Author Topic: Dysgenics: Our Future.  (Read 5980 times)

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 683730
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Dysgenics: Our Future.
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2010, 04:55:04 pm »
Jesus fucking hell, when did this board return to the inanity of 2006? I hate all you fuckers.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


The Johnny

  • did nots
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 41296
    • View Profile
Re: Dysgenics: Our Future.
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2010, 07:06:30 pm »

China has the biggest wall.

EOT.

cavehamster

  • low wattage rodent substitute
  • Known & Noted
  • **
  • Posts: 1848
  • Now coherent to 3 meters!
    • View Profile
Re: Dysgenics: Our Future.
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2010, 08:47:27 am »
Also, Salt Lake has (had?) a wall.

What?

Cain

  • Tinker Tailor Soldier Spag
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 104006
    • View Profile
Re: Dysgenics: Our Future.
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2010, 10:40:42 am »

One wrong U-turn and they all go in the drink.

Please.

I can't find any reports of us losing Navy ships in battle for several decades.  Either its classified (not sure how you could keep a secret like that though) or what.  Still, the US Navy isn't known for its heavy casualties.

US Marine General Van Riper bought down over half of the Persian Gulf fleet with a bunch of fishing vessels, light aircraft, hand-held radios and improvised explosives during a war exercise in 2002.  His force was meant to match the force of a third world nation, like Iran, as preparations for a possible invasion.  Blue Team losses were so bad the Navy refloated several killed ships, which is the equivalent of claiming you're not dead in a game of paintball, despite having several dozen shots splattered all over you.

A surface Navy is fundamentally useless. 

Cain

  • Tinker Tailor Soldier Spag
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 104006
    • View Profile
Re: Dysgenics: Our Future.
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2010, 10:42:09 am »
More people = more work force + more difficulty to make organized resistance

Maybe I'm being stupid but how do you get that second one?

The "China effect":

When you get enough people, labour becomes very cheap.

It becomes very cheap because of the "supply-demand"; as in there is a lot of supply of work force, while there isnt that much of a demand for it.

And the protection syndicates offered goes to shit, because to have any leverage stemmed from syndicates, there needs to be organization.

In 1910 there were 1,650 million people in the world, 1950 there were 2,521 million; in 2008 there were 6,707 million people.

If im not mistaken, when syndicates were at its most powerful was around 1910 (by regions it varies), while in 1950 they started to decline in their influence power over decisions, while nowadays their power is null compared to those days.

The population from 1910 to 1950 increased 152%, while from 1910 to 2008 is 406%; the more people you need to organize to make a difference, the harder it becomes.

And its even more hard to organize, when people that are uneducated, with the burden of children, because that makes them less prone to look towards the future and more for instant gratification, and sometimes refusing to strike, because that would imply not bringing food to the table of their families when they are already living paycheck to paycheck.

:mittens:

Cain

  • Tinker Tailor Soldier Spag
  • Chekha
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 104006
    • View Profile
Re: Dysgenics: Our Future.
« Reply #35 on: January 11, 2010, 10:52:06 am »

Interesting read, JohNyx. I'm wondering how you got from "The government propagandizes about abstinence" and "The abstinence propaganda doesn't work" to "The government doesn't want actually abstinence happening"? It doesn't seem to logically follow...
(those aren't quotes from your writing but i was paraphrasing)

Government knows abstinence as a contraceptive method does not work, because it has statistical knkowledge of its population's tendencies. First sexual relation age is lowering each year. The government knows teenagers are not gonna stop from having sex.

Government promotes abstinence as a contraceptive method just to be in good terms with the powerful far right.

The far rights agenda is ideological, while the governments agenda is profit.

More people = more work force + more difficulty to make organized resistance = more profit.


Causing guilt and conflicting messages also confuse people and keep them off balance in their personal life.  If you cant get your personal shit together, how on earth do you hope to manage a revolution?

http://www.anxietyculture.com/sadism.htm

Quote
Institutionalised sexual repression is the key to the question of how authoritarian society has reproduced itself from generation to generation, over thousands of years, even while the economic conditions and technologies underlying those societies have completely transformed.

The post-Freudian psychologist Wilhelm Reich claimed that sexual repression and the “authoritarian family” style of child-rearing are responsible for the perpetuation of what he called “patriarchal society.” Reich traced sexually-repressive child-rearing back to the beginning of hierarchical ruler-and-slave society. For example, it was not in the interests of the ruling families – the chiefs, royals, lords, barons etc – to have their children “promiscuously” reproducing with persons of lower social status. Tight control of child/adolescent sexuality was in the economic and power interests of the rulers (eg via fixed marriages and dowries). And, as usual, the priests served their masters – the church instituted various strict morals and taboos, putting a “divine” slant on all this control and repression of sex.

Reich’s psychological theory is fairly complex, but in a nutshell it claims that the strict authoritarian repression of natural childhood desires leads to an inhibited character structure which is obedient, docile and fearful of authority. To quote Reich:

“[this] has a crippling effect on man’s rebellious forces because every vital life-impulse is now burdened with severe fear... in short, morality’s aim is to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order. Thus, the family is the authoritarian state in miniature.”

So it seems that in the change from egalitarian to authoritarian society, sex transformed from an “innocent”, “natural” behaviour to something controlled and suppressed – a “commodity in the service of economic subjugation” as Reich puts it. The Christian church went even further and redefined natural sensual pleasures – symbolised by Eve in the Garden of Eden – as a central part of “Original Sin”. In particular, female sexuality, pleasure and eroticism were demonised by the clergy.

The concept of Original Sin has performed an important function in authoritarian societies. The Protestant Work Ethic, for example, was built around it. If pleasure for pleasure’s sake was seen as something sinful, then the opposite: endless hard work, with little or no relief, was (and still is) seen as a moral obligation. Original Sin was yet another stick to beat slaves with – to keep them working and stop them complaining.

Also this http://www.anxietyculture.com/guilt.htm  In fact, hell, the whole site

The Johnny

  • did nots
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 41296
    • View Profile
Re: Dysgenics: Our Future.
« Reply #36 on: January 11, 2010, 03:10:18 pm »

Interesting read, JohNyx. I'm wondering how you got from "The government propagandizes about abstinence" and "The abstinence propaganda doesn't work" to "The government doesn't want actually abstinence happening"? It doesn't seem to logically follow...
(those aren't quotes from your writing but i was paraphrasing)

Government knows abstinence as a contraceptive method does not work, because it has statistical knkowledge of its population's tendencies. First sexual relation age is lowering each year. The government knows teenagers are not gonna stop from having sex.

Government promotes abstinence as a contraceptive method just to be in good terms with the powerful far right.

The far rights agenda is ideological, while the governments agenda is profit.

More people = more work force + more difficulty to make organized resistance = more profit.


Causing guilt and conflicting messages also confuse people and keep them off balance in their personal life.  If you cant get your personal shit together, how on earth do you hope to manage a revolution?

http://www.anxietyculture.com/sadism.htm

Quote
Institutionalised sexual repression is the key to the question of how authoritarian society has reproduced itself from generation to generation, over thousands of years, even while the economic conditions and technologies underlying those societies have completely transformed.

The post-Freudian psychologist Wilhelm Reich claimed that sexual repression and the “authoritarian family” style of child-rearing are responsible for the perpetuation of what he called “patriarchal society.” Reich traced sexually-repressive child-rearing back to the beginning of hierarchical ruler-and-slave society. For example, it was not in the interests of the ruling families – the chiefs, royals, lords, barons etc – to have their children “promiscuously” reproducing with persons of lower social status. Tight control of child/adolescent sexuality was in the economic and power interests of the rulers (eg via fixed marriages and dowries). And, as usual, the priests served their masters – the church instituted various strict morals and taboos, putting a “divine” slant on all this control and repression of sex.

Reich’s psychological theory is fairly complex, but in a nutshell it claims that the strict authoritarian repression of natural childhood desires leads to an inhibited character structure which is obedient, docile and fearful of authority. To quote Reich:

“[this] has a crippling effect on man’s rebellious forces because every vital life-impulse is now burdened with severe fear... in short, morality’s aim is to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order. Thus, the family is the authoritarian state in miniature.”

So it seems that in the change from egalitarian to authoritarian society, sex transformed from an “innocent”, “natural” behaviour to something controlled and suppressed – a “commodity in the service of economic subjugation” as Reich puts it. The Christian church went even further and redefined natural sensual pleasures – symbolised by Eve in the Garden of Eden – as a central part of “Original Sin”. In particular, female sexuality, pleasure and eroticism were demonised by the clergy.

The concept of Original Sin has performed an important function in authoritarian societies. The Protestant Work Ethic, for example, was built around it. If pleasure for pleasure’s sake was seen as something sinful, then the opposite: endless hard work, with little or no relief, was (and still is) seen as a moral obligation. Original Sin was yet another stick to beat slaves with – to keep them working and stop them complaining.

Also this http://www.anxietyculture.com/guilt.htm  In fact, hell, the whole site

Some people discredit Reich's work completely, for the fact that at the end of his life, he went off the deep end with his ideas about Orgone; but he did have some good ideas before that.

Ill check out the site, thanks.