The "Art of Man-herding", Eugenics, and Population Control

The "art of man-herding" is discussed somewhat succinctly in Plato's Republic and Statesman, and I do not think anyone would claim that it is a secret or that there are no "elite" concerns regarding population control and even reduction; therefore, I think it is quite obvious to all conscious individuals that there does exist an agenda which is concerned with many aspects of so-called "man-herding" including the control of populations and the encouraging of breeding among the so-called "good stock" as well as the discouraging of breeding among the so-called "less desirable stock".

What I would like to start a discussion on is: "Who decided man should be herded?", "Why is man being herded, and what is the ultimate purpose behind it?", and "What gives one (or a small minority of the whole) the right to be the herders rather than the herded?" What is the purpose of this experiment we call society, and what measure is used to decide what is good for it and what is bad for it? Are "your" answers to these questions being carried out properly?

Also, if the purpose of society is for the "whole" or even the majority, then should the "man-herders" be selected by nature via natural-selection and simply be the best at "the societal game" or should we, as parts of the whole, have very strict and rigorous tests of intelligence and integrity which are selected by the "herd" as a means of determining who is worthy of the position of "herder"? Is it sane, as the herd, to trust nature to select who will have the majority of our best interest in mind or would it be more wise for us to do the selecting ourselves and strongly distrust those whom nature would supposedly select to "out-do" us? Can the "herd" truly trust those who honestly and actually believe they are "superior stock" due to their luck or skill at the "game of life" to have the majority's best interest in mind, or would such individuals potential have their own interests in mind? Could such individuals develop a superiority complex or even a dangerous mental illness (possibly inherited genetically) which would not have society's best interests in mind? Would the historical fact of tyrants be verifiable evidence that such things do occur, occur often, and should be a top priority for society to guard against? Does it make more sense to heavily drug test, mentally test, and physically test "the herd", or should even more emphasis be placed on heavily testing the "herders"?

Should an important document be drawn up by "society" concerning what it is for and what the "herders" are for, which teaches what the most important traits of the "herders" should be, and what tests they should pass, and should such a document be taught to everyone with a basic education, since it appears "civilization" chooses democracy or some form of republic as its governance? Should a grand test of "social leadership" be drawn up and taught to the masses (does such a thing exist already and is not widely known)? Would that better society?

Should one's skill at "society" (ie. economics, politics, etc.) be considered "natural-selection" when civilization and society are known to be man-made? And if one claims that man, and therefore his society, is part of nature, then shouldn't we question "elite" policies which exclude man and the disturbances he causes as part of the environment?

The point of this post is not to debate the so-called need for herding, which is a different debate which usually leads to accusations of eugenics or calls for a need to control population based on fears over environmental concerns, but rather why there is such a thing in the first place (its existence is undeniable and undebatable regardless of what you call it, although the extent and "power" behind it may be debatable), along with the other various questions and concerns I raised. This is a sociopolitical, philosophical, and even spiritual/moral topic, and I look forward to your insights.

Your thoughts please.

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1


Beautiful piece of writing, friend. Really tight.

since it appears "civilization" chooses democracy or some form of republic as its governance?

That is the key word, I think. We seem to choose the whole show, as far as I can tell. We seem to be trying to get somewhere by inflicting society upon ourselves.

I think that Plato was trying to harness the whirlwind. He seemed to be trying to describe a system that had been wrested from man's dingier impulses and made to reflect the radiance of The Good. In other words, "We didn't start the fire", and all that.

We seem to do it to ourselves and I see nothing wrong with getting totally honest and drafting something up we can all agree upon, if that is what you are suggesting.

X.

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie1
The "art of man-herding" is discussed somewhat succinctly in Plato's Republic and Statesman

Interesting, I actually had just started re-reading the Republic, as the last time I had read it was at the beginning of high-school, and being so young at the time did not truly understand the meaning behind it all.

I'll keep my eye peeled for that this time through.

For the convenience of those who have never taken the time to read them, I include links to both the Republic and the Statesman. In my opinion, if you have not read these, then you do not truly understand what is going on, what the debate is about, and probably even exactly what you are so angry, fearful, or frustrated about concerning society (at least at its root).

Plato's Republic

Plato's Statesman

reply to post by HillbillyHippie1


Because the social constructions, that WE have made resulted in a false dichotomy of two groups - superior and inferior. I strongly believe in psychic unity, but unfortunately environmental circumstances can put a chokehold on how well someone can achieve in life. I'm currently reading Stephen Jay Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man and an excerpt from Citizens of The Republic was inserted:

Not in the present generation; there is no way of accomplishing this; but their sons may be made to believe in the tale, and their son's sons, and posterity after them.

If you tell a lie often enough it'll become a truth in an individual's eyes. With each new generation, they will become credulous in their belief that people can be categorized in numerous ways. It will then promulgate all throughout society.

reply to post by Xoanon


Thank you for your kind words, and "yes"... I am suggesting that we educate the masses by getting together and drawing up things which teach the masses what this is all about, what the purpose is, what the importance of things are, and how we intend to get from A to B. It is my opinion that we spend all of our time arguing over the politics or rather philosophical underpinnings of it all and most do not even understand what it is they are actually trying to argue at the heart of it all. Perhaps if the masses are educated concerning this very topic, then we can expect society to better itself (or dismantle and destroy itself as either a conscious decision that it is a lost cause, or simply because it makes the wrong decision)?

In other words, I do not believe the solution to many of society's problems is to socially educate the masses, but rather to philosophically educate the masses. I believe the majority can handle and understand the most basic, fundamental, and important aspects of society if they are given a chance and not worked against by "social education", mass media, and distractions. I believe humanity is meant to be conscious about its direction and it works best as a unit and a whole if it knows consciously on both a collective and individual level (completely self-derived) why it is doing what it is doing. I believe each individual is capable of figuring it out, on a self-derived and completely conscious level given their own good time and simply having the "fact" pointed out to them, if they are given the chance and not distracted for the purposes of power, greed, and money.

If the masses are educated and able to reach the conclusions to the questions I asked, on their own, I believe great things can be achieved. I believe a start in that direction is to both philosophically educate the masses and to have the currently capable (which is probably larger in number than first thought, and would basically include all who are consciously aware enough to volunteer to give their input) draw up a statement of what should be looked for and tested concerning our "herders" (if such a thing is deemed necessary or right) and to have such a statement taught to the masses in order to aid their philosophical education. Such a statement would have more of an emphasis on being consciously aware than on what to look for. In other words, it would be more about teaching one how to set the wheels in motion to think on their own, rather than teaching them how to actually think concerning who they "choose" as their "herders". Again, that is only if the masses decide this "man-herding" system is correct in the first place.

I can say this much... The overwhelming majority immediately have a problem with the term "man-herding", and therefore would likely be greatly awakened by the fact of its existence. I can also say that I believe people are less likely to go crazy and do violent or criminal things if they have a clue as to what society is trying to do "for them" in the first place. The fact is, most would not want to commit a crime against society or hurt others if they actually knew and philosophically understood what its purpose was in the first place; that is, if its purpose is truly for the majority (which it is not currently, in my opinion), but if it is not and they understood the supposed purpose, then perhaps they would put their energy into fixing it rather than hurting their fellow man? Perhaps they would channel their energy elsewhere, especially if their true potentials were not being suppressed by vile human beings with twisted or misguided agendas?

Who would look at this world and say our so-called "herders" are "fit" for the position? Perhaps it is time to have human society choose what is best for it rather than "nature", since human society is only natural to humans? When was the last time you saw a chimp printing money and handing it over for a loaf of bread, together with all of the laws and systems set-up to support such laws guiding that system of exchange/trade? You haven't, because our society and civilization is only natural to us, if it is even natural, and therefore the leaders of it should be chosen not by natural selection and genetic superiority, but the checks and balances of our society, and our society should be on guard against outside natural influences upon it, for its own benefit, which includes eugenics and so-called genetically superior persons or those who might believe they are such.

There is actually quite a bit to think about and discuss on this issue, and it mostly amounts to: "What is the purpose of society", "What is right or wrong for it and how is it decided?", "Who should society benefit?" "Does society benefit who it should?", and "When we speak of education or awareness as being the answer, what do we mean?"

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9


See... You make an excellent point, that many do not think of on that level, but COULD if it were pointed out to them in those terms. Many are frustrated, and for that reason, but they can't properly figure that out because they do not know how to express their frustration and are often too distracted by "social" B.S. and so-called day-to-day things needed to survive "in this system" to stop and consider the root of their thoughts and frustrations, which amounts to what you stated.

There is, in my opinion, this false dichotomy of superior and inferior. For starters, it is false because it assumes the definitions of such are objective and absolute. While this may be true on one level, it remains to be proven or shown that the subjective (particularly the majority collective of the subjective) is not the actually definer of such things, which, if is the case, means one need only manipulate the masses to have the so-called "objective" and "absolute" truth or definition they desire, which in turn means it is nowhere near absolute and objective, but rather is a majority opinion, and majority opinion can be a wrong or poor decision.

My other point would be the notion that one's supposed superiority in one light somehow overrides the potential or actual superiority of another in a different light. Who decides that, and should we allow them too?

For instance, supposing one is "superior" at the game of society and generally more intellectual than another who happens to be superior at breeding, but rather "dumb" in the intellect? What gives the more intelligent the right to claim it is the benefit of society to stop the breeding of the less intelligent but more prosperous breeder? Is not the ability to spread life around and reproduce just as important, if not more important, than the ability to think? Does life not have many ways to survive? Would it not be more likely that the intelligent wish to curtail such breeding for their own benefit rather than necessarily for the benefit of society? Does is really serve the species to do such? Do you kill of your most fertile animal simply because she makes, in your opinion, more stupid animals, and you want more intelligent ones? Do you play "God" and inject your animals with toxins to see who "survives" best and is therefore more fit? Would our "herders" do such to us? Should they or could they?

Also, wouldn't most agree that if the masses were given as great of a financial chance as any other that many could compete on an intellectual level? Isn't that the philosophical idea behind educating the masses? Wouldn't most agree that money has a lot to do with one's ability to be educated and it is not all a "genetic" issue unless one considers the ability to succeed financially (a completely human concept) as a highly important factor for our survival as a species? Such a concept would be why open source and open education and thought should be pushed by society and not allowed to be suppressed!

What is truly superior and inferior and who decides these definitions? Who decides these definitions and uses them to "herd" humanity? So again I ask, who is society made, currently, to benefit?

It is my belief that the solution which people seek is truly in making the masses aware, but not just making them aware of a conspiracy or fact of life, but rather making them aware of what society is, how it is designed, how it works, and getting the masses to ask some of the questions I posed. We, as conscious and FELLOW human beings must make them aware of the root of their distress and inquiry so that we all can alter the direction of our destiny as a species.

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

Originally posted by HillbillyHippie1
The "art of man-herding" is discussed somewhat succinctly in Plato's Republic and Statesman

Interesting, I actually had just started re-reading the Republic, as the last time I had read it was at the beginning of high-school, and being so young at the time did not truly understand the meaning behind it all.

I'll keep my eye peeled for that this time through.

Yes.. I would recommend you read them with an eye looking towards such things. In fact, I would recommend individuals read Will Durant's first volume on the Story of Civilization (at least the first few chapters) and then go back and read Plato's Republic and Statesman. I think that order, as far as I can figure at this current time, is a great non-directing way to open the mind to seeing what is being said.