Most Humans Are Just DUMB

Gee Soul,

Who knew you were going to get such extreme validation of your premise right here in your own thread.

Apparently, there are those that have replied that fall into that DUMB category.

As you suggested in your original OP, "MOST" Humans are DUMB and leave it to some to get defensive. Did you hit a nerve somewhere in the DUMB zone?

I know what your OP was intended to say, I know you were not trying to be a jerk, I know all you wanted to point out is the same thing you always try to point out...Most Humans do not have a clue about what is true and what is just a made up fantasy concoction of lies.

Most Humans think they are the center of the Universe and that life itself revolves around them.

Most Humans accept the monetary system as status quo and that there is no way to change it, because it is so ingrained in society it would be impossible.

The same people owned slaves at one time. The same people think racism is just a fact of life. The same people think being gender challenged is a choice.

I know you were not telling ALL Humans that they are DUMB, just MOST.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

You mean I am not the center of the universe?

Holy cows. Must've been on some transcendence maaaaan.



Thank you wise Sage!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is more proof how dumb humans are...I am going to dedicate the rest of my life making drawings of this idiotic State. I am going to post them on every website I can...let's see them stop me and arrest me for it.

a reply to: Lysergic

Oh no, you are the center of your Universe.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is more proof how dumb humans are...I am going to dedicate the rest of my life making drawings of this idiotic State. I am going to post them on every website I can...let's see them stop me and arrest me for it.

---

I salute your noble idea, Soul. I really domand very much. To make public mistakes or corruptions of people, to help others appreciate them and / or the people doing them themselves, can be a very noble, actually heroic thing.

Though a problem (or maybea bonus, depending) there can be, soul, that this can be exactly what many of these people are doing it for. And there is a certain kind of stupid, a very definite kind which really, really works in, you can say, groups. Or even a single group.

Truly dumb that is not actually bad just means that these people have or have had difficulty understanding things. Iguess, whether diagnosed or not or if diagnosable or not - to some point they can be thought of as actually genuinely mentally retarded. They aren't bad people, per se, probably.

BUT, many people really are bad, many are really terrible people. Many people are monsters who know how dumbish socieities work, how dumb (easily led, gullible, distracted, unthinking) groups of people can be used to their own evil ends.

That's the thing with dumb and stupid - either it means not necessarily bad per se, and there must be loads of potential grey areas around there, perhaps one foot somewhere into somewhere pretty bad. Or dumb and stupid really mean bad or evil or despicably, severely evil.

If you exhaustively exclude all the limited meanings of really stupid or dumb, at the end of the day I believe the terms can come down to the basic and solid, fundamental definition of evil.

This is probably Sunday School stuff for some people (not at all for others), but I'm sure it's the truth, the final truth.

Otherwise - the people called dumb or stupid in a limited way are only slow, gullible to an extent or mistaken, perhaps from having been misguided. The word "stupid" only slightly or partly or for a limited time describes them. And these other terms seem much better for them, rather than repeating "You're stupid" to them. Essentially, in the most fundamental, basic way, they're not so stupid or stupid at all, because fundamentally, though it can take time or help etc, they do understand.

But, to me, really stupid, is what evil really means.

Why I'm saying this is that "evil - stupid" people (a whole lot of people, I'd suggest - huge numbers of people, often very subtle, calculating & opportunistic or subversive, destructive people) know very well that what they're doing / how they're living does not exist in a vacuum.

They know very well what they choose to do not only just does, but is to have a particular kind of effect on other people. That's its purpose, I mean.

So, what I'm saying is watch out with your noble cartoons intended too - many are waiting exactly to arrest you. And then to kick you in the head multiple times in the police car in certain places, and much worse in other places. It IS how the world works.

Most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen.............2nd is stupidity.

The way we perceive life is a mirror reflection of our own minds.

Yo...stupid!
na...na
What is 10 + 9?
21
(If you don't know what i am talking about, search for "9 + 10 = 21 song" on you tube)

a reply to: everyonedies

Aleister Crowley, held on the satanic side of occultists, believed, or at least claimed to others (recommended is a good word) that:

0=2.

He gave really nuttty, actually extremely insane reasons and explanations for this claim.

Many people say Crowley was one of the most evil famed (or infamed) people. Maybe he was screwed up himself by really evil or screwed up spirits. But it's not hard to see that trying to control people's minds to a state where they will believe anything, and then tell them that 0=2, can really screw them up, if primed enough. I know this technique, using Crowley's writing in 0=2 -has been used satanically to brainwash people into a alleged terrible state of compliant and dependent stupor.

I once heard someone say that many pop musicians today are part of a "0=2" club, meaning it was part of some kind of preparation for their careers. I guess you can hear in many songs that they don't sound like the ones who knew their sums at maths. It even sounds like what they're "doing", as if from a stage musical about people who are challenged in some way.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Do the math that you are so eager to absorb yet ignore.

I'd rather see your equation. But on second thoughts I'm up for a challenge.

Have you heard of the Drake equation? well this is the cake equation. Lets assume that there is at least 100 billion stars in our galaxy, then imagine a tenth of those stars are main sequence i.e stars like our sun. That's ten billions stars.

Now imagine if a tenth of those stars had an exoplanet orbiting it, then leaves us with 1 billion stars. Now imagine that a tenth of those stars had an exoplanet with a satellite i.e a moon, that leaves us with 100 million stars...

I could go on for a while, but I did the math as you asked.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
The way we perceive life is a mirror reflection of our own minds.

So true.

We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are

Well Soul, at least you left some room for a select few that have some clue, I mean at least you didn't say ALL HUMANS are DUMB.

There are some that have the ability to recognize when they are being fed a crock of lies.

The list is endless concerning the supposed history of this planet.

Every day we are being revealed that there is so much we have been taught that is a complete fabrication of distorted factual accounts.

As some wise man once said...you can't fix stupid.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree

Money is the work of evil narcissistic brain dead morons.

Money has/does exist in nearly every society in human history. How do you propose we handle transactions revolving around an exchange of goods and or services?

I like the solution that Satoshi Nakamoto came up with.

Decentralization everything, and start with money.

a reply to: wasaka

Not interested in Bitcoin, thanks.

originally posted by: bw1000
a reply to: everyonedies

Aleister Crowley, held on the satanic side of occultists, believed, or at least claimed to others (recommended is a good word) that:

0=2.

He gave really nuttty, actually extremely insane reasons and explanations for this claim.

Many people say Crowley was one of the most evil famed (or infamed) people. Maybe he was screwed up himself by really evil or screwed up spirits. But it's not hard to see that trying to control people's minds to a state where they will believe anything, and then tell them that 0=2, can really screw them up, if primed enough. I know this technique, using Crowley's writing in 0=2 -has been used satanically to brainwash people into a alleged terrible state of compliant and dependent stupor.

One meaning of the 0=2 formula is that everything is made of Nothing or manifests spontaneously from Nuit. In a vacuum, pairs of particles, matter and anti-matter, are continuously being created out of nothing only to come together again in annihilation. As Aleister Crowley elaborated on the 0=2 formula, 0=(+1) + (-1). Thus “a hand full of nothing” and “plus and minus everything.” Of course, we all know that matter is not really composed of particles, but rather of waves that sometimes appear to be particles. Thus, form manifests in its positive and negative phases, figure and ground, “like waves on still waters.”

0 = the NOTHING from whence we came,
to which we shall return (again, and forever).
2 = the ILLUSION of the physical, good and evil,
the ying and yang, duality, Maya

This a symbol set 0-2 which teaches all is impermanent
(as so well described in Buddhism).

As far as I can tell, Crowley was really all about "Magick" which said was nothing more than the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will. He cast "spells" the way a Christian would pray to Jesus (but with more ritual and often better results). My question has always been, where did he come up with this: "Do what thou wt shal be te whole of te Law" (I read some where he received this from some supernatural force the spoke to him). But this is not an new idea:

"An ye harm none, do what thou wilt" ( Wiccan proverb)
"Love, and do what thou wilt." (St. Augustine of Hippo)

It would seem that Crowley merely re-purposed the language
to better soot his needs.

"Do what thou wt shal be te whole of te Law" (to will, wish, purpose)
The "Magick" for Crowley was "true will" or shear determination to make
what you want come into reality. But the whole quote add the phrase:
"Love is the whole law, Love under True Will."

What is this so-called "True Will" (again, for Crowley is is "Magick")

Is Crowley saying, "Love Purposefully (or not at all)." ???
That WILL Power is what makes LOVE fulfill the whole law?
That without REAL will, there is no REAL love? Perhaps.

I don't know what he had in mind, but this is my conclusion:

Your LIBERTY is your true authority!

All else is a False Authority, save LOVE.
To love under will is the means by which
one may RECLAIM their Will.

The world "AIM" is part of the term reclAIM.
The opposite of Reclaim:

harm, hurt, injure, lose, abandon, forfeit
destroy, endanger, ruin, waste, forget

Again I ask, what is this "Love is the law, love under will."
My take: Love is purposeful, or ought to be. True love
when under "true will" has this purpose: to heal the world.

Your LIBERTY is your true authority!
Do as you WILL and by your example you teach others
to do the same. In so doing, we heal the world.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Do you think separating "money" from government
(and banks) is a good idea or bad one?

Most humans are DUMB because they refuse to
think about this very question.

a reply to: bw1000

I agree with you that the general question OP was presenting is an essential question we must ask ourselves. From top to bottom you present this 'question' as it needs to be considered. But when we 'ask' this question, what do we get for our answer. Do we get a reasoned assessment of our human condition or do we come up with an answer that serves to alienate various aspects of society form others.

As OP did not present the thread title in the form of a question, rather presented it as a simple statement of fact, or opinion, he was presenting his answer to this very existential question, and from the way he presented his answer, I just had to attempt to prod him to move on from the simplistic position he has assumed.

OP's title "Most Humans Are Just DUMB "

OP then goes on to make those distinctions between himself and most everyone else.
'I am more concerned with the 99% of you that continue to let it happen.'
'Why are you so DUMB?'
'There is not much intelligent life here.'

Later in another reply, OP states
' I am sick and tired of this stupid planet.'

Again, as you present the question, I have asked it of myself for quite a while and as you say, I have found it to be an important juxtaposition in understanding who we are and our present circumstances. However, I, like OP, have come to the conclusion that OP presents and over time have found that answer to be wanting, indeed personally debilitating.

So when I mentioned being a self inflated egotist, I was not so much referring to OP specifically, but rather to a general tendency which can be the outcome of accepting the answer the OP had arrived at.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Thanks for replying.

"But when we 'ask' this question, what do we get for our answer. Do we get a reasoned assessment of our human condition or do we come up with an answer that serves to alienate various aspects of society form others. "

---

This sounds like a more disguised way of saying, actually just don't ask this question in the first place. Despite just coming after your saying the question is an essential one we must ask ourselves.
I think I'm getting a bit of rhetoric there. Or, what do they call it in our modern world, dumb or not, NLP or something?

If it's an essential question, it's an essential question. Whether it alienates (gulp) people or not, or whatever effect it has on a shaky mass of sensitive people or certain, especially volatile people, it's must be still essential to ask it.

---

"So when I mentioned being a self inflated egotist, I was not so much referring to OP specifically, but rather to a general tendency which can be the outcome of accepting the answer the OP had arrived at."

What does Hitler dressed up in something strange look or sound like?
I think I've just read it in the passage quoted.

Otherwise, it can seem (though you may have got your reasoning mixed up, I suggest) you have desires to pretty noble ends. Not to hurt any sensitive souls out there through questioning society (hopefully me too). And, at the same time to enlighten our paths and prevent us becoming self inflated egotists, should we by some misfortune choose the wrong essential questions to consider.

---

On the other hand, it all depends on what is the truth of, as you say, "who we are and our present circumstances." It's very interesting that you have found considering the OP's question to be severely debilitating and results in being left wanting.

I think that's what happens to people in severely fascist regimes. (Which I guess people can also be subject to in their own minds, say if affected by some spirits which aren't of the best kind).
Maybe you're a poor victim of real Nazis or nazi style spirits acting upon you.
Maybe you're one of these people who concentrate on "the good life" (or at least bearable life).
I can't criticise the last thing, of course, if that's the kind of thing you mean.
It is smart in it's way and maybe it's the most smart thing.
I can't criticise it just because I tend not to manage that way of thinking myself anymore.
But your good life, if that's what you mean, should be for you.
Surely you don't mean what works for you, or what is necessary for you, should have to be for all?

Anyway, don't want you to be debilitated as it sounds bad, so I'm not saying your opinion is wrong. Just that it needn't be for everyone. Some people can also get debilitated, even severely, if they're actually prevented from taking stock, truly, of, for example, a full terribleness of a terrible situation. I guess thinking of it, and not being able to think of it can both be debilitating, even to the same person at different times.

originally posted by: wasaka
Do you think separating "money" from government
(and banks) is a good idea or bad one?

Bad idea. But this does not mean I think the present situation is without need of remedying.