The Human Farm

Andrew Atkin

Desmond Morris, the famous zoologist, wrote a wonderful book called "the human zoo". He described the modern city as being like a zoo, and noticed many human behaviours were akin to the same aberrant behaviors that he saw with zoo animals, such as over-eating due to boredom.

Desmond gives a lot of great insight, but as a specialist his insight was incomplete. Though he indirectly romanticises tribal life, he did not mention what tribal life was typically like in reality. It was brutal, with unspeakable levels of child abuse. Why? Ultimately, the survival struggle. The norm was barbarians at the gate and the ever-present threat of starvation. This ruins tribes as they must go through traumatic repression to adjust to violent conditions, which is an inevitability as populations expand into limited resources. The tribal norm is what we called 'savage', and it was indeed very neurotic.

The gift of the human "zoo" is abundance and security, and that's a very powerful thing. For all the pains we go through with over-crowding, forced-associations, government schools, robotic working lives, and status disempowerment, etc, the deep survival security nonetheless allows us to live in a golden age, which in turn allows us to slowly come away from the traumatic repression that we inherit from our parents, to varying degrees.

Yes we are a human zoo, and that's wonderful albeit imperfect. But really, what we are before anything is a human farm. As I believe, at the [opaque] top of the political game, we have people who see our world exactly as a farm. And indeed they should, because we do need a farmers mentality to achieve long term survival (sustainability).

Now, what must a farmer do to ensure his animals are kept healthy? First, he must keep the numbers within what he can provide for, to avoid a nutritional breakdown. At times he must either cull his herds or functionally sterilise some of them. He has no choice. Also, if he wants to maintain a strong herd, he must restrict excessively weak specimens from breeding to avoid dysgenic decay.

We like to think that those dynamic don't apply to the human animal, but that is just wrong. Of course they do. And this is the problem. Our inability to act as our own famers, I believe, is inducing the most powerful people (whoever they are, exactly?) to take control of the herds in manipulative ways. In times past it most likely happened by culling with orchestrated wars, whereas today we're being partially sterilised with mRNA vaccines (and other) and carefully engineered disincentives to breeding.

And should we call it evil - or, a darkish necessity to avoid an even greater evil? There's a debate!

I myself don't dismiss the need for global human management. We just have to have the intrusion, including restricted breeding. But management should ultimately turn over, so that the executive function can be run by an intelligent democracy. Autocratic dictatorships that don't have to compete for position are always extremely dangerous, of course.

My model, is for the world to be managed by a democracy that's restricted for merit. Anyone should be allowed to vote, but not until they complete a political course - to the end of removing gross voter ignorance and demonstrating mature political engagement. 

We want a 'people's elite' to manage this massive global farm. With this, we can maybe cheat nature and preserve a golden age forever. And if broadly embraced, the farm can be more like a libertarian garden than a concrete human zoo.

Why New Zealand should embrace a social credit system

 

Andrew Atkin

People are typically repelled by the idea of a Chinese style social credit system, and for good reason. It's dangerous when it gives government intrusive power over the citizenry. 

However, I argue that the use of a social credit system in a democracy, such as New Zealand, is (or can be) different in that it can be made to be politically safe.

We can install a system that has no capacity to discredit people for speech, especially political speech, or personal lifestyle and beliefs, etc. And a system can be (and should be) installed that cannot be modified without public veto. Hence, with structural protections laid into the foundation, you can end up with the people's social credit system - not the governments.

This is an idea for New Zealand to consider, because a credit system does have advantages. A big advantage is it makes it possible for law abiding citizens to prove their honour. This would create enhanced trust amongst those who deserve it. 

To make the point clear, look at what New Zealand does today with criminal records. After 7 years your criminal history is effectively removed, because employers are not allowed to know of anyone's criminal record further than 7 years past. That sounds kind in that it gives criminals an easy second chance, but it has a dark side. Others who have no criminal history at all are deprived of their right to prove the fact of it.

You can see what I mean? It's valuable to be able to prove we can be trusted. Imagine walking into a shop, swiping a finger scan, and the shopkeeper then sees you've never been prosecuted for theft or assault. The shopkeeper relaxes, has a chat, and lets you hunt around his store without caring to keep an eye on you. The reverse is true if a scan let's him know you've done time for armed robbery. It's good both ways. 

A credit system will help with employment, access to private developments, nice restaurants, loans, transactions, rental accommodation, or even dating opportunities, etc. A clean credit rating is a reputational tool. It allows you to immediately prove a lot.

In many areas the system would work automatically, making its value prevalent. For example, you could walk into a public toilet after biometrically accessing the cubical, and it's pleasantly clean because people who do horrible things in toilets have been gated from access. This could even apply to areas like select public beaches. No more gangster music wrecking your family day in the sun? That would be nice.

It also functions as an excellent deterrent. No one will want to develop a record that blocks them from public transport or the like. In turn, it would promote more civility alround. It promotes trust while providing warning of those who may not be trusted.

China has this system in place and it works. We should embrace the system, tailoring it as we wish, while installing the vital controls to be certain that it's always the peoples social credit system.

Does the opposition know that it's controlled?

 

-Andrew Atkin

As long as the opposition is threatened - it's controlled.

Does the opposition know that it's controlled? Yes and no. I don't think the opposition sees itself that way, but I believe it's almost always critically controlled. It operates within strict unspoken boundaries.

It's simple. If you look at the media that 'officially' opposes government, which includes universities, well known commentators and think tanks, etc, you will notice they never hit with words and assertions that could become a real threat to big brother. They're always too polite, immature (sassy) or petty, to provoke a serious public reaction. And I think it's silently deliberate.

They know that if they say things the wrong way, too much, they'll win a target on their backs. For example, the government may then go through their history with a fine-toothed comb, looking for any excuse to do them over, directly or by proxy, or somehow threaten people that they're dependant on, etc (as happened with media giants like Facebook and Twitter).

Opposition to power doesn't see itself as working for government, but materially they do. Insofar as media will not risk creating enemies who can hurt them, they will help the government in practice. Opposition media will then only diffuse public irritation by superficially satiating it, while it never talks head-on or opens 'dangerous' cans of worms. 

A pertinent example: Opposition media in New Zealand is challenging the government on having an honest Covid enquiry, which in itself is all well and good. Yet they never state the obvious of which requires no inquiry at all. As follows:

"The government mandated experimental-class injections for a bug with a flu-like mortality profile, which is a serious crime against humanity according to both the Nuremberg code and common sense"...

That hard-hitting but accurate statement is dangerous to government - the preoccupation with the official inquiry is not. 

...So, let's keep it safe, guys. Just stick to the inquiry issue. Yep. Good distraction. It helps stop the public demanding a criminal investigation. The worst that'll happen with an inquiry is a few fall-guys getting hand slaps. No Nuremberg-2.0, so roll on the next "pandemic"...and we, the media, get no target on our backs. Phew. Back in business.

I can give another personal example. The forum, The BFD, published an article of mine that I originally titled "Is the New Zealand government Evil" which was [too?] hard-hitting. The BFD published the article, but changed the title to a basically meaningless and non-clickbait "Does evil lurk behind the mask". Again, I presume the BFD didn't want to provoke to the point of finding themselves targeted by government.

Alas, there's been only one person from the past 30 years in New Zealand that I can recognise as a true non-controlled opposition - Liz Gunn. And sadly, she did indeed find herself in the crosshairs of state power... 

After videoing a friend coming into Auckland airport, the police somehow managed to arrest and significantly injure Liz for her video "crime", and without explaining the law she was breaking. She was later convicted of assault for lightly touching an airport personnel's shoulder, though only to get her attention. Yes, they got Liz on an obviously pathetic technicality. Basically, the state let Liz Gunn (and everyone else) know who's boss. Gunn's new political party, New Zealand Loyal, is now over. It seems there will be no true opposition in New Zealand, thank you. Power talks.

Finally, I will say that I believe the world we're living in is run by killers. As power is a competitive game, is makes sense that the most ruthless players will gravitate to the top. It seems to me that our world is run by people who take their agenda's so seriously, that they'll do whatever it takes to protect them - including assassinations as required. As long as this is the case, as I believe it is, real opposition will be forever hard to find. It just takes too much courage. Everyone is afraid of real power.

On sexual harassment and the Law

 

-Andrew Atkin

Assertion: No one should know about an accusation of sexual harassment, until a conviction has been achieved.

Argument: Some years back, there was a story in New Zealand about a schoolteacher who was accused of sexual harassment by a couple of his students. He lost his job. Later, the girls who made the complaint came clean and admitted that they had made it all up, and that they just didn't like him and so wanted him gone.

Now here's the thing. If those girls didn't have their change of heart, that schoolteacher's life would have been over. All his family and friends, and any future friend, would hear him declaring "they made it all up!" but it wouldn't matter. There would be an ugly cloud of doubt hanging over him forever, and the humiliation would be permanent and relentless. 

No future employer would want to have much to do with him either, even if they believed the original accusation was a lie. This is because they wouldn't want to be associated with his 'cloud of doubt'.

So how do we solve the problem? How do we protect people from false accusations, considering an accusation alone can be so terribly damaging? 

First, I will point out that complaints can be false. The schoolteacher incident is probably not unusual. For example, a person can badly over-react to a comment or behaviour, especially if they've been triggered due to a history of personal abuse. Some may even lie for a selfish or vengeful ends, as was the case in my previous example. Also there can be mistakes. If a man accidentally brushes up against a woman the wrong way, yet the woman does not agree it was an accident, then he could be in serious trouble. These sort of things can and do happen.

The solution, I think, is simple. It should be illegal to go public with a complaint of a sexual nature, until some kind of conviction is achieved (the courts should decide). Until then, an open complaint should be considered a serious form of slander and come with proportionate legal consequences. If you believe in innocent until proven guilty, then this is how it needs to be - because, again, a complaint alone is damaging. Materially, is creates a conviction without a trial.

I can imagine some people disagreeing with me, because as Hilary Clinton once said [paraphrasing] "If a woman has been abused, she has the right to be believed". Hilary was doing politics of course, because there must always be evidence to support a conviction. Your word is not enough. This is the way it is, because if it isn't then we might as well abandon our evidence-based legal system, and go back to the stoneage where any corrupt or mistaken accuser can destroy a given target. 

Sadly, this does mean that many real abuse cases will not lead to firings or convictions, which will of course be happening today, but the fact remains you simply must retain the standard of innocent until proven guilty. 

If a women (or man) is worried about the risk of being sexually harassed, then they should organise their life around that risk so to make it as tolerable as possible - there's nothing else you can do. In an ideal world, all bad behaviour would be provable and dealt with. But alas, until we all wear 360-degree bodycams 24/7 (no thanks?) it simply won't happen. And again, proof must be the standard.

Where the Freedom movement must Rise up

Please let me give you some facts, as I appreciate them at least.

With technology allowing anything to be downloaded, rapid prototyped and printed, the threat of mass-scale terrorism can only get worse. There's no place for rogue states in this world anymore, or even rogue subdivisions within states. The developing terror threat is too high. Too few people can now do too much damage.

So will this require mass surveillance, via our transactions and cellphones, etc, so to allow AI to detect developing threats? If not, then please Mr freedom movement, explain the better way. To be credible, you need to put your alternative solutions on the table.

Also we have the issue of over-population. There are many variables affecting fertility, but when things fundamentally change so can population growth. For example, we're fast moving into a world with driverless technology and mobile robotics, allowing 90% of work to be done online - leading to massive operational streamlining and huge increases in purchasing power, potentially making big families highly affordable to anyone... 

What's the freedom movement's answer to population stability, when it becomes an obvious necessity? Direct China-style population caps, or semi-poisonous foods and injections that suppress fertility? What's the better solution?

Further, if every man becomes so much richer, will they demand a mansion over a humble home? Will consumerism go crazy? Does consumption need to be capped?

And what if greater posterity in our democracies leads to more reckless fertility, where we see the rampant growth of abused children that inept parents never truly wanted? Should we stand back and let gang culture grow even larger, because there's nothing holding it back?

Apologies for sounding dark, but I don't believe the highest levels of control want power for its own sake. That's just a popular assumption. They want control because they think they need it, to deal with major long-range problems that are breathing down our necks. 

If we, the freedom movement, want to be credible then I believe we must demonstrate a willingness to talk about these things and propose better solutions. Until then, the powers that be are, in part at least, right to relate to us like cattle. Simply, if we don't take control of long-range precautionary planning, the elites will do it for us - that is, they will work around us because they can't work with us. 

It can only be a speculation, but with everything I've seen I believe they're doing that right now - with the goal of creating a 'one-world China'. Or at least a China so dominant it can essentially dictate to the rest of us.

I'm hoping for better than that, but it's up to us to elevate our thinking to these levels of greater public concern. Or, again, we will be ignored.

-Andrew Atkin, June 2024