Sign in

Glen Allan
A multifarious heretical transgressive iconoclast seeking the chaos that will bring order to the world.

Unlike human-made “laws”, universal laws don’t require enforcement. Unlike human control systems, the universe isn’t based on an arbitrary need to create desired outcomes.

We create systems of laws. We arbitrarily decide that to violate those laws brings consequences, usually in the form of punishments. We try to force reality to be what we want. But of course, these human-made laws are full of shit, and can all be broken. But why? Because they are not expressions of the natural world. Instead, they are expressions of how we want the natural world to be for us.

If we wanted to…


Hoard wealth.

Create a fake system of pseudo-democratic or benevolent dictator rulership that pretends it is for the ones being ruled while in reality it is designed to placate and control them to protect the hoarded wealth and exploit them.

Alienate people from each other to mitigate collective action.

Tell them to survive they must “work” to support the system that exploits them and falsely promise that the harder they work the higher the chance is that they can become a master instead of a slave of exploitation. Sell this as a core value.

Make laws against the people taking…


In this continuation, we discuss the nature of our relationships to power in the context of our emotional self and its relationship to the development of the rational mind. So many of us have had a lifetime of battling between our emotions and our reason and we are always told it is just a matter of proper discipline and the acceptance of existence in this world and the structures we’ve built to define it.

Here again, is another dismantling of concepts with a bit of a hypothetical journey through time in the efforts to understand what went wrong and why…


One of the problems in arguing against free will is how completely compelling the idea of our subjective lived experience is in consideration of action taken. So whenever we feel that we are making a choice about an action, it gives us what appears like evidence of volition. If we give anecdotal evidence any weight in our considerations, it would appear as though there is no argument and we are of course capable of free will… But this doesn’t really fare well when you look deeper.

The big example I like to start with is the idea of the infant…


So let me backtrack a bit on a previous segment about what the answer is to how we can live. It does exist. But it isn’t what anyone wants to hear. It isn’t another way of controlling for systemic errors. What it is, is dismantling everything you think you know about how humans “should” live, and getting back to those ways that we so call “primitive”.

How do we solve the problems of alienation and powerlessness that cause the perpetual issues humanity has faced throughout all of history? Look back to when these things weren’t as much an issue. …


Maybe we could stop seeking happiness, or at least finally get it through our stupid primitive human brains that there are two types of happiness and things like capitalism, which try to sell you your own value for profit, can only really provide one of the two types…

We operate on a reward system that depends on internal brain chemistry, commonly known as endorphins, triggered by dopamine. This system triggers short-term analgesic pain suppression, which we interpret as pleasure. This is what capitalism sells as happiness. All kinds of things trigger this response in the brain, including social networking, buying…


Preface:
These posts are a culmination of thoughts and rambling I’ve had on the subject of human social theory regarding the problems in our current societies and ideas about how we can live and minimize these issues. I don’t make any “expert claims”, and you are free to call bullshit on what you read. but I do hope you have the capacity to consider the ideas.

I would not call these fully finalized breakdowns of the concepts involved, but part of a process of writing in order to better understand how to communicate what I’m trying to say. It is…


Every civilization eventually collapses… Because a civilization is by design an attempt to live outside of the natural equilibrium.

The Egyptians, The Romans, the Mayans, etc. All of them fell because they disconnected themselves from the balance nature had created, and created civilizations which put them at the center of the universe.

When science and reason invented technologies it needed to cheat nature effectively enough to avoid the standard blowbacks others had that made them collapse, it did so by figuring out how to borrow larger and larger amounts of energy from the greater system.

Our health care, our machines…


And the humans kept trying to control and own their environment, so as to make the world a more certain place. What they didn’t understand, and seemed willfully in denial about even trying to look at, was that the very efforts they took to create a world of certainty, were the very things that would author the upcoming collapse of multiple world systems.

It is a misunderstanding about how systems work, and a deep desire to define truth instead of accepting it. All of our efforts to make a safe and secure world, to make reality more predictable and increase…


This anti-violence rhetoric is one of the greatest examples of how bankrupt human ethics have become. People don’t even ask the pragmatic questions and instead, simply abdicate their capacity for action to an oppressive state apparatus with a monopoly on violence and call that moral because of some also bankrupt philosophy about the rule of law.

Giving up the right to violence is both giving up power and more importantly giving up having to be responsible for the outcomes of those kinds of choices. …

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store