5 January 2016

Attagirl, Astagirl
If anticiv thought is laughable,
Then perhaps this will make you pee yourself ?

[A person with the username Astagirl recently posted a wall of text on the Debate
Anarchism subreddit ostensibly designed to curtail anticiv thought. This is my response. I will
address it henceforth to Astagirl in 2nd person.]

Arguments and basic principles

Since youve already said that you doubt my critical faculties, I guess Im already half-
way down the poisoned well, arent I? But let me ask you: did you read any of my writing
before you wrote that comment? Did you consider any arguments in order to reach that
conclusion? Or did you judge what I said simply on the basis of the reaction it produced in
your head?
For you, my seemingly bold claim that anticivs are true radicals was irritating
presumably because you see yourself as a true radical. But what youve missed is that my
claim was that, compared with the current miasma, anticiv thought is comparatively more
radical than pro-civ anarchism. By radical I mean the original, somewhat-forgotten meaning
of getting to the root of things. Your own ideology supports industrial civilisation and work
and technological optimism, and you dont really challenge those things at all, so there is no
way that you could be getting at the deeper roots. You are making assumptions then trying to
belittle the people that want to challenge those assumptions. But you still want the accolade of
being most radical. Why?
The result is that throughout your wall of text, you make so many non sequiturs that I
wonder if you actually understand what argument is. Your piece begins with a flurry of these
non-arguments, and presumably you are hoping that they act as some kind of foundation for
the rest of what you write, as if no-one could doubt them.

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !1
 Do you understand that saying something is laughable and blatantly false does not
make it so? That for your argument to hold any water at all you actually have to demonstrate
it? I worry that you think you can call on principles that were established by previous
anarchists and expect other radicals not to challenge those principles as well. But the point is,
that all of these things are coming from your particular perspective, and none of them are
axiomatic or pre-established by some earlier line of reasoning.
Let me choose just one to begin with:

I get the sense that people see individualism and collectivism as two contrasting extremes. However I
believe this is not the case. Infact they go hand in hand. Similarly to how freedom requires equality,
collectivism requires individualism. Having an individual do well at the expense of a collective (and
collectives are comprised of individuals) is not at all anarchist. Neither is having an individual suffer
in the name of a collective. Truth is we are social animals. There is a reason that deprivation from
human contact is so harmful.

In this paragraph you suggest that people who want to concentrate on individual vs.
collective referents have a sophomoric analysis because you think that its a fact that neither
view is anarchist. But who decided that? You?
Never mind that the collectivist view can never be resolved because it depends,
unavoidably, on treating non-referents (collectives) as referents Never mind that a lot of
what I do is to encourage anarchists at the fringes of the space (who seem to have relatively
more in common with my ideas and relatively little in common with thinstream anarchist
ideas) to break association with the A word altogether What still remains either way is an
intense argument over the underlying nature of anarchism as an ideology, and the above
paragraph simply does not resolve it. For one thing, it is not a truth that we are social
animals. It can be posited as an essentialist statement, but is easily refuted by existential facts.
A large number of people are not social at all. It could be argued that this antisocial
behaviour is the result of alienation, and Id probably agree that it is. But what causes that
alienation? Mere state and capital? I think not.
Your non sequitur is also predicated on a particular meaning for the word social. By
your definition, I am guessing that a primitive band of nine people is a different thing from a
society of millions, right? Have you noticed that the very people you are trying to convince

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !2
(individualists and anticiv thinkers) tend to espouse the view that they would prefer to live in
small, organic communities, and not societies? Do you understand why that is?
You also try to smuggle into the discourse at this point the tawdry Leftist claim that
freedom requires equality. If there is one thing that politicised post-structuralism has shown
us, it is that equality is completely fictive. Since I think the word is meaningless, and Ive
written about it elsewhere, I wont tackle it further here, but I just wanted to highlight how
much of what you write is not argument.
But anyway, the missing definition of the word social leads nicely onto the main area
of our disagreement: definitions.

Definitions

You wrote:-

First we have to define what civilization is. So what the fuck is civilization? the most
commonly accepted definition (the one both pro-civ anarchists and modern anthropologists use) is
simply a city culture. What separates civilization is urban development. Often anti-
civ people will use a definition that includes social stratification, agriculture, symbolic communication,
a cultural elite, and domination and perceived separation from nature. Many will also claim this is the
commonly accepted definition. There's a degree of truth to this...as this was the most commonly
accepted definition of civilization...40 years ago. Currently though, we know more than Zerzan and
Perlman did during the 70s. [emphasis added]

This is one of the most blatant attempts to drop context and move the goalposts, within
a single paragraph, that Ive ever seen. Yes, civilisation is a city culture. But the cities are the
symptoms of the malaise, not the underlying cause. What separates civilisation from our
primitive past and a possible future primitive, therefore, is not urban development. There
are places all over the world that are completely rural, and still affected by civilisation. For me,
civilisation is simply the globalisation of hatred. If people loved their selves, their kin, their
fellow animals and the land that sustains all, they would not have erected civilisation. The
cities, but more especially the exploitative and objectifying relationships that have risen up,
have been built on hate.

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !3
 Likewise, social stratification, agriculture, symbolic communication, a cultural elite,
and domination and perceived separation from nature are also all symptoms. Civilisation is a
symptom, something that has happened to people. Whether or not they have read John
Moores call for the development and implementation of an anarchist psychology, learning
to understand why civ happened is of paramount importance to anticiv thinkers. For pro-civ
people like yourself, I guess this is an unwelcome distraction, huh?
For another thing, have you considered a simple nominalist approach to your definition?
Recognising that civilisation is what you live in? Looking around you and trying in your mind
to trace back where it all came from?
I think thats a far better use for your mind than this process in which you are seemingly
engaged. I will now examine this process, and will respond to a number of the non-sequiturs
that you made.

Obfuscation

In recent findings civilization is notably older than previously thought. Anti-civ folks like to paint
civilization as a recent occurance. While we have been hunter gatherers for the majority of our species
existence, civilization still isn't as recent as once thought.

So what? Lets assume youre right. Exactly when these things occurred does not change
that they did occur, and that there was a time before they occurred. You admit yourself that
gathering and hunting was the norm for most of our existence. But then that somehow
becomes an irrelevance to be obscured by your quibbling over details. This is the argument
from fallacy, and doesnt hold up, even if youre right about the details, which I doubt.

Also ignored is the damage that hunter gatherers cussed to their enviroment. Their lifestyle while less
destructive than the one we currently live wasn't some magical sustainable one either.

What if some hunter gatherers cause some damage? You admit its less destructive than
what we have now. As for sustainability, there is only one real test, now, isnt there? Are you
trying to suggest that things as they are now are sustainable for much longer? I suspect not, as
you have an interest in futurism and in trying to make things better in the future. But you

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !4
dont realise that before you resolve the problems of civilisation, and where they came from,
you would just be carrying them forward into your techno-utopian future.

First we start with social stratification. Recent anthropology suggests there wasn't some perfect and
instintaneous connection between hierarchy and civilization. Many early cities such as Catalohyuck
were highly egalitarian. As anarchists we desire a non-hierarchical society, this means that we do not
support social stratification. While it's true that civilization has overall trended to more hierarchical
power structures. This isn't neccessarily the case. As many pre-civilizational cultures had hierarchies
and systems of control. So because of this we can dissmiss social stratification as being a neccessary
component of civilization.

No, we cant. Because youve already confessed (again! You are supplying me with
everything I need straight from your own writing) that there were people that lived without
civilisation and hierarchy. That civilisation as a process was a long, slow one, with some
overlaps, does not invalidate the basic primitivist critique.
Also, those civilisations that were perhaps more egalitarian in their social structure were
still non-egalitarian in their worldview, as it were. They did not see themselves as equally
important parts of a bioregion. They were already alienated from their environments, and
had domesticated animals and started agriculture.

So what of agriculture? Again there have existed civilizations without agriculture. Natives of the
Pacific Northwest had absolutely zero agriculture. Yet, they had towns. Massive fishing and whaling
industries. They were by all accounts civilized. Which in turn leads us to the fact that anti-civ
ideology in its totality has a eurocentric definition of civilization. This isn't surprising as anti-civ
thought has always relied upon eurocentric ideas. With people like Jared Diamond (extremely
eurocentric) and Malthus heavily influencing anti-civ thinkers.

Another move of the goalpostsyou want to pretend, for some reason, that civilisation
resides in a discrete number of things, and if you can show that its not all in any one of
them, one by one, that it proves its not in any of them, and therefore is somehow invalid.
This is not logic. This is jumping it together.

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !5
 Yes, there were people that pulled fish and mammals out of the sea to feed towns. Do you
call what they were doing anarchy? Do you understand the arguments about division of
labor and domestication as they apply to autonomy?
By the way, as an anticiv thinker, I can tell you that no part of my analysis refers to, let
alone relies upon Jared Diamond or Malthus. So another of your non-sequiturs is punctured.
Oh, and ideas cannot be European and the birthplace or residence of a person
proposing an idea have no bearing on the truth or falsity of their argument. Another logical
fallacy.

Now what of symbolic communication? I think it's absurd to even label this as a hierarchy (because
it isn't). But beyond that while there have been humans without symbolic communication (ie written
language) none have ever been without language period...anti-civ thinkers took the wrong approach.
Rather than expand on language and try to come up with new forms of communication. Zerzan and
Co desire to limit our abilities to communicate further.

The last sentence there conjures a bizarre and absurd vision in my head, of John
Zerzan waiting outside your house/apartment, with wiretapping equipment, as part of an
anti-communication S. W. A. T. team: OK chaps, theyve reached their limitlets get in
there and make sure they realise their place!
John Zerzan (and Co, whoever that may be) does not desire to limit your ability to
communicate; that is a ridiculous assertion. What Zerzan and other critics of symbolic
language have done is show the ways in which language has been manipulated away from
being used to refer to real things (Sabre-tooth tiger! Right behind you!) and towards the
reification of non-real things. Especially horrific consequences have resulted where the reified
thing obscures the real thing and has led to its neglect, its exploitation, or its murder. Again, a
dogmatic obsession with raw hierarchy is keeping you from seeing the processes that enable it.
You went, in one sentence, from admitting that there were humans without symbolic
communication, to a completely different point, without a pause. This is classic context-
dropping. Why cant you just start from the thing that you admitted was true, and then
contemplate how much of the control complex we have nowadays could not have existed
without a symbolic order? Do you have some other explanation for how it came about?

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !6
 As to perceived separation and domination over nature, this isn't even a neccessary part of
civilization. Indeed the whole division of nature and artifice is a construct. Civilization is natural
Many pro-civ anarchists (myself included) are against domination over nature.

I think its time I asked a few explicit questions to go along with the ones Ive been
making here and there, up til now. A few questions that fall out of this paragraph, before I go
on to tackle the main part of your non-sequitur:

1. If humans existed for such a long time before the processes of civilisation began, what
caused the change?
2. Was the change natural?
3. If so, why didnt it happen sooner?
4. If there is no division between nature and non-nature, and you are against the
domination of nature, why does that only apply to zoos and the other paltry examples
you gave? Why not to all forms of domination?

Yes, plants, fungi, and single celled organisms are all living. Yes, they are just as important as
animals to an ecosystem functioning. But they aren't conscious, they aren't sentientplant based
agriculture is NOT domination over nature. Plants don't care who they breed with. With all the
GMO-phobia going on I should remind everyone that anything agricultural is a GMO! You know,
unless you want everyone to go gather shit to eat in the woods.

5. How do you know that plants are not conscious?

6. Even if they arent, is consciousness of the victim a requirement for domination?
Would killing someone in their sleep and eating them not qualify as domination?
7. Why would someone seek to blur the distinction between a naturally seeded instance
of a plant and one that has been altered in a laboratory?
8. If the purpose of your writing is a serious critique of a theory, why would you reduce
it to the description gathering shit to eat in the woods?
9. Whats wrong with gathering shit to eat in the woods?

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !7
 Which leads to us to the fact of how you are going to feed 7 billion people using hunter gatherer
methods. The simple truth is you aren't. While many proclaim that anti-civ has nothing to do with
killing mass numbers of people. It absolutely does however. There is literally no way to abandon
technology and civilization without killing mass numbers of people. Most estimates suggest around
6.5 billion people would die in the event civilization collapsed.

I already responded to this in your thread before I decided to write this, but Ill simply
copy and paste in what I wrote elsewhere.

Total land area of earth = 150,000,000 km2

Conservative estimate of how much of this land is inhabitable and
could support food forests = 30% (I think the real number is much higher, as if
destructive practices stopped, the land would return to a living state)
=> Total growable land = 50,000,000 km2

1 km2= 1,000,000m2
=> Growable land = 50,000,000,000,000m2

Population of Earth = 7,000,000,000 (approx.)

Growable land / population of earth = growable land per person

=> 50,000,000,000,000 / 7,000,000,000 = 7142m2oralmost 2 acres
If you cant survive ina 2 acre food forest (if you had one), you dont deserve to
survive.

I say it again here because the idea that civilisation is necessary for life to continue is
exactly backwards and its a really poisonous idea that has to be fought. Changing to a
sustainable paradigm would not kill off most of the world's population: a change to a truly
sustainable paradigm is what the 7 billion people on earth need to survive. If they carry on
making the same mistakes, things will get worse and worse until everyone is dead. My hope is
that at some point, people will get it, and change their behaviour. All of your non-sequiturs
seem to be aimed at telling people that none of these things are really so bad and not to
worry, which is why I meet them head-on.

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !8
Collapse

Now, we come to a subject that I feel is markedly different from all of the other points
youve made up until now, and deserves the focus of its own little section. The jumping
together phase of your piece is concluded, and now we enter the realm of total
misunderstanding. You wrote:-

This civilization collapse is something that anti-civ ideology wantsthe reality remains that even in
a post-civ or anti-civ situation, civilization would have to collapse and take billions of people with it.
In the event civ did collapse however, we most likely wouldn't end up returning to tribal societies.
Instead what would occur would be a return to a medieval level of technology. This seems to be the
most common prediction of what might happen if civ does collapse.

There are three different parts to what you wrote (I left out the bit about JZ saying that
a die-off would be required because I dont agree, and have already shown why):
The first part is to say that anticiv thinkers want civilisation to collapse. This is obviously
true. But why should it need repeating in the way that you are putting it? Are you scared that
people might come to want the same thing, and so are counter-scaremongering against that
eventuality?
Let me take you for a brief aside: have you ever seen bad ideas presented as really great
ideas? Have you ever seen scathing criticism of good ideas presented as necessary and
helpful? If you want some examples, think about what anti-abolitionists wrote about abolition
(Are you JOKING??!! Who will grow the cotton?), Nazis wrote about a 1000-year Reich,
statists write about infrastructure (Who will build the roads?), etc.
For a more anecdotal example, let me tell you about something I encountered while
teaching English in Korea. My helper/handler was intensely critical of my style of teaching,
and one day when she was absent, I discovered why. Open on her desk was a folio of her
notes (in English, bizarrely, about the differences in our teaching philosophies. I chuckled
when I read it, as it was obvious that she thought she was completely in the right. Its a good
example of someone talking about good ideas as if they were bad.
She had written: Teacher A [me, Benett Freeman] thinks that students can best learn
language by being encouraged to manipulate the language for their selves, whereas Teacher B
[her] knows that students learn best by listening to the teacher and repeating what they say.

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !9
 The reason I make this point is to show you that sometimes people can become so
attached to a set of ideas (it is you that carries ideology, not I) that they cannot properly
connect with opposing views. So when you tell people they actually WANT collapse!, it
comes across rather humorously to some of us anticiv people. I look at it in a similar way as I
would if you had argued against the abolition of slavery.
Put another way, when you say "civilization collapse is something that anti-civ ideology
wants, I would immediately say yes, flush it all away as soon as possible. There is nothing
here to redeem.
But what do I mean by it? I mean civilisation and its trappings and artefacts. I do
NOT mean people. The most dangerous conflation that you pro-civ people make is between
civilisation and people. Youve already admitted that people lived without civilisation, so it
sounds rather strange when you tell us when we cant live without it.
And besides, it IS collapsing. None of the major pillars of civilisation are sustainable,
and we are beginning to see widespread psychological, environmental and economic collapse.
The former is outpacing both of the latter two, in my view, which is actually my only source
of hope for the possibility that people might figure it out before everything is destroyed.
Some writers have even gone so far as to suggest that civilisation IS collapse, and I
actually agree with that. The sustainable biorhythms of many millennia ago were disrupted
by some negative feedback loops, and life has been in collapse ever since. Its interesting that
you didnt refer to any of the specific warnings and critiques that anticiv folk have given. Are
you scared that if you do so that people might come to same conclusion? What are you scared
of ?

Many post-civ folks will say they want to move forward, beyond civilization.

Well, yeah, we cant go back, can we? Whether you seem time as real (as per some
physicists) or an illusion, we cannot take the current configuration of the planet and revert it
to something it once was. We can only affect how things will become. The anticiv argument is
clear on this: if civilisation continues, things will become worse. There is lots of evidence to
support this POV. Apart from your debunked die-off non-sequitur, do you have any reason to
suppose that a move to a post-civilised future primitive would be consequentially bad?

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !10

Radicality

Here is where I must object most strenuously to your non-sequiturs. Having

misrepresented the anti-civ position, you are not content, and actually want to diminish it
even further by suggesting, contrary to some of your previous points, that actually, its not
even a radical position. Lets examine the logic of your critique of radicality.
You claim that anticiv people hold on to a sacrificial ideology and live in the
philosophical prison of primitivism. Precisely what sacrifices are taking place? Did you mean
sacred and merely made an error? Lets give you the benefit of doubt and assume so. If so, I
agree that in some ways, the primitivist position has some problems, and is vague about
certain concepts, and even vaguer about prescriptions. But primitivism, and especially not
anarchoprimitivism, does not define the entire anticiv position, nor invalidate its central
critiques.
Next, you invoke transphobia and ableism as if gender and disability were
unassailable positions in their own right. The fact is that, like it or not, the discourses on these
subjects began very recently, and are still highly contentious. Just because you have your
position on gender does not mean that anyone who argues against that position is more or
less radical.
In order to look at radicality, you have to look at which analysis cuts to the more
fundamental, primal level. Anarcho-syndicalism therefore, cannot be as radical as those that
ask do we need to work?. Transhumanists, therefore, cannot be as radical as those who
question humanity.
And since my position (I reject any label for it) amounts to a relentless investigation of
each part of the control complex, and I routinely start my analysis by first separating
existence from essence and determining what is real, I am therefore, like it or not, more
radical than you. You subscribe to a view of gender, and call anticiv people transphobic. Im
part of a growing set of people that are happy to say that there is no such thing as gender and
that this is actually more helpful to the people concerned. The gender critical position is that
people are fine as they are and do not need to change their body to suit some imposed gender
stereotype.
There is no hatred in that, only consideration.

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !11

 You hear anti-civ'ers suggest diabetic people need to die to "make us stronger". Infact the whole anti-
civ appeal relies on social darwinism. A survival of the fittest mentality. In this regard anti-civ'ers
don't present a fundamental and radical change but rather an asthetic one. Simply replacing the
survivalist elitism of the society we currently live in, with another survivalist elitism.

More questions for you:

10. Which anticiv thinker suggested diabetic people need to die to make us
stronger ?
11. What conditions produced social Darwinism?
12. Was social Darwinism practised in civilised societies?
13. Are you aware of Kropotkins response to Darwin? What do you think of that?
14. Is gathering shit in the woods merely an aesthetic difference to how you currently
live your life? [Isnt this you wanting it both ways?]

While primmies and anti-civ'ers love to attack other anarchists for being "reformistic". It is ironically
they who are reformistic. Sure the asthetic may change, but the anti-civ desire is by and large limited.
By contrast pro-civ anarchists desire to change everything and discard of a survivalist mentality
entirely.

You see, youre just saying stuff. Youre not offering anything in support of it. Come
back when you can say HOW the anticiv position is reformist, and limited. Come back when
you have some way of describing how pro-civ anarchism is anything other than changing who
is running the factories.

In this way, what primitivism and anti-civ opposes isn't a hierarchy but a mere asthetic.

Ah, good old hierarchy. Always a fallback position when one struggles to deal with
arguments that the other elements of the control complex are not solved just by opposing
state and capital. Hierarchy is a result, it doesnt come about instantaneously. There are
motivations, and then actions, and then results. And you want people to believe that anarcho-
factoryism wouldnt rely on a hierarchy. If so, find me a list of civilised people who will
happily get down in mines and dig out ore; and a list of non-civilised people that wont mind

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !12

when their homes are destroyed in order for resources to be extracted; and a list of non-
humans saying that theyre more than happy for civilisation to shit all over them so it can
broaden its (Deep) horizons.

15. You actually talk about accurately addressing the root cause of our suffering. So
what is it?

Would such a world without comforts like the internet, heating and AC, running water benifit you?
If your positions aren't either informed by empathy or an enlightened selfishness then I don't know why
you have the beliefs you do.

16. Have you thought about the system that is required for you to have internet,
heating, AC, and running water? Is there no one in this world who is currently
suffering that might call your demand for access to those things enlightened
selfishness ?

Oh, and you wondered why anticiv and anti-Left sentiments go together? I guess that
you really dont get it at all. Leftism as an ideology is the idea that somehow, no matter what
people are going through, the important thing is that they are functionally equal. Nothing
could be less radical, in my view. It doesnt question why things are the way they are, it doesnt
ask if equality is even possible, it insists that things must be that way, and anyone who opposes
this initiative is an enemy of _____, and attacks them. In a recent essay on morality, I called
it the 2nd Voice. Perhaps youd be interested to see what I wrote there?

Definitions, revisited

Lastly in your writing you give some definitions of the key concepts of technology,
science and progress.

You say:-

Technology in its most basic definition is the application of knowledge to solve problems. This covers
everything from spears and bows, all the way up to computers. But this broad and concrete definition is

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !13

 ditched in favor of an inaccurate definition for anti-civ folks. For them technology is more of an
asthetic than anything. Is it made out of plastic or metal? Does it have sharp corners and an industrial
asthetic? This faulty definition is extremely problematic.

Actually, Ive seen more anticiv people than pro-civ people put forward the definition
you give. But youre not asking the questions as to what problems are being solved, how they
arose, and whose thinking will be altered by the use of that technology. You treat human action
as if there is no feedback, when it suits you. Of course it matters what the details of a
technology are. A toy gun is different from a real gun. A toy gun is not a great thing: its given
as a gift to children so that they can simulate the same murder their parents hypocritically
ignore as an immutable part of modern life. But it cant actually fire bullets and therefore isnt
the same. If at some point in the past, all production of real guns had stopped and only toy
guns made, wouldnt conditions be significantly different?

Primitivist and anti-civ [people believe] that a certain level of technology will lead to hierarchy. Not
only is this not the case. But the whole idea of anti-civ thought rests upon the assumption that this
technology is unavoidable because it will be developed at some point basically begs the question.
What's stopping us from doing what we have all over again? The answer is nothing. In the even civ
collapsed and we forgot why it happened. There would be nothing stopping us from doing the same
thing

Again, you are missing the point. Certain kinds of technology do lead to hierarchy. And
again, hierarchy is only the result. Objectification, heteronomous urges, and desire for
domination inform the causes. And those are the result of feedback loops from earlier
changes like domestication. Im truly sorry you dont understand these processes, but that is
no excuse for the painful anti-thought conclusion of theres nothing to stop us doing it again.
You are adding inexorable stupidity to your list of assumptions about human behaviour.
If you dont think that you yourself would be capable of remembering why you had made the
biggest transition of your life, and passing that information onto future generations, that is
one thing, but dont try to sully the rest of us with the same shitty defeatist negativity.
Even if one couldnt escape that kind of extreme pessimism, its no reason, by the way,
to stop other people from trying it if they so choose. This is where Leftism returns, however,
and tells us that were all in this together, and that society must remain integral.

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !14

 We also need to adress what science is. In its most basic definition science, is the intellectual and
practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and
natural world through observation and experiment. That is what science is.

Right, and again were back to motivation and why. When people used science to help
them learn about and relate to their environments, that was a very different thing to
developing industry, wasnt it? But this question not reducible simply to it depends on what it
is being used for. It also begs the question why do you want to use it for that?
You used the word study in your definition, and the reason why science has been used to
study in the modern era has always been to control. Study and control. Thats what science
has become. Why? Because of the motivation to dominate and expand the culture that itself
sprang from earlier parts of the culture. This is a culture of domination and empire and it has
had to spread in an attempt to sustain itself.
That is what progress is. And so Enlightenment thinking is the latest in a long line of
assumptions that are added to your repertoire.
Do you really feel that you can reach the conclusions you did through so many non-
sequiturs and carrying so many assumptions?
Does the reader?

ATTAGIRL, ASTAGIRL !15