Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Universal What Now? A Tale of the NWO

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
Rockefeller is a proud internationalist, a globalist. But what does that really mean? Eidolon mentioned monoculture, but it has been my experience that the intent of a globalist isn't to create a melting pot where the end result is a bland, tasteless stew with no color or flavor. Instead, it is to celebrate culture by recognizing that we all have something to contribute. Rockefeller has stated that he does not believe in one world government. His support for globalism isn't one of a shady pyramid scheme where only the select wealthy prosper. It is one of networks...


I can appreciate that Rockefeller is a 'proud internationalist' and would certainly not want a one world government, but I would have to draw the line at that being motivated by a desire to 'celebrate culture' in the context that you suggest. Of course, in terms of Rockefeller in the present tense, we can perhaps differentiate a motive that has moved away from cartels and monopoly markets, towards more philanthropic activities, however it has also led to a situation where less, day to day, control is exerted over business interests by the Rockefellers themselves. So while on one hand, those philanthropic endeavours may encourage diversity, those business endeavours destroy it. One hand giveth, the other taketh it away, so to speak. Besides, it should not be ignored that multiple, seperate markets increase profit margins, without new markets to exploit, and countries that attract inward development and investment also offer means by which to outsource services thereby circumventing employment laws, and benefits. A one world government given such criteria would be highly undesirable. So while one hand of the Rockefeller dynasty may be giving money to build schools and fund health care, the other is taking advantage of those improved conditions to make profit from the availability of cheap labour.

I would therefore assume that Rockefeller is most concerned by the cycle of civilisation that you put forward due it's ability to predict when and where the next market will emerge ripe for the picking.

Not that I am necessarily saying that this is a bad thing, or a good thing for that matter, but it is still rather a clinical way in which to appraise humanity, as a resource, and indicates that there could be motive to prevent unity concealed behind a mask of celebrating diverse 'culture'.




posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Eidolon23
But, Ms. G., you know there are other types, with different motives. And factions upon factions upon splinter groups, and a fair amount of weird power fetishes thrown in there. Tracing some of these lines around, isn't it reasonable to think that some of those factions are aiming toward total homogenization?


Hmm?

It seems that you may have somewhat succeeded in that mind-meld, either that or you've been Doxing me


Nice thread, as per usual


Thanks! Simultaneously awesome and alarming to know that our brains are being pattern-washed in the same direction.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Thanks! Simultaneously awesome and alarming to know that our brains are being pattern-washed in the same direction.


Nah! No need to be alarmed.

I found some very, very old notes during a clear out session, from back when I did my BA dissertation, appalling as that was, the notes gave me an idea for a thread, and I have been surfing that idea over the weekend. Took me in a surprising loop, on a somewhat parallel train to this thread.

More serendipitous than anything else



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 

What Kilgore said. (I'll shamelessly ride your intellectual coattails ha.)

Seriously, imo, this is the most-underrated thread on ATS at the moment in light of the magnitude and timely relevance of topic and the brain-power weighing in.

It's coming---whether by intent or as by-product...and we best be figuring out where we stand on it, and how we're going to absorb it into our personal philosophy.

Not much we can do about it on a universal level, but how we personally interpret it is, in my best guess, important.

Probably the very worst thing we can do (have done) is leave these questions in the hands of the "intellectual-elite" rather than the simple folk---those without guile, but tons of wisdom.

My grandma couldn't have beat just about anyone at Jeopardy, and she had no embarrassment about hitting a spitoon from 6-7 feet away in mixed company, but I guaran-damn-tee-ya she would have set this world straight in a minute given the power. And with sweet love, too.





posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 



KT,

A very eloquent post, for sure....and one I absolutely want to respond to.... However, at the moment, I am so completely annoyed by some nonsense I just saw in another thread that I am thoroughly distracted.

My apologies for choosing to take some time to cool my head before I inadvertently take my ire out on the wrong person.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
If we could just find a way to interrupt the cycle at the "Abundance to Complacency" stage, we'd be set.

That's were I'd drill for gold, right there. Madison Ave. has mostly solved how to keep people hungry, keep them trying for more even when they have everything they need. We just need to harness that beast, and point it at different goals; switch the orientation away from status toward achievement, away from win toward peer-reinforced meritocracy, and way from dependence toward co-operation.

The stories almost tell themselves.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I still think social media was the big game-changer. That ONE innovation completely divorced the average person from their desire for privacy. Can you imagine what kind of reaction we'd have had to PRISM back in the 1980's? But, today's folks are so used to sharing what they ate for dinner with the world, that they simply don't care that the government has been listening and recording their phone calls, their websites visited, etc.

The Boston takeover was another. They basically shut down a major metropolis and put it under defacto military rule temporarily, with not so much as a peep from the people.

I have to agree that if there is a plan, it is certainly accelerating. Personally, I'm not so sure a one-world government is a bad idea. Indeed, I think we all see it going that way eventually. The big question though, is what TYPE of government, and what will our role and rights be in said government. THAT is so far, the scary part.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   


Gives us a starting point on how to re-tool incentives.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Related:


Two studies examined the effect of financial incentives on empathic accuracy and a possible underlying mechanism. In Study 1, participants either received a financial incentive based on performance on an empathic accuracy task (i.e., monetary reward for accurate inferences regarding the emotions experienced by videotaped targets) or not. Those in the incentive condition were less accurate than those not. Study 2 replicated this finding and tested a hypothesized mechanism—that money makes individuals view themselves in a less relational manner, thereby impairing empathy. Participants completed the Study 1 task in addition to the Twenty Statements Task (TST). “I am” responses on the TST were independently coded by two coders regarding the degree to which participants described themselves in a relational manner. Results indicated that relational self-construal mediated the link between money and decreased empathic accuracy.

www.sciencedirect.com...


That's a problem, especially when it's doubled up with this:


To this end, researchers are identifying the mechanisms that drive otherisation, including how brains process rewards and trigger threat responses. Basic morality views outgroup cruelty as sadism, but most cruel behaviour has other motives, whether rewards, threats or a combination of the two. Rewards include curiosity, the desire for gain, competition for resources, wanting to please or impress superiors and colleagues, the thrill of physical exertion, the excitement of risk-taking and sexual desire. These can be powerful drivers, especially when they are unexpected reactions to a novel, usually threatening, situation. Much cruelty occurs in high-pressure environments that demand fast action, not rational consideration.


But what about high-pressure environments that demand both fast action and rational consideration? Like high finance or war? You'd see the same reduction in empathy, unless there are some heavy intervening factors in place, but how would it manifest?


Cruelty can serve various purposes. The most common form is callousness, in which cruelty is a by-product of perpetrators' other goals... The victim's suffering is not the aim of the exercise, but her pain does not matter enough to deter the perpetrator. Callousness can escalate into terrorism. This happens when the suffering inflicted on the victim becomes useful in itself, for example as a show of power.


And what might the end product of a social structure that actively rewards that kind of cruelty, makes no serious attempt at checking it look like, neurologically? If our institutions have, for generations, exploitable flaws that make callousness an advantage, and create a type?


What can make of these structural brain superiorities in the white collar criminals? They are interesting for several reasons. First, the inferior frontal gyrus is involved in executive functions. This includes the ability to coordinate thoughts and actions in relation to internally generated goals, to respond to changes in task demands, the ability to inhibit a wrong response, to switch from one task to another, and to decide between conflicting reasoning...

...But of even greater interest, this ventromedial region is involved in the monitoring of reward value of stimuli, and also learning and remembering what things are rewarding in life. Intriguingly, we see the anterior, front region of this ventromedial area enhanced in white collar criminals... this anterior area is specifically associated with abstract rewarding stimui, particularly money...

...Unlike conventional criminals, who have somatic-marker deficits and poor decision-making skills, white collar criminals may be characterized by relatively better decision making skills.

-The Anatomy of Violence, Adrian Raine


All that sounds terribly useful as an adaptation, but if the expression appears to lead to mass-suffering and an inability to hold higher order goals for anyone but ones' self, I've got to think that they're holding the species back until they are redirected through a new set of rewards.

Like space exploration (curiosity payoff) instead of money (stupid-rodent brain payoff).
edit on 1-8-2013 by Eidolon23 because: citation



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Eidolon23
 


Now factor in this....


Psychologist Xinyue Zhou of Sun Yat-Sen University in Guangzhou ran half a dozen experiments with groups of between 72 and 108 students, to test how subconscious thoughts of gaining or losing money affected their resistance to both the pain of social rejection and the pain of immersing their fingers in hot water.

Students played a computer game called Cyberball, in which players think they are playing catch with three other individuals. These are actually being controlled by the computer, which eventually refuses to throw the ball to the human player. The game is normally used by psychologists to provoke feelings of exclusion. The students who had physically handled money before playing, thinking they were completing a finger-dexterity task, reported feeling less distress on a standard social self-esteem scale than those who had handled blank pieces of paper.

In another experiment, students who counted money before plunging their fingers into hot water reported lower pain levels than those who had counted paper. The money-handling students also reported feeling stronger than the paper shufflers did.

The researchers asked some students to write down their recent expenses before playing Cyberball, while others simply wrote about the weather. Those who had written about their expenses reported feeling greater distress when they were excluded from the virtual game.


www.nature.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   


I still think social media was the big game-changer. That ONE innovation completely divorced the average person from their desire for privacy. Can you imagine what kind of reaction we'd have had to PRISM back in the 1980's? But, today's folks are so used to sharing what they ate for dinner with the world, that they simply don't care that the government has been listening and recording their phone calls, their websites visited, etc.



I know I'm in intellectual company and have no sources to give, but I would suggest that the game changer was really the WWW, itself, and then social media came next, to deploy what KT is showing us and Eidolon, about reward responses and the effect on the amygdala, as a sensatory tool. We are driven primarily by our sensations...emotions are both psychological and physical, as they manifest physically through our senses, first, and register, via the amygdala region of the brain after the info has passed through the cerebral cortex, or a combination of the cerebral cortex and the frontal lobe, for memory and assimilation. There is no question we are "sensate driven," and then comparatively driven, by our position in the "pack," social conditioning, at work.

We are all describing the same process, really, while elucidating it slightly differently, in order to absorb however one's unique assimilation process best can accomplish that task.

But there is no question in my mind that when the web was created, and "plugged in," the surveillance of this monitor in front of me as I type was already in place, active and a part of our lives, albeit in less participatory forms.

I mentioned the other day on the opening of the new Posse Comitus forum that I must be the only one who is old enough to remember a time before home computing, when people were certainly aware that those flamingoes for your yard were more than yard ornaments......

It has been with us a great while, this watching thing.

It's effect, in a purely physics sense, the way we interpret physics today, has clearly changed the game, for there is not just one observer, but a totally voyeuristic society, all observing, while living......so that the imitation of life, itself, can no longer be distinguished, blending fantasy with reality. The quantum entanglement that collecting, inducing and redistributing narratives has caused makes such inseparable, almost, and then it is easy to erase individuals, history, anything really, and replace and relive with the induction of the next desired narrative.
edit on 1-8-2013 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Yeah, dude, I quoted that study on a different thread, can't remember which.

But it's very, very important. Thank you.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eidolon23
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Yeah, dude, I quoted that study on a different thread, can't remember which.

But it's very, very important. Thank you.


Nothing for me, momma??? I'm hurt, really, I've been such a good girl, thinking till my head hurts and all...
Sorry, Eidolon, just a joke. Gotta have some humor somewhere or we all go crazy....
Tetra



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tetra50
 


Tetra, you are putting the team on your back, girl.

Much love.




posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Eidolon23
 


oh that's more than I deserve. Such peace in such a simple idea. Thank you, Eidolon.
LTetra50



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Eidolon23
 


Der, just noticed broken link above.



There we go.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Eidolon23
 


The pat on the back is all very nice, but not what I was seeking.


It was another study that I was looking for, it was part of a UK documentary and involved measuring how handling money related to happiness as well as concentration and performance...couldn't find it...either way, same principle.

This...


Originally posted by Eidolon23
Like space exploration (curiosity payoff) instead of money (stupid-rodent brain payoff).


It is the same incentive. Pleasure. Satisfying curiousity = pleasure. Money = pleasure. There is no difference, it stimulates the same part of the brain. And for the record there is absolutely nothing stupid about rodents either. It is the curious cat that followed a # cart 'cos she thought it was a wedding. Exploring space is not about curiousity, as a by product we get to see all the amazing things out there, but the primary drive is the same as the primary drive for pioneerism, seeking untapped resources. We are hardwired to seek out space that provides for our needs. These stories that you are fixating on, are as often as not propaganda to get people to leave their cloth monkey and venture out on their own so that those left behind can stretch their legs out a bit. That, once upon a time, was a good theme, but it is redundant now, we need new stories, ones about sticking with it, and helping each other out.

As flawed as Maslow's Herarchy of Needs is, it still can be applied with limitations, and what you have outlined is that we mistake cash for security. Not only that, because cash can be used to buy everything that we require to move on up that Hierarchy, it has replaced, cerebrally, our response to everything else along the way. Money can buy you a home, food, friends, love, even an education by which you can achieve self-actualisation. In theory. That latter point though becomes harder and harder to attain however because of all the compromises that we make in order to attain cash. We make choices, at school, in work, socially etc based on pecuniary return not based upon personal growth, self development and character building, therefore, true self actualisation moves away from us, making us even more dependent on attaining financial wealth. It creates a state of perpetually dissatisfaction and in this case, like the rats, we keep hitting the button to get the orgasm. We shop.

There is no adaptation. Just utilisation of a functionality and capability already in place. A more complex set of goals supplanted by one singular means of attaining all. People who do jobs for a financial reward, not because they care about what they are doing, have little empathy for others purely and simply because they feel hard done by themselves already. If they can abbreviate their own suffering by earning more quicker, then they will do so for that very same reason. They may empathise, but on the level of 'if I don't do this, someone else will', or 'if I don't do this, it could be me'. There is nothing new about that, humans have been doing that for as long as there have been humans, it is a key survival mechanism when needs must, the difference now, however, is that that tendency, or ability, can be harnessed by others, and that cash serves as the primary domesticator. We are often told that humans are social animals, but the degree to which the social is fundamental rests largely on it's utility, and how inclusive we are at any given time. Palaeolithic man, grouped for specific reasons, primarily for sex and hunting. Neolithic for defensive reasons, and sex obviously. We, now, do so by necessity of numbers. Otherwise, push comes to shove, our history shows that we are a dog eat dog species. Our survival now, as a species, requires cooperation again on a global scale certainly, that is the required adaptation that we require, and I think that a large proportion of people are making that adaptation to become more mutually accepting of the limitations of space and resources, but I know that there are others who are still inclined to believe that reductionism, or other no less radical solutions, are required.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 






As flawed as Maslow's Herarchy of Needs is, it still can be applied with limitations, and what you have outlined is that we mistake cash for security. Not only that, because cash can be used to buy everything that we require to move on up that Hierarchy, it has replaced, cerebrally, our response to everything else along the way. Money can buy you a home, food, friends, love, even an education by which you can achieve self-actualisation. In theory. That latter point though becomes harder and harder to attain however because of all the compromises that we make in order to attain cash. We make choices, at school, in work, socially etc based on pecuniary return not based upon personal growth, self development and character building, therefore, true self actualisation moves away from us, making us even more dependent on attaining financial wealth. It creates a state of perpetually dissatisfaction and in this case, like the rats, we keep hitting the button to get the orgasm. We shop.



First, how is Maslow's Hierary of needs flawed? I would ask you to explain the way you see this so I could understand what follows, for......are you saying it is flawed because self actualization isn't possible in the current paradigm as per Maslow because we are now required to sacrifice too much character to get to that point, so there is no character left at the end to self actualize, and then we are just the rats in the coc aine experiment, continually pushing the "receive" button?

Sorry to put it in such crude terms, as you are expressing yourself in a gentile and intellectual way.....but my point is this, having said that in this particular way (if that is, indeed, what you are saying): perhaps I see the purpose of this thread as already having deduced and taken into account all you so adeptly put into those terms, and we now need to move beyond the recognition of spelling the loss of character of humanity, and all the myriad ways we can source, exemplify and describe it or argue about it, for that is getting in the way now, of reversing and correcting this issue.

Surely we all recognize that is where we are now. And that is why Maslow is now "flawed," as you say, for there can be no self actualization in a totally consumeristic existence where survival requires you sell the character you are so that no actualization is possible later, for you have sold it, to survive.

And the narrative collection, inducement, and repetition has supplied another identity in place of your own, after you sold your soul, character, experience and identity......


But isn't the point to this thread trying to figure out a way to NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN, to protect our character, while still surviving here; to find self actualization despite the obvious denigration of it and our possession of it. Isn't the point to discover how we can support this in one another, recognize each other's character, and PREVENT it from being usurped, replaced, substituted and/or stolen, so that there is something of us left to actualize someday, at least.....at the very least, to leave to our children, whom we would hope would know us.......

Tetra50



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


So we both know this OP is about our species being surrounded, affected, effected, and changed, for perhaps, the goal of eternal domination.....if I am not mistaken from what I read in the first posting, and fighting that by understanding how it is being accomplished.




Our survival now, as a species, requires cooperation again on a global scale certainly, that is the required adaptation that we require, and I think that a large proportion of people are making that adaptation to become more mutually accepting of the limitations of space and resources, but I know that there are others who are still inclined to believe that reductionism, or other no less radical solutions, are required.



Did we lack cooperation before? I think not, really. For, the influence described in this OP has nullified all our cooperative abilities, certainly, collected and used our personas to rewrite history to bolster a certain paradigm, which has us destroying each other in war and lack of cooperation in order to negate our individuality and make that seem necessary for the very "cooperative effort" you speak of, now, in order to "unite." In other words, we must give up our character and uniqueness, individuality, in order to have any sort of unified cooperative effort as you describe. That's the whole point. Sure, let's cooperate now that you are all persona non gratas, and we have you by the short hairs on that. Cooperation is not an adaptation. It was inherent in who we were from the start. Look at the ancient migratory patterns when there were beasties much bigger, taller, and like to eat humans: i.e.dinasoars, Terentasaurus Rex, etc.....

We would not have gotten out of the cave and survived that onslaught were it not for some kind of cooperation amongst us, and perhaps, fire......



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
reply to post by Eidolon23
 


The pat on the back is all very nice, but not what I was seeking.


It was another study that I was looking for, it was part of a UK documentary and involved measuring how handling money related to happiness as well as concentration and performance...couldn't find it...either way, same principle.


I think maybe this would be related, and maybe include info from the same studies? Hope it's helpful.




Baby, I will pat your back 5X before breakfast.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def