Best of H+: Enhancement Politics: Resistance to Domination is Not Futile
One worry about the possibility of radical germ line enhancement of the human species is that it may, at some point, produce a being so genetically superior to the regular human that the race would split in two. Given that enhancement will be expensive, the concern is that only the rich would have access to it, and if they were to do this they would compound their competitive advantages, widening existing social inequalities and creating new ones. A distant but serious extrapolation of this scenario is that this posthuman race could exploit the human race and deliberately seek to oppress it. If this sort of split did occur it would surely be undesirable. However, I believe it is unrealistic and we should consider a more likely scenario which is often ignored. Two assumptions are frequently made about what would happen if the richest in society were able to access enhancement technology. These are:
1) That so much extra power would be conferred on the beneficiaries of the technology, that this minority would necessarily exploit the unenhanced status of the majority.
2) That if such oppression or exploitation did occur, it would be so powerful that it would be impossible to repeal, reverse or overcome.
I do not believe that either of these assumptions are correct. It is understandable to take seriously the possible risks of technologies which could change society significantly, but it’s also easy to overstate them (in the case of the first assumption) or misconceive them (in the case of the second).
The first assumption overstates the risks of enhancement technologies because, whilst it is likely that some people would choose to take advantage of them, the small-scale appropriation would not necessarily increase net inequality. If access to the enhancement industry turns out to be so expensive that it is out of the reach of everyone except the super-rich, then only a very small proportion of society will be able to make use of it. Given that the super-rich are already by definition not burdened with socio-economic difficulties, it is not obvious how their access to a new range of luxuries is going to deprive the rest of society of a serious competitive advantage.
If a section of the super rich were to indulge their genetic fantasies, we might find it vain or grotesque and we might be happy that we have no part in it. Paris Hilton is very economically fortunate, and maybe it’s understandable to be envious of her advantages, but viewed from the outside there is also something ugly about that kind of life. In a life where it is possible to have total material luxury, and where these luxuries are the primary determinant of value, the relentless pressure to conform to an image of economically-driven perfection does emotional damage. The genetic enhancement of personal appearance or physical attributes could become a competitive necessity for a small, rarified section of society, much as cosmetic surgery has become one amongst actors in Hollywood. Whilst going under the knife repeatedly might keep these people in work, this kind of Faustian deal is obviously not one which the majority of people wish to make.
Nonetheless, we can still be envious of the economic advantages that these people do have, for the simple fact that we wouldn’t need to worry about money. Perhaps we might wish that wages and economic security were more evenly distributed throughout society, but this is a different question and has little to do with genetic enhancement technology as such. What is in question here is what the effects would be of a genetic division occurring within the human race, significant enough that an enhanced minority could constitute a threat to the unenhanced. I believe that this risk is overstated, for the reasons already given. Let’s imagine for a minute, however, that this dystopian picture were to occur. Is it necessarily true that this would be the end of the story, and the ‘original’ human race would be in serious danger? I am not sure that it would. Let’s change tack slightly to consider the question.
Technological and economical power can be held by a small minority, but those who wield it do not necessarily always triumph when they try to use it as a means of oppression. We can look at how these kinds of attempts have played out in the past. Though the technologies may have been different, there are good reasons for being confident that a perceived monopoly on enhancement technology by a few will not create the kinds of frightening scenarios that are feared by some.
History is littered with revolutions, and we can’t look at them all. Two revolutions which might help, though, are these: the French Revolution of 1789 to 1799, and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The defining characteristic of both of these revolutions was a rejection of the values and the hegemony of a ruling minority with economic and technological superiority.
In the case of the French Revolution the absolute rule of the monarchy was ended when the politically, economically, religiously and socially disenfranchised majority abolished it, replacing it with the country’s first democratic republic. From a technological point of view, the French Revolution is particularly notable because of the role played by the guillotine. The guillotine was developed under the orders of King Louis XVI because it was thought that conventional methods of capital punishment of the time were not sufficiently humane. Given that the aim of capital punishment is to end life, rather than to cause pain as such, the King sought a quicker, more efficient and less painful way of putting dissidents to death (a similarly perverse debate surrounds the most ‘humane’, least distressing way to administer the lethal injection in the USA today. Unfortunately for the King, his technological superiority was turned against him when the revolution brought an end to his life with a guillotine. Whether or not he was any happier, in the moment before his death, about being executed by the guillotine whose invention he had ordered, rather than by any other method, is a moot point.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 also represented a triumph of public political will, and ended the preceding decades of entrenched disillusionment and oppression. It is true that there was a degree of luck involved in the events which finally created the conditions under which citizens of East Germany could freely cross the wall, and there was also mounting pressure from Washington to reunite the two countries. Civil unrest in East Germany had been growing in the weeks prior to the crossing of the wall, and the revolution could have been violent. Crucially, however, the eventual exodus was not resisted or crushed by the authorities – no member of the government or police was prepared to take responsibility for killing citizens attempting to cross. As events unfolded the East German authorities began to realize that it was on the wrong side of history, and the reunification of Germany was achieved suddenly and peacefully. It was one of the greatest political achievements of the post-war period.
It’s important to remember that the reasons given publicly for the erecting of the wall was that it would act as a bulwark against a still covertly active Nazism in West Germany, and protect the citizens of East Germany such that they would be able to create the conditions necessary for building a successful socialist state. This was not true, as the wall was built in order to stem an understandable exodus from the impoverished East to the free and prosperous West. Driven by a misconceived ideology of how their society ought to operate, the separation denied the citizens of East Germany the economic and political benefits that had been enjoyed by Western Europe since the 1960s. Arguably, the fall of the Berlin Wall also brought to a resounding end any residual belief still remaining in the West that utopian systems of government can ever succeed in a way that is fair to the people being governed. This realization may have revealed an important truth about the values that our species holds about itself. Notwithstanding some difficult knock-on effects that the fall of the wall may have brought about, this realization may have constituted a rare example of real moral progress.
The primary relevance of these examples to the kinds of questions we are asking about future technological power is that a malign scientific or economic superiority held by a few is not always, in the end, impossible to resist or overturn. Given sufficient numbers of people, the power that it can exert is not insuperable and revolution is always a possibility. Even if there were a real risk of something like genetic enhancement technology leading us into a new dystopia of oppression by the bio-enhanced (and I don’t believe there is), in spite of the changes that new technologies might offer, it is not obvious that it wouldn’t or couldn’t be resisted.
The word ‘dystopia’ is used too frequently to describe future scenarios related to scientific advance, and this is because the future is likely to be too mundane to be adequately described as one. It’s interesting that there is even still talk of ‘dystopias’ as possibilities, when the notion that its opposite – the utopia – is ever likely to occur has been discredited. Both of these words describe impossible worlds. It is no more likely that there will be a world where everything is wrong than it is there will be a world where everybody lives the perfectly happy life.
In our examples the difference between what the eventually deposed aimed at, and what they got, supports the view that to characterize possible future societies as anything as extreme as either utopian or dystopian is misguided. Both of these regimes believed, to begin with, that it was at the vanguard of moral thought, and that the political system they envisaged could be forced successfully upon the societies they governed. These regimes believed, for radical philosophical or religious reasons, that they were in possession of true knowledge of how power should be distributed. In their different ways, both espoused an idealist doctrine which sought to bend society to its will. Neither understood that societies (in the West, at least) work when there is sufficient individual liberty that those individuals will enter into a contract to be governed, refraining from certain types of behavior in return for protection of their own freedoms by the state. Neither regime realized that their subjects were right to seek a democratic system of government, and unprepared to be ruled in any other way. Viewed from the side of the dispossessed, what the rulers sought to impose was dystopian in nature, and in spite of the vast power differential, neither of these visions succeeded. It is unlikely that human societies will allow the full realization of a dystopian vision, precisely because it is so terrifying. As long as any potential trans/posthuman beings are able to act as moral agents as well, it is highly unlikely that they would allow it either.
Finally, there were resoundingly positive benefits from each of these revolutions. These took time, and the process was not painless, but over time beneficial changes occurred. The French Revolution turned France into a democracy and generated the preconditions necessary for the eventual emancipation of women, even though one of the drivers of the revolution was the feeling of disenfranchisement of the privileged bourgeoisie. The fall of the Berlin Wall may have had a significance of the magnitude already described. Each case advanced, incrementally, the spread of what we might broadly describe as Enlightenment values throughout society – values that we all benefit from. The ‘specter’ of a future where humans are exploited by a relative few enhanced genetic super-beings is just that, a specter – an apparition, and something that has reality in stories, rather than our societies.
Some ideas on ID classifications :
Type 1 Natural Eugenics (Breeding Programme, Elites)
Type 2 Unmodified Human (General Population, no programme)
Type 3 Genetic Ailments Removed
Type 4 Natural Eugenics (Breeding Programme, Elites) + Superior Genes Inserted
Type 5 Genetic Ailments Removed + Superior Genes Inserted
Type 6 Mixed with Non Human Genes (could result in lowered intelligence and the Sentient Rights Charter could be the next in thing to consider)
Then the above 4 separated into :
Type A Ethnic Original
Type B Ethnic Dual (2 and with community only from 2 specific ethnicites)
Type C Ethnicity Mixed (3 and more)
Type 1 and 2 would be the ‘original’ and ‘least technologically pollutive’ of the gene pool, while Type 3 is minimally tampered, considered inferior, and 4 non-original and potentially superior with 5 a weaker version of Type 4. Type 1 communities will probably be clustered at civilisational Capitals forming a backbone of DNA to repopulate from JUST IN CASE.
3, 4 ad 5 must clearly declared their status before pregnancy or marriage to prevent pollution of 1 and 2.
Type 4 and 5 will be the most potential ‘superior divergent human race’, and while Type 6 could offer the most diverse forms and widest choice, but they could easily be considered a non-human divergent race’ and suffer the most discrimination. (Cross one furry with more than a second race and you get the picture total mess . . . )
All choices should be made available to everyone when young, as in clear identifications, and textbooks detailing and delineation of 4×3 types and also choices of lifestyles, cultures and faiths to CHOOSE from. Also clear communities of each sub-type should be clearly marked out to keep 1 and 2 unmixed with B and C, though a ‘total mix zone’ should also be allowed with mixed progeny again kept separate from Types 1 through 6.
Mixing is costly and burdens the originals to backtrack to purity from, so ethnic purity and a state of DNA unalteredness would be a form of currency in genetic terms in an increasingly globalised and genetically modified world.
Language, lifestyle culture, native faiths, and and distinct ethnicity phenotype, could be a showcase of diversity that will be best maintained and continued by Type 1A or 2A.
4 and 5 will have a technical and tactical advantage though at the cost of originality.
Type C is socially least demanding but could suffer the same discrimination as Type 6 with Type C6 on the extreme end. Though social conditions and community could still be ensured via Constitution. The world will see the ‘altereds’ and ‘originals’ being highly segregated though with our history of experiences with racism or apartheid or holocaust, different faith or even LGBT, we will by then be very much prepared to handle differences between drift towards homegrown forms of barely human sentience.
They should “get on with it” AFTER ensuring no GMO sentient life will infect gene pools or even the environment by their existence. The current lack of diversity in urban centres is quite dull though hybrid ‘manimals’ would also get quite tedious in a short while.
this is one of those cases of a common fallacy, an “unchanging assumption” that is likely to not hold true due to the very technology being discussed.
You really think that a society in which DNA can be rewritten at will is going to be stratified like this?
This is a caste system. It is a rigid and unchanging “Brave New World” style division of the human race into tiers. It is dependent on the idea that DNA could be changed only at birth or early in life, and not on a realistic projection that DNA is likely to be not only rewritable whenever a person decides to, but that it might not even be the “defining means of ID” because it CAN be rewritten.
To be honest, this reads more like a propaganda piece from a hate group advocating “race wars” than it does a realistic scenario, especially with the concerns about “mixing” and “genetic purity” and the implied forced segregation outside of “mixing zones”, not to mention the assumption that a choice made in youth would permanently relegate a person to their “tier” for eternity as well as the assumption that mixed species DNA would only result in “Lowered Intelligence”. This comes across as a artificially regimented police state ideology, with different “rights” alloted to the social tiers, with the lowest tier being considered “sub-human.”
I’ve re-read this piece five or six times, and I can see that this DOES NOT appear to be your intent,(due to concerns about the Sentients Rights charter) but you can hopefully see the problems inherent in this sort of classification, not to mention the lack of it’s necessity.
Okay, Valkyrie, since it is obvious that our views are incompatible, I see no point in our discussion, since it degenerated into flame war.
If H+ doesn’t tolerate other opinions, well, fine, you’ve just lost one more reader.
Humm. Since R.U Sirius published everything you wrote, I’d say H+ is quite tolerant. The problem is that you don’t like the refutation I’ve made to your views.
But you’re right about one thing. I saw no point to this discussion way back when I realized you were just another carbon copy conspiracy clone. But, you kept posting, so I had to keep refuting you.
Conspiracy Theorism is the number two killer ideology after religious fanaticism, and often goes hand in hand with it, turning the merely religious into a zealot who is willing to kill to “strike back” against this “phantom menace”. It caused the deaths of 3000 people in the Towers, numerous more in Kansas City, and kills untold numbers of people daily around the world. It recently caused the deaths of several police officers in Philadelphia, and New York. It is a threat to every government and every nation, and every individual in the world. I class it among the Existential Threats that we as a species must overcome to survive. The sooner people realize it is a complete load of bs, without even the redeeming qualities of religious ideology, the sooner it will stop people dying over a forgery.
I don’t even read ’em usually. I just check to make sure they’re not spam.
I enjoy H+ magazine, and check it almost daily for updates.
Reading the comments section for this article was a disappointment though. Not one, but two (2) people that provided points of discussions was quickly dismissed and called idiots when not agreeing with “Valkyrie_Ice”.
What happened to common civility? It’s amazing how most “open-minded” people only are open-minded if you have the same opinions. To put it bluntly, “Valkyrie_Ice” come across as an immature, little brat used to having his way. I will skip over articles written by him from now on.
I urge for you, as journalists, to not insult people that are merely providing a discussion, and also to look over the quality of people writing for you. More of this, and you will quickly lose readers.
And who is he, anyway? What is his real name? What is his position in H+? We don’t know anything about him yet he acts like he is the boss.
Gee… it’s amazing how often this gets tried.
Usually by people who go by the name “Anonymous.”
Valkyrie Ice has been my name since I came on line back in the commodore sixty four days. So sorry guys. 25 years use, with plenty of forums and websites all linked to the same exact name. All of which I opened the very first Article I wrote for H+ saying.
I write for R.U. because I enjoy writing. He publishes my stuff because he likes it. I was commenting on this site LONG before I began writing for it. If you had spent five minutes doing any kind of research you’d know that.
Next attempt to Deride, Dismiss, Discredit, Deny?
>Usually by people who go by the name “Anonymous.”
You are getting paranoid.
*She* is a semi-regular H+ contributor.
Note the two people I dismissed are the same “Conspiracy Theory Nut” Anonymous, whom I attempted to have rational discourse with, only to meet with the same “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” BS that was Hitler’s rational for killing the Jews, is currently used by “Money Masters” to protest the Federal Reserve, and taught in numerous Arab Nations as reason to hate Israel. Pity that the Protocols are a forgery created by the Tzar’s Secret Police to try and prevent the communist uprising, and is taken verbatim from Marice Joly’s “Dialogue in Hell”. He might merely be a believer in some variant of it that whitewashed some of the direct anti-semitism, but he still believes in the core of the work, that a vast ancient conspiracy of bankers descended from the Money Lenders in the Temple of Jerusalem have been in control of the world since ancient times and have caused all wars and political turmoil since then in their bid to enslave the world.
Been there, studied that. It’s hogwash.
And since you so carefully avoided mentioning his responses, I have to wonder who YOU are a sockpuppet for.
Feel free to not like my response. It won’t change the fact that conspiracy theories filled with utter BS are conspiracy theories filled with utter BS.
>Note the two people I dismissed are the same “Conspiracy Theory Nut” Anonymous
Obviously not. There are at least three Anonymous guys you were arguing with aside of me, and several times you mistaken somebody else for me. No need to invent “conspiracy theory” and claim that everybody you talk with is me in disguise.
>Protocols of the Elders of Zion … Hitler … killing the Jews … hate Israel … direct anti-semitism
Goodwin’s Law in action. Accusing opponent in being a Nazi is very popular form of Ad hominem. Too bad I never used words like “Jews”, “Israel, “Zionist” or anything else.
And surely I never said anything about “Money Lenders in the Temple of Jerusalem”, you just made it up. Moreover, it is inconsistent with my point that current power elite was empowered during the Renaissance during the fall (or, more specifically, violent overthrow) of old hierarchies of Europe: monarchy and church. Which is basically a textbook fact you can read in official history books.
>I have to wonder who YOU are a sockpuppet for.
Like I said, you are starting to act like a conspiracy theory nut.
* * * * *
Anyway, to sum things up.
You disliked that I disagreed with your rosy-eyed view on modern technology, and, failing to find proper counter-arguments, started Ad hominem assault using “facts” that you literally made up, saying that I am a “Nazi”, an “anti-semite”, a “Christian”, a “believer in Jerusalem Temple rulers”, and so on.
Well, you know what, I can call you Nazi as well, since Transhumanism = Eugenics = Third Reich = Nazi = Hitler. So, you are a Nazi who wants to create “superior master race” via genetic engineering. Voila! You also worship Ron Hubbard, since Transhumanism = Singularity = Scientology = Ron Hubbard. LOL, how can’t you understand that such Ad hominem is a childish and useless way of “proving” your point.
If you can’t prove your point, that doesn’t mean your opponent is a Nazi.
Conspiracy clones using identical arguments and identical theories and the same “Anonymous” name makes it sort of impossible to tell anyone apart. You can claim to be as many people as you want.
Never claimed you were a Nazi. I said you were using the same BS forgery to justify your world view that Hitler used to justify exterminating Jews.
You were the one who made that jump to a conclusion. Why? Because it’s one of the standard defense mechanisms you are taught when confronted with the truth of your BS. Dismiss first, if you can’t dismiss, Deride. If derision doesn’t succeed, Discredit. If you can’t discredit, deny.
The 4 D’s. You’ve gone right down the list so far. Next?
>Because it’s one of the standard defense mechanisms you are taught
Like I said, you sound like a comic book version of conspiracy theorist.
>I said you were using the same BS forgery to justify your world view
Blatant lies again. I never made any claims about “Protocols”, nor even mentioned it before you did, nor considered them relevant. Moreover, I explicitly wrote that it is most likely a fake. I just criticized you “oh, surely there is WMD in Iraq, TV told us so” dismissal approach.
You wrote about your friend:
“Even providing proof that the Protocols was a forgery created at the turn of the century was dismissed as he claims to not be basing his ideology on them despite a line by line comparison I performed showing that he was quoting it verbatim”
Then I wrote:
“Times magazine said it” doesn’t equal “proof”.
Then you rejoiced in “oh, he doesn’t blindly believe everything Times magazine says, now I can accuse him in being a fan of Protocols or even a NAZI” sort of way. It is like if doubt about WMD in Iraq meant that person is pro-Saddam or at least fan of Al-Jazeera. Surely, all people who didn’t vote for Bush were muslim islamofascist terrorist jihadist Bin-Laden-loving America-hating fanatics, right? Well, here’s some surprise for ya: if I don’t believe all the lies said about Saddam or Bin Laden, that DOESN’T mean I am Saddam or Bin Laden’s fanboy.
Seeing such primitive textbook example of crude Ad hominem (Goodwin’s Law, for god’s sake!) on a supposedly “intelligent” forum is, well, amusing to say the least. However, you seem to have stuck with Nazi accusation, even openly lied about video posted below, which you obviously didn’t watched, yet said that it is about “protocols”, while it is not, in order to fool people who are too lazy to check the link. Lies, slander, deception, insults, what else did you do? “Means justify the ends”, huh?
Let me tell you something: what you do is wrong. Lying is bad. Slander is bad. Deception is bad. You lied several times, slandered me and other visitors, tried to deceive readers of this magazine. And you know it. A good (and smart) thing to do is admit that you are wrong and apologize. That can harm your hubris, but will definately save your reputation. Instead, you pile even more lies on top of it. I don’t know your age, gender, social class, etc, so I cannot make a guess why you lack basic civility and decency. But in a place I am from, deliberate lies, slander, deceit and insults were considered bad, wrong things, unworthy to be used by decent man. I recommend you to do the proper thing and apologize.
Oh, can it! PLEASE! All of you! You’re getting as bad as each other. You’re ad hominiming Val by claiming Val’s ad homminiming you’s. And Both sides have a right to get fed up with the other side when their not listening, Which both seem to be doing. But whatever the difference, Your opinion is your opinion. And people are entitled to opinions.
And if Val really was trying to insult someone in hate then Val would have said in a rage “conspirisies are BS because this is not star trek”. Val didn’t, and Val kept to logic for as long as possible before giving up and losing temper.
Plus who’s in control of what is a moot issue until being oppressed. By which time it only matters that you can resist. And in this case wether you make it out with the enhancements you wanted.
Now let’s all watch some of “The A Team”.
Well, I surely went over the top with pressure, that’s right, but before judging me just read what he writes. This guy actually thinks that Federal Reserve is fictional organization that was invented by anti-semitic neo-nazi conspiracy theorists. He is clinically insane.
Twist twist twist.
Way to write your own version of the truth, and you call me a liar.
Actually this is what Val said
>Yes the Federal Reserve exists. The CONSPIRACY THEORY is that the Fed is just a tool of “a secrect cabal of bankers who control the world’s economy” AKA Illuminati, Zionists, Lizards, etc.
Take that as you will, but I suggest you both tone things down a notch.
And of course, I did note she went over the edge. If I were doing it I would probably done it differently but in any case; at this point it doesn’t matter, you’re both blowing this out of proportion.
The problem here is that we have a novice conspiracy theorist, vs an old EX conspiracy theorist. It’s kind of like an argument between a novice Christian, and a Christopher Hitchens type Atheist.
Anonymous probably ran into someone, who told them all about this theory, gave them some website and some video links (much like have already been posted by Anonymous) and he then was led down a primrose path of connect the dots with a series of historical events all tied into “the bankers are controlling the world through dept” with lot’s of “guest speakers” with lots of credentials, most of whom, if he had done the follow up, are either NOT respected in their fields, or more often, don’t exist because they are just paid extras, and a host who is SO VERY EMPHATIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (watch that you don’t get impaled by that pen he’s likely to be jabbing at the screen to emphasize his points) and given a whirlwind tour through a highly slanted history lesson in which it is made to seem that these bankers have been at war with the world governments for centuries, with stops in Rome, England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Finally the US where it portrays Andrew Jackson as a super hero for fighting the creation of a “National Bank” and finally focused on the Federal Reserve as the biggest VILLAIN OF OUR TIMES!! because it is just a tool used by the “secret cabal”, who incidentally (in some versions) , also caused this economic crash just to put Obama into office.
Along the way, you can probably toss in some 9/11 conspiracy (needed to make an excuse to throw a war and make some profits selling arms don’tcha know?) and depending on the political leanings of his particular sect, either the Dems or the Repubs will be the “Tools of the Cabal” in congress.
That they neglected to inform him of any of the historical evidence I supplied is no surprise.
How do I know this? Because over twenty years ago, I actually bought into this BS too. I just learned far too much about it. I’ve seen too many of these videos. Been on too many websites shaking my head in disgust that the forgery directly responsible for the largest loss of human life of any written document other than the bible is still drawing in gullible fools to send out on conversion crusades like Anonymous.
I know that this ideology played a major role in the Holocaust, in the millions dead in Russia, in the fall of the Towers (most terrorists see America as the “Tool of the Cabal” not just the Fed) and is causing deaths around the world AS WE SPEAK. Over the top? On the whole, I’ve been pretty moderate compared to what I COULD have been.
I pity those duped. I have nothing but utter contempt for the philosophy itself. I hold an open mind on everything, but the evidence I have piled up against conspiracy theories over the years is too overwhelming to ignore. There’s little point to attempting rational discussion with someone who will take any argument as proof of his correctness.
Now Zexion, to more pleasant topics, based on some of the things you’ve said I’d like to give you the link to a few books you might enjoy.
All those are links to readable Full Editions.
God Want’s You Dead discusses ideological organisms, complex memeplexs which act like parasitic metaorganisms that use individual humans as “hosts” and use them as expendable drones.
Ain’t Nobody’s Business if You Do, The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society, is a treatise on the illogic of a “crime against oneself” and views it from nearly every perspective possible.
The Light’s in the Tunnel discusses the economic effects of automation, and how outsourcing and automation essentially have the same effect, then proceeds to show how these conditions are likely to extend into the future.
Progress and Poverty is a work by Henry George, and was written around the turn of the century, yet still reads like it was written today. The only thing I think George missed was the cause of rent seeking, the “culprit” behind why poverty can still exist in an age were resources are so abundant.
The last is the Truth Machine, a fiction novel that I find to be extremely thought provoking.
Answering to this comment:
>Then tell me… Who is this “man behind the curtain”?
There is no single leader, there couldn’t be. Like I said, Western civilization is based on individual self-worth (i.e. cowardice) and therefore is very afraid of strong leadership. It tries to spread power as thin as possible. Our rulers are around 300 people from 13 old families, the so-called “council of 300”. The reason for having so much people in council is to make sure that no single leader can usurp power. Of course, single leadership is more effective, but cowardice prevent these people from forming more structured power system. After all, having less effective control is preferrable to possibility of painful death in torture chamber (or worse). East have the tyrants, West have the councils.
>Obama may have a similar agenda to Bush
Please… I explained you many times… Obama doesn’t have “an agenda”. He is a hired guy. He is like a journalist. Journalist does job at writing articles, but it is media owner who has an agenda and who defines editor’s policy. Does Obama owns U.S.? Obviously not. He is a CEO. And CEOs don’t have agendas, they have operational instructions.
>since the first world war
How about since XIX century. Google “conquest of Texas”.
>In any case, What are WE afraid of?
Ordinary citizens have nothing to fear from an effective police state. If they are not criminals or rebels, there is nothing to fear. That’s the whole reason China is so successful. However, the problem is, West is a very ineffective police state. You would see your mind scans leaking online due to negligence, spammers use your brain implants to implant shopping neurosis, and so on. Imagine all worst problems of modern Internet, multiplied and applied to your own brain. And nobody will care. Think of Facebook and Google security leaks – if such more-or-less effective companies don’t care to stop them, you can be surely government won’t bother it at all. After all, you are merely excessive burden, and elites’ agenda is depopulation.
>Hooliganism upsets the ballance.
>Whoever it is that is in power will not want that.
In countries where it can upset the balance (like Russia), it is banned. If France, for example, allows million-man-strong protests, that means they mean nothing.
>basic laws are already set
Laws are written by the strong for the weak. Just like elections.
>ether side attacks, then chances are the economy goes bankrupt
Yep, that’s the whole reason U.S. still exists. China owns dollar, it can destory the dollar and, therefore, U.S. economy. The reason why they don’t do that is because they want to suck off everything from America before killing it off. That’s an old “pillage before you burn” rule.
>such a pessimist
That’s not pessimism, that’s realism. Pessimism is depressive, and I do not feel depressed.
Okay, Let’s Assume this “counsil of 300” exists. What’s to stop it from fracturing into 12 warring factions? It could take as little as one of these elites disagreing with the others and others might join them. Think group and pack mentality. And don’t forget if one wants the pride of being top dog.
If a so called “counsil of 300” existed then chances are it would be no different to what the government is known to do. Yell at each other all day, dissagree. Only difference being no-one put them there.
>…and elites’ agenda is depopulation.
As far as I know, that is either counter-intuitive logic or “for the evils”. If a power system is benefiting from it’s people, then they will need more people. The exception being when they can’t support those people.
Now let’s assume that the power system does become negligent. Anyone with a company would probably want to protect their investments, so if this negligence does occur and people are hacking into its workers’ brains as you predict; then they will set up privite security for their workers, paid for by the company. Essentially meaning that the economy structure would protect anyone with a stake in it.
>…if such more-or-less effective companies don’t care to stop them…
That’s because those security leaks weren’t their problem. At least that’s what I can assume from the examples given. The people who’s information they were supposed to protect would not have effected them either way. But if you look at the sucurity at workplaces; spam fillters, anti-virus, top security of classified information. You can see a totally different ethic. Anything that hampers work is brutly dealt with. And people hacking into your workers’ brains to make them chronicly distracted for a certain product (not availiable there) counts as a problem. (Note: even if the richest positions don’t care for this, the managers on their way up certainly will)
Even with the assumtions you’re asking to be made, it’s unlikely that the proposed problems won’t be dealt with another way.
>That’s not pessimism, that’s realism. Pessimism is depressive, and I do not feel depressed.
Could have fooled me, what with the claiming we’re all doomed. Or something similar.
In any case, most of the things you say would be a problem, assumtions or not, seem to be just more of the same as what we have. And as is obvious, we seem to be doing fine at the moment. I got viruses on a computer a while ago, and it was hardly an inconviniance; I had another one lieing around. And now the computer that cought the virus is fixed. And as an extension on my doubts on mind control being plausible at a complex level, it’s unlikely you’ll be kept from doing something similar (or a doctor doing it for you, possibly at the companies request). And as I noted with the more wild assumtion of the people in charge , regardless of if it’s true or not; they’d be doing the same as any proposed system of power. Again, more of the same, just needlessly complicated.
I’d rather not do any more argueing about who’s ruling what; so whatever floats your boat. I’ll just argue wether there is/would-be a problem.
Time magazine? I never mentioned Time magazine, so what does that have to do with anything?
And I am all too aware of the “argument” that the protocols are fake, from which you are then likely to repeat them verbatim, but claim to not be. It’s become the latest thing in Conspiracy Nuttism. “Let’s use all the material, but deny that we got it from this source!” Doesn’t matter if you got your info from “Money Masters”, or “The Eight Veils” or whatever website fed this BS to you, it still comes straight from the Protocols, which came straight from a political satire that was banned in France a bare 15 years before the Protocols was “found” by the Okrhana and fed to Tsar Nicholas in an attempt to get him to “crack down” on all those “Marxism spreading Jews”. It was then used as a textbook in Germany under the Reich, since it was a primary inspiration for Mein Kampf. Since then, despite having been proven a forgery as early as 1929, has been the basis of nearly every conspiracy theory.
The main tenant of the Protocols is that a secret group of “zionists” are controlling the world through “Usury” and enslaving people to debt. Claim all you wish to be unaware of this fact, but you’ve already used all the magic words that scream PROTOCOLS. Just because you might not be aware of the origin does not mean you are not guilty of quoting them. It just means you didn’t get told where it was from.
So alright, I’ll play your game. Tell me your theory, I want to compare it to the Illuminati theory, and the Cult of Isis theory, and the Lizard’s from another dimension theory, and the Immortals from Atlantis theory, and the Immortal Banking Cartel theory, and the Federal Reserve theory, and the Aliens among us theory, and the Zionist Conspiracy, the Lemurian Magician’s Consiracy and all the other various Conspiracy theories I have dealt with for nearly forty years, all of which stem in full or in part from the Protocols.
So tell me why you believe that a single group of people have controlled the world for centuries.
But before you do, let me warn you, I’ve seen better evidence for the existence of Atlantis, aliens, and the Moon being an artificial structure, than I have for any of the various flavors of Conspiracy Theory listed above.
But please, do explain why THEY are all crackpots, but YOU are right.
They are the guys who said it was a forgery.
>The main tenant of the Protocols is that a secret group
>of “zionists” are controlling the world through “Usury”
>and enslaving people to debt.
Obviously. Broken clock show right time twice a day. And what do you want to say? That there is no usury and no debt? No Federal Reserve? Look, that could be plausible somewhere in 1970ies, but in 2000ies it is pretty much common knowledge. And after the crisis of 2008… Well, what planet are you from? The economy is going straight to the toilet, yet you continue denying the obvious things just because some document from XIX century said exactly the same, and the document is “bad”?
>Federal Reserve theory
Federal Reserve THEORY.
So, Federal Reserve don’t exist?
>Tell me your theory
Like I said, it is you who is the guy with the theories, you are the guy who is claiming that he “knows everything” and “knows the truth”. I just criticise you when you obviously lie, nothing more.
Actually it was the TIMES. Couldn’t bother to do the real research hummmmm? There’s far more research that’s been done since, all verifying the facts.
Feel free to accuse me of lying whenever you can’t handle the facts. You claim a conspiracy, regardless of size. You use the arguments that come straight from the Protocols, but are ignorant of their source. When confronted with the evidence of their source, you deny the facts and the trail of evidence that leads back to that source because you can’t face the fact that you’ve bought into a simplistic Ideology.
Yes the Federal Reserve exists. The CONSPIRACY THEORY is that the Fed is just a tool of “a secrect cabal of bankers who control the world’s economy” AKA Illuminati, Zionists, Lizards, etc.
Like I pointed out above, there are many facts that are so easy to twist into this simplistic world view. But the truth is that a dozen isolated negative facts does not equal “power structure that has remained unchanged since the middle ages” WHICH YOU EXPLICITLY STATED. Since NO HISTORICAL evidence for that statement exists, as no PUBLIC power structure currently exists that has not undergone radical change since then, the reference can only be to a “Secret power structure” AKA CONSPIRACY THEORY. Mention of the Rothchildes merely cemented that observation, as they are the SINGLE MOST COMMONLY REFERRED TO “CULPRITS” IN EVERY FLAVOR OF CONSPIRACY THEORY.
Ignorance of your own beliefs origins does not negate the fact that those origins have been explored and found false by others. Most Christians are woefully ignorant of the contents of the Bible too. I DID my research. Maybe it’s time you do your own before you start attacking people again.
But I’m willing to bet you won’t. None of the others I’ve had this conversation with did either.
That’s just ridiculous. What you called “conspiracy theory” which as you say “has no historical reference” is considered as basic fact outside Western world. Check channels like Al-Jazeera or RT. I doubt that word “conspiracy theory” can even be translated in any non-English language, since the only culture that doesn’t acknowledge the existance of internal power structure is ours. What you consider “a ludicrous theory” is considered as fact by 99% of humanity. So, when you use “nobody believes conspiracy theories”, we are talking about U.S. only – and that’s the culture which is not exactly known to be bright. Outside, there is not even word for “conspiracy theory”.
However, I would gladly call myself “conspiracy theorist” if you call yourself “coincidence theorist”.
And this fact hasn’t clued you in yet?
That all those people “Are in the Know” just like you, YET HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS “SHADOW GOVERNMENT” That literally BILLIONS of people are “resisting” this conspiracy, AND YET HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN ABLE TO EVEN MAKE A DENT in it’s control?
Billions of people believe in supernatural deities controlling the universe too.
Faith in something is not a proof of it’s factuality. I go by evidence, and despite the “beliefs” of “99%” of humanity, YOU HAVE NONE. Just supposition, and circumstantial anecdotal biasing of historical fact.
If ANYONE, ANYWHERE had proof of this conspiracy’s existence, it would have fallen already. No matter how “powerful” a human being is, they are still subject to a bullet in the skull. After more than a hundred years and “Billions” of people worldwide being convinced of it’s reality, the fact still remains that NO-ONE has anymore evidence now than they did back when Hitler used this “conspiracy” to justify killing the “non-aryans” in Germany.
I understand that you *BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!* So What? Where’s your PROOF. Not supposition, not twisting of historical scenarios to make them appear to support your theory, but your REAL CONCRETE, 100% ironclad evidence that PROVES you are right? Not one of those BILLIONS of people has it, and neither do you.
Like I said, it requires belief that ALL OF HUMANITY must act in ways contrary to established HUMAN NATURE to think that your conspiracy has any validity.
>25 years use
Oh, shit. Adult person that uses kid’s alias. And plays computer games. With crossdressing avatar. Hell, I thought you were a kid somewhere between 14 and 18 years old, judging by your behavior. And you are an adult with kid’s mind. Resident internet crank. That’s so fucked up, man. Yet so typical. It would be much more bizzare to see a mentally healthy person. Now it all makes much more sense. Of course. What did I expected from UFO cult site? Rational arguments? Huh. I don’t know if I need to laugh or to cry.
Get some medical examination, ASAP. I am serious, you need help.
I have to agree, with a few differences in thought
valkyrie did reply to two posts that I thought were of questionable value, but then applied the same label to a few other posters using the name anonymous, even his initial posts were somewhat uncivil.
somehow he’s grouped different people into the “conspiracy clone” category (classic dehumanization) and has said they all believe the same theory, and then proceeded to not address what they said.
if you have some evidence, Valkyrie_ice, I suggest you post it so that readers of comments can make that decision by themselves, you don’t always have to convince who you are directly talking to on the internet. I myself would like to see whatever material you have.
I guess it always happens on Internet. It is easy to dehumanize person if you can’t see his face.
Personally, I have no grudge against Valkyrie Ice. I just wish he stopped using ad hominem. It’s childish.
… Actully it’s probably just that it’s hard to track who’s saying what if they all have the name “annonymous”. If someone just typed something in the name box, then it’s more reasonable to assume it’s not the same person as the one argueing the opposite. Not a perfect system, but it’s a practical one.
Faceless or not, it’s identityless that stumps people.
I have to agree, with a few differences in thought
Valkyrie did reply to two posts that I thought were of questionable value, but then applied the same label to a few other posters using the name anonymous, even his initial posts were somewhat uncivil.
somehow he’s grouped different people into the “conspiracy clone” category (classic dehumanization) and has said they all believe the same theory, and then proceeded to not address what they said.
if you have some evidence, Valkyrie_ice, I suggest you post it so that readers of comments can make that decision by themselves, you don’t always have to convince who you are directly talking to on the internet. I myself would like to see whatever material you have.
You want some references?
And to reprint a section:
The 24 Protocols are posited as instructions to a new Elder, outlining how the group will control the world. The Elders want to trick all “gentile nations”, whom they call “goyim”, into doing their will. Their preferred methods include:
1 Alcoholism, Annihilation of the privileges of the non-Jewish aristocracy, among other topics.
2, 9, 12 The propagation of ideas, such as Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, and Utopianism, with the task of undermining established forms of order.
5 World government
7 World wars
10 Staging catastrophes against one’s own people, then claiming a moral high ground for leverage (False flag)
11 Universal suffrage
11, 12, 17 Curtailment of civil liberties with the excuse of defeating the enemies of peace
13 Creating the impression of the existence of freedom of press, freedom of speech, human rights and democracy, all of which are subsequently undermined and become mere illusions or deceptive smokescreens behind which actual oppression lies
14, 17 Pornographic literature
16 The destruction of Christianity, Islam and other religions and cultures, followed by a transitional stage of atheism, followed finally by the hegemony of Judaism
21 Economic depressions
22 Undermining financial systems by foreign loans, creating national bankruptcy, destroying money markets and replacing them with government credit institutions
23 Justification of previous acts of evil and expectation of a great new society
24 Reduction of the manufacture of articles of luxury, destruction of large manufacturers, prohibition of alcohol and hashish, unleashing forces of violence under the mask of principles of freedom, only to have the ‘King of the Jews’ demolish those very forces to make him appear a saviour
25 Training of the king, direct heirs, irreproachability of exterior morality of the King of the Jews
Control of the media and finance would replace the traditional sources of social order with one based on mass manipulation and state engineered propaganda, where powerful elites and institutions conspire to conceal unpalatable truths from the masses. In these respects, the Protocols draws on long-standing criticisms of modernity, radicalism and capitalism, but presents them as part of an orchestrated plot, rather than as a product of impersonal historical processes.
The text assumes that the reader already believes that the Freemasons are a secret society with a hidden political agenda, and the Protocols purports to demonstrate that this hidden agenda is itself controlled or guided by the ‘Elders’, a sort of conspiracy theory within a conspiracy theory. In the Protocols, Freemasons and “liberal thinkers” are shown to be mere tools that the Elders will eventually replace with a Jewish theocracy. The Protocols describes a forthcoming “kingdom” and goes into great lengths about how it will be run. Yet even in this kingdom the Elders will avoid direct political control, preferring to assert themselves via usury and manipulation of money. Even the “King of the Jews” himself will be nothing more than a figurehead.
Comparison Between The Protocols And Maurice Joly’s Dialogue In Hell
The Protocols 1–19 closely follow the order of Maurice Joly’s The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu 1–17. In some places, the plagiarism is incontrovertible to any observer, trained or not. For example, the box on the left below contains text from the Dialogue in Hell…, while the box on the right contains text from The Protocols :
Montesquieu: How are loans made? By the issue of bonds entailing on the Government the obligation to pay interest proportionate to the capital it has been paid. Thus, if a loan is at 5%, the State, after 20 years, has paid out a sum equal to the borrowed capital. When 40 years have expired it has paid double, after 60 years triple: yet it remains debtor for the entire capital sum. (Dialogues, p. 209)
A loan is an issue of Government paper which entails an obligation to pay interest amounting to a percentage of the total sum of the borrowed money. If a loan is at 5%, then in 20 years the Government would have unnecessarily paid out a sum equal to that of the loan in order to cover the percentage. In 40 years it will have paid twice; and in 60 thrice that amount, but the loan will still remain as an unpaid debt. (Protocols, p. 77)
Another example is the reference to the Hindu deity Vishnu, which appears exactly twice in both the Dialogues in Hell and the Protocols:
Machiavelli: Like the god Vishnu, my press will have a hundred arms, and these arms will give their hands to all the different shades of opinion throughout the country. (Dialogues, p. 141)
These newspapers, like the Indian god Vishnu, will be possessed of hundreds of hands, each of which will be feeling the pulse of varying public opinion. (Protocols, p. 43)
Montesquieu: Now I understand the figure of the god Vishnu; you have a hundred arms like the Indian idol, and each of your fingers touches a spring. (Dialogues, p. 207)
Our Government will resemble the Hindu god Vishnu. Each of our hundred hands will hold one spring of the social machinery of State. (Protocols, p. 65)
Now, let’s see what kind of dodge Anonymous comes up with. My bet is he’ll try disparaging Wikipedia as a reference, which is why I included both the Protocols and the book it was forged from, and an additional reference.
Do many of the protocols sound plausible? Sure. Do there exist events that can be seen as “confirming” the Protocols? Sure. Is it possible that a 2000 year old conspiracy could never have a single member succumb to human nature and betray his fellow conspirators, that 25 to 30% of humanity could willingly co-conspire with these “Elders” and that none of them would ever betray the conspiracy? That never in 2000 years has this group split, had factional wars, or fallen prey to ANY human activity that is all too common in every office, boardroom, and palace in all of human history? That somehow, they’ve done what NO OTHER SIMILAR GROUP OF HUMANS HAS EVER DONE?
There are plenty of possible coincidences that can make the Protocols sound sensible. But they all require you to pretend that human nature doesn’t exist for at least half the human race.
The similarity of the document with the other document is not a proof in any way. It is argument at best. Especially when you talk about political manifesto stuff that is copy-paste by the very definition of genre. It is the same as you used my claims about Biblical locusts to say that I am a fan of Hal Lindsy. The proof is something you can present in the court to back your accusation. The proof of forgery is the proof of authorship. Like that it was written by Rachkovsky, or some other guy. Why didn’t you provide that proof? Because there isn’t any. It is a speculation, a hypothesis. The truth, we DON’T know who is the author of the document, we DON’T know whether it is someone’s “black propaganda” (propaganda written from the point-of-view of the enemy to slander him) or real inside document of some secret society (which XIX-XX centuries were swarmed with, all of which claimed “ancient ancestry”). So, there is no reason to claim that we know something about it or have some “proof” when we certainly don’t and probably never will.
>…Is it possible that a 2000 year old conspiracy…
Hold your horses. First, I never said that protocols are real, I just doubted that you have any “proof”. Doubting Bush’s claims about Bin Laden’s terrorism isn’t equal of saying Bin Laden is not a terrorist. Second, I surely don’t believe in “Zion Elders” or something like that. I wrote it many times, yet you continue claiming that I believe in some 2000-years old conspiracy when I clearly don’t, since such belief would be inconsistend with everything I write here.
On the other hand, 2000-year-old conspiracies are obviously at least technically possible, since we have witnessed human secret organizations that existed many times longer than that. I am not ready to buy the idea that there is something like that at large, thought. But it is necessary to note that what you say about “human nature” is not “human nature” at all, it is lower classes (peons, slaves, sheeple, etc) nature, and any initiation-based order is virtually immune to social decay: in fact, they became more refined with age. Which is understandable, since there is a lot to dump excessive enthropy to. “Secret” doesn’t mean “closed”.
Pretty much what I expected, a dodge all the way around.
You claimed very early on that “the power structure” has remained unchanged for centuries, and that transparency would have no effect on the “Real Old Wealth” Followed by references to the Rothchildes. You also spoke about how they enslaved the populace through Usury and Debt.
These are ALL conspiracy BUZZ WORDS. I’ve heard just about every variant of them possible to hear.
That you are ignorant of the source of your worldview is simply a sad testament to how little you’ve bothered to learn about your own philosophy.
As for Hal Lindsey, did you even read Late Great Planet Earth? Again, being ignorant of the source of your beliefs does not say much about the depth of your research into them prior to espousing them.
>That you are ignorant of the source of your worldview
Claiming that what you call “conspiracy theorism” (i.e. realistic worldview) comes from Protocols doesn’t explain why both original Christianity and especially Islam specifically forbid usury. Somebody send Protocols 2000 years in time via DeLorean time machine? You must be kidding, boy.