Vegetarian Discussion: Human Farming - Society Cannot Be Rationally Understood Until It Is Seen For What It Is -- A Series Of Farms Where Human Farmers Own And Benefit From Human Livestock

Human Farming - Society Cannot Be Rationally Understood Until It Is Seen For What It Is -- A Series Of Farms Where Human Farmers Own And Benefit From Human Livestock
Posts: 527

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Immortalist
2011-10-11 12:23:19 EST
Human Farming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkdur94d5Z8

The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever. Machines invented to
make human life easier end up enslaving humanity - this is the most
common theme in dystopian science fiction. Why is this fear so
universal - so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our
toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords? Of
course not. This is not a future that we fear, but a past that we are
already living.

Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and
safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity. That which we
create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.

The US government "by and for the people" now imprisons millions,
takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes,
tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows
governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the
currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts. That
which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.

The problem with the "state as servant" thesis is that it is
historically completely false, both empirically and logically. The
idea that states were voluntarily invented by citizens to enhance
their own security is utterly untrue.

Before governments, in tribal times, human beings could only produce
what they consumed -- there was no excess production of food or other
resources. Thus, there was no point owning slaves, because the slave
could not produce any excess that could be stolen by the master. If a
horse pulling a plow can only produce enough additional food to feed
the horse, there is no point hunting, capturing and breaking in a
horse.

However, when agricultural improvements allowed for the creation of
excess crops, suddenly it became highly advantageous to own human
beings. When cows began to provide excess milk and meat, owning cows
became worthwhile.

The earliest governments and empires were in fact a ruling class of
slave hunters, who understood that because human beings could produce
more than they consumed, they were worth hunting, capturing, breaking
in - and owning.

The earliest Egyptian and Chinese empires were in reality human farms,
where people were hunted, captured, domesticated and owned like any
other form of livestock. Due to technological and methodological
improvements, the slaves produced enough excess that the labor
involved in capturing and keeping them represented only a small subset
of their total productivity. The ruling class - the farmers - kept a
large portion of that excess, while handing out gifts and payments to
the brutalizing class - the police, slave hunters, and general sadists
- and the propagandizing class - the priests, intellectuals, and
artists.

This situation continued for thousands of years, until the 16-17th
centuries, when again massive improvements in agricultural
organization and technology created the second wave of excess
productivity. The enclosure movement re-organized and consolidated
farmland, resulting in 5-10 times more crops, creating a new class of
industrial workers, displaced from the country and huddling in the new
cities. This enormous agricultural excess was the basis of the capital
that drove the industrial revolution. The Industrial Revolution did
not arise because the ruling class wanted to free their serfs, but
rather because they realized how additional "liberties" could make
their livestock astoundingly more productive. When cows are placed in
very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls,
resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more
room -- not because they want to set their cows free, but rather
because they want greater productivity and lower costs.

The next stop after "free range" is not "freedom." The rise of state
capitalism in the 19th century was actually the rise of "free range
serfdom." Additional liberties were granted to the human livestock not
with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of
increasing their productivity.

Of course, intellectuals, artists and priests were - and are - well
paid to conceal this reality. The great problem of modern human
livestock ownership is the challenge of "enthusiasm." State capitalism
only works when the entrepreneurial spirit drives creativity and
productivity in the economy.

However, excess productivity always creates a larger state, and swells
the ruling classes and their dependents, which eats into the
motivation for additional productivity. Taxes and regulations rise,
state debt (future farming) increases, and living standards slow and
decay. Depression and despair began to spread, as the reality of being
owned sets in for the general population. The solution to this is
additional propaganda, antidepressant medications, superstition, wars,
moral campaigns of every kind, the creation of "enemies," the
inculcation of patriotism, collective fears, paranoia about
"outsiders" and "immigrants," and so on.

It is essential to understand the reality of the world. When you look
at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.

You are allowed certain liberties - limited property ownership,
movement rights, freedom of association and occupation - not because
your government approves of these rights in principle - since it
constantly violates them - but rather because "free range livestock"
is so much cheaper to own and so more productive.

It is important to understand the reality of ideologies. State
capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy - these are all
livestock management approaches. Some work well for long periods -
state capitalism - and some work very badly - communism.

[...]The recent growth of "freedom" in China, India and Asia is
occurring because the local state farmers have upgraded their
livestock management practices. They have recognized that putting the
cows in a larger stall provides the rulers more milk and meat.

Rulers have also recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the
farm, you will become depressed, inert and unproductive. A serf is the
most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must
provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most
effectively. Thus you are "allowed" to leave - but never to real
freedom, only to another farm, because the whole world is a farm. They
will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in
endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work -- but you
are "free" to leave. Due to these difficulties, very few people do
leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained. If only 1 out of
1,000 cows escapes, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises
the productivity of the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the
farmer.

You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive
livestock are the professionals, so the rulers fit them with an
electronic dog collar called a "license," which only allows them to
practice their trade on their own farm.

To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms, the
livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers that the
investors present. At best, they are given minor choices in how they
are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down the farm,
and be truly free.

Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train
children to "love" the farm, and to fear true freedom and
independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of
human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals
that state propaganda so relies on.

The ridiculous contradictions of statism -- like religion -- can only
be sustained through endless propaganda inflicted upon helpless
children. The idea that democracy and some sort of "social contract"
justifies the brutal exercise of violent power over billions is
patently ridiculous. If you say to a slave that his ancestors "chose"
slavery, and therefore he is bound by their decisions, he will simply
say: "If slavery is a choice, then I choose not to be a slave." This
is the most frightening statement for the ruling classes, which is why
they train their slaves to attack anyone who dares speak it.

Statism is not a philosophy. Statism does not originate from
historical evidence or rational principles. Statism is an ex post
facto justification for human ownership. Statism is an excuse for
violence. Statism is an ideology, and all ideologies are variations on
human livestock management practices. Religion is pimped-out
superstition, designed to drug children with fears that they will
endlessly pay to have "alleviated." Nationalism is pimped-out bigotry,
designed to provoke a Stockholm Syndrome in the livestock.

----

[...]Like all animals, human beings want to dominate and exploit the
resources around them. At first, we mostly hunted and fished and ate
off the land - but then something magical and terrible happened to our
minds. We became, alone among the animals, afraid of death, and of
future loss. And this was the start of a great tragedy, and an even
greater possibility...

You see, when we became afraid of death, of injury, and imprisonment,
we became controllable -- and so valuable -- in a way that no other
resource could ever be. The greatest resource for any human being to
control is not natural resources, or tools, or animals or land -- but
other human beings.

You can frighten an animal, because animals are afraid of pain in the
moment, but you cannot frighten an animal with a loss of liberty, or
with torture or imprisonment in the future, because animals have very
little sense of tomorrow. You cannot threaten a cow with torture, or a
sheep with death. You cannot swing a sword at a tree and scream at it
to produce more fruit, or hold a burning torch to a field and demand
more wheat. You cannot get more eggs by threatening a hen - but you
can get a man to give you his eggs by threatening him.

Human farming has been the most profitable -- and destructive --
occupation throughout history, and it is now reaching its destructive
climax. Human society cannot be rationally understood until it is seen
for what it is: a series of farms where human farmers own human
livestock.

Some people get confused because governments provide healthcare and
water and education and roads, and thus imagine that there is some
benevolence at work. Nothing could be further from reality. Farmers
provide healthcare and irrigation and training to their livestock.

Some people get confused because we are allowed certain liberties, and
thus imagine that our government protects our freedoms. But farmers
plant their crops a certain distance apart to increase their yields --
and will allow certain animals larger stalls or fields if it means
they will produce more meat and milk. In your country, your tax farm,
your farmer grants you certain freedoms not because he cares about
your liberties, but because he wants to increase his profits. Are you
beginning to see the nature of the cage you were born into?

There have been four major phases of human farming.

The first phase, in ancient Egypt, was direct and brutal human
compulsion. Human bodies were controlled, but the creative
productivity of the human mind remained outside the reach of the whip
and the brand and the shackles. Slaves remained woefully
underproductive, and required enormous resources to control.

The second phase was the Roman model, wherein slaves were granted some
capacity for freedom, ingenuity and creativity, which raised their
productivity. This increased the wealth of Rome, and thus the tax
income of the Roman government - and with this additional wealth, Rome
became an empire, destroying the economic freedoms that fed its power,
and collapsed. I'm sure that this does not seem entirely unfamiliar.

After the collapse of Rome, the feudal model introduced the concept of
livestock ownership and taxation. Instead of being directly owned,
peasants farmed land that they could retain as long as they paid off
the local warlords. This model broke down due to the continual
subdivision of productive land, and was destroyed during the Enclosure
movement, when land was consolidated, and hundreds of thousands of
peasants were kicked off their ancestral lands, because new farming
techniques made larger farms more productive with fewer people.

The increased productivity of the late Middle Ages created the excess
food required for the expansion of towns and cities, which in turn
gave rise to the modern Democratic model of human ownership. As
displaced peasants flooded into the cities, a huge stock of cheap
human capital became available to the rising industrialists - and the
ruling class of human farmers quickly realized that they could make
more money by letting their livestock choose their own occupations.
Under the Democratic model, direct slave ownership has been replaced
by the Mafia model. The Mafia rarely owns businesses directly, but
rather sends thugs around once a month to steal from the business
"owners." You are now allowed to choose your own occupation, which
raises your productivity - and thus the taxes you can pay to your
masters. Your few freedoms are preserved because they are profitable
to your owners.

The great challenge of the Democratic model is that increases in
wealth and freedom threaten the farmers. The ruling classes initially
profit from a relatively free market in capital and labor, but as
their livestock become more used to their freedoms and growing wealth,
they begin to question why they need rulers at all.

Ah well. Nobody ever said that human farming was easy.

Keeping the tax livestock securely in the compounds of the ruling
classes is a three phase process.

The first is to indoctrinate the young through government "education."
As the wealth of democratic countries grew, government schools were
universally inflicted in order to control the thoughts and souls of
the livestock.

The second is to turn citizens against each other through the creation
of dependent livestock. It is very difficult to rule human beings
directly through force -- and where it can be achieved, it remains
cripplingly underproductive, as can be seen in North Korea. Human
beings do not breed well or produce efficiently in direct captivity.
If human beings believe that they are free, then they will produce
much more for their farmers. The best way to maintain this illusion of
freedom is to put some of the livestock on the payroll of the farmer.
Those cows that become dependent on the existing hierarchy will then
attack any other cows who point out the violence, hypocrisy and
immorality of human ownership. Freedom is slavery, and slavery is
freedom. If you can get the cows to attack each other whenever anybody
brings up the reality of their situation, then you don't have to spend
nearly as much controlling them directly. Those cows who become
dependent upon the stolen largess of the farmer will violently oppose
any questioning of the virtue of human ownership -- and the
intellectual and artistic classes, always and forever dependent upon
the farmers -- will say, to anyone who demands freedom from ownership:
"You will harm your fellow cows." The livestock are kept enclosed by
shifting the moral responsibility for the destructiveness of a violent
system to those who demand real freedom.

The third phase is to invent continual external threats, so that the
frightened livestock cling to the "protection" of the farmers. [...]

http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/blogs/freedomain/



 


Derek
2011-10-11 14:06:54 EST
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 09:23:19 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

[]
>You can frighten an animal, because animals are afraid of pain in the
>moment, but you cannot frighten an animal with a loss of liberty, or
>with torture or imprisonment in the future, because animals have very
>little sense of tomorrow.

Exactly. The Bischof-Köhler hypothesis holds that nonhuman animals
cannot anticipate and act toward the satisfaction of a future need not
currently experienced or cued by their present motivational state.

[]
>Ah well. Nobody ever said that human farming was easy.

Well that depends on how it's promoted. A long-time poster here
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian who used to promote animal rights
while attacking the livestock industry now believes conscientious
omnivorism provides a better outcome.

"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised for food
on farms have lives which are such that it is better that they
live that life than that they not live at all."
Rupert 24 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28

Paraphrasing that gives, "I accept that some []human animals who are
raised for food on farms have lives which are such that it is better
that they live that life than that they not live at all."

Of course, he refuses to say what outcome he's referring to, and he's
refusing to indicate who or what benefits from the better outcome but,
nevertheless, it's easy to see how a person's changed view can make
life for those already oppressed far more so if that tyranny is done
out of respect for the oppressed.

Michael Gordge
2011-10-11 17:04:52 EST
On Oct 12, 1:23 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Human farming ...

"The more like humans humans treat animals the more like animals
humans become"

I cant remember by who, but it was said in a debate regarding the SPCA
and their silly fundamental belief that animals have rights.

MG

George Plimpton
2011-10-11 17:13:38 EST
On 10/11/2011 2:04 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Oct 12, 1:23 am, Immortalist<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Human farming ...
>
> "The more like humans humans treat animals the more like animals
> humans become"
>
> I cant remember by who, but it was said in a debate regarding the SPCA
> and their silly fundamental belief that animals have rights.

It's bumper sticker logic - catchy-sounding but wrong.

Jeff M
2011-10-11 17:39:36 EST
On 10/11/2011 4:04 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Oct 12, 1:23 am, Immortalist<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Human farming ...
>
> "The more like humans humans treat animals the more like animals
> humans become"
>
> I cant remember by who, but it was said in a debate regarding the SPCA
> and their silly fundamental belief that animals have rights.

Animals have no rights. But people have responsibilities. The word
"humane" is used advisedly in the title "Humane Society."

Cruelty to animals is corrosive to *human* character, and the
suppression and punishment of it is a worthy mark of a civilized people.

Jeff M
2011-10-11 17:41:46 EST
On 10/11/2011 4:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 2:04 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 1:23 am, Immortalist<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Human farming ...
>>
>> "The more like humans humans treat animals the more like animals
>> humans become"
>>
>> I cant remember by who, but it was said in a debate regarding the SPCA
>> and their silly fundamental belief that animals have rights.
>
> It's bumper sticker logic - catchy-sounding but wrong.


Yep, but isn't "animal rights" more of a PETA thing?

Personally, I love animals -

they're delicious.

George Plimpton
2011-10-11 18:30:09 EST
On 10/11/2011 2:41 PM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 4:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 2:04 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 1:23 am, Immortalist<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Human farming ...
>>>
>>> "The more like humans humans treat animals the more like animals
>>> humans become"
>>>
>>> I cant remember by who, but it was said in a debate regarding the SPCA
>>> and their silly fundamental belief that animals have rights.
>>
>> It's bumper sticker logic - catchy-sounding but wrong.
>
>
> Yep, but isn't "animal rights" more of a PETA thing?

Gordge got it wrong. It isn't SPCA, it's HSUS. They are close PETA
allies - lots of overlap in membership. SPCA is an animal welfare
outfit; HSUS is the bunch of animal rights lunatics.


>
> Personally, I love animals -
>
> they're delicious.


Jeff M
2011-10-11 18:37:47 EST
On 10/11/2011 5:30 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 2:41 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 4:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 10/11/2011 2:04 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>>> On Oct 12, 1:23 am, Immortalist<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Human farming ...
>>>>
>>>> "The more like humans humans treat animals the more like animals
>>>> humans become"
>>>>
>>>> I cant remember by who, but it was said in a debate regarding the SPCA
>>>> and their silly fundamental belief that animals have rights.
>>>
>>> It's bumper sticker logic - catchy-sounding but wrong.
>>
>>
>> Yep, but isn't "animal rights" more of a PETA thing?
>
> Gordge got it wrong. It isn't SPCA, it's HSUS. They are close PETA
> allies - lots of overlap in membership. SPCA is an animal welfare
> outfit; HSUS is the bunch of animal rights lunatics.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

Dutch
2011-10-11 19:30:47 EST


"Jeff M" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org> wrote in message
news:i4mdnUNTrepNKwnTnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 10/11/2011 4:04 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 1:23 am, Immortalist<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Human farming ...
>>
>> "The more like humans humans treat animals the more like animals
>> humans become"
>>
>> I cant remember by who, but it was said in a debate regarding the SPCA
>> and their silly fundamental belief that animals have rights.
>
> Animals have no rights. But people have responsibilities. The word
> "humane" is used advisedly in the title "Humane Society."
>
> Cruelty to animals is corrosive to *human* character, and the suppression
> and punishment of it is a worthy mark of a civilized people.

It also hurts the animals.


Jeff M
2011-10-11 19:43:12 EST
On 10/11/2011 6:30 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
> "Jeff M" <NoSpam@NoThanks.Org> wrote in message
> news:i4mdnUNTrepNKwnTnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 10/11/2011 4:04 PM, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 1:23 am, Immortalist<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Human farming ...
>>>
>>> "The more like humans humans treat animals the more like animals
>>> humans become"
>>>
>>> I cant remember by who, but it was said in a debate regarding the SPCA
>>> and their silly fundamental belief that animals have rights.
>>
>> Animals have no rights. But people have responsibilities. The word
>> "humane" is used advisedly in the title "Humane Society."
>>
>> Cruelty to animals is corrosive to *human* character, and the
>> suppression and punishment of it is a worthy mark of a civilized people.
>
> It also hurts the animals.

Of course. Hurting animals unnecessarily is cruel. Just because
animals lack legal rights doesn't mean they can't feel, e.g., pain and
fear, or experience discomfort, want, suffering and misery.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron