Guest Post: Sheeple: Another Look At A Sad Breed

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

Some phrases are endowed with immediately recognizable symbolism.  When we hear them, we instantly know who and what the phrases are referring to, and can even gain a greater depth of understanding to a particular situation just by applying them.  They cause us to step outside our environment and look at it in an entirely different way.  They might make us laugh, they might make us cry, but we are not indifferent to these affecting words.

Throughout history there have always been people who were right, and usually a “majority” that were wrong, on any single issue.  Defenders of institutionalized ignorance argue constantly that truth is “relative”, and that they should not be criticized for having their own "opinions".  They use this relativism as a cover for their unwillingness to admit a lack of knowledge.  I would ask them if they believe that they are always right?  That they have nothing to learn?  If the truth is “relative”, if morality and principle are “gray”, then who in their mind has ever been wrong?  It would seem that the only people they view as absolutely amiss are those who confront the establishment.  Those that question the system they are so addicted to.

What they fail to understand is that their “opinions” were never theirs to hold.  What they believe has merely been conditioned into them.  They are willing to embrace the system no matter how unjust, because their entire identity is predicated on its continued existence.  We do not admonish people necessarily because they are unaware (all of us were unaware at one time or another), but we do admonish them for denying the blatant facts in order to avoid admitting that they are wrong, and that they have perhaps been duped by the establishment.  So, what do we call those people who remain willfully ignorant (or comfortably oblivious) in the face of the facts and follow along with the herd (the mainstream) to the detriment of the truth?

We call them sheeple…

The term “sheeple” has quickly become a word that defines an era.  It is not just a tool for ridicule, though it does indeed seem to hurt the feelings of the ignorant and unaware, which to my mind, is a good thing (If they can feel shame over their factual inadequacies, then perhaps one day they can be redeemed).  No, there is much more going on here… 

When one is surrounded by blatant absurdity and total loss; loss of freedom, loss of compassion, loss of humanity, that person needs a way to describe the horror.  A way to shed light on the dark insanity of it.  A way to remove the barriers of confusion and build a clear path to reason.  He needs to quantify the threat, so that he can move beyond it, and towards understanding. 

In our modern age, we are absolutely stricken with an epidemic of willful idiocy that bears no rational excuse.  A century ago, such behavior in a culture could have been chocked up to a bottleneck in the flow of concrete information.  But today, mankind has a veritable buffet of data at his fingertips at any given moment.  The fact of a thing, the truth of a thing, can be arrived at with a mere modicum of effort and a remedial passion for learning.  We can plead “lack of access” no longer.  The only obstacle left is us…

Yes, our government and our society have become corrupt to the core.  Yes, the traditional sources of information in the mainstream media are utterly useless and dishonest.  Yes, our public educational system is completely federalized, and our schools have been warped into lemming factories where young minds are bled dry of all creative power and individuality.  Yes, the system we are born into is designed to make us stupid.  However, the establishment has not yet been able to extinguish our ability to walk away.  We ALL have a choice:  to be taught by others, or, to learn for ourselves.

At the end of the day, sheeple are sheeple not because they have to be, but because they want to be…

It is the greatest and most exploitable weakness of man; our willingness to sacrifice anything in order to avoid admitting we know nothing.  This is the philosophical slum of the common “sheeple”.  It is pathetic, and it is ugly, and it is a rampant plague upon the world in the year of 2013. 

The time is coming, very soon I believe, when the sub-populous of sheeple will be used as cannon fodder to institute change in America on an unprecedented scale.  It has happened many times throughout history.  The establishment, seeking unlimited power, brandishes the dimmer subsections of the citizenry like a political Louisville Slugger, swinging them about wildly in an attempt to smash the ideological enemies of the state.  Often, the sheeple are oblivious to the fact that they are being used as a weapon against liberty, and against truth.  They only know that they must participate to “survive”, even if that survival ends up being a hollow and meaningless life.

Now more than ever it is important for the Liberty Movement to understand and identify who these people are, and what makes them tick.  Time grows short, and it is easy for us to become mired in the haze of a glassy-eyed herd.  Sheeple can be saved from themselves, but only if they can be made to recognize these particular behaviors as part and parcel of their own folly… 

Institutionalized Laziness

Some sheeple are not ignorant because they are unintelligent.  Rather, they are ignorant because they refuse to expend any energy in discovering the facts of their world.  They have become used to the idea of being “taught”, rather than going out to learn for themselves.  It is easier to be told what to think than it is to develop one’s own world view.  Sheeple often state that they “just want to be left alone”, and “don’t want to think about the troubles of the world”, yet nearly all of them at the same time want to feel as though they have an effect on the future.  They want the benefits of a sound and balanced society but don’t want to put in the work to make such a society possible.  They want “other people” to make the system work, and “other people” are certainly willing to take advantage of sheeple inaction.  Tyranny cannot exist unless people willingly hand over their personal responsibilities to the system.  Sheeple make oligarchy and dictatorship possible.

Arrogance Without Merit

I have met many people in my life that are not fully aware of how their world works or why terrible things happen to them.  This by itself is not necessarily bad.  If one is able to accept that he needs to learn more, then he has far surpassed most of society in the strength of his character.  Unfortunately, sheeple do not share this attitude.  They not only lack remedial knowledge on most issues, they are also unwilling to admit it, and, even viciously attack those who DO have substantial information. 

Is this due to an inferiority complex?  Possibly.  They are so invested in the mainstream world view as presented by media entities and government that they take it as gospel.  They live the mainstream ideal, but, secretly, they harbor doubts.  They know that they do not have the capacity to defend the system if confronted by an intelligent and well-versed opponent, and so, they develop a demeanor of arrogance and contempt for those who question it.  This uppity manner is a defense mechanism meant to hide the weakness of their arguments.  Combined with Ad hominem attacks, distraction, and physical threats, sheeple try to ward off critics so they do not have to engage in a legitimate debate they know they will lose.

Always Worried What The “Majority” Thinks

Sheeple are steeped in the realm of the mainstream.  So much so that they have become nothing but a cog in the machine of the collective mind (or hive mind).  Their entire existence is predicated on blind faith in the system.  If the system is proven to be flawed, then THEY are proven to be flawed by extension.  They will ignore all reason and defend the system wildly, as if trapped by some cult, because their fragile identity is dependent upon the continued prosperity of the establishment.     

Sheeple are in most cases motivated by nothing but fear.  In their early years they likely either caved to the force of peer pressure and learned to diminish their personal pain by constantly conforming to the majority view.  Or, they sought inclusion in the majority very early on and became addicted to the power that the collective is able to wield over others.  In either case, they never actually questioned whether or not the “majority” was right in its behavior.  Instead, they decided at some point in their life that the majority is ALWAYS right simply because it is the majority. 

Never Questions The Professional Class

Sheeple are easily impressed by anyone with a nice suit, uniform, lab coat, or an embossed diploma or title.  They see and revere the costume, regardless of the man inside it.  For sheeple, titles and positions of arbitrary authority make the opinions of a man more than opinion; his opinions suddenly become law.

While a Liberty Movement activist looks for the legitimacy within the individual professional, the sheeple places all faith within the institution that professional represents.  His personal character is of no consequence to them, and the idea that he may have no clue what he is talking about does not occur to them. 

Obsession With The State

Because the average sheeple hasn’t the slightest inkling of how to be independent or self sufficient, they attach their survival to the success of the state.  They see the word of the state as sacrosanct, and have no concept of government by the people.  They will sing the praises of democratic elections and the will of the public in general participation, but, when the state goes against that will and does what it pleases, they will seek to rationalize this criminality. 

For them, government as a construct might be fallible (or not), but this fallibility does not change the finality of state authority.  The government is not to be interfered with and certainly not to be opposed.  To stand against the state is to stand against law, and the law, in their minds, is god.  Questions of morality are irrelevant.  They have become so far detached from their conscience that there is nothing left but a pitch black void, waiting to be filled with the demands of oligarchy. 

When confronted by men who are willing to fight and die to interfere with the abuse of state authority, they respond with shock and revulsion.  How could anyone possibly stand against the will of the mainstream and its government champions?  How dare they defy the establishment!

Blind Commitment To The False Left/Right Paradigm

When confronted, sheeple almost always move immediately to meaningless party labels.  They will attack you as a “Democrat”.  They will attack you as a “Republican”.  But their presumptions of what makes a Democrat or a Republican are entirely skewed and inaccurate.  This is, of course, not really a problem for them.

They will not acknowledge the vast similarities of corruption between both major parties because this does not serve their interests.  They do not WANT to know what Liberalism is versus Neo-Liberalism.  They do not WANT to know what true Conservatism is versus Neo-Conservatism.  They only want an easy way to dismiss you and the information you present without having to think.  The false left/right paradigm makes this possible.

Predictable Responses

Sheeple are highly predictable two-dimensional creatures.  When confronted with their own failings, they will follow a pre-programmed list of responses meant to divert and confuse discussion.

They will claim that “everyone thinks they are smarter than everyone else”, and that really, the “truth is relative”.  History does not support this twisted view, however.  There are always moments in which some people are morally and intellectually correct, while many others are dangerously misguided.  Some people make decisions that lead to chaos and destruction while others make decisions that lead to prosperity and creation.  The truth, the cold hard truth, is NOT relative.  It is unyielding, it is uncompromising, and it is final.  To be successful as human beings requires us to be on the right side of truth more often than we are not.  To assume that the truth is “malleable” to our particular desires of the moment is to always be on the wrong side.

Sheeple rely primarily on character assassination and belligerent disregard for logic in order to derail debate.  They do not attack your position so much as they attack you personally.  They scoff, they giggle, they taunt like children, but when it’s all over they usually say very little of any substance. 

Finally, they will use the weapon of majority opinion as a get out of jail free card, and in most cases this is not a ploy.  They really do believe that if the larger percentage of the public accepts a conviction, then that conviction automatically becomes fact.  Their goal, therefore, is to constantly ride the wave of majority opinion so that they will always be in a position of “righteousness”.  Of course, this way of thinking has in the past led to some of the worst atrocities in recent memory.  The collective mind has no concern for individual freedom, including the freedom to live in peace.  Physical and psychological violence in the name of conformity is very common in such cultures. 

Sheeple are puppets in the game of political reconstruction, and their job is to cheerlead the establishment and to drown out all honest voices.  They are generally remorseless as long as they never have to face tangible consequences for their blind support of the system.  They seek to strengthen the bars of the prison because the outside world of free thought and expression intimidates and paralyzes them.  In an environment where survival is dependent on individual merit and principle, sheeple hold no currency.  No capital.  This might explain their overt hatred of individualists.  For when we in the Liberty Movement seek to unchain and decentralize the world, we indirectly cut the umbilical cord between them and the nanny state.  They see our fight for freedom as a threat to their ease of existence, and their very lives.  Sadly, their “comfort” is derived entirely from our enslavement.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
jimmytorpedo's picture

Kant got close with his 'moral imperative' argument.

But don't bother reading him again.

Try "Thus Spake Zarathustra" instead.

It has more sheeple.

Seer's picture

"Try "Thus Spake Zarathustra" instead."

Sisyphean!  That's what I kept thinking about when I read it.

It also reminded me that words really don't seem to work, no matter how wise they are.  I've opted to provide a working example.  Primary is that I DO, secondary is the hope that others have a better understanding/model.  If I fail to "convince" others then at least I haven't let myself down.  The unfortunate thing is that talking-heads are more able to live off of talk than I am of DOING (farming is REALLY tough!); one day, however, I know that this will no longer be the case (I just keep on keeping on).

TrustWho's picture

I was a farmer and left the farm to see the world. I saw the world and wish I had stayed on the farm. As society is removed from the fertility of the soil, they lose their humility and eventually lose their humanity and common sense. DOING yields happiness as most Americans pursue consumption. Continue your effort my man!

Bandit und Buster's picture


Not many get that though. 

misnomer's picture

I don't like the term sheeple.  Sheep are darn useful critters! 

Funny, we rural-born folk have always known we were getting screwed over to fund the dimwits in the city.  You know they all need more highways, bridges, stadiums, casinos, to benefit mankind, don'tcha know?!  

They call us rednecks and deem us stupid, but who will be left standing if there is a major catastrophe, economic or otherwise?




Seer's picture

I wasn't rural born, though I spent time growing up in the country (and that's where I am now).  So, from someone who has a pretty broad range of experiences I'd caution against the view that you're putting out there.

1. Those "highways" and "bridges" are things that are used to get rural-produced products to others;

2. Those dimwits who are in the cities (feel free to have a battle of wits with myself or my wife, both who have lived in cities) are customers.

This "we're better than them," the divide and conquer thing is dangerous.  Rather than pick on PEOPLE I pick on the System, and the System tends to favor cities (because all the high-rollers can maximize their "profits" this way).  I personally do not believe that cities are sustainable: I also believe that most out in the rural countryside are a whisker-hair from the same (I've got a ton of horse folks out in my area- I've also got folks raising pigs, cutting wood etc, a BIG difference between the two types; and in the city I have friends who support me and my wife 100%, folks that would, if they could, be out with us but cannot).

I never pretend to be superior to others.  I may believe that I have a better understanding or set of ideas, but these don't make me superior (what they do, which I hope is the case, help me live a longer and healthier life- my choice).

Now then, politicians in cities are a different matter...

Wakanda's picture

Dem's my sheeps.

earleflorida's picture

'go with the flow my darling lemming sheeple... where your rubicon is but a victory`falls away-- whence, reality abandons all truth in a collective bevy of maelstrom folly-fodder... as ones grandiose insolence, always drowns by ones own word in a sea of myopia-- thy sanctimonious polysemous malapropos, composed of carrion solipsism'

excellent read Mr. Smith... as usual

keep em comin

regards :-)) 

reader2010's picture


"All men are born free, but everywhere they are in chains."



rsnoble's picture

Are those Harry Christianers?  Where's the bongo drums?

TrulyStupid's picture

At least we sheeple are betas!

"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be ableto read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I'm so glad I'm a Beta."…"

-Aldous Huxley - Brave New World

e-recep's picture

this excerpt is an excellent criticism of the nationalist doctrine.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

The system was created by the people, for the people.

Those who made the most money created the shiny things that the most people wanted (with a little help from our friend, Bernays. or was that Ogilvy?). It's not a top-down model (although, certainly, it's been attempted to harness the beastie), it's a ground up popularity contest. These are aggressively marketed, heuristically pitched and fine-tuned with serious statistics, with the minds of the people who could be solving the real issues of the day turned full tilt onto the issue of how to satisfy their clients and consumers.


But your current society is what people wanted.

Go look it up - the happiest time of American history (if you're white)  was the 1950's. The future was sparkly, you were definitely the good guys, and prosperity, dominion over nature and progress was assured. Now, I know the general feeling about Chomsky in these parts, but this is worth a read.  

But then he [Hans Morgenthau] says, to criticize our transcendent purpose “is to fall into the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds” -- which is a good comparison. It’s a deeply entrenched religious belief. It’s so deep that it’s going to be hard to disentangle it. And if anyone questions that, it leads to near hysteria and often to charges of anti-Americanism or “hating America” -- interesting concepts that don’t exist in democratic societies, only in totalitarian societies and here, where they’re just taken for granted.


You all won.

And your reward is what you wanted; there is no "sheeple", there is no Wizard behind the curtain, there is only your own desires, but painted large: you're all living in the dreamland you desired most. From the plastic clean fascism of Disneyland to Religion in your politics, McDonalds and Walmarts on every corner, to Coke / Pepsi in every hand, to media shouting out want you want to hear, to music aping the memetic prophesy of the "Illuminati" to a MIC putting the OOORAH across the globe to grab that oil and test those new tech weapons, to the ultimate reflection of actual Capitalism, she who has the most money gets the most influence.[1]


Those who have the most Capital have pandered most to their consumers, investors and it's all a shared responsibility.


And they're paranoid because it's never enough, and there's a time coming when the cheque needs to be paid, and they all know about 1789.



So don't you dare claim it's not a shared creation, if you've skin in the game, or have lived in the system. Oh, and [1] - try looking up who always wins the US Presidency - hint, it's not about R/D, it's about who raises the most cash.

Manipuflation's picture

I only have a slight case of OCD.(self diagnosed)  Sorry.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

And I only have a severe case of arete, and my ironic punishment is that to fulfill it is to watch the system burn and people die.



Cathartes Aura's picture




                        just, so. . .

centerline's picture

The vast majority of us were born inside the machine.  That is hardly perspective.

Questioning the machine, it's creation, it's drive, it's destiny - even if it means looking in the mirror is what matters.  And that is very hard to do.  Uncomfortable and opens the door to a lifetime of uncertainty, self-doubt, etc.  No wonder staying in the matrix is an attractive idea.

Sheeple are those who refuse to ask "why?" against overwhelming evidence that all is not well.  Stockholm syndrome comes to mind for many.

The wizard(s) behind the curtain are those who knew the bigger picture and have been playing it accordingly for personal fortune.  Consider that the poor might have a planning process that extends at most a week or so.  Middle class folks might think as far out as a few years, on average.  And these timeframes are shrinking fast.  Meanwhile, the truly wealthy (multi-generational) can plan on timeframes significantly longer than any of us and can work carefully over those periods of time to affect the outcome.  These are your wizards.  And below them are numerous "wizard wannabes" - without curtains though.

I agree there is much blame to go around.  But, one has to examine how we got here.  Growth/expansion was the mantra.  Oil was the fuel.  Our vices were easily played and a small percentage of the population capitalized on this to become filthy rich.  The party is now ending and the same wizards will most likely decide our fate.  Considering the extreme level of social programming across the world today, I suspect we will also be self-liquidating.  How convenient.

samsara's picture

"Meanwhile, the truly wealthy (multi-generational) can plan on timeframes significantly longer than any of us and can work carefully over those periods of time to affect the outcome."

Yes,  What else do they have to think about all day.  Certainly not their daily bread.

Such are the thoughts of generations of Rothchilds, Walburgs, Rockefellers, et al

If all could understand the depth of your statement and Grokk in fullness it's ramifacations,  we would then be able to comprehend the events around us as they unfold. 

but alas,  not.

Because of the previous two sentences.  If one is only watching the one or two steps ahead of him,  he will never be able to see the direction that others with a longer vision are directing them to.


Bravo Centerline.

Aurora Ex Machina's picture

Actually, you're incorrect. The "sheeple" are actually the most trusting, benign and faithful members of society.


Because they don't expect the entire system to be based on fucking people over. Sure.. naive? Yep. Too trusting? Yep. Worthy of scorn? No.

It takes a meta-level (+1 if you're merely Business, +2 if you're OPSEC, +3 if you're actually playing the game with <chips>, +4 if you're doing craft-work and working BBurg for shits-n-giggles , and +5 if you're into the breeding genetics thang) to appreciate this.

Real answer: when you pretend you don't exist enough, and then act all coy and fucking protective when you're outed [Remember, remember when Bilderberg was "conspiracy theory" or when Gladio was Black rated] then: fuck right off. I'd love it if these humans were the super-heroes of their time, and all Nazi'd up in the ubermensch. But they're not, and they give us horrors like Berlusconi, or Bush or however many twats you can fit in a can. And that, I'm afraid, deserves some pay-back. 70% fatties, and Religious nutters running your government.

You failed. And we're hungry now.

25% of the entire world's produce and you give us... what?  We expected Supermen and Heroes and Epic level humans. You failed. Badly. The Nazi's were despicable, but at least they produced a society that could cut through over 30,000,000 people and still survive.


You cretins?


"With great power comes great responsibility". 




And if you need it spelling out for your intellect: you created a society that produces failed humans for profit.

This is worse than the Gas Chambers, it really is, because you're breeding them and enforcing the societal environment on them to  perpetuate your model, whilst feeding them hope and promises that they too can compete. That is more sadistic than a gas chamber, it really is.

That is perverted, and your system needs removing on a larger scale than the Nazi party, the CCCP or whatever. Because you are breeding deliberate genetic failure to make your business model work.

This is not "God's Work".



"God" is not happy.

Seer's picture

A good friend of mine puts it this way (in a shrugging fashion): "People are funny."

" So don't you dare claim it's not a shared creation, if you've skin in the game, or have lived in the system."

Thank you for reminding folks of this.  I feel that I owe endeavoring to give back, that's why I am pursuing farming: got nothing to do with religion, just something that keeps me grounded and out of range of being a hypocrite.

NEOSERF's picture

It gets so minute I am a lemming, next a muppet and by the end of the day there medication for this condition?

CaptainSpaulding's picture

Yes, Its called Carlo Rossi merlot. The gallon jug is a true bargain 

Cathartes Aura's picture


it's said to be the best, medicine.

hooligan2009's picture

from another thread and to get this story above 6,666 

enquiring minds want to know who gets the fines being levied by the SEC, CFTC and whoever? 

if the fines represent the value of the odious profit gained by the rogue banks, why then do the people who incurred the cost not get a refund?

are the fines taken from the staff of the bank who perpetrated the fraud, or from theshareholders of the banks or, god forbid, do they go straight back to the Fed who lends the money to pay for the fines in any case?

walcott's picture

The Patrick Henry speech of 2013

pashley1411's picture

I don't think you can ignore the effect intensive agriculture has had on the human race.   We were once hunter-gatherers, which, with our weak bodies, gave a premium to craftiness and intelligence. 

Agriculture turned our incentives on their head.  Through the generations, the more successful people bred to maximize procreation, disease-and-famine resistence, and submissiveness to steady work and submission to authority.   Successful humans were simply a more flexible form of oxen.  

The demos is a political arrangement meant to gain the acceptance of, and harness the work, of the agricutural workers, but operates within the forward-thinking limits of hunters.     Could be oil and water; human nautre itself may make the demos a forelorn project.   

hyperbole2000's picture

Before farming as hunter gatherers we never had a suplus of "stuff" to store to defend or steal from other tribes. Hunting as group created language, farming created war. Hunter gatherers barerly survived and warring was a guaranteed loosing proposition.  Hunter gatherers never grew in population to cause terretorial friction as they were to busy trying to survive.

Anusocracy's picture

Not really. Savages were, well, savages. Just like now. Females were often the commodity back then, but notice the reference to prestige - like idolizing the warrior class in modern society. Savages, then and now.


Keeley conducts an investigation of the archaeological evidence for prehistoric violence, including murder and massacre as well as war. He also looks at nonstate societies of more recent times — where we can name the tribes and peoples — and their propensity for warfare. It has long been known, for example, that many tribes of South America's tropical forest engaged in frequent and horrific warfare, but some scholars have attributed their addiction to violence to baneful Western influences.[citation needed]

Keeley says peaceful societies are an exception. About 90-95% of known societies engage in war. Those that did not are almost universally either isolated nomadic groups (for whom flight is an option), groups of defeated refugees, or small enclaves under the protection of a larger modern state. The attrition rate of numerous close-quarter clashes, which characterize warfare in tribal warrior society, produces casualty rates of up to 60%, compared to 1% of the combatants as is typical in modern warfare. Despite the undeniable carnage and effectiveness of modern warfare, the evidence shows that tribal warfare is on average 20 times more deadly than 20th century warfare, whether calculated as a percentage of total deaths due to war or as average deaths per year from war as a percentage of the total population.[citation needed] "Had the same casualty rate been suffered by the population of the twentieth century," writes Nicholas Wade, "its war deaths would have totaled two billion people."[1] In modern tribal societies, death rates from war are four to six times the highest death rates in 20th century Germany or Russia.[2]

One half of the people found in a Nubian cemetery dating to as early as 12,000 years ago had died of violence. The Yellowknives tribe in Canada was effectively obliterated by massacres committed by Dogrib Indians, and disappeared from history shortly thereafter.[citation needed] Similar massacres occurred among the Eskimos, the Crow Indians, and countless others. These mass killings occurred well before any contact with the West. In Arnhem Land in northern Australia, a study of warfare among the Indigenous Australian Murngin people in the late-19th century found that over a 20-year period no less than 200 out of 800 men, or 25% of all adult males, had been killed in intertribal warfare.[citation needed] The accounts of missionaries to the area in the borderlands between Brazil and Venezuela have recounted constant infighting in the Yanomami tribes for women or prestige, and evidence of continuous warfare for the enslavement of neighboring tribes such as the Macu before the arrival of European settlers and government. More than a third of the Yanomamo males, on average, died from warfare.

According to Keeley, among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, only 13% did not engage in wars with their neighbors at least once per year. The natives' pre-Columbian ancient practice of using human scalps as trophies is well documented. Iroquois routinely slowly tortured to death and cannibalized captured enemy warriors. See Captives in American Indian Wars. In some regions of the American Southwest, the violent destruction of prehistoric settlements is well documented and during some periods was even common. For example, the large pueblo at Sand Canyon in Colorado, although protected by a defensive wall, was almost entirely burned; artifacts in the rooms had been deliberately smashed; and bodies of some victims were left lying on the floors. After this catastrophe in the late thirteenth century, the pueblo was never reoccupied.

Seer's picture

Mostly correct except..

"farming created war."

No, farming created an increased incentive for war.  What farming most created was a template hierarchy.

Anusocracy's picture

Not really.

The "craftiness and intelligence" of the hunter-gatherers (tribal mind) is what is undermining modern society. Agriculture slowly allowed the survival and reproduction of gifted non-social types, Aspergers and High Function Autistics, that drove the increasing rates of technological change, Prior to agriculture, those types were probably killed by their mothers as a bad genetic investment. Even today, the drive is to scrub society clean of the asocial and individualistic types, simply because they can't conceive of not wanting to be social.

Agriculture allowed a type of mind different from the tribal one that uses other people as objects. That was the mind that specializes in using objects as objects.


Seer's picture

I'm sure we'll be hearing from you as technology and all fails to hold off pestilence, disease and war.

Pay now or pay later.  The agricultural meme has but allowed us to push off the day of reckoning, mound it up in to a far bigger day that would have never happened previously (bunches of smaller days, but cumulatively, when all is said and done, it'll all add up to the same).

Now days we kill people for oil that is used to help make things to save people... it takes an open mind to be able to look where most don't care to look.  I look not to see what I want to see, but to see what is there.

NuYawkFrankie's picture

Scence 3, Take 2 - Hands on hips, Leroy spits a gob of tobacco juice at beetle on sawdust floor... takes deep breath thru gnarled & yellowed clenched-teeth - and wistfully exhales:

"My oh my.... there were some mighty-fine lookin' sheep in that photo..."

reTARD's picture

Ayn Rand warned of "the sanction of the victim."

It is "the fact that men cannot be enslaved politically until they have been disarmed ideologically. When they are so disarmed, it is the victims who take the lead in the process of their own destruction.

Quote from "The Wreckage of the Consensus," lecture given at The Ford Hall Forum, Boston, on April 16, 1967. Published in The Objectivist, April and May, 1967.

TrulyStupid's picture

Ayn Rand seems to be the patron saint of all the victimizers  who embrace neo-con ideology. The sad part about the sheeple is that they think they are free and welcome their own ideological imprisonment by the self styled Randian "meritocracy".

monad's picture

you've been had, sheople. PsychoPolitik


yabs's picture

You will not find anyone more f*cking mad at the sheeple than me.

In The Uk I am sure there are more percentage wise than in the US.

Here it seems its a taboo to even question the bankstas.

Most are not even aware that QE is money printing to give directly to the banks.

Its a friggin disgrace. I have tried to educate people but they laugh at me when I talk about the banks runnning the world.

Ther response is always trhe same. Money makes the world go around so I guess what they are saying is we need the bansk to survive in some sick logic.

Even people who have been very succesful and well educated fail to see the route of the problem which is a private control of the money supply by oligarchs and it doesn't matter which party they vote for, they serve the same masters.

Living in the Uk really is torture to anyone who is awake


As the op said with the internet there is zero excuse to not be aware of the TRUTH.


One friend even said that even if the banks were bad at least they are not trying to bom b us like the muslims.


I mean really where do you go with that level awareness.



NuYawkFrankie's picture

Re Living in the Uk really is torture to anyone who is awake

Every time Ive been to the UK, I've felt like I'm in a mental prison - absolutely freekin clueess brain-washed mo'fos over there. ZERO discussiion about ANYTHING that matters.

And they even affect a superiority complex to go with it ! LOL!!!


medium giraffe's picture

Nothing but wall-to-wall, breathtaking materialism here in the good old UK.  " Which car do you drive?" "how much has your house appreciated by?" and one of my new personal favourites "have you been to such-and-such restaurant?" food snobbery bullshit.

As for the willing public defence of the banking sector, despite the antics of RBS and the taxpayer bailouts, well, that's all our economy really consists of anymore so we can't be nasty to them. There was hope that there might be a flourishing tech/engineering/light industry revolution a few years back, but that has been pretty much sidelined by £3T debt and very little support for innovation by local and national government.  

Our economy really does just revolve around the fortunes of the banking sector and the wealthy.  To demonstrate both of these points, London is still a tax haven for those moving wealth in from abroad, and if you ever hear bad news for banks, you can just short GBP with confidence (have to do this regularly just to try and hedge the falling value of my shitty fiat).

Breaks my heart and I really feel for those trapped by all of this crap (wise to it or not), but I suppose we're just another old empire clinging on to percieved past glory whilst slipping further into greed, debt, sloth and depravity - and feeling pretty superior about the whole affair.  America - we are your future.  Sorry.

Seer's picture

"Nothing but wall-to-wall, breathtaking materialism here in the good old UK.  " Which car do you drive?" "how much has your house appreciated by?" and one of my new personal favourites "have you been to such-and-such restaurant?" food snobbery bullshit."

I can't really speak to claim to know how it's like in the UK, but based on my experiences in the US with folks broad-brushing things, do you think that perhaps your comments are city-centric, London?  I can't think that folks out in the country could be like this...

conspicio's picture

Interesting article, yet there is an uncomfortable premise it uses as a foundation. Namely, that more data means a greater ability to see truth. I would argue the opposite. More data means the ability to cherry pick, repackage, and sell sell sell a convenient version of the truth. It goes to my theory of diminishing knowledge where everyone shares less of what they know until eventually everyone knows nothing. Of course, the nothing is filled in with a something, and what that something not the truth. This, of course, is what we call history.

Sheeple-think is merely a metatruth filtered through a giant game of telephone. And when practiced on a national scale in the form of propoganda, then truth is secondary and people who normally wouldn't be sheeple become...sheeple...somewhat unwittingly. Baaaaa. Baaaaaa.

Seer's picture

"More data means the ability to cherry pick, repackage, and sell sell sell a convenient version of the truth."

So, are you saying LESS data is better?  Have you ever taken statistics?  Do you understand the concepts behind sample sizes?

I'd argue that more data just means that there are less people willing to look at it because there is more.  Those that like quick and simple slogan kind of stuff might appreciate small sample sizes, but for those who really want to see meaningful sample sizes they have to spend time.  Yeah, it's a conspiracy...

It's facts that get lost, not the "truth."  Small, incomplete sample sizes allow all sorts of people to claim "truths" (and those who want to see those particular "truths" likely have no concept of sample sizes.

Seer's picture

"Defenders of institutionalized ignorance argue constantly that truth is “relative”, and that they should not be criticized for having their own "opinions". "

Sorry, but "truth" IS relative.

Rather than keep fighting against transforming something that cannot be transformed we ought to get people conditioned to understand logic and to understand how facts are identified.

While facts and logic can paint a more truer "truth," this cannot necessarily work the other way around: a greater "truth" cannot make non-logic or non-facts logical and factual.

I get what you're saying, Brandon, but missing this tends to place a big cloud over it all.  Always note that you're battling against a highly sophisticated, powerful propaganda machine, a "thing" that can wipe out a 99% "truth" by gunning down a mere 1% un-truth.

NOTE: in mathematics and computers one CAN (accurately/safely) reference a provable "truth"

Totentänzerlied's picture

"NOTE: in mathematics and computers one CAN (accurately/safely) reference a provable "truth""

If a truth is only meaningful, and true, within the quite possibly contradictory or incomplete logical system which created it, then sure.

Seer's picture

It's an issue of testability and repeatability.  Since math provides rather concrete ways in which numbers can be tested against, and since computers can be used to run many computations quickly these math tests/comparisons can be made quite rigorous.

"Truth" is not absolute because it IS subjective (one need only see it in evidence today- from religion to "general consensus).  "Truth," then, is meaningless.  If you want something to tie something to then one ought to address facts (as garnered through logic and math).

Yeah, sure, one could say that "It's TRUE that Jimmy took a train."  I'm saying that it's more correct to say "It's a FACT that Jimmy took a train" (if, that is, one has a picture of Jimmy on the train [and maybe a train ticket?]).  If I am a witness then I suppose that I could proclaim it as truth; but usually it's a passed on "truth," and at this point it ought not carry the full weight of FACT w/o proper supporting evidence.

Totentänzerlied's picture

"They will claim that “everyone thinks they are smarter than everyone else”, and that really, the “truth is relative”.  History does not support this twisted view, however.  There are always moments in which some people are morally and intellectually correct, while many others are dangerously misguided.  Some people make decisions that lead to chaos and destruction while others make decisions that lead to prosperity and creation."

What is morally and intellectually correct depends on one's values - per the author's own statement - as, obviously, do "good" and "bad". For those who agree on definitions of "prosperity" and "creation" and hold them to be the highest good(s), being "correct" means holding proper beliefs in relation to these vague goals. For people who do not hold prosperity and creation to be the highest good, and/or chaos and destruction the lowest bad, "correctness" will necessarily entail something quite different.

None have a claim on truth, as so far nothing mentioned has any relevance to "truth" as an abstract concept, except for those who yoke truth to morality. 

The author, in short, fails to account for the fact that "the sheeple" have values (and expectations) which differ from, and almost certainly conflict with, his own. His truth is as value-dependent as theirs. The author should not be smuggling in his values (system) behind a specious discussion of truth, which is exactly what he has done.

But it goes beyond this. Perhaps some of "the sheeple" share the author's goals of prosperity and creation. They can and will nonetheless disagree on the proper course of action, the means by which to achieve their goals. It is entirely likely that they believe themselves just as much in possession of the proper method as the author does himself.

The author is perfectly well aware that values (systems) can collide:

"They see our fight for freedom as a threat to their ease of existence, and their very lives.  Sadly, their “comfort” is derived entirely from our enslavement."

The Gooch's picture

"Don't Tread On Me" > "Tread On Everyone Else"

toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Cue up the idiots who believe the 10+ million veterans and active duty soliders in and around the U.S. military are a monolitic block of uninformed, unthinking sheeple on the order of the Obamaphone lady.

The illegal, illegitimate U.S. civilian government will ONLY be overthrown with their active participation in such an overthrow... and the overthrow will indeed occur... sure as the sun will cross the sky, the traitors are going down.

Seer's picture

Queue Rambo...

What the fuck are you going to "take over?"  A mountain of non-payable debt (and what about PRIVATE debt, which is HIGHER than PUBLIC debt?).  A totally corrupt System.  A System that is premised on the impossible: perpetual growth on a finite planet.

What is your game plan AFTER you "take over?"  How do you propose to deal with the above?