Cafe RadLab
sociological roots of nukism - Printable Version

+- Cafe RadLab (
+-- Forum: Directory (
+--- Forum: Emerging Paradigms (
+--- Thread: sociological roots of nukism (/showthread.php?tid=3595)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-06-2019

A few of the sociological roots of nukism I want to mention;

1)  The authoritarian-submissive embrace,   proposed by Erich Fromm
2)   biological and social underpinnings of both the authoritarian type and the public submissive character.
3)  the use of media and other influential things like torture to control the view of the public
4)  sociological roots of power structures can be seen in other species, primates especially.  Group/tribal  dynamics
5)  psychological roots....the ego function.  
6)  no examination of this subject would be complete without at least glancing at politics and religion
7)  sociological function of economic forces 

Reviewing the sociological roots of the nuclear problem can give us a reference point.  Where we stand as members of the public or as authorities,  where we are at sociologically as a species...


Whats the problem?

The problem with nuclear is that groups of guys got together and made nuclear bombs and power plants, knowing full well they were dealing with horrendous death machines, including the potential of global annihilation, and then proceeded to poison an incredible number of people and other species,  then said they didn't poison anybody,  and continued until this day to get money from the public for this activity with super poisons,  and they lie about accidents and all kinds of unscrupulous behaviours,  which can include even murdering people on purpose, and they apparently feel no remorse, no guilt,  and the public cant hold them accountable for it.  The public is as much as powerless.  On top of this, much of the science community supports them, and nearly the entirety of governmental people support them and of course what they do is legal, so the law supports these guys making money on super poisons.   So that seems like a pretty serious problem....nothing less than the spectre of global nuclear annihilation is at stake. 

Now right away, some pro nuclear advocate is going to argue this.  They will say nuclear has an extremely good safety record, chances of doom are virtually non existent etc etc.   And this raises a very interesting point;  Its quite rare in the sciences to have such a wide gulf of disagreement among people and within the science community as we see in nuclear.   Its rather extraordinary.

And lest one thinks this is a debate of hippies vs informed scientists (anti nuke vs pro nuke),  we can arrest that misguided idea immediately.  Since 1947 when the Cold War was getting underway, the Doomsday Clock has been used to bring awareness to the biggest existential threats. The first team behind the iconic clock came from The Manhattan Project, the scientists and engineers who produced the first atomic bomb.  Its worth repeating;   the very scientists and engineers who had the incredible intelligence to produce the atomic bomb created this the form of a clock so everyone could grasp it.  And the clock was was set to seven minutes before midnight.   These brilliant minds were telling us....we are almost for sure doomed by this nuclear technology...these bombs.   

And today the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, put the clock at two minutes before midnight. 

“The longer world leaders and citizens carelessly inhabit this new and abnormal reality, the more likely the world is to experience catastrophe of historic proportions,” said Robert Rosner, a professor of astronomy and physics at the University of Chicago, during a press conference announcing the Doomsday Clock’s settings in Washington, D.C.

And if I can squeeze this point in regarding science;  We have been told with a great deal of authority that scientific analysis of great rigor assures us that nuclear accidents are all but impossible.  The official "Reactor Safety Study" was considered a landmark in risk analysis. It cost $4 million, and involved seventy “man-years” of effort, ”the most complete hazard analysis ever accomplished,”

The resulting report is 150 pages long, plus eleven appendices and an executive summary, all presented in nine vol-umes.  The Rasmussen report has been called “the classic reactor risk analysis study,”“the most complete hazard analysis ever accomplished,”

 It concluded, among other things, that "the probability of an accident resulting in ten or more fatalities was one in 3 million per reactor per year, and the probability of one thousand or more fatalities was one in 100 million; for comparison, it also pointed out that the chance of dying from a reactor accident is about the same as the chance of being struck by a meteor. "

Ah...but the risk analysis has changed 

"After the Fukushima disaster, the authors analyzed all past core-melt accidents and estimated a failure rate of 1 per 3704 reactor years. This rate indicates that more than one such accident could occur somewhere in the world within the next decade. "


The science community should hide in the Cave of Shame....going from one chance in a 100 million to another Fukushima disaster in the next decade!  I want to see one of these guys keep a straight face as he talks about 'lessons learned'


"The common industry approach to assessing nuclear accident risk depends on a technique known as probabilistic safety analysis (PSA), which assigns probabilities and damage values to particular failure scenarios. Nonetheless, such techniques are known to poorly predict events and to under-appreciate incidents that cascade into failures    

Wait, seventy man years of risk analysis just went down the toilet?  No, lets get a grip on this.  The failure of that study has a sociological root.  If they had wanted to find danger instead of safety they would have.  We can see this today;   The industry says nuclear is totally safe, while the homeland security says they need more money and control because terrorism and nuclear is so dangerous.  

Accidents happen (smile sheepishly and shrug your shoulders ) 
"There are about 12,000 events reported by French operators every year, of which 600–800 are classified annually as “significant for nuclear safety,” yet little to none of these show up on the INES database, and such unreported events occur at just 15% of the currently operating world nuclear fleet .  "

 So extrapolating to the world nuclear fleet, that would be 80,000 nuclear events and 4000 to 5333 events of significant nuclear safety evey year

"With the current model and in terms of dollar losses, there is a 50% chance that (i) a Fukushima event (or larger) occurs in the next 50 years, (ii) a Chernobyl event (or larger) occurs in the next 27 years and (iii) a TMI event (or larger) occurs in the next 10 years. Further, smaller but still expensive (≥ 20 MM 2013 USD) incidents will occur with a frequency of about one per year. Finally, we find that the INES scale is inconsistent in terms of both damage and NAMS (radiation release) values. For the damage values to be consistent, the Fukushima disaster would need to be between an INES level of 10 and 11, rather than the maximum level of 7."

"there is a 1% probability each year that an accident occurs that leads to a loss of at least $331.6 billion."


[Image: do-you-feel-lucky-punk.jpg&key=6f0f70c73...de4370c2a8]


So my little thesis here is that this nuclear problem is only a part of a more far reaching or endemic sociological problem. For example, there is a remarkable similarity of the Fukushima tragedy to the Minamata mercury poisoning in Japan  in 1956.  There was cover up, government collusion, powerlessness of the people, no evidence of remorse by the company involved or the government. Animal and human deaths continued for 36 years, the government and company did little to prevent the pollution.  The immense suffering was and continues to go unrecognized.

So the story of Fukushima, sociologically, is just like the Minamata story, and that story is repeated over and over around the world.  Bhopal tragedy,

The story of corruption, pollution, guiltless deception, fraud, government secrecy and powerless victims is everywhere.

How about the extermination of the native american indians and the buffalo?   I think we get the point.  

So to recap,  there are people in power positions who create suffering, perhaps poisoning ecosystems and people, or killing outright in wars and genocide acts or taking land and goods, for which they have no apparent remorse.  These power players are not only individuals but can be defined as governments or  corporations, sometimes tribes or religious and ethnic groups.  They often get away with it, and the victims often are powerless.  

The authoritarians often have psychopathic behavior.  Corporations and governments have  been recognized as inherently psychopathic.

Conversely, the public is submissive and supportive of the authoritarian pole.  In the case of the government, the public usually give themselves and their power freely, supporting and cheering authoritarians on.  Sometimes, or often, they are subjected to propaganda which molds their views.  Another interesting factor being put forward is that as a species, we show evidence of domestication.  Domestication, in this case through self selection, has known psychological and physical effects.  If the theory of domestication proves correct, it could have a strong impact on the authoritarian-public dynamic.

It is said it takes two to tango.  Erich Fromm detailed a theory of the dominance-submissive authoritarian embrace
"What do we mean by “authoritarian personality”? We usually see a clear difference between the individual who wants to rule, control, or restrain others and the individual who tends to submit, obey, or to be humiliated. To use a somewhat friendlier term, we might talk of the leader and his followers. As natural as the difference between the ruling and the ruled might — in many ways — be, we also have to admit that these two types, or as we can also say, these two forms of authoritarian personality are actually tightly bound together."

So, following loosely this concept of a social duality,  the ruling and the ruled, we see it is a pervasive character of the human species.  There are many key aspects to primal group dynamics, conformity and patriotism, psychological immaturity and of course a lot more.  

Andrew Lobaczewski concluded that on the authoritarian side there tended to be psychopathic character traits in leaders and their surrounding associates.

Here is a list of some psychopathic traits and we might recognize these in certain powerful individuals, corporations and other groups, including governments

Superficial charm and glibness

Inflated sense of self-worth

Constant need for stimulation

Lying pathologically

Conning others; being manipulative

Lack of remorse or guilt

Shallow emotions

Callousness; lack of empathy

Promiscuous sexual behavior

Blaming others and refusing to accept responsibility

Criminal acts in several realms (criminal versatility)

And looking at the 'ruled' , its reasonable to ask how our species came to consist of so many submissive,  enabling types who willingly participate, even celebrate this ruler-ruled condition.  We do it with a patriotic fervor.   In Japanese culture, 'Giri' may be defined as "to serve one's superiors with a self-sacrificing devotion" "This value is so integral to Japanese culture that the conflict between giri and ninjō, or "human feeling", is said to have been the primary topic of Japanese drama since earlier periods in history."

Nearly every culture through history has had this ruler/ruled condition. It goes without saying that if the rulers tend toward phsychopathic traits, and the ruled tend toward submissive and enabling, the results will often be poor for the ruled. 


Im using the word nukism to refer to a mental condition which underpins  the nuclear problem and many other problems of contemporary society.

Like any disease, one must find and treat the causes, not just the symptoms of nuclear.  The very existence of the nuclear era is a symptom. The laws enabling it, the people in favor or in opposition are symptoms of  underlying  systems of thought and feeling. 

Nukism, to me, suggests an egomania.  A species centric egomania. Cambridge gives this definition "The state of considering yourself to be very important and able to do anything that you want to do"

Its similar to the Narcissistic personality

Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder with a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.Those affected often spend much time thinking about achieving power or success, or on their appearance. They often take advantage of the people around them.

 Megalomania is

"an unnaturally strong wish for power and control, or the belief that you are very much more important and powerful than you really are"

Egomania and megalomania can be seen as a widespread disorder of contemporary societies around the world. Culturally, sociologically, we have reinforced an egomaniacal normalcy bias.  

Concomitant to that is a syndrome proposed by Erich Fromm, the dominance-submissive authoritarian embrace

For me, this is a reasonable starting point toward understanding what is causing and perpetuating this mess we are into. The global exploitation of people and resources, the poisoning and killing of the ecosphere, and our near powerlessness to do anything about it.    It has been argued that we live on a prison like planet, and that as citizens, we accept this as normal.

We need energy,...coal, oil, nuclear, wind, gas.  How many times do we hear that?   In the grand scheme and history of the living world, these energy sources are a blip, a single page in a story millions of pages long.  How much stuff of value was produced before the 1800's before any of this energy mania existed?

[Image: Butterfly.jpg]

The ENTIRE LIVING WORLD existed prior to our anthropocentric energy mania

Some, even most of our species most prized accomplishments occurred before the industrial revolution.   No animal on earth NEEDS  coal, gas, oil and nuclear.   Yes, societies reliant on them would crumple, but lets set the view straight.  There was always enough energy to produce a flourishing living world, including happy, artistic, thoughtful humans

200 yrs BC   The Winged Victory of Samothrace.    Oh my god, whatever shall we do when the oil runs out?

[Image: 6932078935_ea5b87f37b_b.jpg]

Around the world, there are a few attempts at breaking free from the authoritarian submissive embrace.

I dont know anything about 'agenda 21'.   For the sake of this discussion, I dont even care if the views expressed here are correct or not.  What I do see is that people are becoming aware that we have lived on a prison like planet, and a very few are making efforts to break free.  Usually not successful.   Like the black slaves of George Washingtons era,  our only escape seems to be going 'transcendental'   We dont have the option of deciding to live free from the rules, the plan imposed on us.  Yet it is called freedom.

Ingunn Sigurddatter on the UN's Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-06-2019

Economics, civil entrapment and the destruction of the ecosystem

At the very least, the economic system must be examined because even anti nuclearists are paying money to subsidize the industry.   But the effects of the economic system goes further.  

The words  'capitalism'  'democracy'  and 'freedom'   have so thoroughly been associated that people cant even think about them without pushing emotional buttons.  Like so many beliefs, these are bound to us by our emotions

Capitalism and the ecological crisis
  1. "All economic decisions are made by an elite with no public accountability, based on maximizing profit.Competition for profit drives industries relentlessly to produce more and more goods and services whether they are needed or not, to cheapen production costs by driving down workers’ living standards and offloading the environmental costs onto society, to shorten the usable lifespan of products by designing in obsolescence and creating disposable commodities, and to maximally expand the luxury consumption market. The effects on the environment are clear: wasteful and ever-increasing resource consumption, pollution, and massive production of the greenhouse gases that are the byproduct of nearly every component of the economy."

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Horse - 06-07-2019

We're being ponerized.  I think too much rad poisons and fluoride are making it easier.  When something or someone has become “Ponerized” in its strictest sense, it means that the person or group can no longer make the distinction between healthy and pathological thought processes and logic.

Political Ponerology is a study of the founders and supporters of oppressive political regimes. Lobaczewski’s approach analyzes the common factors that lead to the propagation of man’s inhumanity to man. Morality and humanism cannot long withstand the predations of this evil. Knowledge of its nature – and its insidious effect on both individuals and groups - is the only antidote.

PDF preview:

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-07-2019

No matter what, we wont be able to save the system.  The system of governance and economics, the lifestyle.   And for me, thats a good thing, because the present situation is not very good.  

To kick off my comment, I will touch on one thing; interest.   Some studies have been done which show that all things considered, you work 38% of your life to pay interest.   Interest is not a law of nature.  We dont need it, its simply a device people invented to get your wealth.   So imagine if you had a three day work week all your life, with four days off.    This changes everything.   You would even have time to build your own house, or install solar, or be artistic and musical...or windsurf

That is only one facet of a complex subject.  "The way things are"...its not good, contrary to most peoples belief.  And its not going to last much longer.  Capitalism is not sustainable, so to use a flippant colloquialism, get over it.  

Maybe readers can suggest better are a few random findings  

Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute
Degrowth ‘from below’? The role of urban social
movements in a post-capitalist transition

The authors go over the obvious reasons capitalism cant last, and then suggest nobody is going to help you, so you had better start, in your city, to do something about the impending crash.  They suggest a few things;

Voluntary Simplicity

The sharing economy: Access without

Home-based production and the informal
‘gift’ economy 

Here, an author titles his piece

"This is how UN scientists are preparing for the end of capitalism"

and then doesnt say how the UN is preparing.   OK, whatever. The piece is based on a report by Finnish scientists

“It can be safely said that no widely applicable economic models have been developed specifically for the upcoming era,” write the Finnish scientists for the UN drafting process.
Hall and Klitgaard are highly critical of mainstream capitalist economic theory, which they say has become divorced from some of the most fundamental principles of science."

This seems so painfully obvious, yet so seldom said, I will suffer you to read it again

" capitalist economic theory is divorced from the most fundamental principles of science."

And here is a piece about a report published in 1972, 47 years ago.

In 1970, a team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began working on what would become the most important document of the 20th century to question this orthodoxy [capitalist, business as usual orthodoxy]. The scientists spent two years holed up in the company of a gigantic mainframe computer, plugging data into a system dynamics model called World3, in the first large-scale effort to grasp the implications of growthism for mankind. They emerged with a book called 

The Limits to Growth,

 issued as a slim paperback by a little-known publisher in March of 1972

When questioned recently about his opinion, the author Meadows said
he was optimistic in 1972. There was time enough to divert the ship of too-muchness from its collision course with the iceberg. But now he was cynical. Business-as-usual, he said, risks a chaotic implosion imposed by nature, followed by geopolitical turmoil and resource wars. This now seemed to be our likely path, and it was time, he said, to prepare for "system shock."

Meadows sees a link between limits to growth and what he calls "the authoritarian tsunami that is sweeping across Western democracies." 

For my taste, much of civilization and economics/politics in particular has a grotesque nature that people are blind to in their normalcy bias.  The diseased king wears no clothes. Of course this sounds like nonsense if you see the king wearing clothes!

(06-07-2019, 02:18 AM)Horse Wrote: We're being ponerized.  I think too much rad poisons and fluoride are making it easier.  When something or someone has become “Ponerized” in its strictest sense, it means that the person or group can no longer make the distinction between healthy and pathological thought processes and logic.

Political Ponerology is a study of the founders and supporters of oppressive political regimes. Lobaczewski’s approach analyzes the common factors that lead to the propagation of man’s inhumanity to man. Morality and humanism cannot long withstand the predations of this evil. Knowledge of its nature – and its insidious effect on both individuals and groups - is the only antidote.

Ponerology.  Its interesting that Lobaczewski framed his study by the concept and even word evil.   The institutions that gave the public common conceptions of evil were themselves 'evil'.   I like that he leans toward the word psychopathy.  At least we can see it as a disease rather than a moral existential principle somewhere in the Abrahamic religions.  

A wiki article says Lobaczewski considered the psychopathic leaders to be a minority and their deviant nature, their abnormal pathology is caused by biology or genetics.

There is a lot to explore right there.  Dietary factors, inbreeding,  pollution, you mention, rad poisons and fluoride.  But we can add to it.  A society disconnected from nature.  And going back...the biological and sociological foundations.  Examples of the psychopathic, aggressive narcissistic alpha male abound in nature. 

For my taste, Lobaczewski was quite positive. He believed most people were fine and would oust the psychopaths.  I see the opposite.  I see the world as an enabler...even cheering these psychopathic leaders on, funding and defending them.  What shall we call the police and military men and woman who essentially enforce the dictates of the authoritarians?

The seeds of mans corrupt and psychopathic nature are always ready to sprout. 

Until the world is ready and willing to see nearly all authorities and leaders as psycho, I dont see much hope for reformation.   I know, it sounds extreme.   But this does not imply they are all secretly evil, many appear to be simply ignorant, undeveloped, biased cretens.

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Horse - 06-07-2019

Excerpts from the pdf link I added.  Cleckley wrote 'Mask of Sanity' another good book on the topic.  

Quote:The psychopath, on the contrary, never
has any neuroses, no self-doubts, never experiences angst, and is what “normal”
people seek to be. What’s more, even if they aren’t that attractive, they are “babe
Cleckley's seminal hypothesis is that the psychopath suffers from profound and
incurable affective deficit. If he really feels anything at all, they are emotions of
only the shallowest kind. He is able to do whatever he wants, based on whatever
whim strikes him, because consequences that would fill the ordinary man with
shame, self-loathing, and embarrassment simply do not affect the psychopath at
all. What to others would be a horror or a disaster is to him merely a fleeting inconvenience.
Cleckley posits that psychopathy is quite common in the community at large.
His cases include examples of psychopaths who generally function normally in the
community as businessmen, doctors, and even psychiatrists. Nowadays, some of
the more astute researchers see criminal psychopathy – often referred to as antisocial
personality disorder – as an extreme of a particular personality type. I think
it is more helpful to characterize criminal psychopaths as “unsuccessful psychopaths”.

The common person can't tell easily distinguish a psychopath by their words, though psychopaths always recognize each other.  Only by their deeds will common man come to know them, after the damage has been done.  Lobaczewski describes a cycle where common man forgets this simple difference in beings, falling prey to their manipulations until painful lessons restore knowledge and prevent psychopaths from holding power over common man.  

Usury was known to destroy ancient economies because it sucked all the money to the elites and left nothing for the poor to live on.  Revolt usually followed.  Debt forgiveness was a way to restore balance and save the skin of elites.  Usury was outlawed at various times but the elites always liked this simple way of gaining and holding power.

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-07-2019

Can civilization stop the cycle of despotic rulership, wealth inequality/ slavery/serfdom and forestall the collapse of the ecosystem?  It is doubtful, yet they had better try! Its not as if doom lies somewhere down the road, it is happening now.  Very little is being discussed or done.  The overhaul of humanity requires the best thinking and action our species can achieve.  

The basic principle is to de-fund the forces that exploit.  For that to happen we need an enlightened public.  That seems highly unlikely. 

The banking problem can be partly solved by cooperative savings.

 The JAK bank is an example of an interest free bank. The JAK Members Bank is a cooperative, member owned bank in Skövde, Sweden. JAK is a co-operative, fully owned by its 40,000 members.

"Oscar Kjellberg, the development director, is opposed to charging interest because it transfers wealth from the poor to the rich and from declining areas – often rural ones – to more prosperous parts. "That sort of transfer doesn't happen with JAK," he says. "People save with us because they either want to borrow interest-free themselves or because they want to assign the right to an interest-free loan to a relative, a son or daughter, perhaps or to an organization they support. This means that most money is lent out in the same area that it was collected, and, if it's not, it's only loaned in a place and for a purpose which the original saver has approved."

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-07-2019

Remember signing an anti nuclear petition 30 years ago?   Woohoo!, we showed em...power of the people!

 'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.' Rita Mae Brown, from her 1983 book "Sudden Death,"

Money and weapons are the instruments of power. 

[Image: If-us-land-mass-were-distributed-like-us...33x330.png]
“Inequality,” said Fred V. Carstensen, who heads the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis at the University of Connecticut, “is one of the reasons the world’s falling apart.”

How should the people feel about this?  Pretty good?  Turns out even though half the people own next to nothing, they are pretty high on the global wealth index 

[Image: global.gif]

But the wealth of the rich means nothing in a collapsed ecosystem.  Thus the definition of wealth needs to change in the collective.   The motive needs to change from profit to  'earth first'.  That is where true wealth exists. 

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Horse - 06-08-2019

The struggles we go thru are to help us learn.  We're in a school not a church.  You are being tested for something important, do you act in service to yourself or can you act in service to others.  Those that are service to self run this place and they don't want any service to others to spoil the greed party, it's already heaven on earth for them and they don't want the feeding to end.    When you try to be of service to others they will pounce.  No good deed goes unpunished.  We are all service to self and we must take care of ourselves or we can't help others.  The problem is people don't want to go the extra step, they stop learning after the easy part.  

As this ‘service to self’ world is on the eve of destruction yet again:

‘Service to self’, rejoice in the destruction of the others that keep you from having it all.  You will own and control all that remains of this world.  

‘Service to others’ candidates, remember what you have learned so you don’t have to repeat the same suffering over and over again.  Rejoice in new lessons to learn.

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-08-2019

Well before man learns all of his ethical lessons,  maybe society can be reformed to the point where the exploitative systems no longer hold absolute power over the public and the ecosystem. 

If baboons can do it, why cant we do it?  Psycho leader types will always emerge. The public needs to rise up against, rather than cheer them on.  This will be an epoch change in human sociology.

Emergence of a Peaceful Culture in Wild Baboons

Among a troop of savanna baboons in Kenya, a terrible outbreak of tuberculosis 20 years ago selectively killed off the biggest, nastiest and most despotic males, setting the stage for a social and behavioral transformation unlike any seen in this notoriously truculent primate.

Left behind in the troop, designated the Forest Troop, were the 50 percent of males that had been too subordinate to try dump brawling, as well as all the females and their young. With that change in demographics came a cultural swing toward pacifism, a relaxing of the usually parlous baboon hierarchy, and a willingness to use affection and mutual grooming rather than threats, swipes and bites to foster a patriotic spirit.

Remarkably, the Forest Troop has maintained its genial style over two decades, even though the male survivors of the epidemic have since died or disappeared and been replaced by males from the outside. 

Sapolsky was eager to learn how the troop, which now seemed far too peace-and-love oriented to defend itself, had managed to avoid being taken over. Then, one day, a violent, dominant male fell upon them and attempted to subjugate the troop to his rule. The troop instantly turned on him and literally tore him limb from limb. When Sapolsky went out to study the troop the next day, the baboons were quietly grooming each other as usual, and on the ground beside them was the severed face of the would-be usurper. The group managed to avoid a return to violence by reserving all their aggression for the males who occasionally tried to fill the power vacuum.

Peace Among Primates

Is life a school?

The 'school' view of human existence and moral/spiritual development is recognized and wide spread.   While it may have value or some truth to it,  it also can manifest undesirable outcomes.  Judgmentalism, egoism, guilt,  neuroticism, even aggression and war.  This view has locked people into accepting undesirable lives, thinking it must be  learning experience. Or they wait for redemption, often in an afterlife. It really fans the flames of hope and faith!  The theory is based on some assumptions;  That we can learn and grow, perhaps collectively, and retain the gains.  It presupposes some sets of what we 'should' learn. Which lessons are intrinsically valuable and which are not.  It supposes a 'reason' for life and our struggles. 

Im reminded of an ancient allegorical tale; One day a farmer/wise man's horse runs away. And his neighbor comes over and says, to commiserate, “I’m so sorry about your horse.” And the farmer says “Who Knows What’s Good or Bad?” The neighbor is confused because this is clearly terrible. The horse is the most valuable thing he owns.

But the horse comes back the next day and he brings with him 12 feral horses. The neighbor comes back over to celebrate, “Congratulations on your great fortune!” And the farmer replies again: “Who Knows What’s Good or Bad?”

And the next day the farmer’s son is taming one of the wild horses and he’s thrown and breaks his leg. The neighbor comes back over, “I’m so sorry about your son.” The farmer repeats: “Who Knows What’s Good or Bad?”

The next day the army comes through their village and is conscripting able-bodied young men to go and fight in war, but the son is spared because of his broken leg.

The story goes on and we see there is no end to the positive and negative alteration of outcomes.

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-08-2019

Roots of nukism can be seen in other species.

Conflict as a generator of both greatness and collapse.

Anthropologists have been wrong about the appearance of our ancestors.  They were not 'crude'.   Actually, contemporary man is often crude and becoming more so.  Our brain volume has been decreasing, and likely artistic and intellectual ability, all within a short period of time.   About the last 10,000 years.

[Image: tenor.gif?itemid=8726299]

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-08-2019

The allure of the powerful leader.   Im fascinated that people seem so in need of a leader. Overlord is another term.  They would not want the president leading their lives in their own homes, so its obviously at the societal, or gang/troop/tribal level.  But the age of the great warrior is over.   Yet the primal urge remains.   The alpha male type does not work for modern society. The aggression and narcissism are awkward and have no practical value.  In gangs and tribes, this is not so.  But the patterns of behaviour persist;  a few authoritarians and a lot of submissives.   Our species needs to realize this. Visualize your leaders as submissive servants who have no higher status than you.  They are cunning, just another ape who got rich by sequestering the wealth of others.

Our species no longer needs an overlord. A social hierarchy that perhaps served a purpose as late as the medieval period. 

Trumputin, the face of egocentrism
[Image: DifCL73WkAAC1nI.jpg]

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-09-2019

" male chimpanzees spend much of their time scheming in order to move up in dominance. The successful ones usually accomplish this by forming temporary alliances with a few other males in order to physically dominate the rest.  These alliances are often created by sharing meat and other prized foods as well as grooming each other.  Female chimpanzees apparently do not take part in this constantly changing, often violent political restructuring of their community.

An even darker side of male chimpanzee behavior is that they occasionally murder members of other chimpanzee communities.  Groups of males periodically go on aggressive raids into neighboring territories where they isolate individual males and then violently beat and bite them to death.  Over time, these marauding gangs will kill all of the males in the targeted communities if they can."

our ape species is very clever about it.  Clever enough to destroy the world...dumb enough to do it

[Image: MBX35193-H-266-W-400-S-89832.jpg]

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Horse - 06-09-2019

Quote:The 'school' view of human existence and moral/spiritual development is recognized and wide spread. While it may have value or some truth to it, it also can manifest undesirable outcomes. Judgmentalism, egoism, guilt, neuroticism, even aggression and war. This view has locked people into accepting undesirable lives, thinking it must be learning experience. Or they wait for redemption, often in an afterlife. It really fans the flames of hope and faith! The theory is based on some assumptions; That we can learn and grow, perhaps collectively, and retain the gains. It presupposes some sets of what we 'should' learn. Which lessons are intrinsically valuable and which are not. It supposes a 'reason' for life and our struggles.

Learning is fun. Different survival strategies are being tried out on an individual and societal level. We've acquired some knowledge of ourselves, others, and the material world we live in. Discernment will inform us of any gains. Progress is often lost because of destructive natural forces that cycle thru our existence. Our local star, the Sun, is cycling into a minimum phase that will affect Earth's climate and bring extremes to local weather patterns. Survival of populations will be more difficult without the bounty of the sea to supplement what we can produce on land. Man's activities with nuclear technology are polluting both with radionuclides that destroy and mutate life that will affect generations to come. I'd say we have a lot to learn yet.

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-09-2019

learning is fun....I like that positivity.    What we need to learn about the sociological root of nukism;  The world is run by people with brain defects.  That is Lobaczewski’s premise, roughly speaking.  The idea is that psychopaths make their way to the top of power positions.   

This is a hurdle for most people.   I have a relative who is prone to thinking all people are essentially good.  When I say the world is run by psychopaths, he naturally thinks Im crazy.   Good perhaps, yet crazy, unable to view the situation correctly.

One of the problems here is the numbers.   Estimates on the percentage of people who are psychopaths vary. I read 1%, 7%,  25% in prisons.  I read from Lobaczewski "0.6% essential psychopathy" and "the existence and action of a statistically small (4-8% of the general population) but extremely active group of psychologically deviant individuals"

Well on that basis, it seems wrong to assert that the world is run by them.  The implication being all government leaders. 

There must be another dynamic, other social or biological factors.  The groups dynamic is a theme from Lobaczewski; 

" psychopaths have this dream that they would like to govern. "We want to be the government," they think, and this dream is realized from time to time in the human history and this is a gruesome time. , the dream of power occurs among psychopaths in groups, since they recognize each other in the crowd perfectly. A group is formed and within that group the dream of power appears as a rule,"  

"Ponerogenic groups are those with a statistically high number of pathological individuals, to the point that the group as a whole exercises egotistical and pathological behavior. Deviants function as leaders and ideological spellbinders, and while normal people may act as members, they have typically accumulated various psychological deficiencies. Those not susceptible to such influence are excluded from the group. These groups can either infiltrate existing governments or exert their influence from "behind the scenes." Bribery, blackmail, murder and similar terror tactics are used to achieve these ends."

Several sources have asserted that the control of civilizations does not occur just at the governmental level, but from powerful family lines with extraordinary financial powers. One might argue that that elite sector, a small fraction of one percent of the total population, are psychopathic and that might fit in with the percentages assumed by psychologists. 


I think there is more to it.  The entire human race is locked into rule/ruler.  The public are submissive enablers, facilitating their own powerless capture.  Not only because they have no choice against the well armed enforcers of the law, but have been conditioned by society and propaganda. Also, we likely  have been bred by natural selection and epigenetic factors.   Current humans compare to our distant ancestors  as cows compare to the now extinct aurochs.  

The public has been likened to sheep or cattle.  There is a theory that we have been self domesticated, with a consequent loss of brain and body function.  The consequences of domestication are pretty well known and are similar across species.  It is called the domestication syndrome and is thought to have a common root in a cluster of neural crest deficits.   The Aurochs was a mighty, dynamic, athletic, swift creature which was the ancestor of the modern cow. It illustrates the effects of domestication. They went extinct in 1627.

What domestication does.   Bull and Cow of Aurochs on the left, domesticated ones on the right

[Image: bull-cow-auroch-cattle-comp.jpg]

Thundering super cattle drawn in prehistoric cave paintings.  The Aurochs 
[Image: cb90b88eaa12405ed82f9aa7ae990a3b.jpg]

We might get a sense of the grace and power of our own ancestors.   Back about 3000 or 4000 years ago beautiful women like this (exposed breasts were the fashion in Minoan culture) engaged in the sport of Aurochs jumping.

[Image: 4c45620c7343ffb3c7161dbbd2e0411b--ancien...nt-art.jpg]

These super women (and men) would grab the horns of aurochs, which were much larger than bulls of today, weighing up to 3000 lb,  and would be catapulted over their backs.   In some cultures men still leap over bulls, but the bulls are domesticated, smaller and slower

[Image: 53bc0a0d8c55240d0a9c2b53f38a571e--mycenaean-minoan.jpg][Image: bull_leaping_diagram1.jpg]

I can imagine the disbelief and perhaps disgust such people would have for the people we call leaders today.  How crazy it would seem to them that we must poison the land, air and water just to survive and continue our modern culture of weak, fat pathetic powerless people

Are we a species of juvenilized, feminized submissives?

Self domestication syndrome and the implication for our authoritarian embrace.

"Charles Darwin, while trying to devise a general theory of heredity from the observations of animal and plant breeders, discovered that domesticated mammals possess a distinctive and unusual suite of heritable traits not seen in their wild progenitors. Some of these traits also appear in domesticated birds and fish. 

... Here, we propose that the domestication syndrome results predominantly from mild neural crest cell deficits during embryonic development. Most of the modified traits, both morphological and physiological, can be readily explained as direct consequences of such deficiencies, while other traits are explicable as indirect consequences."

"Recent advances in genomics, coupled with an ever-richer body of palaeo-archaeological, anatomical, and animal behavior literature, offer new opportunities to test long-standing hypotheses about human evolution. In the domain of human cognition, the retrieval of ancient DNA can, with the help of well-articulated linking hypotheses connecting genes, brain, and cognition, shed light on the emergence of ‘cognitive modernity’. It is to this end that we present data from (paleo-)genomics in support of an old hypothesis about the evolution of our species: that of self-domestication. As has been well documented elsewhere  the idea that anatomically modern humans (AMH) are a domesticated species has long been entertained by preeminent scholars in biological and human sciences (in passing by Charles Darwin and more seriously by Franz Boas ). We argue that such characterizations are accurate, not merely as analogies, but in identifying shared evolutionary trajectories, with accompanying convergent signatures of selection, in AMH and domesticated species.

"Domesticated species display a range of anatomical and behavioral phenotypes that set them apart from their wild counterparts: depigmentation; floppy, reduced ears; shorter muzzles; curly tails; smaller teeth; smaller cranial capacities (and concomitant brain size reduction); paedomorphosis; neotenous (juvenile) behavior; reduction of sexual dimorphism (feminization); docility; and more frequent estrous cycles. Of course, not all of these characteristics are found in all domesticates, but many of them are indeed present to some extent in each. This constellation of features has been referred to as the “domestication syndrome” and has been hypothesized to arise from a mild deficit of neural crest cell"

facial gestalt.   There are several known syndromes associated with neural crest deficits. Our species likely embodies varying degrees of neural syndromes associated with neural crest deficits caused by self domestication.   Domestication of our species likely has resulted in a passive, childlike phenotype.  This might make us more accepting of being under the control of a few authoritarians.  We are who we are, not much chance of changing our natures at this point, so it would take an extra effort to throw off the plague of the authoritarian submissive embrace which entraps the public.   Could we recognize our own domesticated condition?  Computer morphology can show us some features of neural crest deficits.  If we are domesticated, we have smaller brains and more passive, juvenile characteristics than our wilder, distant ancestors.  We could all have 'some' of these neural syndromes.  We cant tell because this is our 'normal'

Mowat Wilson syndrome


and/or Waardenburg syndrome


We may very well be self 'genetically modified'.  in general, compared to our 'wild' ancestors, we would have smaller brains,  smaller jaws and teeth, larger eyes and docile, social characters.   On the positive, this childlike phenotype may have given us greater neural plasticity into older age, giving us some intellectual advantages, and we may be more cooperative.  The degenerative effects of pollutants, sedentary lifestyles, and unnatural living conditions compounds the picture. Strong social conditioning factors compound it further

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-09-2019

Biological foundation of the sociological roots of nukism.

So we can see the public is generally powerless and is held captive by the norms, assumptions and laws of society, with a heirarchy moving up from armed enforcers to military and political authorities (whom the public often cheers on) and likely a less visible class of elite who exert control of political outcomes using the leverage of associations and finance.

Like the 10+ year vigil outside the World Health Organization, we may peacefully demonstrate, but beyond that our power for change is limited.

The thesis is given that brain function deficits cause psychopathy, and those people gravitate to the authoritarian position. There is evidence that the authoritarian narcissistic leader type has abnormal brain function

This is an extremely dangerous global condition. The public is easily deceived into supporting men who dont have the capacity to feel guilt and have little or no empathy for the living world. The public rallies behind their leaders, the dynamic cemented by simple rhetoric and patriotism. Millions upon millions of people are killed and handicapped in wars. Towns laboriously built are quickly laid to waste. And in our epoch, the threat of global annihilation from nuclear war weighs upon the planet. The science community has relaxed its warning. The few that raise concerns are labelled crazy or conspiracy theorists. Man's exploitation of resources has exceeded the earth's supply and many species are in a catastrophic decline. The majority of the people live in poverty. Garbage fills the ocean in great swirling patches that entangle and starve oceanic animals. The powerless public is forced to pay for vast military forces and machines, and other instruments which enforce their own capture. And this horrific state of affairs is considered normal, even great.

"Patients with psychopathy are typically described as lacking remorse, callous, grandiose, manipulative, superficially charming, impulsive, and prone to violent and antisocial behavior"

" Extant data suggest that individuals with high levels of psychopathic traits show lower activity in affect‐processing brain areas to emotional/salient stimuli, and that attenuated activity may be dependent on the precise content of the task. They also seem to show higher activity in regions typically associated with reward processing and cognitive control in tasks involving moral processing, decision making, and reward. Furthermore, affective‐interpersonal and lifestyle‐antisocial facets of psychopathy appear to be associated with different patterns of atypical neural activity. "

". When performing the emotion condition test, the group with high levels of psychopathic traits presented significantly less activation in the inferior frontal gyrus, medial prefrontal cortex, and amygdala and greater activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and primary visual cortex than the group with low levels of psychopathic traits."

"amygdala reactivity to fearful faces was negatively associated with interpersonal traits of psychopathy "

" connections between the striatum and the ventral medial prefrontal cortex were much weaker in people with psychopathy"

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-09-2019

perhaps 60% of the people can tell a psychopath by looking...if they are open to it. But psychopaths are also good at concealing their nature.  The phenotype differences are there, suggesting underlying genetic or epigenetic causes.  Our ability to see or sense these different personalities also reflects our own brain development or deficits.   I actually have difficulty with these morphs below. Perhaps my amygdala is calcified

[Image: 000003-1024x615.jpg]



RE: sociological roots of nukism - Horse - 06-10-2019

Well, I can't tell just by looking at people and the pictures don't give me much to go by. The worst part of it is that psychopaths have a very successful survival strategy. They remain calm in crisis, their deceptions go unchallenged, they've studied human weaknesses to mimic normal behavior and are ruthless in exploiting every advantage. They fool most people quite easily. Tribal groups more readily recognize their psychopathic traits, but they hide easily in larger groups where people don't know each other as well. From the sad state of human affairs, it would seem they've been with us for a very long time.

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-10-2019

The physical manifestation of deviant psychology and biology might be very subtle...or we may be too slow or dull to perceive it.   This makes it interesting.   Are we even capable of seeing our own physical mental and sociological dysfunctions?   I had to stare at this drawing for a long time before I could tell a difference between the three figures.   It made me think....what else could I be missing?   Probably some things that would be obvious to an outsider.

Are we any different than our ancestors?  

[Image: Physical-phenotyping-and-appearance-of-t...ealthy.png]

Ive noticed that many people have a difficulty distinguishing any qualitative differences between current people and ancient peoples and their art.  They are prone to think we have made a great advancement, and that any other condition is worse, even intolerable.  "are you crazy? without coal and nuclear, we would be thrown back into the stone age"

Are our leaders great men and women?   They dont look particularly great.  Are they paragons of human development, refined in character, noble of spirit, inspirational examples of body, mind, philosophy, grace and diplomacy?  They are hailed as great leaders
[Image: 180115183103-20180116-world-leaders-coll...-tease.jpg]

Which way goes the vector of human development?    

A similar authoritarian-submissive embrace was in place 3000 years ago. But human life on earth was different then.   When populations were smaller the age of conquest perhaps made some sense.  At least, we can see its place in the sociological context of other primates.  Rulers were usually great fighting men.   Athletic lives of action enhanced their brain function, even the size of vital brain regions and neural connectivity. They saw firsthand the effects of war.  The dynamic of 'fighting man' is part of our species heritage.  Think of the vikings.   But now we have become more childlike physically, weaker. Society is global.   The contemporary sociological structure of authoritarian ruler-submissive public is a grotesque distortion. More-so than anytime in history.  One only needs to review our capability of death and destruction.   Complex and hidden instruments of money and elite power structure buttressed by absurdly powerful, overwhelming military force have shaped contemporary society into something horrendous.   

[Image: 6038_6bb56208f672af0dd65451f869fedfd9.jpg]

Are we at the peak of civilization?  The peak of health, art, sensibility and reasoning power?  In a civilization about the size of Houston, Tx,  4000 years ago artists were making sculpture and architecture like this.   A leader from 3300 years ago.  About 3100 years before the advent of the coal age and the mighty power of the industrial era.   We must look at the art and its impact.   The ruler was 'idealized' but the art is lasting testimony to an aesthetic and capability of the people.    They had the concept of sublime or idealized archetypes, and the skill and sensitivity to manifest it in art and architecture.    I dont see a great evolution, and to the contrary, there is evidence of devolution. 

[Image: 69f757fcd57e864fff49a3d4006a3257.jpg]

RE: sociological roots of nukism - rthsmth - 06-10-2019


Dysfunction function, what is your junction
Habitual assumption, sleeping dog corruption
Psychopathic ritual, unforeseen permissible
Societal density, bringing forth its encompassing propensity
Money bag boys leading to its institutionalized intensity
Glazed eyes froze caught gazing under the bulldoze
Too late already been told, releasing all holds
Dysfunction junction, extinction is your injunction

RE: sociological roots of nukism - Code - 06-11-2019

Rosalie Bertells comments seem fitting

"At some point or other if we survive, there's going to have to be a massive non-cooperation with our society which is producing death. . . . And if we are ever to break out of the militaristic society that we live in--and that is what I think is our basic aim, because that's what distorting everything--it's going to have to be through an across-the-board non-cooperation effort."

"It's this preoccupation with producing death, and instruments of death and mega-death. This is our root sickness. We're not choosing to live on this planet, we're choosing to kill it. If we're going to turn that around it's going to require massive non-cooperation;"

"So we're in a crisis. I think it's a global crisis. It's manifested differently where you live but it's basically the same crisis. It's the crisis that says, "If I have more weapons, or I'm physically stronger, then I'm in charge and you have to do what I want." That's it. Right through our society whether you talk about rape, you talk about abuse, you talk about despotic rulers, or you talk about nuclear club, it's the same thing: if I'm bigger or I've got more power, therefore I'm in charge, and it just destroys everybody else. . . ."

"According to the BEIR Committee [Bilogical Effects of Ionizing Radiation] 1990 report, a dose of 150 mSv to human male testes will cause temporary sterility, and a single dose of 3.5 Sv will cause permanent sterility. According to the ICRP in 1991, just 5 mSv to the testes will cause damage to offspring -- yet this dose was permitted yearly to members of the public, and ten times more to nuclear workers, in all countries prior to 1990. It continues today to be permitted yearly for nuclear workers in most countries."

"When we summarise those risk estimates, we get 16 cancers, 10 genetic effects and 25 congenital effects for one million exposed to 100 Person Sieverts. The task now is to apply those numbers for the global population from industrial nuclear activities, including weapons testing in the fifties, sixties and early seventies and electricity production from nuclear power over the past half century. When we do this we find that weapons testing has lead to nearly 376 million cancers, 235 million genetic effects and 587 million teratogenic effects to give a total of approximately 1,200 million. Meanwhile, electricity production from nuclear plants between 1943 and 2000 may have lead to another million victims, of which as many one-fifth will have been premature cancer deaths. Although not officially accounted for, about 500 million foetuses would have also been lost as stillbirths during that period from radiation exposure while in the womb."

"Another century of nuclear power, and this carnage would continue with more than 10 million victims a year. An industry which has the potential to kill, injure and maim that number of innocent people -- and all in the name of `benefitting' society -- is surely wholly unacceptable. "

Rosalie Bertell  PhD was the recipient of several awards, including the United Nations  Environment Programme Global 500 award

 From 1969–1978, Bertell was senior cancer research scientist at Roswell Park Cancer Inst.  She was a consultant to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commision, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and to Health Canada.