Does anyone know of a good way to get medicinal nutrition into the food supply to help children who misuse their computer access to bully, harass and terrorize the world? You know, the crackers mistaken for hackers?
Perhaps it is possible to super-size those fries with yam genes? And through selective breeding, the farm factory industry are able to create cows that produce a higher yield of choline (source of acetylcholine), tyrosine (source of the neurotransmitters dopamine and noradrenalin) and tryptophan (source of serotonin) in addition to pyridoxal (helps create neurotransmitters and retinol (improves eyesight) derivatives along with thiamine (improves mental acuity)? Or the vegan equivalent of grains and nuts to boost brain power? Yes, I am suggesting we move beyond hacking computers.
Where's the gene splicing kits for tomorrow's gene hackers? We may need to make a smart-drug neuro-peptide with nutritional co-factors piggybacking within the polypeptide chain.
Additionally, I feel that crackerjacks need to be inoculated with a special virus to enlighten their current methods of social control. Perhaps that's what they mean by "a dose of humility."
Originally posted: February 10, 2007 1:31 PM
Showing posts with label social control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social control. Show all posts
20130605
Note to Mass Media: Stop Putting Amanda Bynes in a Bad Light
I object to the unflattering pictures of Amanda Bynes being used.
This is only manufacturing the fallacy that Amanda Bynes is in the midst of a meltdown.
As well, the articles attacking Bynes have very little verification from a third-party health official sound byte.
In short, mass media outlets are complicit in manufacturing the rumor that Bynes is not right in the head. All of it is just a careful ploy to peddle your paper based on your vile contempt for Amanda Bynes.
Mass media did the same thing to Amy Winehouse and recently, Justin Bieber. You're not publishing the truth anymore. You're just using bits and pieces of facts to perpetuate stigma against mental illness to profit from.
Shame on you!
According to Thomas Szasz, psychiatry actively obscures the difference between misbehavior and disease, in its quest to help or harm parties in conflicts. By calling certain people "diseased", psychiatry attempts to deny them responsibility as moral agents, in order to better control them.
Sadly though when mass media plays arm-chair psychiatry on celebrities, they manufacture the illusion that their target is mentally ill.
In essence, mass media is used as form of social control of not only celebrities but also society itself.
This is only manufacturing the fallacy that Amanda Bynes is in the midst of a meltdown.
As well, the articles attacking Bynes have very little verification from a third-party health official sound byte.
In short, mass media outlets are complicit in manufacturing the rumor that Bynes is not right in the head. All of it is just a careful ploy to peddle your paper based on your vile contempt for Amanda Bynes.
Mass media did the same thing to Amy Winehouse and recently, Justin Bieber. You're not publishing the truth anymore. You're just using bits and pieces of facts to perpetuate stigma against mental illness to profit from.
Shame on you!
According to Thomas Szasz, psychiatry actively obscures the difference between misbehavior and disease, in its quest to help or harm parties in conflicts. By calling certain people "diseased", psychiatry attempts to deny them responsibility as moral agents, in order to better control them.
Sadly though when mass media plays arm-chair psychiatry on celebrities, they manufacture the illusion that their target is mentally ill.
In essence, mass media is used as form of social control of not only celebrities but also society itself.
20130604
The Automatons of Social Activism
Freedom of the market is not applicable to society, because it will lead to control and rigid class structure based on the myth of individual freedom.
Indeed, the freedom that social activists strive for is based on the fallacy that freedom from coercion is a viable political outcome. The inherent violence in attempting to achieve such freedom shows that such freedom will always be subject to control by the elites of society.
For the ideal society free of rules will still require a method of social control, lest the alternative — chaos — lead to a feared breakdown of society.
The truth is, society does not need a centralized government to function — Gwangju is a good example of this. In the aftermath of the Park assassination of 1979, Gwangju formed an anarchistic society without central government, which threatened the control by the elites of South Korea of the Korean people.
In contrast, the freedom to create new ways of innovation is truly viable. Anything else is doomed to end in control of the People by the elites. A society that allows such control yet seeks to be free of it will continue to produce automatons, not people.
Ergo, social activism ought to focus on the freedom to be rather than the freedom from coercion which appears to be their current focus. By focusing solely on freedom from coercion, social activism will eventually result in the loss of the freedom their advocates fight for.
For freedom is actually about fulfilling your potential, not freeing oneself from coercion, which actually is a given within family dynamics.
So, yes, I'm all for sitting on your ass in Zen rather than this revolutionary bullshit.
Reference:
Gwangju: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju
Gawngju Democratization Movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Democratization_Movement
Indeed, the freedom that social activists strive for is based on the fallacy that freedom from coercion is a viable political outcome. The inherent violence in attempting to achieve such freedom shows that such freedom will always be subject to control by the elites of society.
For the ideal society free of rules will still require a method of social control, lest the alternative — chaos — lead to a feared breakdown of society.
The truth is, society does not need a centralized government to function — Gwangju is a good example of this. In the aftermath of the Park assassination of 1979, Gwangju formed an anarchistic society without central government, which threatened the control by the elites of South Korea of the Korean people.
In contrast, the freedom to create new ways of innovation is truly viable. Anything else is doomed to end in control of the People by the elites. A society that allows such control yet seeks to be free of it will continue to produce automatons, not people.
Ergo, social activism ought to focus on the freedom to be rather than the freedom from coercion which appears to be their current focus. By focusing solely on freedom from coercion, social activism will eventually result in the loss of the freedom their advocates fight for.
For freedom is actually about fulfilling your potential, not freeing oneself from coercion, which actually is a given within family dynamics.
So, yes, I'm all for sitting on your ass in Zen rather than this revolutionary bullshit.
Reference:
Gwangju: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju
Gawngju Democratization Movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Democratization_Movement
20090613
Legally and Politically, Pedophilia's about Money and Power
According to what I have seen, paedophilia was manufactured as a crime by the State by enacting laws to profit lawyers and relieve the apprehension of concerned parents.
It is related to the Canadian law which states that a father's daughter is his property until either age of consent or age of majority. So it's about money and power.
Lawyers profit from prosecuting this crime, and they get to manufacture a scenario of the power accused paedophiles have over their victims.
Even so, the perpetrator is rendered powerless once caught, and is labelled a sex offender.
People in authority are significantly challenged by social issues related to power and control. Thus I submit that a pedophile is actually rendered powerless due to his inability to find a mate and tries to regain control over his life in an inappropriate manner by exercising control over children who are powerless due to physical size and immaturity.
When you listen to one of these perverts or read their writings, you see evidence of obsessive views of children as sex objects. They are utterly incapable of feeling any compassion for their victims, and only see them as objects to be manipulated for their own pleasure.
Indeed, they are broken people, and it is likely possible that they are exacting revenge for past wrongs against them, possibly by their parents or closest care provider. There may even be a self-revulsion component involved.
Yet I don't doubt that a dose of MDMA could get them to see how terribly they wrong an innocent being, while kanna would relieve their depression much more effectively than the pharmaceutical roulette now forced on sex offenders. With intense therapy, even ibogaine would offer help.
Instead of trying these alternative options out, the DEA and its Canadian counterpart just daemonizes these drugs in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies.
It is related to the Canadian law which states that a father's daughter is his property until either age of consent or age of majority. So it's about money and power.
Lawyers profit from prosecuting this crime, and they get to manufacture a scenario of the power accused paedophiles have over their victims.
Even so, the perpetrator is rendered powerless once caught, and is labelled a sex offender.
People in authority are significantly challenged by social issues related to power and control. Thus I submit that a pedophile is actually rendered powerless due to his inability to find a mate and tries to regain control over his life in an inappropriate manner by exercising control over children who are powerless due to physical size and immaturity.
When you listen to one of these perverts or read their writings, you see evidence of obsessive views of children as sex objects. They are utterly incapable of feeling any compassion for their victims, and only see them as objects to be manipulated for their own pleasure.
Indeed, they are broken people, and it is likely possible that they are exacting revenge for past wrongs against them, possibly by their parents or closest care provider. There may even be a self-revulsion component involved.
Yet I don't doubt that a dose of MDMA could get them to see how terribly they wrong an innocent being, while kanna would relieve their depression much more effectively than the pharmaceutical roulette now forced on sex offenders. With intense therapy, even ibogaine would offer help.
Instead of trying these alternative options out, the DEA and its Canadian counterpart just daemonizes these drugs in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies.
20070820
Busting the Three Myths about Marijuana
Reporters have been recently fear-mongering about marijuana, again.
It makes you go mad, causes lung disease and skin cancer, they cry, but use bad science to exploit fear in people.
Marijuana Increases the Risk of Psychosis by 40%: This one turned out to be totally wrong. Apparently a correlation between marijuana use and psychosis doesn't necessarily mean that marijuana caused the psychosis. Many of the researchers made this clear in their findings, but reporters left it out. Furthermore, none of the stories on this topic explained that the risk of psychosis is small, so a 40% increase isn't that significant to begin with. Reporters also failed to observe that massive increases in marijuana use over the past century have not corresponded with increased rates of psychosis.
Comment: in that study, scientists discovered that if you've been using marijuana since you were 12, you stand a 40 percent chance of developing a psychosis. However, few studies have found that if a person aged 40 starts smoking marijuana would develop a psychosis.
If anything, anxiety would be reduced. With psychosis being a possible side effect of unrelieved anxiety, I think any scientist investigating psychosis is being bought off by pharmaceutical companies with vested interest in their anti-psychotic medications.
Smoking a Joint is as Bad For Your Lungs as 5 Cigarettes: This report also turned out to be almost entirely bogus. Shockingly, "air flow" was the only category (of several) in which marijuana was determined to be more harmful. Researchers stated that marijuana was 2.5 to 5 times more harmful than tobacco in this category, which reporters simply rounded up to 5 for the headline (behold the lofty journalistic standards of Reuters). Reporters also failed to mention conclusive research proving that marijuana does not cause lung cancer; a notable omission since "bad for your lungs" likely implies cancer for many readers. Finally, media reports failed to explain that marijuana users consume far less per day, and do not continue using for nearly as many years as tobacco smokers.
Comment: bad science is the leading cause of anxiety, and journalist are the biggest cause of it.
Marijuana May Cause Skin Cancer: I don't know anything about skin cancer, so I won't attempt to refute the findings of this Harvard study. The manner in which it was reported, however, leaves much to be desired. The FOX News headline reads "Study: Marijuana Use May Cause Skin Cancer." Only upon reading the article does the reader discover that only one extremely rare form of skin cancer has been associated with marijuana, and that the researchers claim that more research is needed. Furthermore, only people with weakened immune systems are even susceptible to this infection. A more appropriate headline would have been "Study: Marijuana May Cause Skin Cancer Under Very Rare Circumstances."
In short, anti-pot propaganda is based on bad science.
It makes me wonder why they fear the most harmless plant in the world.
Could it be because without control the anti-pot fanatic feel powerless? I think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)