It has been my interest to study and learn, to experience and learn. One can learn from experience, and one can experience things which are found only in learning. Learning is a result of observation and examination of evidence. Evidence is empirical or abstract. The examination of such evidence is a form of study. To study, to be a student of something, is one way of learning. But learning is the only way to gain knowledge. One learns the truth about something, by one means of study or another, and so one actually knows something. One may not know that one knows, but one knows. Second order knowledge, knowledge about knowledge, is also secondary in value at first. One learns far more of the world directly at first. Anything one must learn indirectly will probably be best discovered as being beyond what one has already directly learned.
I never stop learning. I need no one's poking or prodding, no one's example or inspiration. And in fact, such things are usually nothing but an obstacle. Humanity is usually nothing but an obstacle for its better specimens, unless they can be "trained" to be helps rather than hindrances. What does one think that the history of the worlds organized societies is but a long listing of different methods that have been attempted by one class to harness another class of the same or of multiple different human populations so that one class is harnessed to be a catalyst for the initiatives of the other? Indeed it would be the result that if this hadn't been done, in many cases, then the alternative would either have been less efficient on the whole (if a Hess diagram could be formulated it would demonstrate this), or else would have been less efficient for the class taking the initiative. Usually the initiatives taken by more intelligent and forward-looking specimens will be the better at least for themselves, perhaps for others who follow suit. Sometimes it is intended to benefit all who will follow suit. Sometimes it mainly just benefits them, and actually those who follow suit will be only nominally benefited as long as they are useful, but will on the whole be worse for their participation.
Take the difference between being a sheep in the herd that is a free roaming herd, and one that has been domesticated so long it cannot likely ever be the same again as it once was. Once, long ago, it knew what it was to be free. It roamed free, and faced a world of options only it could know, nestled with dangers it would only "naturally" have to face. Now those creatures of that herd are something different, thousands of years later, and are just not even the same kind of creature anymore. They no longer have to worry much about the dangers they once faced, but they've long since been adapted to a new system of living in captivity. Those who now keep them in such captivity protect them from those long ago dangers. But in return, they shear them of their wool and slaughter them in a way that is "humane" (if they are "enlightened" herders..). These particular herders don't engage in sexual acts with their herds, so that perfidy is fortunately not in need of analysis here. And this herd is allowed to reproduce and engage in "herd activities" within the limits of their captivity on the range, and their food and water are not too bad. The important thing to note is that all of these conditions, for better or worse, are completely at the discretion of the herders, and the herd has no say whatsoever. At least in the wild of millennia ago, they could flee their blatantly predatory pursuers, who held them in no sort of subjection whatsoever except what each could deliver with talon and tooth. No pretenses of care, no possibility for torment or abuse, no condescending offerings of upkeep, no "guarantee" of both steady and moderate, as well as inevitable and fatal exploitation; nothing which could be delivered except in captivity. And still the captivity of the victim who was captured by the jaws of a predator on the hunt was something he could struggle against, alive and aware, without the hindrance of already being captive, and might still escape even with wounds. That is a captivity that is possible because one is free, and it exploits the dangerous fringes of freedom, but it is astoundingly less onerous than that which is quietly and placidly endured by the herd that is kept on the "preserve" by its herder elite.
And if the herd were advanced enough in their evolution in the wild, they would eventually develop the sort of senses, agility, social cooperation, and perhaps natural weapons, which would over time offset the capabilities of their predatorial aggressors. This will NOT be possible in captivity under their herder overlords. A close examination of the history of humanity indicates that a group of humans in each population has evolved into a predatorial class over the rest, best identified with a criminal organization, which benefits by ruling over the rest of their populations through means which are disguised as protection and the duty that is entrusted to them by their protected charges, but in fact it is divested from those charges, and foisted over them, under pretexts that are nothing more than manufactured consent. Every sort of crime is committed by this overclass, and every means of control is exerted upon those upon whom they feed, most especially control over their mental and spiritual faculties wherever they conflict with 1) those controls themselves (for, procedurally speaking, control is the minimal necessary condition) and 2) more substantively, to prevent conflicts in the gaining of what comes with that control, which is again always that minimum necessary amount of control for the gains (itself the "minimal gain"), and further the protection racket which is enabled by that control which then, progressively and inevitably, enables the control class to obtain access to EVERYTHING THEY WANT.
The analogy between the sheep and their herders, and humanity and its controllers, couldn't be made more obvious, not even if mathematical analysis involving the expertises of those adept in the sociological applications of category theory, vector calculus, and topology could be rendered into streamlined equations that would be the envy of anyone who develops models of human social behavior in the context of social engineering schemes that can be weaponized for attack or defense on the national level. Not even that could make it really clearer, but it would be able to make clearer the novel fact that this is structurally provable, and that it is definitely an obtainable goal which could be scientifically studied and sustained. And with the lemma that scientific-minded and intellectual specimens can be funneled into these developments with "Manhattan Project"-like efficiency, "brain drained" into them, in an open-air and massively systemic way (as they are being so done today), then one doesn't even need the classical "evil scientist in a white lab coat with long black rubber gloves and thick goggles", except perhaps at the topmost of their management compartments, or perhaps in the deepest underground military bunkers. The rest are farmed "out in the open". Then with that accepted as the fact that it patently is, we have a sustainable "human farm", and most humans, over 90% to be sure, are merely dolts who are just so happy to be a part of it. You are the enemies of those who would be free, and of all those who are free, and your bleating cowardice will be your eternal indictment.
No comments:
Post a Comment