At this point, people who don't believe that there is something incredibly sinister going on with a huge pedophile network operating throughout governments around the world are basically saying that they believe instead that there is a global conspiracy against the elite by hundreds/thousands of ordinary people and kids who have decided to lie about it. We know that one of the two scenarios has to be true, because no one is denying that all these people have come forward claiming the same things about people in different governments/elite circles.
Why do so many find it easier to believe that all those ordinary people and children are and have been lying, despite receiving no profit from it and instead often receiving scorn and ridicule, than to believe that the most wealthy and powerful, a group made up of a much larger than average percentage of sociopathic personalities, might abuse that wealth and power in terrible ways?
The only reason I can come up with is that a large proportion of people, either subconsciously or secretly, think that those wealthy and powerful individuals are actually superior - that their word means more than the word of a homeless Turkish street kid solely because they have wealth and power. Those people who deny pizza gate are basically admitting that actually, they do think some people have more value than others, that wealthy, well known, powerful people, are to be granted special trust over the rest of the human population just because they're wealthy, well known and powerful. And the majority of the world's wealthy and powerful people are white men, so next time someone pours scorn on Pizzagate, remind them how their stance on this issue means that, logically and necessarily, they are automatically and subconsciously assigning rich old white men a special status that places them above everyone else, and that their prejudice is not only vile, but it amounts to being a pedophile-child-murdering apologist.
Very well said. I would edit by saying it's not just white and rich, but also other powerful people in your (everyone's) neighborhood and across the globe. What you are describing is social Darwinism, a form of modern eugenics (really, dysgenics), that local and international persons of power believe. They worship the dollar and power, and believe those who don't worship the same false god are beneath themselves. Unfortunately, these same psychopaths also believe the literal definition of Darwinism, and have no problem raping and eating children, in the same way foxes have no problem stealing and eating poultry. These psychos see us as their food.
I find it really ironic that in thinking they are an evolutionary step ahead and behaving as though they are superior and treating other humans as nothing more than meat and trash, they're actually the manifestation of a perhaps inevitable evolutionary dead end for homo sapiens sapiens.
Humans are physically weak, soft pathetic creatures, and we've been SO successful as a species because of our brains - our ability to imagine, plan, and create from the surrounding environment the means by which we can adapt to survive, in pretty much most conditions on Earth (and even in space) at this point. And our brains developed and evolved that way because we are incredibly social. Basically, the reason we can reason, and plan, and imagine, and think to the future etc, is because we can empathise with others and put ourselves in the shoes of others, which in turn means we can communicate with others and form tight knit groups for protection and for sharing labor and ideas.
Sociopaths are an anomaly, in that they do not have empathy. A lone sociopath in a group way back when could be useful, because they take risks, can command loyalty, and be effective for dealing with competing tribes and other threats ruthlessly. But in a global society of humans, the last thing you want is a large number of sociopaths in charge - their extreme risk taking behaviour (even when it risks their own safety - their narcissism simply does not allow them to conceive of failure) then involves taking risks on behalf of very large groups of people, with the ability to harm many thousands or millions (e.g. casino banking and financial crash, initiating foolish and ill-thought out wars etc) and what's worse is, when in positions of power, they can manoeuvre the details so that the risk to them personally is minimal -e.g. invading Iraq essentially for personal profit - yes more than a million have died since as a result, but to them that is literally of no consequence other than in the ways it might affect their performance in an election or ability to secure support for future military operations etc. Nuclear war is nothing to these people as long as they're outside the fallout zone and their personal profits and comfort are not damaged. Protecting the environment is of little consequence, because their ability to forward plan is very limited and narrow - they can't envisage a big picture or knock-on effects beyond their own sphere of influence, and therefore miss out on potential effects at a distance that can unfurl and come back round, spelling disaster for everyone on the planet.
And if they managed to cull a great deal of the human population, after a generation or two, through the trauma and abuse, the neglect, the violence etc, almost all new humans born would grow up to be severely dysfunctional and lacking in the ability to empathise, even within small family or friendship groups. It would be impossible to mobilise and organise to help save people from external threats such as natural disasters, disease, famine etc, because everyone would only be concerned with protecting their individual personal welfare - risks are only taken and kindnesses are only given if the reward is personally beneficial to the sociopath. So epidemics would become pandemics and by the time individuals realised it was close enough to put them at risk and worth taking action, it'd be too late. The species would falter and then fail fairly rapidly. If you think about, the only thing that keeps these powerful sociopaths loyal to one another at the moment is the collective moral conscience and empathy of the rest of the population, and the punishments that would be meted out.
So yeah, they are an evolutionary dead end, there being a whole and necessary feature of human experience that they are simply biologically incapable of knowing or understanding. I think that's why people talk about love being the answer and all that cheesy cliche sounding stuff. It's not loving your friends/family/romantic partner, it's having the cognitive and affective ability to feel and care for other people you have never even met and know nothing about.
view the rest of the comments →
kaptklok ago
"PEDOPHILIA IN DUTCH GOVERNMENT"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x_ao17qmm98
SpikyAube ago
At this point, people who don't believe that there is something incredibly sinister going on with a huge pedophile network operating throughout governments around the world are basically saying that they believe instead that there is a global conspiracy against the elite by hundreds/thousands of ordinary people and kids who have decided to lie about it. We know that one of the two scenarios has to be true, because no one is denying that all these people have come forward claiming the same things about people in different governments/elite circles.
Why do so many find it easier to believe that all those ordinary people and children are and have been lying, despite receiving no profit from it and instead often receiving scorn and ridicule, than to believe that the most wealthy and powerful, a group made up of a much larger than average percentage of sociopathic personalities, might abuse that wealth and power in terrible ways?
The only reason I can come up with is that a large proportion of people, either subconsciously or secretly, think that those wealthy and powerful individuals are actually superior - that their word means more than the word of a homeless Turkish street kid solely because they have wealth and power. Those people who deny pizza gate are basically admitting that actually, they do think some people have more value than others, that wealthy, well known, powerful people, are to be granted special trust over the rest of the human population just because they're wealthy, well known and powerful. And the majority of the world's wealthy and powerful people are white men, so next time someone pours scorn on Pizzagate, remind them how their stance on this issue means that, logically and necessarily, they are automatically and subconsciously assigning rich old white men a special status that places them above everyone else, and that their prejudice is not only vile, but it amounts to being a pedophile-child-murdering apologist.
eyeVoated ago
Very well said. I would edit by saying it's not just white and rich, but also other powerful people in your (everyone's) neighborhood and across the globe. What you are describing is social Darwinism, a form of modern eugenics (really, dysgenics), that local and international persons of power believe. They worship the dollar and power, and believe those who don't worship the same false god are beneath themselves. Unfortunately, these same psychopaths also believe the literal definition of Darwinism, and have no problem raping and eating children, in the same way foxes have no problem stealing and eating poultry. These psychos see us as their food.
SpikyAube ago
I find it really ironic that in thinking they are an evolutionary step ahead and behaving as though they are superior and treating other humans as nothing more than meat and trash, they're actually the manifestation of a perhaps inevitable evolutionary dead end for homo sapiens sapiens.
Humans are physically weak, soft pathetic creatures, and we've been SO successful as a species because of our brains - our ability to imagine, plan, and create from the surrounding environment the means by which we can adapt to survive, in pretty much most conditions on Earth (and even in space) at this point. And our brains developed and evolved that way because we are incredibly social. Basically, the reason we can reason, and plan, and imagine, and think to the future etc, is because we can empathise with others and put ourselves in the shoes of others, which in turn means we can communicate with others and form tight knit groups for protection and for sharing labor and ideas.
Sociopaths are an anomaly, in that they do not have empathy. A lone sociopath in a group way back when could be useful, because they take risks, can command loyalty, and be effective for dealing with competing tribes and other threats ruthlessly. But in a global society of humans, the last thing you want is a large number of sociopaths in charge - their extreme risk taking behaviour (even when it risks their own safety - their narcissism simply does not allow them to conceive of failure) then involves taking risks on behalf of very large groups of people, with the ability to harm many thousands or millions (e.g. casino banking and financial crash, initiating foolish and ill-thought out wars etc) and what's worse is, when in positions of power, they can manoeuvre the details so that the risk to them personally is minimal -e.g. invading Iraq essentially for personal profit - yes more than a million have died since as a result, but to them that is literally of no consequence other than in the ways it might affect their performance in an election or ability to secure support for future military operations etc. Nuclear war is nothing to these people as long as they're outside the fallout zone and their personal profits and comfort are not damaged. Protecting the environment is of little consequence, because their ability to forward plan is very limited and narrow - they can't envisage a big picture or knock-on effects beyond their own sphere of influence, and therefore miss out on potential effects at a distance that can unfurl and come back round, spelling disaster for everyone on the planet.
And if they managed to cull a great deal of the human population, after a generation or two, through the trauma and abuse, the neglect, the violence etc, almost all new humans born would grow up to be severely dysfunctional and lacking in the ability to empathise, even within small family or friendship groups. It would be impossible to mobilise and organise to help save people from external threats such as natural disasters, disease, famine etc, because everyone would only be concerned with protecting their individual personal welfare - risks are only taken and kindnesses are only given if the reward is personally beneficial to the sociopath. So epidemics would become pandemics and by the time individuals realised it was close enough to put them at risk and worth taking action, it'd be too late. The species would falter and then fail fairly rapidly. If you think about, the only thing that keeps these powerful sociopaths loyal to one another at the moment is the collective moral conscience and empathy of the rest of the population, and the punishments that would be meted out.
So yeah, they are an evolutionary dead end, there being a whole and necessary feature of human experience that they are simply biologically incapable of knowing or understanding. I think that's why people talk about love being the answer and all that cheesy cliche sounding stuff. It's not loving your friends/family/romantic partner, it's having the cognitive and affective ability to feel and care for other people you have never even met and know nothing about.