2
$\begingroup$

I am thinking on a small group in the current Humanity, having only around 2-300 members. They have the most important positions in the world politics (i.e. politicians, media holding owners, key directors in the banking sphere).

Behind them, there is a "second level" of the network, maybe around some millions of members, which helps them in many ways, similarly to the network of the security services. This system is capable to play a major role in the world politics, without of the knowledge of the majority of the civilization. (Of course, the second-level network doesn't need to know, what they take part.)

Their goal is to degrade the intellectual skills of the Humanity into a half-animal level in order to make it easier to control, and ensure their power on a long-term. More precisely:

  • Humanity should be made incapable to create any political power, what could be a threat their rule.
  • Ideally, the psycological skills of the humans should be below of the level which is needed to identify the group, not only as they as person, but also to recognize their existence by their deeds.

Of course, the second-level network shouldn't be degraded, only the rest of the Humanity.

The group works on the time scale of centuries, maybe millennia. Constructing plans for hundreds of years, and execute them as they were planned, is not a problem for them. Also they can modify the execution of their plan to reflect the technological, social or political changes of the global society, but they won't ever modify its goals.

Ethical, moralistics conceptions are completely alien for the group, because they consider only themselfes, and the second-level network as human. They see the rest of the Humanity as unclean and dangerous animals, which must be halted on strict control in order of their own safety.

But the possibility of the loss of life in their group they see with irrational fear (from a political viewpoint) and they must minimize or avoid on any cost.

Thus, for example, exterminating people is not a problem for them, but only if it surely can't have the side-effect of blood loss in their own group.

The key of their "work" is the invisibility. Everything what they do, should seem as if it would be a natural political/social process, or series of independent events without a central control.

They can't do anything directly, they must do everything through proxies. For example, they could maybe incite a nuclear war, or a non-nuclear world war, but it would require to motive a large mass of political, military decisions where the decision-makers act against their own will. This is hard, because people out of their circles are also intellient beings and they shouldn't perceive, what is going on.

There are also many security services out of their control.

But, any political or social change, what such a group can reach, is reachable for them, until the blood loss in their circles can be minimized.

How can they reach their goal?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Welcome to Worldbuilding SE. Your question is very close to be an idea generation, which would be off-topic here. I think it stays on the good side, but you can improve that on making clearer goals how you can distinguish the best answer. $\endgroup$ – bilbo_pingouin Oct 3 '15 at 21:56
  • $\begingroup$ @bilbo_pingouin Thanks - improvement on the way! I need around 15 minutes to understand the refered meta post and finetune my question, please don't close until that. $\endgroup$ – Gray Sheep Oct 3 '15 at 22:00
  • $\begingroup$ "Half-animal" - can you be more specific? Are you trying to eliminate higher reasoning? Verbal communication? What outcome do they want? Answering that will also make you farther from idea generation. Also, how does utopia apply? $\endgroup$ – Josiah Oct 3 '15 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Josiah Half-animal: another rework in process, please wait. Tagging: I've looked for the "anti-utopia" tag, but unfortunately it doesn't exist. Btw, from their viewpoint would be this goal an "utopia", only not from ours :-) Could you suggest better tags for this? $\endgroup$ – Gray Sheep Oct 3 '15 at 22:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Josiah We should be made incapable to recognize 1) the members of the group (f.e. it would be a terrible catastrophe if a security service would get access to their internal communication) 2) the social-political changes around them are controlled from a centre and they aren't independent or natural events as they look. (1) would be the worst, but (2) is also dangerous. $\endgroup$ – Gray Sheep Oct 3 '15 at 23:27
3
$\begingroup$

This is a tricky one to answer. To have 300 control billions requires a remarkably level of control. We're going to have to take care in defining terms like half-animal to properly caveat any answer.

To me, the key here is the control. Every action by the 300 has a chance of causing an unexpected side effect which leaves them open to vulnerability. The 300 are going to have to craft their life in such a way that they can always identify actions which destabilize their control so that they may avoid them.

Two key results from this are the need to predict where the world is going (so that they can be ready to nullify the half-animal masses), and the need to be able to nullify them. Of course, if the masses observe the nullification, their result will be, understandably, unpredictable, so it will be in their interest to make sure the nullification always occurs in the most invisible region. Never abduct a major leader of a resistance... always ensure he has an unfortunate accident during childhood instead.

Assuming they can start to erode the intelligence of humanity, the greatest weapon the 300 will have is the Central Limit Theorem. As long as everyone's actions are roughly random, they cancel out, leaving humanity weak. It's when they unite that they become powerful. They may unite around knowledge, so the 300 must make a constant effort to make sure they have more knowledge than the cumulative sum of all of humanity. Scientists need to meet unfortunate accidents, or be brought into the fold (potentially in that order).

There is a second form of uniting, that will be much more difficult. There is a sort of communal consciousness that humans get from time to time. Call it national pride, call it a mob, call it... well... sometimes it is hard to quite give a name to what you see. Even if humans are just animals, they are pack animals by nature -- tribal. There is remarkably unpredictable power in that.

This will be harder to unseat. In fact, it may be so hard that the easiest way to arrive at that point is to become so conscious that the group consciousness of your 300 is more profound than the mass of billions. This seems like the easier way to go, because the roots of these effects are deep in the fundamentals of dynamic systems.

The easiest way to unseat this is to get rid of the analog links between individuals first, reducing the power of their collective consciousness. It is far easier to get 32 metronomes in sync using their own momentum than it is to try to set them going together using a digital signal to orchestrate them. Encourage people to avoid meeting together by providing them ways to communicate digitally. Forbid pets in the dorm rooms of our universities, and instead provide them with cat videos. Online gaming encourages solidarity, and as an added bonus leads to remarkably degradation of linguistic capacities (caution: hard to miss swearing in that link). So long as there is a discrete layer between the individuals, they can always be isolated and controlled.

Which brings me to the point of writing all of this. By the time you read this, I may no longer remain un-disappeared. It may fall upon you to carry to torch, bringing consciousness to the masses, one soul at a time. They will have traced this, of course, but by the time they do, it will be too late.

The rest is up to you.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Isolation through layers is a brilliant way to control interactions without any changes to humans as such. $\endgroup$ – Josiah Oct 4 '15 at 0:48
  • $\begingroup$ And Kecak music. +1 again. $\endgroup$ – Josiah Oct 4 '15 at 0:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.