https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/against-the-mutational-load-hypothesis
https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/against-the-mutational-load-hypothesis-20d
https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/against-the-mutational-load-hypothesis-517

…The horror of work is less in the work itself than in the methodical ravaging, for centuries, of all that isn’t work: the familiarities of one’s neighborhood and trade, of one’s village, of struggle, of kinship, our attachment to places, to beings, to the seasons, to ways of doing and speaking…work has totally triumphed over all other ways of existing, at the very moment when workers have become superfluous…We are living the paradox of a society of workers without work, where entertainment, consumption and leisure only underscore the lack from which they are supposed to distract us.

In corporations, work is divided in an increasingly visible way into highly skilled positions of research, conception, control, coordination and communication which deploy all the knowledge necessary for the new, cybernetic production process, and unskilled positions for the maintenance and surveillance of this process. The first are few in number, very well paid and thus so coveted that the minority who occupy these positions will do anything to avoid losing them. They and their work are effectively bound in one anguished embrace. Managers, scientists, lobbyists, researchers, programmers, developers, consultants and engineers, literally never stop working.

The series of tasks that can’t be delegated to automation form a nebulous cluster of jobs that, because they cannot be occupied by machines, are occupied by any old human—warehousemen, stock people, assembly line workers, seasonal workers, etc. This flexible, undifferentiated workforce that moves from one task to the next and never stays long in a business can no longer even consolidate itself as a force, being outside the center of the production process and employed to plug the holes of what has not yet been mechanized, as if pulverized in a multitude of interstices. The temp is the figure of the worker who is no longer a worker, who no longer has a trade—but only abilities that he sells where he can—and whose very availability is also a kind of work.

On the margins of this workforce that is effective and necessary for the functioning of the machine, is a growing majority that has become superfluous, that is certainly useful to the flow of production but not much else, which introduces the risk that, in its idleness, it will set about sabotaging the machine….This floating population must somehow be kept occupied. But to this day they have not found a better disciplinary method than wages. It’s therefore necessary to pursue the dismantling of “social gains” so that the most restless ones, those who will only surrender when faced with the alternative between dying of hunger or stagnating in jail, are lured back to the bosom of wage-labor.

The order of work was the order of a world. The evidence of its ruin is paralyzing to those who dread what will come after. Today work is tied less to the economic necessity of producing goods than to the political necessity of producing producers and consumers, and of preserving by any means necessary the order of work.

If the unemployed person removes his piercings, goes to the barber and keeps himself busy with “projects,” if he really works on his “employability,” as they say, it’s because this is how he demonstrates his mobility. Mobility is this slight detachment from the self, this minimal disconnection from what constitutes us, this condition of strangeness whereby the self can now be taken up as an object of work, and it now becomes possible to sell oneself rather than one’s labor power, to be remunerated not for what one does but for what one is, for our exquisite mastery of social codes, for our relational talents, for our smile and our way of presenting ourselves.

https://coltura.org/gasoline-superusers/

KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF GASOLINE SUPERUSERS:

• Use more than 1,000 gallons of gasoline a year
• Drive three times more miles than the average driver
• Are more likely to drive pickups and SUVs
• Are more likely to live in rural areas
• Have similar income and educational levels as the general population
• Have lower average income levels than current EV drivers
• Spend on average 8% of their income on gasoline — more than twice that of average drivers.

REVISING EV INCENTIVES TO FOCUS ON DISPLACING GASOLINE CONSUMPTION WILL:

• Cut gasoline use faster, more efficiently, and at a lower cost.
• Require fewer EVs to achieve the same level of carbon reduction as existing policies.
• Improve equity.

…In Central Intelligence Agency parlance, there are two kinds of strategic deception: cover and disinformation. Cover induces the belief that something true is something false; disinformation aims to produce the belief that something false is in fact true. In other words, cover conceals the truth while disinformation conveys false information. When the CIA disseminates false information, it is always intended to mislead. When the press disseminates false information that helps keep classified information a secret, the CIA sits back and smiles.

…Spying on Russia and defying Soviet airspace was one thing; lying about it after being caught red-handed made the president look like a liar in the eyes of the world. In 1960, American presidents were expected to be truth tellers; there was no public precedent for lying. [editor’s note: amazing how times have changed. Maybe we are just more aware of how corrupt our politicians are.]

Roswell Incident notes:

• Post WWII German engineers who migrated to the US worked on the atomic and H bombs. Those who migrated to, or were captured by Russia worked on wingless flight - what we would refer to as “flying saucers”.

• Stalin was observant of the chaos induced by the radio theatre War of the Worlds. He noticed how easily duped Americans were and planned to sew chaos amongst American with flying saucers transporting “aliens”.

• Josef Mengele was promised refuge in Russia if he engineered humans, either genetically or surgically, to appear as aliens. The passengers on the wingless aircraft the crashed at Roswell were teenagers with macroencephaly - large heads, bulging eyes - which gave them the appearance of what one might expect an alien to look like as presented by Hollywood.

• The crash was an accident. The remote controlled aircraft was supposed to land, the “aliens” walk out and the press and public go hysterical.

• The interior controls of the craft are labeled in Russian.

• Much concern at the time that Russia had wingless technology, a novel propulsion mechanism, as well as radar evading capability.

Conjecture:

• Bob Lazar only mentioned briefly. He was a dupe introduced to Area 51 and selectively shown information in the hope he would “reveal” just enough to keep the the alien stories alive.

• The US has most likely reverse engineered the propulsion system of the Roswell saucer and many of the UFO sightings today are spy planes/saucers of either Russian or American origin.

• Details remain classified so as not to release the capabilities of current aircraft, as well as to hide human experiments carried out by the CIA/Atomic Energy Comission that occurred at Area 51.

• Alien hysteria serves the purpose of obscuring information the government wants the citizenry to ignore e.g. recent alien info releases coincided with both John Durham reports, relegating that information to below the fold.

• Note that releases of new alien information are always termed “newly released” i.e. old information that is being released again - nothing “new”.

“The Canadian model”: Any country can weaponize money laundering laws to wage war on dissent; forcing banks, crypto firms to freeze accounts to combat citizens’ thought crime
Canada uses existing money laundering laws to target citizens’ thought-crime, maybe-crime, pre-crime, and petty-crime. Fear not, likeminded leaders; you too have these laws. The FATF AML model is a turnkey, one-size-fits-all version, easily deployed against any country’s citizens.

https://www.effectiveaml.org/the-canadian-model/

LIMS*Nucleus is a software program used to manage multi-well plates in an academic or industrial environment. Functionality includes:

• Generate 96, 384 or 1536 well plates with or without samples
• Collect plates into plate sets
• Group or split plate sets
• Reformat plates - four 96 well plates into a 384 well plate; four 384 well plates into a 1536 well plate
• Associate assay data with plate sets
• Identify hits scoring in assays using included algorithms - or write your own
• Export annotated data
• Generate worklists for liquid handling robots
• Rearray hits into a smaller collection of plates
• Prototype algorithms, visualization with R/Shiny

Visit the original Laboratory Automation Solutions website.

LIMS*Nucleus has a restricted set of features - multi-well plate management, hit identification, rearraying - and serves as the core of a larger system. Source code is available for modification. The architecture is simple client/server with no middleware or ORM. The client utilizes Bootstrap/Datatables and the database is PostgreSQL The software is packaged as a Guix pack for easy installation/configuration. R/Shiny dashboards can be used to extend functionality.

Much pontification on the personality/motives of leftists:
Defining a “leftist”: If you think that racism, sexism, gay rights, animal rights, indigenous people’s rights, and “social justice” in general are among the most important issues that the world currently faces, then you are a leftist as I use that term…When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct ” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like…The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call feelings of inferiority and oversocialization…The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser…the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior)….rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly….If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss….a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper middle class. Notice that university intellectuals3 constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.

What is needed is a new revolutionary movement, dedicated to the elimination of technological society, that will take measures to exclude all leftists, as well as the assorted neurotics, lazies, incompetents, charlatans, and persons deficient in self-control who are drawn to resistance movements in America today.

The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual’s loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

Suppose that a public official or a corporation executive appoints his cousin, his friend or his coreligionist to a position rather than appointing the person best qualified for the job. He has permitted personal loyalty to supersede his loyalty to the system, and that is “nepotism” or “discrimination,” both of which are terrible sins in modern society. Would-be industrial societies that have done a poor job of subordinating personal or local loyalties to loyalty to the system are usually very inefficient. (Look at Latin America.) Thus an advanced industrial society can tolerate only those small-scale communities that are emasculated, tamed and made into tools of the system

Much discussion of the Power Process:
1 Goal
2 Effort
3 Achieve or fail
4 Autonomy

…in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.

…government regulations are essential and inevitable parts of our extremely complex society. A large portion of small business today operates on the franchise system. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago that many of the franchise-granting companies require applicants for franchises to take a personality test that is designed to EXCLUDE those who have creativity and initiative, because such persons are not sufficiently docile to go along obediently with the franchise system. This excludes from small business many of the people who most need autonomy.

The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem). Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself…Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.

Most of the Indian nations of New England were monarchies, and many of the cities of the Italian Renaissance were controlled by dictators. But in reading about these societies one gets the impression that they allowed far more personal freedom than out society does. In part this was because they lacked efficient mechanisms for enforcing the ruler’s will: There were no modern, well-organized police forces, no rapid long-distance communications, no surveillance cameras, no dossiers of information about the lives of average citizens. Hence it was relatively easy to evade control.

The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system… In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we’ve had to kill people.

permanent changes in favor of freedom could be brought about only by persons prepared to accept radical, dangerous and unpredictable alteration of the entire system. In other words by revolutionaries, not reformers…it seems highly improbable that any way of changing society could be found that would reconcile freedom with modern technology.

…regulations will tend increasingly to be replaced by psychological tools that make us want to do what the system requires of us. (Propaganda,14 educational techniques, “mental health” programs, etc.)

The system HAS TO force people to behave in ways that are increasingly remote from the natural pattern of human behavior. For example, the system needs scientists, mathematicians and engineers… It can’t function without them. So heavy pressure is put on children to excel in these fields. It isn’t natural for an adolescent human being to spend the bulk of his time sitting at a desk absorbed in study…

No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization.

Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed, modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect, antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual’s internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable.

Then there are the methods of propaganda, for which the mass communications media provide effective vehicles. Efficient techniques have been developed for winning elections, selling products, influencing public opinion. The entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television, videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety, frustration, dissatisfaction.

Our society tends to regard as a “sickness” any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible, because when an individual doesn’t fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a “cure” for a “sickness” and therefore as good.

…technicians and scientists carry on their work largely as a surrogate activity; that is, they satisfy their need for power by solving technical problems. They will continue to do this with unabated enthusiasm, and among the most interesting and challenging problems for them to solve will be those of understanding the human body and mind and intervening in their development. For the “good of humanity,” of course.

As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.

Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite.

[The elites] will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby.

On those who are employed, ever-increasing demands will be placed: They will need more and more training, more and more ability, and will have to be ever more reliable, conforming and docile, because they will be more and more like cells of a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly specialized so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality. The system will have to use any means that it can, whether psychological or biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities that the system requires…

…it is likely that neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular point, so that the modifications will probably continue until man and other organisms have been utterly transformed.

History is made by active, determined minorities, not by the majority, which seldom has a clear and consistent idea of what it really wants. Until the time comes for the final push toward revolution,31 the task of revolutionaries will be less to win the shallow support of the majority than to build a small core of deeply committed people.

More descriptions of leftists: The leftist is oriented toward large-scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for social planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left, like “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” “capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism,” “genocide,” “social change,” “social justice,” “social responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights political correctness…You can’t have a united world without rapid long-distance transportation and communication, you can’t make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can’t have a “planned society” without the necessary technological base.

Discussion of the “Noble Savage”

Kazcinsky refers to a few works () to debunk the idea that primitive societies were absent violence, rape, animal cruelty, environmental damage etc. Politically correct oversocialized anthropologists minimize these attributes of natives out of fear of being canceled.

Description of THE SYSTEM

A chapter is devoted to describing what THE SYSTEM is not, but Kazcinsky is reluctant to define what it is as he does not want to minimize THE SYSTEM. He claims we know what it is i.e. the uniparty, censorship industrial complex, academia, corporations, NGOs, fed/world bank, military industrial complex etc.

…the modern soldier is merely a pawn, a dupe who dies not for his family or his tribe but for the politicians who exploit him. If he’s unlucky, maybe he does not die but comes home horribly crippled in a way that would never result from an arrow- or a spear-wound. Meanwhile, thousands of non-combatants are killed or mutilated. The environment is ravaged, not only in the war zone, but also back home, due to the accelerated consumption of natural resources needed to feed the war machine. In comparison, the violence of primitive man is relatively innocuous.

The System’s goal is not brutality or the expression of anger. As far as police work is concerned, the System’s goal is to compel obedience to its rules and to do so with the least possible amount of disruption, violence, and bad publicity. Thus, from the System’s point of view, the ideal cop is one who never gets angry, never uses any more violence than necessary, and as far as possible relies on manipulation rather than force to keep people under control.

Modern technology, with its rapid long-distance transportation and its disruption of traditional ways of life, has led to the mixing of populations, so that nowadays people of different races, nationalities, cultures, and religions have to live and work side by side. If people hate or reject one another on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, etc., the resulting conflicts interfere with the functioning of the System.

The System needs a population that is meek, nonviolent, domesticated, docile, and obedient. It needs to avoid any conflict or disruption that could interfere with the orderly functioning of the social machine. In addition to suppressing racial, ethnic, religious, and other group hostilities, it also has to suppress or harness for its own advantage all other tendencies that could lead to disruption or disorder, such as machismo, aggressive impulses, and any inclination to violence. Naturally, traditional racial and ethnic antagonisms die slowly, machismo, aggressiveness, and violent impulses are not easily suppressed, and attitudes toward sex and gender identity are not transformed overnight. Therefore there are many individuals who resist these changes, and the System is faced with the problem of overcoming their resistance.

All of us in modern society are hemmed in by a dense network of rules and regulations. We are at the mercy of large organizations such as corporations, governments, labor unions, universities, churches, and political parties, and consequently we are powerless. As a result of the servitude, the powerlessness, and the other indignities that the System inflicts on us, there is widespread frustration, which leads to an impulse to rebel.

Through this type of process, rebel movements that are dangerous to the System are subjected to negative propaganda, while rebel movements that are believed to be useful to the System are given cautious encouragement in the media. Unconscious absorption of media propaganda influences would-be rebels to “rebel” in ways that serve the interests of the System.

The university intellectuals also play an important role in carrying out the System’s trick. Though they like to fancy themselves independent thinkers, the intellectuals are (allowing for individual exceptions) the most oversocialized, the most conformist, the tamest and most domesticated, the most pampered, dependent, and spineless group in America today. As a result, their impulse to rebel is particularly strong. But, because they are incapable of independent thought, real rebellion is impossible for them. Consequently they are suckers for the System’s trick, which allows them to irritate people and enjoy the illusion of rebelling without ever having to challenge the System’s basic values.

Because they are the teachers of young people, the university intellectuals are in a position to help the System play its trick on the young, which they do by steering young people’s rebellious impulses toward the standard, stereotyped targets: racism, colonialism, women’s issues, etc. Young people who are not college students learn through the media, or through personal contact, of the “social justice” issues for which students rebel, and they imitate the students. Thus a youth culture develops in which there is a stereotyped mode of rebellion that spreads through imitation of peers—just as hairstyles, clothing styles, and other fads spread through imitation.

Among other signs of the lack of adaptation in modern society is… purposelessness. Our ancestors, whose work was hard and often dangerous, always necessary simply to keep alive, seemed to know what they were here for. Now ‘anomie and preoccupation with the isolated self recur as a central theme of U.S. popular culture. That they find resonance in every other industrial country suggests that the solving of the economic problem brings on these quandaries everywhere.

…the power process (need for power, autonomy, and purposeful activity) is not a luxury but a fundamental need in human psychological development, and that disruption of the power process is a critically important problem in modern society.

The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences. Where our actions have practical consequences that may be of concern to the system (and few important practical consequences are not of concern to the system), our behavior, generally speaking, is closely regulated…Moreover, we live at the mercy of large organizations whose actions determine the circumstances of our existence, such as the state of the economy and the environment, whether there will be a war or a nuclear accident, what kind of education our children will receive and what media influences they will be exposed to. Etc., etc., etc.

Notice that there is a difference between the “natural selection” that operates among human groups and the natural selection that we are familiar with in biology. In biology, more successful organisms simply replace less successful ones and are not imitated by them. But in human affairs less successful groups tend to try to imitate more successful ones. That is, they try to adopt the social forms or practices that appear to have made the latter groups successful. Thus, certain social forms and practices propagate themselves not only because groups having those forms and practices tend to replace other groups, but also because other groups adopt those forms and practices in order to avoid being replaced.

…until recently, bellicosity—a readiness and ability to make war—was an advantageous trait in terms of “natural selection”: Militarily successful nations increased their power and their territory at the expense of other nations that were less successful in war. [i.e. it is not democracy that has been selected for directly but the fruits of demoracy: good business practices, industrialization - that leads to the militaary industrial complex - which assists colonialism/war efforts]…Thus, democracy has become the dominant political form of the modern world not because someone decided that we needed a more humane form of government, but because of an “objective” fact, namely, that under the conditions created by industrialization, democratic systems are more vigorous technologically and economically than other systems.

What has happened in Western Europe is simply a continuation of a process that has been going on for thousands of years: Smaller political entities group together (whether voluntarily or through conquest) to form a larger political entity that eliminates internal warfare and thereby becomes a more successful competitor in war against other political entities. Size does not always guarantee survival… but in the course of history smaller political entities generally have tended to coalesce to form larger and therefore militarily more powerful ones.

Bear in mind that, as technology continues to progress, there is no guarantee that representative democracy will always be the political form best adapted to survive and propagate itself. Democracy may be replaced by some more successful political system. In fact, it could be argued that this has already happened. It could plausibly be maintained that, notwithstanding the continuation of democratic forms such as reasonably honest elections, our society is really governed by the elites that control the media and lead the political parties. Elections, it might be claimed, have been reduced to contests between rival groups of propagandists and image-makers.

… claim that the “overall material standard of living seems to be increasing,” the way that works is that the technoindustrial system simply defines the term “high standard of living” to mean the kind of living that the system itself provides, and the system then “discovers” that the standard of living is high and increasing. But to me and to many, many other people a high material standard of living consists not in cars, television sets, computers, or fancy houses, but in open spaces, forests, wild plants and animals, and clear-flowing streams. As measured by that criterion our material standard of living is falling rapidly.

The slave vegetates in a state of neglect…enjoying, so to speak, his idleness, the estate of his lord, and many of the advantages of liberty; …he considers himself to be in his natural condition, as a member of his master’s family. Such examples are not rare exceptions, and it will immediately occur to you to ask whether under these conditions slaves might not have been better off than modern wage-workers. But I would go farther and argue that even under the harsher forms of servitude many slaves and serfs had more freedom—the kind of freedom that really counts —than modern man does.

A modern democracy is able to maintain an adequate level of social order with a relatively decentralized power structure and relatively mild instruments of physical coercion only because sufficiently many people are willing to abide by the rules more or less voluntarily. In other words, democracy demands an orderly and obedient population. Industrial society…requires an incredible docility at the base of its freedoms.

Germanic countries adjusted to democracy so easily: Germanic cultures tended to produce more disciplined, obedient, authority-respecting people than the comparatively unruly Latin and Slavic cultures did. The Latins of Europe achieved stable democracies only after experience of industrialized living trained them to a sufficient level of social discipline, and over part of the Slavic world there still is insufficient social discipline for stable democracy. Social discipline is even more insufficient in Latin America, Africa, and the Arabic countries. Democracy succeeded so well in Japan precisely because the Japanese are an especially obedient, conforming, orderly people.

Modern democracy represents not freedom but subjection to a higher level of social discipline, a discipline that is more psychological and based less on physical coercion than old-fashioned authoritarian systems were.

it might be desirable to slow the progress of biotechnology in order to postpone any biotechnological catastrophe. On the one hand, such a catastrophe might be so severe that afterward there would be nothing left to save; on the other hand, a lesser catastrophe might provide the occasion for revolution. It’s arguable which consideration should be given more weight. But on the whole I think it would be best to try to slow the progress of biotechnology.

Leftists are useless as revolutionists because most of them don’t really want to overthrow the existing form of society. They are interested only in satisfying their own psychological needs through vehement advocacy of “causes.” Any cause will do as long as it is not specifically right-wing. Thus, when any movement arises that aspires to be revolutionary, leftists come swarming to it like flies to honey until they outnumber the original members of the movement, take it over, and transform it into a leftist movement. Thereafter the movement is useless for revolutionary purposes. Therefore, in order to form an effective movement, revolutionists must take pains to exclude leftists from the movement. In order to drive away leftists, revolutionists should not only avoid involvement in efforts to help women, homosexuals, or racial minorities; they should specifically disavow any interest in such issues, and they should emphasize again and again that women, homosexuals, racial minorities, and so forth should consider themselves lucky because our society treats them better than most earlier societies have done. By adopting this position, revolutionists will separate themselves from the left and discourage leftists from attempting to join them.

The reason why today’s women want to take up masculine occupations is that their role as mother is not enough to satisfy them now that technology has reduced other traditional feminine occupations to triviality. The modern woman doesn’t need to make clothes, because she can buy them; she doesn’t need to weave baskets, because she has at her disposal any number of good containers; she doesn’t need to look for fruits, nuts, and roots in the forest, because she can purchase good food; and so forth.

So why do modern people regard violence as evil in itself? They do so for one reason only: They have been brainwashed by propaganda. Modern society uses various forms of propaganda to teach people to be frightened and horrified by violence because the technoindustrial system needs a population that is timid, docile, and afraid to assert itself, a population that will not make trouble or disrupt the orderly functioning of the system. Power depends ultimately on physical force. By teaching people that violence is wrong (except, of course, when the system itself uses violence via the police or the military), the system maintains its monopoly on physical force and thus keeps all power in its own hands.

But the point I want to make here is that the decline of religion in modern society is not an accident. It is a necessary result of technical progress. There are several reasons for this, of which I will mention three. First, “Every curtain science pulls away is another that God cannot hide behind.” In other words, as science advances, it disproves more and more traditional religious beliefs and therefore undermines faith. Second, the need for toleration is antagonistic to strong religious belief. Various features of modern society, such as easy long-distance transportation, make mixing of populations inevitable. Today, people of different ethnic groups and different religions have to live and work side by side. In order to avoid the disruptive conflicts to which religious hatred would give rise, society has to teach us to be tolerant. But toleration entails a weakening of religious faith. If you unquestioningly believed that your own creed was absolutely right, then you would also have to believe that every creed that disagreed with it was absolutely wrong, and this would imply a certain level of intolerance. In order to believe that all religions are just as good as yours is, you have to have, deep in your heart, considerable uncertainty about the truth of your own religion. Third, all of the great world religions teach us such virtues as reverence and self-restraint. But the economists tell us that our economic health depends on a high level of consumption. To get us to consume, advertisers must offer us endless pleasure, they must encourage unbridled hedonism, and this undermines religious qualities like reverence and self-restraint.

Today, however, we are at the mercy of organizations, such as corporations, governments and political parties, that are too large to be responsive to single individuals. These organizations leave us a great deal of latitude where harmless recreational activities are concerned, but they keep under their own control the life-and-death issues on which our existence depends…in the modern world there is nowhere left to run. Wherever you go, you can be traced by your credit card, your social-security number, your fingerprints. You, Mr. N., live in California. Can you get a hotel or motel room there without showing your picture I.D.? You can’t survive unless you fit into a slot in the system, otherwise known as a “job.” And it is becoming increasingly difficult to get a job without making your whole past history accessible to prospective employers.

People don’t need only fun, they need purposeful work, and they need to have control not only over the pleasure-oriented aspects of their lives but over the serious, practical, purposeful, life-and-death aspects. That kind of control is not possible in modern society because we are all at the mercy of large organizations. Up to a point, having fun is good for you. But it’s not an adequate substitute for serious, purposeful activity. For lack of this kind of activity people in our society get bored. They try to relieve their boredom by having fun…People don’t realize that what they really lack is serious, practical, purposeful work—work that is under their own control and is directed to the satisfaction of their own most essential, practical needs.

Second, whatever may happen with technology in the future, it will not be rationally planned. Technology will not be used “wisely.” In view of our society’s past record, anyone who thinks that technology will be used wisely is completely out of touch with reality. Technology will take us on a course that we can neither predict nor control. All of history, as well as understanding of complex systems in general, supports this conclusion. No society can plan and control its own development. The changes that technology will bring will be a hundred times more radical, and more unpredictable, than any that have occurred in the past. The technological adventure is wildly reckless and utterly mad, and the people who are responsible for it are the worst criminals who have ever lived.

In living close to nature, one discovers that happiness does not consist in maximizing pleasure. It consists in tranquility. Once you have enjoyed tranquility long enough, you acquire actually an aversion to the thought of any very strong pleasure—excessive pleasure would disrupt your tranquility.

Boredom is a disease of civilization. It seems to me that what boredom mostly is is that people have to keep themselves entertained or occupied, because if they aren’t, then certain anxieties, frustrations, discontents, and so forth, start coming to the surface, and it makes them uncomfortable. Boredom is almost nonexistent once you’ve become adapted to life in the woods. If you don’t have any work that needs to be done, you can sit for hours at a time just doing nothing, just listening to the birds or the wind or the silence, watching the shadows move as the sun travels, or simply looking at familiar objects. And you don’t get bored. You’re just at peace.

On as stable family life:

As someone who never really had one, maybe I am the least qualified person to defend the importance of family. But as someone with more education than I ever expected to receive, maybe I’m more qualified to say we give education more importance than we should.
[…]
I’ve come to understand that a warm and loving family is worth infinitely more than the money or accomplishments I hoped might compensate for them.
[…]
Unstable environments and unreliable caregivers aren’t bad for children because they reduce their future odds of getting into college or making a living; they are bad because the children enduring them experience pain — pain that etches itself into their brains and bodies and propels them to do things in the pursuit of relief that often inflict even more harm.
[…]
In one of my classes at Yale, I learned that eighteen out of the twenty students were raised by both of their birth parents. That stunned me, because none of the kids I knew growing up was raised by both of their parents.
[…]
Even though public assistance in Denmark is widely available and university education is free, disparities in test scores and educational mobility between children raised in wealthy versus low-income families are virtually identical to the US.
[…]
Even when you present opportunities to deprived kids, many of them will decline them on purpose because, after years of maltreatment, they often have little desire to improve their lives.
[…]
An important clue comes from a widely cited 2012 paper in the scientific journal Developmental Psychology. A team of psychologists found that compared to children raised in wealthier families, children raised in lower-income families are no more likely to engage in risky behaviors or commit crimes as adults. However, compared with children raised in stable environments, children raised in unstable environments are significantly more likely to engage in harmful or destructive behaviors later in life. Holding family income constant, the researchers found that the association between childhood instability and harmful behaviors in adulthood remained significant.
[…]
I scored well into the top 1 percent of the most unstable childhoods in the US.
[…]
Given the choice, I would swap my position in the top 1 percent of educational attainment to have never been in the top 1 percent of childhood instability.
[…]
I’ve come to believe that upward social mobility shouldn’t be our priority as a society. Rather, upward mobility should be the side effect of far more important things: family, stability, and emotional security for children. Even if upward mobility were the primary goal, a safe and secure family would help achieve it more than anything else.

…a comprehensive 1977 study by McKinlay and McKinlay, formerly required reading in almost all American medical schools, found that all medical interventions, including vaccines, surgeries, and antibiotics, contributed only about 1 percent of the decline and at most 3.5 percent.17 Both CDC and the McKinlays attributed the disappearance of infectious disease mortalities not to doctors and health officials, but to improved nutrition and sanitation—the latter credited to strict regulation of food preparation, electric refrigerators, sewage treatment, and chlorinated water. The McKinlays joined Harvard’s iconic infectious disease pioneer, Edward Kass, in warning that a self-serving medical cartel would one day try to claim credit for these public health improvements as a pretense for imposing unwarranted medical interventions (e.g., vaccines) on the American public.

…Poppers can severely damage the immune system…they are very powerful oxidizing agents…virtually all of them [gay men with AIDS] had been heavy users of drugs. They said without a single exception. They had all been poppers users. A study published by Toby Eisenstein showed that nitrites found in poppers are radically immunosuppressive in rodents.

McKinlay and McKinlay [see above]…found that all medical interventions including vaccines, surgeries, and antibiotics accounted for less than about 1 percent—and no more than 3.5 percent—of the dramatic mortality declines. The McKinlays presciently warned that profiteers among the medical establishment would seek to claim credit for the mortality declines for vaccines in order to justify government mandates for those pharmaceutical products

I met with Dr. Fauci, Francis Collins… to complain that HHS was, by then, mandating 69 doses of sixteen vaccines1 for America’s children, none of which had ever been tested for safety against placebos prior to licensing. Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins denied that this was true and insisted that those vaccines were safety tested. They were unable, however, after several weeks, to provide us a citation for a single clinical trial using an inert placebo against a vaccine. In October 2017, Del Bigtree and Aaron Siri— who both attended these meetings—joined me in suing HHS under the Freedom of Information Act to produce the long-promised safety studies.2 Ten months after the meeting with Fauci and Collins, on the courthouse steps, HHS admitted that we were, in fact, correct: none of the mandated childhood vaccines had been tested for safety in pre-licensing inert placebo tests.3 The best of Bill Gates’s African vaccines are all on this list. But Bill Gates also uses a large retinue of much more dangerous and demonstrably ineffective vaccines in Africa—ones that Western countries have actually rejected because of dire safety signals.

“Governments do like epidemics, just the same way as they like war, really. It’s a chance to impose their will on us and get us all scared so that we huddle together and do what we’re told.” —Dr. Damien Downing, President, British Society of Ecological Medicine (Al Jazeera, 2009)

“Fear is a market. To instill fear in people also has advantages. Not only in terms of drug use. Anxiety-driven people are easier to rule.” —Gerd Gogerenzer, Director Emeritus at the Max Planck Institute for Educational Research (Torsten Engelbrecht, Virus Mania, 2021)

By 1976, fewer than fifty Americans per hundred thousand died of infectious diseases, and CDC and NIAID were under extreme pressure to justify their budgets. Hyping pandemics became an institutional strategy in both agencies. Pharmaceutical companies and international health agencies, banking and military contractors soon found purchase in the ecosystem, and random pandemics discovered their own self-perpetuating rationale. Dr. Fauci’s critics chide him for routinely exaggerating—and even concocting—global disease outbreaks to hype pandemic panic, elevate the biosecurity agenda, boost agency funding, promote profitable vaccines for his pharma partners, and magnify his own power.

The Pentagon and CIA spooks continued to cultivate bioweapon seed stock. Between 1983 and 1988, Searle Pharmaceuticals CEO Donald Rumsfeld, acting as Ronald Reagan’s envoy in Iraq, arranged for the top-secret shipment of tons of chemical and biological armaments, including anthrax and bubonic plague, to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, hoping to reverse his looming defeat by Iran’s million-man army. Ayatollah Khomeini’s victorious Iranian forces were then routing Saddam in their war over the Persian Gulf. (Rumsfeld - future secretary of defense under Ford and Bush!)

Big pharmaceutical companies are the biggest advertisers on news and television outlets. Their $9.6 billion annual advertising budget buys more than commercials—it buys obeisance. (In 2014, network president Roger Ailes told me he would fire any of his news show hosts who allowed me to talk about vaccine safety on air. “Our news division,” he explained, “gets up to 70 percent of ad revenues from pharma in non-election years.”) I know the role of the news media is not news to you, so I’ll cite just one example: Vaccine mandates are ostensibly based upon the idea that vaccines will prevent transmission of COVID-19. If they don’t prevent transmission, if both the vaccinated and unvaccinated can spread the virus, then there is no relevant difference between the two groups—other than that one group is not complying with government commands.

Scientific research into the mechanisms underlying side effects of vaccines should investigate, among other things, (1) the effects that vaccine ingredients (like aluminum adjuvants) have on the body; (2) the biochemical interactions between vaccine components; (3) the biochemical interactions among multiple vaccines administered at the same time; (4) genetic characteristics that may increase vulnerability to vaccine injury; and (5) permanent or transient health conditions that may increase susceptibility to injury. In addition, investigation of potentially susceptible subpopulations, such as infants and pregnant women, should be made a priority. The absence of basic research in this field is particularly alarming because current medical science cannot even identify the source of most of the serious diseases and syndromes reported post-vaccination, much less cure them. Such is the case for ADEM,20 optic neuritis,21 Guillain-Barré syndrome,22 transverse myelitis,23 lupus,24 vasculits,25 juvenile diabetes (type 1),26 autism, ADHD, and many other conditions. The shortage of applicable scientific research on adverse events documented in its own report should have prompted the IOM committee to sound a long and loud alarm. The report’s finding that biomedical aspects of post-vaccination conditions are rarely investigated contrasts starkly with the constant assurances from medical authorities that vaccine safety is thoroughly investigated. Yet, instead of sounding the warranted alarm, the committee chose to give the “all-clear”.

No government or formal medical body challenges these offhand dismissals of possible associations between the test vaccine and subsequent adverse events.

Once the vaccine is on the market and widely used, the absence of any documented causal link on the package insert allows healthcare professionals – doctors, nurses, and officials – to categorically dismiss any link between vaccines and most reported serious side effects.

US pediatricians who routinely administer vaccines have no financial motivation to report potential vaccine adverse events. Detailed and accurate reporting can take a significant amount of work, and medical personnel are not compensated for that time. Furthermore, if doctors reported adverse events of vaccines they administered, that could be construed by others as an implicit admission, however informal, of responsibility for any resulting harm. Obviously, neither doctors in private practice nor those working in clinic or hospital settings would have any interest in paving the way for patients or their parents to sue for damages. In addition, doctors, like the rest of us humans, may not be too keen to admit, even to themselves, that medical procedures they recommended and performed might have caused serious harm to their patients.

Their strategy to shore up trust in the vaccine program, then, is to convince the public that “the science on vaccines is settled” and that laypeople should accept the “scientific consensus” of “vaccine experts”.

The truth of the matter, however, is that vaccine science isn’t even remotely objective. The medical establishment conceals from a credulous public the grim reality that vaccine science is largely funded by interested parties which produce studies that advance the funder’s agenda, not the public’s.

Most people are unaware that the institutions funding vaccine science are not objective, their motives are not pure, and the science they fund is neither impartial nor objective.

Health authorities, along with pharmaceutical companies, control most of the vaccine safety research budget. Thus, authorities and vaccine makers fund research projects which are likely to support their agenda…Since securing research funds is so fundamental to a scientist’s career, there is never a shortage of researchers willing to adjust their results to align with the funding institution’s agenda.

“Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance,” remarks Richard Smith, “but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust.”

The peer-review process has many other disadvantages, as Smith aptly notes: “In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud, it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.”

John Ioannidis, a renowned researcher at Stanford University who specializes in analyzing the scientific method, explains that scientists have no motivation to critically examine the work of their peers: “There’s no incentive for scientists or other stakeholders to make a very thorough and critical review of a study, to try to reproduce it, or to probe systematically and spend real effort on re-analysis.”

…researchers typically have even less incentive to perform “a very thorough and critical review” of a vaccine safety study. Publicly challenging institutional vaccination policies could severely impair their chances of receiving future research grants and would likely provoke harsh criticism from supervisors and peers.

There is no law or regulation compelling researchers to provide the original data they used to other researchers.

It is also important to remember that medical journals are an integral part of the medical-academic world. They maintain close working relationships withpharmaceutical companies, researchers and academics, and official health bodies. Because this world is united by its unreserved support for vaccines, journal editors have nothing to gain by swimming against the current, even if that means tolerating the occasional breach of scientific ethics.[eeee] Just as researchers and doctors who produce purposely biased vaccine safety research are not chastised or even reprimanded, medical journals rarely, if ever, pay any price for the publication of these studies.

In practice, however, encouraging criticism of your own published research is a double-edged sword. Too much of it could seriously, and possibly irrevocably, damage a medical journal’s reputation.

…publication in a medical journal is not a reliable indicator of study quality or veracity. In the words of Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal : “We have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud, it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.”

On the childhood vaccine schedule: …key elements of the entire schedule – the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies.”33 Furthermore, when a new vaccine is added to the vaccine schedule, no studies are done to examine its effect on the other vaccines on the schedule. Research to evaluate different variations of the schedule, to ensure it is still “optimal” is also never done..

On vaccinating children with mild illness: Thus, a search of the medical literature reveals that the institutional recommendation of vaccinating infants with a mild illness, whether with a specific vaccine or a combination of vaccines, is not evidence-based. With the exception of one weak study of the MMR vaccine, no studies have investigated whether vaccinating mildly ill infants increases the risk of serious side effects, exacerbates the severity of the illness, or prolongs its duration.

On cocooning (requires that members of an infant’s immediate family (including parents, grandparents, and siblings) be vaccinated shortly before the infant’s birth, assuming they will then serve as a protective shield against infection with the pertussis bacterium): This guideline, which is currently practiced in many industrialized countries, was established despite the absence of solid evidence that the vaccine provided such protection. In addition, it is one of the guidelines that the Warfel 2014 study clearly negates. As the researchers point out, “Our data […] suggest that cocooning is unlikely to be an effective strategy to reduce the burden of pertussis in infants.” In fact, the study results suggest that vaccinating family members for pertussis just might increase the risk of infants’ infection, instead of lowering it.

…The clinical trials are “cooked”; adverse event reporting systems are rudimentary by design; biomedical research into vaccine injury is virtually nonexistent; health authorities sponsor biased epidemiological studies, conducted by researchers with huge conflicts of interest; studies evaluating the true benefit of the vaccination program are never done and neither are studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations; and key vaccination guidelines are not based on sound science. Each item on this list, as well as the totality of the list, testifies to the inconceivable chasm between institutional claims of safety and the reality of vaccine science…

We scrutinized the field from various angles, and from each of those a similar view emerged: Adequate scientific evidence for the safety of vaccines is severely lacking, and health agencies and pharmaceutical companies are deliberately concealing their true harms from the public. This grim reality cannot be attributed to some local failure, a one-time random deviation from proper procedure, or a “standard” bureaucratic failure of some government entity. The individual parts seem to mesh so perfectly that it is very difficult to view them as coincidental and unrelated mishaps. Thus, one must inevitably conclude that all parties involved are engaged in deliberate and systematic efforts to hide the painful, astonishing, and earth-shattering truth regarding the “safety” of vaccines from the public.