Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

Should the expression of randomness be allowed in a population if it is not allowed in a herd Why or why not?

Forget the history books this is pure 100 % herd management

Randomness being actions unexpected by the herd keeper or which make maintenance contact or control difficult Docility prevents and slows down random occurrences and can be bred into cattle and horses along with other prime examples of pets being incorporated into human households

Homogenization of qualities amongst the herds ensures tranquility -- It is important to keep sub herds separate from each other and if possible unaware of each other while managing large or multiple herds

Now if you are allowed encouraged and rewarded in so many ways to avoid random qualities or actions to arise in your herd of cattle or horses -- why would it be wrong of the Captains of industry to do the same Managing several sub herds of person by TV show or political party or or or

So if it is taught done practiced and praised in cattle -- Is it also in men ?

7 Answers

  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I am going to answer your question like someone who wants to control the masses-this isn't "me" talking per se-

    While your analogy is largely true, I think that is misses a key element. Cattle are meant to be slaughtered-they do not fight for their owners or work in any conceivable way. Being docile is they key to controlling a herd who have no other use. But since the people must do our work for us, docility is not actually what we should be promoting.

    So I offer instead an alternative view-"Divisive Momentum".

    To control a group requires another group or individuals outside control. This group cannot and should not totally be gotten rid of, it has to exist even if it's hunted down. It is the odd paradox, but put in contemporary light it makes sense-the hunt for the every elusive devil.

    We as those who control the masses-or "herd" as you call them, need those to contrast the ideal follower we wish to promote. The rebel, non-conformist, enemy plant, etc. These are necessary to control the rest. Paranoia then, is the key to control. We make them suspect one another, if only to avoid suspicion themselves. But it must also be carefully done as well-for if every member is against every member it will cause chaos unless a direct authoritarian presence holds the reigns. Since we lack such a presence we should instead have the masses divided into three groups-A, B and C. In the United States we largely call them Liberals, Conservatives and Moderates. There are other sub-categories (Libertarians, Socialists, Anarchists, etc.) but they actually exist largely as A, B or C.

    Those in the middle must subtly be made an enemy-mocked, ridiculed and even hated, the Moderates are the "fence sitters". Distrusted by many since they don't fall into easily labeled categories, the Moderates can be essentially ignored in the media unless elections come around.

    Remember, if ever the masses were in a single group they would be unmanageable without a harsh authoritarian leader. They must be divided if we are to keep controlling them in the way that we have been thus far.

    The goal is to get people thinking in largely Manichean ways-black and white, left and right, good and evil, etc. As a result they build off of one another-hating each other with a passion that drives them onward to outdo the "other" side. So long as they ultimately blame the "other" side for their problems, and reject Moderate views they will largely stay in place and do our bidding without realizing it.

    So what DO we do with the Moderates who refuse to fit into any category? We in charge must ignore them. Little or no corporate funding has prevented any true Moderate resurgence in politics anyway, so ignoring them will cut this back even more so. We should also continue to promote the notion that "Moderate" is simply a place in between two points WE made up as opposed to a mindset not beset by partisan hatred and a desire to belong that allows their fellow citizens to be controlled.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    I prefer they might in simple terms call it like it relatively is instead of putting candy euphamisms on it: professional-decision and professional-existence. it rather is professional-abortion or anti-abortion, the two for or against. professional-decision removes the nasty be conscious "abortion" and is asserting you have the choice to abort or not; to that end spinning a nicer thank you to declare I prefer human beings's right for abortion on call for. And whoever invented "professional-existence" is putting its own spin on it. so a techniques as implementing morality on the comprehensive usa, are not maximum all rules implementing ethical standards on society? Abortion isn't pronounced interior the Bible, different than inflicting an injury to a pregnant mom the place she loses her toddler. it rather is until now the scientific community practiced it. i don't be attentive to how this have been given pinned on the non secular community. possibly those of religion could in simple terms have greater beneficial morals. i don't look at it lots as coming from a non secular view. If it relatively is a previous due form of start administration it relatively is a mom killing her toddler. all of us began out in that state, it relatively is someone, and that i'm unfavorable to killing it simply by fact it rather is invconvenient. in many aspects of the international they abort previous due interior the third trimester whilst the toddler could stay to tell the tale exterior the womb, utilising partial start abortion the place they tear out products of the toddler at a time. The ultrasound video "Silent Scream" confirmed the toddler's mouth pass huge open crying on a similar time as being torn to products, helping ban previous due term abortions interior the U.S. What it comes all the way down to is a egocentric mentality that opts for amorality the place human beings prefer to flee with homicide by technique of by some means asserting it rather is not a human, it relatively is a fetus.

  • 10 years ago

    Sound like a great idea for a book. the title could be "Brave New World" but wait that one is taken. Could you make it an autobiography and call it "My Struggle"?

  • 10 years ago

    How about politicians who reward mediocrity and complacency every day with bailouts, welfare, eternal unemployment, etc., etc.?

    If that's not herd management, what is it?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    Politicians assure us that we are free while they herd us into the slaughterhouse.

  • 10 years ago

    God Lord man for talking about natural laws - we can have that.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago


    You're brilliant, man...

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.