Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A Zombie Invasion? Is This A Real Threat Today?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Andy Wainwright
Jul 2, 2012, 1:42:14 AM7/2/12
to
Just had this thought that with all the dumbing down that's gone on in
the media etc, what happens when the intellect level is lowered below
the threshold required for conscious and rational decision making?
The worrying thing is I'm already starting to see it happen.
Independent thought is increasingly being viewed with horror not by
the authorities, but the people themselves- a real fear of thought and
those who think or question. I'm not talking about those medicated up to
their eyeballs (which is quite a few of us these days) either. It's not
just the expression of certain thoughts that are deemed offensive, maybe
such as the politically incorrect or sexually explicit, but actually
thinking of *anything* other than what they are directly told and above
the bare minimum level required to get through the day.
I try not to watch reality TV shows, but something makes me very
uncomfortable about the sadomasochistic pleasures of seeing others be
publicly crucified. It's almost as if people were gradually forming
packs of beying hounds, ready to pounce at the weekest member.
It's a natural desire to seek revenge or justice against someone who has
done you down. The disturbing development for me is that target has
greatly broadened from those who have directly caused the pain in the
first place to innocent bystanders who have little to do with their woes
if at all. Suddenly the horror film idea of animated "waking dead"
randomly savaging the living in a hate-fixed trance doesn't seem so far
fetched. The "normalness" of those so afflicted stands out- not the odd
nutter but the very mainstream social elements. Just think of all the
self-esteem depleting forces in the modern world- what happens when that
self-esteem drops below a critical point where the person no longer
exists, just the body that houses them.
I actually see this as more of a realistic possibility than a natural
disaster or nuclear holocaust. What do you think... if you stil can?
the media etc, what happens when the intellect level is lowered below
the threshold required for conscious and rational decision making?
The worrying thing is I'm already starting to see it happen.
Independent thought is increasingly being viewed with horror not by
the authorities, but the people themselves- a real fear of thought and
those who think or question. I'm not talking about those medicated up to
their eyeballs (which is quite a few of us these days) either. It's not
just the expression of certain thoughts that are deemed offensive, maybe
such as the politically incorrect or sexually explicit, but actually
thinking of *anything* other than what they are directly told and above
the bare minimum level required to get through the day.
I try not to watch reality TV shows, but something makes me very
uncomfortable about the sadomasochistic pleasures of seeing others be
publicly crucified. It's almost as if people were gradually forming
packs of beying hounds, ready to pounce at the weekest member.
It's a natural desire to seek revenge or justice against someone who has
done you down. The disturbing development for me is that target has
greatly broadened from those who have directly caused the pain in the
first place to innocent bystanders who have little to do with their woes
if at all. Suddenly the horror film idea of animated "waking dead"
randomly savaging the living in a hate-fixed trance doesn't seem so far
fetched. The "normalness" of those so afflicted stands out- not the odd
nutter but the very mainstream social elements. Just think of all the
self-esteem depleting forces in the modern world- what happens when that
self-esteem drops below a critical point where the person no longer
exists, just the body that houses them.
I actually see this as more of a realistic possibility than a natural
disaster or nuclear holocaust. What do you think... if you stil can?
CheeseySock
Jul 2, 2012, 2:41:07 AM7/2/12
to
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:42:14 +0100, Andy Wainwright wrote:
> Just had this thought that with all the dumbing down that's gone on in
> the media etc, what happens when the intellect level is lowered below
> the threshold required for conscious and rational decision making?
>
> The worrying thing is I'm already starting to see it happen.
>
> [...]
> Just had this thought that with all the dumbing down that's gone on in
> the media etc, what happens when the intellect level is lowered below
> the threshold required for conscious and rational decision making?
>
> The worrying thing is I'm already starting to see it happen.
>
>
> I actually see this as more of a realistic possibility than a natural
> disaster or nuclear holocaust. What do you think... if you stil can?
drunk-bus-driver-leaps-woman-street-chews-face.html
the media seem to be getting a rash of these stories....
stm a natural product of corporot drugs, gm food, toxins in cans/bottles,
massive pesticide use, and no standards in food, china is terrible for
noxious shit in food.... drink.... whatever....
CheeseySock
Jul 2, 2012, 2:45:05 AM7/2/12
to
this, they can call a meeting of cobra in some bunker and feel really
fucking important...
utter fucking cunts at the controls, probably deserve to have their faces
eaten off...
Now if only you can convince zombies that bankster/corporotter/politico
flesh is sweetest... LOL
Zinnic
Jul 2, 2012, 8:27:51 AM7/2/12
to
On Jul 2, 1:45 am, CheeseySock
Spoken like a real Zombie! I doubt that you are really conscious of
what you say!
what you say!
Albert Tatlock
Jul 2, 2012, 9:45:42 AM7/2/12
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jsrcbs$c7m$1...@dont-email.me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Immortalist
Jul 2, 2012, 2:39:10 PM7/2/12
to
On Jul 1, 10:42 pm, Andy Wainwright
The origin of the concept of zombiism stems from Haitian Voodoo
culture. The word zombie--in Haitian it is "zombi"--means "spirit of
the dead." Only with the onset of Hollywood capitalism did the zombie
come to possess diminished capacity as an exploitable feature. A much
better analogy would be an excessive grouping of private organizations
like the Military/Industrial Complex, trying to diminish human
capacities to the point that they purchase and inject the disease with
little resistance.
For example a conspiracy theory that would more or less turn humans
into caged farm animals;
It’s unclear why the FDA is often so quick to approve questionable
medications. Many conspiracy theorists don’t understand why the
chemical aspartame is FDA approved when it’s been shown to cause
cancer in rats; yet natural substances like stevia are considered
unsafe by the FDA. Ideas: Believers usually hold that the FDA is a
corrupt organization and serves the aims of the large pharmaceutical
companies instead of the population, as they are supposed to. Often,
believers of this theory also believe that the FDA and pharmaceutical
companies are actively suppressing known cures for serious diseases
such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and many others.
Theorists believe that the FDA has approved many steroids and
chemicals to be injected into our food supply (in the form of
antiobiotics and so on) because they are receiving money under the
table from pharmaceutical companies. When the chemicals in our food
make us sick, we go to the doctor who in turn prescribes four
different medications to treat our illness. The conclusion conspiracy
theorists come to makes sense; after all, it’s bad business for a
pharmaceutical company to have our best interests at heart; if we
aren’t sick we don’t buy their product.
Since the FDA covers food as well as medicine, it has been claimed
that the food industry is including ingredients intended to make
people fat and/or addicted to the food. Many conspiracy theorists find
it odd that Europeans eat full-fat diets of bread, dairy, meat and
desserts and yet they are thin and healthy. Additionally, when we gain
weight from corn-fed beef and high fructose corn syrup, we pay for
expensive gym memberships and diet programs which in turn, stimulates
the economy. Theorists also point to the willingness of the FDA to
approve medications with serious and sometimes even fatal side effects
as proof that the FDAs primary interest is not the health of US
citizens. Some people even think that it may be an attempt at
population control by the government.
http://www.conspire.com/the-fda-big-pharma-conspiracy/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_CqOd1zSxc
culture. The word zombie--in Haitian it is "zombi"--means "spirit of
the dead." Only with the onset of Hollywood capitalism did the zombie
come to possess diminished capacity as an exploitable feature. A much
better analogy would be an excessive grouping of private organizations
like the Military/Industrial Complex, trying to diminish human
capacities to the point that they purchase and inject the disease with
little resistance.
For example a conspiracy theory that would more or less turn humans
into caged farm animals;
It’s unclear why the FDA is often so quick to approve questionable
medications. Many conspiracy theorists don’t understand why the
chemical aspartame is FDA approved when it’s been shown to cause
cancer in rats; yet natural substances like stevia are considered
unsafe by the FDA. Ideas: Believers usually hold that the FDA is a
corrupt organization and serves the aims of the large pharmaceutical
companies instead of the population, as they are supposed to. Often,
believers of this theory also believe that the FDA and pharmaceutical
companies are actively suppressing known cures for serious diseases
such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, and many others.
Theorists believe that the FDA has approved many steroids and
chemicals to be injected into our food supply (in the form of
antiobiotics and so on) because they are receiving money under the
table from pharmaceutical companies. When the chemicals in our food
make us sick, we go to the doctor who in turn prescribes four
different medications to treat our illness. The conclusion conspiracy
theorists come to makes sense; after all, it’s bad business for a
pharmaceutical company to have our best interests at heart; if we
aren’t sick we don’t buy their product.
Since the FDA covers food as well as medicine, it has been claimed
that the food industry is including ingredients intended to make
people fat and/or addicted to the food. Many conspiracy theorists find
it odd that Europeans eat full-fat diets of bread, dairy, meat and
desserts and yet they are thin and healthy. Additionally, when we gain
weight from corn-fed beef and high fructose corn syrup, we pay for
expensive gym memberships and diet programs which in turn, stimulates
the economy. Theorists also point to the willingness of the FDA to
approve medications with serious and sometimes even fatal side effects
as proof that the FDAs primary interest is not the health of US
citizens. Some people even think that it may be an attempt at
population control by the government.
http://www.conspire.com/the-fda-big-pharma-conspiracy/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_CqOd1zSxc
Giga
Jul 2, 2012, 3:55:01 PM7/2/12
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jsrcbs$c7m$1...@dont-email.me...
people are becoming more and more unconscious to the point of
flesh-eating-zombie-hood. Once a certain percentage of the population are
going into this mode, say well less than 0.01%, surely there would be great
efforts to prevent any further zombies. Or could there be some sudden event
that would tip a lot of people over the edge at one time?
Turk182
Jul 2, 2012, 5:32:12 PM7/2/12
to
On Jul 2, 6:42 am, Andy Wainwright
> Independent thought is increasingly being viewed with horror not by
> the authorities, but the people themselves- a real fear of thought and
> those who think or question. I'm not talking about those medicated up to
> their eyeballs (which is quite a few of us these days) either. It's not
> just the expression of certain thoughts that are deemed offensive, maybe
> such as the politically incorrect or sexually explicit, but actually
> thinking of *anything* other than what they are directly told and above
> the bare minimum level required to get through the day.
Unquestioning, docile, ritalined, pacified, acceptance of
unworthiness.
> I try not to watch reality TV shows, but something makes me very
> uncomfortable about the sadomasochistic pleasures of seeing others be
> publicly crucified. It's almost as if people were gradually forming
> packs of beying hounds, ready to pounce at the weekest member.
The BBC yoof culture started to appear first in Radio 1, and it
rapidly spread to most mass-audience BBC TV output.
Modest and self-depricating comedians were wiped out in a single swoop
and replaced by the ascerbic, razor tongues of put down humour.
Attacks on self-esteem became respectable. Endless TV Police shows
like Police, Camera, Action became the false friend of the
'respectable Brit' as he lay on his sofa (pissed) watching and
laughing at the 'toe rags' being chased and arrested. Newspaper thugs
like those employed at the Daily Mail abused the public by pouring
petrol on the flames of hatred; and disrepsecting human life on a
scale never seen before. This sadistic rag will still focus in on
the slightest bodily flaw of a woman. When you hear of the low-life's
working in the Mail newsroonm - together with their hateful, bullying
tactics against each other, it becomes clear why this pack of dogs
have done so much to breed hatred in Britain.- projecting their own
inferiority on to us.
> It's a natural desire to seek revenge or justice against someone who has
> done you down. The disturbing development for me is that target has
> greatly broadened from those who have directly caused the pain in the
> first place to innocent bystanders who have little to do with their woes
> if at all. Suddenly the horror film idea of animated "waking dead"
> randomly savaging the living in a hate-fixed trance doesn't seem so far
> fetched. The "normalness" of those so afflicted stands out- not the odd
> nutter but the very mainstream social elements. Just think of all the
> self-esteem depleting forces in the modern world- what happens when that
> self-esteem drops below a critical point where the person no longer
> exists, just the body that houses them.
Spot on.
> I actually see this as more of a realistic possibility than a natural
> disaster or nuclear holocaust. What do you think... if you stil can?
We are not allowed to think. We are bombarded with advertising noise,
laws, instruction, controls, orders and unwanted assaults on our peace
of mind. There is a tut tut tut when a person talks loudly on his
mobile phone on the train, but I find the constantly repeated inane
propoganda message of the PA system in the carriages to be far more
like mind rape! Britain - a no thought zone. If we think - then we
might just realise what's going on!
Turk182
<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Just had this thought that with all the dumbing down that's gone on in
> the media etc, what happens when the intellect level is lowered below
> the threshold required for conscious and rational decision making?
>
> The worrying thing is I'm already starting to see it happen.
Completely correct - I've been banging on about this here for a while.
> Just had this thought that with all the dumbing down that's gone on in
> the media etc, what happens when the intellect level is lowered below
> the threshold required for conscious and rational decision making?
>
> The worrying thing is I'm already starting to see it happen.
> Independent thought is increasingly being viewed with horror not by
> the authorities, but the people themselves- a real fear of thought and
> those who think or question. I'm not talking about those medicated up to
> their eyeballs (which is quite a few of us these days) either. It's not
> just the expression of certain thoughts that are deemed offensive, maybe
> such as the politically incorrect or sexually explicit, but actually
> thinking of *anything* other than what they are directly told and above
> the bare minimum level required to get through the day.
unworthiness.
> I try not to watch reality TV shows, but something makes me very
> uncomfortable about the sadomasochistic pleasures of seeing others be
> publicly crucified. It's almost as if people were gradually forming
> packs of beying hounds, ready to pounce at the weekest member.
rapidly spread to most mass-audience BBC TV output.
Modest and self-depricating comedians were wiped out in a single swoop
and replaced by the ascerbic, razor tongues of put down humour.
Attacks on self-esteem became respectable. Endless TV Police shows
like Police, Camera, Action became the false friend of the
'respectable Brit' as he lay on his sofa (pissed) watching and
laughing at the 'toe rags' being chased and arrested. Newspaper thugs
like those employed at the Daily Mail abused the public by pouring
petrol on the flames of hatred; and disrepsecting human life on a
scale never seen before. This sadistic rag will still focus in on
the slightest bodily flaw of a woman. When you hear of the low-life's
working in the Mail newsroonm - together with their hateful, bullying
tactics against each other, it becomes clear why this pack of dogs
have done so much to breed hatred in Britain.- projecting their own
inferiority on to us.
> It's a natural desire to seek revenge or justice against someone who has
> done you down. The disturbing development for me is that target has
> greatly broadened from those who have directly caused the pain in the
> first place to innocent bystanders who have little to do with their woes
> if at all. Suddenly the horror film idea of animated "waking dead"
> randomly savaging the living in a hate-fixed trance doesn't seem so far
> fetched. The "normalness" of those so afflicted stands out- not the odd
> nutter but the very mainstream social elements. Just think of all the
> self-esteem depleting forces in the modern world- what happens when that
> self-esteem drops below a critical point where the person no longer
> exists, just the body that houses them.
> I actually see this as more of a realistic possibility than a natural
> disaster or nuclear holocaust. What do you think... if you stil can?
laws, instruction, controls, orders and unwanted assaults on our peace
of mind. There is a tut tut tut when a person talks loudly on his
mobile phone on the train, but I find the constantly repeated inane
propoganda message of the PA system in the carriages to be far more
like mind rape! Britain - a no thought zone. If we think - then we
might just realise what's going on!
Turk182
Zerkon
Jul 3, 2012, 3:39:46 AM7/3/12
to
In article <jsrcbs$c7m$1...@dont-email.me>,
andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk says...
> A Zombie Invasion? Is This A Real Threat Today?
>
In the US this is not a threat as threat implies some event that has not
happened yet nor is there a '?' on this issue. From young children to
the military, drugs that make 'brains cope better' have become
commonplace.
==========================================
Propelled by an increase in prescription narcotic overdoses, drug deaths
now outnumber traffic fatalities in the United States, a Times analysis
of government data has found.
Drugs exceeded motor vehicle accidents as a cause of death in 2009,
killing at least 37,485 people nationwide, according to preliminary data
from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/17/local/la-me-drugs-epidemic-
20110918
====================================
More than 500,000 children and adolescents in America are now taking
antipsychotic drugs, according to a September 2009 report by the Food
and Drug Administration..
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02kids.html?pagewanted=all
andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk says...
> A Zombie Invasion? Is This A Real Threat Today?
>
In the US this is not a threat as threat implies some event that has not
happened yet nor is there a '?' on this issue. From young children to
the military, drugs that make 'brains cope better' have become
commonplace.
==========================================
Propelled by an increase in prescription narcotic overdoses, drug deaths
now outnumber traffic fatalities in the United States, a Times analysis
of government data has found.
Drugs exceeded motor vehicle accidents as a cause of death in 2009,
killing at least 37,485 people nationwide, according to preliminary data
from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/17/local/la-me-drugs-epidemic-
20110918
====================================
More than 500,000 children and adolescents in America are now taking
antipsychotic drugs, according to a September 2009 report by the Food
and Drug Administration..
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02kids.html?pagewanted=all
Dare
Jul 3, 2012, 10:40:08 AM7/3/12
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:jsrcbs$c7m$1...@dont-email.me...
is part of what had helped human kind to survive in a world
where the strongest, fittest, animals had ruled with tooth and claw.
Will we humans kill ourselves off before our cohabiting species do?
Why do people fear thinking?
Giga
Jul 3, 2012, 4:40:38 PM7/3/12
to
"Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jsv08f$o1t$1...@dont-email.me...
that way, especially in the short term).
Zerkon
Jul 4, 2012, 5:41:15 AM7/4/12
to
In article <jsv08f$o1t$1...@dont-email.me>, clyd...@hotmail.com says...
claw" idea of evolution is a bill of goods we have been sold. IOW, I now
believe this is wrong in that it is not the way things are working and
not what evidence supports. Maybe this topic is for another thread.
> It seems to me the ability for "different" thinking and innovation
> is part of what had helped human kind to survive in a world
> where the strongest, fittest, animals had ruled with tooth and claw.
> Will we humans kill ourselves off before our cohabiting species do?
>
I think now this "strongest, fittest, animals had ruled with tooth and
> is part of what had helped human kind to survive in a world
> where the strongest, fittest, animals had ruled with tooth and claw.
> Will we humans kill ourselves off before our cohabiting species do?
>
claw" idea of evolution is a bill of goods we have been sold. IOW, I now
believe this is wrong in that it is not the way things are working and
not what evidence supports. Maybe this topic is for another thread.
Cynic
Jul 4, 2012, 8:11:52 AM7/4/12
to
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 05:41:15 -0400, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
>> It seems to me the ability for "different" thinking and innovation
>> is part of what had helped human kind to survive in a world
>> where the strongest, fittest, animals had ruled with tooth and claw.
>> Will we humans kill ourselves off before our cohabiting species do?
>I think now this "strongest, fittest, animals had ruled with tooth and
>claw" idea of evolution is a bill of goods we have been sold.
Who sold you that idea? It is nothing that I have heard of.
>> It seems to me the ability for "different" thinking and innovation
>> is part of what had helped human kind to survive in a world
>> where the strongest, fittest, animals had ruled with tooth and claw.
>> Will we humans kill ourselves off before our cohabiting species do?
>I think now this "strongest, fittest, animals had ruled with tooth and
>claw" idea of evolution is a bill of goods we have been sold.
--
Cynic
Zinnic
Jul 4, 2012, 12:38:41 PM7/4/12
to
On Jul 4, 4:41 am, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
> In article <jsv08f$o1...@dont-email.me>, clydad...@hotmail.com says...
If you start a new thread I would be interested in knowing your
opinion as to who sold "us" that "bill of goods."
> In article <jsv08f$o1...@dont-email.me>, clydad...@hotmail.com says...
opinion as to who sold "us" that "bill of goods."
Immortalist
Jul 4, 2012, 2:20:00 PM7/4/12
to
theory, as an alternative description of natural selection.
...The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by
modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning
of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural
selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits
that have a genetic basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for
two important reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite
to reproduction. Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology
different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population
genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does
not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger,
faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to
a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.
An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean
"only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as
"Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of
evolution. Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing
itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not
just the "physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will
be better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate
characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".
"Survival of the fit enough" is also emphasized by the fact that while
direct competition has been observed between individuals, populations
and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the
driving force in the evolution of large groups. For example, between
amphibians, reptiles and mammals; rather these animals have evolved by
expanding into empty ecological niches.
Moreover, to misunderstand or misapply the phrase to simply mean
"survival of those who are better equipped for surviving" is
rhetorical tautology. What Darwin meant was "better adapted for
immediate, local environment" by differential preservation of
organisms that are better adapted to live in changing environments.
The concept is not tautological as it contains an independent
criterion of fitness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
0 new messages