"People Who Believe They Are Genetically Different"/ The Axis of Evil - A New Definition Needed

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 11 months, 1 week ago to History
86 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Here is something to chomp on over this weekend.

What is your view of this...do you think there is a smidgen of truth here?

These creatures are what I call...descendants of the Nephilim, the great unwashed, the delete ruleless class and of course, the parasitical humanoids that I have observed to possess no conscience, not conscious, no mind and brain in a body only creatures that are not human in the same ways we are. "We" of course are: the value producing, creating, true, elite on the streets.

You know whom they are, our rulers, those that AR talked and wrote about, the central bankers, the kings and queens, those that hide behind others and in deep dark corners like the Hapsburg's, the Rothschild's, fake Jews and fake people. They really do think they are not human and in fact, they very well may not be...many follow their lineage back to Nimrod of Babylon, a self professed Nephilim.

But ask your self, could you think the way they think, do what they do, steal what they steal, act the way they act...even in your wildest dreams?
If your answer is NO!, then welcome to the conscious human race.

My point before you read this section of a Global watch report...there seems to be something to all this...they are really not like us, many have said it, we have observed it. Do they really represent mankind?, Human kind? Are the clintonians, bubuskies, obobo's, the uoons, the neverdidajobs, the sorasses and the rest of their ilk anything like us?
I think not.

"However it is critical to realize that the Global Domination Agenda is not dependent upon the creation of private bankers. It is in essence the belief of a families that sit hidden by the private bankers who have had their worldview institutionalized in man-made laws and kept in place by bribes and threats and presented by private banking oligarchs. It has become in some ways a “legal mafia” because violations of contract integrity, persons and property are supported by legislation. Just a few examples are: fraud and embezzlement (fiat money, swaps, short sales, derivatives, subsidies, bailouts, corporate personhood, etc.) theft (involuntary taxation, eminent domain land seizures), kidnapping (military draft, extraordinary rendition, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act...), assault (mandatory vaccines, mandatory pesticide sprays, covert Chemtrails spraying, sobriety checkpoints...) torture (“enhanced interrogation techniques”)."

"This is the real true root of the axis of evil..................The global domination agenda."

"Over 400 years ago, the Florentine statesman Niccolo Machiavelli engaged in a profound
study of methods used by various rulers to attain power ... The findings of Machiavelli and
other students of power decree that to obtain power it is essential to ignore the moral laws
of man and of God; that promises must be made only with the intention to deceive and to
mislead others to sacrifice their own interests; that the most brutal atrocity must be
committed as a matter of mere convenience; that friends or allies must be betrayed as
matter of course as soon as they have served their purpose. But, it is also decreed that
these atrocities must be kept hidden from the common people except only where they are
of use to strike terror to the hearts of opponents; that there must be kept up a spurious
aspect of benevolence and benefit for the greater number of the people, and even an
aspect of humility to gain as much help as possible."

"People Who Believe They Are Genetically Different"

"When you hear terms, families of power, global elite, bloodlines of the illuminati, black nobility etc, it is likely that you are thinking of royalty, wealth, affluence and shadow government. However what many people do not realize is that the theological belief of the global elite, is one in which they believe they are genetically and spiritually different to the human race."

"If you study the history behind the evolution of these families and their networks of power, it becomes very apparent that they have a very deep disgust and contempt for the human race. This is borne out of the fact that they affiliate themselves with a belief that they are not fully human, and genetically different to the human race."

"It sounds bizarre to say the least, but once you understand this crucial point then everything starts to make sense in regards to why the architects of the new world order simply have no disregard for life. The human race is seen merely as cattle and the loss of life whether through major wars, genocide or manipulated acts of terror, are simply seen as the un-avoidable casualties of a war to drive through their bizarre agenda."

No need to buy the report, but if you should want to: http://www.globalwatchweekly.com/thed...


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 11 months, 1 week ago
    A sense of genetic superiority can be instilled in one's culture. The idea of the Aryan superman was at the core of Nazi ideology, but they weren't alone. The Han Chinese are taught from childhood today that their race is superior to all others, and race superiority is entrenched in Japanese culture. European aristocracy still exists, despite losing most of the trappings of their monarchist roots, and they still firmly believe in the genetic superiority of their family lines.

    Unfortunately, wealth has bred an American aristocracy. Capitalist success has falsely been attributed to bloodline superiority, with the result of "old money" families who sincerely believe they know what's best for the rest of us. After all, they're wealthy, which indicates their superiority, so we should listen to them with respects to our own well being.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
      Still doesn't explain the shear lack of Conscience, morality, ethics and mutuality...all of that could not be eradicated by upbringing, instruction or example; at some point, a conscious being would question, rebel or otherwise show some signs of dissonance. I saw this dissonance in George Bush...now the boy seems to be one of us and has become a good painter. ( that's purely an observation on my part, I could be wrong)

      We've heard the stories, those that woke up and said to themselves...this is not right, something is wrong. David Horowitz and Joe Hicks are good examples...there are many others while the likes of Al Gore or George Soros, hiltery or obobo never have awakened...I think this goes even beyond the effects epigenetics might have.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 11 months, 1 week ago
        What you and I consider conscience, morality, and ethics undergoes the distortion of relativistic value judgement in those with a superiority complex. Since they are inherently superior in all things thanks to their sterling genetic descent, anything they judge as a justifiable means to what they perceive as a proper end is righteous, but only for them. Lesser beings that follow the same path are at the least usurping the rights due only the superior beings, and should be punished. Perversely, it's less about breaking laws, and more about theft of privilege.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by minorwork 11 months ago
          Aye, virtue ethics supplanting deontological and utilitarian ethics. Sure does wonders at justifying the predatory practice of one human over another based on it being the natural order of things to prey on those who are NOT virtuous, or at least preying on those not quite as virtuous as they.

          Such an ethics is a narcissistic one and to be exposed as of more potential evil justifying than the other ethics.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
          Now that's a "privilege" that should be checked!

          Perhaps what you point out is the difference between ego's/super ego's and quantum identities/ human conscience driven by a mind.

          No doubt there are many caught in the middle for many reasons.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        "Conscience, morality, ethics and mutuality" all imply a sense of self as a standard to compare others by. I have a brother whom most would say is selfish, but, as far as I have ever known, is selfless to the point of saying "I (not sure what that means to him) did not ask to be born so society owes me a living. He once stole my identity and got me arrested. When he had to make amends for a 12 step program he just blamed me for everything that has happened to him, his selfless life.
        Without a healthy sense of self, one distorts one's percepts of reality and can appear to be aware but not have a rational consciousness and in many case end up with no sense of conscience.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  10 months, 3 weeks ago
          "Conscience, morality, ethics and mutuality" is the standard that One "Judges" himself...not others.
          A healthy "Self" comes only when one observes himself from the Mind. The brain can not do that. Those that don't have or use that ability end up making up an identity called the "Ego" and sometimes manufacture an imitation conscience called: "a super ego".

          "I" besides meaning you, is the source of the identity one achieves with his mind. The Minds "I"/eye so to speak.
          None conscious humans revered the "I"eye because they could not and still can't obtain a quantum identity that comes with a connection to a mind.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            You seem to imply that the mind exists independent of a self. Please define the two and the term "quantum identity".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  10 months, 3 weeks ago
              Everyone has a mind, it exists simply due to the electrical activity of the brain but not everyone has made that connection to it. It is just outside your head...like an energy field. That's what we are measuring when they hook up the electrode's to your head; ie, alpha, bata, delta waves.

              Some Quantum Physicist theorize that energy field is part of the Quantum field and we have access to the entanglements within...like how we get insights into something we have no business, (education) to have an insight into.
              Theory has it that the wave transfer between an entanglement is actually an exchange of information that the brain/mind combination can decode.
              I "See" that this is so, but will only posit in probability...just gona have to wait for the math on that...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by lrshultis 10 months, 3 weeks ago
                Sounds more like an hypothesis rather than a theory and even a weak one at that. As for probability, one needs some evidence to derive a sample space so that probabilities may be found, i.e., must first have the possibility of it to " 'See' that this is so..." In math one just creates a sample space by some rule and calculates probabilities. In reality one needs evidence (data) from which to form a sample space in order calculate probabilities related to the real world: or be able to use the wave equation to calculate amplitudes and square them to get probabilities. Not a chance for that idea for mind.

                As for the brain waves, the EKG is measuring electrical currents due to various ion exchanges in neurons and not electric fields. The electric fields which might be measured by instruments outside the head are moving radially outward from the head and would require any magnetic fields generated within the brain to return to the brain in order to be detected as a mind. At 96.8 degrees F, it would be hard to see how any kind of entanglement for any sufficient time could be had.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 11 months, 1 week ago
    One caution is to confuse the words "conscious" with "moral" as if they are the same. To me, consciousness means nothing more than self-awareness and self-actualization, it speaks nothing of motivations, which is where morals come into play. It is only consciousness teamed with morals that describes one's direction in life.

    What really is at issue is the moral fundamentals adopted by these individuals, whether by choice or by instruction. Their moral compasses simply are not set to align north with individual rights. Can they discard these compasses and adopt others? Certainly. The question is will they do so willingly.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
      Correct but one must be conscious to have a conscience and therefore take advantage of morality in a willing manner.
      The biggest difference in moral behavior between bicameral man and conscious man was the adoption of morality willingly instead of by fear of consequences inflicted by unseen forces.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 11 months, 1 week ago
        I agree that consciousness is a predicate for morality. Conscience is something else entirely, since it is a visceral reaction to personal choice. I'm vacillating over whether it holds a more solid connection to consciousness because its primary emanation deals with morality. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

        Whether morality can really be "unwilling" to me is an interesting position. Perhaps you can expound.

        (PS - I've never seen bicameral used in this way. Please elaborate as to your intent.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
          Bicameral as used by Julian Jaynes which my works are based upon describes pre-conscious man 3 to 5 thousand years ago...it's a long story of which is more and more being excepted.

          Morality of bicameral man, (behaving, being good) was the results of survival in a complex society but when bad things happened it was blamed on something outside one's self...ie, the "Gods" are angry...today, the bicamerals in government and those they have made in their own image have that same tendency to blame everything and everyone else on what they themselves have done; and yes, there are those that do it on purpose but that in itself shows a lack of conscience, morality and mankind's natural mutuality with others outside family units.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 11 months, 1 week ago
            I'm going to quibble about terminology because I'm not one who ascribes to the notion of pulling a word out of nowhere and re-assigning meaning. The prefix bi- means two, but cameral relates to having chambers, such as in a heart or legislative body. What you're referring to isn't trying to maintain two mindsets (a hypocrite), but merely the selection of one out of two. To me, the use of bicameral here fits like a flat screwdriver in a Torx head.

            I also disagree with the notion that man was "pre-conscious" 3,000-5,000 years ago. As per my description above, they were self-aware and self-actualizing, they just adhered to a different moral code. I would also caution in referring too generally here, as anthropologists will no doubt point out that each society was very different than others (to the degree that such study is possible). There is also no direct observation of such, so any "studies" and theory must be taken with a large degree of supposition. Thus any kind of definitive conclusions are going to have a significant factor of error.

            Regarding your point that many people in times past adhered to an external view of life (things are done to them rather than being in control), I look around and still see a lot of that - despite society's so-called advances! Given the systemic nature of this moral outlook on life, I muse that this attitude of blame is an endemic and natural state of man that requires focus and moral commitment to change. The morality of natural law (somewhat paradoxically) requires Man to abandon this "natural" inclination to seek only to be acted upon and thus find blame rather than taking action himself and finding opportunity. For all of man's technological advances, I remain skeptical that we have made similar advances (as a race of beings) in morality.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
              A point to consider: what Jaynes discovers is that the left and right brains of pre-conscious man did not co-operate as they do in conscious man. When they did, it was thought it was an act or voice of the Gods, hence, something outside of one's self.
              The brain alone, is an amazing thing and can, as witnessed through history, accomplish many things...except view itself and willfully modify it's behavior...for that takes a conscious mind.

              Mere awareness is not consciousness without the ability to be aware of one's own awareness, inspect one's behavior and willingly modify that behavior beyond one's own survival needs.

              It takes three things to make a Conscious Human Being: a health functioning brain, connected to, a mind and a body inwhich to reside. That mind, the ancients thought, was that "all seeing eye." (note here again...that all seeing eye was something outside of themselves).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 11 months, 1 week ago
                Thanks for the clarification. Do you have a link to Jaynes work? I'm curious how he was able to determine that the left and right brains of those individuals did not co-operate, as it is generally accepted according to contemporary medicine that each side takes responsibility for certain major portions of thinking and bodily function. A brain that did not cooperate would indeed be bicameral, but would also seem to be counter-intuitive (pun intended).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
                  Laughing at your pun...and that was the case. Once I got what Jaynes was saying I began to understand the conversations and history of our bicameral Old Testament ancestors.

                  There is a Julian Jaynes blog site but everyone there, just like here, has read the works of the author.
                  See: The breakdown of the bicameral mind, by Julian Jaynes.
                  A second book written by the founder of that blog in co-operation with many other psychologist finds Jaynes was right on and advance that understanding:, written by Marcel Knijsten Gods, Voices and the Bicameral Mind
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 11 months, 1 week ago
    Cries of "racism" is actually a shield for the support of a political ideology. Racism is a low budget attack against those that do not support government sponsored collectivism and wealth redistribution. The economics of Socialism and Communism and Fascism is difficult to understand but racism is easy, or so it seems. Those who cry "racist" would have you believe that liberal ideology is monolithic among "people of color" and with the exception of a few outliers, who are viewed as "racial traitors", the view is ubiquitous. Unfortunately for the zealots who hold this view the growing number of "people of color" that adopt a more politically conservative point of view puts the lie to this notion. After the initial diaspora from Africa and the resulting schism of humanity into superficially identifiable "races" the great reunification, enabled by increased intercontinental travel, has diluted racial differences by the process of genetic homogenization. As a result the concept of race has become highly subjective. However, that does not prevent those with an ideological agenda from using it as a political tool. Politics is many things but primarily it is the art of deception and deflection and the quest for power. Those who are swayed by political arguments are easy prey for those whose ultimate goal is subjugation of those not part of the political elite. It is recognized that the slave that is kept unaware of the weight of his own chains is the easiest to control.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
      " It is recognized that the slave that is kept unaware of the weight of his own chains is the easiest to control."...and that process still goes on today against all of us. But due to a physically observable difference has made it easier for political parasitical humanoids to perpetuate this nonsense.

      I would imagine an actual different racial conscious being would be like a Dolphin whom could introspect it's own behavior and modify it because it's the right thing to do where as if this action were for the purpose of survival only, (cunningness), would be an argument against consciousness.
      That's why I continually say that those without conscience for purely physiological reasons are not conscious beings and perhaps a different racial entity. If in fact no physiological reasons exist then they would most certainly have the ability to become a conscious being once allowed to become aware of it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by fosterj717 11 months, 1 week ago
        I believe a dolphin's "conscience" would be a species issue and not a racial one if a comparison is intended.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
          The idea is that they would be considered a race of "Conscious Beings".

          There is no such thing as a different "Race" of Conscious Human being...however, there could be a different races of the human species and that difference would have to be profound, not a minuscule chemical that makes one's skin darker for protection from too much sun light...or the reverse for that matter.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 11 months, 1 week ago
    We know that Cro-magnon (our nominal direct ancestors) bred with Neanderthal (nominally extinct) and Denosovians (also gone), even though we consider those others as different "species" of humans. By comparison, read about equine crossbreeds, the mules and hinnies: they are not always sterile. So, it is possible that some of us are genetically different. In fact, I consider each person to be genetically unique: identical twins have different fingerprints.

    But as for the rest of it, what you offer is not a proposition, but a worldview. I do not share it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DrZarkov99 11 months, 1 week ago
      We are often at different viewpoints, but I think you hit the nail on the head here. Each person is as different as their fingerprints. I personally know two adult identical twins with very different medical histories: one has Parkinson's, for example, while his twin is in robust health. One is outgoing and talkative (the healthy one), while his brother is nearly non-communicative, and rarely expresses any emotion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  MikeMarotta 11 months, 1 week ago
        Allow me to suggest the PBS NOVA show on Epigenetics, "The Ghost in Your Genes." The differences you mentioned seem similar to some mentioned there. What is apparently at work is what happened to which grandparent. These differences seem sex-linked and apparently skip generations. They are nonetheless regularly reoccurring. I think that you will find it interesting.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 11 months, 1 week ago
    Having been born the year of the "alien" landing in the desert, brought up inRroswell, and being allergic to way too many Earth foods, I have never felt a genetic connection to the idiots who think money gives them the right to rule other people. From the old Prince of the Netherlands to the Rockefellers to Hillary (who no longer relates to poor people, according to her own words) - they really are aliens! Since Bill Gates became rich, he now thinks he knows which millions of people should cease to exist. They truly are disturbed. They are not content just being, they must control. They do not realize how truly insignificant they really are.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by fosterj717 11 months, 1 week ago
      All that is True however, they (I.e., Bill Gates, etc.) have the resources to make their arrogant beliefs become our unfortunate realities. He (like many of the rest), the Rockefellers, the Rothchilds, two cousins of whom contributed heavily to Hillary Clinton's campaign last summer. These along with other powerful people do, and I stress do, represent an oligarchical elite that wield enormous power and the ability to influence what is happening in the world. All should read "Creature from Jekyll Island" in order to sense the enormity of power that they have.

      If there is in fact a movement underway (I believe there is) to establish a "New World Order", these are the people who can make it happen. As for other attempts to accomplish this goal having failed only means that because humans (I believe) are the force behind these efforts, the powers that be have learned from the mistakes of those previous attempts and are making intelligent corrections. Eventually, they will succeed.

      For these reasons, we are probably witnessing a headlong sprint to that end (why else would things like the unbridled and "mandated" order to accept all "immigrants" without safeguards into the western democracies. could it be to "encourage" instability thus allowing for Marshall Law to be implemented? A step towards the rule by an Iron Fist for putting the finishing touches on the NWO.

      It really looks like we are now in the final stages of such an effort. Globalization and the implementation of a "Crony-capitalist" society "warmly"embracing a "European" form of Socialism is only the opening salvo.

      All one has to do is to "Google" (yeeech!) the attendees and membership lists of the Bilderbergers, especially over the past ten or twelve years! I think you will see a frightening picture emerge that will not help you fall asleep easily at night.....

      It is "We the people" who are the unwashed masses that must be controlled! Unfortunately, our venerable US Constitution is all that stands in the way......
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
      And believe it or not Stormi, there was a race of creatures with the same outlook on us humans way back in history. They are called the Nephilim, the results of the "Fallen idiots", (my version) falling favor to our beautiful human daughters.
      These Nephilim were our rulers in Sumeria and Babylon and they not only tainted us genetically but by their example as well. It is said that all the worlds present day crowns follow their lineage to Charlemagne, to the black [ig]nobility in Venice, (occupied by those that escaped the fall of Rome) to Nimrod of the fall of Babylon...a self professed Nephilim.
      So if it does prove to be genetic for at least some, then now we know where to look...the old men of renown, our rulers, the Nephilim whom were certainly not human in the same ways we are.
      Guess what creatures in our government are related not only to the Crown of England but to each other as well.
      Maybe?...just coincidence?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Maritimus 11 months, 1 week ago
    Hello, Old Ugly,

    I think that you need to rethink what you are trying to describe. I will point only three instances that you should contemplate some more. The list could be much longer but I do not have the time for that.

    I start with two premises, which I believe to be, by now, self-evident truth, i.e. like axioms.

    Humans are the most advanced form of life, species, evolved on the planet Earth. They posses rational faculties, which gave them an advantage in competition for survival, reproduction and adaptation to the surroundings, compared to all other living organisms. The Reason.

    Genetics showed that each human being is an unprecedented and an unrepeatable, unique individual within the human species.

    Now the three instances to which I take exception.

    1. "...humanoids that I have observed to possess no conscience, not conscious, no mind and brain in a body ..."

    Please document scientifically at least one of your observations.

    2. "... those that AR talked and wrote about, the central bankers, the kings and queens ..."

    I have studied quite a bit of Ayn Rand's writings. I cannot recall any occasion where she wrote about kings and queens. Maybe I am too old (82) and my memory fails me. Can you give me a couple of quotes from her writings of kings and queens?

    3. "... architects of the new world order simply have no disregard for life ..."
    (I think you meant regard, not disregard. Right?)

    From all the way back to Roman emperors, Chinese and Mongol emperors down to Stalin and Hitler, people who acquired extraordinary powers talked about "new man" and "new world order" and ended up unsuccessful in the so called "dust bin of history". It never happened and never will.

    On the other hand there is an evolution of our knowledge and understanding of reality and existence. 400 years old Machiavellian understandings of power and governance seem to me a bit outdated in the 21st century.

    One last comment. The quotes you provide are brimming with what I would call inflammatory labeling and ill defined concepts. Of course, it is not the first time I hear about nefarious plans prepared and hidden by the powerful to dominate the human race. Reality is more complicated, sophisticated and ultimately more stable, I think.

    Stay well and happy.
    Sincerely,
    Maritimus
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
      1, Humanoids: like a programed robot, would not be able to view it's own behavior, it would take a sophisticated program to do that, in conscious humans, that would be the mind, (a separate entity outside your head).
      Observations would be, muslim terrorist, or any other terrorist that would kill the innocent, the ancient Assyrians along with those you mention in #3, (to include governments as an entity also.)

      2, Correct, she never mentioned them directly but spoke of the brain sets of these creatures.

      3, Yes, missed it in my editing, (always after posting).

      My labeling is scientifically and psychologically based,
      The dreams of a NWO have never died and are the dreams of parasitical, non-conscious entities that have no mutuality with Humankind...hence, they think they are different and better than us...they certainly are different but certainly not better, Observably, they Are the Great Unwashed.

      PS. I use the works of Julian Jaynes, The breakdown of the bicameral [brain], (he uses "mind" meaning the brain), history, biology and quantum physics in my work.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 11 months, 1 week ago
        AR does reference "the Hun" as a representation or symbol of coercion on a number of occasions. Her references to the two major evils, Religion (the Mystic) and the use of force (the Hun) are quite clear. I think that the images are so clear, that she need not take it further with arcane descriptions of the mechanisms of how they work.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 11 months, 1 week ago
    My best friend once questioned whether genetics were involved in those who understand the difference between slavery and freedom. He pointed out that my wife and her two oldest daughters (they were not mine) were collectivists while my three children with her were the complete opposite. He wondered if the male genetics played a role in determining how people understood value, morality and freedom. Just conjecture of course.
    However I have noticed after 50 years of trying to teach the moral superiority of liberty there are very few who can grasp it. Most want the promise of something free stolen from someone else and will submit to almost anything, including wars and murdering enemies of the state, to produce as little as possible and demand the right to consume as much as they desire.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Kittyhawk 9 months, 3 weeks ago
      Well, I'm the offspring of an Objectivist/Libertarian mother and more traditionally conservative father, and I share her views more than his. If politics and philosophy have a genetic component, it can apparently be transferred via the maternal genes as well.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by chad 9 months, 2 weeks ago
        Actually one of the older girls has over time come to agree with my views. It was just an interesting observation at the time. However the number of truly objectivists remain very small despite the efforts to grow the ranks. I think it is almost instinctual for the race to desire a slave like existence led by either religious or political leaders despite the obvious advantages.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  9 months, 2 weeks ago
        We may have tendencies being one blood type or another due to the ways inwhich they evolved but Genes that tend to make one libertarian, progressive or conservative? No data here, although the left tried that and if I remember, like everything else leftest...it was an epic fail.

        Upbringing and exposure to ideas, propaganda and ideologies, not to mention one's understanding of these concepts are more likely the culprits here.

        However...your degree of consciousness, your propensity for introspection may be passed on in some way but I don't see genetics as one of those vehicles. It's not chemically based.

        It's a bit deep and certainly not settled, but perhaps the quantum bonds, (entanglements), you have were the same ones your mom and dad had. You, your dad and most strongly your mom are quantumly entangled from inception...that spark that started the whole process of "You" was, in it self, the creation of a new non local entanglement; (meaning permanent).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 11 months, 1 week ago
      Nature vs Nurture in politics? That would be an interesting gene to discover - if it really exists.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
        It's not a gene that is involved unless that gene prevents one from be a conscious being, (it's a process of evolution); it's more like a brain set because it denotes the lack of a mind therefore, self introspection.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 11 months, 1 week ago
          Everything in our bodies is developed based on signals originating in our DNA. If one adheres to the principle of evolutionary origin, however, how can consciousness and the mind not be genetically-instantiated and therefore ascertainable?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
            Consciousness, (self awareness), was the results of survival during a very confusing time when the imaginary internal voices of others did not match the voices of one own. That was the breakdown of the bicameral brain. When those voices that mankind depended upon to tell him what to do or not, stopped!; mankind was forced, in order to survive, to figure it out for himself which brought on the ability to view himself and his own actions.
            Note: it took a long time and that process has not been initiated by all across the world. Perhaps, maybe 50% of the west but only 40% of the entire world as a whole to date. That's just an observational guess but it's pretty clear that we are not all on the same conscious page.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 11 months, 1 week ago
              That is certainly an original theory, but I'm struggling with several questions in such a proposal.

              1) What is the origination of these "voices"? This seems to me to be key to the entire theory. (Note that one can not accept an answer of internal fabrication here without the entire theory undermining itself.)
              1b) What determines how (and when) these "voices" speak and to whom?
              1c) Are the communications of these "voices" one-way or two-way?

              2) What is the justification for the author to determine that these "voices" not only spoke, but drove actuation, i.e. what power of sustenance was provided by these "voices"? To put it another way, what value did these "voices" bring that would cause man to listen in the first place?

              3) What is the author's proposed rationale for the cessation of the "voices", thus forcing man to rely on himself for survival? Please include time frame as "a long time" is vague and such a process must either be a genetically traceable process or an individual process - it can not be both.

              4) Is this communication a genetically-inherited trait, i.e. if the parents stop listening, do the children inherit the same state of communication (or lack thereof) of their parents?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
                In one of your other posts, I give links to the Works of Julian Jaynes.
                In short: Once mankind had language, the next step in our evolution was the voice, but understood as the voice of the gods, rulers or their ancestors.
                Mankind relied on that voice for a looooooong time, perhaps 190thousand years to have it go away...can you imagine that?...(just a teaser, see the other post). Things in the city states got really confusing and somehow the voice was abandon, if I remember, was Jaynes's take.

                I don't go into a lot of detail in my Book, The Fight for Conscious Human Life, but I do detail how these evolutionary occurrences have effected our society and civilization....Warning, I did Rant a bit; something I won't be doing in my next book in progress.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 11 months, 1 week ago
    Upon giving it much thought, I have come to the conclusion that humanity, as a species, operates under a self defeating dichotomy. The clever fast-moving monkey brain gives forth continuous scientific progress at a break-neck speed (relative to the Universe scale) while the evolving, philosophical part of the brain, struggles to keep up but inevitably fails, and as a result cannot manage the power it has with which to manage itself. It's the old handing a gun to a baby and saying, "Here you are, kid, go play." A philosophy such as Objectivism, or for that matter, some of the eastern religions if applied, could slow down, or even eliminate the improper application of the whizzing annihilation machine but unfortunately lags behind application by a couple hundred years.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
      Maybe that's the difference between us and them. They evolved from monkey brains and we were born with Human brains that have yet to fully evolve...ps, it hasn't helped at all the many times we were rapped and pillaged by them, therefore further confounding our evolution...laughing
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jlc 11 months, 1 week ago
    Well, of course the first thing that one must deal with is that there are genetic differences between people and that these differences do establish limitations on their potential. This was has been well established, beginning with the Minnesota twin study back in 1989; genuine genetic difference is not an acceptable fact to socialism, which wants to think that we are all blank slates upon which society writes.

    Other than that, I think that what you propose is 80% wishful thinking. You simply do not want to admit that these terrible people are part of the same population that you and I are. I think that we are and that (1) a random person given a lot of power and few repercussions is likely to become 'evil' and (2) over the spread of humans with more normal amounts of power initially, those who are >3SD in 'ruthlessness' will become more powerful in certain situations, drug rings and politics amongst them.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 4 weeks ago
      I agree that a large portion of our issues stem from the refusal to admit one's own capacity and capability for evil - and great evil at that. Because we (generally) are unwilling to examine and accept our own potential we a) can't see the evil we do and b) can't face it in people that are similar to us because it is a reminder that if they ca, we can.

      I don't say this happens consciously (though it does for a relative few), but you can tell the difference between someone who has deeply considered and mentally explored the possibilities they have to be/do great evil. This is despite our many cultural references to it. What comes with Great Power™? Why Great Responsibility™ of course! But the responsibility to not use that power for evil. If we were not capable of the evil, that reminder would not be ever present.

      I agree that we are all capable of such evil, and that history shows it. We used to embody or encode such knowledge into myths and legends. The Germans took the direct path regarding the atrocities of World War II. They constantly remind themselves and their children on what was done, pointing out that we are all capable of it. Left alone this would develop into myth and legend. It may yet over a century or two.

      There was actually a pretty good Stargate SG-1 episode that made this point, Absolute Power was the name as I recall. Basically Doctor Jackson, who is basically the moral compass of the show, is granted, effectively, ultimate power on Earth. Just that alone will tell you how it went, and that we don't need it pointed out illustrates how deeply embedded into our consciousness the concept is.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jlc 10 months, 4 weeks ago
        I have not gotten into watching SG (though I am a big SF buff), but now you make me curious.

        I do have Hope. People who have been granted a high level of power have responded in different ways - some far better than others. So if Dr Jackson is indeed the moral compass of the show, then I would hope that the outcome was not...gloomy.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 4 weeks ago
          Like any show of that duration is has its share of subpar episodes. They do, sadly, eventually fall victim to the New Bad Guy More Powerful Than The Last trope. I seem to recall a dip in quality when it jumped from cable to broadcast. But that may be faulty memory. ;)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            Hey, SG lasted for 10 years and 214 episodes. It's amazing they were able to stay creative and keep the audience interested that long. ;^) Sci-fi is much more difficult to do than the standard cop shows.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jlc 10 months, 4 weeks ago
            Comics and serial books typically have that problem too - they have to churn out issue after issue. There are two common answers: bigger baddies or Peyton Place.

            I have seen series (Bujold's, for instance) that did a good job of spreading the story out to sub-characters. It is also possible to take more of an episodic "wagon train to the stars" approach and have the stress on a different situation rather than a bigger villain. I have always hoped that one of the Star Trek spin-offs would go the "wagon train to the stars" direction and show us civilization after alien civilization. (It is not like they don't have a half-century of SF that they can milk for ideas.)

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 4 weeks ago
              Indeed. The setting of SG-1 certainly had the potential, and it was obvious which is probably why it bothers me so. Voyager is another one I view as having missed the opportunity. Hmmm. That may be one of the (many!) reasons I enjoyed Babylon 5 as much as I do. It was a complete story - they did the big, big baddie (with many subsets along the way) and called it a day.

              From a storytelling perspective I suspect it has to do with escalating the power level rather than altering the specific situation. In my view such a sequence misses out on the opportunity for the people in it to learn rather than mere technological advancement.

              For a one shot sci-fi story that doesn't let the tech dominate the story, I do recommend "Hated in the Nation" - an episode of Black Mirror. Damn that was a good episode.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  jlc 10 months, 3 weeks ago
                OK. I tried to watch Hated in the Nation this weekend. I got as far as the setup for the 3rd death at the so-called safe house when I realized that this was far too dark a show for me. So I did the usual: read the Wiki article for a synopsis of the rest of the plot.

                It was an impressive show; the best example of 'casual tech' and current culture that I have seen on the screen. Too much 'horror' element for me, though.

                What did you think of The Martian?

                Jan
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by freedomforall 10 months, 3 weeks ago
                  Agree completely on Black Mirror. I struggled through the first 3 episodes on the recommendation of my neighbors. I was disgusted.
                  Loved the Martian book and movie was also entertaining.
                  I would love to see a high quality, high def version of B5. Best ever sci-fi tv.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  jlc 10 months, 3 weeks ago
                    I fear that my tolerance for horror approaches the Disney limit. We are in a fashion now when even entertainment not explicitly labeled as horror has a gritty and bloody quality to it that I fail to appreciate.

                    I do appreciate the reality of 'someone crawling through the desert' not having rosy well-hydrated cheeks, with just an aesthetic dab of dirt on forehead. But in modern media, the person is always dragging their entrails behind them...Yuk.

                    Jan
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 3 weeks ago
                  True, the "horror" element can be a bit rough to get a handle on. Sadly most modern horror really misunderstand it and go for gore.

                  Now on The Martian ... it may be cliché but this is certainly a case of book > movie. Some of that may be expectation. There is a particular character trait in the book that is only used once and as a result it fell flat. Now I read the book after knowing Matt Daemon was (of course) to the main character. So when I read it, I envisioned him and it worked beautifully. But alas, we didn't get "him" in the movie.

                  That said, Mars is something of a passion of mine so it was a bit like an experienced soldier watching a war movie - we really have to suspend a lot of belief to enjoy it. ;) That said I did enjoy it. The science really only had a few problems but easily acceptable for plot. The main example being that 60 MPH winds on Mars are practically nothing (the very low air volume means you need really high winds to get significant pressure). And 60 MPH winds are pretty much the top end of Mars' known winds. But to establish a premise for how we'd reasonably abandon someone you sometimes have to bend reality a bit. So I let that slide. There was a scene involving and explosion that missed a bit as well, but was within suspension range. ;)

                  The basic concept that drove the book I thought would have translated to the screen much better than was done. I've often considered a small podcast audio fiction series doing something similar but with better science and a different story. If one were to choose, of course I'd recommend the book. Especially if you're familiar with Matt Daemon's wise-cracking portrayals - he will perform far better in reading the book than he was allowed to in the film. But if doing both, perhaps the movie is actually the better start because then you don't get the disappointment.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  jlc 10 months, 3 weeks ago
                    The wind and the actual terrain seem to be different than known reality - they did not find out about the water content until after the book was written.

                    What was wrong with the explosion? (And are we talking the "I blew myself up cause...O2" or "I blew up the hab because...Murphy"?

                    I am hugely attracted to competence porn, and both the book and the movie hit that right on the nosecone.

                    Jan
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  jlc 10 months, 4 weeks ago
                B5 is my favorite as well. Individual episodes of STNG were as good, but it had no overall arc, as B5 did. After seeing Jupiter Rising (which I liked, reviews notwithstanding), I really really wanted to see B5 redone as a movie or mini-series. The first season (eg prior commander) could be condensed down, and with accurate knowledge of how much screen time was available, elements such as the techno-mages could be brought back into the finale. With our new ability to do special effects, B5 would be spectacular.

                Black Mirror is not available on Amazon...hmmm...but it is on Netflix. OK, I will look up Hated in the Nation.

                Jan
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by TheRealBill 10 months, 3 weeks ago
                  " I really really wanted to see B5 redone as a movie or mini-series."

                  Good news: So does JMS!

                  Indeed that is part of the reason HMS has returned to doing TV such as the Sense8 series (second season has some annoying scenes but they get over it about 1/3rd of the way in). In his words it is to build modern credibility to get the shot and the funding he thinks is needed to do it right.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 1musictime 11 months, 1 week ago
    A number believing they are above the man and woman being,also because of their beliefs in genetics, are below, maybe also below animals and plants.Genetics may be a hoax, like most I.Q.It may be the fake jews are Nazi jews like nazies.Tooi much of numbers of people may believe they are above without cause nor illustration. The substitution of reason may include and preclude a certain numbers of people.peoples, and subordinates agree and believe them.Then, belief and number are enough.But, there are more stars than their number.The stars will decide? They are not the stars.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  11 months, 1 week ago
      Great observations, a little tough to read but still, you did a good job. Thank you

      I too observe that IQ is not the end to end all...no matter how much compartmentalized information you have in your brain, what really matters that makes one really smart is the degree of integration of that information...integration is a sign that one has achieved and uses his mind.

      It also may very well be that "genetics" has nothing to do with intelligence. What does, I don't know but I see no gene, chemical substance or the way one's body reads those genes that would determine how smart a person might be.
      The more I study it, the more I see that there seems to be something else going on here.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo