HUMAN v. HUMANOID __________________________ I may be a 'citizen' of a 'country' but I claim only to be a human being born in a particular place. I happened to be born in what they call the United Kingdom, Britain, or whatever they call it now, depending on their whim. However, as a human being, I have no consciousness of being born anywhere. Therefore, I know no obligation to/of my birth except that I was born, at a certain time, at a certain place, and under certain circumstances. My 'allegiance' is to no-one, place or otherwise. 'Allegiance' is something that must be mulled over and decided by an individual not something inherent because of one's birth since we have no choice at that time. I was born as an individual not as some serf to some king/queen, despot, president or place (i.e. country, nation) or otherwise. All 'countries' are part of the planet we choose to name 'Earth'. There is no such thing as a 'country', 'nation' or otherwise on a planet's terms. Peoples, individual or otherwise (tribes, groups etc.) were originally nomadic by the necessity of survival. They travelled from place to place gathering food and finding a place to shelter whilst finding it and consuming it. Some stayed in one place, others continued their nomadic life because of their particular circumstances. These were mostly what we call 'natives', such as the 'Africans', 'Red Indians', 'Australian aborigines' and so forth. Those who stayed in one place built fences. Within these fences they were in their domain. They did not understand anywhere else that did not have fences. They therefore believed that open ground was theirs for the taking and woe betide anyone who thought otherwise! Fences developed into regions and boundaries, defended at any cost. The nomads who were in a particular place at a particular time, did not have fences. Fences were the antithesis of their survival. What happens when the food runs out? Where does one go then? But because they did not have fences, they were prey to those who built them for, as stated above those who built fences considered it their domain and any open land was there for the grasping. The 'fence' society considered themselves 'civilised'. They considered the nomads (the 'non-fence' peoples) as 'uncivilised'. The 'unfenced' society was not able to accumulate enough defence of their land (all land belongs to everyone) and therefore they had to succumb (by sheer weight of numbers and technology based on a sited group, not real survival skills) to losing their land. You cannot produce arms for defence when you have to move about in the same way you can if you are sited in a particular place. Besides, there is no need for them at levels of such destruction. In my view, therefore, 'uncivilised' peoples are more peaceful than 'civilised' peoples. Humans procreate because that is their (sexual) nature and their genetic heritage and had general rules of behaviour depending on their needs and circumstances. Therefore, no person living has any 'right' to live in one place or another. 'Human nature', so-called seems to determine that what is some-one else's may be justifiably theirs as well. Thus they fight for territory. The territory is where the food, water, resources and caves are. Such a justification (in the human 'mind') is what is necessary to defeat an opponent (real or imagined) for the 'ends' of any particular group. The 'ends' justify the means, as these people say. Individuals determine who they are. They decide on their origin (if they want to). They determine their allegiance to anybody (if they want to). Individuals react with their brethren (or not!). When individuals of like get together they (if understanding the differences of others) will produce a simple community that benefits all. It is based on the 'merit' principle. The 'merit principle' is the common basis for what we allude to as a 'democracy'. For those who have the skills, we pay a price which we accept as representative of the input we make ourselves to accumulate what is reasonable for a replacement of our labour. In a simple society, all this works. The unjust are punished; the rest are rewarded by their adherence to the rules (NOT laws) of their particular society and their particular contribution to the group. Man is an animal just like any other. He is not special. He is merely another animal vying in a need for survival. That does not mean that because Man can decimate everything else in that quest, he is 'superior', that is patently and obviously  not true. Man is the worst animal on the planet for destruction but that is in toto. There are at least two types of the animal creature Man. There is the human animal and the humanoid animal. Just when this division took place or developed would be impossible to explain, I submit. The human animal is a (generally) social animal. He works the fields (or whatever) and produces a family with his chosen mate whom he looks after. They look after each other. They work for survival. Their value of myths and legends of gods , for whatever reason merely helps them on their way. They control them as they will. Human animals are male or female. They are dynamic and change as their circumstances/genetic material dictate. They are inventive, creative, spiritual (which is not religious in the usual meaning of the term). Humans are the 'salt of the earth'. They take no more than necessary for their survival. They look after their land and the other creatures who share it. On the contrary, the humanoid animal is just the opposite. A humanoid is a creature  that appears to look like a human male or female but does not fit the above description of a human. Humanoids are sexless. The humanoid is a parasite, pure and simple. It feeds off others. It bullies and controls. It is clever enough to make a few of the humans abide by their bidding, enough to have taken control of those who only want to survive. Human animals are an endangered species par excellence.  The humanoids have ruled the roost for too long. The fate of the planet seems to be in their hands. By deception, they rule. These are the people who live within fences. These are the people who then have to defend, by any means, what they have. They tend to greed. They exploit the land they have and the creatures of that land. These are the people who invent drugs to kill and maim. These are the people who destroy the water supply with fluoride. These are the people who steal your wages. These are the people who spray your skies with chemicals. These are the people who lie and cheat. These are the people who want to destroy humanity by whatever means (the humans). These are the greedy controllers (bankers, religious perverts, politicians and so forth). These people are the evil weed that grows like algae on a stagnant pond (except that algae has its own uses in nature). These people are the holocaust. Humans hurt because they have feelings. Humanoids don't hurt because they don't have feelings. When humans hurt they rely on nature to heal them and it works by risk survival. Humanoids rely on other means, to their detriment. They constantly rely on others and they do not get healed but remain slaves to their system (e.g. modern medicine). Humans exists despite the system under which they are forced to live. Humanoids exist because of the naiveté of the humans that let them. That is a weakness of humans. But like the plants and other animals, humans can prevail by their own experiences of taking (calculated) risks; learning by them and surviving. For those of us who wish to remain human, we must personally reject the humanoid factor and fight for our survival any way we can peacefully (which would be natural) and with the skills that independence brings. If we are not prepared to do this, then that is up to us; our choice, our responsibility, full stop. As I said once, long ago: Everything comes from within. Without within, there is nothing. Peter K. Sharpen

Return to CONTENTS page