[pp.int.general] OFF TOPIC

[Max Moritz Sievers]

Gagis wrote:
> I truly fail to see your point of view on just about any issue. I do not
> know if it is because of the language barrier or what but all of this seems
> extremely absurd to me.
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Max Moritz Sievers wrote:
> > Gagis wrote:
> >> Also, campaigning based on conspiracy theories is a political suicide.
> >
> > Well, for president Bush it worked and for Obama it will work, too.
>
> I do think that if they went for a conspiracy theory, such as moon landings
> never occurring, aliens spying on us or such, they would have been laughed
> out of the game.

The official story of 9/11 is a theory of a conspiracy -- so it is a 
conspiracy theory. Maybe this helps.

And remember *we* are spying on aliens. If there are aliens, they could be 
spying on us, too. Is this so implausible?

> Gagis wrote:
> > > Finnish Party will almost certainly not include either in uniform Party
> > > Program.
> > >
> > > Those two are also up to individual members. Also, there is no issue
> > > about sexuality of babies.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Most of all: Because there isn't. Look at any major media reports and you
> won't see any debates about the sexuality of babies.

Then we should start a debate.

> It's not an issue. Infant means baby.

No and no.

> Humans develop physical sexual ability at the age range of 11-18 years of
> age. Babies are around 1 years old. I see no issue there.

It is BAD practice to take a position on a topic without knowing all the facts 
about it.

| All human beings, from birth until death are sexual beings.
| [...]
| Your child is a sexual being. And as futile as trying to prevent breast
| development and menstruation in females, broadening shoulders and deepening
| voices in males, it is best to help your young person manage new and
| powerful emotions and desires, rather than ignore, manipulate or deny what a
| young person feels.
http://www.youthembassy.com/parents_sexuality.asp

I recommend to study the work of Wilhelm Reich. Maybe a good starting point 
would be "Children of the Future: On the Prevention of Sexual Pathology". But 
I haven't read this book yet. One book I have read an know that it contains 
what is need here is "The Mass Psychology of Fascism".

As Reich put it:

| Suppression of the natural sexuality in the child, particularly of its
| genital sexuality, makes the child apprehensive, shy, obedient, afraid of
| authority, good and adjusted in the authoritarian sense; it paralyzes the
| rebellious forces because any rebellion is laden with anxiety; it produces,
| by inhibiting sexual curiosity and sexual thinking in the child, a general
| inhibition of thinking and of critical faculties. In brief, the goal of
| sexual suppression is that of producing an individual who is adjusted to the
| authoritarian order and who will submit to it in spite of all misery and
| degradation. At first the child has to submit to the structure of the
| authoritarian miniature state, the family; this makes it capable of later
| subordination to the general authoritarian system. The formation of the
| authoritarian structure takes place through the anchoring of sexual
| inhibition and anxiety.

> Sexuality trough genes and psychology of course exists since we are born as
> males and females... but what is the issue and where? Children are not
> forced to hide their gender.

They are forced in several ways. And I'm certain this holds true till today 
and in the future if we don't change it. I don't have to spy in the private 
rooms to know what's going on. If there was no suppression of the sexuality 
(especially of children) the world would look dramatically different. There 
would be no police brutality -- to name just one thing.

> There is nothing preventing children/the young from having sex with each
> other in Finland. Legal age of consent on the other hand, meaning age when
> adults can have sex with the minor, is debatable in the 12-20 range, but I
> am quite happy with it being at 16, since it works well.

If I would ask you, if a 17 year old should be punished, you would presumably 
answer no. Than this law is junk! Laws should be enforced regardlessly. Enact 
the laws accordingly! I am the founder of the law and order wing of the PPDE. 
I solicit for outing yourselves as proponents of law and order, too. Why 
should we accept that the idiots lay claim to this idea?

> If you want to legalize pedophilia, this is not the right political movement
> for you.

Right, because pedophilia *is* legal and never was illegal.

> > > Drugs divide the party when it comes to opinion but it will never
> > > divide the party when it comes to co-operation.
> >
> > You should know that intelligence services profit from the illegal trade.
> > Our
> > demand for privacy will only then fulfilled if all intelligence services
> > are
> > destroyed. Just with this reasoning we have to stop prohibition.
>
> Umm what... 0_o
>
> I do like how our army, which I and most of the adult members of PPFI serve
> in as reserves, is able to monitor invaders in war.

Who should invade? The people? Who do you think is your enemy?

> Destroying intelligence services destroys the military, the police and so
> on.

No, not necessarily. But I want to destroy them, too. As long as there is a 
law, a police is required. But this should be a different police.
  
> Goverment and military agencies are not private businesses who market their
> services to you and rely on there being something to work against.

Where is your argument here?

> > If you want to dictate which drugs other people are allowed to use, you
> > don't value freedom. If you oppress the sexuality of your childs, you
> > don't value freedom. Why do you think the people allow oppression through
> > copyright and constraints of civil liberties?
>
> I like to restrict people's ability to consume various poisons.

Why should they obey to you? You have to force them.

> It is a non-core issue and should not be taken a common
> stance on and it is a dangerous issue that will certainly shift us from the
> party that brings the new idea to everyone to a party than brings the new
> issue to half of the interested people.

Because intelligence services get their power from the black market and our 
goal of privacy and peace can only be attained when there is no intelligence 
service, we should take action against the back market. This is a core issue.

> > | We're playing with half a deck as long as we tolerate that the
> > | cardinals of government and science should dictate where human
> > | curiousity can legitimately send its attention and where it can not.
> > | It's an essentially preposterous situation. It is essentially a civil
> > | rights issue, because what we're talking about here is the repression of
> > | a religious sensibility. In fact, not /a/ religious sensibility, /the/
> > | religious sensibility.
> >
> > -- Terence McKenna: Non-Ordinary States Through Vision Plants
>
> ...

You should contemplate about these wise words.

> > > What you suggest will kill any such initiative immediately. It is not a
> > > coincidence that the Lobby constantly and vigorously tries to associate
> > > file sharing with child porn.
> >
> > Child porn is a side issue. When I call for to stop oppressing the
> > sexuality infants, I don't encourage child porn. There is a relation
> > between child porn and the oppression of the sexuality of infants: it's a
> > vicious circle. This is true for every kind of child abuse. I want to
> > break the cycle. Why shouln't this be a goal of our movement?
>
> What do your really mean with all this? Legalizing pedophilia? Hell no.

You little pervert! It happens all in *your* phantasy.

> Changing attitude of parents who spank their children for being interested
> in the opposite sex? Not the work of a politician.

Sure it is.

> > It's a hot subject and that is why it could profitable for us. It is not
> > reasonable for me to be member of a party which will never be in a
> > parliament. I reckon this will be the case with those core-topic focused
> > Pirate Parties. If they would even so suceed, life would hbe a bit easier
> > or at least we would have a bit more freedom. But then the real problems
> > wouldn't be touched -- and not solved.
>
> Pirate movement is strong BECAUSE people come to our conclusions from all
> sides of political ideologies. Becoming the next haven for fringe movements
> is what would end us.

So you want superficial politics. I don't.

> We work for freedom, not your personal angendas or ideas of it. There is a
> difference beetween a shared goal and someone's private goals, and that is
> why we should not let anyone include theirs in our program. Not me, nor
> you.

A shared goal is the privat goal of more than one individual.

-- 
regards
Max Moritz Sievers