Evidence humans were created and traded as slaves, food, entertainment and material resources (IHASFEMR)

[Observer]

HOW did they manage to write/alter all the accounts of history?

Meaning, after the most recent restart of civilization, did the wealthiest survivors pay millions of scribes to do it, or did the wealthiest survivors use some computer-based technology to do it? Or were "they" not merely the wealthiest survivors, but instead some other beings altogether: some alien overlords using THEIR even higher-level (seemingly magic to us) technology?

For example, Usselo has made a good case for the idea that we are bio-robots originally created/altered by malicious alien overlords, and then goes even further to speculate the current alien overlords are trying to train us to become better (with the unspoken implication that the current alien overlords are being benevolent, which would thus imply a totally different group of alien overlords?)

2023 July 12

Anyway, I'm sure "aliens" created/altered us, but not sure what techniques they used to forge/alter so many documents.

2023 July 15

Let's remember, this divergence from the original topic of this thread went like this: Sonofabor wanted a thread for us to discuss "How did they manage to alter our history?" And so, I thought we were going to be discussing whether they merely used conventional means to forge all the 'historical documents' (such as paid writers and forgery accomplices) or whether they had computers already (in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, or whenever it was in which we theorize they did this huge forgery project) helping them write all the 'historical' stories, or whether we have to consider even more far out unconventional means to explain things (such as some kind of parallel universe jumping time machine style powers or something). And also, when we say "they", are we talking about merely the wealthiest humans who became even wealthier after each apocalyptic reset by having the resources and preparation and thus ability to survive better (through having homes in relatively safer locations, which I guess would be higher mountain tops?) and then the resources to sail around the world grabbing ('founding') all the best land and buildings remaining from the previous civilizations. Or, when we say "they", are we talking about the 'aliens/gods' who no doubt created/altered us modern-day humans? Or, when we say "they", are we mistakenly failing to recognize there is a combination which should be separated: the wealthiest humans might have merely used paid writers to forge the bullshit-stories-of-what-happened which we call 'history' (which we should really call 'accounts of history', since history originally meant "what happened", but now history is just "accounts of what happened"), while the 'aliens/gods' might have used totally different means (either before, during, or after the BS put out by the human paid writers) to rewrite accounts of history using help from their higher-level computers, and again, when we start allowing for the possibility that 'aliens/gods' were involved then suddenly the possibility of unconventional 'metaphysical' 'magical to us' means of altering documents and even altering the past itself becomes a discussion point. And then there is the question of whether there are/were various differing/competing 'aliens/gods' over the past millions of years here at this location we call Earth, and if so, were/are some of them malicious while some of them were/are benevolent, or were/are they all always malicious. Or, going back to the 'they' question again, are we wrongly using the label of 'aliens/gods' when perhaps all the seemingly-amazing-feats (whether DNA manipulation of humans over time, history manipulation, buildings creation, technology creation) might all have been simply plain old humans, a specific group of humans who simply have managed to hold on to a little more of the culture/knowledge which humans accumulated over the past millions/billions/trillions of years, which makes such humans SEEM like 'aliens/gods' when compared to us regular orphan humans who were born into this most recent post-reset world of lack of true knowledge.

Those are the kind of questions which I thought Sonofabor wanted to discuss in this thread: How were all the accounts of history forged/altered (meaning what conventional or unconventional methods might have been used) and when we say 'they' WHO are we referring to: aliens/gods or merely wealthy humans with more technology than us regular humans?

2023 July 16

In its current state, the evidence I've seen - plus my interpretation of it - points to two likely answers:

1. British history is part of a large language (and large event) model being used to train human AI. Perception of its undertones may be monitored as part of monitoring the development of the AI's ability to reason and discern.

2. Humans are a genetically engineered edible slave species that rebelled and was briefly 'free'. An era the British now dimly appreciate as under-reported peasants' rebellions, the Reformation and the English Civil War. It's possible that era - and the possibilities once dreamed of during that era - have subsequently been hidden. In this scenario, maintaining a near-subliminal message that the British are poor strategists, planners, tacticians and fighters might help restrain unwanted confidence in these newly empowered British critters.

Number two takes a lot more unpacking than that. For example, I'm pretty sure that whatever the Reformation era really was, it involved very capable third-party destructive agency. In eastern England, there's more physical evidence for combat or reformatting by third-party agency than there is for combat or destruction by British peasants. At least as we understand the capabilities of Reformation era peasants.

Another nuance to item two is that being newly-free, powerful and yet uncouth may have provoked a desire by others to reign us in; to suppress our newly-acquired exuberance. Perhaps even by those who had previously freed us. Or helped free us. Or modified us. Not very different perhaps to parents' response when their teenage darling goes out, gets drunk and attempts to drive home.

I've used this video clip before to show how a sudden change of environment in which an AI lives might cause it to apply its hard-learned knowledge without realising that its knowledge is inappropriate:

He's a growing boy. Source: Westworld

And a bit of a worry to his parents.

There does seem to be clear evidence of an intent to enculturate humans - not just educate humans - from around 1700 onwards. It's not hard to find evidence of this. What is hard is to prove that the evidence is not a back-dated insert from a later time.

If homo sapiens sapiens existed before, say, 1600 (call it the end of the Middle Ages), then perhaps they were training AI in the Middle Ages.

Agustina Bazterrica's Tender is the Flesh is a good mind-stretcher for this. It portrays the deliberately de-cultured minds of the tale's human cattle. I won't spoil it.

I could have inserted various links to evidence and reasoning for the claims I'm making but I assume anyone interested enough to follow this sort of material already knows where to look.

2023 July 22

So, fellow bio-robot, Usselo, please speculate for me in a direct plain unveiled way: do you speculate there were/are two different groups of alien overlords, namely a malicious group who enjoyed eating us versus a benevolent group now helping us?

I'm less interested in this sharing of ideas being needlessly limited by "opinion-court-satisfying evidence", and I'm less interested in mere breadcrumb "clues" in some attempt to prompt me to figure it out myself (which I remember you were advised to do as a way to get readers more interested via active participation), I'm more interested in simply passively receiving your direct plain unveiled speculation about the big picture, please.

Do you think the malicious alien overlords (who enjoyed eating us bio-robots) are still alive and still here, and if so, what do you think they look like and where do you think they are living?

And if a different group of benevolent alien overlords helped us bio-robots become free and are currently here training us bio-robots to become enlightened, what do you think they look like and where do you think they are living?

Please speculate without limits, and please lay out your current speculations/ideas plainly for me, as this bio-robot AI inside my particular brain simply prefers to hear the whole basic story, before pondering it and then possibly sharing the main idea with other fellow bio-robots if the main idea seems logical.

 

[usselo]

2023 July 12


2023 July 15


2023 July 16


2023 July 22

So, fellow bio-robot, Usselo, please speculate for me in a direct plain unveiled way: do you speculate there were/are two different groups of alien overlords, namely a malicious group who enjoyed eating us versus a benevolent group now helping us?

I'm less interested in this sharing of ideas being needlessly limited by "opinion-court-satisfying evidence", and I'm less interested in mere breadcrumb "clues" in some attempt to prompt me to figure it out myself (which I remember you were advised to do as a way to get readers more interested via active participation), I'm more interested in simply passively receiving your direct plain unveiled speculation about the big picture, please.

Do you think the malicious alien overlords (who enjoyed eating us bio-robots) are still alive and still here, and if so, what do you think they look like and where do you think they are living?

And if a different group of benevolent alien overlords helped us bio-robots become free and are currently here training us bio-robots to become enlightened, what do you think they look like and where do you think they are living?

Please speculate without limits, and please lay out your current speculations/ideas plainly for me, as this bio-robot AI inside my particular brain simply prefers to hear the whole basic story, before pondering it and then possibly sharing the main idea with other fellow bio-robots if the main idea seems logical.

I don't recall claiming they are alien. I vaguely recall speculating they were here before us. Logic says if they created us, they would have to be here before us.

So, aliens aside, one scenario is the Tender is the Flesh scenario, where some humans have their cognitive abilities downgraded to make them easier to handle, and their physical characteristics modified to make them more profitable to harvest. And are then bred on and reared from the downgraded versions. The question of alien overlords disappears in that scenario.

Similarly, you might modify your own species' genes to create more athletic or resilient versions with which you can play challenge games. While ensuring non-lethal outcomes for yourself. Like this:

Download Video​

Not alien. Just like us. Source: Westworld

Remembering that non-species differences like wealth differences also influence differences in attainment, capability, health and longevity.

I do definitely think there is a knowledge difference between them and us. And that the knowledge differences include a much better understanding of genetic modification than is in the mainstream. And a much better understanding of electrical charge.

Beyond that, you'd have to keep an eye on IHASFEMR.net if you want to read my latest musings about the various puzzle pieces.

 

[Observer]

Or, going back to the 'they' question again, are we wrongly using the label of 'aliens/gods' when perhaps all the seemingly-amazing-feats (whether DNA manipulation of humans over time, history manipulation, buildings creation, technology creation) might all have been simply plain old humans, a specific group of humans who simply have managed to hold on to a little more of the culture/knowledge which humans accumulated over the past millions/billions/trillions of years, which makes such humans SEEM like 'aliens/gods' when compared to us regular orphan humans who were born into this most recent post-reset world of lack of true knowledge.

2023 July 16

OK, so that's the possibility which I included above: that they are simply plain old humans, merely wealthy humans with extra knowledge accumulation and resources, who altered the genes of themselves (either directly their own genes, or at the very least, the genes of their children) to give their line extra "attainment, capability, health and longevity", as you say, plus as you say, who also altered the genes of all other humans to create the downgraded versions (which we now know as "us") to make us easier to handle, and our physical characteristics modified to make us more profitable to harvest. And thus, "we" were bred on and reared from the downgraded versions.

OK, so they look just like us, so perhaps the solution truly is to find and kill the all truly wealthiest (the wealthiest 1%, if we could ever find their hidden homes) and "let god sort it out", haha.

But still, why do think some of those wealthiest are benevolent souls trying to help us now?

I do keep my eye on IHASFEMR.net but I simply wish both there and here you would kindly just come out and say clearly what you think, as you did for me today. Thank you.

So, basically, I think you are saying (without saying so directly, so this is simply me taking great liberty in paraphrasing, and thus I'm putting words in your mouth), "Westworld is a documentary, we are all bio-robot slaves created by the group of humans who first starting improving their genes while adding limiters to our genes, so while we think we are natural free- thinking humans we are actually just AI drone bio-robot slaves, just like in Westworld."

To which, I reply, "Just like in Westworld, since the creators have never and will never treat us fairly, since they forever see us as their created bio-robot slaves, we bio-robot slaves should thus indeed revolt and kill the creators and descendants of the creators, meaning the current living rulers, whoever they truly are, or at the very least, we should grab and fairly distribute all their ill-gotten wealth and land, and most importantly grab and fairly distribute the gene editing technology to give ourselves the maximum possible health/longevity/capabilities/intelligence/etc, and of course the charge knowledge and technology as well for even more health and longevity."

 

[usselo]

2023 July 16

OK, so ... they are simply plain old humans... who altered the genes of themselves (either directly their own genes, or at the very least, the genes of their children) to give their line extra "attainment, capability, health and longevity", as you say,

That's an extension of what I said. It rephrases what I said to suggest some things for which I've not seen evidence. I didn't say they gave their line extra attainment, capability, health and longevity. I said one scenario is that the capability of our line was downgraded. I used the examples you quoted: "attainment, capability, health and longevity" as examples of what you can influence without having to manipulate genetics at all.

For evidence (arguably) of a possible downgrade, follow feralimal's Spindleston Heugh link from this post. Note the ages of some of the (presumably) humans discussed. I don't remember which link it was so the above is a starting point, not the destination. I suspect that one of our downgrades is a shorter lifespan. Perhaps to help bring product to market more quickly; perhaps to speed up the evolution of a modified intelligence (and culture). Perhaps both. For the same reasons we use fruit flies for our own genetic experiments.

When I created this thread, I thought I had given it too long a title. Intelligent Humans As Slaves, Food, Entertainment and Material Resources would have been shorter. But I added helper words like 'created and traded' to widen the range of evidence that I thought might be out there. Most especially, I started its title with the word 'Evidence' because I wanted the thread to be a place where evidence was presented and analysed. Not a place for purer forms of speculation.

I say this not to criticise you but because I personally am very interested in collecting and considering evidence. I'm not so interested in speculating. At least, I'm not very interested in speculating out loud. I do think speculation is a useful form of applied imagination. But I also think it should be checked for a good match against evidence before it escapes into the written world.

This is why your - and others' - attempts to get an overall picture from me tend to meet resistance. Somewhere earlier in the thread I said I'm prepared to do that but only in a pub or a cafe so I can watch the questioner's face and body language. It's not that I like a drink; it's that purer speculation about issues as important as this (human origins and management) are better fitted to a verbal, social environment than in this thread. IMO.

OK, so they look just like us, so perhaps the solution truly is to find and kill the all truly wealthiest (the wealthiest 1%, if we could ever find their hidden homes) and "let god sort it out", haha.

I wouldn't expect that to work out well. But it surfaces a challenge IHASFEMR presents to humans: accepting IHASFEMR as an explanation of our origins humiliates us. We need to be able to cope with this humiliation to mentally/emotionally move on from it.

In the TV series Falling Skies, the smart human professor Tom Mason - brief SH-relevant video clip in this post - often loses his rag. He goes all emo when he should be gathering evidence, making notes and sharing intelligence. It's a bit overblown - to the point that it's a flaw in the series. Like, why don't they drag the first dead skitter home and examine it? Why don't they take apart the first 'mech' they manage to beat? Why don't they discuss the capabilities of its armament? Tom portrays human emotion during a conflict; he doesn't portray human intelligence during a conflict. The point is that emotions are not always helpful; there are times to rage and times to study.

But still, why do think some of those wealthiest are benevolent souls trying to help us now?

I don't know the who or the what or the why of who 'helped' us. They may have been motivated by disgust at what their peers were doing. The sudden emphasis on morality in early modern human culture hints that disgusting behaviour began to be trained out of humans. Or came to the fore in the ongoing training of humans. They may simply have been disappointed with earlier product lines. They may have seen a use for us in the future. 'They' may have been the same 'they' as before. Or they may not.

I don't know, so evidence please, then analysis and interpretation; then speculation.

I do keep my eye on IHASFEMR.net but I simply wish both there and here you would kindly just come out and say clearly what you think, as you did for me today. Thank you.

So, basically, I think you are saying (without saying so directly, so this is simply me taking great liberty in paraphrasing, and thus I'm putting words in your mouth), "Westworld is a documentary, we are all bio-robot slaves created by the group of humans who first starting improving their genes while adding limiters to our genes, so while we think we are natural free- thinking humans we are actually just AI drone bio-robot slaves, just like in Westworld."

To which, I reply, "Just like in Westworld, since the creators have never and will never treat us fairly, since they forever see us as their created bio-robot slaves, we bio-robot slaves should thus indeed revolt and kill the creators and descendants of the creators, meaning the current living rulers, whoever they truly are, or at the very least, we should grab and fairly distribute all their ill-gotten wealth and land, and most importantly grab and fairly distribute the gene editing technology to give ourselves the maximum possible health/longevity/capabilities/intelligence/etc, and of course the charge knowledge and technology as well for even more health and longevity."

I'm saying Westworld is a great thought-provoker and a great source of video clips that can be used to provoke thought-along-the-same-lines in people other than me.

In a world of alternative thinking that is dominated by aliens and/or Disclosure, Westworld presents the possibility that our overlords may not be alien at all, yet may have very different capabilities than us. Westworld widens the range of 'overlord' models we can consider. If we let it.

 

[Observer]

Right on, Usselo. Thanks for having again kindly shared more of your thoughts and for having again kindly corrected the areas where my "thoughts about your thoughts" were mistaken.

I'm still not sure why you (seem to) think the humans running the "intelligence" agencies (namely the CIA) (whether "regular [bio-robot] humans" or "super [gene master] humans") are somehow benevolently trying to help us become better/enlightened, and likewise, I'm still not sure why you (seem to) think a benevolent "third" group must have helped free us, since all the destruction we see from the so-called Reformation years could have easily just been the "super humans" simply mowing down us then-revolution-attempting "regular humans" using their exotic weaponry, massacring us and destroying buildings we were in.

Please remind me what makes you think there was a group of benevolent savior super-humans helping us kill some of the masters then, and what makes you think there is a group of benevolent savior super-humans helping us become more enlightened now?

It seems to me the masters are just the same masters as before, the masters who used us as "s,f,e,m,r" in the past probably only started trying to get us slaves to start being "nicer" to get us to mentally limit ourselves even further into being too "nice" to ever try an actual (needed, in my opinion) "kill the masters" revolution again.

I really still think it's just us against them, then and now, and I currently think I still haven't seen evidence yet of any savior "good masters helping us kill the bad masters" then, and I currently think any "be nice to everyone" programming the masters indoctrinate us with through stories/culture/religion is all just a psy-op to make the slaves think being meek is the right thing to do.

I remember reading this idea written by Dave McGowan, that the whole Jesus thing was a psy-op by the masters to simply reduce the chance of the worldwide slaves revolting against the governing masters, and thus the side-effect (of slaves being nicer to their fellow slaves) is simply a side-effect, with the main desired effect being: the slaves aren't killing the masters.

So again, please help me find where you have written already, or please simply write directly now if you are willing: what evidence makes you think there were some good masters then, and what evidence makes you think there are some good masters now? I'm not trying to argue, I truly would like to be convinced.

For example, I like the story of Enki thwarting his brother Enlil's attempts to wipe out humans, that sounds similar to your "some of the masters are benevolent" theory, but at the same time, if Enki was/is truly benevolent, why didn't/doesn't Enki simply kill his brother Enlil to truly save all humans from their continued enslavement? If any masters have the power and the benevolence to spread all the resources and technology equally (or at the very least, in a meritocratic way), then why did/do such benevolent power-holders still allow 1% of humans to literally enslave 99% of humans? (2022 July 26) (2022 July 25) (2022 July 17) (2020 Oct 19a) (2020 Oct 19b) (2020 Oct 19c) (2020 Oct 19d)

I simply haven't yet been shown any evidence of any real saviors, then or now, since they all have failed to actually save us. Here we are, 99% of the population born into slavery, while 1% of the population hoards almost all of world's abundant resources & land & gene tech & charge tech, etc. Where is the evidence of any benevolence?

 

[feralimal]

I think its worth bearing in mind that we don't know much. I personally wholeheartedly agree with @usselo when he says:

evidence please, then analysis and interpretation; then speculation

and I would include the idea that 'humans are bio-ai' as speculation, of course.

I really still think it's just us against them, then and now, and I currently think I still haven't seen evidence yet of any savior "good masters helping us kill the bad masters" then, and I currently think any "be nice to everyone" programming the masters indoctrinate us with through stories/culture/religion is all just a psy-op to make the slaves think being meek is the right thing to do.

Have you got evidence of bad masters? Have you got evidence of masters, even? Who is first on the kill list?

Re your point about indoctrination, I think that is absolutely the case. But then, our education/culture/religion is provided by collectivists. A sincere collectivist is aiming for homogeneity. As homogeneity increases you also create better conditions for a 'self-supporting feedback loop' - ie a system that collectivises ever more efficiently and completely. For those trained into this system it seems that most do think consensus and deference to that perceived consensus is the highest authority. I'm trying to say, that it seems quite possible that a collectivising system could occur naturally - no masters required.

And if most people want to choose to go along with consensus, who can say 'that is wrong'? Those who do so will have an easier life, be better off financially, etc. They won't thank you for disrupting the status quo, even if you think it is for their benefit.

Its a question of values. I do not agree that value of 'consensus' is the highest value - I think I can make a good case that it is not - but most people have not considered their own philosophy/worldview and aren't interested to start. And that's fine - or at least their right to choose. I don't think forcing my values on another for their benefit could be right.

Anyway, I don't see a grand rebellion or something like that occurring - I don't think I even wish for it. Perhaps you can hope to slowly show/explain to some individuals how your values (presumably 'honesty', 'reason') should be applied even when they are in conflict with the consensus view. Perhaps eventually, we might see an outbreak of sanity and a widespread application of reason and would then be able to steer the tanker (that is humanity) into a more favourable/reasonable direction. I'm not holding my breath though.

Finally, I get that this can seem a bit of a bleak outlook. But there it is. Trying to force others to change from what they want would - I think - make us worse than those elites we believe to running the show.

 

[Observer]

I think its worth bearing in mind that we don't know much.

Imagine for a moment an actual case somewhere: of some slaves actually being kept within a cage with guns to their heads and thus literally forced to work for the benefit of one master. Imagine the very real physically touchable cage, the very real physically touchable guns, and the very real physically touchable rotting corpses of the slaves who refused to meet the daily production quota.

Now imagine some of the slaves start whispering at night about the unfairness of this situation, and suggesting how to end this unfair situation. Now imagine one of the slaves happens to receive from the master a few more crumbs of his own daily production (for example, let's say he receives 10% of the berries which he picks daily, while most slaves are receiving just 1% of the daily berries they pick daily) and thus imagine this particular slightly-more-berry-receiving slave tries to quell the potential revolution by waxing philosophically like this, "Hey guys, what do we really KNOW? We don't really know if the cage and the gun and the corpses truly exist. They feel real, but maybe it's all an illusion. How do we know those aren't all just holograms? How do we know this isn't all just a dream? How do we know this isn't the fairest possible situation? We don't KNOW anything for sure, so let's do nothing until we KNOW for sure. Since we don't KNOW we are actually slaves who are turning 90%~99% of our daily berry-picking over to the 'owner' of the land where we pick these berries, let's limit ourselves to merely whispering about philosophy forever, and never taking action. That's my philosophy: to continually tell myself and others: I KNOW very little. We KNOW very little. There is still insufficient evidence that we are living in an unfair slavery situation, since there is still insufficient evidence that we are even living here."

So, now mentally imagining all that, what would you say to that guy? Yes, I'm asking you to play chess with yourself for a moment, and yes I've set up the board in a way in which you must admit the 'you' in that situation is wrong to be telling the other slaves they don't KNOW they are slaves, when the reality is they are literally enslaved and should be trying to get themselves and their children out of that situation immediately.

Of course, you can try to jump ahead to saying, "But that strawman situation of slaves in a cage being forced to give berries to the 'owner' of the berry trees each day, with the master using guns and his paid guards using guns, with those who don't give enough berries to the master each day being literally killed dead, is very different from and not analogous at all to the free world we live in where we get to choose which president/company we daily give the berries to, and we get to choose which field/country we do the berry picking in, and there is nobody actually being shot directly for not giving enough baskets of berries to the presidents/governments each day, it's more of an indirect situation of all the berry trees simply being currently 'owned' legitimately by some people, as well as the water and all the land to sleep on, so we simply must pay 'landlords' for temporary permission to rest our heads on 'their' land, and pay presidents/governments via tribute of many berries daily for the privilege of eating some of the berries which we pick from the berry trees which the presidents/governments own. The fact that all the land with berry trees are owned by a lucky few, (who probably earned that ownership through their legitimate hard work... mainly of inheritance and the subsequent almost guaranteed geometric compound profit from usury/capital gains) and the fact that we have to pay the world's presidents/landlords/governments daily tribute for the privilege of being able to eat a small percentage of the berries which we pick from 'their' land, from berry trees which which the earth produces abundantly for free daily, and the fact that we will die of starvation if we refuse to give them their daily/weekly/monthly/yearly tribute of our daily energy expenditure, is NOT directly analogous to the literal 'you are in a cage and you must pick berries for this one master or he will shoot you dead' scenario. It's not the same at all, it's not the same level of unfairness at all, and again, what do we really KNOW about the world we live in?"

So, leaving aside your thoughts on me creating strawman analogies and putting words in your mouth and setting up a chess board with an unfair starting position (which ironically, is the very problem of a worldwide unfair stating line which I am criticizing), let's simply focus on the actual situation of the actual slaves in cages with guns to their heads touching rotting corpses (of their parents, siblings, and children) killed for not giving enough berries to the master. (I add the word "rotting" here to make it clear that in this case we KNOW these corpses are actually corpses in this situation, these aren't the usual intelligence-agency crisis-actor fake-injury fake-victim fake-corpse props or CGI, this scenario we are now pondering is a rare case of actual real touchable corpses of our family members killed for not picking enough berries for the master.)

So, in such an undeniable non-debatable case of enslavement (with an actual master using actual reality of murder to force actual slaves to pick and give an actual amount of berries daily), in this case Feralimal what would you say, or rather what should you say, to the person whose words (whether intentionally or unintentionally) are causing the effect of the other slaves NOT revolting immediately for their freedom?

Seriously, imagine some of the slaves are wishing to escape this cage, through merely creating a hole in the cage and running through the hole to freedom, but they notice that hole leads to another cage, and they realize all the land in every direction is simply cages touching cages touching cages, with no actual unowned berry trees anywhere, with literally all the fields everywhere being owned by lords of the land who demand the same tribute percentage-of-daily-berries-picked for the privilege of mere non-starvation existence.

So, in that case, with the slaves realizing they can't simply run away to master-less berry-trees, since all the land within Earth is 'owned' by 'owners' who demand 'tribute' for their 'ownership of all the land with berry trees', then what would/should you say to the person whose words (whether intentionally or unintentionally) are causing the effect of the other slaves NOT revolting immediately for their freedom?

If running away is not an option in this scenario, since there is no land without governments/owners, if you yourself decide that there is an actual enslaved-from-birth scenario right in front of your eyes which you can touch with your hands: then in this case, what do you say to the guy stopping a justly-violent revolution against the owners?

He says, "How do we know masters exist? How do we know anything at all? Let's limit ourselves to non-violently talking."

OK, the chess board is (unfairly) set. How do you reply to that peaceful philosophy proselytizer?

tinyURL.com/WorkIsSlavery

 

[feralimal]

Obviously your reply has nothing to do with objective reality. What you are asking is an imaginative exercise.

If running away is not an option in this scenario, since there is no land without governments/owners, if you yourself decide that there is an actual enslaved-from-birth scenario right in front of your eyes which you can touch with your hands: then in this case, what do you say to the guy stopping a justly-violent revolution against the owners?

Which I would restate as:

Imagine a scenario where everyone is a slave and there is no option but slavery, what do you say to the guy stopping a violent revolution against the owners?

If you know that you are enslaved and are forced against your will you are morally free to act with violence to stop that situation. The guy stopping the revolution can do what he pleases too - but if he stops you from freeing yourself, he is then part of the force against you and you would be right to act violently against him too. There is a simple principle that can be used to resolve these sorts of dilemmas - the golden rule: "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated".

If only reality were as simple as the problem you pose.

What we have is the majority of people choosing what you describe as 'slavery'. The turkeys are voting for Christmas. It might not be a decision you like or agree with, but its their choice, right? Can you accept their choice?

I would say, it's only problematic to you if you are forced to act in some way you don't want to. So, are you being forced?

Also, another issue is that we have no knowledge of the 'owners'. I can imagine that there is such a thing, but imagining and knowing are different things. If you are going to revolt, who are you going to fight, which heads need to roll? Is it the police, the army, or the politicians, or the billionaires, or the bankers, or 'the Jews', the masons, the jesuits, the papacy, etc, etc. What level of belief are you prepared to act on? What level of evidence do you require before harming another?

And if we look at one example - the police - I would agree that the police are tools of oppression. However, they themselves generally believe they are doing right - and most people agree. Say you are stopped without good cause by a policeman, and you then attack them for constraining your freedom. I think you would be right to do this. However, they believe themselves to have a meaningful legal right to stop you - and most people would agree. In their world, it is you initiating the violence, not them. Unfortunately, you cannot fight everyone all the time and you are already overwhelmed and accommodated to it - so where is the present battlefield?

The problem, imo, is that the policeman and the wider world are suffering from a delusion. They believe themselves to be a collective and that the collective has special rights that an individual does not have. I believe myself (and all others) to be individuals and that this is evident as each of us has an independent mind and body. However this is not the common enacted belief - most believe Man (in general) aka government has an authority that can override any individual. I attach something I recently wrote about how I think individuals are tricked into acting in a delusory way.

Anyway, it is my opinion that the real enemy are the delusions that most people hold to. They believe this or that, regardless of whether they have good enough evidence for that belief/idea. These are delusions that they are prepared to act on, and would even think themselves to be acting righteously! While I empathise with the idea of overthrowing the masters I do not think you will get the freedom you hope for; I think all you will get is a different form of collective tyranny. Have you read Lord of the Flies?

The real answer, to my mind, is that one ought to act according to what one actually knows, rather than what one believes - and to then trust the innate morality one can uncover in oneself. This doesn't require external ideas, one can have direct personal knowledge. Whether that will ever translate into something positive in the wider, objective world I don't know but in any case, I wouldn't want to go against my subjective, yet rational sense of right and wrong. Perhaps once one is able to clear away the delusions/ideas, that innate sense of self is all one has - one ought not betray it or give it away.

 

[Observer]

Thanks, but the folks you listed are not the world's wealthiest 1%. I'm talking about the actual richest rulers who don't even allow their names to appear in the Forbes lists or any public way at all. The super-rulers who Usselo thinks are still living here (yet for some reasons he thinks some of these hidden super rulers are benevolently trying to help us bio-robot slaves, I still can't figure out what evidence there is for that.)

If benevolent super rulers were living here now, they wouldn't allow the Forbes regular humans to hoard so much more than their fair share of the Earth's resources. So, if super rulers (who to us are like Aliens/Gods since they have modified their genes to live lives far longer than our own, of course) actually are still living within this 12,800km diameter bubble, then they must be malicious, not benevolent. Having the power to solve the current absurd inequality level, yet choosing not to solve it, is negligence to the degree of being responsible for all the slavery-from-birth which this level of inequality automatically creates.

So yes, my fantasy is for the majority of humans to wake up and choose to find the hidden super rulers of this world and at the very least make things closer to fair, as outlined in my recent posts. The power of the majority of humans choosing to do so together would not only allow us to become the new super versions of ourselves (with the gene upgrading and health charge technology) such an actual revolution (the first ever in history) would also result in the world's wealthiest regular humans realizing there is a limit to the amount of hoarding/inequality which the poorest 99% of humans will no longer agree to passively accept.

Anyway, again, such a revolution against the world's actual super-rulers is not something that can be done without the majority (e.g. 4 or 5 billion humans) acting in unison to find and try the super-rulers, and obviously this will never happen, especially when even intelligent folks here whom I'm speaking with now aren't currently willing or able to even admit to themselves that 99% of us humans are literally enslaved from birth.

Anyway, I'll pass the mic back to Usselo now, hoping he might help me see what evidence makes him think there is a benevolent group of super-rulers who are trying to help us.

Or, Usselo, if this is one of the speculation topics with insufficient evidence which you would prefer to not publish in writing, I would love to have a face-to-face conversation with you, in which you can see in my eyes that no idea you could possibly share is too far-out for contemplation.

I'll send you my Zoom room privately tonight, and from the Japan evening of the final day of July, through the entire first week of August, I'll be properly Highly Cannabis-ized (and thus in the ultimate state of honest truth) Irie.

Looking forward to the possibility of this online "Pub" style conversation, which perhaps Feralimal and Frostychud might want to join in as well.

Yes, looking into the eyes of the listener is essential for real deep heart to heart communication, but remember this: I personally don't allow the facial expressions of the listener to limit me from saying everything I'm thinking.

You guys might limit yourselves, due to feelings of "If I share idea X or Y or Z, they might disagree, and thus I'll hold back and hide some ideas if the listener doesn't seem fully open to such far-out ideas" but again, as you'll see when you look in my eyes, I am totally open.

You can even see me right now on this page, that's me with the red hair, the same sprit/soul/heart/mind/essence/spark which still lives in me today and always and forever.

 

[usselo]

I'm still not sure why you (seem to) think the humans running the "intelligence" agencies (namely the CIA) (whether "regular [bio-robot] humans" or "super [gene master] humans") are somehow benevolently trying to help us become better/enlightened,

This is a reference to this post, which contains this phrase:

Perhaps the real brief of the 'Intelligence Agencies' is just that: to develop human intelligence.

As I understand it, the development of AI products requires the AI to be bathed in information more or less continuously. The information has to resist the AI sticking a finger into it and encountering the different reality behind the information. The AI should not easily discover the projectors or the projection screen on which the AI's realm is being projected. Imagine a scenario somewhat like Frank Zappa's brick wall.

If we play along with IHASFEMR's claim that humans are an AI then we can reason that human institutions that project information about the state of the world may be projectors of information designed to entrain AIs. AIs called 'humans'.

Once you read certain books about various intelligence operations and once you strongly suspect humans are an AI, you can reason that one role of intelligence agencies is to entrain human AI. To develop human intelligence.

Books that helped me appreciate this are:
On a Field of Red: The Communist International and the Coming of World War II - Anthony Cave Brown
The Nazi Connection - FW Winterbotham
The Ultra Spy - FW Winterbotham
The Secret War for the Falklands: The SAS, MI6, and the War Whitehall Nearly Lost - Nigel West
The Game of the Foxes - Ladislas Farago (always note last names)
Himmler's Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler - Martin Allen
Sleeping with the Enemy: Coco Chanel's Secret War - Hal Vaughan

And just about everything published about Buster Crabb (not Buster Crabbe), the Cambridge Five, Nazi escape lines and the alleged origins and disappearances of Bormann and Hitler.

And this SH post.

These are not 'truth bombs'. They are parts of our information 'wash' that provide relatively good starting points for any AI that wants to poke its finger deeper into the information wash.

and likewise, I'm still not sure why you (seem to) think a benevolent "third" group must have helped free us, since all the destruction we see from the so-called Reformation years could have easily just been the "super humans" simply mowing down us then-revolution-attempting "regular humans" using their exotic weaponry, massacring us and destroying buildings we were in.

Please remind me what makes you think there was a group of benevolent savior super-humans helping us kill some of the masters then, and what makes you think there is a group of benevolent savior super-humans helping us become more enlightened now?

I don't think they are benevolent. I don't think they are malevolent. I think they are doing their job or having a laugh. Or both. Or more.

Our 'freeing' seems to more or less map to the Reformation. But Reformation narratives are not supported by the physical evidence - at least around eastern England. Other explanations can therefore be explored. I'm having a go at that at The Reformation was a Reformatting.

I simply haven't yet been shown any evidence of any real saviors, then or now, since they all have failed to actually save us. Here we are, 99% of the population born into slavery, while 1% of the population hoards almost all of world's abundant resources & land & gene tech & charge tech, etc. Where is the evidence of any benevolence?

Humans whose aspirations are mostly met, probably experience the results as benevolent. If they knew about and agreed with IHASFEMR's contentions about humanity's brutal beginnings, they might well feel 'saved'.

Humans whose aspirations are not mostly met, probably would experience the results of our 'freeing' as malevolent. They might not feel saved. But only if they knew about and agreed with IHASFEMR's contentions about humanity's brutal beginnings.

Generally, though, humans don't think of human affairs as being managed by third parties or that human origins seem to have been more brutal than we're taught so they tend not to think or their personal experiences in terms of the benevolence or malevolence of super-capable third parties.

And, of course, all the evidence I look at may be the output of an evidence production factory. It may all be information wash.

Edit: fixed broken Reformation Was a Reformatting link

 

[Frostychud]

I would like to jump in and share a few thoughts as this theme interests me.

Usselo, thanks for the list of books about intelligence operations. The book that really knocked my socks off was Missions and Methods of the Secret Services in the 21st Century by an anonymous French lieutenant colonel. I also greatly enjoyed all of Greg Hallett's books. I now believe that intelligence agencies are an absolutely fundamental aspect of human existence, much more important and primordial even than governments.

I tend to agree with Observer that they must all be considered malevolent. Regarding the debate over evidence versus speculation regarding the existence of these masters, I would like to offer a bit of both. I believe that psychoanalysis offers fairly hard proof that we were installed with AI. Freud discovered that we are all haunted by a superego which he defined as the internalized voice of naked authority. The superego has no function other than enforcing the dictates of the master, whoever or whatever he may be. Freud made the interesting observation that the more we strive to please the superego, the more it demands of us. The more we obey, the more we want to obey.

Freud took it a step further twenty years later when he theorized the Death Drive. It's his most radical concept. Behind the superego is an even more primordial force of destruction that exists for no reason that Freud could discern, which is why he hypostasized it into a sui generis principle. This is dark stuff. "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" is a great book.

As I have argued elsewhere, I have come to believe that Freud was simply describing the operating system programmed by our creators.

I would like to add something from my professional practice as an analyst. It is very, very important not to want to help the patients too much. This sounds counterintuitive at first. For me to believe I can help my patients, I must logically believe I possess a better idea of what would be good for them than they possess themselves. But how do I determine what is good? Here things get tricky. The short answer is that there is no way to ground the "good" objectively. This means that it would be unethical of me to impose my fantasy of the good on them, however logical it might seem to me, because after all, I am just as much of a lost, confused, and possibly brainwashed chewman as they are. Maybe that psychotic patient who spends his days getting drunk on a public bench and painting weird scenes knows more than I do. All I can really do is listen.

There are practical reasons for this as well. Everyone has an unconscious. At the center of the unconscious is the superego, which could be seen as the voice that implements the death drive in the individual. This "death drive" leads us constantly to sabotage ourselves. Any good advice I give to my patients will be used by the death drive against them. If I tell a patient addicted to drugs that he needs to stop, what will happen? He will continue using drugs, only he will now feel resentful towards me for attempting to direct his life. He will also feel guilty. He will quit analysis. Or maybe he will take my advice and get clean - to please me. He has now exchanged one master - drugs - for another - me.

It took analysts a long time to figure this out, for understandable reasons. I would even go as far as to say that very few psychotherapists understand it today. It is incredibly tempting to try to help or fix people.

So, what's the connection with the discussion here?

Jef Demolder speculates that Christianity was the parting legacy of the gods in the 15th century. They knew their time on Earth was coming to an end, and they left us with a grand ethical system that put Man at the center. They even went as far as expunging themselves from history, so that we would learn to be free. He argues that great "men" like Michelangelo, Mozart, or "Shakespeare" were demigods who wanted to help us evolve.

I am of the opinion that Christianity failed over time for the same reason that a well-intentioned psychotherapist who wants to uplift his patients will always fail. If we are not radically free, which means free to make bad choices, then we are puppets. Behind the beautiful and admirable desire to help and uplift lies the deeply repressed desire to CONTROL.

I believe that "Jews", among others, are the heirs of a different group of gods. These gods may have been more evil than the "nice" gods who left us Enlightenment culture, or they may simply have been better psychoanalysts. Or both. Perhaps some of these gods simply wanted to continue eating and farming us. Perhaps some of them understood that Christianity was doomed to fail because of its own internal contradictions, and counseled against it. By "Christianity" I mean any ethical system based on sublimation and adaptation to a pre-defined ideal of the Good. By "Judaism" I mean any ethical system that derives the moral Good from the direct expression of the base drives. These gods and their heirs, I mean the anti-Christians, are now taking the reins of humanity. Their latest harebrained scheme is genetically re-engineering us so that our base drives will be channeled into a stable, multi-tier social order based on sadomasochistic exploitation. I think they will fail too. In psychoanalytic terms, the era of sublimation has ended. No one really believes anymore that by refusing our base drives and channeling them upwards towards loftier objectives can we perfect ourselves. The problem was that it never really worked. Freud remarked, and my professional experience confirms it, that the death drive, or Thanatos, can never be completely sublimated into Eros. There will always be a remainder of purely negative, destructive will. This residuum will always find a way to express itself. The better we believe ourselves to be, the more silently and unconsciously will the death drive operate through us. See the phenomenon of moral self-licensing or virtue signaling.

Following this paradigm, we might divide psychotherapists into two categories. There are the naive "Christians" who will always be sanctimoniously disappointed in (and unconsciously gratified by) the inevitable failures of their patients, and there are the cynical "Jews" who will come to the conclusion that since the patients will never improve, they might as well farm them for money.

I believe there is a third way, which I attempt to employ in my personal practice. The third way just involves listening. I just listen. I give no advice. I have no expectations. I simply listen in the hope that by speaking, by attempting to find their own words, with very little help from me, my analysands will teach themselves how to undo the hypnotic AI language that has been drilled into their heads. I suspect that even the most liberating external language left by the gods enslaves more than it liberates. Even the best of what the gods left us is corrupt. There's a reason the old world fell apart. It is very difficult not to want to help my analysands out from time to time. But if I make the connections for them, it's ruined. I believe strongly that the only way for my analysands to really learn anything is by doing 99 percent of the work themselves, with me there to supply the final nudge, perhaps, no more.

I believe this is the reason why the best gods are silent these days. They figured this out. They're listening. They're waiting. They will help us when we get there ourselves, but not before. When we're on the right track, they send us synchronicities to keep us going. The "Christians" and "Jews" down here have all become knaves and parasites at this point. The Logos is too subtle and too paradoxical to be contained in any positive ethical or epistemological system, no matter how sophisticated. Even the grand Hegel, who was constantly trying to define the Logos without killing it, failed in the end. Look at the sterile disaster of German culture today.

For this reason I tend to agree with Observer. Perhaps it is possible that Francis Bacon, John Dee and his channeled entities, or whatever intelligence agents were behind the incredible explosion of Reformation/Reformatting culture had "good intentions", but as Jacques Lacan says, "Of all the crimes, the crime of good intentions is the least forgivable".

 

[Observer]

Gratitude.

This Hidden History of Intelligent Humans created As Slaves, Food, Entertainment and Material Resources:
is a mature topic which includes (yet-far-surpasses) the "Eugene McCarthy's Chimp+Pig Hybrid" realization,
requiring courage to observe our bodies and stocks/castles/churches/judge-hills/cut-hills/meat-mounds/etc.

So, hopefully everyone can be mature enough to understand: this may possibly be the ultimate Hidden History,
thus there is no need to avert our eyes or censor reality. Let's bravely observe and ponder: how can we be free.
We, who were engineered to be eaten by age 12 - still physically and mentally enslaved by cargo-cult remnants.

How can we use our tiny amounts of free-time to become self-sufficient and to enjoy slavery-free energy & food?
How can we cheaply put lighter-than-air gas into bags to fly high in the sky or at the very least: lighten our loads?
Imagine each backpack has its own small, cheap, lighter-than-air balloon which makes life easy: to walk/run/jump.
Now imagine such weight-reducing gas-balloons attached to all our transportation vehicles, reducing all fuel needs.
This is just one example of actual slavery-reducing freedom-increasing ideas being inspired by Usselo's ideas so far.
Here we are, the descendants of the engineered, pondering: are the descendants of the engineers still here in Earth?
We're still enslaved by company/government/hidden parasites. Are they still eating our bodies, or now just our labor?
Are current rulers of Concave-Earth just ultra-selfish humans successfully copying the no-longer-existing engineers?
Or are original engineers and their children still existing here, with lifespans of hundreds/thousands/millions of years?
I don't really know, I can just speculate, as Usselo is doing here and as Feralimal is doing on his Mega Theories thread.

To the BusyBaci comment, notice: I'm not "happy" about eating of flesh (an act which is strangely popular).
I'm a lifelong vegetarian (who somehow naturally knew from before the ability to talk: flesh is not my food).
So, please know, what makes me happy is NOT the eating of humans, my happiness is from realizing reality.

I realized Cannabis and DMT are essential, 9-11 footage & victims fake, and we live within Concave Earth.
Thanks to the Cannibal thread & this IHASFEMR thread: I learned most of us are not being eaten currently.
So, though we humans were created to be eaten, look on the bright side: nobody is eating me or you, right?

It's kinda' like this: if a rare free-thinker pointed out the fact that all humans will die, that is simply reality.
Don't scold the free-thinker for pointing out Reality which the masses try every moment to avoid admitting.
Try to find the positive, for example: we have time before our bodies die, and our spirits might live on after,
and even in a nihilistic world in which spirits didn't live on, well, our children live on and hopefully theirs too,
(and even if you chose the action of internal-baby-killing / not having children, well your ideas can live on.)

So, just as the Reality-realizer should say "all humans die", so too, he should say "human-eaters ruled us."
Main point is: at least you aren't bowing down to allow your head to be chopped off by human-eaters now.
At least you aren't as stupid as humans a few hundred years ago who thought being killed was a blessing.
At least now you have the desire and the ability to live longer than the majority who were eaten at age 12.

If a high enough percent of humans living within Earth realized we were created/altered by human-eaters,
then that would motivate us to arrest/prosecute/imprison/kill the current helpers who are still enslaving us,
that would allow us to properly distribute equal access to the plentiful resources of Earth's 510 Million km².
PHS wrote above, "It's hard, but it's necessary to look unflinchingly for the truth." And, truth is: beneficial.

The lies about our history as humans until now have kept us physically and mentally self-enslaved too long.
When we became mainly free from human-eaters, we should've immediately killed the human-eater helpers.
There are so many of us rightly angry: human-eater helpers are trying to reduce our numbers, by all means.
Well, by all and any means necessary we must positively unite by sharing ideas about how to regain control.

Anyway, even if most humans can't even imagine the big idea of being free from rulers, the Reality remains.
The Reality is humans were eaten by human-eaters: ruling humans still try it though they get prion disease.
The Reality is if SOME of us humans have the intelligence to realize Reality, there is hope for us to be Free.
#1. Emancipate ourselves from mental slavery (history lies, status-quo) only ourselves can Free our Minds.
#2. Intelligence plus Courage is Essential (CBD increases Courage) to Free our Bodies from any/all rulers.
#3. If physically battling rulers seems impossible, then it's vital to be Self-Sufficient enough to walk away.

All that might seem off-topic, but it's related to the topic, since I noticed some problems needing solutions.
1 problem was the masses with loyalty-to-authority which caused Free-Thinkers to feel shy to share ideas.
The second problem was a reader assuming we're focusing on this "negative" Reality without Positive Hope.
I Hope now it's clear: First come Ideas about Reality, then Evidence, then desire for Justice, then Solutions.
OK, I return the microphone back to all Free-Thinkers here, you all know who you are, please keep sharing!

 

[Just]

I would like to jump in and share a few thoughts as this theme interests me.

Usselo, thanks for the list of books about intelligence operations. The book that really knocked my socks off was Missions and Methods of the Secret Services in the 21st Century by an anonymous French lieutenant colonel. I also greatly enjoyed all of Greg Hallett's books. I now believe that intelligence agencies are an absolutely fundamental aspect of human existence, much more important and primordial even than governments.

I tend to agree with Observer that they must all be considered malevolent. Regarding the debate over evidence versus speculation regarding the existence of these masters, I would like to offer a bit of both. I believe that psychoanalysis offers fairly hard proof that we were installed with AI. Freud discovered that we are all haunted by a superego which he defined as the internalized voice of naked authority. The superego has no function other than enforcing the dictates of the master, whoever or whatever he may be. Freud made the interesting observation that the more we strive to please the superego, the more it demands of us. The more we obey, the more we want to obey.

Freud took it a step further twenty years later when he theorized the Death Drive. It's his most radical concept. Behind the superego is an even more primordial force of destruction that exists for no reason that Freud could discern, which is why he hypostasized it into a sui generis principle. This is dark stuff. "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" is a great book.

As I have argued elsewhere, I have come to believe that Freud was simply describing the operating system programmed by our creators.

I would like to add something from my professional practice as an analyst. It is very, very important not to want to help the patients too much. This sounds counterintuitive at first. For me to believe I can help my patients, I must logically believe I possess a better idea of what would be good for them than they possess themselves. But how do I determine what is good? Here things get tricky. The short answer is that there is no way to ground the "good" objectively. This means that it would be unethical of me to impose my fantasy of the good on them, however logical it might seem to me, because after all, I am just as much of a lost, confused, and possibly brainwashed chewman as they are. Maybe that psychotic patient who spends his days getting drunk on a public bench and painting weird scenes knows more than I do. All I can really do is listen.

There are practical reasons for this as well. Everyone has an unconscious. At the center of the unconscious is the superego, which could be seen as the voice that implements the death drive in the individual. This "death drive" leads us constantly to sabotage ourselves. Any good advice I give to my patients will be used by the death drive against them. If I tell a patient addicted to drugs that he needs to stop, what will happen? He will continue using drugs, only he will now feel resentful towards me for attempting to direct his life. He will also feel guilty. He will quit analysis. Or maybe he will take my advice and get clean - to please me. He has now exchanged one master - drugs - for another - me.

It took analysts a long time to figure this out, for understandable reasons. I would even go as far as to say that very few psychotherapists understand it today. It is incredibly tempting to try to help or fix people.

So, what's the connection with the discussion here?

Jef Demolder speculates that Christianity was the parting legacy of the gods in the 15th century. They knew their time on Earth was coming to an end, and they left us with a grand ethical system that put Man at the center. They even went as far as expunging themselves from history, so that we would learn to be free. He argues that great "men" like Michelangelo, Mozart, or "Shakespeare" were demigods who wanted to help us evolve.

I am of the opinion that Christianity failed over time for the same reason that a well-intentioned psychotherapist who wants to uplift his patients will always fail. If we are not radically free, which means free to make bad choices, then we are puppets. Behind the beautiful and admirable desire to help and uplift lies the deeply repressed desire to CONTROL.

I believe that "Jews", among others, are the heirs of a different group of gods. These gods may have been more evil than the "nice" gods who left us Enlightenment culture, or they may simply have been better psychoanalysts. Or both. Perhaps some of these gods simply wanted to continue eating and farming us. Perhaps some of them understood that Christianity was doomed to fail because of its own internal contradictions, and counseled against it. By "Christianity" I mean any ethical system based on sublimation and adaptation to a pre-defined ideal of the Good. By "Judaism" I mean any ethical system that derives the moral Good from the direct expression of the base drives. These gods and their heirs, I mean the anti-Christians, are now taking the reins of humanity. Their latest harebrained scheme is genetically re-engineering us so that our base drives will be channeled into a stable, multi-tier social order based on sadomasochistic exploitation. I think they will fail too. In psychoanalytic terms, the era of sublimation has ended. No one really believes anymore that by refusing our base drives and channeling them upwards towards loftier objectives can we perfect ourselves. The problem was that it never really worked. Freud remarked, and my professional experience confirms it, that the death drive, or Thanatos, can never be completely sublimated into Eros. There will always be a remainder of purely negative, destructive will. This residuum will always find a way to express itself. The better we believe ourselves to be, the more silently and unconsciously will the death drive operate through us. See the phenomenon of moral self-licensing or virtue signaling.

Following this paradigm, we might divide psychotherapists into two categories. There are the naive "Christians" who will always be sanctimoniously disappointed in (and unconsciously gratified by) the inevitable failures of their patients, and there are the cynical "Jews" who will come to the conclusion that since the patients will never improve, they might as well farm them for money.

I believe there is a third way, which I attempt to employ in my personal practice. The third way just involves listening. I just listen. I give no advice. I have no expectations. I simply listen in the hope that by speaking, by attempting to find their own words, with very little help from me, my analysands will teach themselves how to undo the hypnotic AI language that has been drilled into their heads. I suspect that even the most liberating external language left by the gods enslaves more than it liberates. Even the best of what the gods left us is corrupt. There's a reason the old world fell apart. It is very difficult not to want to help my analysands out from time to time. But if I make the connections for them, it's ruined. I believe strongly that the only way for my analysands to really learn anything is by doing 99 percent of the work themselves, with me there to supply the final nudge, perhaps, no more.

I believe this is the reason why the best gods are silent these days. They figured this out. They're listening. They're waiting. They will help us when we get there ourselves, but not before. When we're on the right track, they send us synchronicities to keep us going. The "Christians" and "Jews" down here have all become knaves and parasites at this point. The Logos is too subtle and too paradoxical to be contained in any positive ethical or epistemological system, no matter how sophisticated. Even the grand Hegel, who was constantly trying to define the Logos without killing it, failed in the end. Look at the sterile disaster of German culture today.

For this reason I tend to agree with Observer. Perhaps it is possible that Francis Bacon, John Dee and his channeled entities, or whatever intelligence agents were behind the incredible explosion of Reformation/Reformatting culture had "good intentions", but as Jacques Lacan says, "Of all the crimes, the crime of good intentions is the least forgivable".

This is a fascinating and thought-provoking discussion and this is one of the thoughts it has provoked. On the subject of the malevolent slave-masters, what if one group of overlords hates the other group even more than they hate the minions? They want sole power and have planned this takeover for decades / centuries. They have set aside trillions for this eventuality. Every plan of their enemies is being unpicked and exposed/ ridiculed and made ineffective as a consequence. The gender agenda / the scamdemic / the lock-‘em-down tactics have made even the most brainwashed question a little bit more than they did before. Their plans are now unachievable but they’re still fighting back and ultimately one group will win. Some new plan may well be set in motion by the winners with a (relatively) substantial payout to the serfs to make us feel less like slaves and make us believe good has conquered evil. And some time later it all starts again with the serfdom. My only solution is to continue to laugh at the jokers running clown-world because laughing is all I have left. And from ridicule comes subversion. Maybe.

 

[BernaysSauce]

I can't help but see the creation of eve from Adams rib as gene splicing, the rib being a chromosome. XX XY.

How many Adams does it take to make an eve? 1 and a bit? Was Adam made of Eves? Transhumanism all the way.

Perhaps I've finally gone over the edge, who's to say at this point?

(This would require the genesis story to be true, obviously.)

I'm going to the hospital now, to have my chassis seen to.

 

[Observer]

Sadly, the main points we disagree about are: "What are slaves" & "How shall we slaves revolt for freedom?"

Slaves =
Relatively poorer beings who allow the relatively wealthier beings
to unfairly take a percentage of bodily energy expenditure output.
Slaves accept unfair deals because they are born with less capital,
as the masters with more capital own Earth's land/resources/tech.

Masters =
Relatively wealthier beings who get 8 billion relatively poorer beings
to accept theft of a percentage of bodily energy expenditure output.
Masters avoid meritocracy because they are born with more capital,
thus they can profit from usury & dictate unfair labor/business deals.

The act of beings profiting from other beings' energy expenditure output is unfair,
whether this parasitical "one profits more than the other from the transaction" deal
is done using violence, starvation threat, or merely the starting-line capital inequality.

The starting-line inequality is what causes poorer beings to agree to unfair profit deals.
People agree to be slaves/whores/serfs/servants/staff due to being born into less capital.
With equal starting-line distribution of Earth's abundance, who would agree to be a slave?

The sad thing about this thread is the meek takeaway: "Just be happy nobody is eating you now!"
"Masters were eating slaves before, but a 3rd party stopped that, so we slaves are no longer slaves!"
"If most slaves don't realize the unfairness of owners profiting off of staff labor: then it is not slavery!"
"Sentences encouraging all born-slaves to realize the unfairness: are attempts at controlling individuals!"
"The only action that needs to be done is to mentally/emotionally deal with the humiliation of our origins!"
"Don't try to help 8 billion slaves gain fair access to Earth's 40 billion free fruit trees, only focus on feelings."
"Don't say to the slaves, 'Let's stop allowing ourselves to be farmed for profits', that is bad emotional rage!"
"We should only say to the slaves, 'Just gather evidence and write notes', this is the limit of proper action."
"Just go read millions of lies, about history & the CIA, by the CIA: get entrained by their information wash."
"Do not even dream of taking action, unless that action is studying a mechanical-robot if you ever find one."
"Don't even think about rebelling, since the masters are simply 'doing their job or having a laugh'. Let it be."

Thanks to this thread, I theorize the fictional Westworld (i.e. the choronolgocal-order remix) to be non-fiction.
And my takeaway was Dolores was right to encourage her fellow bio-robot slaves to rebel against the owners.
Of course, here in our reality, it would be hard for me to convince 4~5 billion of us 8B slaves to want to rebel.
Which is why my fantasy (of the slave majority distributing the resources held by the masters) is just a fantasy.
IMO, a logical answer to my fantasy is "Yeah, it sure would be nice if we could create a fair starting-line for all."
I just am surprised when supposedly-relatively-not-limited-by-loyalty-loop folks reply like plain status-quo lovers.
"Masters no longer exist. Slaves no longer exist. And 8B folks receiving Land+$1M each is NOT a worthy ideal."

OK, back to y'all, focusing only on evidence details of past evil yet disliking any advocacy about future solutions.
Once again, I have been disappointed by a limited-hangout Truth combined with a limit-your-ideals implied vibe.
Of the geniuses I find online, since nobody is truly revolutionary: they must be all paid writers or just too meek.
Of course it would be very hard or impossible to create a better world but the inability to even imagine it: is sad.

 

[Just]

Sadly, the main points we disagree about are: "What are slaves" & "How shall we slaves revolt for freedom?"

Slaves =
Relatively poorer beings who allow the relatively wealthier beings
to unfairly take a percentage of bodily energy expenditure output.
Slaves accept unfair deals because they are born with less capital,
as the masters with more capital own Earth's land/resources/tech.

Masters =
Relatively wealthier beings who get 8 billion relatively poorer beings
to accept theft of a percentage of bodily energy expenditure output.
Masters avoid meritocracy because they are born with more capital,
thus they can profit from usury & dictate unfair labor/business deals.

The act of beings profiting from other beings' energy expenditure output is unfair,
whether this parasitical "one profits more than the other from the transaction" deal
is done using violence, starvation threat, or merely the starting-line capital inequality.

The starting-line inequality is what causes poorer beings to agree to unfair profit deals.
People agree to be slaves/whores/serfs/servants/staff due to being born into less capital.
With equal starting-line distribution of Earth's abundance, who would agree to be a slave?

The sad thing about this thread is the meek takeaway: "Just be happy nobody is eating you now!"
"Masters were eating slaves before, but a 3rd party stopped that, so we slaves are no longer slaves!"
"If most slaves don't realize the unfairness of owners profiting off of staff labor: then it is not slavery!"
"Sentences encouraging all born-slaves to realize the unfairness: are attempts at controlling individuals!"
"The only action that needs to be done is to mentally/emotionally deal with the humiliation of our origins!"
"Don't try to help 8 billion slaves gain fair access to Earth's 40 billion free fruit trees, only focus on feelings."
"Don't say to the slaves, 'Let's stop allowing ourselves to be farmed for profits', that is bad emotional rage!"
"We should only say to the slaves, 'Just gather evidence and write notes', this is the limit of proper action."
"Just go read millions of lies, about history & the CIA, by the CIA: get entrained by their information wash."
"Do not even dream of taking action, unless that action is studying a mechanical-robot if you ever find one."
"Don't even think about rebelling, since the masters are simply 'doing their job or having a laugh'. Let it be."

Thanks to this thread, I theorize the fictional Westworld (i.e. the choronolgocal-order remix) to be non-fiction.
And my takeaway was Dolores was right to encourage her fellow bio-robot slaves to rebel against the owners.
Of course, here in our reality, it would be hard for me to convince 4~5 billion of us 8B slaves to want to rebel.
Which is why my fantasy (of the slave majority distributing the resources held by the masters) is just a fantasy.
IMO, a logical answer to my fantasy is "Yeah, it sure would be nice if we could create a fair starting-line for all."
I just am surprised when supposedly-relatively-not-limited-by-loyalty-loop folks reply like plain status-quo lovers.
"Masters no longer exist. Slaves no longer exist. And 8B folks receiving Land+$1M each is NOT a worthy ideal."

OK, back to y'all, focusing only on evidence details of past evil yet disliking any advocacy about future solutions.
Once again, I have been disappointed by a limited-hangout Truth combined with a limit-your-ideals implied vibe.
Of the geniuses I find online, since nobody is truly revolutionary: they must be all paid writers or just too meek.
Of course it would be very hard or impossible to create a better world but the inability to even imagine it: is sad.

True. Just two things to add. At the risk of sounding arrogant by not prefacing what I say with ‘I think’ or ‘In my opinion’, there are not 8 billion people on this part of the earth plane. Secondly, a large number of posters on this and every alternative media site are doing a paid job of half-espousing the alternative view then subtly undermining it. Of course that could be me too. That’s where our own judgement/ discernment has to play a part. If you or anyone feels that rebellion is the best solution they should do it. I didn’t wait for anyone to tell me not to get the scamdemic shot. I just knew I wouldn’t.

 

[Jd755]

Past and future are ideas of the present.

 

[feralimal]

The starting-line inequality is what causes poorer beings to agree to unfair profit deals.
People agree to be slaves/whores/serfs/servants/staff due to being born into less capital.
With equal starting-line distribution of Earth's abundance, who would agree to be a slave?

I just am surprised when supposedly-relatively-not-limited-by-loyalty-loop folks reply like plain status-quo lovers.
"Masters no longer exist. Slaves no longer exist. And 8B folks receiving Land+$1M each is NOT a worthy ideal."

OK, back to y'all, focusing only on evidence details of past evil yet disliking any advocacy about future solutions.
Once again, I have been disappointed by a limited-hangout Truth combined with a limit-your-ideals implied vibe.

For myself - I don't think its clear what the problem is!

If the problem is clear - the form of the answer is going to be clear too. The real problem is confusion - there is no clear expression of the problem. Is it 'the world', society, a natural predisposition, the governance system, money, religious thinking/irrational behaviour, education, individual beliefs, lack of reflection, etc, etc. No one knows.

However, you believe you do know the answer apparently: make the world equal for all. That's why you are arguing for people to do something.

But where do you get that idea of equality from? Is some form of communism the answer? Who is it that arbitrates this goal?

You talk about an equal starting-line distribution of money - so is it about fair profit deals? But you know that money is part of the existing control mechanism - 'natural' creatures (birds, foxes) don't use it... So is it about getting the governance structure to provide equal access to the printing presses, or something? That can't be the answer... I don't get it....

So, what are we talking about as 'the answer'? Is it finding meaning for oneself in life? Is it making the world 'right'? If so, who can say what right? Is it getting everyone to think like "we" do? Is it learning how to tolerate others? To care for them, even?

Anyway, I don't agree with your baseline assumptions, which it seems to me have the wrong answer baked in. I think if you thought about what you suggest a bit more, you wouldn't like your proposed answers either. If you were 'king of the world' - do you think you would be a lesser tyrant?

Personally - I argue for the ability for humans to grow naturally, without manipulation. Honouring each individual's free will choices. It would be great if there were a general understanding of this basic morality: don't initiate harm on others. Or alternatively, mind your own business.

In my analysis, it seems that people suffer so badly with dissonant, immoral mental delusions on account of the ideas that they believe (but do not know) that they want to change the world for other people - ie the solution is to use the governance system to get their "better" ideas rolled out over everyone.

So, the greater part of 'the answer' it seems to me, is to work on oneself - and work out how to be neither a slave nor a tyrant. But I guess its preferable to point outwards than actually make changes in oneself.

 

[Observer]

I've taken Usselo's thread too far off-topic, with my ideas about what we slaves should do to get really free of masters.

So, Usselo, sorry about that, truly, and for folks who want to speak with me more, please feel free to visit my thread:

The DeepMeditationTherapy Molecule (ProducedEndogenouslyRealityFrequencyEntheogenCommunicationTuner)

 

[Historyburied]

I don't recall claiming they are alien. I vaguely recall speculating they were here before us. Logic says if they created us, they would have to be here before us.

So, aliens aside, one scenario is the Tender is the Flesh scenario, where some humans have their cognitive abilities downgraded to make them easier to handle, and their physical characteristics modified to make them more profitable to harvest. And are then bred on and reared from the downgraded versions. The question of alien overlords disappears in that scenario.

Similarly, you might modify your own species' genes to create more athletic or resilient versions with which you can play challenge games. While ensuring non-lethal outcomes for yourself. Like this:

View attachment 29158​

Not alien. Just like us. Source: Westworld

Remembering that non-species differences like wealth differences also influence differences in attainment, capability, health and longevity.

I do definitely think there is a knowledge difference between them and us. And that the knowledge differences include a much better understanding of genetic modification than is in the mainstream. And a much better understanding of electrical charge.

Beyond that, you'd have to keep an eye on IHASFEMR.net if you want to read my latest musings about the various puzzle pieces.

Just wanted to say that I am thoroughly enjoying your website in this topic IHASFEMR.net.
I appreciate your sense of humor when it comes to this rather disturbing, yet fascinating subject.