The Great Culling
"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."
Those are the ominous words written on the now-infamous Georgia Guidestones. Many suspect - and I do as well - that this monument was constructed by some unknown globalist Gaia-worshippers, likely in accordance with the agenda of such sinister entities as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Builderberg Group, the New World Order, or even some smaller secret club of run-of-the-mill Satanists.
At the time of my writing this, the Earth's population is somewhere around 7.4 billion people worldwide.
If you run the math yourself, 500 million into 7.4 billion means a total decrease of about 93% of the global population. Given that the United Nations projects an increase towards 11.4 billion by the year 2100, it's hard to imagine a 93% reversal, short of a massive and deliberate culling of the population. If you're at all familiar with the history of Secret Societies, you can probably rattle off a number of specific schemes that seem like they're designed with this end goal in mind.
And if you're not, consider this your first lesson:
Between the twin dynasties of the Bushes and the Clintons, as well as the likes of Carter, Obama, RINOs and DINOs in the two-party Congress, and the leaders of Europe pushing for a European superstate, it looked for a long while as though we were on a trajectory destined for worldwide totalitarianism arising from destabilization, scarcity, and war.
At least for now, it seems as though the world dodged a bullet with the election of Donald Trump,  with Brexit, and with the Catalan independence; as well as the selfless sacrifices of brave whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange; and socio-political and cultural weapons-crafters like Stefan Molyneux, Scott Adams, Lauren Southern, Mike Cernovich, Ann Coulter, and many more to help balance the scales in favor of individualism.
The globalists have taken many blows and been driven back. The military-industrial complex and the media-political complex have been wounded, though it's likely this is just the beginning. Yes, there are certainly no shortages of problems. Our present cultural and political leaders are by no means perfect; but I remain optimistic - for perhaps the first time in my adult life - that the next four years will continue in this way.
The real question, however, is what happens afterward?
Have we just lived through the climactic turning point in history? Are we on the cusp of a Modern American Golden Age?  Or will we go back to business as usual again once this minor annoyance, this little hiccup, this mere bump in the road of globalist eighth-dimensional chess has been successfully cleared? Many great triumphal moments in liberty have been followed by devolution to tyranny in the past, though there is a case to be made that this time is not quite the same as before, for a variety of reasons - one of them being technology.
I suppose it all depends on whom we pass the torch to and who is there to take it up again. If someone like Rand Paul succeeds Trump, I'd say that's a win for individualism and we can expect a Future of Freedom for All. If, on the other hand, the neocons and socialists reclaim their lost ground, then it's back to the way things were before.
Again, I'm optimistic that the twin pillars of freedom of technology will support the human race going forward, but we'll have to find out together if that's actually the case.
Part of the emotional revulsion to the globalist plan for population control are the methods by which we imagine it will come about - the various forms it might arrive in. You know them well enough by name, I suspect:
Conquest, war, famine, plague, and more sinister and subtle tools of bureaucracy, pharmaceuticals, propaganda, processed food, drugs, alcohol, religious and political conviction, fake media, social media, etc.
Those in power who aren't total psychopaths will tell you they're doing it for ultimately humanitarian reasons. Those of you who've read stuff like Watchmen or Dan Brown's Inferno know what I mean. The idea that you kill off millions to save billions is, to them, just trimming away the deadwood and an act of compassion in a long-term game of survival of the species.
"When a forest grows too wild, a purging fire is inevitable and natural." ~ Ra's Al Ghul
Even Thomas Jefferson talked of the Tree of Liberty needing to be pruned from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants in service of the greater good. The scientific reality of the Earth's carrying capacity would seem to lend prima facia evidence to their argument.
Only, don't you find it interesting - I know I certainly do - that anytime someone calls for the mass culling of an entire group that they themselves happen to be a part of ... don't you kinda stop and wonder why, if they really cared about the greater good, they wouldn't just start with themselves?
As far as the subject of overpopulation is concerned, I would argue, for a number of reasons, that humans are not actually in any serious danger of hitting a hard cap. Everything from a general decline in replacement rates to hydro- / aeroponics and other sustainability projects; from parasite architecture and vertical living to aquatic / underground cities, to terraforming Mars, and other more advanced solutions ... these all suggest we'll be just fine in the long-run. That we'll have plenty of resources and space to sustain us if we but apply existing and future technology wisely.
Indeed, the myth of overpopulation is just that: a myth.
However, even without the workings of the globalists, I still see humanity eventually returning to a more limited population on its own. What I hereby term: The Great Culling.
It could occur as a product of the robot revolution, though that's not the only way. If it did happen that way, it seems unlikely to arrive in the way you think - with T1000s genociding humans on the orders of Skynet. Genetics, cybernetics, transcendence, and other forms of augmented reality are all other paths by which the Great Culling could come about in the sense that the population of humans - or, at least, what we now think of as humans - will sharply decline.
What the actual number is at the end, I've no idea (maybe zero), but one thing I do know is this. It won't be for the typical Malthusian reasons, though it might sound very similar at first if you're not familiar with the idea.
The Great Culling lies in our future and it will largely be one of our own choosing. No one will have to hold a gun to our heads or slip us a poison pill when we're not looking. It won't be because of war or crime or systemic involuntary mass starvation. In many ways, most of those problems are actually on the decline, even as we speak.
Instead, we humans will simply wear out due the attrition that comes with lack of fulfillment and faith in our own future as an individual member of society. From simple nihilism or no longer having a place in the world because we no longer have anything of value to offer such as would continue to justify our existence and no way to expand or improve without radically altering what we are - and that won't be a socially imposed condition either, but one arising from deep inside due to a sense of personal honor and integrity, of deep-seated longing to be better than what we are.
What do I mean by that?
Consider the Huxleyan dystopic society of Brave New World in which human beings all live in a Rat Utopia, freely "engaging" with one another on a regular basis. It's a world in which everyone's needs are taken care of, safely removed from the chaos of the "savage reservation" beyond their walls, and in which society's roles are doled out in a caste hierarchy based on the jobs' relative levels of complexity, mental labor, and physical dangers. A liberal application of positive eugenics is then applied so that the intellect and appearance of people in this society correspond with their role, and everyone is likewise psychologically conditioned from birth to accept their place in a sort of Dharma meets mad science.
In simple terms, people are genetically bred and brainwashed so that the smart, good-looking people are at the top getting all the cushy jobs in art and science (the Alphas), with the ugly, stupid people at the bottom doing the grunt work such as mining Uranium (the Epsilons). Average-looking people of average intelligence get stuck in the middle doing average things of average importance (Betas, Gammas, and Deltas).
If I had to guess, the intellectual elites in the Alpha class were probably the ones who leveraged their high IQs to create the propaganda system and the behavioral conditioning. Some of that may have been in-group preference and self-interest; but a more benign interpretation would suggest it was necessary on some level to keep the lower-IQ, lower-skilled people from rioting while still providing them with purpose enough to justify their continued existence within society, as well as their own self-esteem.
In a Huxleyan society, the human race splits into gods and dogs, becoming highly polarized and each class more or less keeps to itself and mates with its own. A steady supply of all classes is maintained in balance because you don't wanna risk the high-IQ people down in the mines and the low-IQs can't be retrained to do the heavy intellectual lifting.
Everyone is happy because everyone is valuable. #AllLivesMatter
Before I go on, I wanna pause and clarify something. My use of the terms "eugenics" and "propaganda" in the proceeding paragraphs are meant as a shorthand synopsis to paint a contrast between our world and the Huxleyan one in terms of structure. Morally speaking, the people in Brave New World (save for John, who was born an outsider) don't consider themselves as being oppressed - just the opposite - and it's likely that the transition to such a society from our own was the result of a gradual process involving the voluntary implementation of various socio-political policies over a long period of time.
In other words, the society probably wasn't forced to be this way, but naturally evolved along those lines much in the same way we see our own world evolve socially, legally, and technologically. Thus, it only appears oppressive in contrast to what we know; whereas our society, to them, might be seem highly oppressive - or at least highly inefficient - with all the things we presently consider "normal."
If it helps, think back to some of the things people accepted fifty or a hundred or two hundred years ago as "normal," "moral," behaviors and policies that today we'd consider abhorrent. Things like slavery, racism, or sexism, for instance.
Eugenics is another good example. People believed in selective human breeding for a long time. Then, the Nazis used it to justify genocide and people tried to distance themselves from the idea and even from the term itself, until enough time passed and technology improved that we're starting to consider it again.
Obviously, there are many ethical concerns about its usage that we'll have to sort out; but in general, I think we're pretty much all on the same side that if we can use technology to help people and improve their lives without harming others or violating their consent, then we almost have a moral duty to use it. That it'd actually be immoral not to.
Engineered babies are still a grey area, but when I talk about eugenics going forward, know that I mean in a more or less voluntary sense. The people who don't want to improve can stay as they are, though I imagine most of them would ultimately choose to conform if only because it makes life easier for them.
If their genes are otherwise unfit for the society they live in, we won't kill them nor even force the issue of their compliance. They'll just leave or die off on their own without reproducing because no one will want to breed with them ... kinda like now, but in exponentially greater numbers.
That, in a nutshell, is what the Great Culling is.
Here's where things start to get dark.
Prescient as he might have been, I contend that the one thing Huxley couldn't have predicted was the degree to which technology would evolve and how that in turn would affect just about everything we do.
In Huxley's version of things, there are indeed computers, but humans still perform most of the labor. Since his time, however, we've seen the rise of robots that can do all manner of things, with many more hopefuls still on the rise. Even in our present society, we don't really need an Epsilon class to do things like mine Uranium and other raw resources. Most large-scale mining and agriculture is done by robots.
The descendants of IBM's Watson and Amazon's Alexa will be AI's advanced enough to take over service jobs. When combined with future versions of collaborative robots - such as Baxter, EDI, Curie, and many others - and given humanoid qualities less uncanny than a Real Doll, we won't have need for Deltas and Gammas either.
It's only a matter of time before these concepts become consolidated into single holistic units much the way we are. The only jobs left at that point will be for the elite Alphas and the Betas; and quantum computers such as Google Deep Dream or even PINN from Transcendence, suggest a future in which even those jobs might not be safe.
"Kill all humans, kill all ... Welcome to Wendy's! How can I be of service?"
All this then begs the question: if there's nothing for these people to do, what are they actually doing with their lives? Just taking up space, being a drain on scarce resources produced by others.
You might be tempted to think we can just retrain them to do higher-order jobs, if only we gave them access to better education, but it turns out we really can't. Sure, in the short-term, it'll have a positive impact, but that's the problem. Everyone's only busy thinking short-term.
The limitations of IQ seem to have an innate biological component. How much, we're not sure, but it's significant. Short of cybernetic implants or genetic modification, there won't be much that can help such people in the long run. Even supposing we could find a way to help them, it would take a very long time - years, even - and by then, technology will have progressed along at such a rate that whatever job we retrained them for might no longer be there by the time they're ready and we have to repeat the process all over again.
Meanwhile, the definition of what constitutes low-IQ will tend to shift upwards. Right now, it's about 85, but eventually, it'll creep towards 95, 100, 120, and so forth. To put this into perspective, if you can read and follow along with this article, you're probably IQ 100 or more based on current IQ tests. I suppose it's a small consolation that many of the people who'd reflexively object to this post based purely on how it makes them feel are probably too stupid to even read it in the first place.
I almost wish that wasn't the case.
There's of course the Flynn Effect that says IQ tends to rise over time under the right conditions, but that's a generational effect and we don't have that kind of time. Not anymore.
That's the old way of thinking.
The new way of thinking is highlighted by the other problem with the Flynn Effect, which is that IQ tends to rise linearly, whereas technology advances exponentially. Again, the result is that there will come a point in each industry at which humans are outcompeted by robots and the ability to retrain becomes a futile effort. So either humans will be forced to use various forms of technology to transcend their biological limitations, or they will become obsolete.
If you or someone you know has ever been unemployed for a long period of time, you know how shitty that feels and what a miserable life it is to not have a sense of purpose. Something to work towards to make you feel like you matter. Most people just turn to addictive behaviors to make themselves feel better - whether drugs and alcohol, video games, TV, sex, or social media - but all these things aren't valuable or productive to society and so they form a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop.
We have enough of a problem with such behaviors in our present society.
Again, if you've experienced prolonged unemployment, think about how it makes you feel and all the problems it creates for you and others.
Now picture that, but times a million, and that's the future for most.
Indeed, at that point, if you have a bunch of low-skilled, low-IQ people all just hanging around, not contributing to society in any meaningful way, just consuming resources, you might start wondering what's the point of keeping them alive, especially if you're one of the people still actively contributing?
Obviously, just bashing them over the head with a rock would be sociopathic.
You could maybe say it was for the greater good that they starve to death if resources ever became that scarce, and tell yourself they weren't pulling their weight - unlike you. Who does not work does not eat, as the saying goes. But an exponential increase in technology makes it far more likely we'd have an abundance of basic resources coupled with an increase in quality of life. So they wouldn't have to die off, necessarily. You could keep them alive just to study them, or for your own amusement, I suppose.
Hmm, what do you call an animal you keep alive solely to provide you with good feels? One who's partly or wholly dependent on you for its subsistence?
Gimme a second, it'll come to me.
I used the terms "gods" and "dogs" metaphorically before, but that's essentially what it'd be like. The two extremes would continue to diverge to the point of possibly becoming separate species. You may think it's condescending and dehumanizing to suggest that one day stupid people might become the glorified pets of smart people; but realistically speaking, can you think of a more humane and loving way to deal with them? I certainly can't, though I'm open to suggestions.
Indeed, if gods or aliens exist, that's probably what we are to them already: pets and lab rats.
Let me be clear, because I know people are gonna take this the wrong way. My analogy is description, not proscriptive. It's a statement about what I think is likely to happen, not what I'd prefer would happen. Obviously, I'd prefer if we could all transcend and become useful, immortal, idealized deities, but I just don't see that being a realistic possibility. I'd prefer if I didn't have to think about or write about something so uncomfortable as the Great Culling, and all the difficult ethical questions it poses, but reality doesn't care how we feel. It just is.
So the best I can do is warn people about what I see looming on the horizon and hope they are smart enough to adequately prepare themselves accordingly on their own terms.
(Or that I'm wrong.)
If it makes you feel any better, we already have Fail Compilation videos and Darwin Awards as a thing that exists, so it's not like we'd have a hard time adjusting to bemusing ourselves watching as stupid people do stupid shit. Just that what constitutes "stupid" will be an ever shifting scale.
What the transition looks like will be the interesting, if not somewhat frightening, movie we get to watch together.
Part of the reason it's frightening is in imagining - and then realizing - what the Deltas and the Epsilons will do when their lives and their sense of purpose is threatened at an existential level. The other scary part will come from how the Alphas and the Betas set about to fix the problem, since realistically they'd be the only ones who could. They'd have all the brains, and thus, until we reach a post-scarcity society, they'd also have all the money and power, because they'd be solving all the problems and managing the systems that govern all of humanity.
As a certain Master Persuader recently pointed out, when people feel like their lives don't matter, they'll often resort to violence against themselves and others in an effort to get people to care about them. To show you that their existence does matter, significantly. The violence is often a last ditch effort to force you to care about a person's needs (whether real or perceived).
Towards that end, members of the ruling class have always crafted, refined, and perfected means of pacifying the unruly masses until they can work out some sort of compromise that keeps them alive and in high status with all their property intact while not risking provoking others to riot for entirely different reasons, like morals and stuff.
The bread and circus of the future could take the form of highly concentrated supplements and virtual augmented reality headsets. No need to engage with other humans in your own class when you've got non-stop sexy adventure time with an Alpha-Plus running in your head.
Why buy the cow when you can milk the woman in the red dr- ... I'm sorry, what were we talking about?
Such a society as that would tend towards a Rat Utopia. And we know from past experiments that when an animal is given all it needs, it'll become withdrawn, vain, narcissistic, and fuck like crazy in a hyper r-selected environment. But give it the keys to directly drive its own dopamine centers and it won't even do that. It'll just drug itself to death in slow, voluntary starvation, taking itself and its genes out of the pool in the process.
And in a world where your life is otherwise meaningless and without purpose, death by snu-snu seems about as merciful a sentence as you can get for the high Darwinian crime of being a genetically and socially inferior being. In that regard, technology will be a great equalizer as everyone male, female, gay, straight, trans, queer, and whatever else will be able to indulge as equals in their own virtual self-destruction.
What results will then be a gradual skewing of the remainder of society towards some sort of godly ideal, wherein everyone who didn't die off slowly evolves into an Alpha or a Beta. Perhaps eventually even just grades of Alpha. All high-IQ, beautiful, benevolent, conscientious people with the self-restraint not to fuck themselves into oblivion by way of cyber-masturbation.
Maybe by that point, we'll all become deterministic robot deities and we'll finally realize why God made angels without free will. Maybe by then, we'll even be smart enough to know how to invent it ourselves.
Maybe we could experiment in giving it to some hairless apes we happen to keep around as pets.
One last thing, if you're reading this and thinking I'm speaking from some elitist ivory tower, you can rest easy. No need to brandish your envy against me. I'm just the messenger and I know myself well enough to know just how flawed I am; that there's good reason for me to think I'll probably be swept away with the rest of you, destined to die in a VR sex-simulator.
Would you call that a "VR stimulator"? A "V-Stim" perhaps?
I may have a fairly high-IQ, but I'm probably still only a Beta-Plus, Alpha-Minus at best in the Huxleyan hierarchy compared with the likes of technological geniuses such as Bill Gates or Elon Musk. Yet even they'd be on the bottom of any intelligence ladder when compared with the types of AI that are projected to exist by as early as the middle of this century.
Makes me wonder if there's much hope for any of us to survive the Great Culling.
Another consolation is that, even with such machines walking amongst us, there still may be plenty for those now living to do, to keep them interested and busy for many generations yet to come. In just about all of Calhoun's experiments, it took four generations from the time utopia began before the rats went extinct. So the great mass culling of dead weight human beings probably won't happen in your lifetime or mine or even that of our children and grandchildren, depending on when we regard our own utopia as having begun.
If it's the singularity, we have another fifty years, roughly, before then to prepare and most of us will be dead before it even starts. On the other hand, it we measure it from the birth of the Internet, say, then we're already a generation or two into it.
Either way, those of us now living we can still pass along our genes with optimism that we and our progeny could live to see an explosion in transhumanist technology that won't leave us behind, but we'll still get all the amazing pleasurable benefits before going out with a bang. The lucky ones will transcend and live as gods, while the unlucky ones will be swept away, slowly fizzling out in the Great Culling.
The question is: how do we prepare ourselves to meet our fate and can it be changed for the better?
Eventually, the human race will have to answer this question and come to terms with what to do with all the people whom technology can't elevate? Towards that end, I'm just as lost as you, left without any kind of satisfactory answer. Best start thinking about it now while we have a lot of time.
1 - Say what you want about Donald Trump, he's definitely not a globalist or a shill for the New World Order. In fact, a lot of people elected him specifically for that reason, to upset the established interests within the media-political complex. Prior to becoming President, there were many who claimed Trump was a paid Hillary shill. I never believed that because, even if you don't think he's worth $10 billion, he sure as hell has a lot more money than her, whatever the amount. He just didn't have any need for more money when he already had enough to live out his days in comfort.
Others had suggested he might be shilling for Hillary in the sense that he intended to take a fall for her and drop out. That theory seemed within the realm of possibility up until he got elected in an upstart. Still others made the case that he wasn't her puppet, but in fact the other way around, paying her to take the fall so he could gain control of the Iron Throne. Again, that seemed within the realm of possibility, but there's a very credible reason why none of these conspiracy theories hold water.
Elitists don't soil their hands themselves when they can pay someone else to do their dirty work for them.
That's what makes them elitists.
2 - Or just MAGA for short. 38D