14 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-12-25 2120 +John le Bon

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-12-25 2120 +John le Bon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_ULZCnGu7Q&lc=Ugwp7iJ8KNqzGj25z6h4AaABAg
https://pastebin.com/D7i8FuTE
__

Every farmer has a perennial task: _to recognise pests before they become a problem._ When something is presented to us in a way that _seems_ absurd, the small percentage who don't automatically trust the story tellers *can't help but point it out and talk about it as fake* (even if it's not).

(A lack of trust is the chief source of doubt, which is a consequence of _intuitively_ recognising/sensing there is an _unnecessary_ lack of "sufficient proof" for claims.) It is a beautiful trap. In doing this, potential dissidents (i.e., the pests) _*reveal themselves*_ when otherwise they would remain _hidden_ amongst the population.

In a long-term breeding programme this is a simple and efficient strategy to recognise dissidents which can be found in each new generation/crop.

Humanity's farmers exploit basic flaws and various foibles of human psychology; nothing suggests they do this for our benefit, or that they are in any way our "friends". Any such optimism and positive feelings can be attributed to "Stockholm syndrome" etc.




__________
2017-12-26 1455

+John le Bon __ (This is a quick [as in quickly typed] reply and I'll likely add another later on to address other points you have made.)

Would you say that we have unprecedented access to _good_ information or _bad_ information? It could be good, but how confident are you that most can recognise bad information as well as you can?

Would you say that technology, e.g., so-called "mobile phones" (a euphemism for "personal tracking and data collection devices") are more for our convenience _or our farmers?_

Facebook has an initiative whereby people can _preemptively_ upload compromising photos of themselves (lolz) and should those images be leaked they can be recognised and blocked. If you trust Facebook and its workers with your compromising photos, then that's wonderful news!

But, can we not foresee that we are being set up to accept a _greater_ downside to such technology? No doubt you have heard about the more recent car attack in Melbourne. Police have encouraged those who took photos and video of the incident to upload it to a "Public Evidence Submission Site".

This is something we are going to be encouraged to do after each incident. _Every bit helps!_ It sure sounds wonderful, _and for now this process appears to be *voluntary* and is done *manually.*_

But, suppose an incident were staged for propaganda purposes and someone took a photo that could cast doubt about the incident. Or perhaps a real event has happened and the nightly news wants to misrepresent it. The police can mark that compromising image as "forbidden" and prevent the world from ever seeing and sharing it.

It is not a matter of simply changing/"reframing" your perspective to make a greater downside disappear. What "positive outlook" can turn the anticipated "memory hole" I've outlined into something that benefits the deceived _more than_ the deceivers?!

Sure, technology can be wonderful if you're a "normal person", but there is an inseparable downside that ultimately benefits the farmers _more_ than their crops.

It's terrific that we can benefit from technology as it goes about exploiting us, but ask a battery hen if it's really so wonderful!
https://twitter.com/LestaNediam/status/937071162273574912




__________
2017-12-26 1550

+John le Bon __ (Follow-up.) The fact that our farmers are okay with routinely deceiving their crops would in my view disqualify them as operating with our best interests in mind.

Have you ever _*needed*_ to lie to those you've intended to help? Are the flat Earth proponents deceiving their intellectually vulnerable audience because it's the "only way" to help them find truth, fellowship and, presumably, "God"? It's certainly the only way for the flat Earth proponents to achieve their ends!

Can deceiving the population _ever_ be a good thing? Sure, it can be argued that deceiving the population is a way to achieve the "greater good", but for the long-term it's a weak position to hold and falls apart upon scrutiny.

Especially when it comes to individuals. Civilians who have had a war-time bombs dropped on them would not likely agree it served the "greater good". Perhaps some of them would, but they can't tell us since they're dead.

If a population is being deceived (generation after generation) then we can safely reject the possibility that the deceivers are doing it for the benefit of the population, and accept instead it is being done more for the benefit of the deceivers.

So long as a farmer isn't abandoning a crop, a farmer is neither good nor evil towards its crop. *The farmer simply carries out "best farming practices".* Sometimes the best interests of the farmer align with ours ("isn't technology wonderful?!"). And sometimes we mistakenly think it does ("damn, technology has more efficiently trapped us!").

I say that with a modicum of thought it becomes self-evident that we are farmed and in a long-term breeding programme. Now, if you can imagine that's a good thing, then for you it's a good thing. Just be wary of drones dropping bombs on the heads of dissidents - _for the greater good_ - because the algorithm may determine that you are one of them!




__________
2017-12-26 1810

+John le Bon __ A quick point to be mindful of. Today we still have a choice to shun "mobile phones" and other technology, but increasingly that will cease to be the case.

Also, and this is something I don't think many are considering: *Someone may shun the use of smart phones, but everyone around him has not!*

And it's _everyone else's_ "mobile phone" that's constantly grabbing photos, video, audio, and other data. Increasingly, someone who values their privacy (what a quaint concept) can't avoid getting swept up in it. I'll give an example of how this is already affecting people in a moment.

Right now all of this may not seem like a problem. After all, _"if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"_ may be wretchedly flawed rhetoric, but it seems to alleviate most thoughtless people's concerns.

(Mind you, it makes one wonder how crime can still be a thing?! How can there be unsolved crime unless criminals are _tacitly permitted_ to get away with criminal activity so that their behaviour can be studied and algorithms developed/refined to identify similar criminals. Perhaps before those people commit any crimes they can be exposed to "behavioural correction propaganda". Or perhaps those people can be entrapped, so as to fill up jails with able-bodied people and profit from their "free" labour.)

*But, given how _quickly_ the moral pendulum can swing to extremes - _all thanks to technology_ - what may seem perfectly "okay/acceptable" today, can become a "sackable offence" in a mere decade or two.*

Perhaps not as a criminal offence, but as a social/moral offence where a person's employment opportunities could suffer. And there will be plenty of digital evidence to document any such moral transgressions! (And if a person deletes their Tweets, there's always the "Wayback Machine"!)

Consider the highly active "MeToo" campaign. It started out with "Harvey Weinstein" (a _real jerk_ if the allegations are true), but in the endless search for new victims - in search of monsters for vigilantes to persecute: *how long until someone who has told - _or merely laughed at_ - a sexist, racist or other inappropriate joke comes under scrutiny?*

Well, it's already happening. Take a squiz at the recent fiasco to do with "John Alexander". Someone filmed him telling a joke *a few decades ago.* In today's moral climate, the joke he told can seem offensive and outrageous. _*He is not fit for high office!*_

If you don't know what I am talking about take a squiz at the ABC news website for the headline: _"John Alexander: Liberal candidate for Bennelong by-election apologises for r4pe joke video"._

What a terrible terrible man! And thanks to technology, that awful man is paying a price for an old joke - _which was told to drunk people at a pub, probably while under the influence himself_ - as though he was telling it stone cold sober _today_ in a climate that's outraged by "Harvey Weinstein" and "toxic masculinity"!

Would he have told that joke back then had he known _this_ would happen today? Unlikely. _But he told it back then *because* he could not foresee today._ And in the same way, people are going about their day embracing technology without any ability to foresee how it can be used against them in a few decades.

Without any awareness that what's considered "morally okay" today may become morally outrageous in a decade and a "sackable offence".

Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise! _Not quite!_

For "normal people" who no one will ever care about, there may be nothing to worry about. But for anyone with aspirations, it's a different matter. And who knows what aspirations we may have in ten or twenty years' time.

Now, if this is where it's going, then I can't wait to see what happens to Old "Norm Macdonald". When it comes to telling inappropriate jokes, _*that guy's a real jerk!*_ Unless "Norm Macdonald" is somehow "protected", _he's screwed!_




__________
2017-12-26 2000

+John le Bon __ I have read your reply and I'd like to talk more about your opening sentence/question: _"Have you considered the possibility that the *digitisation of reality* is inevitable?"_

Of course humanity is on an inevitable path to digitisation, and of course it is better to embrace such a fate than to reject it _when it's inevitable._ Just as it is better to recognise and embrace our so-called "mortality", since no one gets to remain lucid in _this_ dream forever. _And just as well, f_kc this place!_

But, that doesn't mean everything we can imagine is true or inevitable. Over the years I have thought about many things, and with some ideas it can be easy to lose one's mind when things can be ruled in, _but not out._

It's easy to imagine things, what's more difficult is then ruling them _out._

A digital photograph is a digital representation of reality, but I suspect you mean something else by "digitisation of reality". So, if it's not revealing any secrets, and it's not too much trouble, would you describe what you mean?



____________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta on Twitter
https://twitter.com/lestanediam

Lesta on Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.