Sunday, June 5, 2011

Agenda 22: A personal wish-list for human/social evolution

Andrew D Atkin:






















Well, as the idea goes, the UN rules the world and they have an agenda. Behind the agenda, of course, is a vision. A vision of where they want "spaceship earth" to go. And a visionary agenda is, as it must be, about controlled evolution.

So this is what the conspiracy theorists (and other) will tell you. I do not believe it is far fetched. I have seen too much. I doubt that this world of ours is being left to self-evolve, or at least there are strong interests doing their best to make sure that it doesn't.

Appreciating this, there must in turn be an agenda backed by a master vision, like I previously suggested. And also behind the vision must be a functional religion - meaning, the vision must be the current answer to the power class's ultimate value system.

Must we have a vision? Well I don't know. But, for better or worse, I will give you my own utopian vision for where humanity should (or at least could) go. I will be thinking from 200-years projections so get ready for a geeky focus. Here goes!

World government and a scientific dictatorship:

Sorry but it's going to happen because we have to have it.

Take the scenario of having a world made up of say 50 separate states, where each state has a 10% chance of devastating the global environment sometime over the next 100 years. This not-too-unrealistic scenario is the reason why humanity has become so dangerous. (I speak about this here). There is probably over a 90% chance that we will ruin ourselves soon if we carry on as individual states, free to do whatever any given psychopathic dictator may wish. The Gulf oil spill and Fukushima meltdowns being only the beginning of what can happen.

A world government could neutralise the profound threat of rouge states. Even if a world government had a 10% chance of destroying everything in itself, it still leaves us with a much better chance for our long-term survival than the status quo.

The world government needs to be scientific in its operation, in that mathematical truths must come before democratic wishful thinking. Ignorance cannot be left to rule in such a volatile world. Freedom is a virtue always to be respected, and facilitated to the highest degree possible, but it must be and will be put on a leash when and as required.

Population control and eugenics:

We have the tools at hand for effortless prosperity for the entire world over, if only we direct our resources properly and stop wasting time with stupid systems that don't need to exist. Problem is, we would probably be left with a population explosion if we did this.

The result being, we will be left with the need to directly (and aggressively) control population so as to stop humanity from becoming a plague. But, as soon as you actively control population you then become a eugenicist by default, because you in turn control who does and does not breed.

Well, it has to be done and will be done, because we have and will have resource limits at any given time. And we will not be breeding people who are violent and stupid unless maybe we want to breed a servant class i.e. breeding people for specific useful purposes, like we breed dogs.

Servant breed: If we are to breed humans for specific roles, then we can know that with modern robotics brawn is outdated. You would want totally non-rebellious "people" that are very good at technician work, and very good at remote-controlling robotic machinery. Breeding them to be small and furry makes them low maintenance. Why would you want them big?

Now is this idea sick and immoral? I'm not too sure. If you're using genetic engineering then you're playing God and that's a bit creepy to me at least, but if it's just selective breeding then maybe it's ok? Furry little creatures can still live happy and rich lives, I'm sure. And if you're taking good care of their needs, and they're happy to remain in the psychological state of a child (so they don't get their "own ideas" and become difficult), then they should be perfectly happy with their position of servitude - just like a well cared for pet.

I know this looks a bit ridiculous, but something tells me it's going to happen anyway - in time. Why wouldn't it? It's more than possible, and if we're going the way of eugenics then shouldn't we be breeding for what is practical?

Physical human expansion:

Nuclear energy, or free energy systems, will allow humanity (and life in general) to migrate underground. Underground human life can be exceptionally efficient and provide for the sustainable expansion of our species into the 100 billions or even trillions over the very long term. Once you can tunnel and provide artificial light for cheap, via free energy, you can expand underground almost indefinitely. I feel confident that free-energy systems are real and are being suppressed by vested interests today.

But when should humanity move underground? It could do so after it has specified how much it wants to "intrude" on the natural (surface) world. Maybe 50% of the Earths forests should be left alone?

As humans develop their ability to live underground, in artificial eco-systems, they can and then will eventually migrate to other planets when required, boring into them and settling there like termites. Once you've got the essential minerals and a sustainable energy source, the universe really can be your oyster, so to speak. Leaving the earth is not hard once you replace the first two stages of rocket propulsion with electromagnetic rail-guns and ram-jets, and robotics allows for the easy mining of any other planet. And has the U.S military already got anti-gravity?

Conclusion:

Yes - very geeky. But quite realistic still, and if you're trying to think 200+ year time-lines then this is how you must think. And indeed, everything I have suggested, as a long term plan, we know we can already achieve given the current technology base.

If we are to be driven by some incredible long-term agenda, as my reasoning suggests we might be, then one thing we must absolutely insist on is the steadfast respect for life, especially human life. As soon as you develop an agenda that compromises the value of human life you create the foundation for the sickest of people to gain power and domination. Standards must be maintained, and it is indeed totally unnecessary to compromise the well-being of human life; other than, at worst, forced sterilisations.

My "vision" is based on my own "religion" which is the value of life, as life being the ultimate value in itself. Life, as a body, should be allowed to expand, and that should be our goal - indefinite expansion.

--------------------------------------------------

Addition 8-6-11:

A thought:

When thinking about creating my hypothetical servant people, I basically put myself in the position of a sociopathic control freak. It's interesting, because from here I thought that if you were to have a breed of humans who are specifically designed for servitude, then you wouldn't want them getting rooted into natural families. As you might intuitively guess, this would probably lead to a kind of resistance to management. You can imagine them digging their heels in to changes that they might experience as disruptive, to their families, of which they would defend before anything. So how do get around this?

According to Alan Watt, the global Elite have for many years been attacking the family unit. They have apparently done so by: providing welfare systems that remove dependency on the father, including the wider family structure, while at the same time aggressively promoting promiscuity through the media, and also promoting the so-called woman's liberation movement so to ensure the state gets the kids in pre-school for a time, because Mum has to go out to work. The result being: fragmented families from poor or no pair-bonding, solo mothering, state financial dependency and the state part-taking over childrearing at ever earlier ages. Watt claims that this was all carefully planned and totally deliberate for the sake of taking down the traditional family unit, and for the goal for extreme centralisation.

Watt's assertion is interesting (and the effect is certainly real), but I don't think you have to fragment the family to achieve the centralisation goal. I think it could be more effective to create a culture where the state simply teaches young people how to bring up their children. The effect? If successful, parents will come to see themselves (and effectively be) agents of the state in childrearing. They can be conditioned to see the state as the higher authority - the father above the father. Likewise, if you can imprint this relationship (which is what all that education would really be about*), you could then easily manage the families as the state operationally becomes the family head. Hence, people and their families can be easily managed. It would just be a matter of 'updating' their education.

Aldous Huxley said he could see a Brave New World scenario developing (which is what I am basically talking about here) simply because it's such an efficient form of slavery. He is right. If people come to love their servitude by loving the state, and seeing the state as the inherently superior authority, then they will indeed be wilful slaves to it. And there's no more efficient may to maintain a slave-relationship than to have them actually want to be one!

*Interestingly, John Taylor Gatto claimed that the real purpose of forced government schooling is to teach people their place i.e. You are the child, the State (or "great society") is the father. [My words] Children don't rebel - or never seriously. They just have hissy fits at the most. Maybe the Elite are already ahead of me?

--------------------------------------------------

Addition 17-6-11:

How far has the American military gone?

We know that the American military has done horror story experiments on its own soldiers, so as to test new forms of weaponry. We also know that millions of people have been killed by the military for reasons that have nothing to do with defence or humanitarian idealism.

My point? The military, at its higher levels at least, is driven by a psychology that is different to what we recognise as normal. It is psychopathically pragmatic. It considers its soldiers (and probably other personnel) to be mere biological sub-components of its war machine, and as dispensable as any other.

Now, if this is the case, as it seems to be, then we can ask ourselves: "How far has the US military gone with respect to breeding human soldiers for desired characteristics?" It's a good question because it's hard to believe they would have any qualms about breeding humans. Their deeds have already shown us that much.

I for one would not be surprised if the US military had developed underground bases (probably massive) to support and advance 100% secret breeding programmes for soldiers and other types of useful humans. Again, why wouldn't they? They spend fortunes developing machines, so why not their personnel too? Curious thought!

--------------------------------------------------

Addition 26-6-11:

Dangerous knowledge?

We know that the military uses advanced psychological profiling for the purpose of positioning their own staff, and we know that they would have in turn been studying (and will continue to study) the human animal exhaustively. The latter is obviously required for ever more accurate profiling for the purpose of making people ever more predictable. Like I expressed earlier, it comes back to that institutionalised relationship to military personnel as just biological sub-components of the war machine, so reason tells us that we must have been studied to the maximum because it only makes sense to do so.

So, how far has the military's knowledge of humans advanced, and who has access to this knowledge and how is it being used? More curious thoughts, because if your war machine comes to know and understand people down to extraordinary detail (and it probably does/has) then that is incredibly dangerous power - if put in the wrong hands.

Alan Watt claims that human nature (and the nature of human 'types') has indeed been studied for eons, and as I have expressed in earlier posts his assertion makes good sense to me. You will probably find the most fascinating studies on homo-sapiens within the U.S military today, especially considering the kind of analysis that can be achieved with modern tools such as EEG and MRI machines, etc. Hmmm...Time to get creeped out by the fact that the military gives Hollywood little backhands to tweak their movies? And also remember that the military was the inventor of kill-everything-that-moves video games. Oh - and the inventor of what we call schooling (that's going right back to Prussian times).

President Eisenhower stated in a major speech that American's should be absolutely wary of what their military industrial complex was (or could) turn into. The more I reflect on it the more his warnings sound like very, very good advice. It's hard to see how anything could stop the military-industrial complex's expansion and eventual domination, if that were to be its agenda. If you can predict all cause-to-effects, because you know humans so well, then if there is a way to achieve total domination then you will almost certainly find it - and securely so.

3 comments:

  1. why do the small people need to be furry? do you want them to feel like pets? or do you have a more scientific reason? every time i think you are joking, i discover that you are serious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Furry creatures" don't need to be clothed. These hypothetical people would not need to lose body heat because they would be operating in controlled environments, and will not be living a highly physical life. Also, a small animal is more prone to heat loss. It just makes sense to me. And cleaning would not be an issue.

    Yes - I was not joking.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ...though yes, "furry creatures" is a bit extreme in principle, and hardly necessary unless you're obsessed with efficiency (though nature is). The thought might be more academic than realistic - at least for the shorter term.

    But think of how long we have had slavery. If you can reduce people to slaves then you can breed them without a second thought - no psychological barriers. I wouldn't be surprised if people have been bred before, and with eugenics we will be "bred" to some degree at least.

    I apologise if I was being too "entertaining".

    ReplyDelete