Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Highly technological global society or technology only for "elites"?

Which do you favor? In my mind the only stable technological model that is applicable for the future is the one exposed in Vikernes article Civilisation. There is no way something good will result from a total cyberpunk , transhuman and transgender society like the one that's being pushed by the media in all ways. Because in my opinion if the merging of man and machine continues in extreme ways, there will be more and more transgenderism too.

Its inevitable: I've been reading some writings of the supposed "paranormal" Ingo Swann (wether or not he is paranormal, the point stands) and the talks about how in decades and centuries past, a common "life force" or energy was common sense for most people and men of science. Gradually it was reduced to more mechanic aspects until we don't eve talk about this often today. Our modern hospitals do not usually acknowledge and apply those concepts. The life force thus becomes corrupted and trans-gender and degeneration occur for lack of contact with vital things and natural habitat.

Really, if technology is to continue in this way, and available for all, things would be very dark. The unabomber was somewhat right about some things in my opinion.

Consider a highly technological society in the future, that would require a lot of people just sitting the whole day doing mind tasks with the telepathically controlled robots (this technology is currently being developed and gets better by the minute). Much more time than they already do now!

We all know that man cannot successfully be removed from his natural environment.

Meanwhile when all the smart people are confined in technology like this to keep the system running, only stupid people would do things that require force.

Then again, and I think Brett Stevens knows this from his contacts, world leaders from the shadows already agreed with ANUS: reduce the population and care for the environment, preserve people and race, and continue the development of technology at the hands of scientific people only, while most people live without great technologies and an ecological life. The scientists, of course, also know the importance of nature and regularly exercise communion with nature and vital aspects of life to improve their science work. It's just that the time hasn't come yet to reveal that to the population, who thinks this whole agenda of political corrects and world peace being fed right now is for real and is the new 1.000 years reich of peace.

You don't really think world leaders are so stupid as to believe all those lies? Don't really think history is running crazy without rationality and planning beyond generations by world leaders and influential people? Beyond self-satisfaction, the satisfaction of having changed the future? What moved Marx (a shadowy figure involved in myster, conspiracy and partnership with influential powerful men), and other fanatical men?

http://scarletimprint.com/pdf/JMG%20The%20Blood%20of%20the%20Earth%20Introduction.pdf


A poor person in poverty and a noble in poverty are very different things. Silly gadgets don't make a noble person. Liberals upholding wasteful use of technology discredit their theories as they believe people have rights to anything, or rather, some things.

Most people would live wholly agrarian roles and benefit from it, or do people rather enjoy living in insignificance among dead and gray cities? Children are the true value of any of us. Further than any industrialist society upholds workers, a traditional life creates something far more lasting.

I don't know if you only wanted to show your metal song or imply it is really "technophobia", but if it's the latter, it's not technophobia.

I believe in keeping what we have now, including internet, but the average person now is already an abuser of internet, if compared with a normal person in 1997. Health improvements in science of course should continue and be available (while also studying how living integrated with the life force and nature can prevent maladies, and teaching people to be responsible with chemicals in food and not to believe the big pharmaceutical companies in all they say). But I don't see how my post is unrealistic, what I predict in it has been already discussed by a lot of people and everyone knows our goals now are to create robots and computers controlled directly by interfacing with the human mind. We also know that for every technology that succeeds and is put to practical use for the first time, decades can elapse before common folk start to know about it.


We're bound for, nay, in the midst of witnessing the teeming masses who are not up to the moral, intellectual and technical challenges created by a rarer world minority.

There is a limit to the extent that we can increasingly dumb down our increasingly complexifying systems to fit each end user, emerging market, or modernizing government.

Glass ceilings are getting smacked all around the world right now, yet the few ascendant who have yet to reach theirs are leaving the rest behind.

Here we have the ingredients of anarchy and revolt where blame is misplaced by the poor judgement of those having inherited lesser abilities.