No all discriminations are not equally oppressive. It is white supremacist to compare the history of oppression of Black people, which includes slavery , Jim Crow and Reaganism , to the social alienation of men who think they are women, nor homosexuals . The instance in Germany is atypical . From the time of Greece and Rome, through British colonialist sailors, homosexuality has been a privilege of upper classes in Europe, a repressing not repressed group. Today homosexual men are very represented in leaders of the Catholic Church , Hollywood/Broadway/Performing Arts bosses and Wall Street. Someone on the other page researched that homosexual men have on average higher income. It's outrageous to compare oppression of gays to oppression of Black people.

American youth cult ; respect your elders There’s a cult of youth in America that makes youth a bit narcissistic and spoiled . Youth does not make one superior to elders, though American elders participate in the youth cult, too !

We need more filial piety as Chinese culture has.

White race riot in DC

Barbarian-Rabble Rouser King may be the Herbert Hoover of the 21st Century

BRICS ! Proletarian Internationalism!

Chinese Revolution: Proletarian Internationalism

yo boy is literally breaking with almost all US ally countries

AI race to what ?

In the global race to build faster and smarter artificial intelligence systems, the word "superintelligence" is often used to describe a future AI that's capable of doing anything the human brain can do.Oct 16, 2024
A modern arms race would likely differ from the Cold War arms race by involving more diverse weapon technologies beyond just nuclear weapons, a wider range of actors participating, increased cyber warfare capabilities, and potentially a greater emphasis on non-kinetic means of coercion, all while potentially being more decentralized and less predictable due to the involvement of emerging powers and rapidly evolving technology.

Key differences:

Weaponry focus: The Cold War arms race primarily centered around nuclear weapons, while a modern arms race could involve a wider range of weapons like advanced conventional missiles, cyber weapons, space-based weaponry, and potentially biological or chemical weapons, depending on the actors involved.

Proliferation of actors: During the Cold War, the arms race was largely confined to the US and USSR, while today, several countries could participate in an arms race, including emerging powers like China and India, potentially creating a more complex dynamic.

Cyber warfare: Modern arms races could see a significant focus on developing and deploying cyber capabilities to disrupt critical infrastructure, steal sensitive data, or influence elections, a dimension largely absent during the Cold War.

Technological advancement: The rapid pace of technological development today means weapons could evolve much faster, making it harder to keep up with potential adversaries.

Non-kinetic strategies: Modern arms races might involve more non-kinetic means of coercion, such as economic sanctions, disinformation campaigns, and political influence operations to destabilize opponents without direct military action.

Potential similarities: Mutual suspicion and competition: Regardless of the specific weapons involved, the underlying dynamic of an arms race remains the same - countries competing to gain military superiority over their rivals due to mistrust and fear.

Escalation concerns: The potential for an arms race to spiral out of control and lead to unintended conflict remains a significant concern in any era.

Male supremacy, greed and war are not in our genes

The male supremacist family, private property (classes; greed), and the state ( special repressive apparatus ) arises as a complex together circa 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. They are still together in a complex that dominates the human species in 2018. Before that for the about 2.5 million years of the Stone Age ( true Civilization) there was gender equivalence, sharing and peace in the species; that's when we were substantially "hardwired " genetically . So, Male supremacy and class divided society and war are not in our genes.

https://youtu.be/ZqnFgp313pc?si=5YXvqU9SsA4rLBkK

Stop claiming King , America.

Martin Luther King’s Dream has not come true ; stop claiming King , America King’s Dream has not come true , but been thwarted and he was assassinated, America . Stop taking credit for King’s speech , America . We’ve been going through the Reaganite racist nightmare, the new racism , for almost 40 years . Trump has turned it into a 24 hour nightmare . https://cnn.it/32dO6XF

Anthropological Psychology THIS IS ANTHROPOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY Survival Of The Nicest? A Theory Of Our Origins Says Cooperation-Not Competition-Is Instinctive CB: Darwin’s principle is actually survival of the _fertile_ in the first place ; the fit may be more fertile . Being nice , cooperative is a better way to be fertile . http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/05/is-human-nature-social-or-selfish-i.html " The decisive battle between early culture and human nature must have been waged on the field of primate sexuality…. Among subhuman primates sex had organized society; the customs of hunters and gatherers testify eloquently that now society was to organize sex…. In selective adaptation to the perils of the Stone Age, human society overcame or subordinated such primate propensities as selfishness, indiscriminate sexuality, dominance and brute competition. It substituted kinship and co-operation for conflict, placed solidarity over sex, morality over might. In its earliest days it accomplished the greatest reform in history, the overthrow of human primate nature, and thereby secured the evolutionary future of the species." — Sahlins, M. D. 1960 The origin of society. Scientific American 203(3): 76–87. http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/05/our-mother-nature-antoinette-blackwell.html Blackwell chose to highlight balance and cooperation rather thanstruggle and savage rivalry. She criticized Darwin for basing his theory of evolution on "time-honored assumption that the male is the normal type of his species".[7] She wrote that Spencer scientificallysubtracts from the female and Darwin as scientifically adds to themale.[6] FIT in the sense of bodily fit for success in the struggle for existence ( the Darwinian term of art for longevity in an individual organism ) surviving , getting enough to eat , not getting eaten , not falling out of a tree or off a cliff , not freezing to death , not overheating to death BEFORE REPRODUCING , BEFORE BEING FERTILE, passing on one’s genes to next generations . In Darwin's theory of natural selection concerning living beings, the "struggle" in the struggle for existence, to live, is not between Individual Selves of the same species to the point of Individual Bodies, somebodies,of the same species killing each other except very rarely. Most of the deaths before passing on genes to the next generation, are due to failures in struggles with some Individual Body of _another_ species.,plant and animal, as predator and prey; or struggle against bad weather, heat exhaustion, sunburn It is easy to see how some people get a misconception of Darwinian natural selection because it _is_ posed in most of it prime formulations with a sort of emphasis on the fact of indirect "competition" in the sense that for the typical bodily form of aspecies to change under Darwin's theory, some members with genes that change species typical traits must more successfully pass them on than members with species typical traits over successive generations untilthe new trait is universal and the old typical trait is extinct. But his does not necessarily or even conventionally imply direct physical conflict between Individuals of the two types but the same species in the day-to-day struggle for existence to survive as Individual Bodies. This is demonstrated by the famous anthropological micro-evolutionary study of sickle cell genes on pages 44 to 46 of _The Essence of Anthropology_. There is no direct physical competition between the people of the various genotypes with different fitnesses in the different environments in the study . It is not an Individual , but a species, a group of the same type who"evolve", "adapt" or "survive". Individuals must live their individual life long enough to reproduce for the species to survive. However, every individual eventually dies. "Survival" of the individual means living long enough to pass on genes or a geno-type to the future generations. If mutated genes, changed geno-type, are passed on, there is a potential unit of evolution between the parent and the offspring. That is evolution occurs between Individuals of different generations, not in one Individual Self. If the mutated genotype results in a phenol-typical trait that is adaptive in some significant way, it may become an evolutionary change by the pecies through several individuals. https://take10charles.blogspot.com/2018/04/male-supremacy-greed-and-war-are-not-in.html?m=1 Male supremacy, greed and war are not in our genes The male supremacist family, private property (classes; greed), and the state ( special repressive apparatus ) arises as a complex together circa 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. They are still together in a complex that dominates the human species in 2018. Before that for the about 2.5 million years of the Stone Age ( true Civilization) there was gender equivalence, sharing and peace in the species; that's when we were substantially "hardwired " genetically . So, Male supremacy and class divided society and war are not in our genes. Sacha : “"In particular, the immunocompetence handicap hypothesis proposes that sexual dimorphism indicates good immune function during development because the sex hormones, particularly testosterone in men, required for the development of sexually dimorphic facial features also taxes the immune system. Therefore, only healthy males can afford the high level of testosterone for the development of sexually dimorphic traits without compromising their survival. Researchers have suggested that a similar mechanism via the effects of oestrogen might also explain male preferences for female femininity." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513820300350” Sacha Quatre Pattes Beautifying the beast hypothesis of female sexual selection of human face : Smaller teeth make more room in the skull for brain . So beautified face with smaller teeth allowed bigger brain . And a smaller face is not as rough a kisser. Thus Genus homo beauties beautified the male "beasts ." We have a historical memory of this in the "Beauty and the Beast " myth, parable , story , in codes form of course, metaphor . Importantly , this is the positive feedback loop causing brain to evolve bigger from Homo habilis to Homo sapiens .Bigger brained individuals are more adapt at culture , especially courting culture . This is the main cause of selection for bigger and bigger brains. Bigger brains get more mating . Thus Blackwell's critique of Darwin and Spencer is correct. Cooperation ( especially between females and males ) and balance drive human evolution , not savage rivalry and competition . Already in Darwin's founding text of physical or biological anthropology , _The Descent of Man_, Darwin steers us away subtitle from "adaption to the environment" to "Sexual Selection !" For with culture, human select their environment rather than their environment selecting them. So, the predominant force in human selection is sexual selection. But Darwin still has a masculinist focus on competition between males for mates; rough and toughness . Antoinette Blackwell's revolutionary critique of Darwin ( in correspondence with Darwin) is that it is the gentlemen who are selected for mating by females, not the rough tough guys ! Human evolution is predominantly Beautifying of the Beast. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sexes_Throughout_Nature Dear Maria, Preparing for class to discuss the conflict between the theory of inheritance of characteristics and the theory of random genetic mutation I thought : 1) Darwin had a) no theory of the cause of variety in a species b) no theory of _how_ characteristics are inherited, 2) Darwin had no conflict with LaMarck on inheritance because Darwin didn't have one . Actually, I don't know that LaMarck had much of one either. 3) Darwin had no variety theory either so no conflict with LaMarck's explanation of variety. 4) Furthermore, LaMarck's was a natural selection theory ! In his famous giraffe example, the giraffes that stretch their necks are selected for by their environment ; stretching the neck is an adaptation . Inheritance of acquired characteristics conflicts with random genetic mutation , discovered post Darwin. Culture as inheritance ( in brain cells, language and memory, instead of gamete cells) of acquired characteristics (not body cells , but extra-somatically , in objective reality) is more efficient adaptive process than genetic mutations that occur randomly relative to the adaptive problem they solve. Because, cultural inventions (acquired by one generation and passed on to the next) are caused by the adaptive problem they solve and do not arise randomly relative to the adaptive problem they solve. Thus, there is the population expansion of homo erectus and then Homo sapiens out of Africa with the origin of culture in the Stone Age. Maybe ? Charles 1) I'm thinking of our culture bearing species as having a LaMarckian-LIKE adaptive ability in that culture allows inheritance of acquired adaptive characteristics by one generation from parent , grandparent and dead generations of the species; acquired by human invention. 2) This creates a Darwinian neo-teleology for Natural History ( replacing the theological teleology with "Man" as the direction toward which natural history tends that Darwin's theory negated); because culture as a LaMarckian-like adaptive process does not depend on a random and coincidental fit between the survival problem posed by the environment and the genetic solution to the problem . What is inherited , extrasomatically, is designed to solve a survival problem posed by the environment . /// On the origin of culture and humanity: Perhaps upright-bipedalism/ ORIGIN OF HANDS was selected for because , NOT BECAUSE HANDS ALLOWED THE INVENTION OF TOOLS FOR HUNTING OR PROCESSING MEAT BUT AS THE FIRST INSTRUMENTS OF LANGUAGE, SOUND MAKERS -MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. So, Homo Habilis had language as music. Also, dancing or body language . Culture ! Culture as communicating symbolically with music was one selective advantage of hands. No stone tools until Homo Habilis because no use for production . But culture originates with hands as sound communication-music. More importantly music conferred mating -courting advantage on the musician . Especially music and dancing. In general , culture bestows all around superior courting skills, manners. They are the original manners. Finally, and perhaps most importantly , erect posture exposes genitalia of both sexes to sight more than on all fours. It is sexier . So, erect posture gives the ultimate selective advantage compared to on all fours: superior differential fertility ! Beautifying the Beast theory of prettifying trend in morphology among hominins ( hominids with hands): Why this trend of reduction of sexual dimorphism , rough and big and protruding faces ? Because human females were the first scientists of genealogical and reproductive physiology ; noticing a correlation between appearance of their children and which male they let fertilize them . Mother Nature selection or Mother as natural selector . With the invention of culture, symbols , naming, phylogenetic kinship (totemism) , humans select their environment; their environment doesn't elect them. With culture , Human evolution in the tool age is sexual selection a la Blackwell (and Darwin in part) This derives theoretically from Antoinette Blackwell's feminist critique of Darwin's masculinism, validated by modern Darwinisms recognition that differential fertility is more important than differential mortality in determining fitness

Trump is attacking the Latino masses literally .

Trump vs Everybody: tariffs on _all_ countries , Canada ! Europe ! Circling the economic wagons which violates the number 1 Freedom of the Bourgeoisie-Free Trade .

Barbarism

Only reason the American racist barbarians are shocked at Chinese superior intelligence is that their racism blinds them to Chinese superior intelligence; in the peaceful competition between Chinese and Americans, the Chinese have the advantage that Americans underestimate them .

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2023/05/blog-post_7.html

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2023/05/at-that-age-my-son-thought-he-was.html

Why original human nature is social , not selfish

Why original human nature is social , not selfish

The first human societies had an extraordinarily high survival need to to rely on each other at levels of solidarity that we cannot even imagine.

The intensity of the network of social connections of a band of 25 to 50 people living in the ecological food chain location of very fierce predators would almost constitute a new level of organic organization and integrity above individual bodies; ancient kinship/culture systems were super-organic bodies; the human social group was a highly harmonious multi-individual Body, "organism". The Individual human bodies, all of the Some Bodies, were very frail and weak relative to the field of predators they were escaping. Up-right posture made them slower runners in escape sprints, too!

The dominance of the food chain that humans ultimately reached even in the Stone Age could be reached only by super-social, super internally-cooperative, super-intra-species harmony, because they had relatively_frail_ individual bodies, and needed each other's support. It is clear to me that natural selection picked hominin groups with policies of "love thy neighbor as thyself " and "charity" over those that might have derived principles of "selfishness and greed", if there were any in the Stone Age before Civilization. Institutionalized war would have been selected against severely . And there was no material wealth to take in "war." ( See eminent anthropologist, Marshall Sahlins "Original Affluent Society " essay ).

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2023/05/blog-post_40.html

Working Class has won all its reforms through the Democratic Party for the last 90 years FDR, LBJ, Obama. There is a genuine class struggle in the DP; it's not utterly dominated by the Bourgeoisie like the Republican Party . US Working masses don't go for 3rd Parties ever since Socialist Party of 20's, Progressive Party of 40's vote percentage has been low and falling Campaign for Democratic votes everyday some kinda way like your life depends on it because it really does. Abolish the fascist Republican Party; vote

War is a Racket ; Cold War was about Military Industrial Complex profits

War is a Racket https://youtu.be/74wrX8rKtzw

See the Military-Industtial Complex

Military–industrial complex Article Talk Language Watch Edit The expression military–industrial complex (MIC) describes the relationship between a country's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy.[1][2][3][4] A driving factor behind the relationship between the military and the defense-minded corporations is that both sides benefit—one side from obtaining weapons, and the other from being paid to supply them.[5] The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the armed forces of the United States, where the relationship is most prevalent due to close links among defense contractors, the Pentagon, and politicians.[6][7] The expression gained popularity after a warning of the relationship's detrimental effects, in the farewell address of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961.[8][9]

Conceptually, it is closely related to the ideas of the iron triangle in the U.S. (the three-sided relationship between Congress, the executive branch bureaucracy, and interest groups) and the defense industrial base (the network of organizations, facilities, and resources that supplies governments with defense-related goods and services).[10][11] Etymology

edit In his farewell address, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned U.S. citizens about the "military–industrial complex".

( CB: Straight from the Horse's Mouth) Duration: 15 minutes and 31 seconds.15:31 Eisenhower's farewell address, January 17, 1961. The term military–industrial complex is used at 8:16. Length: 15:30 U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower originally coined the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:[12]

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction... This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together. [emphasis added]

The phrase was thought to have been "war-based" industrial complex before becoming "military" in later drafts of Eisenhower's speech, a claim passed on only by oral history.[13] Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version to appease the then-currently elected officials.[14] James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by any evidence; likewise a claim by Douglas Brinkley that it was originally "military–industrial–scientific complex".[14][15] Additionally, Henry Giroux claims that it was originally "military–industrial–academic complex".[16] The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos.[17] The MIC and the Cold War
The MIC and the Cold War edit Attempts to conceptualize something similar to a modern "military–industrial complex" did exist before 1961, as the underlying phenomenon described by the term is generally agreed to have emerged during or shortly after World War II.[18] For example, a similar phrase was used in a 1947 Foreign Affairs article in a sense close to that it would later acquire, and sociologist C. Wright Mills contended in his 1956 book The Power Elite that a democratically unaccountable class of military, business, and political leaders with convergent interests exercised the preponderance of power in the contemporary West.[14][19][20]

However, following its coinage in Eisenhower's address, the MIC became a staple of American political and sociological discourse. Many Vietnam War–era activists and polemicists, such as Seymour Melman and Noam Chomsky employed the concept in their criticism of U.S. foreign policy, while other academics and policymakers found it to be a useful analytical framework. Although the MIC was bound up in its origins with the bipolar international environment of the Cold War, some contended that the MIC might endure under different geopolitical conditions (for example, George F. Kennan wrote in 1987 that "were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military–industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented.").[21] The collapse of the USSR and the resultant decrease in global military spending (the so-called 'peace dividend') did in fact lead to decreases in defense industrial output and consolidation among major arms producers, although global expenditures rose again following the September 11 terror attacks and the ensuing global war on terror, as well as the more recent increase in geopolitical tensions associated with strategic competition between the United States, Russia, and China.[22]

Eras edit Some sources divide the history of the United States military–industrial complex into three distinct eras.[23]

First era edit From 1797 to 1941, the U.S. government only relied on civilian industries while the country was actually at war. The government owned their own shipyards and weapons manufacturing facilities which they relied on through World War I. With World War II came a massive shift in the way that the U.S. government armed the military. With the onset of World War II, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the War Production Board to coordinate civilian industries and shift them into wartime production. Throughout World War II arms production in the U.S. went from around one percent of annual GDP to 40 percent of GDP.[23] Various U.S. companies, such as Boeing and General Motors, maintained and expanded their defense divisions.[23] These companies have gone on to develop various technologies that have improved civilian life as well, such as night-vision goggles and GPS.[23] Second era

edit The second era is identified as beginning with the coining of the term by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower. This era continued through the Cold War period, up to the end of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union. A 1965 article written by Marc Pilisuk and Thomas Hayden says benefits of the military–industrial complex of the U.S. include the advancement of the civilian technology market as civilian companies benefit from innovations from the MIC and vice versa.[24] In 1993, the Pentagon urged defense contractors to consolidate due to the fall of communism and a shrinking defense budget.[23]

Third (current) era edit A pie chart showing global military expenditures by country for 2019, in US$ billions, according to SIPRI. Note that this is not shown as a percentage of GDP. In the third era, U.S. defense contractors either consolidated or shifted their focus to civilian innovation. From 1992 to 1997 there was a total of US$55 billion worth of mergers in the defense industry, with major defense companies purchasing smaller competitors.[23]


The U.S. domestic economy is now tied directly to the success of the MIC which has led to concerns of repression as Cold War-era attitudes are still prevalent among the American public.[25] Shifts in values and the collapse of communism have ushered in a new era for the U.S. military–industrial complex. The Department of Defense works in coordination with traditional military–industrial complex aligned companies such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Many former defense contractors have shifted operations to the civilian market and sold off their defense departments.[23]

Marxist Theory

Marxist Theory by Charles Brown http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/07/for-womens-liberation-comradely.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/01/panel-presentation-on-engelss-origin-of.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/03/theses-on-humanity_28.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/03/st-on-sex-and-gender-after-marx-in.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/12/materialism-necessity-and-freedom.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/04/ruled-classes-resistance-to.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/08/marxism-and-darwinism.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/03/us-road-to-socialism-is-through.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/04/red-yellow-brown-black-and-white-99ers.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/03/in-imperialism-lenin-proves-marxs.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/03/free-all-caring-and-reproductive-workers.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/04/red-yellow-brown-black-and-white-99ers.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/07/needed-constitutional-amendment-for_4.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/09/history-of-class-struggle-in-us.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/01/marxism-is-human-historical-evolution.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/01/annotation-of-marxs-theses-on-feuerbach.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/11/for-people-owning-too-big-to-fail.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/12/activist-materialism.html http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/12/is-human-nature-social-or-selfish.html

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2024/12/trump-playing-racist-trump-card.html

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2023/05/a-genuine-class-struggle-has-gone-on-in.html

Completing Reaganism

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2023/03/abolish-reaganism.html

Leap in level of lying inventing reality to getting 10’s of millions to believe that the 2020 election was stolen by Dems

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0-IkmzWbjob0rkb9-tZlCvHAKse_HtF6<>

https://youtu.be/xWCMSqdUlEI?si=vMyJubl6nrnT7AxB