A ban on monkey and gorilla images for underage youth could promote inter-group harmony

Not only is teaching evolution to children offensive to the sensibilities of some Christian communities, it also brings many pictures of monkeys and gorillas into the situation.

This presence of visualizations of monkeys and gorillas establishes the possibility of comparison of other people with monkeys or gorillas. For example, some populations tend to have broader noses or flatter foreheads than other populations.

Without the point of comparison with monkeys and gorillas, it would never cross anyone’s mind that the group with flatter noses and foreheads were on average relatively more monkey-like (or in fact gorilla-like) in appearance with regard to this matter of nose and forehead flatness (for example, as opposed to being in the opposite direction of, say, rounder, narrower or larger).

Therefore, for cultural harmony between diverse groups, children should not be exposed to these damaging images of monkeys and gorillas which tend to potentiate racist views due to the fact of some groups having relatively flatter noses and foreheads, and the point of comparison with monkeys and gorillas presenting the likelihood of one or more groups being the object of said comparison due to questions of observable nose and forehead flatness differences.

There is some additional possibility that preventing children’s exposure to monkey and gorilla images could also help to counter anti-semitism, in consideration of the observation that those who have the appearance of placing strong emphasis on relatively flatter noses and foreheads to draw conclusions about barbarity or intelligence, are also extremely highly over-represented among those with strongly negative attitudes (at times of homicidal proportions) towards another group, whose noses, as opposed to the gorilla-association-inducing flatter noses and foreheads, tend to have larger and pointier noses than most European or Asian populations (with the percentage of women in this second group being highly over-represented among those having had nose jobs (citation needed)).

Posted in Arts, media & society, Epistemology, International, Science | Leave a comment

Could missile shield R&D tip the balance against use of possible-best non-military approaches to denuclearization of the Korean peninsula?

There is a certain US interest towards North Korea continuing or expanding its nuclear threats (by which I refer to testing and capacity, not whatever words emanate from whose mouth), because it provides reason to develop and/or deploy missile defense mechanisms which would also tend to undermine the certainty of effectiveness of counterstrike by more important players. (China’s ability to hold a nuclear deterrent against Japan is degraded in the case that present deployment of anti-missile systems in South Korea proves not to be a temporary measure, for example.)

Presumably the logic mentioned in the first sentence would not be prioritized or promoted among most relevant circles, but at the same time there could be a certain hesitation to promote application of the most effective non-military means of removing the nuclear threat of a regime which holds the stated consideration to nuke the US, for the fact that the (North Korean) threat would remain generally non-cataclysmic while providing reason to undertake or expand their particular areas of R&D.

And in the meantime, those who prefer to seek means to neutralize first strike and/or counterstrike possibilities of opposing nuclear powers, for example by government-funded R&D activities along the lines of previously proposed “star wars” anti-missile programs, could easily be expected in at least some cases or at least to some extent to communicate or position in ways that would tend to disrupt to some degree the most effective means of achieving neutralization of a nuclear threat emanating from an apparently unpredictable and certainly highly oppressive state.

Without having to posit any “conspiracy”, we could instead point to the words of Francis Hutcheson on being “bribed by one’s self interest” when applying moral reasoning in a manner which would differ from if being a dis-interested party.

Of course, if the certainty of counterstrike capacity of other major nuclear powers is degraded, then for reasons that are well understood by presumably almost all of the relevant actors, this could only lead to an arms race and a massive increase in the volume of armaments purchased and held by all sides. This would tend to increase the probability of irresponsible use of said armaments even in the case that rivalry or conflict between major nuclear powers were never to become “hot” in the sense of traditional armaments.

Posted in Arts, media & society, International, Physics, Political science, Science | Leave a comment

THANKFULLY, it will be quieter soon

“Don’t worry, it’ll be quieter soon”, in response to a complaint regarding progressively partial syllabization leading towards a secret language of mental torture comprised of tapping and partial grunts.

Of course, if one were to mention such a thing, the only possible explanation is that one had decided to take the transparency approach and permanently commit to refrain from approaches operating through the criminal code.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, History, International, Philosophy, Physics, Quotidian, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Highlights from Frontline’s “American Terrorist”

Among other things which would tend to suggest legitimacy of some variety of conspiracy theories which indicate that USA-originated brainwashing is behind at least some share of terrorist activities internationally, the reference to psychological torture is also worth mentioning. It plays a clip from an old war movie referencing confinement in small spaces and “hours of machine gun questioning” as both constituting psychological torture, to contextualize relative horrors perpetrated in more recent times as compared to what would presumably have been deemed quite sufficient to express/elicit outrage regarding things which may be classified as “psychological torture”.

Present day Zersetzung-style treatments which approximate the second of these (and which appear to be the object of normalization) can thus be compared with that which would have elicited outrage – as treatment of prisoner’s of war – some 50 years previous.

The extent to which certain officials interviewed for the documentary appear to almost believe their own bullshit, under the cover of various notional propaganda that evokes of the better side of American patriotism (consider that the guy who was dedicated to expanding the “legality” of torture to the maximum extent possible under the claim of its being necessary, also suggests that he’d never even heard of the possibility that such torture methods might work) … may also be worth highlighting to audiences that infrequently allow themselves to be exposed to perspectives commonly held outside of the West which are offensive to their self-image largely in proportion to the resemblance with reality.

 

Spoiler 1: The extent to which the US, UK and/or others may have had potentially actionable advance information related to the Mumbai terrorist attacks, as well as the question of who (and how) may have been influencing/handling the now-imprisoned terrorist, both remain unambiguously unclear by the end of the documentary.

Spoiler 2: It is revealed that “high value individuals” were tortured first, instead of just asking. That’s more consistent with the use of torture as terrorism itself, as opposed to being consistent with the belief that torture itself would be effective (as compared to non-torture means of questioning) with regard to the stated objectives.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, History, International, Philosophy, Physics, Policy, Political philosophy, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Mandatory public service activities in support of a ‘million maybe leaders’

For national security and broader public wellbeing reasons, when speaking (or pretending to speak) on one’s phone one is at all times to maintain heightened vigilance for the possibility that some criminal or deviant of any sort is presently the centre of attention in relation to any sort of treatment that may potentially be observed as causing negative psychological effect.

For example, if observing one or more persons repeatedly administering singular or diverse treatments related to some subject/theme which may be invasive and/or accusatory in nature, a well-trained Sovietesque citizen will be both on guard and on call at no less than 5 seconds notice in order to “get in on” any appearance of psychological hostilities being potentially brought against any individual at any point in time for any proposed reason.

Via “helping people is hurting people and hurting people is helping people” logic, the societal situation will be raised up generally thanks to such patriotic demonstrations of love and shared sentiment towards any-maybe-leaders among fellow citizens and humans which may be transformed in black/white manners as appropriate on an ongoing ad hoc and/or extensively orchestrated manner.

P.S.: Any-maybe-Stalin loves you. Any-maybe-Stalin is sure to reward you later for what can be had via subservient compliancebenevolent patriotism at zero cost today, in particular those who are especially attentive to instances of “any” appearing towards the end of paragraph 2.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics, pure theory, Epistemology, History, International, Philosophy, Physics, Policy, Political philosophy, Political science, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Sovietesque: Willingness to turn in or slander any one any time for any true/untrue and/or known/unknown reason(s)

Sovietesque: A term which enables to speak of certain realities without having to face the inordinately internal and domestic nature of certain practices of the present day which are fundamentally similar to practices claimed of Soviets presumed by at least some people to have constituted a legitimate object of hate or at least willingness to engage in warmaking with.

Generally speaking, the main feature of Sovietesque activities involves the willingness to turn in or slander any one any time for any true/untrue and/or known/unknown reason(s). Periodic demonstrations of willingness to self-blackmail may be of varying relevance in different Sovietesque contexts or situations, and thus are not outlined with specificity regarding type or quantity in terms of defining Sovietesque.

An example could be if some people start passing by your house or place or work or place of shopping (or even inserting signals on top of a radio station you listen to) and calling out that some colleague, friend or family member is some sort of criminal or deviant; and also in the meantime, for example, seeking some means of (potentially subtle) coercion by which in future you might be ensured to pass on the message by some essentially-covert means to all people potentially in contact with the criminal deviant. Additionally, when in the presence of the criminal deviant, to regularly remind of knowledge of said criminal deviance but only by essentially-covert means such as via ventriloquism or when not in the same space.

In the absence of demonstrated willingness to participate in upholding public safety on a continuous or at least ongoing basis, the insufficiently Sovietesque individual may be subjected to similar and/or other treatments such as may bring them to their senses.

Sovietesque (as an individual characteristic): willingness to turn in any one, any time for any/no reason (most especially ANY nominally plausible reason that is proposed).

 

This should be considered as fundamentally separable as a concept from the known human interest (commonly attributed to teenage girls and elderly women) in blabbing on about any old thing about some stuff that’s going on, which could include musing about potential negatives about other persons (in some cases potentially contributing to self-defining in a relatively higher position by virtue of the imbued lower position of others).

Rather, Sovietesque refers to a largely programmed dogmatic subservience toward (insert potentially reprogrammable entity/ideology here), in the act of participating in any/most suggested means of psychological hostility which has the objective of seeking and/or implementing means of degrading and/or coercing those who fail to demonstrate similar subserviencebenevolent love.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Business and entrepreneurship, Courts/police/justice, Economics, Economics and philosophy, Economics, pure theory, Economics, social and commercial policy, Epistemology, History, International, Philosophy, Physics, Political philosophy, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Who will police those who use paper mail?

After dropping off some volume of mail, not all of which in the first of several postal boxes enroute, I was followed by some individual who then called out in a threatening vocalization saying “I am the police”.

While the ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ principle might suggest this isn’t a big deal, one could point out that citizens should have a reasonable expectation to send some mail without having to face other private citizens taking it upon themselves to impersonate agents of the state in a manner that basically amounts to harassing people who send mail.

The question of a Canadian equivalent to US laws amounting to “conspiring to prevent enjoyment of rights” arises again. If the objective is to deter activities which are in fact generally condoned as being inalienable rights and additionally promoted through education and other aspects of the state, for example to send a letter without being threatened (some interests might prefer to deter all communications which cannot be monitored via the IT backbone, for example), and more specifically to have criminal sanction against activities intended to deter basic rights such as engaging in some communications by the preferred means, then this would amount to “conspiring to deprive of rights”.

Specifically, a citizen should have a reasonable expectation to be able to deliver some volume of mail without being followed and harassed by any Sovietesque individual pretending to be a peace officer, and otherwise should reasonably expect to be free of behaviours intended to impart any harassing or otherwise deterrent treatment following the legal act of depositing multiple mail items into a postal box.

Pretending to be a peace officer while harassing people who use paper mail constitutes numerous crimes simultaneously, with identifiably different acts including: a) stalking/following/harassing, b) pretending to be a peace officer, c) conspiring to deprive of rights, and d) that’s without getting even remotely creative.

Ha ha ha ha ha. A bomb will go off at the White House on Sept XX, 2017. Just joking. Or not. Doesn’t matter, does it? Or does it? Young, dumb and male does not excuse that, nor should it excuse the above-described events.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics, pure theory, Political philosophy, Quotidian | Leave a comment

Reference plausibility = state-complicit brainwashing power

Religious clerics are a reference option if applying to military, therefore “the church” has the formal backing of the state in enforced brainwashing

I learned this from a very angry sounding guy, speaking apparently on a cell phone, expressing about how a church leader reference can be used for a military application. The claim appears to be that this constitutes or could constitute brainwashing people.

I don’t think he understands that you can literally leave any church or temple any minute (or at least is unaware that this is fairly widespread knowledge) and there are dozens of other doctrines and spiritual communities in any particularly large population centre, with no more repercussion than probably not seeing any of those people around anymore if you leave.

The general tonality and presentation, etc., would tend to be one that would encourage anti-religious people to join churches to obtain references for purposes of joining the military.

 

It can be noted that a potentially-well-intended clear statement of concern, e.g., “terrorists might go to church to get a reference before joining the military” and repeating various permutations of this differs substantially from delivery in a hostile manner generally insulting with regard to the nature of options for indoctrination among diverse communities in a land of religious freedom and some supposed aspect of the state implicitly promoting brainwashing, for the fact of acceptance that leaders of said communities are among those accepted as potentially serving as a character reference in relation to military enlistment.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Philosophy, spiritual, Physics, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Sovietesque open-closed genius logic

In the process of Big Brother mind controlling everyone for general public safety and law compliance, ‘so sorry’ if you were the type for whom this was not at all necessary, and for whom eternal punishment was required to demonstrate to others what happens to those who do not ‘willingly’ consent to following mind influencing technologies, in particular such influences as consistent with seeking means of coercion over others.

For example, if you are guilty of neither moral faults nor legal crimes worthy of mention, the possibility to drive you to suicide for theft of a paperclip, or perhaps picking up a poor man’s penny that he failed to retrieve from the ground, is to be tested for implementation in all possible manners.

Generally speaking, this is to be done in a manner consistent with that which was banned by the Geneva Code immediately following the horrors of WWII, and which is banned even for CIA, military and many other interrogators. Namely, to seek any object of cultural or social importance to the individual, for the purpose of using this knowledge to mentally torture and/or brainwash individuals (including toward re-brainwashable micro-compliance potentially co-incident with ‘mind control’).

And this, with nearly every culture in the world demographically represented within walking distance of nearly every centre of international importance in the West, our borders open to movements of labour (people), while others remain de facto comparatively closed. For example, ease of visa-free holidaymaking for Westerners (which should be appreciated) should not be understood as necessarily consistent with absence of various security risks directly linked to Sovietesque practices (themselves potentially of revolution-legitimizing proportions according to metrics of almost the entire WWII era).

Comparing the percentage foreign born populations of London, New York, San Francisco, Paris, Berlin or Rome with those of Lagos, Beijing, Shanghai, Delhi, Jakarta, Cairo, Rio de Janeiro or Mexico City could be revealing in considering the genius of welcoming Sovietesque practices when open/closed dimensions of the situations are anticipated to apply for quite some time. The observation driving the open/closed consideration (percentage foreign born populations) should be primarily considered as reflecting a relative surfeit of opportunity in the first group of cities compared to the second, and thus major benefits to the investment climate can be expected due to ability to attract and retain skilled labour. The de facto comparative open/closed aspects of the situation, however, should not be viewed as benign in consideration of the specific subject of Sovietesque practices which are suggestive of the appropriateness of recollecting the word Zersetzung of the correctly vilified Stasi.

In the meantime, preference for contexts where Sovietesque solutions to Sovietesque problems are plausibly appropriate should be off the table, which is not to say that such contexts themselves should at all times be met with rigid thinking.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics, pure theory, Epistemology, International, Policy, Political philosophy, Quotidian, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Top question from nuclear disarmament event (a.k.a., plays from Stockwell Day’s book on mixing/matching the word “terrorist” with the group to be maligned)

Q: Um, Trump’s a retard. Ha ha ha. Ha. Ha ha ha. Now that you’re all attentive and agreeable … so … since terrorism is planned, and planning is intellectual, what would intellectuals think about planning related to this intellectual activity of terrorism?

Moreover, high waters in Lake Ontario last spring suggests something … I dunno, confusing at best, but also clearly the science is wrong.

Anyways, as for intellectuals and terrorism, and climate science being generically stupid and/or wrong, the fact of nuclear energy existing means that this all ties in to the theme of the day.

[I didn’t catch the actual question, but the number and types of weaving between the words “terrorist” and “intellectual” are significantly under-reported.]

 

Aside from that, I learned basically nothing at the event because it was difficult to focus due to these and other reasons. However, it can be highlighted that the 22,000 nuke estimate is to be repeatedly brought up in preference for the 15,000 estimate suggested by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Epistemology, Philosophy, Quotidian | Leave a comment