Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
- Dec 12, 2013
- 25,744
- 3,045
I laughed when I started hearing about ISIS: the more violent than Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Seriously guys? First there was VD then HIV, then when HIV became somewhat less-than-lethal and people started enjoying sex again they invented super AIDS. AIDS was mutating and now back to being deadly again. Have you ever actually met someone with super AIDS? Or a terrorist for that matter? Now that we've gotten over being afraid of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the wars in Iraq and Afganistan are all but over, look out! A new threat has popped into existence, ISIS! Or, Super Al-Qaeda. ...Groan.
Fearful people are easier to control. A public in fear of the Boogeyman will GIVE power and authroity to their governments to protect them. A public with nothing to fear wont stomach a corrupt or evil government. The Summer of Love in the 60s put an end to the war in Vietnam because everyone was busy having sex. And as Prescott et al. showed in the 70s, a sexually satisfied individual is relaxed, passive, and their brains incapable of being aggressive and violent. Just as with cannabis users. Hence why it's been illegal up until recently. Cannabis AND sexual pleasure represent a massive threat to the military industrial complex and ISIS and upcoming threats to global peace and security are the response.
Conspiracy nut? Pothead? Lunatic? Nope, just someone with more free time to think and notice this stuff. But those labels are how those who don't want this stuff talked about marginalize those that do.
There is no looming invasion by the Russians, Muslims, or even aliens. We were invaded and taken over long ago. And the result is a self-perpetuating flawed thinking that enables it to continue unabated.
...
Labels are the true enemy. Be it Christian or MUslim, black or white, democrat or republican; labels separate us into 'us' and 'them' categories. 'Us' or 'we' is the right side, and 'them' or 'they' is the wrong/bad side. Since invariably there's then always more than one side it's very easy to promote a sense of fear and stress which benefits those who provide both sides with the means to alleviate that stress. Whether a government promising security and safety, or a corporation selling some feel-good remedy. But what if we did away with labels and categories for people? What if we were all simply human beings who need the same basic things to live and prosper? If instead of over 200 countries on this one planet we were simply one unified planet and people? No more us vs them, no more right vs wrong, no more false threats from the 'them' so 'we' give more and more power to those promising to make us safe.
All labels and definitions for people are inherently wrong. By dividing ourselves into categories we marginalize people so the ones not part of that group are better or worse.
Corporations are largely to blame, as are governments, but ultimately they too are simply made up of individual people. I think therefore there isn't any one united threat or cause for our problems but rather a self-perpetuating flaw with how we think. Maybe way back someone noticed that if you break societies up into us vs them categories they're much easier to control. Our tribe vs their tribe maybe. Our tribe is the good peaceful tribe, and their tribe wants to destroy our tribe, take our things, and live where we live. And so it began. That first tribe was made fearful of the Others, and so when their leadership wanted to take the other tribe's resources (and in fact are the actual 'bad' ones) their people went along with it willingly because they became convinced the other trobe was the actual enemy. But in point of fact, it was their own leaders who needed to secure resources for their tribe who became the real enemy. Because th'good' tribe's needs were unsustainable with food, living space, etc. the other tribe's resources became more attractive than reducing consumption at home to allow a more sustainable existence. And so it is with us now in modern times. Rather than cutting back consumption, we let ourselves become convinced by our leaders that in order to go on living how we've always lived we need to wage war with others to take their energy, food, water, and living space to enable us to continue our comfortable lifestyles. But since most everyone is inherently good, and theft and murder wouldn't be agreeable, we need to be convinced of looming threats and sneak attacks. But it isn't simply enough to talk up an enemy separated by an ocean. An entire slew of threats has to be perpetuated so everyone is fearful and trusts their leaders.
Anyone who watches the news be it CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or someone else is being conditioned like one of Pavlov's dogs to be fearful of many different things. Disease is good. First there was VD, then, HIV, then when HIV became a somewhat chronic condition instead of death sentence, then invented super AIDS. Now sex is scary again, so instead of pleasuring one another with sex we abstain from sexual pleasure which in turn makes us more violent as Prescotts' research in the 70s showed. A sexually pleasuring person has all the violent neural impulse disabled, and vice-versa. It's one or the other, and a sexually satisfied person is very passive and relaxed. Whereas a sexually frustrated person is very aggressive and tense - the perfect candidate for fear inducing propaganda and recruitment into the next war.
Fearful people are easier to control. A public in fear of the Boogeyman will GIVE power and authroity to their governments to protect them. A public with nothing to fear wont stomach a corrupt or evil government. The Summer of Love in the 60s put an end to the war in Vietnam because everyone was busy having sex. And as Prescott et al. showed in the 70s, a sexually satisfied individual is relaxed, passive, and their brains incapable of being aggressive and violent. Just as with cannabis users. Hence why it's been illegal up until recently. Cannabis AND sexual pleasure represent a massive threat to the military industrial complex and ISIS and upcoming threats to global peace and security are the response.
Conspiracy nut? Pothead? Lunatic? Nope, just someone with more free time to think and notice this stuff. But those labels are how those who don't want this stuff talked about marginalize those that do.
There is no looming invasion by the Russians, Muslims, or even aliens. We were invaded and taken over long ago. And the result is a self-perpetuating flawed thinking that enables it to continue unabated.
...
Labels are the true enemy. Be it Christian or MUslim, black or white, democrat or republican; labels separate us into 'us' and 'them' categories. 'Us' or 'we' is the right side, and 'them' or 'they' is the wrong/bad side. Since invariably there's then always more than one side it's very easy to promote a sense of fear and stress which benefits those who provide both sides with the means to alleviate that stress. Whether a government promising security and safety, or a corporation selling some feel-good remedy. But what if we did away with labels and categories for people? What if we were all simply human beings who need the same basic things to live and prosper? If instead of over 200 countries on this one planet we were simply one unified planet and people? No more us vs them, no more right vs wrong, no more false threats from the 'them' so 'we' give more and more power to those promising to make us safe.
All labels and definitions for people are inherently wrong. By dividing ourselves into categories we marginalize people so the ones not part of that group are better or worse.
Corporations are largely to blame, as are governments, but ultimately they too are simply made up of individual people. I think therefore there isn't any one united threat or cause for our problems but rather a self-perpetuating flaw with how we think. Maybe way back someone noticed that if you break societies up into us vs them categories they're much easier to control. Our tribe vs their tribe maybe. Our tribe is the good peaceful tribe, and their tribe wants to destroy our tribe, take our things, and live where we live. And so it began. That first tribe was made fearful of the Others, and so when their leadership wanted to take the other tribe's resources (and in fact are the actual 'bad' ones) their people went along with it willingly because they became convinced the other trobe was the actual enemy. But in point of fact, it was their own leaders who needed to secure resources for their tribe who became the real enemy. Because th'good' tribe's needs were unsustainable with food, living space, etc. the other tribe's resources became more attractive than reducing consumption at home to allow a more sustainable existence. And so it is with us now in modern times. Rather than cutting back consumption, we let ourselves become convinced by our leaders that in order to go on living how we've always lived we need to wage war with others to take their energy, food, water, and living space to enable us to continue our comfortable lifestyles. But since most everyone is inherently good, and theft and murder wouldn't be agreeable, we need to be convinced of looming threats and sneak attacks. But it isn't simply enough to talk up an enemy separated by an ocean. An entire slew of threats has to be perpetuated so everyone is fearful and trusts their leaders.
Anyone who watches the news be it CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or someone else is being conditioned like one of Pavlov's dogs to be fearful of many different things. Disease is good. First there was VD, then, HIV, then when HIV became a somewhat chronic condition instead of death sentence, then invented super AIDS. Now sex is scary again, so instead of pleasuring one another with sex we abstain from sexual pleasure which in turn makes us more violent as Prescotts' research in the 70s showed. A sexually pleasuring person has all the violent neural impulse disabled, and vice-versa. It's one or the other, and a sexually satisfied person is very passive and relaxed. Whereas a sexually frustrated person is very aggressive and tense - the perfect candidate for fear inducing propaganda and recruitment into the next war.
