Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sex trafficking
#21
(02-02-2019, 02:24 PM)taramarie Wrote: I wonder about those statistics sometimes tbh. Given that males have such shaming and backlash and cruel treatment from others if they admit to being molested or raped by women. Many keep quiet. Kind of like they keep quiet about how they feel if they are unhappy about the fact they were circumcised.

Having been circumcised as an infant, along with the overwhelming majority of Boomer males, I can't say it makes me unhappy … or happy either, for that matter. Big Grin
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#22
(02-02-2019, 06:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(02-02-2019, 02:24 PM)taramarie Wrote: I wonder about those statistics sometimes tbh. Given that males have such shaming and backlash and cruel treatment from others if they admit to being molested or raped by women. Many keep quiet. Kind of like they keep quiet about how they feel if they are unhappy about the fact they were circumcised.

Having been circumcised as an infant, along with the overwhelming majority of Boomer males, I can't say it makes me unhappy … or happy either, for that matter.   Big Grin

A lot of men are also very unhappy about it, including my boyfriend. I even made him a protective sheath to help him. So, yep depends on the individual.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#23
And the fish is definitely stinking from the head. No, this isn't about Pizzagate, it's older and proven (although many people don't like to talk about it):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...efore.html
Long story short, "philosophers" Sartre and Beauvoir abused many teenager girls as early as in the 1940s - and later, they were celebrated like cult leaders, appropriately. - They also advocated liberating child rapists and removing age-of-consent laws.

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/10/3/...eration/4/
"Jean Paul Sartre’s pimp-consort Simone de Beauvoir"
Reply
#24
The story originates in the New York Times, which has never been prone to yellow journalism. But this story explains some of the weird behavior of Jeffrey Epstein, who apparently saw himself as the progenitor of some 'super-race'. (A hint: if your surname is Epstein, you might be rightly wary of the concept of any 'super-race', in view of what such a concept does in the sick minds of people who consider people of his origin suited only for slaughter). The NYT is behind a paywall, but the Guardian is not, so I will give you the take in the Guardian:


Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy financier accused of sex trafficking, planned to develop an improved super-race of humans using genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, according to the New York Times.

In the aftermath of his 2008 sex trafficking conviction, Epstein hoped to seed the human race with his DNA by impregnating women at his ranch in New Mexico, one of his properties where young women, including minors, were allegedly abused, the newspaper reported in a major investigation.

[Image: 3024.jpg?width=460&quality=85&auto=forma...47280e039b]
Jeffrey Epstein appears in court for first time since reported jail injuries



Though there is little evidence the scheme ever progressed beyond fantasy, prominent scientists, including the late Stephen Hawking, regularly attended dinners, lunches and conferences held by Epstein, the Times said.

Epstein has long been accused of sexually abusing underage girls. He also has purported connections to Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, and moved in elite social circles in New York, Florida and elsewhere.

He is currently in jail after being arrested on 6 July. He pleaded not guilty several weeks ago.

Epstein’s plans around his own progeny began to be talked about in the early 2000s, according to three sources contacted by the Times.
“Epstein told scientists and businessmen about his ambitions to use his New Mexico ranch as a base where women would be inseminated with his sperm and would give birth to his babies … Mr Epstein’s goal was to have 20 women at a time impregnated at his 33,000-sq-ft Zorro Ranch in a tiny town outside Santa Fe,” the Times said.

Epstein’s field of study was labeled “transhumanism” but was an updated version of eugenics. Lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who defended Epstein in 2008 and has been named in a civil suit brought by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, told the Times he was appalled by the financier’s interest in genetic manipulation, given the Nazis’ use of eugenics in the 1930s.

“Everyone speculated about whether these scientists were more interested in his views or more interested in his money,” Dershowitz told the Times.

According to the paper, Epstein’s circle included the molecular engineer George Church; Murray Gell-Mann, the discover of the quark; the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould; the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks; and the theoretical physicist Frank Wilczek.
On one occasion, Epstein held a lunch at Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, a program he had helped fund with a $6.5m donation. In 2011, he gave $20,000 to the Worldwide Transhumanist Association, a project that now operates as Humanity Plus.
The Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker said he considered Epstein as an “intellectual impostor”.

“He would abruptly change the subject, ADD-style, dismiss an observation with an adolescent wisecrack,” Pinker told the paper. The virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier said Epstein’s ideas did not rise to science that could be subjected to critical analysis.

The scientific community, like Trump and much of New York and Palm Beach society, would sooner forget their association with Epstein.
Humanity Plus vice-chairman Ben Goertzel, whose salary was once paid by Epstein, told the Times: “I have no desire to talk about Epstein right now. The stuff I’m reading about him in the papers is pretty disturbing and goes way beyond what I thought his misdoings and kinks were. Yecch.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019...ace-report

Yecch, indeed.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#25
Leave it to a Boomer to want to create a master race via some technological fantasy. At least Kurzweil only wants to help everyone live forever. (Sorry to pick on your generation, there, pbrower).
Steve Barrera

[A]lthough one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation. - Hagakure

Saecular Pages
Reply
#26
(08-03-2019, 09:06 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Leave it to a Boomer to want to create a master race via some technological fantasy. At least Kurzweil only wants to help everyone live forever. (Sorry to pick on your generation, there, pbrower).

Boomer elites in Big Business are really nasty and they deserve your contempt. The rest of us are (once one gets past the extremists) aren't so nasty. But we are also powerless against our own elites unless we can subvert those elites. The narcissism that makes people especially competent at success in bureaucracies looks like a low grade of sociopathy.

The Missionary generation had its loud proponents of eugenics, and Epstein seems to have adopted much of its gibberish about breeding an elite. To this I say that there will always be a necessary elite -- that of the competent and creative able to do some real good. Those adept only at gouging and bureaucratic toadying will become irrelevant or even end up destroying the wealth they steward. The Quaker ethos -- they came to do good and they ended up doing well -- is a good model. Or the Jewish ethos -- do things well and worth doing but be righteous, and both God and economic reality will bless you. Society rewards the competent and creative fairly lest it lose them or waste them and be poorer for the loss.

It is practically more difficult, but far more just, to seek extraordinary talent from unlikely places and cultivate it than to try to breed it. I would love to have Stephen Hawking's mind, but not his ALS. I would love to have Albert Einstein's intellectual prowess but not the genes that gave him Asperger's (as someone who has it I would not sacrifice any part of my intelligence to get rid of it because my intelligence is all that I am, but if I had to become black or gay to have a normal life I would make such a choice). By cultivating such talent as there is one avoids the hazards of inbreeding.

But far worse than Asperger's or even ALS is sociopathy -- and in view of what is said of Jeffrey Epstein he seems to be a sociopath. I do not know whether genes have any connection to sociopathy, but that is a risk not worth taking. Considering that he would mostly be impregnating girls who have problems, and that for their sexual indulgence sociopaths typically exploit girls with problems, I would be scared of the results. Female sociopathy often manifests itself in prostitution, and there might be something to the old Spanish insult hijo de la gran puta (son of the great whore).

I doubt that Stephen Hawking ever did anything horrible to anyone, and Albert Einstein had some moral compass. Well, I can judge evil-doers harshly, and I see the defenseless among us as worthy of protection.

..............

Go ahead -- pick on our worst. They deserve ruin, and if they get their way they will achieve their own ruin, either in an economic meltdown as severe as the Great Depression, or at worst a war for profit that turns into consummate calamity. Monopolists and cartels are better at grabbing wealth than at creating it, and bureaucrats that generate only paperwork and rules do not create wealth. Although few people would appreciate their technological and cultural poverty, the Old Order Amish seem to have a very sane and equitable society. The ones in business seem good at what they do -- but those are small businesses with no bureaucracy. Their culture does little to foster narcissism.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#27
(08-03-2019, 11:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(08-03-2019, 09:06 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Leave it to a Boomer to want to create a master race via some technological fantasy. At least Kurzweil only wants to help everyone live forever. (Sorry to pick on your generation, there, pbrower).

Boomer elites in Big Business are really nasty and they deserve your contempt. The rest of us are (once one gets past the extremists) aren't so nasty. But we are also powerless against our own elites unless we can subvert those elites. The narcissism that makes people especially competent at success in bureaucracies looks like a low grade of sociopathy.

The Missionary generation had its loud proponents of eugenics, and Epstein seems to have adopted much of its gibberish about breeding an elite. To this I say that there will always be a necessary elite -- that of the competent and creative able to do some real good. Those adept only at gouging and bureaucratic toadying will become irrelevant or even end up destroying the wealth they steward. The Quaker ethos -- they came to do good and they ended up doing well -- is a good model. Or the Jewish ethos -- do things well and worth doing but be righteous, and both God and economic reality will bless you. Society rewards the competent and creative fairly lest it lose them or waste them and be poorer for the loss.

It is practically more difficult, but far more just, to seek extraordinary talent from unlikely places and cultivate it than to try to breed it. I would love to have Stephen Hawking's mind, but not his ALS. I would love to have Albert Einstein's intellectual prowess but not the genes that gave him Asperger's (as someone who has it I would not sacrifice any part of my intelligence to get rid of it because my intelligence is all that I am, but if I had to become black or gay to have a normal life I would make such a choice). By cultivating such talent as there is one avoids the hazards of inbreeding.

But far worse than Asperger's or even ALS is sociopathy -- and in view of what is said of Jeffrey Epstein he seems to be a sociopath. I do not know whether genes have any connection to sociopathy, but that is a risk not worth taking. Considering that he would mostly be impregnating girls who have problems, and that for their sexual indulgence sociopaths typically exploit girls with problems, I would be scared of the results. Female sociopathy often manifests itself in prostitution, and there might be something to the old Spanish insult hijo de la gran puta (son of the great whore).

I doubt that Stephen Hawking ever did anything horrible to anyone, and Albert Einstein had some moral compass. Well, I can judge evil-doers harshly, and I see the defenseless among us as worthy of protection.

..............

Go ahead -- pick on our worst. They deserve ruin, and if they get their way they will achieve their own ruin, either in an economic meltdown as severe as the Great Depression, or at worst a war for profit that turns into consummate calamity. Monopolists and cartels are better at grabbing wealth than at creating it, and bureaucrats that generate only paperwork and rules do not create wealth. Although few people would appreciate their technological and cultural poverty, the Old Order Amish seem to have a very sane and equitable society. The ones in business seem good at what they do -- but those are small businesses with no bureaucracy. Their culture does little to foster narcissism.
Your final paragraph in and of itself is an indication that there are two schools of thought as to how the current 4T will play out. Either the monopolists will continue to score victory (dread), or the modern-day equivalent of the proletariat will somehow find a way to conquer. With the first one, the status quo will continue to usurp power until there is nothing more. The top 3 percent will probably own most everything; perhaps the bottom 97 will be given enough crumbs so that they hopefully ( in their view) will not rebel and create the present-day equivalent of the Bastille or Boston Harbor. The second one gives the proles a better chance at creating a more just society, but this cannot happen unless they allow themselves to stand up and be counted.
Reply
#28
(08-03-2019, 03:19 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:
(08-03-2019, 11:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(08-03-2019, 09:06 AM)sbarrera Wrote: Leave it to a Boomer to want to create a master race via some technological fantasy. At least Kurzweil only wants to help everyone live forever. (Sorry to pick on your generation, there, pbrower).

Boomer elites in Big Business are really nasty and they deserve your contempt. The rest of us are (once one gets past the extremists) aren't so nasty. But we are also powerless against our own elites unless we can subvert those elites. The narcissism that makes people especially competent at success in bureaucracies looks like a low grade of sociopathy.

The Missionary generation had its loud proponents of eugenics, and Epstein seems to have adopted much of its gibberish about breeding an elite. To this I say that there will always be a necessary elite -- that of the competent and creative able to do some real good. Those adept only at gouging and bureaucratic toadying will become irrelevant or even end up destroying the wealth they steward. The Quaker ethos -- they came to do good and they ended up doing well -- is a good model. Or the Jewish ethos -- do things well and worth doing but be righteous, and both God and economic reality will bless you. Society rewards the competent and creative fairly lest it lose them or waste them and be poorer for the loss.

It is practically more difficult, but far more just, to seek extraordinary talent from unlikely places and cultivate it than to try to breed it. I would love to have Stephen Hawking's mind, but not his ALS. I would love to have Albert Einstein's intellectual prowess but not the genes that gave him Asperger's (as someone who has it I would not sacrifice any part of my intelligence to get rid of it because my intelligence is all that I am, but if I had to become black or gay to have a normal life I would make such a choice). By cultivating such talent as there is one avoids the hazards of inbreeding.

But far worse than Asperger's or even ALS is sociopathy -- and in view of what is said of Jeffrey Epstein he seems to be a sociopath. I do not know whether genes have any connection to sociopathy, but that is a risk not worth taking. Considering that he would mostly be impregnating girls who have problems, and that for their sexual indulgence sociopaths typically exploit girls with problems, I would be scared of the results. Female sociopathy often manifests itself in prostitution, and there might be something to the old Spanish insult hijo de la gran puta (son of the great whore).

I doubt that Stephen Hawking ever did anything horrible to anyone, and Albert Einstein had some moral compass. Well, I can judge evil-doers harshly, and I see the defenseless among us as worthy of protection.

..............

Go ahead -- pick on our worst. They deserve ruin, and if they get their way they will achieve their own ruin, either in an economic meltdown as severe as the Great Depression, or at worst a war for profit that turns into consummate calamity. Monopolists and cartels are better at grabbing wealth than at creating it, and bureaucrats that generate only paperwork and rules do not create wealth. Although few people would appreciate their technological and cultural poverty, the Old Order Amish seem to have a very sane and equitable society. The ones in business seem good at what they do -- but those are small businesses with no bureaucracy. Their culture does little to foster narcissism.

Your final paragraph in and of itself is an indication that there are two schools of thought as to how the current 4T will play out. Either the monopolists will continue to score victory (dread), or the modern-day equivalent of the proletariat will somehow find a way to conquer. With the first one, the status quo will continue to usurp power until there is nothing more. The top 3 percent will probably own most everything; perhaps the bottom 97 will be given enough crumbs so that they hopefully ( in their view) will not rebel and create the present-day equivalent of the Bastille or Boston Harbor. The second one gives the proles a better chance at creating a more just society, but this cannot happen unless they allow themselves to stand up and be counted.

We are drifting away from the seedy behavior of Jeffrey Epstein into the realm of prediction of the end of this Crisis. I intend to take this discussion elsewhere without mention of that horrible person, an example of sexual exploitation with its basis in a perverse sense of privilege that fraudulently claims the mantle of divine purpose. As I saw in an old issue of American Heritage Magazine on how the planters of the South before the Civil War saw  their relationship with slaves... those planters had saw themselves as the best thing to have ever happened to slaves who were beneficiaries of their loving direction and care. The child molester often sees his relationship with a child as the best thing that ever happened to the child because that child gets a special relationship with the molester who provides goodies in return for what almost everyone sees as sexual exploitation.

We are late enough in this Crisis that the theme of its culmination is already well defined. I see it in the intensification of inequality that will need repression and conformity to enforce its inhuman nastiness. I look at a trend within the Republican Party that involved Lee Atwater, Karl Rove going further down the line, and someone like Steve Bannon as a full-blown fascist intent on destroying democracy in practice while leaving the formality of a Constitution but reality in state terror. Sure, there are elections, but those are rigged so they have no meaning; Congress is responsible in practice to lobbyists instead of to constituents; a secret police enforces the will of some Party on behalf of its corporate supporters.

If I had to choose between a Depression as severe as that of the 1930s or military apocalypse, then I will take the Depression. The last one gutted the power of monopolists and their retainers, and that may be just what we need to revert to an economic pattern compatible with freedom and Constitutional government. Except for the economic elites of the 1920s, life was generally better for Americans in the late 1930s because of a shorter work-day, meaningful retirement pay for people who should have retired (I am guessing that elderly workers in industry had horrible rates of industrial accidents that killed and crippled them), and more equality. Teenagers were more likely staying in high school (the norm of a high-school education began then), which made them more productive workers once they joined the workforce. Ask any employer whether he wants to hire high-school dropouts. Kids still in high school, sure, as their lives still have some structure... but not drop-outs.

A fascistic America will be nightmare enough to Americans, but just wait until you see how it looks outside to people far away. Nobody will want to be in its thrall, and it will create far too many enemies. America won its wars (it was really fighting two separate wars at once) with Germany and Japan because it was much more decent, and it could make its victories stick because nobody had a reason to strike back in the wake of defeat. A fascistic America facing a democratic Japan would have lost the war much as the  Russians lost the Russo-Japanese war and would have been stripped of an empire that included the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, and Alaska... injustice has an amazing capacity for social implosion.

But the bureaucracies are gone. I cannot predict what will happen to the federal bureaucracy, but we can all predict what will happen to the bureaucracy of Sears.

But even without war, a thoroughly-vile social order plants the seeds of its own destruction. Donald Trump is trying to govern like a dictator, and if he can't find enough collaborators he might have to watch his back from law enforcement, the Armed Services, the Intelligence services, the courts, and the media. Our system of checks and balances so far have stopped one effort to establish a despotic President. The biggest check is a free election, and the 2018 midterm election looked very free and fair.

We still have an economy under the control of people who see the rest of Humanity existing solely to make people already filthy-rich even more filthy rich at great sacrifices by those not rich. Increasing inequality makes an economy more unstable while throttling growth -- unless the growth is a corrupt and doomed bubble. Such bubbles devour capital and collapse, taking some bloated behemoths down with the corporate bureaucrats incapable of generating anything other than rules and paperwork useless anywhere else. Shareholders get burned, but a class the bureaucratic nomenklatura proves useless. Sure, it bought some nice real estate in the good times, but it will have to sell its McMansions for pennies on the dollar or subdivide them into apartments just to keep formal ownership while downsizing.

But we have a cycle in history, and as the dinosaurs went extinct in the K-T calamity, niches opened for larger mammals than rats. In the political and social cycle, openings emerge for lean-running small businesses in local markets. Inventories, real estate, and labor will be cheap. Small businesses will include activities in which small businesses once were commonplace, as in restaurants, retail stores from clothing places to grocery stores, and even manufacturing and banking. There was hardly a better time for starting a small business than the 1930s. People must do real work to survive, and community flourishes anew.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#29
The discussion of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged depredations upon young women as a connection to generational theory, largely sans references to him, has gone here.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#30
Epstein has brought shame on America. But Sartre and his slut brought even bigger shame on Europe. First, it happened in less decadent times; second, at least nobody claimed that Epstein was a philosophical genius on a level with Voltaire.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Human trafficking pbrower2a 0 915 05-23-2016, 11:20 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)