When an anomaly turns normal.

 When an anomaly turns normal. 

In this text. The term “secret society” means an isolated group of people. Or, a group that has hostile attitudes against outsiders. Those groups don’t want outsiders to see their rituals and everyday life. And, they operate outside the public surveillance. That means some gangs, and especially MC-gangs and organized crime like the Mafia, are a secret society. Monasteries, isolated hospitals, and prisons can also form societies with rules and abilities that are foreign to us. 

These people must follow orders and code very carefully, or they face punishment. The code in those societies might be stricter than the army's code.  Because people are not allowed to see things that happen behind walls. That rises to conspiracy theories. But sometimes the truth is stranger than the story. The North Korean regime is one of the most powerful societies in the world. That regime has certain rules, and if somebody breaks them. That causes death. 

The image above shows the abandoned mental hospital, Kellokoski, Finland. Mental hospitals are one example of the places where things that are abnormal or condemnable turn normal. In the same way, when we think about things like some MC-gangs, there are things that outside society will not accept. For us, society is the place where laws and official authorities determine what is normal behavior. 

 Or they don’t determine normality. They determine things that are allowed. When people are in a closed society, they are surrounded by people. With a certain ideology. Or a certain way to think about things, like what is right or wrong. Closed societies are always preventive, against outside influence. And things that bring them outside influence are outsiders. 

And that is one thing that connects all closed societies. They think that the outsiders are enemies who want to destroy their lifestyle. Closed societies always involve hierarchy. That means higher-ranking members of the society have the right to give orders to members at lower ranks. Those who have a duty to follow those orders. Another thing is that. 

The higher-ranking members are always at the middle of the system. And its hierarchy. When a higher-ranking member wants to get out, there is always a circle of henchmen. Many people believe that a secret society is like some kind of army. A secret society, like Hell’s Angels or the Mafia, is an organization. That has certain ceremonies to select its members. Those ceremonies might be very humbling. 

Same way. Basic training in the army is not the best time in people’s lives. But the biggest difference between some MC gangs and the army is this. The MC gang memberships are open only for people who please the elder members. All MC-gang members have similar opinions. They have the same attitudes. And that forms a suitable environment for encouragement and radicalism. 

Because all of those people are similar, that means they all react to the same provocation in the same way. When somebody starts to encourage others. That can cause a domino effect. And people start to keep racing to tell. How did they all face disrespectful behavior? In those gangs, the women are a status, who are reserved for the higher-ranking gang members. 

In the army, there are always people. And there, people must not share their personal merchandise. Those who do not have the same opinions about things. They must follow orders. And there are rules. About the admissions requirements. 

But another fact is that tank men and tank leaders have different admission requirements than paratroopers. And they don’t have to respect their superior officers as persons. They must follow orders and respect those superior officers. As governmental representatives. In the same way as the government wants people to respect police and other law enforcement authorities as the government’s representatives, not as private persons. 

The army is not a secret society. There are certain rules for making things. There is enough that the person follows the orders. The secret society acts like an army. If we look at it from the outside. But the key element is that those people always have homogeneous backgrounds. There is a possibility that those people who are members of the most violent gangs have a long criminal history that has continued over generations. Their parents could also be gang members, or something in their environment taught them that crimes are an accepted way to earn money. 

Criticism is allowed if its target is a henchman.

The reason why NATO and the UN failed in Afghanistan was that they wanted to build a society from the top to the ground. The situation is similar as we try to build the house and build the roof first. The problem with society is that regular people must support the system. 

The reason why we have so many foreign workers in many countries is not that they are cheaper. One of the reasons can be that those foreign workers are easy to kick off. And they will not hang on the hoods after retirement. Foreigners would not return to that workplace. After the fire from their jobs. And that is one logic behind foreign workers. They are easy to remove from society. 

When we are critical. We must realize one rule: it's easy to be critical. If we are supervisors. It's easy to use and demand criticism, especially if the target for criticism is a henchman or some other person. 

But if a henchman introduces criticism against a supervisor or ourselves. The community saw this kind of criticism as problematic. The criticism that comes down to the top is not allowed. 

If a henchman criticizes supervisors, that is an attack against authority. Authority, and position as a supervisor include many things that a person in that position can offer. And that's why people are telling many things to those supervisors. 

Authorities must not listen to anything that they don't want. And they have the right to replace too critical henchman with a new henchman. Who pleases them? It's easy to be open to other people's critics especially if the target for criticism is some other person. 

Many times we face situations where people think, or are told that strong leaders tell other people what they should make and think. And this thing sometimes makes it very hard to handle things because the leaders believe in their authority. There are always people who want to follow their leaders and support them. Strong leaders can give strong gifts. And that is the reason why some people believe in strong leadership. 

Strong leaders with strong opinions are the worst things that you can see. And they might see some things differently from people who make research. Scholars and researchers are bringing the report to leaders. But does the leader read those reports? It is their business. And if a strong leader makes a wrong decision. That is hard to fix as we see in Ukraine. 

The world is full of people who are searching for simple solutions. We all want to prepare people who have critical attitudes. But then we face the situation where people must accept critical opinions. Many times right to criticism is reserved only for superiors and leaders. 

Henchman just must accept everything that leaders say and think. If the henchman's opinions are not pleased the supervisor. 

Supervisors must not listen to opinions that are not supporting that person. And then the supervisor can kick henchmen off.  And they can replace them with people, who please them.

We can see that logic in Putin's leadership. Every different opinion causes punishment. If parents follow that logic when they grow children, that thing means every single time when children have a different opinion from their parents, they will get punishments. This kind of authority is that authority is always superior to henchman. The position of supervisor is right to get information. 

And that information supports the decision-making. But that requires that the supervisor reads the report. This is the thing that makes things like research difficult. If a leader will deny some decision because the intelligence says that let's say the enemy is too strong. That would seem like intelligence makes decisions for the leader. And this is the way of thinking that made Putin attack Ukraine. 

When children introduce some opinion that doesn't fit adults, that causes punishment. A child can get minimal punishment, like yelling or simply scolding. Those things are punishments, even if they are small punishments. The argument for those punishments is that. Those punishments grow people to respect their authority. 

The reason for punishments is simply superior: the parent has a right to give those punishments. Leaders sometimes believe that they are fathers and mothers of the people. Other people must follow their orders even if that thing takes them to nemesis. 

https://shorttextsofoldscholars.blogspot.com/

AI can make many things better than humans.

AI can make many things better than humans. The operational sector of AI is narrower than humans. But if the thing that the system should make requires precise multiple calculations, the AI is better than humans. The thing is that AI can make things like bridges, ships, and aircraft faster than humans. In those cases, the AI handles the precise information. And the system can calculate things like flows on the aircraft's surface very carefully. 

That kind of simulation requires a large number of precise and hard calculations. So when the AI-based system develops the virtual model in its memories it can discuss or exchange information with the simulator that compiles with parameters like flow cross sections, friction, radar cross sections, and other things. 

The problem with AI is that it doesn't know what it does. The AI can play chess or some card plays better than humans. When the AI plays chess it simply simulates the game and calculates possible movements of the buttons. 

When the AI plays cards by using a robot hand and physical cards, it simply uses image recognition. Every card has and card combination that has a certain number value. The bigger value wins the smaller value. The system calculates the possibilities of the card combinations. And of course, it must know that it would not change the wrong cards in poker games. The system can observe faces, changes in voice, and movements of the people for estimating the possibility that the opponent player has a good hand. Or the AI can search reflections from the glasses of the player. 

AI can make many things better than humans. And in the future humans must explain where they are better than AI. When we think of the AI as an artist and look at the image above this text, we can see that the human characters are somehow bizarre. We can see that the image is somehow different than natural things. So we could say that it's abstract art. 

But if we want to make the AI make things like a novel. It makes it by connecting data from different sources. And there is the possibility that the result is also an abstraction, a nonsense series of paragraphs full of texts. But that text has no connections with topics. That is the reason why people who want to give AI to make their thesis should read the product before they are delivering it forward. 

The reason is that the AI does not know what reads in the texts that it uses. The AI would use the search engine and then select sources from the search results. But the problem is that the AI would simply select the first paragraph from the first result, the second paragraph from the second result, etc. And that thing makes the result something, that will seem fine at first look. But then the text has no sense at all. 

The reason why this thing happens is that the AI doesn't understand the text itself. It uses search results for making things that might look like real things. Of course more advanced AI can have parameters that should find in the paragraphs that they use for developing new text. But in that case, the AI uses the elements that it connects to the entirety. 

Today borders are higher than ever before. Or are they?

Many people believe, or think, that national borders are the only borders in the world. The highest of all borders is the economical border. Even though we live in republics, we all have the right to go to school, and we are all equal people at the front of the law. We are facing economical inequality. 

When we are thinking about social inequality. We must ask: is that some kind of new thing? Or are people aware, that there is some problem with our beloved society? When we think about average salaries there are high-class directors whose salary is far above the average worker's salary. 

Even if we are not a class society where some kind of background guarantees some kind of position, we must realize that people who are born into wealthy families have a better chance to get better positions in working life. They know more high-class leaders who are offering better positions to those people who know more leaders. And people who have high positions in companies offer higher positions for employees. 

But even if the noblemen or noble person's dispensations were discontinued. The land was still in hands of noblemen. That meant that, especially in England, those people earned lots of money at the beginning of the industrialization era by renting their land for factories. The ownership of land offered very big incomings to people who owned it. And that thing caused that capital stayed in the hands of noblemen. And that formed the new term "idle upper class". 

Wealthy businessmen worked with noblemen to make money. And that social network formed the new upper class. 

Big ownership brought more money. The reason for that was that wealthy people visited similar events. And in those hobbies, those people could form a network with similar people. 

And that inspired Karl Marx when he created his "Accumulation theory". The economic accumulation theory meant that capital accumulates in the hands of people who already have the capital. And the reason for that is that wealthy people are knowing each other. So people who have capital also accumulate in the same rooms or events. People are surrounding them with people, who have similar opinions. 

And that is problematic. The people who have a membership in the "idle upper class" knew each other from childhood. And that made outsider hard to join that group. People who knew each other from childhood had their own stories. They always talked about their own business. And that caused a situation where people like Marx felt that they are outsiders. 

The problem is that there are still attitudes that wealthy people must keep their level. People who have expensive clothes are something else that people who have lots of money want to see. The social accumulation where people already know together makes outsider hard to join the group. 

A successful business requires good networks and good relationships. Without relationships, nobody buys new products from start-up companies. The networking with right people who can buy products is the thing that makes business. 

We might think that people who are similar to us are cool. And people who are different than us are "lol".  

The thing that caused the hate between the high- and working class were the expensive things. Or we must realize that if a person is wealthy something expensive for the worker is cheap for that wealthy person. Because high-class people are isolated behind their fences they heard stories about dangerous streets. So that caused the need to isolate more and more. The businessmen didn't want. That their families knew that they just kicked workers out of their company. And the same way those people who kicked off their homes. 

When some bosses kick workers off, they told stories that made them look innocent. The stories that were told were, of course, that workers just didn't do the job. And then the superior just told the person to go to find another job. That kind of thing was water for the agitator's machine. Agitators repeated that great injustice is done. 

The reason why communists wanted to please workers was simple. Workers were a bigger group than high-class people. So for agitators, the workers were better alliances than some high-class people or businessmen, who made big money from factories. 

Today in some cases. People can check things from surveillance records on the net. But before the net people must trust or not trust the stories that the participants are telling. The net has brought surveillance in the cities. It also offers a channel where people can tell their opinion or viewpoint of things. But the problem is how to prove things that people are saying. 

Agitators always wanted to believe workers. The fact is that the worker was not always innocent. But the conditions in the working class were not as good as they should. Social problems caused high-level crime statistics and conditions in some homes were horrible.

https://fromplatoscavetoreality.blogspot.com/

Populists and democracy: What is ordinary people's responsibility to their elections?

Ordinary people select people who are using power in parliaments. That means. Also, ordinary people have a responsibility to the state and its policy. Electors should listen to the candidates. Especially the entirety of the candidate's agenda should interest electors. So that they know who they will elect. The electors should elect a person who makes the best decisions. But who decides what is best for the nation? 

There is the possibility that some solution or decision is good for us. But that solution can cause catastrophe for the next generations. And that thing causes problems when we make decisions about the person who earns our trustworthy? And could that person be our election to parliament? We must realize that person who represents us in parliament makes decisions about how to use our money.

When some person represents us in parliament. That person would be in that position the next sessional period. And in that period. The parliament makes many more than just one decision. So don't look at only one statement. 

People should look at the agenda's entirety. And ask what that person wants to give to people. And what is that person's position on that agenda? 

People should know that parliamentary elections are not jokes. These people are selecting their representers to parliament for use of tax-payers money for a certain time. The problem is that there are no perfect candidates. All candidates have some things that do not please everybody. So whenever an elector makes choices they must make compromises. 

If good things >Bad things the candidate is positive. 

They must calculate Good things (minus) Bad things. And if good things win the elector chooses that person. If there is no candidate with more good things. And that thing is dangerous. If the candidate promises too much. That causes disappointment to electors. 

But also promises are compromises. The candidate must promise something to the main group of the constituency. And in some cases, the main group in the entire state is different than in the candidate's constituency. 

Individual constituencies may be home to unusually large numbers of super-rich people. And this can cause the candidate to have to please this minority. The candidate must therefore be in parliament as a representative of an economic minority. Every state always has a larger group of cleaners than managers. But in small constituencies, there could be more managers than cleaners.

 

In the world of the Internet, information travels faster than ever before. And that thing also causes problems with democracy. Populists are good to use social media platforms to deliver their agenda. They are offering lots of candies for people. And that makes them interesting in the eyes of other people. Also, some governments are using media as their tools. So in those states, the role of media is to support the people in power. 

When somebody promises lots of candies, we must ask how long people will live if they eat only candies. For living person must sometimes eat something else than just some candies. That means in working life. We must sooner or later do something that is not pleasing us.

Media plays a key role when information is brought to people. Of course, people like journalists have their own opinions. And in some cases, people like Secret Police agents are acting as journalists. 

In those cases, the information that is delivered can be propagandist. And the purpose of that news is just to support the political agenda of the people who are using power in some nations. 

The thing that can change information on one side or even propagandistic is self-censorship or the ability to black out other data that supports us or pleases us. When people are reading only things that please them that thing has a similar effect to propaganda. Self-censorship means that people read only things that please them. Those things are things that support their political opinions. 

We are wrong if we think that things like where companies make power or what power source those power plants use are not political decisions. Everything that used public money is politics. And we select representatives who represent us in parliament.

People argue that rulers have their responsibilities. But ordinary people also have their roles. In a democracy, they elect the people who make the decisions. The problem with the Internet is that people only choose the information that interests or pleases them. To get balanced information people have to listen to everything else that pleases them. And the ability to choose only things that seem pleasant to them makes information monotonous. People who deliver information have their supporters. And there are many ways to see things, that seem clear. 

 

There are four main types of governments 

• Closed autocracies
• Electoral autocracies
• Autocratic democracies
• Liberal democracies

Closed autocracies are nations like North Korea where the head of state doesn't even play democracy. 

In electoral autocracies is elections. But some non-democratically selected organization keeps the final control. Those nations are like Iran. There are parliaments but there are limits to the parliament's freedom to make laws. In those nations, the MPs or members of parliaments must follow strict roles in their work. 

In autocratic democracies is free elections. But things like the social environment and the common narrow attitudes make some people's life difficult. In those democracies, criticism against the parliament is not allowed during its sessional period. 

In autocratic democracies, people who criticize the parliament or government would be persecuted by media that support the party. That is in command. Criticizing the government can cause consequences like the loss of military rank. That kind of government is under the control of high-class populists. 

In liberal democracies, people are allowed to criticize governmental actors. That thing is so-called real democracies. In those things, the problem is that populists are using those systems for supporting their agenda. 

The problem is this. What if some solution that seems good in a short period turns or can predict to turn against people? What if the best for people requires sacrifices? Things like climate change are one thing that requires compromising on one's comforts like leaving the car to home. But those things are difficult because many people used to drive to work using cars. And changing attitudes is difficult because the car has an image of freedom and independence. 

But the car is also telling about social position. And public transport has the image of poor people's transportation system, which is used by people who cannot buy their car. The things like the high price of gasoline and energy crises. Along with the loss of capacity of parking areas are causing that we must re-estimate the role of public transportation. 

The science itself is not democratic. Scientific facts like Galilean moons are not following votes or elections. We can make as many votes as we want. But that thing doesn't affect those moons' trajectories. If we believe that democracy is turning science to state that it gives answers or solutions that please everybody we are wrong. We cannot transfer things like the planet's trajectory to please us by voting about them. 

But when we are thinking about the worst threat to democracy, we can say that is democracy itself. Populists are people who give great and simple promises. And if electors are not using critical ways to think. They would fall into the trap of populists. 

The best fellow for democracy is truth and a critical way to think. When we are seeing people who give simple and good-looking promises, we should ask at least a couple of questions about things that those people promise.

• If we make some decision, what happens after that? 
• What is those people's position in the new system? 
• Where do they get money for those projects?
• And then we should ask, why do those people want that change?
• And who introduced those things to those people? Or where do those people get their ideas?
• If we think of things like loan money from foreign lands. That requires that the state must pay the loan back.
•  Of course, the state can say that it will not pay that money back. But then the problem is how to get the next loan. 
• And if the multinational corporations are leaving the country. That causes problems with taxes. 
• If the country nationalizes that property, what happens to trust in that government? 
• Would somebody sell things like weapons to that nation? Or does the deliverer of the highly advanced weapon system allow the country to use its systems?  
• If the state nationalizes the property of an example U.S citizen? Is the use of GPS possible in that case? 
• And finally, if something changed, what is the thing that replaces the old thing? Where the investments that the old thing required will aim in the new system?

Sometimes people say that the media should ban far-right from the media. But censorship can cause those politicians to turn more fascinating than they are without censorship. 

And if those far-wing radicals are banned from the media. That gives them a chance to turn the focus from their political agenda. In those cases, discussions are turning into fights. And while people yell at each other. Nobody can ask about those participants' political agendas. 

They can say that other people do not give them a chance to talk or finish their speech. So then they can start to argue with others in some symposiums. And their agendas will not come to public knowledge. But people will know that those politicians are banned. 

And that thing is what they want. If the person is banned it allows that person can avoid questions of political agendas. They can discuss things and why they are not allowed to talk freely. That allows them to avoid critical questions. 

Society must prepare for modern threats better than they prepared.

Covid 19 has proved one thing. We must prepare better for modern threats. New platforms like the Internet and social media are bringing new opportunities. But they are also bringing new threats. When we are thinking about things like COVID-19 we must ask one question. 

Would those lockdowns and quarantines be made without social media? The function of social media is two-way. Social media can use for delivering information. But that information is probably non-relevant. 

Disinformation and misinformation are both harmful. There is no difference between wrong information that is delivered on purpose or accidentally. If some other person would believe that vaccinations are risking their lives that thing is harmful. 

When we are thinking about vaccines and other things, we must realize that those things are the biggest in human history. Vaccines can make some biological weapons unable to work. And that thing means that the UN should give more support for vaccination projects against Anthrax and other bacteriologic weapons. 

People should know that things like vaccines are making people resistant to things like influenza viruses. But modern society must have the capacity to answer the challenges that the Internet and other things are bringing. We must have the ability to benefit the Internet as the tool that can give superpowers to regular people as well as authorities. But the good boys and bad boys can use the internet as a platform for their operations. The Internet can use for communication. 

But it can also use for aiming the weapons and tracking single people. And that is one of the biggest problems. When we want to remove dis- and misinformation from the net, we might not think that those terms must determine first. Another thing is that the internet and AI are making it possible to track shoplifters immediately. When some security gates are alarming the camera takes an image. Then that image can download to a face recognition system. 

And when that thief steps into another shop that thing informs guards about that person. When we are thinking about things like biometric recognition in passports. The same database can use to solve the identity of violent criminals. And especially rapers. We forget one thing. The DNA can be faked. There is enough that the cells of the person will take to the crime scene. We want to believe that nobody wants to set up other people as criminals.

 But then we must realize that sometimes other governments want to make those things to people who they want to keep silent. "Political criminals" are easy to set up as drug smugglers, serial killers, and terrorists. Those things are so-called real crimes. And they are making the extradition request seem acceptable. In some jokes, the juridical denying of the use of the passport genetic database is that the police chiefs cannot say that go out and find the raper. 

When some people resist the change, we must ask what makes the old fashion things better? What if we will turn to using electric vehicles? Why somebody is against those vehicles? If we are thinking like some Donald Duck we might say that the bribes that are paid in the form of gasoline will turn impossible. This kind of bribery goes like this. Another person will buy gasoline for another person's car. And that is one version of the illegal payments. If we have a big-engine car, that thing is big money if some other person will pay the gasoline bill for years. 

https://networkedinternet.blogspot.com/

Writing about statues and attitudes

http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/p/about-statues-and-attitudes-kimmo.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Society gives us the norms how to live, and the norms might understand the synonyms as world "attitudes".  Attitudes have been changed, but the remainings from the old time are still visible in the street views. Above the text is the picture, what might show the well-known place, but there is one very small thing, what I'd like to show you. In this view is two statues, where another is the man, who keeps the boy on the right side, and the woman, who keeps daughter on the left side.

As we all know, the heart is at the left side. I don't know if this the purpose of the sculptor, but this composition might mean, that the women always be persons, who make the decisions with feeling, and the man would make the decisions by using rational way of thinking. When we are looking those statues, the woman is on the right side and the decisions, what she makes by using feelings and heart feels right, and the man who is positioned on the left side might mean, that the decisions, what man makes, might seem wrong.


But when we are looking at the things from their side, they would be made right things, if the things are looking from their side. This is the problem with the things like getting the education have been understood the very masculine thing, and of course, the decision, what educated person made are always difficult. But the life is not easy, and if the person would have no education, would other people make the decisions for that person. When those sculptures are made, the man actually owned women.


 And being free, must the women stay unmarried. In that time masculinity was right, and the masculine man was the thing, what symbolized the advantage and power. Women and feminine things meant traitorous attitudes, and the best example of those attitudes is the old detective films faithful women, who set the traps for the detectives, who used brown poplars and who were portraited famous actors like Humphrey Bogart, who smoked cigarettes non-stop.


This man died because of throat cancer at the age of 58, and he smoked over 100 cigarettes per day. In the modern movies that would not happen, because the laws are prohibiting the marketing of cigarettes.  Science was the very masculine thing and that's why in Finnish language Scientist is almost every time translated in the way "tiedemies", what exactly means "science man", and this is the very good example of the attitudes in 19th. century. This is writing about attitudes, and the thing, that those attitudes were very different in the past. Or if you lived in the time of those black and white movies, would you ever believe, that in some day, would gay people get in the married or woman would be portraited the action hero?

Maybe some civilizations have two kinds of individuals, what doesn't even look like same species.

Kimmo Huosionmaa

The degeneration and focusing on increase brain capacity might cause the situation, what the mankind ever thought as possible. In this scenario, the increasing of individuals brain capacity would cause the separation of the society of those things from the real community. In this scenario, the species would take two lines for evolving themselves.


The first line could be “workers”. The individual members of the community what would have normal muscles, and what makes all works in this hypothetical society. Their mission would defend the “thinkers”, the leaders of this society. Or maybe those “thinkers” would not be leaders. They might be only the “computers” what mission would generate the products for that hypothetical society.


Another line could be “thinkers” the individuals, what might have extremely large brain capacity, but those persons might be handicapped by another way. Their muscles might be extremely weak because that maximizes the nutrition transferring to brains. If those individuals would have weak muscles, they would not need to feed muscle cells, and all available food can be used in brains.


“Thinkers” would be unable to defend themselves against physical attack, and they would need the “workers” help in any actions. When we are thinking this hypothetical society as the result of brutal genetic engineering, we must say that there are many things, what could make this kind of act of sorting very attractive way to generate the species.


I had sometimes the very dangerous vision of the space station or greenhouse, where those  “thinkers” would live. The greenhouse would first come to my mind because that allows the skin to product D-vitamin. Their skin might be sterilized because that makes them impossible to escape. And here I’m thinking about the situation, that those members of the society would be handicapped because of their weak bodies.


Their heads could be extremely heavy, and the neck would not able to hold them head up, and that would be good for information security. When I’m thinking about the secrets of the government, the persons who make strategies and equipment for the government would be advantageous to be handicapped. Those “thinkers” would need the support from “workers” or they must build robots, what serves them. Even those individuals could be extremely weak, they could operate on the surfaces of planets by using remote-controlled robots.


Landing on the planets is extremely dangerous because there might be microbes, what can be put all crew in danger. The reason for that is no species would not have an immune system, what can fight against organisms, what have different amino acids in their layer. Or maybe some humanoids might have the immune system, what would be fully controlled by their brains, but we don’t yet have contact with those civilizations. But as you see we might use our imagination for creating that hypothesis in our brains.


The handicapped individual doesn’t flee away, and they are easier to control. The problem with society is always that those individuals might step at the front of the car. And that could cause the death of those individuals. If those thinkers would sit in a wheelchair, they can be kept always in control.


But if they were locked in some space station, they would need food from the planet. And their work can be controlled by other members of the community. The space without gravity would make those persons extremely weak, and they would not able to land on the planets because the gravity would kill them. This would be a very effective way to handle information security, and it could be compiled with the methods of some security police-organizations like NKVD and Gestapo.


This method would be effective but totally unethical. And remember that this writing is only the production of images. But maybe in future, we will face the situation, where human race would be separate in two lines. Another line would live on Earth and maybe on some other planets and another would live in giant space stations. The last ones could be physically weak, and they might be different than the people, who live on planets. But this would happen in distant future.

https://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/maybe-some-civilizations-have-two-kinds.html

Individual's Behavior and “social guillotine"

Kimmo Huosionmaa

The method “social guillotine" was created on 1920’s to demonstrate the bad and unhealthy lifestyle of the  British high-society people. The non-stop parties, where wine was flowing and cigarettes were burned caused many times more deaths in the British community than the World War 1. Of course, those parties were sometimes boosted with opiates like morphine, heroin, and opium, what are very dangerous things, because the person will take an overdose of those things. The problem with opiates is also aways that they will benumb the stomach, and the user will eat too much simultaneously, and then the too fatness cause the death. Also, those narcotics caused the situation, that those people forgot to take care of their children, and this caused more problems because those children were living at the streets. Also, tumors in stomach, liver, and lungs caused the death. The “social guillotine” is same way lethal as some weapons.


And when we are talking about the bad and unhealthy lifestyle of the wealthy persons, we must notice the same thing, what many sociologists have been noticed many times before I have written this text. If the person has been made the property self, there is no problem with those people. They realize normally, that they are not alone in the world. But sometimes their children are acting like, they would be owners of the whole country. We all have met the persons who begin to all speeches by telling the people, who are son or daughter this person is, and this is sometimes very tiresome. If the person adjusted for service, this might be seen in the behavior. When Karl Marx created his model of societies, he noticed that the right wing industrial leaders were supporters of the violent model of controlling the society. Those persons, who were standing at the top of society ever want to change things in the country and the social situation in society.


They refused to talk with the people, and the arguments what aristocrats gave for using the violence against the commune of Paris and executions, what happened after it, was that the law was their side. Why they should ever listen, anybody because the law allowed the executions if some persons rebel against the state of France. Because military followed the law, there was no crime in those actions, what were the result of bad conditions of the working class people. The law is the strange thing because, until Nürnberg trials, there were no convictions about murders, what was made by the government. If the pressmen were not been followed the liberation of the concentration camps, the crimes of Nazis maybe not ever set in the trial. The crimes that were made under the communist flag, were ever prosecuted and after the Stalin’s death, his head of security service got the death penalty.


We always see that Stalin was a genocide, and in some situations, some genocides, who made crimes before his “cleanings” were able to return their honor, even if they were executed people by themselves. The thing that made the judgment wrong, was because the punishment was given by Stalin. So what we have learned about this? Hitler and his Nazis had just bad luck because they lost the war. The allied air forces were, of course, trampled German cities as the dust, but making this way, the genocide would seem more acceptable than neck-shots and gas chambers. The cement dust and high-temperature air would cause the same effect than poison gas, but they are legal methods because all Germany were mobilized, and the allies were went to total war against this state, what produced military equipment in all buildings.


The total war is one version of absolute war, what was the great idea of general major  Carl Von Clausewitz. In absolute war, there would be no room for a moral or ethical aspect of actions, what will help the army for winning the war. And in some sarcastic comments, the difference between total war and absolute war is just the number of ruins. The army is a key element in this action, and when we are looking at the military service in that time, we must notice that there were three layers in the military forces. The normal workers served as the normal soldiers, who made all work in that system, and the high-society people served in the headquarters as an officer. They just gave the orders to the people, who just followed the orders. This gave a very good reason for hate against high-class people. When we are thinking about the time, when Marx lived, the censorship was very hard. Punishment for actions against those orders was very tough, and in many countries was political prisoners.


So the way as Marx saw the society is the little bit different than modern people. He saw the high-society people only the ruling class of society, who was hiding behind the guns, what was kept in hands the mercenary soldiers. And because the high-class persons were often served as an officer, they were good targets for political propaganda. And in early 20th. century the army was a machine, what was used for denunciations. The idea was that the military men were used as the reporters for political police like Surète or Stalin’s GPU. As mentioned this, because the Eastern blocks governments used the same methodology than some government of Napoleon III. If they would make reports to secret police, they would get sergeant ranks in that organization. The reason why those aristocrats went to the army, was that gave them tough reputation.

But when we are looking the world, the controlling class is many times against the new things, because they will need no reforms. Why the people, who use their own car wants new public transportation for some area? Here we will see. If the person doesn’t use the public services,  this person will be always against investments for those things. The same thing would happen with every service, what we will not use yourself. If the person uses private medical services, why this individual would want to make the payment also for public services? The problem is that those persons won’t hear anything, what they want. They want to be separated from other people and the real world.

https://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/

The problem of the asteroid ark. "When there is nothing to do, and days are boring"

Asteroid ark by David Hardy
(Picture 1)

Kimmo Huosionmaa

I have written about “Universe 25” two times earlier, and I must say that name of this box or dystopia of the rats is very uncommon, and I believe that one of the missions of that test was test how many generations were needed, until those rats became too degenerated for accomplishing their mission. In some theories that data was collecting for some kind of spaceflight, that could be targeted to some other planet or solar system. And it shows that there would be things, what will happen when people will have nothing to do. And in the long term spaceflight would nothing to do in the spacecraft. This will cause the social problems if the population is in the wake when they are traveling in the Universe.


In the mission could be used two very slow spacecraft, what would fly to the target over 400 years or more, and in those spacecraft would generations follow together, and of course this theoretical spaceflight was out of the question. But the philosophy is the way of thinking, and in this kind of writing, I must not prove anything. So in this theoretical spaceflight, would the journey begin with two different spacecraft, where would be two different populations. When the spaceflight turns to the end, those crews would be combined.


This might be made “superrace” for the colonization of the targeted planet. I sometimes thought that this experiment would make by the MAJESTIC-12 group, and here we must say, that the results of those tests and experiments are done for many reasons. So the results of this kind of tests would use in the multiple places and targets. And I think that the world of science is so fascinating, that I must say that we have right to believe in what we want. The test of “Universe 25” was very brutal. It shows how the enemies keep the population strong, and when the enemies were gone, like in this box, the behavior what allows rats to survive in the natural environment lost. But one solution for the boring time could be "the war", where the "Cylons" would attack against the colony. This would keep them in action and sharp condition. Those "Cylons" might be like some "computer game" what creates outer enemies for the colony.


This is one reason, why so-called asteroid-arks are very problematic. If the population in some environment doesn’t face enemies, the result could be devastating, when this ark will land on some planet. Those aliens would never face any kind of attack, and they probably don’t know how to act, if something attacks, those individuals would probably know how to defend themselves. But the asteroid arks would have many more problems. The hierarchy in that colony would become very stressful for the individuals, who are down in the hierarchy. The children of the captain of the ship would be on the top of the hierarchy, and that would make possible to create absolute monarchy in this spaceship.


When somebody grows on the side of the top person of the society, this causes the behavior that will hurt other. This causes hate. And this is the problem of the societies. The individuals who are top of the hierarchy always resist the changes. They would ever be tired by the work, and they want the stable societies and everything is always fine in their opinion. The thing that wants the changes are always workers and the personnel, who are down in the social pyramid. And if the people don’t know another system, they don’t postulate the change. This is the reason for censorship. But when somebody says, that there would be another way to make things, then let one person rule all things in society.

Sources

Picture 1

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bd/9c/7e/bd9c7eb86684479cf77cc3dd7574db8c.jpg

https://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.com/

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/the-problem-of-asteroid-ark-when-there.html

"Three nice girls and three bad skeletons" from the medieval time

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/three-nice-girls-and-three-bad.html

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/three-nice-girls-and-three-bad.html