Humans as Farmed Animals

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
PianoRacer
____
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:13 am

Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by PianoRacer »

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.
Penelope
Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:48 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Penelope »

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.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

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.
patrix
Member
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by patrix »

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
ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Unread post by ICfreely »

Penelope » March 8th, 2018, 5:09 pm wrote:
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.
hoi.polloi wrote: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.

Allow me to submit the following "evidence" for the forum's consideration.

Exhibit A:
Sexuality and Global Forces: Dr. Alfred Kinsey and the Supreme Court of the United States

THE HON. JUSTICE MICHAEL KIRBY AC CMG"
I. FAULT LINE OF CIVILIZATIONS?

On September 11, 2006, the people of the United States of America paused to remember the events that had happened in New York and Washington five years earlier. Others, in many lands, joined in the reflection about "the day the world changed."

Dr. Alfred Kinsey is, in my view, one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century. He is certainly one of the greatest scholars of Indiana University. His contribution to a "wider civilization" should not be understated. He should have more honor than he does, at the University, in Indiana, and throughout the nation. By his research and his ideas, he was a most powerful change-agent. And the process of change that he helped to put in place has by no means yet seen its course.

At the fault line of ideas competing for human acceptance in the present age, Dr. Kinsey stands, beckoning us forward to greater rationality and knowledge about ourselves. We like to think that human beings are genetically programmed to embrace and follow rational discoveries. If we fail to do so, in an age of weapons of mass destruction, the future of our species must be limited. If we listen to Kinsey and other scientists, we can, like the exploring Cassini Mission that winds its way through the rings that surround the planet Saturn, take our minds out to the furthest galaxy of the Universe and bring them back down into the microscopic world of the human genome. A creature that can map space and chart the genome must have the ability to perceive, study, and understand itself. It is not asking too much to expect it to do so. This is what Alfred Kinsey demanded and helped us to do. We who follow should listen to his message, optimism, and confidence with open minds and open hearts.

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/c ... text=ijgls

Exhibit B:

Reliance on Kinsey’s “Scientific” Child Sex Atrocities and The Effects of His Crimes and Fraud on Past and Current Law and Public Policy - Judith Gelernter Reisman, Ph.D. Research Professor Liberty University School of Law

© Reisman January 2014

Mathew D. Staver, Esq. Shawn D. Ackers, Esq. Mary E. McAlister, Esq. Richard L. Mast, Jr., Esq.

OVERVIEW: KINSEYAN SCIENCE AS CULPABLE

Alfred C. Kinsey has been likened by supporters to a “scientific” Prometheus - bringing the equivalent of fire from the gods to enlighten mankind. Singlehandedly creating a sexology movement, his Kinsey Institute is the foundation of the Model Penal Code and all modern jurisprudence relating to sex and morality. But unlike Prometheus, Kinsey was fanned by his own base desires. Kinsey set loose fraudulent sexual fires upon the world that matched his own sexual psychopathologies and created a conflagration of human passions, released from the bonds of traditional jurisprudence and morality. His statistical lies were translated into laws that destroyed extant common law protections for women, children, and the family. His acolytes built upon his frauds a medical-psychological-educational-legal complex that is destroying our children and our society. If we are to halt our moral annihilation, all legal doctrines based on his crimes and fraud must be exposed like the Tuskegee Experiment and overturned. The dysfunctional laws underlying the education, media, entertainment, and other aspects of society that stand on Kinsey’s criminal frauds and child atrocities must be reversed.

KINSEY: THE MAN AND HIS METHODS

In 1968, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality was “hand-picked by [psychiatrist] Judd Marmor” to normalize homosexuality.31 Marmor explained,

n the late 1940s and early 1950s, I was impressed by the publication of the Kinsey group’s historic studies of male and female sexuality which seemed to me to be praiseworthy efforts to study the problems of human sexuality more objectively and scientifically.32

Dr. Marmor evaluated Kinsey’s sexuality research as objective and scientific? Ignoring Kinsey’s child sex atrocities and brazenly biased methodology, Dr. Marmor deliberately installed Kinsey’s deviant teammates Dr. Paul Gebhard and Dr. John Money as the NIMH “mental health” experts on homosexual normality.33 Indeed, his picks, Dr. Gebhard, sexually “amoral” and Dr. Money,34 a pederast advocate, also hid Kinsey’s methodological frauds and sexual crimes. Dr. Money pioneered transsexual surgery and advocated an end to the age of consent.35

In 1990, Donahue was the only major television program to allow a full discussion of the Kinsey child sex atrocities.57 Thereafter, the Kinsey Institute threatened legal action against anyone who allowed Dr. Reisman on television. Clarence Tripp, Kinsey’s photographer, later a psychologist and an “Out” homosexual just prior to his death was quoted as saying:

DONAHUE: Kinsey was to sexuality what Freud was to psychiatry, what Madame Curie was to radiation, what Einstein was to physics….We’ve based an entire generation of education of sexologists on Kinsey and Kinsey was a dirty old man. And he wasn’t! The guy….was married once, a nuclear family kind of guy.
TRIPP: Kinsey listened to pedophiles who were very careful, used stopwatches, knew how to record their thing . . .
DONAHUE: Aahhh, were they in prison at the time?
TRIPP: Oh, certainly not, but they were, in her [Reisman’s] sense, criminals because they were pedophiles but they were trained observers.58

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives ... an_Law.pdf
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by kalliste »

I believe it's obvious humans have been domesticated. The major effect of domestication in animals is a reduction in brain size see, for instance,
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02436333
Cro Magnon humans had larger brains than modern humans yet they are considered as the direct forerunner of modern humans,
https://phys.org/news/2010-03-cro-magno ... hrunk.html
As the Phsorg article says it doesn't necessarily mean modern humans are less intelligent than Cro Magnon although my money would be that's the case. I note that they mention the cerebellum in the Physorg article, well Neanderthal had larger brains than Cro Magnon but that was mainly due to a much larger cerebellum. As far as I can tell nobody suggests Neanderthals were more intelligent than Cro Magnon, in fact quite the reverse.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet ... ily-better

My contention would be that so-called "civilization" is actually domestication. This leads to the question of identifying the farmers. I think I'll derail the thread if start on my hypothesis which I can support only with circumstantial evidence in any case.
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by kalliste »

So, to expand on my previous post, which see. I've realized it's not derailing the thread, it's what it's all about. Anyone who doesn't accept that humans are farmed animals is paddling in that well-known river in Egypt. This question, humans as farmed animals, supersedes all the other stuff. It's the capstone of the pyramid. All the other stuff, how they faked 9/11, can we prove they faked the Moon Landings, what's with the ISS. That's all nonsense and distractions. The real and important question we should be addressing is the nature of the entities farming humanity.

So first off, go watch the film with the best fight sequence ever, John Carpenter's "They Live." Even Hong Kong action film fans have to bow to the magnificence. And who wouldn't kill for Rowdy Roddy Piper's sunglasses? "I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass and I'm all out of bubblegum." Then chase it up with the Wachowski's "Jupiter Rising." The Wachowski film is a bit uneven and doesn't quite gel as a film but it's got it all in there. (I'm presuming everybody has seen "The Matrix".)

I'll start us off with some scenarios, assuming actual farming as per "Jupiter Rising" is in consideration already...

The Lizards - add more to taste
1/ Lizard people - a la David Icke. I believe he says they're farming us psychically but it's a while since I read his stuff in depth
2/ Silurian Hypothesis - smart dinosaurs went underground to save themselves and now rule humanity from the hollow earth
3/ Sigma Draconis lizard people or whatever in the galaxy they're supposed to come from. Our pancreases are a delicacy or some such, etc.

Human secret societies
The list here is so extensive I don't know where to begin - Jews, Illuminati, Bilderbergers, Freemasons ... it's a deep rabbit hole there!

Not so much farming but benevolent husbandry
1/ Cosmic Zoo hypothesis - humans are being sequestered until they're advanced enough to be let out but not farmed as such
2/ Humans are so dangerous we've been confined to the Prison Planet by the galactic federation or what have you
3/ Humans are a zoo attraction for bored alien holidymakers / thrill seekers let's hope we keep amusing them and the pan galactic corporation doesn't pull the plug (an SF story I read as a kid)

We are in the Matrix
1/ The Matrix, Agent Smith, and all that jazz
2/ We are in a computer simulation either as some kind of experiment or simply for entertainment, you're not "real" you're a computer program.
3/ The Devil rules the fallen world and we live in biblical times the events described in the Bible are what are really happening, the "reality" we see is fake wool pulled over our eyes (thank you PK Dick).

... and so on. Any more? Come on guys I know you we can do this! I won't reveal my favoured hypothesis until I've heard some others that may convince me.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by Mansur »

kalliste wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:06 am I believe it's obvious humans have been domesticated. The major effect of domestication in animals is a reduction in brain size...
I read somewhere that there are countless of examples showing that intelligence, actual intelligence, has no correlation whatsoever with skull/brain size. That, for example, the size/volume of Anatole France's skull was about 800 cc.

In any case, it seems odd that the whole thing hinges on measurements made on very few 'fossils', moreover that they are also 'replicas'.

Another source said that these 'fossils', however much they may be talked about, and however cardinal a role they may play in our world view today, could, if need be, be housed in one or two normal cupboards. (And they're probably as well protected by seven times seven seals as the 'original dino bones'. - The cause of the extinction of the Neanderthal guys, a question asked so frequently, seems the same as that of the dinosaurs'...) So much so that when I researched the thing it seemed that the Piltdown-Man-hoax circus was perpetrated to emphasize the existence of the 'originals'. Still it seems to me. This trump is always played in all the major hoaxes, in many times and in a multi-layer system.

So the claims of anthropology should be treated with as 'large a grain of salt' as anything else that is ideologically crucial to the power. (Is there any scientific claim by the way which does not have a very marked ideological background?)
kalliste wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:06 am My contention would be that so-called "civilization" is actually domestication. This leads to the question of identifying the farmers.
The theory will probably have to deal with the meaning of culture, cult activity of all orders and ranks. For without this, the use of the word 'civilisation' is not justified at all…

On the other hand, we must be careful not to project our modern ideas, or rather our manias, taken from modern science (and propaganda), back to the life of bygone ages with the now usual self-evident carelessness.

By the way, the 'farmer' has nothing to do with domestication. He cares the beasts and guards them etc (at least in the good old days). Nothing more. About the fact of domestication, science has no knowledge at all except the fact itself. (Except we regard knowledge as to have a skill in posing hypotheses as facts). Similarly about cultivated plants. So if you want to use the term (domestication) for description of human life on Earth as an analogy, I think this shortcoming should also be taken into account at the very outset...
kalliste wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 8:06 amI think I'll derail the thread if start on my hypothesis which I can support only with circumstantial evidence in any case.
I think, and no offence intended, this thread cannot be hijacked enough.
______________________________________________________

kalliste wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:52 pmAnyone who doesn't accept that humans are farmed animals is paddling in that well-known river in Egypt... The real and important question we should be addressing is the nature of the entities farming humanity. [Your highlights.]
'Humans as farmed animals' is itself an absurd statement (or 'linguistic compound' if you prefer), and only if we accept this absurdity as reality (for the purposes, say, of free development* of theories), will it make any sense to search for the 'breeding entity'.

* free = not disturbed by any element of reality, or more and more freed from the bonds of it at least.

And if one thinks about it on a public level, which means that he has no idea whatsoever where to look for them (which is quite understandable I think), then Hollywood offers ready answers. If only because the question itself more than likely originated there.

So, I am a 'denialist', a chronic 'denialist', I'm afraid, - but I'm notwithstanding looking forward the new theory. (By the way, if you want to hear other people's 'theories', you have to come up with your own first, that seems to me kinda norm).

It might be worthwhile too to realize how many propaganda elements this topic can include, and perhaps these (and as such) should be listed instead, - because, and let you hear my 'contention', that is the very 'domestication' which we are here about. Though there is nothing new in this, the forum motto already says so at the top of every page: exposing mass deceptions.

(Have managed to avoid the terms 'conspiracy theory' and 'psychological operation' and 'controlled opposition' and so on. Even 'Hollywood' is used in a fairly general sense.)
sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by sharpstuff »

This topic is quite old and frankly, I cannot see it relating to deceit. It never really went anywhere and again, I cannot see for what purpose it has been resurrected.

Frankly the notion of 'humans as farmed animals' (or domesticated) rankles me, especially as no explanation (or definition) was/is given from which any discussion/s could been made nor any relevance to other subjects.

Perhaps some-one might explain the relevance of this topic within the bounds of this most excellent site.

Be well.
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by kalliste »

The brain size thing has long been studied. What you "read somewhere" is wrong. The conclusion that humans have been domesticated appears unavoidable. Certainly the vast majority of people don't live their lives with any real inkling of how the world works and fundamentally are as superstitious as the most primitive of peoples.

If nobody is interested in this thread then they won't post to it, I would assume.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by Mansur »

sharpstuff wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:53 am This topic is quite old and frankly, I cannot see it relating to deceit.
Well, then I really don't know, sir, what you see or what you're looking at. This topic itself is a scam - and propaganda, quite extensive and branchy, and, as I have tried to suggest, commenters here seems to have been victimised by it to a large extent.

As relevant as, say, 'flat earth' is topical and relevant to be discussed in this place, at least to the same extent this can also be relevant - of course, as always, only if the commenters can make it topical. But most importantly, I believe, it should be viewed with the opposite sign, and I find it remarkably naive that PianoRacer has not even raised the question of whether this might be pure propaganda. (I agree with you that there is not a single word in the introductory post that tells us anything about the 'subject'. Nor is there much later. It seems to follow from the nature of the subject itself...)

Darwinism, at least a neo-neo (-neo) version of it, is also touched upon in no small measure.
______________________________________
kalliste wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:06 am The conclusion that humans have been domesticated appears unavoidable.
What antecedents does this 'conclusion' refer to?

Perhaps sharpstuff would also be curious - to know at least some introductory information on this subject at all - as someone tries to approach it in a positive sense.
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by kalliste »

Mansur wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 6:22 pm
kalliste wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:06 am The conclusion that humans have been domesticated appears unavoidable.
What antecedents does this 'conclusion' refer to?

Perhaps sharpstuff would also be curious - to know at least some introductory information on this subject at all - as someone tries to approach it in a positive sense.
I'm beginning to think nobody really reads my posts. I gave links to get you started on investigating domestication and brain size which is the biggest tell. As if looking around at the people in general doesn't scream at you, "farmed animals." Let alone the bizarre conception that humans are the highest form of intelligence possible let alone it being credible that we live in an otherwise empty cosmos.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by Mansur »

kalliste wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 8:58 am I'm beginning to think nobody really reads my posts.
If by 'reading' you mean that people who read it believe it, then I'm afraid that is indeed the case.
______________
the bizarre conception that humans are the highest form of intelligence possible
If there is an intelligence higher than ours (higher than yours and mine) - and this, sensibly, cannot really be denied, - it certainly does not want to deceive and terrorize and oppress people, but to 'uplift', 'liberate' etc. (Although it is unlikely that such an idea can claim any scientific backing.) To this 'domestication' thing, one might say, theologically as it were, that by this, one is identifying intelligence with Evil, or thinking of intelligence as inherently evil - (in which there may really be something, given what is nowadays labeled as intelligence or what intellectual faculties are used for in most cases). And maybe that is the core of this kind of psyops circulating in so many forms and sub-forms throughout the conspiracy market and even beyond that. If in the public life it is axiomatic that the smart guy who can cheat me etc. has by that account also more intelligence in him, there is no limit of corruption.

And then: high intelligence does not in any way mean the creation of more and more advanced technologies. Quite the contrary. Truly intelligent people are never to be found in the field of technology. (One of the special tasks of propaganda is to present technicians on high perch as geniuses, whereas an engineer is not even a scientist in the strict sense of the word, let alone a genius. Tesla. How wonderful a genius can do by his sheer brainpower! Or Hawkins, who legendarily lived by his cerebrum alone.)
As if looking around at the people in general doesn’t scream at you, ‘farmed animals’.
Here you seem to speak against yourself, regarding the time perspective (?) which could be really a big tell...

It's largely a matter of perception and the intentions what we would see in people and the world 'in general', - and that is what we have to work on. We are here to expose the deceptions, not to buying/propagate them. I am sorry, but I think that e.g. once you stop insisting on lizard people or other participants on your list, you will certainly not insist so strongly on the feasibility of 'space travel' - or at least some similar consistency seems to be evident in your posts.

As for your links: on that basis, you could put thousands maybe millions of 'highly scientific' articles here. (It is just in UFO fantasies where we can see intelligence being illustrated by the ridiculously large skulls. These 'authors' seem simply to follow the line of scientific fantasies/theories, maybe a little more freely than their white-coated colleagues.)

If the thing seems to you important you must have words for it, your own words. Especially if you already have got something to attach them to. Well, I have already answered a few things.

[What do you mean by 'empty cosmos'? (Or 'cosmos' at all?) Is it the usual 'we are not alone'?]
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by kalliste »

Mansur should be banned for trolling, IMNSVHO.
sykkelmannen
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:16 am

Re: Humans as Farmed Animals

Unread post by sykkelmannen »

A member of two weeks calling for a ban already? Not so very humble indeed.
Post Reply