Do witchcraft beliefs hurt economic progress?

Maybe so, here is the latest:

Where witchcraft beliefs are widespread, American University Economics Professor Boris Gershman found high levels of mistrust exist among people. Gershman also found a negative relationship between witchcraft beliefs and other metrics of relied upon for a functioning society, including religious participation and charitable giving.

It’s long been argued that witchcraft beliefs impede economic progress and disrupt social relations, and Gershman’s statistical analysis supports that theory. From a policy perspective, Gershman’s results emphasize the importance of accounting for local culture when undertaking development projects, especially those that require communal effort and cooperation. Gershman and other social scientists believe that education can help foster improved trust and decrease the prevalence of witchcraft beliefs.


Parents in witchcraft-believing societies inculcate antisocial traits in children.

Second-generation immigrants from witchcraft-believing nations are less trusting.

Here is the summary statement, here is the full article.  Here are related papers by Gershman.  For the pointer I thank the excellent Samir Varma.


Tell the Puritans in Salem - the original WASPs remain the very exemplars of the sort of people that lead economic growth through thrift and strict beliefs.

Yeah, it seems the paper is a data-mining exercise, based on Africa. On the other hand, the part of Negros island in the Philippines that practices witchcraft (historically), is Negros Oriental ("East Black island"), which is less prosperous than Negros Occidental ("West"), so maybe there's something to this? Still, unlikely, unless you define "witchcraft" as "distrusting" rather than "animist".

Here's the late anthropologist Henry Harpending on African witchcraft:

"A colleague pointed out a few weeks ago, after hearing this story, that if it is nearly pan-African then perhaps some of it came to the New World. Prominent and not so prominent talkers from the American Black population come out with similar theories of vague and invisible forces that are oppressing people, like “institutional racism” and “white privilege”."

"Prominent and not so prominent talkers from the American Black population come out with similar theories of vague and invisible forces that are oppressing people"

Well, prominent economists come out with theories of vague "invisible hands" that shape societies for the better, and what not, so maybe this is not the place to point fingers at other folks' weird beliefs in imaginary entities.

I hate to break this to you, but the invisible hand is a metaphor. There is no real hand.

"I hate to break this to you, but the invisible hand is a metaphor. There is no real hand."

Well, all the talk about an institution as the kind of thing that can be racist is obviously also metaphorical (more specifically, a form of personification), so what's your point? If references to "vague and invisible forces" amount to a form of witchcraft, then just about all social scientists are guilty of it.

What prior test said. New England (the only place in North America where anyone was ever executed for witchcraft) industrialized and developed much more effectively than any other part of the country.

Not sure about your last sentence. The Quakers seemed to do okay in Pennsylvania, too.

New England has a lot of fast streams and waterfalls - perhaps the impact of geography is greater than the impact of witchcraft.


Witches propitiate the "brutish" chthonic gods, pushing the "nice" nymphs and harpies to help industrious men. Also, witches ignore the wisdom of the old, white halios garon to their detriment. It's all very logical if you model it in the correct jargon.

New England puritan culture gave rise to progressivism, with its emphasis on education and social controls.

Education, social controls, and distrust of the individual.

Nathan cuck, why did you change your handle?

Industrialization happened many years AFTER people in New England stopped believing in witchcraft.
The Salem Witch Trials were in 1693, and actually marked the LAST witch trials in North America. In fact, the whole incident served as a lasting lesson AGAINST belief in witch craft. It's where we get the concept of a "witch hunt" as a hysterical persecution of people using false accusations.
Industrialization didn't start until at least 100 years later, which is plenty of time for anti-witchcraft beliefs to permeate the culture.

The Salem witch trials are so famous because they involved some of America's leading intellectuals like Cotton Mather and John Hathorne, whose descendant Nathaniel Hawthorne did much to publicize the trials a century and a half later.

Interestingly, Cotton's father Rev. Increase Mather was against his son getting involved in the war on witchcraft.

We've seen similar phenomenon in our own lives, such as preschool satanist frenzy of a generation ago and the current witch hunts on campuses for racists and cishet white male fraternity boys raping coeds on broken glass.

The satanist frenzy and the campus PC culture aren't similar because they don't involve a literal belief in the occult.

Nobody actually thought that the satanists were summoning demons to possess their kids, and nobody thinks that racist are casting evil spells on black people.

I'm not saying we don't still have "witch hunts", I'm saying that people tended to stop believing in literal "witches" long before the industrial revolution began. Hence, the Salem Witch Trials aren't evidence of a belief in witchcraft in New England during the industrial revolution, and thus don't refute the thesis implied in the study.

Just a belief in Invisible Knapsacks:

The campus PC culture believes that wearing a sombrero is akin to burning a Cross. What is more, they believe that through some sort of magical process it has an effect on the life chances of many students.

A belief in witchcraft would be rational compared to much of campus life.

Empirical work by Edward Miguel and Emily Oster suggested that witch hunts have historically been associated with economic insecurity. The early American colonists faced all sorts of perils and insecurities that would have lessened by the time of the industrial revolution.

Not the same people. Salem witch trials were in 1692, the Industrial Revolution began approximately 70 years later. I don't know whether the Puritan's great-grandchildren still believed in witches, but probably not.

70 years really isn't that long, esp. in terms of cultural heritage. Highly recommend "Albion's seed" on this and related points:

Tyler recently linked to a good review of it at SSC:

Interesting Q is if there's something qualitatively different about Puritanical constructs of witchcraft vs. the ones covered in this paper. Maybe the strength of the puritan social contract in other areas (witness the heavy policing of minor social infractions by communities as a whole and the communal raising of children), outweighed the potential negative of effects of a belief in witchcraft.

JCS - but if the point is that it is the belief in witchcraft itself that is impeding development, then the cultural heritage generally is not that relevant. By the late seventeenth century, the belief in witches was dying out all over Europe, and the industrial revolution started just a few decades later. Coincidence?

Another point in favor is that, as I understand, Spain and Portugal were among the parts of Europe least affected by the witch hysteria, and they were dominant powers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when Northern Europe was deep into that craziness. The European witch obsession is the subject of a great essay by A.J.P. Taylor

Surely the point isn't that a belief in "witchcraft" is a unique form of social distrust, but rather just one flavor of social distrust.

There's nothing magical (*wink*) about witchcraft, but rather it represents a set of related dysfunctions around social trust (or some related pathology), so the cultural heritage of that distrust, even divorced from its supernatural content would be relevant. Even if I don't believe in witches, I might still be afraid my neighbors are scheming to do me harm.

While your witch-centric history of european economic success is suggestive, I have to balk at considering it the primary explanation of spanish and portugese dominance in 16th and 17th centuries. Unless you mean to imply that there was something unique about their cultural heritages (*cough*) that a lack of witchcraft beliefs is proxy-ing for which made them suited for the time.....

I'll check out the AJP Taylor essay, thanks.

Skimming the summary, it looks to me as though the specific belief in witchcraft is the problem, not some general social distrust - that believing in witches makes you have these negative behaviors, which might therefore disappear if that particular belief does. Thus it would not be the "set of related dysfunctions" divorced from the supernatural content that are the problem; it would be just and only the supernatural beliefs which give rise to the mistrust and bad conduct.

When the Puritans believed in witchcraft nearly everybody believed in witchcraft. What was different about the Puritans is that they executed witches, around 36 over 100 years, which has more to do with expectations of social conformity than the belief system itself. At the same time, in Appalachia, for instance, they believed in witches, good witches, bad witches, some indifferent, but as far as I know, no executions.

The Puritans didn't like magic at all, whether it be dubious potions, sacred relics or omens.

....What are "constructs of witchcraft" ? Define "witchcraft".

Mainstream religions today embrace the same basic mystical superstitions -- belief in supernatural spirits and some human ability to invoke the powers of these spirits for human needs and wants through prayers, incantations, spells, rituals, ceremonies, sacred words & objects, etc).

Quite a stretch to add any form of human mysticism to any serious economic analysis.
(the parent MR post here is all tongue-in-cheek, right?)

Wow, that was weird. For a minute there I thought the 'seed' in "Albion's Seed" was something about genetics. I feel much better now that that scary thought has passed. I got dizzy there for a minute.

Alternatively, maybe belief in witchcraft in the New World rapidly died out because, with the frontier and the possibility of free land, the colonists had a lot more control over their own destinies than people in the Old World.
I could imagine that people living under monarchies where the law was relatively capricious, and where entrenched aristocracies controlled all the land, would want scapegoats to blame for their problems, since they couldn't blame the king or the nobility without risking their heads. By contrast, if you're living in a place where you can just go out and start a farm and literally keep 100% of the produce, you're going to feel a lot more in control of your life without any need to believe in occult forces.

This might be a lesson for today's society - you want an economy where people feel they can (which is to say, actually can) control their own destiny, otherwise, you end up with a lot of paranoia and reduced social trust, which leads to lower economic growth. You don't want to tell people that they aren't responsible for their own success or failure, that it's all due to "privilege" and that they "didn't build that".

Of course, economic progress requires cooperation, and cooperation requires trust. A common religion can facilitate trust and, hence, cooperation and economic progress (that is Robert Wright's thesis in the context of the spread of Christianity and trade). Different religions and sectarianism within one religion, on the other hand, breed mistrust and discourage cooperation and, hence, serve as a deterrent to economic progress. I'm no expert at witchcraft, but my guess is that it thrives in an environment of mistrust. The fastest growing churches in America are independent evangelical (often fundamentalist) churches that are highly sectarian (i.e., one is either inside or outside "the church"). While they breed trust and cooperation within, they also breed mistrust and an absence of cooperation without. How might this affect economic progress in America.

"other metrics of social capital relied upon for a functioning society, including religious participation and charitable giving": rather parochial.

"Gershman and other social scientists believe that education can help": in my experience, people who say that education is the answer usually mean that indoctrination is the answer.

These findings explain a lot about Alaska's economy during the Palin years.

I'm sure there is a correlation between believing that your neighbors are untrustworthy and that they are conspiring, etc.
Further, if you can't trust people, you talk to the kids about stranger danger,...

So, how to spur progress, etc? Is it to repress religious beliefs? To inculcate false trust where people are yet untrustworthy?
Inspire community among neighbors? Create strong informal norms that manage risk?

I'd say find a rare scapegoat, like Albinos or people with six fingers, and pin all your problems and paranoia on them. Promotes trust while keeping the body count low.

I'm kidding. Sort of.

Sort of!

Then again, scapegoating people means you're not actually solving the problems .

Any data suggesting or proving that witches, warlocks, wizards, et al., equipped with cell phones and smart phones impede traffic flow when navigating in their four-wheeled phone booths?

Since so many wireless phones are equipped with GPS software, you might think that some enterprising economist or traffic engineer would at least begin to analyze available data that might begin to explain just how extensively drivers distracted by their wireless phones impede traffic flow across the country, both in urban/suburban zones and along remote/rural stretches of our highways and interstates.

This is our problem today. We have just replaced "witches" with "Wall Street", "banks", etc. So we limp along, all the while making sure Wall Street doesn't do what they do and then blaming them for the stagnation. Notice, even, the prevalence of spiritual parlance in the pop literature, with books like "All the Devils are Here."

"Money Monster."

Actually the analog is not really the banks. It is racism. A large percentage of people believe that there is a dark, sinister conspiracy that is out to get people. It is everywhere. It is manifest in signs and symbols that only the initiated can discern. It is all-powerful. The only way to fight it is through ritual purification rituals and the shunning of the affected.

Not to mention, of course, no one has actually seen a witch^H^H racist. I would guess that no one here has ever worked in an environment that did not bend over backwards to help minorities, has never worked with as much as a single colleague who was not keen for minorities to succeed and did a great deal to help them. But still the belief persists.

And of course destroys trust and communities in the process.

As Mencius Moldbug observed in 2013:

"In a country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won’t see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there’s a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn."

I doubt that many people out there lie awake at night wondering if their work colleagues are racists.

I don't know about "wondering," but I've run into quite a few who claim to know it for a fact

A lot of activist students are clearly lying awake at night worrying that their college is institutionally racist. Or they would be if they weren't busy throwing temper tantrums. But that is the paradox. So many educated people are firmly convinced that they are surrounded by this dark invisible all-powerful force, but they don't know anyone who is racist. It is everywhere and yet nowhere.

When students demand that a building named after someone called Lynch is renamed, you realize how irrational the world has become.

Surely the man is keeping Wall Street down. Just look at profits and sectoral shares of the economy?

We need to ease up on Wall Street and give it a little more free reign.

What is this "it" you are referring to? Some secret cabal of moneylenders?

The financial sector. What else could I be talking about if referring to profits and sector shares at the macroeconomic level?

Generally speaking, I'm talking about the regulatory setup. Which I don't know enough about to have a strong opinion on whether it's too much, not enough, or just not smart enough.

But if you want me to name names, how about the executive boards of all of the publicly listed financial companies? There is no conspiracy theory here. We expect finance, and especially the individuals on their boards, to behave precisely as they do (in terms of lobbying, whether behind closed doors or otherwise, etc.), and so debate the extent of regulatory control that is socially desirable considering the benefits that not-too-constrained finance can have for the economy.

For a more specific case, Republicans are now extremely curious about the smooth quarter million Clinton got paid for a 20 minute speech at a luncheon. The people who wrote that cheque would almost certainly be a very conspicuous part of "it" in any sense that might carry negative connotations.

But really, I'm just talking about profit rates and sectoral composition as a share of GDP. I don't have any special hate for Wall Street, I just think we're dumb in not being straighforward in discussing how we would expect people to behave in precisely their situation - instead we wag fingers at "conspiracy theorists" for mentioning that those execs behave exactly as we would expect.

We do this every four years in America, where we elect the person that promises to make the economy do better, and get really angry if it turns out the economy doesn't do well.

Not that far off from electing witch doctors to make it rain.

Does belief in Trump craft, reflecting lack of trust of institutions, adversely affect economic growth? Is the general decline of trust observed in American society over the past years account for the great stagnation?


"Belief in witchcraft" -- yet another proxy for poor SES development.

There is such a long list of euphemisms to avoid speaking about That Which Cannot Be Named that I cannot keep track.

Urban, vibrant, bad geography, lead in the water and now witchcraft.

Witchcraft is great because it covers Haiti, where the favorite go-to, "residual effects of colonialism", doesn't work since they killed all the colonists more than 200 years ago. And I don't know that they ever had a lead problem.

But in many places the prevalence of witchcraft (as opposed to animism or ancestor worship, which are different) as an explanatory mechanism for misfortune isn't constant over time, but could rather be a symptom of mistrust, social exclusion, etc. The very reasons some societies turn to witchcraft are associated with under-development, which then feeds back on itself. The comparatively more recent emergence of the phenomenon of child witcraft (kindoki) in the DC is an example of this.

Somehow Krampus is associated with very high socioeconomic success.

I believe if we could export the Krampus tradition to countries that have suffered without its beneficial effects, tremendous positive results would occur in the realms of architecture, economics, music and patent production.

It's worth noting that Krampus is not controlled by another person in your community.

Imagine if we taught children that other children might be secretly controlling Krampus. What sort of effect do you imagine that would have on social relations in your average Kindergarten class?

"Imagine if we taught children that other children might be secretly controlling Krampus."

As far as I am concerned, we can't teach enough Krampus to the children, for I believe the children are our future.

All I know is, wherever children are exposed to Krampus, they go on to build low-crime, high-trust societies with lots of museums and very little litter. I am not optimistic about the prospects for Common Core, lacking as it is in instruction on the ways of Krampus.

'wherever children are exposed to Krampus, they go on to build low-crime, high-trust societies with lots of museums and very little litter'

Well, that might have something to do with the fact that Krampus is a scary figure, one that punishes, and never rewards.

Which makes one wonder - have you heard of schwäbisch-alemannische Fastnacht with its devils, witches, and wild/woods beings? Because really, Krampus is just a related figure from the same basic framework. Though Fasching does offer a bit more in the way of candy.

But as a note - there is plenty of litter, it is just that the local government cleans it up. Anyone familiar with how a German city looks after a few day strike of those responsible for that work recognizes that the amount of litter is fairly substantial - it is just people place a value on keeping things clean. And implementing mandatory bottle deposit laws. And placing extra taxes on places like McDonald's when disposable cups and cutlery are used. And electing Green Party state governments or (somewhat ceremonial) presidents, as in the case of Austria.

"But as a note – there is plenty of litter"

I have lived in Austria; there is virtually none. Imagine how clean and beautiful India will be when we get them to substitute Krampus for Diwali. The upside is just so exciting!

'export the Krampus tradition to countries that have suffered without its beneficial effects'

You do know that was tried, right? But the Dutch still seem to prefer their blackface Zwarte Piet -

Yes, Zwarte Piet is another excellent option to achieve a high trust society with world-class economic output.

Imagine the net positive ISIS could have been for world culture and economy, if only they could have learned the Zwarte Piet tradition early on. Sadly it is too late for them, but not too late for their children.

This makes sense to me.

If you believe that other people can use magical unseen forces against you, that's going to make you less likely to trust strangers. If you think that any bad luck is due to a person using witchcraft, that's going to create a general atmosphere of paranoia.

Much lower levels of social trust almost inevitably is going to translate into less cooperation, which means less trade, which means lower economic development.

Hazel, I fear you are overthinking things. We don't know why Krampus works, it just does.

Did Alexander Fleming question why penicillin worked? No, there were lives to save!

'We don’t know why Krampus works, it just does.'

Well, it is part of a whole range of beliefs, all associated with a religion that is increasing the amount of exorcisms it performs.

Would be worth investigating if this could be correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories. The religious believe in witches, and the non-religious believe in secret cabals.
Maybe we could come up with an overall paranoia index that combines beliefs in witchcraft with conspiratorial thinking.

Possibly people who are subject to conspiracies can be led to believe that the witches are doing it?

Possibly paranoia is a byproduct of low levels of social trust.

Paranoia can also be rather intentionally induced. But you'll probably think I'm insanely paranoid if I talk about some of the technologies and methods used to induce it. Like, via synthetic telepathy an operator projecting a notion of your neighbour breaking in if you don't double lock all the doors while you run outside for 5 minutes, accompanied by EM waves pulsed at a rate that can interfere with heart electric activities and cause a skipped beat or increase in heart rate - or, more generalized anxiety in the brain.

For more classical considerations though, it's quite interesting to think which might be more chicken and egg in matters of paranoia and trust.

Its funny to hear people calling conspiracy theorists paranoid. A simple reading of the last 50 years of US government actions should be enough for anyone with more two brain cells to conclude that there are very good reasons for people to distrust government and big corporations...

Your "simple reading" of US history has already been processed, chewed, and digested by a cadre of very paranoid minds. Leftists can't intellectually process the failures of socialism so they have concocted a vast array of conspiracy theories to explain them. They have constructed an entire ediface of "anti-imperialist" theory to explain why economics just keeps winning.

Of course, you should never trust government. But not because of secret conspiracies, but because any entity with the right to legally kill and imprison people is going to act in it's self-interest without considering yours. You shouldn't trust big corporations either. US law doesn't always properly assign the costs of externalities back to the owners, and given the possibility of regulatory capture, the corporation's market position may be protected from competitive pressure. Unlike government, you can generally trust a big corporation not to kill you and to honor it's contracts though.

Unlike government, you can generally trust a big corporation not to kill you...

Not actively try to kill you, yeah. Usually. Passively, over the long-term via incompetence, arrogance, and/or negligence? Not so much.

...and to honor it’s contracts though.

Hazel, your naivete has its moments of charm. Big corporations honor their contracts only to the extent they think they have to. Beyond that, their preferred method of bad behavior in such matters is to bury their assholery deep in the fine print in carefully composed legalese so that, if/when they fuck over the other party to the contract, they can say they technically adhered to the agreement--"caveat emptor, mofos!" Try to fight back, and they'll drown you in lawyers, the caliber and quantity of which you can't match.

What you're really railing against is the anonymizing effect of large organizations and how it enables antisocial, destructive behavior by providing malefactors with a degree of insulation from that behavior's negative consequences.

There are plenty of lawyers making billions on class action lawsuits. My point is that at least the corporations are held in check by some combination of market pressure and liability, whereas the government faces no market pressure and often exempts itself from liability to boot. I trust a big corporation to provide me with some sort of value in exchange for the dollar I voluntarily hand over to it. I don't trust the government to provide me with anything of value in exchange for the money it forcibly seizes.

@Hazel: I don’t trust the government to provide me with anything of value in exchange for the money it forcibly seizes.

That's quite a statement.

I thought you were a minarchist, not an anarchist. Updated status noted.

Yes, a terrible tragedy indeed, I remember it well.

If those people had only been exposed to Krampus as children, that tragedy would surely have been averted.

Probably - you will note that Germany and Austria did not have any major problems with Ebola.

"Probably – you will note that Germany and Austria did not have any major problems with Ebola."

No, that is not lost on me at all. Which is why I am working with the World Health Organization to introduce Krampus into their education program. It works with AIDs as well, for reasons that are not clear. My plan is to introduce it into areas where cannibalism of albinos is a problem. My extensive research has revealed that there has not been a single instance of cannibalism of albinos anywhere that the Krampus tradition has taken hold. I hate to use the word panacea too freely, but this is as close to one as I have found.

Two classics...Religion and the Decline of Magic by Keith Thomas and Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England by Alan MacFarlane. I'm not sure how they fit in off hand, but this is a good reason to reread them. My teacher Paul Feyerabend used to remind me that Tell us your myths really means How does the world work ? and Tell us about witchcraft means How do you heal someone?
Why would unarmed miners charge heavily armed police and think the police bullets wouldn't kill them.

"Why would unarmed miners charge heavily armed police and think the police bullets wouldn’t kill them."

Because they sadly grew up in a time and place before we all learned that all that is required for pro-social behavior in adults is exposure to Krampus as children, just once per year.

'Because they sadly grew up in a time and place before we all learned that all that is required for pro-social behavior in adults is exposure to Krampus as children, just once per year.'

Well, in Krampus's homeland, the economic figures remain quite impressive - 'Bavaria has long had one of the largest economies of any region in Germany, or Europe for that matter. Its GDP in 2007 exceeded 434 billion Euros (about 600 bn US$). This makes Bavaria itself one of the largest economies in Europe and only 20 countries in the world have a higher GDP. Some large companies headquartered in Bavaria include BMW, Siemens, Rohde & Schwarz, Audi, Munich Re, Allianz, Infineon, MAN, Wacker Chemie, Puma, Adidas, and Ruf. Bavaria has a GDP per capita of over $48 000 US, meaning that if it were its own independent country it would rank 7th or 8th in the world.'

Exactly. The Congo would be a huge exporter of cars and machine tools by now, if only we had understood the Krampus/GDP nexus sooner. It is not too late for them.

And what do we say about the modern versions of witchcraft in monetary policies?

Surely witches are real, and Christian ethics just serve to keep the “powerful” people down through a variety of social controls, most especially including education which is basically just brainwashing people in a manner that makes their witchery impossible.

Or … there’s a machine-supported synthetic telepathy that rewards people with a sensation of “power” (shivers up the spine, perhaps) when they exert “leadership” by abusing people. They are persuaded to believe that they "win" by exerting their willpower over people, whereas the reality is that it is simply those who have submitted to the demanded abusive practices will be "rewarded" with the support of the synthetic telepathy network to "beat" or "rock and roll" the people who are presently being targeted.

Whatever it takes to make you get in on the expansion of abusive practices contributing to widespread societal brainwashing. Perhaps the synthetic telepathy network if "God" and he's leading to a better and brighter future, but first we need to rid ourselves of (insert here)?

Back to the witchery though, such notions of witchery, In addition to promoting Nazi-esque notions, wherein those who can be persuaded to engage in such abusive powers can be persuaded to believe that they are nature’s pick with a naturally powerful mind and will (in fact, just supported by the synthetic telepathy network for the fact of being brainwashed into doing/THINKING .... whatever it took to get you to do ... whatever is/was demanded), and that these "powerful people" have always held down by those “inferior” and “inherently weak” Christian and Judaic values. (Which is pretty much consistent with what you’ll find in descriptions of proposed values, or rather lack thereof, at the websites of some white supremacist organizations.)

Why would it require a synthetic telepathy network to convince people who have power that they are naturally superior ?
Seems to me that just about everyone likes to think they are better or smarter than others and will seize upon any reason whatsoever to convince themselves of it. You're either on top because you were meant to be there, or you're not, in which case it's because of witches and conspiracies.

I'm not talking about people in power. I'm talking about people to be recruited into an informal slave puppet army.

They feel "powerful" because the synthetic telepathy network encourages them to, say, extract a piece of information ("mind read") or induce a sort of emotional effect in the target, but all the real lifting is done by the synthetic telepathy network which already has the info, etc., and transmits the auditory, visual and/or other signals via electromagnetic waves. But if the soon-to-be slave puppet believes that they are "powerful", then you have one more slave puppet at your disposal.

And if you a) especially if you don't know such things are possible, b) lack in self confidence, c) have little power over your own life or are otherwise aggrieved by whatever social/economic situation, then it might feel really nice to think that you're actually "powerful". But meanwhile what's happening is an elicitation of "powerful" or "good" feelings, along the lines of classic conditioning and brainwashing, until you're normalized into thinking that "leadership" is treating people like shit and that it is because of their "willpower" that has been repressed by Christian ethics and brainwashing that they are able to "win" at things they are suggested to try to elicit from the target's brain which the synthetic telepathy then projects.

No, I'm not talking about powerful people. They are slaves who have been careful manipulated into believing whatever it takes for them to ... just do it. The witchery (or "willpower") example is just one of many ways to try to persuade them to ... whatever it takes to get them to just do it.

It's most effective if the target either believes it or doesn't have a clue what's going on.

I wish this were science fiction.

In a website full of racialists, trumpists and denialists of all kinds you've managed to sound more far-out than any of them. Astonishing.

Indeed. I assumed he was joking in some oblique way. Now it's clear he actually believes in mind control.

Scientific references dating back over 40 years are available for all of those things in the glossary that you can download from my site.

If you think there's any bullshit, please contact me and explain yourself.

Oh, and don't call it "mind control". It's too disempowering for the victims and too empowering for the perpetrators. "Mind influencing technologies" is more appropriate.

Hope the relativists who argue that all cultures have the same value and those who run down western culture and idealsie non-western traditional values are paying attention.

Belief in education is tantamount to a belief in witchcraft. Recurse from there.

I plan to seek out a boy raised by wolves for my next hire. Education is a waste of time.

Trade one belief for another. See what changes. See also, cargo cult.

From Mankiw's blog:


Although economists are more like astrologers. It's the Treasury department and the Federal Reserve that are witches.

From a witch's secret desire to fly to the establishment of the aerospace industry.

"""The industry’s positive trade balance of $82.5 billion that year was the largest trade surplus of any manufacturing industry, supporting high-wage jobs for hundreds of thousands of American workers. """

"""Jack Parsons, was an American rocket engineer and rocket propulsion researcher, chemist, inventor, businessman, expert witness, writer, socialite, and Thelemite (known as "the Witchcraft") occultist. Associated with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Parsons was one of the principal founders of both the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and the Aerojet Engineering Corporation. He invented the first rocket engine using a castable, composite rocket propellant,[1] and pioneered the advancement of both liquid-fuel and solid-fuel rockets."""

"""Dark Angel, a painting by Marjorie Cameron (1922-1995) based on the likeness of her husband John Whiteside "Jack" Parsons (1914-1952)."""

The space industry tends to attract a lot of oddball characters, myself included.

You have to be a bit of a dreamer, and a bit crazy, to spend your life working towards things like the eventual colonization of Mars.

Comments for this post are closed