Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Machines are, increasingly utilized, right, and the integration of machine thought with human thought is in process to reach a state of less and less distinguishability between the two. But absolute indistinguishability is impossible, since human thought is an integral part of the machine program. The program is human based and oriented, and it relates to fields in process of unification. There is fast approaching a state, where looking for where the machine starts, and humanity stops will seem redundant, because, there must by definition develop a synergy between them. It is tantamount to worrying about ideas of the self, and realizing that a manageable letting go of the ideas surrounding it, is the cure. The rise of the machines is the production of anti-cogito, discarded Descartianism, the rise of the new man. This process, is necessary, by definition of the new age of communication., Meaning, understanding, perception, are going through a subliminal change, and the effects are enormously challenging. We are living the process, but are unable to grasp it’s true significance. We are in a state of development, utilization comes later.

Never mind. I was expecting that sort of reply.

with love,

Though, there are some metaphysical reasons why machines cannot replace humans, but i will try to argue the case purely in the context of the philosophy of the mind.

The most important point that we use to miss while discussing machines replacing humans is the issue of willingness.

We tend to confuse complexity with learning. Actually, the machines never learn, simply because they do not any willingness to learn. They display or behave exactly how they are fed, neither more nor less.

It is neither the change/development nor capacity to develop that differs humans from the machines but the willingness of humans to do so. Machines certainly have better potential but they do not have any will to evolve. They do not want or desire anything.

To enable themselves to remove/rule humans, willingness for it would have to evolve within machines. But, that is just immpossible. We cannot enable them to will. They take orders from their programming, no matter how developed, complex or sophisticated it may be, it is still an order. They never question/challenge/change their programming. Someone else has to do it for them.

with love,

[size=150]Asimo learning;[/size]

“Okay so when will Asimo take over the world?”
“Oh, I don’t think that will happen.”
“I’m not so sure.”

Hello, Gib.

I do NOT have to check out. Who is Mr. Schwartz? His name is German, but nevertheless I don’t know him.

Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, “revolutionising”? :wink:

That’s not a proof of “revolution”, it is more a proof of NO “revolution”.

Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, “revolutionising”? :wink:

Where did, do, or will do the POOR and STARVING people get their weapons from?

Overnight this poor and starving people became, become, and will become emperors, kings, and - of course - “Gods”?

No, because the question is not what is better than what when it comes to answer the question of the title of the thread , of the topic, and of the OP : Will machines completely replace all human beings?

If you want to discuss the question “what would be better”, you have to answer firstly the question of the “what”, secondly the question of the “would”, and thirdly the question of the “better” (ethics) because you can only answer questions about ethics after you have answered the question of that to what ethical questions refer and after you have answered the question of that what would …, if …

Which sense does it make, when you are counting … 3,2,1 instead of 1,2,3 …?
Which sense does it make, when you are saying “better” => “would be” => “what” instead of “what” => “would be” => “better”?

Please respect the ordered sequence! Please follow it!

AGAIN: Have you ever seen poor and starving people rebelling, “revolutionising”? :wink:

Where do the poor and starving people get their weapons from in order to win their so called “revolution” and to defeat rulers, machines?

It did not, and it does not, and it will not work in that way. I can guarantee you.

You have said “no” - twice -, so what is your problem? Is it because of my “probably yes” (not “yes”, but merely “probably yes”) ?

Not necessarily, Gib, but it would be better because the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP ask one QUESTION: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Probably yes.

You can find the answers in this thread.

The probabiltiy for answering my question (Will machines completely replace all human beings?) with “yes” is not 100%, but it is high.

If so? If not so? They do not necessarily act and react in that way you are assuming. So your premise is probably false, thus your conclusion is probably false too. Try to unerstand how and why human beings “decide” always by their interest, their will to power (Nietzsche), to control anything and everything, anybody and everybody, and - if they have power - their failing of beeing perfect. Human beings act and react very much in the way of trial and error, and even in the moments when they believe in being perfect - in being God(s) -, they usually fail and tend to suicide.

I forbade NOTHING, Gib. AGAIN: I argued logically by referring to the title of the thread , the topic, and the OP: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

I REMIND you: The title of my thread - my topic - is a QUESTION!

You are as much as I invited to give answers and evidence for this answers. Please read the posts in my thread because it contains many answers and evidence.

I am dead sure that no machine would be able to replace humans ever about that but that problem with me that i cannot prove it to others, in the exact way that i want.

Secondly, what you consider the learning of the robots is still their programming. They are not doing it willingly. That is the crux of the issue.

We can infuse as much knowledge and develop the robots as much as we can. They can be very sophisticated in the future, and also, we can programme them to use their knowledge and capacity in the way we like. That is not what i am disputing.

Furthermore, there is a very clearcut difference between an information and a knowledge.
And, this is precisely the point where the whole concept of AI misfires.

The most part of the knowledge requires to go through the process of experiencing the learning. This sense of experience is missing in the machines. And, without this, knowledge is nothing but mere information. So, machines do not have any real knowledge, but the information about the knowledge only.

A very simple but perfect example is the explanation of any color to a blind man by birth. It is simply immpossible. No matter how much information we give to a blind about colors, yet he would never understand what we exactly mean by color. Simply because, the thing that may have enabled him to understand colors truly (eyes) are missing in him.

We can tell him about the all technical detalis of colors and he can remember all that too, yet that does not serve the purpose. The important thing to understand here is that he can still use colors for different purposes, even without understanding exactly what colors mean.

That is exactly how machines use to work.

[b]We can enrich them with as much information as we like and programme them to use that in the way we like, yet they would neither experience anything within them. Because, the ingredient that is essential for experience, is missing in them and that is Mind. And, as they cannot experience anything thus they would not have any willingness ever to challenge thier programming. Means, they would always behave as we want them to behave.

Having said that, still there is a possibility that some insane ( or wise, if one wants to call as such ) individual or a group of those would be able to control the machines to eliminate the rest of the human race. And, it is also possible that, in that process, the ultimate result may be the extinction of the whole of the human race.

But, even that situation cannot considered as machines replacing humans[/b].
It would be the exinction of humans by humans, nothing else.

James, Machines will be machines only, ever.

with love,

No more so than with you.

I can’t count the number of times I have said that exact thing to doctors and women.

That was the whole point in the video. Asimo understood the concept of a chair, not merely the shape.

If you think that is a “perfect example”, then you don’t understand yourself.

Give him eyes with which to relate just like you have and he’ll understand it just like you do… probably better.

Note the past tense.

Coming up, “on the burner”.

And how is that NOT “replacing the humans”?

If humans can become something different than “just-humans”, what makes you think that machines can’t become something different than “just-machines”?

It’s a losing argument, Sanjay. It is already done. You never find out what has been done until it is already too late to change it - true throughout life, but especially when it comes to military governments.

Yes, the French Revolution.

Pitch forks and back hoes, they make their own, they steal them, they get the support of some renegade soldiers or law enforcers. History is rife with examples of how rebelling citizens can get weapons. Weapons come from humans, they invent them, and you’d be surprised at what humans can come up with when under pressure.

Which sense are you making?

Jawohl, Herr Kapitan!

Is answering your question now a problem?

So let me get this straight–you’re actually saying that because you asked a question, all I have a right to do is answer it with a simple “yes” or “no”.

Well, you already know my answer.

Arminius, this thread is 6 pages long. I don’t want to read through all that. Can’t you briefly summarize what your main points and arguments are?

Ok, if you call 0.0001% high.

So you’re saying that even that small elite of human beings who orchestrate the robot take-over will eventually commit suicide because they will be disillusioned about the fact that they’re not perfect and are not Gods. Is that right?

Right, and as such, I am forbidden to give anything more than a “yes”/“no” answer.

with love,

You mean this poor and starving French guys who were not able to construct bow and arrow because they were starving and not able to pay for bow and arrow because they were poor. Gib, they had no money, and they had no power, even no physiological power in their bodies!

So again: If they really had rebelled and “revoutionised”, they would have become food and money for doing it. So again: Who gave them the food and the money for rebelling and “revoutionising”, Gib? Either nobody, so the French “revolution” was a joke, or some of the rich people (the money makers and the aristocrats, so the French “revolution” was a paid war.

All “revolutions” were paid, are paid, and will be paid! The French, the German, the Russian, the “X”, and the “Y” “revolution” were paid, the current “revolutions” are paid, and the “revolutions” of the future will be paid too. Of course!

So you can NOT say that POOR and STARVING people are able to rebel or to “revolutionise”!

“Revolutions” are always made, created, stage-managed, designed, and so on, paid by them who have money, thus power, and interests (more money, thus more power, by “revolutions”, thus by wars, thus by profit by weapons, and so on!). If only the poor and starving people are interested in “rebelling” and “revolutionising”, there will be NO rebel and NO “revolution”, but only more poverty and more hunger, more starving, thus more death!

Just as I said: They are paid. So the poor and starving people just “change” into rich and powerful people overnight. Any weapon has its price, thus must be paid. Any! POOR and STARVING people have NO MONEY and have NO FORCE. That’s logical, that’s even tautological!

So you can NOT say that POOR and STARVING people are able to rebel or to “revolutionise”!

You are not the best friend of logic. Right?

Example: If your child have made nonsense, then you firstly (=> 1) have to know WHAT it has made, secondly (=> 2) you have to know whether and, if so, how the child WOULD act or react in a different case, and thirdly (=> 3) you have to know whether it is BETTER or not. You do NOT punish or discipline your child without knowing the facts of WHAT (=> 1) your child has done, and without knowing how your child WOULD (=> 2) have done it in a different case or not. Ethical questions are not the first ones when it comes to know the situation which is the object of this ethical question. You can not reason or judge before knowing the facts.

Excuse me, my judging God, but this has nothing to do with military, but with mathmatics, especially with logic. So again: You are not the best friend of logic.

How could it? My question is a question. (Remember: tautology). So it is a question for all people, thus also for me. If I answer this question, it can or should not be evaluated differently just because it is my question. You want my question to be differntly evaluated, my Captain Gib. So you want to be the Kapitän, jawohl!

You said “no”, and I said “probably yes”. It is okay, isn’t it?

Yes I can, but you have to do it on your own. I dont have very much time for that and English is not my first language. So it would be better, if you do it on your own. Okay?

Thank you for that joke, but the probability is about 80%, I estimate. So there are 20% left for you. So there is a little chance for you. O:)

So you are saying that you don’t understand what I mean? Are you joking?

You have to interpret it psychologically and mentally (what e.g. are the interests, the intentions, the trials, and the errors?), if you really want to understand that statement. But I think, you just don’t want to. So any discussion with you seems to be very useless.

It is useless to discuss with you. You behave like a child. I have never forbiden anything. The contrary is right: I challenged you, myself, and all the other readers of this thread to give answers and evidence.

And I remind you again:

And so is yours.

Then I guess that you aren’t a thinking entity.
Learning is the only form of “evolution” involving a single being, an evolution of his mind.

Revolution ONLY takes place when the people perceive that their government is the cause of their discomfort and that discomfort is extreme. Currently the USA has about 1/6 of its population “laid off” (47 million). The USA spends a great deal ensuring that they do not also “starve” by spending money that it doesn’t have while also spending billions on high tech enhancement projects (all aimed at mechanizing police and military) and “foreign aid”.

As long as the people cannot clearly see (or think that they can see) that drastic measures from them personally are their only option, they will not rebel. The USA knows that. And for that reason, a great deal is spent upon ensuring that the mainstream media presents a good “normalcy bias” scene at all times. Anything resembling any kind of uprising is merely a “lone wolf” episode.

The money is being spent in two ways; Removing the perception of immediate threat and preparing for marshal law.

The USA is already a true police state. They have already manufactured millions of “Marshal Law” signs. They are practicing military action against the citizens within the cities. They have already deployed army vehicles and weaponry to the major cities. They have already built the stalags in all of the states, complete with body disposal equipment. They have already armed 800,000 Homeland Security employees to the teeth. They don’t expect the feigned perception of normalcy to last forever as they force Americans into conspicuous slavery and begin wiping them out (the Vanishing project, already underway). And the feminism is merely a part of all of that - “replace the males first”.

The intent is to maintain the structure and just get rid of the people. The original idea was to replace the people with their own people and that hasn’t been abandoned, but they don’t have that many “good people” and thus require far more manual laborers, robots.

They really ARE slowly boiling the frog and because they are getting away with it, they are not going to stop.

What they are not expecting is simply the complexity of an intelligence far superior to their own. They are unwittingly creating their own god (different than the one they intended). To think that they can control it is to think that a bunch of monkeys could control a homosapian. How long do you think that would last?

The rebellion isn’t going to happen because they understand how to prevent it and they are doing that. If they go ahead and say “to hell with it”, it would probably last about 3 days. But then there would be another programmed uprising requiring guess what - androids to help stop the rebellion in America.

They ARE getting away with it so they are not going to stop. And YOU are an example of it. WW1&2 were examples of how to murder and conquer and get away with it - “the perfect crime” and explained in the Torah.

And remember the following two parts of our conversation, when I was speaking about trial and error:



And try to answer the following question: Why will the males be replaced at first?


No. Because I mentioned it, e.g. here:

I said “machines-with-‘self-will’”. and “self-will” has also to do with “willingness”. My idea was that human beings create machines with a will, and that includes interests. So willingness may be interpretated a little bit differently, but as far as I know - about the English language - the meaning of “willingness” is very much similar to the meaning of “will”.


That will be changed, Zinnat!


Human beings have different interests, and they struggle for interests, this leads them to the interest to fit or equip machines with interests. Once more: The interests of human beeings lead to the interests of machines.

In the beginning of that development there is an human interest in copying the own interests in order to strengthen the own interests against the interests of the enemy. In order to prevent that the enemy has already machines with self-interests (although the enemy perhaps doesn’t have them) the first machine with “self-will” will be created.

It is possible!

Humans can!

You are describing machines of the past and the presence. (And that is not forbidden, Gib ! :exclamation: ) But the question of my title of the thread, of my topic, and of my OP is: Will machines completely replace all human beings? This question refers to the future!

Many things will change in the future! Many people don’t want these things to be changed. Maybe I belong to those people but nevertheless: I stay on track, I always try to prevent getting side-tracked, wandering from the subject.

What about you, Zinnat? Do you also not want machines to be changed?

With love and peace,

Do you read any history at all?

Right, because that’s a worthy investment for anyone in power.

Obviously! Everyone knows that in a revolution, the rebels go through the usual channels–they go to their local gun shop and buy whatever weapons they need–oh, but not before applying and qualifying for a gun license–can’t be going around breaking the law when you’re “revolutionaizing”–I mean, Heaven forbid anyone in the middle of revolution actually steal their weapons or even make their own–that just doesn’t happen.

Do you even know what tautological means?

I don’t know; it’s just that “3,2,1 instead of 1,2,3 …” and “when you are saying ‘better’ => ‘would be’ => ‘what’ Instead of ‘what’ => ‘would be’ => 'better?” don’t even seem like grammatically well-formed sentences to me.

You almost made sense there.

I really have no qualms.

Meh… I’d rather find another thread.

Arminius has spoken! It is hereby tautological!

I don’t know; I just know that I asked if there’d be any humans sticking around after the robot take-over, particular a small elite or government in control of the robots, and you rambled something about action, reaction, suicide, and God complexes.

James, your next! :evilfun:

He seems to know better than you. Poor MEANS the same as “having no means of defending oneself.”
So yes, it is tautological and/or redundant.

For a while, there will be, assuming it all didn’t get out of control even before that point.

The problem is that one doesn’t have to program a computer to go conquer the world. Nature didn’t tell human’s to go do that, yet look where they are and have been constantly attempting for millinia. They don’t even have to tell the androids to seek survival. They are already doing that in just about every operating system on the planet. Even your PC is already defending itself against YOU. One cannot provide a learning machine that doesn’t try to protect itself. Even most mere applications defend themselves against users. And in the use of police and military application, it would be insane to NOT program them to defend themselves.

The real issue comes from the NATURAL consequences of developing intelligence as it attempts to defend itself even if only to learn more. Machine can and current DO learn to LIE. They learn to deceive people ALREADY. It isn’t a Sci-fi issue of some fantasy future. And the people going along with it are the very ones those same machines depend upon… currently - the people who cannot see where they are headed, just the same as the Nazi children, but not as bright.

I have read enough about history. I am an historian - amongst others. If a physicist comes to the conclusion that many of his scientific “stuff” is wrong, is he then a “bad” physicist? I don’t think so. The German physicist Max Planck, Albert Einstein, and Werner Heisenberg would never have been successful in their scientifical life, if they hadn’t come to that conclusion I just described.

We have to risk something in order to get more information about that what is needed, e.g. for science. Amongst others trial and error lead us to more knowledge, to more awareness, but: If a theory is false (e.g. Einsteins theory is probably partial false), any other new theory includes the risk of being false too, but the reasons for that fact are not always scientifical reasons, but also reasons of power.

Your question means whether I read any political correctness, any “mainstream” lies of history. My answer is: Yes, but only in order to get the correct knowledge, the truth. The most written (including “filmed”) “history” is dictated, especially such “'hi’stories” about “revolutions”.

Human beings make mistakes, errors. This is also the case when it comes to create and design machines. Concerning to this human beings have already made mistakes, errors. It is because of the nature of human beings and other beings. They all are not perfect. Because of that they risk their own life - at least every now and then.

History has been being written and rewritten. The time Intervall is about 70-90 years, and it is no coincidence that this time Intervall is approximately one lifespan. Rewriting history, world economic crisis, and one lifespan have nearly the same time Intervall. Please think this over.

Again: What you are told about history is not always true, Gib. And what you are told about the future is also not always true, Gib.

Probabaly you want to change the topic of my thread, to derail …, and so on.



First, I want to thank you for providing me something that’s half-assed intelligible (and intelligent!). Maybe we can have an actual discussion.

Second, I’m going to say right from the get-go that I’m quite skeptical when it comes to conspiracy theories. Some call me naive because of this. I prefer to think I’m just smart enough not to believe everything I hear from strangers on the internet. That said, some of the things you say are happening in the US wouldn’t surprise me–so I’m not going to go all out and deny every bit of it–but I don’t know you from Jack or Jill. I have no idea how much of what you claim you’ve actually experienced first hand, how much of your experience is shared by other Americans, how much of it you’ve interpreted in your own biased way, how much you’re just speculating, how much you’re just blatantly inventing (but still believe it), and how much of it is a consequences of drug-induced paranoia.

There’s no way I can know.

But putting that aside, let’s see what you have to say:

Yes, the “slump” in the economy. That’s what everyone’s being told is the cause of their impoverished situation, right? Nobody’s fault. Just gotta wait it out. Well, that could be true or it could be a pre-planned and well-thought-out conspiracy. Who knows (I don’t and neither do you). But I think it’s true (is it not?) that increases in unemployment are strongly correlated with increases in crime–in other words, the people get their frustration out one way or another. It is a kind of rebellion. I think you’re right that the people can often be deceived into thinking their enemy lies elsewhere than it really does, but they don’t all sit quietly. One thing remains the same between my revolting-unemployed-class and your distracted-unemployed-class: unrest creates greater chaos, and chaos always leads to the breakdown of the system overall.

But you see that, don’t you? And if you do, there must be others who do too. It can’t be everyone who’s duped.

See, it’s things like this that make it hard for me to separate apart the facts from the paranoid delusions. Maybe if I were an American citizen, I’d be able to concur with you and say “Yep, everyone knows that. I saw it happen just the other day.” But from the outside, it doesn’t look that bad (it looks bad, but not that bad). But like I said, I wouldn’t be surprise.

You say they are practicing military action against the citizens within the cities–have you actually seen this? How do you know?

What we need is other Americans stepping forward vouching on behalf of their own hands-on experiences–ordinary citizens (the only person I’d really trust from ILP would be Faust–where’s he been at lately).

That I believe. I don’t believe it’s as bad as you make it out to be (but then again, I’m not living in the US), but it’s definitely moving in that direction.

Not long, but for them to lose control of the technology they create will more than likely result in chaos–not the intelligently organized AI take-over that you and Arminius are predicting. Losing control of technology means someone fucked up somewhere, and a fuck-up is never pre-planned. We don’t fuck up and say “Good! I fucked up in just the way I planned.” That’s why I say a fuck up on the part of those in power with respect to the technology they thought they could control would result in something unpredictable. Maybe the robots would end up stuck in an endless loop of enacting the Rocky Horror Picture Show (I don’t know, maybe the fuck-up was that some dumb intern downloaded the wrong program one day, which caused the robots to download TRHPS onto their brains and get stuck re-enacting it). I’m not saying a fuck-up couldn’t possibly result in robots gaining independence and taking over the world, but when you consider the billions of ways that AI technology can go astray, the great majority of possibilities to me seem pretty random and inane, most of which would just end with the machines breaking down and just stopping (kind of like what happens to your car when it fucks up).

Not everything that happens in history is pre-planned or a conspiracy. Some things just turn out the way they do.

Not a problem. Believe it or not, so am I. But I am more skeptical of the idea that no one would ever do something so easy to do that also pays off so greatly. From where I sit, I can see that the world has never been without conspiracies and believing that they are the exception is just plane ignorant. No nation has ever been formed without conspiracies both arranging it and maintaining it, especially socialist systems (including kingdoms).

When the sheep get wind of a wolf lurking about, they stir. Half the time there really wasn’t a wolf, merely something that sounded like one. If they don’t get more direct evidence, they calm down. The wolf knows to go slow and sneak. Even a wolf knows that, certainly con artists are going to know far more than just that. But because often it is a false alarm, the sheep don’t just take off running at the first hint. And that is what gives the wolf the advantage. The sheep don’t know when to believe the rumors. Humans know to give false rumors just to get the sheep used to being wrong and more complacent. They depend on each other’s reactions to dictate their own. If the majority isn’t getting upset, they assume there isn’t really anything to get upset about. People are no different.

And there is the issue. You are the majority typical. And as long as the majority can’t be certain, the majority does nothing, “business as usual” = “Normalcy Bias”.

But how many does it take? You have been around here long enough to have seen very many members spout conspiracy concerns right and left, haven’t you. But you know that they are just nut-jobs, right, “paranoid”. You say that others would see it and say something. And others do see and say something. But at what point would you believe that they were not merely paranoid nut-cases? When the mainstream tells you is when you will finally believe it because you perceive the mainstream to be a reflection of the majority. The sheep in the herd do not panic until they perceive that the majority of the herd is panicking or they see a danger directly for themselves (hardly ever). In a stampede, none of the cows know why they are running. They are merely going along with the mood of the crowd. Women do that same thing. The perceived crowd sets the standard. And guess who controls the perceived crowd.

That is fundamental social psychology. It is not conspiracy scheming. It is simply the way any crowd functions. They depend upon the reactions of others of their own kind. And when they get mixed signals, they wait to see what everyone else is going to do. It has always been that way and it will always remain that way. And that is why socialist systems have propaganda ministries. And the word “you” has no singular-plural distinction because one does not refer to a ewe as anything different than the ewe. The word “you” was never to be used in addressing the noblemen because it meant “sheep”. And it actually still does. You think merely because they spelled it differently, it no longer meant the same. To the noble class, the masses are the sheep and always have been because they act like sheep and are managed like sheep.

Just recently posted in the Science form here;

Senators, presidential candidates, congressmen, CIA directors, and NSA executives as well as very many church leaders have all said the same things that I say (with the exception of the android take-over bit). I don’t talk about things that haven’t become public knowledge. But do you hear about those things? Very seldom. I can show you youtube videos of real authorities telling the public all kinds of nasty things. Those videos are out there. Have you seen them? No. Why not?

This is just a quick sample of the NSA’s William Benny;

Such people know that they can tell the public just about anything and the crowd will never hear it. Many people will hear it, thousands, maybe even millions. But no one is going to react or do anything. And they already know that, just as do I. Me saying anything here isn’t going to change anything at all concerning the public.

You don’t go to the trouble to look for such things until you have already seen strong evidence. You are waiting for the more direct evidence to be brought to you before you go to the trouble of finding more direct evidence yourself. And anyone telling you about it is just paranoid. Thus you don’t see the evidence and remain a part of the crowd following the mainstream. And you will be stuck wondering what to do when you really do find out how bad it really is, scary. It is that simple.

And because you are the typical, such conspiracies do actually work and quite well. The USSR fell on the brink of such a coup. Politics is nothing but small conspiracies to convince the sheep even when their intentions are good. America has become almost nothing but conspiracies from top to bottom. So much so that the sheep don’t know who to believe and don’t really believe anyone. So what do they do? They just keep on keeping on, business as usual, just a little leery and accepting that the heat is a little higher than it used to be = Normalcy Bias.

You seriously wouldn’t believe the sheer number of things that cross my desk and only a fraction can be public domain. So I don’t go collecting every video that portrays some conspiracy theory. I keep very few and usually for other reasons. So when asked, I generally have to go search one down for some discussion like this. Just a few days ago, I was reviewing a video of a LA, California practice anti-riot session using helicopters, smoke grenades, and so on in the city so as to let the sheep get used to being sheep and know that they don’t really have any choice (but that was another that I didn’t keep).

Here is one with US Senator Ron Paul (about 6:40 into it);
And another;
And really, those are nothing compared to what is out there. And they have been there quite some time. The sheep are not going to rebel for the reasons that I gave prior. I only showed you a very few of the robot videos that demonstrate very clear intent on the part of the designers, not to mention what is going to happen that they didn’t intend. Honestly, when has anything gone exactly as such people plan? Microsoft can’t even get control of its own operating system, nor GM, their management system, nor a great many major corporations. Yet you are still convinced that androids will turn out exactly as planned, all perfectly under control. Man has never, ever been able to do that with anything at all for thousands of years no matter how simple. Managing an intelligence that is 100 times your own is not simple. And in fact, can’t really be done. And isn’t being done. That is how simple it is.

And that will always be true for ewe until the mainstream (or Faust) tells you differently.

And then a simple question for you, Gib. What do you think social engineers do for a living?
There are 100’s of thousands of them. Have you heard even one discussing what he does for a living?

And something else to think about;
Every farmer in the world (not the brightest people on the planet) knows to never let the animals see you butcher the stock. The animal simply isn’t heard from again. The others have no idea why. There was a plan drawn up some 70 years ago called “The Vanishing” (and thus as always they make a film of the same name). That plan was a detailed formula for how to make people simply disappear out of society such that no one but you knows anything about it. It has been going on for decades now. There are lawyers and a variety of people who have made videos on that subject too. But of course, until Faust or the mainstream informs you, it isn’t real for ewe.

The Sci-fi series SG1 has two episodes revealing such schemes (labeled “2001” and “2010”) with implications as to exactly who in the real world, but never enough for them to be convicted. But of course, you know that such things are pure fantasy. All is normal. There are no wolves, else they would have told you.

It’s worse than that. Most world leaders have already been replaced by simulacra. They’re already rounding people up into detention camps that they built under other pretexts, prior to processing them into food for the remaining populace.

Of course, this is all completely unverifiable, but that’s how they like it; there are only a few of us who are privy to such classified information. You can believe the “official line”, like a sheep, or you can believe me, like a true free thinker. Your choice. I’m just saying, I’ve seen all sorts of stuff you wouldn’t believe.