Our political future was predicted

[Votto]

Someone else posted this video here and it kind of disappeared.

However, I rather enjoyed the video. Why? Because it lacked the political mindless partisanship seen on thread after thread after thread you see on these boards

Instead, it was a thoughtful discussion about the nature of man in relation to freedom and the role of government. Missing was any discussion of political party or cult of personality that just add fodder and hubris to any meaningful discussion about anything meaningful.

The video is Mike Wallace interviewing Aldous Huxley, who wrote a Brave New World. The video is about a half our long but well worth the time to watch.

Points in the video predicted by Huxley:

1. Perceived human over population will lead to governments feeling compelled to restrict freedoms and population levels. This was well before all the talk of climate change, but those in the know understood where things were headed. This problem is not just a one country issue, however, it is a global one.

No matter your views on whether Huxley, and those like him, are convinced that human population levels are a dire concern that requires a reduction of such populations to "save" humanity, the fact is that this movement has been growing and has been adopted by world government all across the globe. In fact, one of the most famous examples was China's one child policy which lasted from 1980 to 2015.

And I'm sure everyone has heard of the Guide Stones in Georgia which were mysteriously erected by a man who went by the name R C Christian. He paid over $200,000 to erect Stone Hinge type monuments in 1980, a small fortune back then, with an environmentalist 10 commandments, the first of which was to try and reduce human population levels under 500 million people. The monuments were vandalized this year, presumably by people who understood that such a vision, that is to reduce human population levels by some 6.5 billion people, is a goal that can only be accomplished via undesirable methods. In fact, only through horrific methods of abuse and lack of freedom can this goal be accomplished. It makes Hitler look like a boy scout.

But the most troubling aspect of this movement is that the movement is propelled with the assumption that reducing human population levels must be done in order to save humanity. In other words, one need not be a sociopath to embrace the movement. As C. S. Lewis once stated,

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”​

2. Collective power = despotism. In fact, this is why Huxley, as well as most in the West, favor democracy, because democracy is suppose to divide power and restrict such collectivism that historically only breeds misery. But as Huxley accurately predicts, what do you do when you are given a choice for who to vote for that is not really a choice at all? And what do you do when propaganda rises to a level that negates the ability to reason? In other words, what happens when voters are herded like cattle to do their bidding by various clever methods?

 

[Moonglow]

All humans die.

 

[Votto]

All humans die.

Wow.

Ok.

Yes, so.................................wut then are you saying?

 

[Votto]

The climate movement is a global one, as according to them the movement cannot succeed unless the entire world is on board

This gives the necessity for the following things

1. Unlimited and unquestioned government power to fight global warming as they see fit.

2. A world government, or confederation of world governments, all working as one to do the above.

The obstacle, to which, is individual freedoms.

What am I missing here?

 

[Votto]

It is often hard to distinguish between the Climate activist who is sincere vs. those just in the game to gain power and personal wealth over the movement.

For example, Al Gore flies around the world, drives SUV's and owns mansions he heats and cools 24/7 while telling the rest of the world not do to those things.

Meamwhile, he has positioned himself to make a killing financially off of his climate gospel.

Is he sincere? Then again, does it matter if he is?

At the end of the day, those who are sincere and those who are not will be joined hand in hand anyway awaiting the same outcome.

 

[liarintheWH]

All humans die.

All that intellect in one post.

Good job Moonglow.

 

[Votto]

All that intellect in one post.

Good job Moonglow.

Orange man bad!!

Maybe that will spark some more neural activity so he can make another post

In fact, Huxley debates on whether those attempting to steer elections might find various drugs to aid their fixing the vote and support.

Little did he know, all that needed to be done was to put as many people on mind altering substances as possible so that they would simply drop out of the political process altogether. Then those that do vote will more than likely vote for issues that are key to them being enabled to continue their illicit drug use. This means they will do such things as vote for those protecting the drug routes across the border, or limiting police enforcement of drug laws.

All other issues are of little concern for them..

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

Should be forcibly tattooed on every leftist's forehead.

 

[Votto]

Should be forcibly tattooed on every leftist's forehead.

Judging from the response thus far, this is not a conversation the Left wants to have

In fact, the man who secretly erected the Guide Stones in Georgia I think made a mistake by trying to bring attention to the movement.

I think it entirely possible that the same group of people who erected the slabs were the same ones who destroyed them

After all, how do you rid yourself of 6.5 billion people?

Such cabals are better left in secret since it is a movement for the half a million who are left to live or reproduce, etc., and not the poor 6.5 billion who are simply out of luck.

 

[Moonglow]

Orange man bad!!

Maybe that will spark some more neural activity so he can make another post

In fact, Huxley debates on whether those attempting to steer elections might find various drugs to aid their fixing the vote and support.

Little did he know, all that needed to be done was to put as many people on mind altering substances as possible so that they would simply drop out of the political process altogether. Then those that do vote will more than likely vote for issues that are key to them being enabled to continue their illicit drug use. This means they will do such things as vote for those protecting the drug routes across the border, or limiting police enforcement of drug laws.

All other issues are of little concern for them..

Alcohol is a mind-altering substance and highly addictive yet humans have used it unabated through history with the few exceptions when the teetotalers got their way, yet the majority have always been drunk. Other drugs have been available since the advent of the chemist which has been around several hundred years and then you have plants that were consumed in the native state or processed for use and that has been going on for thousands of years...Your analogy could be correct if you use the correct players yet those players are local and not national. I have yet to find access to any blotter acid and since you know so much about drug use I figure you could tell me where to score since I have not seen any since 1991, as far as voting I tend to vote against anyone holding office just to exercise term limits.

 

[Votto]

Alcohol is a mind-altering substance and highly addictive yet humans have used it unabated through history with the few exceptions when the teetotalers got their way, yet the majority have always been drunk. Other drugs have been available since the advent of the chemist which has been around several hundred years and then you have plants that were consumed in the native state or processed for use and that has been going on for thousands of years...Your analogy could be correct if you use the correct players yet those players are local and not national. I have yet to find access to any blotter acid and since you know so much about drug use I figure you could tell me where to score since I have not seen any since 1991, as far as voting I tend to vote against anyone holding office just to exercise term limits.

Odd you should mention that because Prohibition was just a scheme to pass the Federal Income tax by Progressives

Alcoholism at the turn of the 20th century was horrific, so many evangelicals wanted to restrict it legally. However, the US federal government was funded primarily by the taxes from the sale of alcohol.

Before the turn of the 20th century, Progressive attempted to create a US federal income tax, but the Supreme Court struck it down as Unconstitutional. Undaunted, Progressives simply decided to add it to the Constitution, but how to get the votes?

They simply saw that alcohol sales funded the US federal government, and they saw that evangelicals wanted to ban alcohol, so they hatched a plan to suggest to them to vote for the US federal income tax, and in return, they would vote to ban alcohol so that both parties were happy.

So first they passed the US Federal Income tax, and then they voted for Prohibition. However, Progressives never wanted to ban alcohol, and even though they voted for Prohibition, they simply let the enforcement of it fail. In fact, they were buying alcohol in the very chambers of Congress from which they voted to ban it. Then they just shrugged their shoulders and said," That didn't work, so let's repeal the Prohibition"

Once they voted to repeal Prohibition, the taxes from the alcohol sales were resumed to fund the US Federal government, in addition to the newly created federal income taxes. They doubled their taxation revenue.

And to this day, the state runs liquor stores directly to the public. Meanwhile, alcohol kills more people every year than any other drug.

It is a common theme of government, scheme to disempower the populace for their own political power. The rich in government get richer, while at the same time record numbers of people die from alcoholism, leaving behind fewer carbon footprints.

It is the best of both worlds.

 

[Votto]

If nothing else, my favorite line of the interview with Huxley is when he said that one day voters will be forced to vote below the level of choice and reason.

And looking at candidates today, who can argue?

 

[Votto]

For those that don't know, the Guide Stones I mentioned were built in Georgia in 1980 but someone who wished to remain anonomous. However, people later found out who it was.

He went by R C Christian, but his real name was Robert Carter Cook.

So who was Robert Carter Cook, and why did he have a small fortune to spend on the monument?

On the internet, there is not much information about him at all. Imagine that. LOL

Robert C. Cook - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Robert Carter Cook (April 9, 1898 – January 7, 1991) was an American geneticist and demographer. He was editor of the Journal of Heredity for 40 years, a lecturer in medical genetics and biology at George Washington University, and director, then president, of the Population Reference Bureau in Washington, D.C. He was involved with the eugenics movement of the first half of the 20th century, and an authority on population policy and the effects of population growth on the environment.[1][2]

And that is it.

On other web sites there are those that say Cook at connections to Bill Gates father.

You know Bill Gates, the guy buying up all the nations farm land, the food people will need to survive.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Odd you should mention that because Prohibition was just a scheme to pass the Federal Income tax by Progressives

Alcoholism at the turn of the 20th century was horrific, so many evangelicals wanted to restrict it legally. However, the US federal government was funded primarily by the taxes from the sale of alcohol.

Before the turn of the 20th century, Progressive attempted to create a US federal income tax, but the Supreme Court struck it down as Unconstitutional. Undaunted, Progressives simply decided to add it to the Constitution, but how to get the votes?

They simply saw that alcohol sales funded the US federal government, and they saw that evangelicals wanted to ban alcohol, so they hatched a plan to suggest to them to vote for the US federal income tax, and in return, they would vote to ban alcohol so that both parties were happy.

So first they passed the US Federal Income tax, and then they voted for Prohibition. However, Progressives never wanted to ban alcohol, and even though they voted for Prohibition, they simply let the enforcement of it fail. In fact, they were buying alcohol in the very chambers of Congress from which they voted to ban it. Then they just shrugged their shoulders and said," That didn't work, so let's repeal the Prohibition"

Once they voted to repeal Prohibition, the taxes from the alcohol sales were resumed to fund the US Federal government, in addition to the newly created federal income taxes. They doubled their taxation revenue.

And to this day, the state runs liquor stores directly to the public. Meanwhile, alcohol kills more people every year than any other drug.

It is a common theme of government, scheme to disempower the populace for their own political power. The rich in government get richer, while at the same time record numbers of people die from alcoholism, leaving behind fewer carbon footprints.

It is the best of both worlds.

Alcohol kills more people every year than any other drug?

Fentanyl kills 300 people every day. What are your stats?