Fascists Pargent?
Fascists are pargent like communists in many ways. The extremist route is not the best way to go. For example, why kill people or deport them if you have a hunch about them and nothing more? Nazis think Jews and other immigrants are selfish. However white germans are selfish too, that's why Vikings invaded other countries and literally stole from people (greedy). The white vikings were just as selfish as the supposed Jews.
Killing folks for being selfish (or deporting them) - will reduce the amount of selfish people in your country - but then white germans would have to kill themselves too since they were selfish viking terrorists themselves! Hypocrisy..
Productism
The fastest way to affect people is through products - since everyone consumes them.
Consumers ARE capable of learning - if we use the products that they consume as our communication method.
Devils advocate:
So libertarianism or capitalism is the answer, where you let the free market decide? Ahh, those simple solutions where it's all solved by a general statement... just let the free market decide and it will all work out.
Problem: the free market is slow, and reactive. It could take 2 or 3 years for the market to correct itself. An example is factory farming, which crowds animals together and causes a tonne of suffering, but nobody cares because "I want my meat, and I want it now."
The free market should technically be able to correct the factory farming issue since more and more people have been educated about factory farming horrors. Did the free market fix the problem in 2, 3, or even 5 years? Nope. Therefore logically we conclude that on over simplified free market solves all problems attitude, doesn't seem to work. In theory it seems it could work, so why doesn't it?
The solution to reducing pargence
Would an insightful and intelligent society put a ban on pargent products?
Unfortunately putting a ban on a product may be too abrupt, considering that we are dealing with millions of pargent people that will assume the ban takes away from their "freedom".
We must use their pargence to our advantage. Pargent businesses are worried about their profits more than their insight or intelligence - so use this against them. An insightful or intelligent political party would use pargence to their advantage and fight pargence by being "in the know" of what pargent people like.
Pargent businesses like profits more than they do safety or health of the people - so how can an intelligent and insightful political party stop pargent products from entering the store?
They banned smoking from bars, next comes banning Alcohol
Again, above heading is playing devils advocate...
What will a bar, pub, or tavern be left with if they ban alcohol from being consumed? I always found it alarmingly funny that they banned smoking from bars in several cities, but they didn't ban drinking. An intelligent and insightful society would reduce the number of bars in town and increase the number of juice shops, fresh fruit blenderized shake shops, coffee shops, and similar businesses. Musical bands do not have to serve mainly drunk people - intelligent people listen to music too.
The whole "second hand smoking" issue is a scam. What about second hand drinking? Those folks who drive around drunk are causing second hand drinking. The folks who get killed in car accidents are experiencing second hand alcohol. Frankly I'd rather get lung cancer from second hand smoke when I'm really old - than get killed at the age of 25 in a car accident. My lungs can filter out some of the second hand smoke, along with my nostrils - but my lungs and nostrils cannot filter out a drunk driver behind the wheel.
So why ban smoking from bars, if you aren't going to ban drinking? Hmm, they tried banning drinking once, and that didn't work. Yet banning the smoking, appears to have worked somewhat. Strange. Not too many people have a big problem with not being able to smoke in bars, but a lot of people would have a huge problem with not being able to drink. Pargence in action. I'm not suggesting banning drinking necessarily (this is all about devils advocate, we don't have the answers entirely).
Let me play devil's advocate for a bit..
If stupid selfish people visit bars - isn't it actually a good thing that people are getting lung cancer inside bars from second hand smoke? Don't we want to kill those people off anyway? In fact - if stupid people choose to smoke, isn't it good that the smoke eventually kills them - since they chose to be stupid? Nope because we were born a certain way, not our fault. We didn't choose nothin'.
The problem is that medical care spends so much money on these smokers/drinkers when they have to visit the hospital. So no, it is not good that smoking kills people, and no, it is not good that drinking is toxic to the organs. Banning smoking from bars may have been better than not banning it - but it still raises the question - why didn't they ban drinking? What would they sell?
Capitalism always raises the question.. "but what products can we sell". There are ways for pubs and taverns to exist without alcohol.. I know a lot of people who would spend $5.00 on a mango/strawberry drink, or if the person thinks that is a drink for wussies, then one could always buy a $3.00 coffee, decaf if at night. These people would still listen to music. So why do bands/bars/taverns continue to sell to stupid drunk people when they don't have to? For the same reason that cigarette companies have been selling cigarettes to filthy stinky people - we are born with genetics that cause us to be drunk, pargent, smoking fools.
Coffee with sugar is pargent, but Coke is more pargent
Drinking black coffee or black tea isn't all that bad - but when you add sugar it starts to rob the body of nutrients. However, coke is worse. Coke contains corn syrup and sugar - plenty more times of nutrient robbing ingredients than coffee or tea does. Educating the community that drinking black tea or coffee is healthier than drinking cold sugar loaded coke would be on the todo list of a non-pargent society. A pargent society would continue to advertise coke if it was profitable - even if toxic to society in the long run. A pargent society would continue to advertise and market cigarettes even if it was toxic to society in the long run.
I mention coffee/coke/pepsi/tea on this page because I'm a programmer and a lot of the people reading this page are programmers who drink coke. Since people are looking for a caffeine fix, I urge people to choose black coffee or creamed coffee (without sugar) instead of choosing coke.
It would be nice if people could kick the caffeine habit altogether, since I personally have found I can stay up without it - however a non-pargent society understands that compromises must be made - you can't just stop everyone from drinking coffee because you have a hunch that coffee is bad for people. Nazis would put all coffee drinkers and coke drinkers in concentration camps and deport them... what a silly idea.
I do not like the programming language name "Java" because it implies that coffee really does help one program software. Ironically, I quote from Bill Joy at the top of this page - even though I don't agree with his companies choice of programming language name (Java = Coffee).
So an extremist society would kill anyone who drinks coke and coffee. That is not the solution. An intelligent society would prioritize first.
What's this got to do with politics
A reader might be wondering why coffee, drinking, and programming late at night have anything to do with politics. Humans are consumers. Our life revolves around consuming goods. Now do you understand? Consumer goods play a bigger role in our society than anything else. Consumer goods are how every business makes a profit in a capitalist society. You are what you eat. If you consume pargent products, they will have an affect on you. You will become pargent.
It should be published on cigarette packages and booze bootles:
You are an idiot for choosing this product because
you'll get lung cancer and kill someone behind the wheel.
Or maybe you're just pargent.
Christopher Hitchens was very intelligent but smoked cigarettes like a chimney and drank like a fish... was he pargent?
How do we solve the problem of overpopulation?
I once had a discussion with my family about why the world would be happier if we simply stopped all our efforts on recycling/reusing/saving and simply decreased the population. Do we murder people? No. Some political parties feel it is as simple as going to war and shooting people to reduce the population. Darwin theory - the strongest survive. War would cause less people to live. Unfortunately war also causes pollution and wasted efforts on developing missiles and bombs instead of developing other more important things. There is no overnight solution to solve the over-population problem - but an intelligent and insightful society would definitely recognize overpopulation as a problem - and not deny it.
The main problem with overpopulation is a catch 22. If you have lots of population, it encourages more Einsteins, Richard Feyman's, and other geniuses to exist due to probability. The more kids you have, the more probable a genius is born who can fix the world.
Doctors, Dentists, & Homeopaths are all Pargent
Many folks side with the medical doctors, others side with naturopaths and homeopaths. All of them are Pargent. Most doctors make their living off drugs and surgeries, while most naturopaths make their living off selling pills with nothing in them. Don't side with either of them - side with neither! Be skeptical of all medical health claims.
On the positive side, there are doctors out there who are are not completely unreasonable and who are not just out to sell pills and drugs - there are less pargent doctors out there.
Don't believe anyone who is an extreme doctor, and don't believe anyone who is an extreme naturopath. Don't believe anyone who is an extreme holistic. Extremists are often wrong because they have a hunch about something.
Extremism unfortunately creates a lot of profits - if you believe your own bull shit enough, then you can sell items like hot cakes. Homeopathy is extreme bull shit, and it sells well. It is pargent.
Fluroride: the Medical/Holistic War
According to almost any naturopath fluoride is a toxin and should be banned. According to a doctor fluoride is a life saver and should be worshiped.
A non-pargent person (an intelligent person) would look at all the details and not be an extremist like naturopaths and doctors are (and thankfully there are some doctors out there who aren't extreme and who are not pargent).
Adding fluoride to water is a great idea if you see a study done that fluoride increases bone/teeth strength, right?
Removing fluoride from water is a great idea if you see a study done that fluoride causes bones to be brittle and you see studies that fluoride can cause pain, right?
So here you have these wars going on - the doctors saying that fluoride is a life saver and the naturopaths saying that fluoride is a toxic killer. Who is right?
One interesting thing about Tea (which a lot of people drink) is that it contains fluoride. Since most of the world drinks tea - it is likely that these people who drink tea are getting too much fluoride - they are getting it in the water, plus they are getting it in the tea.
(see also this tea and fluoride related article)
Fluoride is not toxic in small amounts - so those who do not drink tea can probably benefit from having a small amount of fluoride added to water.
However those who already drink tea, do not need more fluoride in their water - and dentists and doctors should know very well that a lot, a huge lot of people drink tea. They should take this into consideration before deciding that fluoride is a life saver and should be added to ALL drinking water, no matter how much tea that person already drinks.
At the same time, homeopaths and naturopaths should not go about saying that all fluoride in any amount is TOXIC. That is just rubbish. So both doctors and naturopaths are pargent - simply because they aren't looking at the whole picture.
The Common Business
Another example of partial intelligence can be seen in many businesses. A business may be able to make thousands of dollars worth of sales. This business may show signs of intelligence because of their success shown by profits. But are they intelligent in an overall sense, if they are lying to customers, hyping, selling items they do not believe in?
Take a health food store as an example where many bull shit products are sold that do virtually nothing, while they still sell other products that are perfectly valid. Pargent? Definitely.
Businesses selling and hyping canola oil
(see also this fine Canada Crapola Canola page. Note: I find Alan Graham a bit too extreme on the Holistic side - however many of his points are valid)
Businesses hype and lie about Canola oil - it is heavily promoted as a healthy non-saturated/unsaturated vegetable oil - it is used heavily in cooking and frying. Canola oil grows in COLD CLIMATES for a reason. Just as fish swim in COLD icy oceans for a reason - and this is why fish have omega oils in them. Coconuts grow in HOT temperatures for a reason.
Gee let's use some common sense here - HOT oils should be used for cooking and COLD oils should be used for.. salads. Yet the cold oil, CANOLA, is recommended for frying! And Canola is used for roasted nuts, roasted potato chips... restaurant frying! Why is Canola oil, the COLD oil, used for FRYING? Because it is cheap. Pargent people - purchase CHEAP - not intelligent solutions. If PLASTIC or POISON was cheaper than CANOLA OIL, then PARGENT people would cook your food in PLASTIC and POISON.
The folks that live in countries that only eat coconut day after day are healthy people. Yet continually companies promote canola oil as the solution to the future - and the government and doctors promote coconut as an unsafe fat. But what about the fact that Canola oil is Omega three fatty acid - and Omega three fatty acid's are not too be cooked according to studies done on Omega three Flax oil? It doesn't matter - what is more important is that the company profit!
It is much easier to promote canola oil, in a pargent society - even if the canola oil isn't healthy. Now, if studies were done proving that canola oil was healthy - then I'd be happy to cook my flax oil too - who's ever recommended cooking flax oil? People in the health food store would laugh at you if you bought a bottle of flax oil and cooked it - yet these same people that are laughing are the ones who buy Organic Corn Chips that are cooked in Canola oil, an oil that has similar properties to Flax oil.
Canola oil has more Vitamin E in it after it has been refined... Imagine if White Sugar had more Vitamin C in it after it was extracted from Beets and Sugar Cane.. Imagine the hype Rogers Sugar would be tossing to us. Just because Canola oil has more Vitamin E in it after it has been refined - does not mean that all the unstable rancid fats that also come with the added Vitamin E are safe.
That gets me to my next point. Organic food. It's great that I can buy organic corn chips - but if these organic corn chips have cooked canola oil in them, and the organic zealots claim that cooking flax oil is silly - why are these organic corn chips cooked in an oil which shouldn't be cooked, according to the people eating the chips? The people eating the chips and producing the chips are pargent - they are promoting organic food because organic is a hype - when in fact the cooked canola oil they are ingesting may be more toxic than non-organic corn. An anti-pargent (intelligent) person looks at all sides of the story - not just a portion of it.
Insight Activists see partial intelligence in all sorts of aspects of current political and economic systems. If you see partial intelligence in every day life, and you make an effort, or you want to make an effort to help people reduce partial intelligence, you will probably be interested in Insight Activism.
The phrase 'partial intelligence' should be shortened into one single word, so that it is easier for people to remember (and other benefits). When I coined the phrase "Partial Intelligence" I couldn't find a word in the English language that fit the description, so it is highly possible that there just is no single word yet, to describe this occurrence.
We have a concrete idea and definition about what "partial intelligence" is, but if there is no word yet to describe it, how are people going to find out about this occurrence easily? Using "partial intelligence" in sentences is harder than just having one word to describe it.
It is possible that one of the reasons that partial intelligence is so common, is that people can not point it out easily. They simply don't have a word to describe it! However, this is optimistic. i.e. once we have a word to describe this occurrence, will this help us significantly squash the problems of partial intelligence?
Possible words we can create to describe "Partial Intelligence":
-Partingence
-Parligence
-Partelligence
-Pargence
-Pintelligence
-Partellect
-Parintel
-Parintell
-Semitelligence
-Semitellect
|
