It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Psychopathocracy: forget the NWO, it's psychopaths who run our world

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:25 AM

What I do know is if we ignore them, and let them keep their powerbase, their goal will always be the same, genocide and transhumanism.

What the ... oh ok:

from wiki:
Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities. The movement regards aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death as unnecessary and undesirable. Transhumanists look to biotechnologies and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Dangers, as well as benefits, are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.[1] The term "transhumanism" ... is often used as a synonym for "human enhancement".[2]

So... just to make sure I'm on the same page here... genocide (in today's world, where to begin...) and transhumanism (fascination with using science and tech to extend life and human ability) are both on the evil-must-be-targeted list? How did the latter get joined with the former? Just your personal interests?

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:27 AM
>> Zepherian

I still maintain that the people who are too cerebral are dangerous to humanity.

I guess the key is 'too' cerebral. The definition of the 'too' is the crux there. You could be insanely cerebral but if you had sufficient development in other areas it wouldn't be "too" much. (I'm basically a mystic so I see it as an imbalance in the chakraic body, but never mind.)

I once had a moving dream that involved (this is funny) nuns. I've never even met a nun. Saw a few, a few times, in a shopping mall, from a distance. Anyway I was thinking about truth and lying, before sleep, is where that came in apparently. It was some Order of them and some of them had vows of silence. (I dunno if they even still do that stuff, I've only heard/read about it in books/movies.) The whole dream was about truth, and what wasn't truth, and what wasn't either; things from this focus-reality were like... flotsam sorta; white noise; not truth, not a lie, just 'not applicable' to the soul. They were showing me a lot of stuff internally, so I could feel inside myself for different things and 'the feel of truth' and at one point, this was part of the edu, I started losing the thread of truth. I started talking more, I noticed. Then I started exaggerating and using sarcasm which pushed me even farther away from the feel of it and from energy it was 'feeding' me, through me. And when I finally started genuinely losing all connection to it, I suddenly got a ton more 'logical', downright _technical_ no less, as if it was definitely an "overcompensation" -- like a desperate search for 'truth' using the shallow, world-based definition of 'truth'.

The worse my disconnect from it got, the more "rabidly logical" I got. It's like some person who is profoundly lacking a needed nutrient, and their body is driving them to eat and eat everything in sight to try and intake some of it, but none of it is in that packaged crap, so they just get fatter and sicker and tired-er and ever-more driven to eat, because they never understand what they're truly lacking, or why when you lack energy for metabolism and insufficient protein/amino reasons, all the any-other-food in the world isn't going to help. The human body evolved over such a long period, it has no clue what the hell bread and coffee are; when you're driven to eat there's likely a biological assumption of meat and water. Except in today's world that doesn't tend to be the result. So our innate hunger/thirst reflexes in today's society really hurt some people. Well that's an analogy but anyway, it's like I could see that they (pathological liars--this is what brought on the dream, I was thinking about someone, who reminded me of another, and I was thinking, what, is it something in the water??) were SICK. It was like a disconnect from spirit, or to stay out of religion/metaphysics here, definitely a disconnect from any strong sense of self.

This was educational. I function in psi-based areas (and while I'm nearly considered a skeptic by my own field sometimes--99.99999% of everything in that subject is such BS--there IS a core of truth to it IMO and IME) and I have always been kind of fascinated with people who were really extreme debunkers. (I don't mean genuine skeptics. I love skeptics! I love science! Real ones just make sure stuff is done right. But 'Scoffers' as Truzzi (one of the founders of CSICOP, who broke off from it) called them, are another story; it's basically a religion for them. They remind me of people I've met who claimed to be Athiest but want to spend all their time hanging around Christians telling them why it was all a lie and wanting them to argue. I mean, "thou doth protesteth overly much" is the point; it examples much more of their psychological problem than anything about the 'presented issue'.

Culturally we don't have much that feeds the soul -- or let's say 'deeper psyche'. It's hardly surprising so many people are shallow and out of balance.

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:28 AM

People who talk the talk but don't walk the walk could be indicative of some form of psychopathy.

That's usually a good way to frame it.

Or as someone famous is quoted as saying, "You will know the tree by its fruit." When you turn off the volume, back away and look at the larger picture, you see what fruits; what is poisonous; what explodes; what wilts.

No matter what the hype on the surface, "intent" manifests itself and is visible to anybody paying attention to that. If you instead of listening to a given speech someone makes, take as much of their history as you can and look at it as objectively as possible and let the "pattern" show you what it amounts to, their 'true intent' always comes through; it's almost holographic, or maybe just subconscious, that in the end no matter what we say or how we're affected temporarily, the larger patterns of our lives reveal who we are. Goes for companies... and governments... too.

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:28 AM
>>> Illusionsaregrander

But here is the thing. Our culture didnt get where it is overnight. It isnt going to change overnight. Generations of blacks had to struggle to gain rights here. Women struggled for over a thousand years to gain rights. Big changes dont happen over night, either positive ones, or negative ones.

It doesnt mean the struggle isnt worth it. It just means YOU personally may not benefit from it. Your descendants might. Or maybe their descendants will. But that kind of is what I am talking about. We are every bit as selfish and self centered as our leaders. If we have to sacrifice, and there is a chance we may not immediately benefit, or worse, may never benefit from that sacrifice. Well then it just isnt worth it.

I think you are right in this. You said that well.

And the suggestion that you can out compete the unethical in business without having a movement of consumers consciously supporting you simply isnt workable.

Seldom can one compete within the same factors. Competing in alternative ways is usually the answer. Nobody could take on IBM; but they could do something kinda different and end up an equally large evil empire -- oh wait. I don't think that worked out like I planned . . . LOL

the invisible hand will always select for efficiency. (The company with the lower costs) Thats the major flaw with a free market. It selects for efficiency. Slavery is highly efficient labor.

It is, but I don't 100% agree here; the free market will always select for *success*. If you say, "all other things being equal, company with the lower costs is successful," this is accurate. But if not all other things are equal, this is not the case.

For example, I paid $150 or so for an AeroGarden (so cool) that can grow herbs, little veggies, full size veggies, start seedlings, etc. all on my counter. Adorable, clean, fun, and frankly, overpriced. The made-in-china plastic daisy flats and trays I used to use cost $5/ea. Yes, people buy a bazillion times more of those flats and seed starting stuff. But a growing market buys AeroGardens now too--the company is doing well far as I know, given their product line is constantly expanding and their prices aren't really falling, and this as the economy dwindles and higher priced luxury items are the first to fail -- so why are they succeeding? Because they aren't competing against the same factors; they aren't making the same stuff the big corps in entrenched markets were already doing, or they couldn't have begun to compete. They had no competition *because* they were kind of innovative. (Not hugely, but some.)

This is why I said creating new things is in my view the best way to obsolete old bad things (and the bad people managing them). You can't just create the same things and expect that having no history you can compete in the same way. You have to do something genuinely creative. (And better still, if you avoid trying to compete in an 'entrenched' market, you're a lot more likely to survive. By the time that market figures out you're taking a little piece of them you're big enough to suffer but recover.)

People pay for innovation, for fun, for qualities they see as meaningful; for example Segway isn't out of business or anything, though I think their tech has issues and they haven't been nearly as innovative as I expected and to say that 'transportation' (cars to bikes) is an entrenched market is an understatement; but they are a different approach and that's why there is at least a doorway for them to begin with.

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:29 AM
On biz/tech/new-ideas:

I used to work for a small high tech new tech firm. The CEO had invented (in high school!) a technology that is a replacement for the rotating electric machine. The REM tech had not had much improvement in like 125 years. The best tech in REMs is the carbon DC brush motor, which is used in trains for example. But they're dirty and more, and 10% of the train stock is out of commission at any given time for maintenance as a result.

The CEO as a teen had come up with a relatively simple idea (actually one of those things that makes you wonder why the hell nobody thought of it before it's so obvious) that allows 100% electronic commutation, ability to flip the field instantly, full torque at basically 0 RPM, and it's way lighter, way smaller, way faster, way quieter, less waste in building, less maintenance in operating, has a fraction of the battery draw esp. on first-load which is a huge thing esp for electric or hybrid vehicles--and can be configured as any form of REM electronically which means it literally can flip from being one kind to another (say, engine vs. alternator) -- I mean, the potentials for this tech, even though it is merely "a bit of an improvement" in an existing tech, are staggering.

Electric cars are stupid. Batteries are a massive waste and the whole thing is so inefficient. If you make a hybrid car you can run on gas or any kind of fuel as your own engine recharges your battery, then run on battery until you have time to fill up with gas, giving you twice the range, avoiding the bazillion charging stations, twice as much battery waste, etc. The reason that electric vehicles and batteries (themselves toxic and more) are being pushed as the answer is the same reason a GM designer once privately laughed to me that they could make 100mpg cars many decades ago but "there are other reasons we never will so why go there". Entrenched technology; show me the money, who makes that stuff, who has any gov't funding/contracts (even indirectly) and I'll show you why most gov't sponsored technologies are "more of the same". Wait, I'm off topic. Back to the point.

In europe where people's washing machines are in their living room, things like smaller/lighter/faster/quieter-especially are big; basically every form of appliance, vehicle and machine that uses REMs had the potential to be better for it. And better, due to the E-control factors, you can do the tech better in any app; for example there's a whole tech detail on exactly the temp and RPM and detail of dryers that makes a huge difference to the outcome of your laundry (and this is trivia here, but an issue in the industry), vaccuums, you name it. This tech won the Iowa governor's award back in the 80's I think it was.

At one point they'd been in the Sears Tower no less--until black Tuesday when the megalith funder pulled out of everything outside AUS. The guy spent years, having basically millions in debt (thanks to the managing company, global banks are insane, the rep had his own aviation even...) and no product yet (it had been in devel), trying to find a way to salvage the result. He is the best salesman alive (I mean absolutely amazing). When I joined the company they were investor-dependent for our salaries and working on developing applications. You have to retool somewhat to build these things instead of ordinary REMs, and you'd need to develop this tech for a given app--particularly the electronics. That was the hard part really was that we weren't an electronics firm and what we needed didn't really exist--as existing stuff didn't have the same capabilities--so we needed that developed in conjunction, which cost money, which we didn't yet have. Just a little we had, to begin.


posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:29 AM


We had third party testing that demonstrated the tech was even better than we thought though (in commercial sized washing machines, in high-end golf carts, in hoists, etc.) which rocked. A huge washing machine appliance corp signed a contract with us to build out our tech for their app. It was a party. They would kick ass in the market here and abroad and make more money and we would finally, once it was in place, be independent from funding and could IPO and it was only the beginning, so much potential... so very exciting.

We then signed a joint venture with Magnatek, the largest motor mfr on earth, who was very impressed with our technology, wow that was huge. They had so much money they could lift a single money-neuron and retool a plant for this, so they were perfect to develop the near-infinite apps it could so rock in. Uh huh. If they 'really' wanted to. Despite the joint venture legal agreement, they promptly went to the customer and said, "We'll sell you stuff at a fraction of the price we normally do on the condition you don't use their tech." They agreed ('just business') (but also probably knowing if they refused there were things that could be done to hurt them, eg charge them way more for other stuff). Then the Magnatek CEO came and had lunch with my boss and basically said, to paraphrase, We don't need to worry about it; you can't afford to sue us; I have staff attorneys who make vastly more than your entire company annual funding. We don't need to compete with your tech; we can starve you out, since patents are expensive to hold, and later on just buy and bury the patents. But it's nothing personal. You're a good guy and it's a good tech. [ . . . ] Well it was pretty damn personal to US, as you might imagine. Especially him. But it was just business.

The real problem is that we were competing against a tech with over a century of entrenchment; with global-level corporations; the minute they saw what we had, we were doomed. The potential of the tech (and the CEO's sales ability) made the firm aim big. We should have been working with smaller companies in smaller industries, maybe even in a new tech of some sort, so that we had more time to get a couple of applications in and get established independently before the evil overlords had time to notice us so much.

In the end, the company eventually wrapped up to roll into a clean shell, merge with an electronics firm and IPO anyway. (I resigned around then, because I wanted to move to Oregon, though at the board of directors pleading request, ended up sleeping on the floor of my apartment for like six months while managing an audit that made this possible.) At the last second it turned out this multi-million electronics corp was so badly run that it had almost no profit at all and wasn't even qualified to IPO, pitiful! Alas, the local investors couldn't hold out anymore.

So the CEO went off and did something else. Decided to coach baseball, ended up taking his son's traveling team to the state championships, then moved to Portland. It rained all the damn time he thought, and he ended up founding a bottled water company called Oregon Rain (which is really good stuff IMO, way better than most what you buy in bottles, my kid and I really liked it. But as I live in Oklahoma we don't get much of it LOL-- we could if I could talk the local stores into trying it. By the way he'd give anybody a commission who got some local store(s) anywhere to order it, and most trucking firms that deliver stuff will do whatever is ordered by a store, if any sales-oriented people are interested in $). He's a born entrepreneur obviously.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RedCairo]

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:30 AM

Anyway, this is an example of what doesn't work: competing against entrenched industry that big. It was like Godzilla vs. Bambi. I spent four years working like 100 hrs/wk for that firm, went from contractor to corporate officer, and I was pretty upset that it didn't work out, but you know... that's the risk of startups and new tech, I still love 'em. I really do believe that "if we knew then what we know now," it could have succeeded, and SO many technologies and applications could be better for it -- not just specifically for this one thing, but for what it could make possible to further-develop in other techs too, that interact.

Maybe the former Magnatek CEO was an example of that interesting mindset we lament; but he seemed like a genuinely nice guy aside from this 'business decision' (then again most sociopaths are really nice on the outside too so who knows). His company had billions invested in 'the old way'. It didn't matter the new way was better and that in fact they could own it if they want. It mattered that the new threatened the old. Everything fights for survival.

Usually there is more chance for new growth in gardens that don't have a century of permacrop and weeds. New ideas and people willing to try and bring them to life don't always work but sometimes they do.

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:30 AM

Originally posted by RedCairo
I don't know about this really -- I honestly think that the vast, vast majority of people are completely oblivious to all that stuff, and when they hear about it, it seems rather difficult to believe.

They dont know because they dont want to know. Its hard to believe because they dont want to believe.

I think maybe you live in some region where people agree with you culturally so you just assume that people think like you do. I know endless numbers of people who have never even heard of such things and would have a hard time even comprehending them in detail assuming they took the time, which they probably wouldn't because it isn't on their radar of reality at all, and they would want a helluva lot of personal, factual proof before they thought it was more than just some activist making stuff up, or they'd think it was true but assume it was a one-time thing, much like you hear of someone going postal but you don't assume that everyone does or that it happens weekly.

Most people get the kids to school, work all day, clean the house, make dinner, watch TV, and go to bed. On the weekend they mow the lawn or go to the lake or do their shopping or play softball or go fishing, some go to church. This is LIFE for a huge percentage of people. All the things that most people who do much talk on the internet worry about, know about, is literally like in a whole separate universe from the majority population. I might add that back home in California (I'm from Ojai, in Ventura County), I think most people would be more 'aware' of this kind of thing. Here in nowhere Oklahoma, I don't think they are at all. Why should they be. Most people never leave the state. The USA is utterly gigantic. It's not even relevant to their life in the slightest way what is going on in brazil. Hell brazil could disappear off the face of earth and nobody in Oklahoma would know about it LOL -- but again; why should they.

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:30 AM

Originally posted by RedCairo

Most the people I know who *do* know even the most minute fraction of this stuff (and believe it) *do* care about it. They are not all carrying picket signs, or avoiding anything made by company X, so maybe it doesn't count.

And thats the bottom line. Even the people who DO know wont select against things of that nature by making conscious decisions not to buy from company x if company x has the best prices. I can see not having the time or inclination to carry signs, we do lead busy lives. But doing with less so that you dont support psychopathy? That isnt really hard.

I'm not against the idea of that. There's plenty of stuff I don't or do buy for philosophical, quasi-political or environmental reasons so I suppose in practice I support it no matter what I say from the armchair.

But I still think this is an arbitrary levying upon anybody, because if you really cared, there are like 8 BILLION equally serious, important, concerning issues, companies, causes, and situations to care about. Unless you homestead in an intentional community with an Amish lifestyle, it's damn near impossible not to support with nearly everything you do, SOME company that is evil, SOME politician who's a snake, etc. and usually (a) ridiculous numbers of them and (b) it would be this gigantic life-consuming task just to research and figure OUT who those might be!

I'm not saying that one has to entirely give up, just that it becomes a matter of 'where you draw the line' and it's a personal decision for everyone and I'm not sure there's any better or worse to filter that on, especially since most those decisions have approximately zero net effect on the situation anyway.

We can merely hope that other people find *something* to care about in *some* way. Not sure we can 'judge' it fairly though.

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:31 AM

Originally posted by RedCairo
There is a max on how much you can stress about. I'm a single mom. I'm at my max daily.

Worrying about what you cannot change. I think about what I can do. I can not buy from Wal-Mart. I can drive less. I can make do with not having tons of cheap junk I just "want" and dont need.

I like Walmart. Super walmart owns my town. Bummer for the grocery stores, except the one 3 doors down that is 3x as busy because people like me don't want to hike a mile to reach the milk in SWM so we pay more for it. (I work from home, I walk to the store, I drive very little, I do organic gardening and mostly whole-foods cooking (except when I'm misbehaving), my worst vice is my laptop computer--on which I do about 20-30 hrs/week of free programming for my favorite cause for years now. I can't afford to be too decadent, but I do sometimes use paper plates [for this I'll surely burn in hell...].)

I do think about people in the world who dont have, or who are being exploited by those who do have.

I don't think about that much. Simply because I don't know what I could do about it, and have other things to think about. I have had many grand ideas that amount to 'social structures' that would mix business and support of the community together, but they'd require a lot of money to pull off of course, sigh. I am really a fan of the 'intentional community' idea. And I think--although I'm neither part of nor interested in it personally--the Mormon church (CoJSoLDS) actually has a very good 'social governance structure' that could be learned from and applied in some non-religious small-community formats.

I believe in capitalism, but not because I believe in people starving in the streets; I also believe in a culture that expects, even demands that every business (and family/people) contribute to the community in some fashion, in education, in sponsorship, in service, something. They choose the way, they and the community which gives them license to do business there or live there. To me, business without community interweaving is like intellectualism without compassion; it creates that "TOO cerebral" effect mentioned above; it's an imbalance.

Multinational corporations are by nature parasites. They take money _from_ our economy's buyer's market, and then put the salary and taxes into some other country. That situation is pretty much contributing to the ruin of the world -- not only ours for that reason, but the other side for the near-enslavement/toxic-waste/etc. reasons. Add to that how their profits give the more leverage to lobby for more of the same and the circle is complete.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RedCairo]

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RedCairo]

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:31 AM

I left business school in my senior year at the top of my class looking at at least 45k a year to switch to philosophy where I am qualified to flip burgers because I decided I didnt want to benefit from that system. I would rather be poor than be that unethical.

I left college because I couldn't work two jobs AND afford school on my own (and have zero hours for sleep) in the so CA economy in the mid-80s. But I make over 50% more than that in general management and made 3x that as a self-taught programmer so I don't think that not having a business degree relegates you to flipping burgers. (If you believe it does, it might though.) Maybe you were just being humorous.

And I do empathize with your situation. It is hard to be poor.

I probably misrepresented something. I don't have much extra but I'm not poor. I've been poor, as a kid at times with my mom, a couple brief periods as an adult particularly just before/after having a kid, but my life is relatively comfortable at the moment. I only mention this because it's kind of unfair to the people who truly are--I can't claim to fairly represent that perspective.

What one is able to do DOES vary from person to person, and from time to time in ones life. But every single human on the planet has the option of doing SOMETHING more ethical each and every day. It isnt an all or nothing proposition. Even if the more ethical thing is just leaving an opening in traffic for the guy who wants to pull over. We can all be less self-centered and more caring. It doesnt have to cost a fortune. It doesnt have to cost anything. It just has to be a motive we have, to do better every chance we get. Rather than to shrug our shoulders and say, "well everyone else is doing it, why shouldnt I?" or "well I cant do much, therefore why bother at all?" Little things add up. And small things influence others. Some of who can do bigger things.

That's nicely stated. I agree with that.

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:31 AM

I have also been thinking that the only real way that psychopaths could ever be truly selected OUT of the gene pool would be if there were no groups using psychopaths themselves that we had to compete against. (Because obviously a group with a psychopathic leader and the right technology will easily dominate a group with an altruistic leader and the same technology) This "no groups to compete against" is what we are moving towards, (even though many, myself included until I had this thought,) are adamantly opposed to the idea. The whole One World government idea.

I used to be virulently opposed to that idea.

A buddy of mine, much older, a former soldier, who has been to more countries than I can remember exist or ever knew did, once told me that the majority of the world is a pit, plain and simple, a disaster for its people, with chronic though fluctuating situations any of which we would consider a nightmare and usually several of them at the same time. Sure, we think that the US/Canada, and UK/Western Europe is ok, and there are "pieces" of other countries that are ok... usually... sort of. But for most of the world, and we get into endless amounts of 'people and land' here that most of us never think about with our little labeled categorization and massive oversimplification of what any country 'is' -- the lack of having fundamental technology, fundamental economy, fundamental governance, is a never ending misery.

He talked about what a difference it would make if a government that did not allow slavery, child labor, that had a halfway normal economy, that had some standards of technology and sanitation and medicine and agriculture, that didn't result in a coup every 20 years -- the number of people whose lives would be saved and/or radically improved by this, would outnumber the number of 'first/second-world' people whose lifestyles as a result of that union might be slightly less grand, by many orders of magnitude.

It was his view (and he was long term NSA intell) that this event (one world government) was, absolutely, going to happen -- and the only question left is "who is to be master"? Will it be marxist, capitalist, democracy, republic, sharia, what? He felt that after seeing the world up far too close for far too long, democracy was what he hoped for people to have the benefit of, and so to him it became worth having a goal to see the competing elements (marxism, sharia, etc.) not get-there-first -- because they are fully aware of it too and much of what's going on in the world right now is a much bigger chess game related to that and the future, not just to what we are measuring as the 'reasons' for today.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by RedCairo]

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 05:31 AM

Of course initially this one world government would be governed by psychopaths, and having no outside group to fight, they would direct their psychopathy inside the group. Which could provide the impetus for us to decide we really didnt like playing the psychopath game as much as we used to, and could cause us to begin the slow process of eliminating that behavior once and for all.

I think mostly it means we'd find a common enemy. Human nature is pretty predictable that way. We aren't allowed to hate people for race, gender, sexuality, religion or nationality anymore. Hey, maybe we should hate them for being fat. That prejudice is pretty openly supported I think. Bit of a bummer for the native americans, bit of a blessing for the asians (genetically I mean). It's always something!

This reminds me of Tom Lehrer's song "National Brotherhood Week" for some reason. Man he was blackly hilarious.

It would be a natural evolutionary outcome, from the single cell (selfish) organism, to the many celled complex and cooperative organism. Only this time, each human being is a cell and the many celled organism is the species as a whole. Who knows. Too bad I wont be around to see the outcome.

You might. You just won't remember this chapter. ;-)

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 08:05 AM

Transhumanism is not really human enhancing, if you follow some of these people, you'll realise that the trans in transhumanism refers to replacing humans with something else, it refers to the hubris filled notion that scientists can take humanity, the product of billions of years of environmental mutations and evolution and, in a few short lifetimes, replace it with some sort of artificial construct that is better suited to survive than we are.
Also, it's an elitist philosophy, they have little interest in shoving corneal implants into the guy who is mopping their floors. Remember the prediction that humanity will split into two species? Also, having gained through meditation some insight into the true potential and capabilities of the human body, I suspect they are trying to fix something that is not broken, out of a fear based emotional philosophy, which exists because they, the transhumanists, are scared of their own mortality, are disconnected from their own souls. Or, to get on topic, they are psychopathic in nature, the transhumanists.

Too cerebral: I guess I wasn't really clear here. What I mean is not some sort of run to the bottom rejection of abstract thought and calculism, no, I was, badly, referring to the relation between physical exertion and mental planning. People who think then do have, usually, a different perspective on the work, on the whole social dynamic, than people who think then get other people to do for them. The former tend to be more responsible and have a more complete understanding of the tasks in hand, because they are in hand, the latter then to instrumentalize people and things for their own mental goals, and, to get back on topic again, so often these goals fall into psychopathy and are detrimental to the people doing the work, to the environment it is done in and, not rarely, to the very intelectuals that are defining it.

Hope this clears up these issues. I hope you're right about humanity surviving the psychocratic disfunction, but I personally think we could do better if we address it over the following decades. At the very least decentralization and dehierachylization (if this is even a word) is something we should aspire to, while at the same time maintaining the global peer to peer capacity the internet gave us.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by Zepherian]

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by RedCairo

I think you're being somewhat shortsighted on this one. The psychopaths are more organised than people usually accept. And they have a genocidal gameplan. Given our current technological landscape, where mind manipulation techniques and automatism is a few decades, perhaps, away from giving these people a totally controllable army, I don't think we should really allow them a functional world government. They would, with little consideration about the consequences, focus that power on the repression of mankind, possibly with the goal of complete extermination.

Remember they are a fear motivated transhumanist crowd. Letting them have power hoping we can just work around it is not a good idea, because sooner or later skynet would be knocking on our doors. Again, they have to be downscaled, because if we let them upscale the result will be the worse genocide in human history (it's already going on in stealth, thanks to vaccines, designer diseases, malnourishment, etc) and, in a worse case scenario, the end of human history. We won't automatically fall into a utopia but we would be better off if we address the problem directly. I say this in principle, the exact hows and wheres is something for further thought.

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by Zepherian

This is honestly the first time I've heard of 'transhumanism'.

But I'm tempted to think that like any other interest/movement, that there are likely people who are at the extremes (we'll have 10 people who live forever, a few thousand soldier cyborgs, and the rest of earth is a garden), who give the whole thing a bad name, and plenty who are in a more reasonable middle.

I'd say I think it's a huge area for profound abuse though (eg genetic engineering is fascinating, but all the hybrids suffering humankinds' learning in secret labs, I genuinely pity).

Maybe it's because I grew up on science fiction--or because I'm a science freak across the board frankly--but I think the pursuit of 'science and technology' to improve, extent and supplement human being is not "inherently" evil.

I think a good deal of what humanity "is" qualifies as either semi-accidental, or calculated by people who are not our friends anyway.

Does genetic research (telomere for life extension, other things for inbred traits) fall into this category?

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by RedCairo

Without a doubt there are goodwilled people with lofty ideals that have transhumanist philosophies. But as we say here, hell is full of good intentions.

I am surprised you have not heard of transhumanism while posting on ATS, it is a common conspiracy theory theme, as it's linked to eugenics.

There are a variety of scientific procedures in the medical field that can be linked to transhumanism, but their use is not automatically transhumanist. Take implants for example. If we are replacing an accident severed limb with a robotic implant we are not being transhumanist, if we are cutting off a good limb to replace it with a higher performing (or alleged to be higher performing) implant then we are espousing transhumanism. Trans, beyond, humanism, humans. This is the key point, going beyond humans is to negate them. Us. This negation of humanity then links to other darker philosophies and/or religions, like satanism.

At it's core it's the idea that technology > nature, which feeds into my spiel that people who think a lot but don't experience reality out of their own heads enough are dangerous. Transhumanism is a philosophical and material manifestation of applied psychopathocracy.

Another problem with transhumanism is that people go into it thinking they will end up with Charlize Theron and they actually end up with Marlyn Manson...

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 11:09 AM

I think you're being somewhat shortsighted on this one. The psychopaths are more organised than people usually accept.

I believe that 200% but when using that perspective, it means I cease to be talking about most of the individuals that our society is familiar with, and begin talking about sources we are not, which is a very different conversation.

And they have a genocidal gameplan.

This part I don't really see. I mean aside from the 'individuals our society is familiar with' being that way in their own little pockets around the world, but again that separates which coversation we're having.

I think it's possible that the hidden-sources of control are interested in wiping out a huge chunk of population but I don't think it's necessarily a genetic- based interest so much as a locational or generalized interest. (eg if there is a word for 'killing off the third world' vs 'killing off people specific to race X' I think that one would be more appropriate.)

That die-off is probably going to happen either way, possibly as a curbing effect from other intelligent sources; humanity's been pretty much nearly wiped out before likely not by accident; local sources may be attempting to take control of it themselves so they can at least choose who/how survives. Kind of a judas situation on a global/species scale. Just one theory though.

-- doesn't make it ok. Just changes the perspective on the options.

Given our current technological landscape, where mind manipulation techniques and automatism is a few decades, perhaps, away from giving these people a totally controllable army, I don't think we should really allow them a functional world government. They would, with little consideration about the consequences, focus that power on the repression of mankind, possibly with the goal of complete extermination.

I just don't see this. Even the most psychotic multi-million killers haven't wanted to kill all life on earth; there would be nobody to serve them, nobody for them to control and live off, if they did. (Not saying those they did kill are ok with it, just saying that 'complete extermination' seems very exaggerated to me.) I think the only sources that could be charged with 'extermination' are those who could truly do it if they wanted. The more technology our species has before that showdown the better IMO.

Remember they are a fear motivated transhumanist crowd.

Explain what makes you say this--why not assume there are also altruistic, optimistic motivated so-called 'transhumanists'? Since when is science as applied to humanity innately bad? I thought that kind went south when the Church's grip on our world lessened.

I am not like, educated about it and on the other side; a name for this and thinking about it as a major movement is new to me is all, so I haven't had time to 'see' whatever it is that has given you this view.

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 11:21 AM

Again, they have to be downscaled, because if we let them upscale the result will be the worse genocide in human history (it's already going on in stealth, thanks to vaccines, designer diseases, malnourishment, etc) and, in a worse case scenario, the end of human history.

It is not ok to kill people merely because we have population problems, but despite that, it has to be noted that plenty of natural not calculated things kill people en masse when that situation exists.

Without grains as food none of the population problems on earth would ever have come about; it puts earth in a miserably unsustainable situation.

1. Keep feeding everybody and make the situation yet worse as a result?

2. Let people die and call it "nature" just like when the tigers die because the elk are too few because the winter was too cold and there was less greenery?

3. Help them die sooner in a framework rather like the "controlled burning" theory fire departments use, for hills of fields of weeds dry and ready to go up like a roman candle, and they want to do it in smaller controllable patches so as to keep half the state from burning down by more natural causes that are inevitable if they don't?

I disagree with the method/decision of #3 obviously -- mostly because slaughter is IMO not ok under any circumstance even for animals let alone humans, sheesh -- but I think I can see that people making that decision may feel genuinely that they are doing a bad thing for a good reason, that they are not doing anything nature and/or controllers wouldn't make inevitable anyway, and that they are helping/saving those they can.

The larger situation of overpopulation is a nightmare with no clear solution. Pursuing novel technologies that approach this problem in other ways (such as mass involuntary birth control particularly in certain regions of the world) is for example "another alternative" but this would be considered appalling and evil too I am sure. Maybe we need more options.

We won't automatically fall into a utopia but we would be better off if we address the problem directly. I say this in principle, the exact hows and wheres is something for further thought.

The principle of "those I disagree with need to be rendered powerless" I understand; we are all believers in that, including those currently holding the power LOL.

The exact hows/wheres of that 'rendering powerless' process is pretty much where it all hits the fan though. How to not become what we hate in order to do to them what they are trying to do to others is a bit of a dilemma.

And I worry that much like some political philosophies, it would have a built-in flaw: those who in turn became the controllers might by nature end up with the same perspective as those they replaced, because even the common man, given power, ceases to be "the common man" anymore.

posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 11:37 AM
reply to post by RedCairo

When discussing psychopathocracy in theory I don't think it's out of place to discuss psychopathocracy in practice.

In a complex reality there are of course people with different intentions. However, from my own take on conspiracy theory I have come to the conclusion that people are motivated by their energy states. If they are loving people they tend to focus on family and friends and make a difference locally, if they are fear motivated they tend to become psychotic and go for power mechanisms. The more fear, ie, the less emotional energy, the darker the manifestations in the physical. At the very top of the socioecnomic pyramid we have people that have lost it, and the manifestations is eugenics and transhumanism.

A transhumanist, in the true meaning of the word, thinks that he is better off shifting his conscience into a machine and have other machines serve his needs automatically. He wants to be the borg. Normal love based people want to shift their conscience into their souls and transcend their humanity into the higher plane, the fear based people want to take control of this reality.

There are many signs this is so, from codex alimentarius to the automation of almost everything to the engineering of pathogens and likely hundreds more examples. It's when you consider transhumanism and eugenics that all these seemingly random and not always rational acts are tied together under one memetic set, under one philosophy. I think it's a matter of critical mass before anyone realises what is going on, people who read about conspiracy theories after a couple of years "get it". This is the reason for the meme that conspiracy theories are for nutjobs, because the people who control somewhat the dissemination of memes have some very dark secrets they wish to hide. Culminating with the stripping of humanity out of the picture, because they can't quite control the free mind.

In broad strokes this is what I think, as to why I think it, that would envolve me listing my personal life experiences and a lot of what I have read on the subject. It would be a thread in it's own right and I don't think it's relevant enough to go into that much detail. For anyone wishing to study this in the information age, transhumanism and eugenics are the keywords. So, to use a cliche, google it

So there is also a transhumanist eugenic angle to what is going on in the world today. Other conspiracies probably exist along side it, and perhaps not totally in sync with it, as is the case of the religious mind control structures in the great monotheisms, and I'm not suggesting transhumanism and eugenics explain everything, but they are part of the mindset of european aristocracy for example. They started breeding goats, went on to cats and dogs and horses and cows (probably not in this order) and somewhere along the lines they bred people. Further down the line they are trying to breed in technology...

For an overview, the way I see this love is a higher frequency, and it manifests itself in life, in organics, through dna, to mix this in with technology, with the material, the electronic, to mix this all in the same body, is to lower the frequency of the species, and as such is a step backwards.

We should keep the blood pure, as some book says, and use technology to help us, not to take us over.

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in