Humans as Farmed Animals

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Humans as Farmed Animals

Postby PianoRacer on March 8th, 2018, 9:48 pm

I had originally planned to post this in the thread "Where Do We Go From Here?", but since that was merged with the thread "GETTING THE WORD OUT!", I don't think it really applies to the topic of the thread any more, so I am posting it here. Apologies for the length, I did my best to be succinct but largely failed in that effort. This is a follow-up to my previous post where I argued that humanity has been largely domesticated over the past thousand years or so.

---

I realize that in my previous post I presented my conclusions without citing much in the way of evidence to support them. I would like to attempt to do so for anyone who might be interested. In order to proceed I would like to share some of my personal experiences, for which I apologize in advance if they meander away from the topic at hand. As always, mods and Simon feel free to move or delete if I wander too far astray.

Firstly I'd like to address what I think are some misunderstandings of what I said, for which I am surely responsible and I apologize. My intention as always was and is to elucidate what I perceive to be the truth, not to be "blasé" or to advocate "giving up" or "doing nothing". I concluded by advocating differentiating what can be achieved from what cannot, and to concentrate on the former. That is not the same as giving up or doing nothing - quite the opposite, in my opinion. The intention is in fact to maximize what an individual can achieve in the realm of reducing the plight of and bringing knowledge and wisdom to mankind.

I also want to emphasize that when I say that certain traits have been bred out of humanity, that is not to say they do not exist in any form and are not qualities that an individual can achieve, as the members of this forum have thoroughly demonstrated. To unearth them takes a lot of grit and determination and self-knowledge and a commitment to self-improvement and probably some luck as well. Under the right circumstances, a dog can become a wolf and a cat can become a lion, metaphorically speaking.

So why do I come to the conclusion that humans have been intentionally bred to make us docile, compliant slaves? It has to do with my recent foray into evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology. To be clear, I still maintain the position that "macro" evolution is not possible - characteristics can be enhanced or suppressed based on environmental pressures, but not created out of whole cloth. As I posted previously, Eugene McCarthy's theory of hybridization and stabilization does a much better job of explaining how new species and characteristics come into being. Humans, for example, are capable of bipedality and incredible intellectual prowess, neither of which are traits of our ancestral "parents" (chimpanzees and pigs), but McCarthy makes a compelling case as to how those characteristics came to be as a result of the hybridization of the two species.

bipedality: http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hy ... ion-2.html
intelligence: http://www.macroevolution.net/hybrid-hy ... ion-3.html

Embracing McCarthy's theory does not preclude the notion that selective environmental pressures play a role in determining the characteristics of an organism, so I don't think that I'm being hypocritical here.

Moving on...

Recently I have become interested in the topic of human sexuality and our "sexual strategy". The reason for this is because several people in my social circle - mostly parents of my children's friends - have embraced an alternative approach to sexual relationships broadly labeled as "polyamory". Always wanting to explore new ideas and challenge my previously held beliefs, I have done my best to educate myself on the subject.

(I'm going somewhere with this, I promise.)

The general argument goes something like this: Humans are not naturally monogamous, rather this is something that has been inflicted on us by society and culture as a means to control us and make us miserable. In our natural state, we should all be having sex with each other all the time, sexual jealousy would be minimized or eliminated entirely, and embracing this philosophy is the ultimate solution to strife and unhappiness in monogamous relationships.

To support this theory, polyamorists cite evidence of similar behavior in the chimpanzees that we "evolved" from as well as certain similarities to supposedly "natural" primitive human societies that live hunter-gatherer lifestyles and tend to be more sexually promiscuous. These arguments are explored in what I would call the polyamory bible, a book titled Sex at Dawn.

A plausible argument perhaps, but one that does not hold up to scrutiny. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that the polyamory philosophy - which is wholly embraced and endorsed by the usual suspects in the mainstream media - is but another component of a larger project to destroy the natural (extended) family and especially the relationships between men and women, i.e. Feminism.

Sex at Dawn is riddled with inconsistencies and misrepresentation of source material, so much so that an entire book was written specifically to point out these (in my opinion, intentional) errors. That book, which I would highly recommend to anyone who is interested in human sexuality, evolutionary psychology, and why we are the way we are, is called Sex at Dusk. It explains why we do in fact tend to naturally seek pair-bonding and monogamy, and how this makes sense from a genetic and evolutionary perspective. The reason for this and why we are so different sexually from chimpanzees is because we have very different circumstances when it comes to perpetuating our genes, especially when it comes to conceiving and raising children. A good overview can be found here, but I really do recommend the actual book: https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainst ... sk-2/50099

The general argument is this: because human babies require an enormous amount of resources for a very long time before they are independent and capable of reproducing, human females have a strong incentive to ensure male support in raising the children that he sires, and human males have a strong incentive to support females in order to ensure the survival of their offspring. Compare that to chimpanzees, whose females generally birth only a single infant per pregnancy and raise them without any male support whatsoever, and whose children are fully autonomous after about five years. Is it all that surprising, then, that humans would tend to form monogamous relationships and chimpanzee males would adopt more of a "spray and pray" strategy? In addition, there is nothing more certain to terminate your genetic line than raising children that you think are yours but are in fact someone else's, which neatly explains sexual jealousy. It all makes sense, at least to me.

Why am I talking about all of this? Because after diving into the subject, and especially after reading the excellent Sex at Dusk, I have a different perspective on humans and their motivations and behaviors. I see humans, myself included, as operating on two sets of motivations - genetic and intellectual. Genetically, we are strongly motivated by historical environmental pressures to engage in certain behaviors to maximize the chances of perpetuating our genes. This is why we have "natural" urges to find a mate, pair bond, have sex, have children, etc. none of which actually makes much sense from an intellectual perspective, especially in the society that we live in currently. There are many incentives to avoid these things - the financial costs of having and raising children, the possibility of being forced to pay child support, the expense of divorce, etc. All of which of course are intentional and are yet another aspect of the Feminism project.

So given all of that, and given our understanding of what has taken place over the past several hundred years, how can we not come to the conclusion that humans have been domesticated? It is certainly difficult to get a truly accurate picture of history given all of the deception employed by those who write it, but I think it is safe to say that for the most part, those who stepped too far out of line from the official dogma were far less likely to reproduce successfully. Bruno was burned at the stake four hundred years ago for having unpopular opinions, and from what I have been able to gather that was the near-universal human experience for hundreds of years (or more) until relatively recently. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that it is precisely because of the systematic domestication of humans by those who would presume to be our masters that they no longer feel the need to murder us simply for disagreeing with them. Their strategy of eugenics has shifted from murdering dissenters to paying women to have children ("welfare") combined with a very sophisticated system of psychological control and physical trauma (genital mutilation, vaccines, abortion, Cesarean, formula, processed food, etc.) starting at a very early age, the importance of which I do not want to under-emphasize.

However, I do not think that psychological control and physical trauma alone explains the state that we currently find humanity in. Based on my understanding of selective environmental reproductive pressures, I think it is very likely that they have played a large role in the enslavement of humanity, and I personally think that it has been intentional, though I cannot prove it.

On a more personal note: I moved across the country to be with people who I thought had a commitment to the truth. They recognized the importance of the non-aggression principle, had rejected the State as evil and unnecessary, and had committed to raising their children peacefully and without government "school" (indoctrination). I adore these people, and I have a lot of respect for them, but their relationship with the truth (outside of the realms just mentioned) is not particularly better than that of the average person. They are not open to nor interested in the truth about 9/11, or NASA (despite being anarchists), or dinosaurs, or nuclear weapons, or anything else that has been exposed on this forum and elsewhere.

For quite some time I struggled to understand or explain this to myself - these people have clearly demonstrated their ability to not only accept unpopular truths but also to make large changes in their lives as a result. Why were they so uninterested in and in some cases hostile to continuing to pursue the truth? Expanding my understanding of evolution and sexual pressure has largely answered that question, at least for me: they owe their very existence to the fact that their ancestors kept their heads down and their mouths shut, and those characteristics are in their very DNA. In fact, the unpopular truths that they have embraced tend to directly apply to their reproductive strategy. After all, whose genes are more likely to flourish: someone whose children are separated from their parents at birth, vaccinated, circumcised, put in a government indoctrination prison and enslaved? Or someone whose children are born naturally, treated with love and respect, nurtured, and protected from government enslavement and propaganda to the extent possible? These people's ability to embrace unpopular truths is directly influenced by their genetic impulses, but that is generally where it ends. Understanding that helps me understand them, and myself, better.

So that is my reasoning for the conclusion that we are a domesticated species. Thanks to anyone who reads this - I find putting my thoughts into words helps further my understanding, and that last paragraph was something that I did not consciously realize until I had written it. I hope that all made some kind of sense, and if it can be done gently and with empathy, please point out where I may have gone astray in my reasoning.

As for my other conclusion - that humanity as a whole will not be free until our self-imposed rulers decide to allow it - I hope I am wrong about that. I just don't see any other way to get from here to there. Perhaps there is some way to encourage the bastards to give up their evil ways, but I don't think "waking people up" will ever be effective towards that end. I don't even really like that analogy, as I don't think it's very accurate. People are not sleeping - they are domesticated.

Personally, and as seems to be the case with some other members of the forum, I am primarily focused on raising happy, healthy and informed children who will hopefully carry the torch of truth into the future, which (happily) consumes nearly all of my time and energy at the present. That is something I feel fairly confident that I can succeed at, and if nothing else it may contribute to keeping the spark of truth and knowledge alive after I am gone. Perhaps some day that spark will be part of reigniting the fire that seems to have all but gone out in most of humanity, present company excluded.

I think that everything Simon and the other members of this forum have accomplished with September Clues and the rest of the research here are remarkable achievements, and again I apologize if I gave the impression that I did not appreciate them or that I think that they were somehow pointless. I am very grateful for the time and effort that has gone into them, as they have personally benefited me greatly. I wish with all of my heart that these efforts were enough to significantly move the needle on humanity's truth-o-meter, but I can't convince myself of that no matter how hard I try. Perhaps time will prove me wrong - I hope that it does. When I run the numbers, though, and even skew them generously towards the optimistic side, those of us who have the ability and interest to perceive and pursue the truth about 9/11 or any of the other topics here are a tiny tiny fraction of humanity as a whole. Even if this forum had a million people reading and contributing, and the world population was wildly inflated and actually only amounted to a billion people, we would still make up only .1% of humanity. That is not very encouraging, but I don't think it means anyone should give up. I just want to be realistic about how much exposing the truth and "getting the word out" can actually accomplish given our present circumstances.
PianoRacer
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: November 10th, 2016, 2:13 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Penelope on March 9th, 2018, 2:09 am

By Pianoracer March 8, 2018
In fact, I have come to the conclusion that the polyamory philosophy - which is wholly embraced and endorsed by the usual suspects in the mainstream media - is but another component of a larger project to destroy the natural (extended) family and especially the relationships between men and women, i.e. Feminism.


I haven't finished reading your post yet, but I want to agree emphatically. The "Sex is everything" movement is designed to make us atomized individuals, leaving the raising of children increasingly to the state & that propaganda box in the living room. Mustn't forget Kinsey & his fallacious statistics that adultery was normal because according to him it was very widespread. It and the "fulfill yourself through divorce" movement had enormous effect on the culture. And sublimation is a word unknown.
Penelope
Member
 
Posts: 68
Joined: January 19th, 2018, 4:48 am

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Postby hoi.polloi on March 9th, 2018, 6:42 am

I think you wanted to have some topic about humans being raised as animals are raised on a farm. I think that's what Orwell's Animal Farm was all about too.

Now I do see you have strong beliefs and you have built up research about those beliefs. I won't tell you you can't have them! I even agree with it in many parts. There is no "but" coming; I just wanted to clarify this.

Have you ever read Matt Ridley's The Red Queen? This journalist sort of threw together a hypothesis that we are both polygamous and monogamous and our denial of the contradiction is what causes a lot of problems. It's a contradiction within ourselves that isn't as simply relegated into "past instincts that are no longer useful" and "present instincts that make more sense".

Let me say that although I know we are farmed, I personally think it's wrong (paranoid may be too strong a word) to say cultural differences and "developments" are evil and done specifically to keep us down. I think that's not a good attitude to have. And I don't think it's right to continue saying on this forum "I have no proof of this but I just have a feeling that ..." where we don't have a good understanding of why you have that feeling, when a perfectly fine replacement explanation is just that you have a bad feeling and it's convenient to say something that you dislike is done specifically to "keep humanity down". I mean we may have awesome hunches but I thought we had one place on the Internet that wasn't about prejudice but evidence.

I don't like Monsanto but do many people who work there justify to themselves the purpose of the company? Absolutely. You may say the result is evil but in most cases I think it might have to do with numbness towards others. Right back round again to "We are farmed" and "It's not comfortable here in this barn".

Maybe this little disagreement will lead to some clarification, debate or realization that we are on the same page.

I am not sure.

Now, if the core message is that "getting the word out" is not doing enough, I am not really sure what to say. On the one hand I agree, but on the other hand I have seen it effect many people's lives for the better. And I still don't think my own children are needed to improve the world. Education, or as SacredCowSlayer may say, teaching is critical in the younger generations. However, I would be immensely proud if any parent were to do as SacredCowSlayer does and allow their children to learn what they can from this forum — as seedy and adult as it may be at times. I mean, we do use foul language quite a bit. We could stand to improve that maybe. Fuck knows.

But we do have good information about illusions, lies and contemporary techniques of propaganda. That's useful. If you can't show the forum to those you care about, at least try to "translate" it for them in areas they are receptive to it.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5029
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Postby patrix on March 9th, 2018, 8:37 am

hoi.polloi » March 9th, 2018, 6:42 am wrote:I mean, we do use foul language quite a bit. We could stand to improve that maybe. Fuck knows.


I see what you did there Hoi. :-)

But seriously, this is a gold mine for the younger generation. Only better than gold because here it is possible to learn about our real history, and how rulers throughout the history have used propaganda, deception and disinformation to take and maintain power. And they have no care for the masses. Realpolitik is real. Never mind people die, become sick and psychotic and that science is held back for centuries. As long as it's beneficial to them.

As for the theory regarding us being pig hybrids and farmed animals I don't see much actual proof of that. Regarding human physiology I see, as I've written about before, the Aquatic Ape theory as a very interesting one. And my latest epiphanies regarding our esteemed Simons work and a gentleman by the name of Jeffrey wolynski http://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspot.se/ strengthens the idea that man has evolved in and near water. If stars transform into water planets, then land has appeared in the recent history of Earth. It may also be the case that we are currently in an Ice Age period when land is more plentiful. When/if the Ice Age shifts to the northern hemisphere most of our land masses will be covered in water and ice.

And regarding these doom/gloom/they control and decide our faith theories. We don't know, but I do know enemies usually try to appear more terrifying and omnipotent than they actually are.

Dick up for holding back that feisty fucking language.

Peace /Patrix
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 266
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am


Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests