civilization happened the way it did, the more motivated we will be to reverse the course of history. When people do not know how and why things happened the way they did, such people will always have a nagging doubt that maybe things are the way they are supposed to be, and that maybe if we keep moving ahead, staying on the same course that we are already on, then maybe we will finally arrive at the place we are supposed to be. True history tells us that the reasons are evil and irrational why we are where we are, and if we keep going along the current path we will not get to where we should go or would want to go. Wanting quality organic food is not enough to motivate people to fight for a decentralized society, because if this is all that people are interested in, they will more than likely settle for, as many are now, fake organic food farmed by big agribusiness. People need a much greater historical understanding than what they have now, and hopefully this book will provide some of the missing information in this direction.

But there are intellectual roadblocks to people being open-minded to learning about true history. For one thing, conspiracy theory is absolutely necessary, and people have been accustomed to being automatically close-minded to anything that labels and presents itself as conspiracy theory. Since conspiracy theories are always pointing the finger at government causation, of course the media and universities are going to teach people to dismiss such types of thinking. A lot of conspiracy theorists want to deny that there is any theory in what they are talking about, and they insist that they are involved only with conspiracy research, conspiracy facts and conspiracy science. It is true that a lot of what conspiracy researchers are involved with is science, and many of the issues that they are researching are of the nature of, who is behind one big event such as the Kennedy assassination or 9/11. However, even with these types of events there are areas of speculation that are not one hundred percent factually verifiable, involving minutia relating to causation and the many tributaries, personnel, and the various assorted motivational elements behind such events, and a lot of researchers do not want to admit that they enter into such realms of theory at all due to the bias against this.

With the various topics of historical speculation that are dealt with in especially the first three chapters of this book, there is no way around conspiracy theory. Since the government knows how important it is that we don’t know our history in order for them to maintain control, this is why they have spent so much time and energy tarnishing the term conspiracy theory. All of the following subjects are not one-time criminal events, but rather long-term historical processes shaped by conspiring world leaders with long-term plans, and therefore, these historical processes indeed require speculation and theorizing to uncover their true nature, and the reasons why all of these unfolded the way they did: the origins of agriculture and the causes of the transformation from the first forms of agriculture to the next; the causes of the origins of the state; the causes of large-scale urbanization and the reasons why civilization developed the way it did; the reasons why the psychedelic counterculture of the sixties happened the way it did. Maybe if the doors were flung open to the highly classified sections of the elite libraries at Oxford and the Vatican, we could all read about exactly who, what, where, how and why these processes happened the way they did. But most people are not likely to be granted the required high-security clearances to these special reading areas anytime soon. Instead, all we can do is piece-together the evidence that is documented and available to us and to try to reverse engineer the true history in our minds and on paper. There is no way around the fact that this undertaking will of course require speculation and theorizing about the way all of these long-term historical processes happened. After all, many of the topics dealt with here haven’t had much time and research spent on them because the elites don’t want them dealt with correctly; and as we all know, true science starts with theories and hypotheses before it can be accepted as factual science. The more the available facts fit in with the conspiracy theories that we have developed, the more validation we will have that we are on the right track in compiling the correct history.

1 A fairly good book on the subject, even though it doesn’t deal with characterizing Marx and his work as the contrived Hegelian dialectical antithesis, is, Marx Against The Peasant by David Mitrany, 1951.

2 The two main sources by Marx and Engels that I am familiar with on this topic are, The Communist Manifesto and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

3 Martin A. Lee, Acid Dreams, 1985.

4 Roderick Nash, 1982, Wilderness and the American Mind (third edition), pp. 380-381. This passage was also quoted in a book called Defending the Earth (1991) which is a transcription of a live debate between Dave Foreman and Murray Bookchin.

5 Allan Savory, 1998, Holistic Management, p. 139, “In more brittle environments, which cover most of the earth’s land surface, the time scale for regeneration would not be a human one but a geological one. Lands surrounding cities that were abandoned and left to nature centuries ago in these environments are still deteriorating. They won’t recover, at least on a human scale, unless we use the animals still available to us that can simulate the effects produced by the herds and predators that once made these environments functioning wholes. The alternative is to wait several million years for new species to develop, which is of course impractical. We have no option but to take responsibility.”

6 Lewis Mumford, in The Myth of the Machine, 1967, makes the case that humans didn’t choose to develop technology faster because they were busy doing more interesting things such as building the human brain with creative thinking.

7 Theodore D. Hall, The Ark: Surviving the Flood of Disinformation, 1997 (Leading Edge International Research Group.) This is an interesting book in support of Lamarckism.

8 A good example of this is in a book by Conway Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, 1959, p. 72, where he makes the statement, “As a scientist, [Lamarck] was a duffer”.

To be continued….

This entry was posted in General News, Knowledge Base, Off The Grid and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply