After studying this topic for some time I have reached a conclusion.
On the left we have the Good Guys. On the right we have the Good Girls. And in the middle we have Fuck Heads.
The Good Girls do what they are supposed to do and look for the Good Guys but in glancing in their direction they see the Fuck Heads and get captured by them. They typically have six kids and get beaten up every night and it ends in divorce etc.
The Good Guys glance in the direction of the Good Girls but only see the female Fuck Heads in the middle and typically avoid or swear at them and remain in isolation.
The Government supports the Fuck Heads in the middle because the stupid population are very useful and generate a huge income, as well as democracy etc.
The State pretends that there is a society that will work for the Good Guys, but this is a lie. You can see that what is needed is a social culture suspended above the heads of the Fuck Heads in the middle, where the Good Guys and the Goods Girls can meet each other. And you can see that this would be elitist. Knowing that this is what is needed means that you can consider various methods and ask does this method avoid the Fuck Heads in the middle.
Arranged marriages typically arranged by the parents will bypass the Fuck Heads in the middle.
Expensive elitist dating agencies where both partners have to have lots of money will tend to work.
Class distinction was a way of avoiding the lower classes and would have worked.
Elliot Rodger was murdering people that he thought were the Fuck Heads. The social structure that he needed and that was implied to exist by the state was not present to any tangible degree. There was no group to help him, and therein lies the problem.
So... some people seem to be elitist by nature and this makes them behave much better than the common people. These are upper class people. Natural Princes and Princesses. Some social structure is needed to bring this Royalty together, but the Government supports scum instead. The problem here is that money is no indicator of status.
1. Naturally occuring elitism.
2. They don't know that they have this.
3. None of the regular social structures work for them.
4. After a time they become rather dangerous.
So these people think they are the same as everybody else. They then find that while the usual social order works for everybody else, it doesn't work for them. They then jump to the conclusion that it's everybody elses fault. Eventually they pound on the people around them.
Isis new that these people were out there. They new that with a little provocation and a little training they could be encouraged to murder the people around them where they lived. So they new that this tendency was naturally occuring and would occur in all the countries of the world. This was not just luck or percentages. Ready made 5th columnists that could be sparked to their cause.
Now how did they know this? It seems unlikely that the information came from the muslim religion as they were twisting that to their cause. It must have been some information that came from arabic culture itself. These people in the arabic world were being handled in some way? The arabs got on well with the Nazis so elitism was not frowned upon. We must assume that the information came from Saudi Arabia and that the arabs have a solution to this?
This means that arabic culture should be studied to find the answer.
The Modern Jazz musician is a naturally occuring elitist. Using an instrument instead of a gun. Whether Mozart was an elitist is unclear. Modern HipHop might be viewed in a similar light.
In films Batman would be an elitist as would most of his villains. Daath Vader would be an elitist as would Luke Skywalker. Buffy The Vampire Slayer was a naturally occuring elitist trained to use weapons to kill an unseen enemy lurking in the background. An enemy that was a threat to the blood of the people. A Nazi element perhaps?
It seems that within the prevailing culture there are strands of an elitist subculture. The naturally occuring elitist needs to immerse himself within this elitist subculture for peace of mind. Some effort is required to identify these elitist strands so they can be brought together to provide an alternative to the prevailing culture. Otherwise the tendency is to try to destroy the prevailing culture.
*What happens in practice is that they tend to look for elitist organisations to belong to, such as Neo Nazis, White Supremacists, Muslim Terrorists, where they can then associate with like minded people.
What is needed is an elitist strand to handle socialising. In the case of prostitutes it is clear that this is the exact opposite of elitist. If we ask what is the opposite of the prostitute, the answer is the virgin and it is these virgins that are the reward for the muslim suicide bombers - presumably elitists.
Arabic culture may have elitist strands that are more useful?
However... there is an intriguing loophole.
The natural elitist has no problem fitting into the working environment. They can get jobs. They can work and earn money. This is because the working environment is a Dictatorship, and as you'll realise Dictatorships are Elitist. The working environment has an elitist culture.
Both common and elitist people can be found in the working environment.
The implication is that the working environment can provide an opportunity for elite males and females to socialise. The secretary marries her boss. Parked cars away from the CCTV allow all sorts of things to happen. Currently these people risk getting the sack but the view is that it's a fledgling environment that needs to be developed further to allow social involvment within the working world. This I think is the correct answer.
Elliot Rodger was not employed. He stayed within the educational domains and those are where the prevailing culture is the strongest. So the educational world appears to have produced the prevailing culture. Public (private) schools generate Politicians that run our world so badly.
Any culture that could replace the existing culture and work for these elitist types, would have to be a working culture.
The prevailing culture is caused by large crowds of people. I should say by regular crowds of people. It's not entirely clear how this happens but it's what they bring to the group in terms of fashions and attitudes.
It starts with the school playground. Then you have Cities and large shopping areas, night clubs, and audiences. School classes are audiences as are religious congregations. In the Cities we have the homeless, and these are elitists - isolated even within the crowd. Recently on TV (60 Days Homeless?) we had the example of a lady who was married at an early age, who had three children, but it didn't work out and so she was homeless on the streets of Manchester. This is an example of an elite female.
These crowds of people don't work for the naturally elite individual. What is needed is a uniform distribution of people. In a working environment the people are kept at their desks or workstations and are evenly distributed throughout the building. Tents on a camp site for example. Boats on a river for example. Socialisation occurs while traveling to and from the required point in the grid, and the people are separated by some moderate degree of physical barrier.
Audiences are a problem, if you can't have them then you can't have performances. However television is a distributed form of entertainment spread amongst people who are broadly distributed in the region, and as such is a Kosher part of the culture.
The naturally elite have a tendency to attack crowds as the obvious cause of their problems. Tower blocks (instead of discrete houses) are an example of crowds, hence the World Trade Centre attacks. So typically audiences are attacked.
The prevailing culture is bad and I say that in an absolute sense. The protesters in France for example.
Religions are not the answer because the congregations are just another audience.
Consider the dynamic between the Performer and the Audience. The Performer has adopted an elitist culture while the Audience has the prevailing culture. The Performer has developed some form of superiority and uses this to entertain the Audience. He or she does something that they (the Audience) cannot easily do themselves. So this is a meeting point of two separate and different cultures. The culture of the elitist meets the prevailing culture.
If we look back to Elliot Rodger we have his videos and his manifesto. He was appealing to an Audience. If we look forwards to the recent NewZeland Mosque attacks we find the the white supremacist was using a head mounted camera to live stream his 'Performance' to the internet where presumably he had an Audience. The suggestion is that this interpretation is correct. The natural elitist is destined to become a performer.
The Performer attacks the prevailing culture of the Audience in a non lethal way and profits from them. This is the child who ran away from home, to join the Circus.
By becoming a Performer the Elitist could attract a mate. This is the conclusion.
The Religious Angle:
The initial question here was: Is the naturally occuring elitist evil?, and it transpires that there is a very clear religious factor going on.
In the NewZealand Mosque attacks we have a group of Muslims praying. They have been there before and do this regularly and so there is a significant hive mind. The Hive Mind of the Crowd is considered to be what forms God - in the subjective sense (of God being manmade). The white supremacist is a lone gunman and if we assume that Evil is the opposite of Good then it may exist in isolation. He is the force of evil and he directly kills the hive developing the force of good. It is a direct battle of Evil versus Good and in that case Evil won.
If we now consider the Las Vegas shooting, which was the Mandalay Bay Hotel, we have a single gunman. Once again with modified guns. Shooting the crowd at the Harvest Music Festival (which was Country Music). We see again that the audience was a considerable hive mind being synchronised by the music. The guy (a 64 year old who was rich) was isolated having sent away his girlfriend, had planned to kill the crowd opposite. This was not classified as terrorism as no motive was determined by the police. He killed himself afterwards. Again the isolation appears to be a feature of Evil while the crowd appears to be a feature of Good. Evil versus Good was the motive.
The function of Evil is to kill (primarily as a predator for food). It's clear that isolation being the opposite of the crowd is also a feature of Evil.
So... isolated individuals can exhibit a truely evil force - or rather become isolated because of evil forces. We generally have a battle between Good and Evil and in many cases Evil wins. This is not recognised because the true nature of Evil is not really understood and it's symptoms and functioning have not yet been fully discovered. A witches coven would be considered to be Good for example as it would be a hive mind.
The value of the gun lies in it's ability to distance the gunman from the target. He is out of range of their hive mind. When he shoots them he is directly shooting God. Strength in numbers merely creates a bigger target, while the lone individual is too small to detect.
It seems clear that the naturally occuring elitist is a product of evil forces. There is no scope for an elitist culture because it would destroy the isolation that evil depends upon. The even distribution of people simply avoids a hive mind thus no Good is present, creating compatibility with Evil.
The result is tricky, and what to do about it is unclear.
If we consider Fabian Wosar a computer virus cracker who focuses on Ransomware (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/hated_and_hunted_the_computer_virus_malware_ransomware_cracker) what we see is the reverse of the above aspects.
Fabian "lives a reclusive existence" so he works in isolation, and this is the principle of Evil. Meanwhile the criminals who produce the Ransomware "are run like mafia organisations with specific structures and divisions of labour" clearly working together as a hive mind, and this is the principle of Good. But in this case the Good of the hive is being used for an Evil purpose, while the Evil of the isolated individual is being used for a Good purpose. The roles are reversed. Because no death occurs - Fabian doesn't shoot the criminals - no true evil occurs. He is then a benefit to the community yet still has this evil lifestyle by necessity.
If the same argument was made by the white supremacist in NewZealand, it becomes clear that as the function of evil is to kill, he is quickly identified as the one acting with evil forces.
In the religious context we might consider human sacrifice. In that case the hive mind of the group seems to have captured the lone wolf and in sacrificing him it's a direct attack of Good against Evil. The film The Wicker Man is a classic example. The Policeman was isolated, became evil (King for a day), and was sacrificed by the hive mind of the group. Less evil - more fruit?
In the case of groups: The witches coven might still be using their hive mind to act in an evil way but it would not be true evil. A collection of evil individuals could not work together as a group without becoming a hive mind acting for good. They could synchronise to the same day or follow a chronological sequence of events, but would each have to act independantly from each other to produce an evil result. So from my point of view you can't really have a Satanic group unless they are widely dispersed.
Is the shooter a Shaman?
This would make a lot of sense. The Shaman was associated with the Hunter Gatherer tribes. His role was to help the tribe to kill more animals for food. He would use spiritual means to attract more animals to the area. As the function of evil is to kill the Shaman would fall into the evil category. Using the Good of the hive mind of the group would not work if the purpose is to kill. So the Shaman is functional within the Hunter Gatherer context, but even then becomes apparent by his or her failure to fit in with the tribe, and would be even more displaced in the modern prevailing culture. The shooters often use customised guns and are clearly acting as hunters - maximising the kill. They are typically acting against colonizers or people who are seen to be making the culture worse.
This argument provides us with two solutions to the problem. On the one hand a greater interest in shamanism may encourage these people into this area of study where they can then spend their time in the spirit world rather than plotting against the population. Where they would learn to help the community in some way. On the other hand the Shamans skill in attracting animals into the region to improve the hunt could be used instead to attract females into the area in the same way, using the same techniques. He would exert his influence in the spirit world to control and manipulate the female population.
Some study is required to see if this matches up with the background of Elliot Rodger.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|