When I think of Mormon thought or behavioural control, I'm reminded of two things: The classic ST:TOS episode "Return Of The Archons" and domestic surveillance in totalitarian countries like Nazi Germany, East Germany (DDR), Soviet Russia, etc. Both the Nazi era Gestapo and the East German Stasi relied on networks of informers and Party block wardens to spy on people. "Return Of The Archons" featured a 19th century looking society on another planet run by a computer controlling mysterious "lawgivers" that brainwashed people in temples. (There's also a Baccanalian style "festival" that seems to be a reference to the Amish Rumspringa.)

##########

"STASI" (2007)
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7w9yes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_the_Archons


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo#:~:text=The%20majority%20of%20Gestapo%20informers,other%20people%20to%20the%20Gestapo.


Contrary to popular belief, the Gestapo was not the all-pervasive, omnipotent agency in German society.[113] In Germany proper, many towns and cities had fewer than 50 official Gestapo personnel. For example, in 1939 Stettin and Frankfurt am Main only had a total of 41 Gestapo men combined.[113] In Düsseldorf, the local Gestapo office of only 281 men were responsible for the entire Lower Rhine region, which comprised 4 million people.[114] "V-men", as undercover Gestapo agents were known, were used to infiltrate Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and Communist opposition groups, but this was more the exception than the rule.[115] The Gestapo office in Saarbrücken had 50 full-term informers in 1939.[115] The District Office in Nuremberg, which had the responsibility for all of northern Bavaria, employed a total of 80–100 full-term informers between 1943 and 1945.[115] The majority of Gestapo informers were not full-term employees working undercover, but were rather ordinary citizens who chose to denounce other people to the Gestapo.[116]

According to Canadian historian Robert Gellately's analysis of the local offices established, the Gestapo was—for the most part—made up of bureaucrats and clerical workers who depended upon denunciations by citizens for their information. Gellately argued that it was because of the widespread willingness of Germans to inform on each other to the Gestapo that Germany between 1933 and 1945 was a prime example of panopticism.[117] The Gestapo—at times—was overwhelmed with denunciations and most of its time was spent sorting out the credible from the less credible denunciations.[118] Many of the local offices were understaffed and overworked, struggling with the paper load caused by so many denunciations.[119] Gellately has also suggested that the Gestapo was "a reactive organisation...constructed within German society and whose functioning was structurally dependent on the continuing co-operation of German citizens".[120]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi


The Ministry for State Security, (German: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, pronounced [minɪsˈteːʁiʊm fyːɐ̯ ˈʃtaːtsˌzɪçɐhaɪ̯t]; abbreviated as "MfS") commonly known as the Stasi (German: [ˈʃtaːziː] ⓘ), an abbreviation of Staatssicherheit, was the state security service of East Germany (the GDR) from 1950 to 1990.


The Stasi's function in East Germany resembled that of the KGB in the Soviet Union - it served as a means of maintaining state authority, i.e., as the "Shield and Sword of the Party" (German: Schild und Schwert der Partei). This was accomplished primarily through the use of a network of civilian informants. This organization contributed to the arrest of approximately 250,000 people in East Germany.[3]


###########

So, no-one expected the German Gestapo.

No one expected the Monty Python reference.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Yes, the Mormon church relies on all those busybodies who wear down the carpet to the bishop's office after every SS lesson. Welcome to our world.

During Red China's one-child period (no pun intended), older women were recruited to monitor fertile women's menstrual cycles to make sure every prohibited baby was aborted.

Babies do not get aborted.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Babies do not get aborted.

Rewriting the dictionary again? The word "baby" doesn't just refer to children who have been born.

You're the one who is rewriting the dictionary.

The OED, the Cambridge Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster all limit "baby" to post-birth. That's the standard meaning.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're the one who is rewriting the dictionary.
>
> The OED, the Cambridge Dictionary, and
> Merriam-Webster all limit "baby" to post-birth.
> That's the standard meaning.

The dictionary definitions we're familiar with: First stage - a fertilized egg is called an 'embryo' up until the end of 10 weeks gestation when it is then termed a 'fetus' up until birth.

Other terms I've seen are "unborn offspring" or "unborn young".

The closest description to "baby" I've seen is one definition on a Net look-up that calls a fetus "a developing human".

So it's officially not considered a baby until birth occurs.

However, outside the dictionary, in hospital and medical practices I've worked in, during prenatal check-ups we always referred to "the baby". The parents certainly did.

In the sad event of a fetal death, medical staff and mothers referred to "losing the baby".

So my point is that it's not so weird to think of the developing fetus as a baby, especially once the woman is close to giving birth and the fetus is only days or hours from taking its first breath.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2023 03:35PM by Nightingale.

Yes, in everyday parlance. But Mr. Tat Tat was making a claim about the formal dictionary definition.

I simply pointed out that his claim was incompatible with the best dictionaries. In short, he was again portraying reality not as it is but as he wishes it would be.

"Red China" isn't really apposite.

The once-child policy was adopted in 1979 as part of Deng Xiaoping's rejection of communism and adoption of capitalism. "It's glorious to get rich" was the mantra he and his colleagues chanted. So "red" is anachronistic, a reference to past models of governance.

Over the last decade Beijing has reversed course on political liberation but not on capitalism. Why? Because the rejection of communism left the government's legitimacy solely dependent on GDP and rising living standards, and the Chinese economy was decelerating. Xi Jinping read that as requiring a reassertion of central control; China since then has moved dramatically in the direction of capitalist authoritarianism, which is more fascist than communist. There's little "red" left in the country.

Which is why today's China--rich and aggressive--is a greater threat to the West than it was when it was poor and aggressive.

The PRC is Communist, not Fascist. Its orientation is towards internationalism and it still funds far left movements on multiple continents. Marxism-Leninism is still taught in schools all over the PRC. Its colossal social credit and facial recognition databases are classic Communist control tactics updated for the modern day. They are certainly not capitalist. Then there are the Five Year Plans which still dominate the PRC's direction. Many of its worst ideas are being exported or copied by other countries. All the 2030 deadlines we see in the west are a direct copy.

The only genuinely Fascistic thing about the PRC is that it attempts to merge the corporate and the state, which is how Mussolini defined his own doctrine.

What the PRC is going through just now is a giant extended version of Lenin's New Economic Policy. It allows them to acquire money and develop their infrastructure before returning to an even more repressive and totalitarian system. We are now facing a PRC which is leveling up its military and influencing the direction of western corporations and colleges. The west in turn has made its concentration camps profitable manufacturing bases and turned a blind eye for the contempt the so called PRC has for the peoples of China.

Here we go again: the man who doesn't understand Malthus, Orwell, modern finance, or the definition of "baby" attempts another tour down Lunatic Lane.


-------------------------------------------------------
> Its orientation
> is towards internationalism and it still funds far
> left movements on multiple continents.

There are two falsehoods in that. First, you try to portray "internationalism" as communist, which is food for plants. Then you assert, without facts, that China funds leftist movements "on multiple continents."

Prove your point. What "leftist" movements is Beijing funding? And please be sure that they are actually "leftist" as opposed to "movements I dislike."


--------------
> Marxism-Leninism is still taught in schools all
> over the PRC.

False. You cannot document that.


--------------
> Its colossal social credit and
> facial recognition databases are classic Communist
> control tactics updated for the modern day.

What a foolish thing to say. In a thread on Stasi, you pretend that information technology is a problem of the left.


--------------
> They are certainly not capitalist.

If you say it, it must be true. George Winston was a Soviet, Malthus was arguing for government intervention, and China is not capitalist.

Think about how ridiculous that is. Communist states have terrible records of economic growth. China is a country that has achieved greater absolute economic growth than any country in history. Yet you claim the PRC achieved that with a system that you acknowledge does not work.


------------
> Five Year Plans which still dominate the PRC's
> direction. Many of its worst ideas are being
> exported or copied by other countries. All the
> 2030 deadlines we see in the west are a direct
> copy.

Prove it.


---------------
> The only genuinely Fascistic thing about the PRC
> is that it attempts to merge the corporate and the
> state, which is how Mussolini defined his own
> doctrine.

That is the point I made and that you are attempting to rebut. Did you forget?


-------------
> What the PRC is going through just now is a giant
> extended version of Lenin's New Economic Policy.

Oh, so Stalin's NEP worked for the USSR and is now working for China. How do you reconcile that with your presumption that communism is an economic faiure?


--------------
> It allows them to acquire money and develop their
> infrastructure before returning to an even more
> repressive and totalitarian system. We are now
> facing a PRC which is leveling up its military and
> influencing the direction of western corporations
> and colleges.

Pretty good for a communist state, one would think. You seem to think very highly of communism.


--------------
> The west in turn has made its
> concentration camps profitable manufacturing bases
> and turned a blind eye for the contempt the so
> called PRC has for the peoples of China.

True. And irrelevant to whether today's China is communist or fascist.

"PRC is Communist, not Fascist." .... The CCP implementation of "Communism" is indeed fascist.

The definition of communism is communal ownership of the means of production. The community does not include the state, because communism posits the "withering away" of the state.

No one can adduce a single instance since 1979 and probably much earlier in which any senior Chinese leader has advocated the "withering away" of the state or communal ownership of the means of production. To the contrary, over the last decade the PRC has worked to use China's formidable economy to increase the power of the state, which is a fundamental principle of fascism.

This isn't a question of fascist "implementation" of communism but rather the wholesale abandonment of communism.

  
  
  

That's where they converge. Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot: all of them believed that there was only one man with a vote.

Much as in North Disneyland.

  
  
  

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's where they converge. Mussolini, Hitler,
> Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot: all of them believed that
> there was only one man with a vote.
>
> Much as in North Disneyland.

All of these leaders claimed that they were acting in the interests of "the people."

It is worth pointing out that more democratic countries have a similar problem. We have rulers who are groomed from a young age through:
* attending the right colleges – Ivy League, Johns Hopkins, certain west coast colleges (Berkeley, Stanford) Oxbridge, Sorbonne and other elite schools. This is common in our society and is oligarchy not democracy.
* going through the right programs – Rhodes Scholarships, the Young Global Leader program and so on. This is similar to Plato's Philosopher Kings except the result is anything but.
* positive coverage by "trusted media'
* working and being paid by certain rich interests. This is plutocracy not democracy. (One often finds politicians have deferred payment, i.e. that nice juicy, well paid job comes years after they've done all those favors while in office.)

We put a mark in a box every few years and then whoever is put into power takes that as a license to impose programs that the public did not ask for. The 2030 project is to impose ideas and persuade the general public to lower living standards and give away civil rights. Not to consult the public and then implement, as should happen in a democracy.

So foolish.


-------------
> All of these leaders claimed that they were acting
> in the interests of "the people."

You don't like "the people?" Is not democracy rule by "the people? Do you dislike democracy?


------------
> It is worth pointing out that more democratic
> countries have a similar problem. We have rulers
> who are groomed from a young age through:
> * attending the right colleges – Ivy League,
> Johns Hopkins, certain west coast colleges
> (Berkeley, Stanford) Oxbridge, Sorbonne and other
> elite schools. This is common in our society and
> is oligarchy not democracy.
> * going through the right programs – Rhodes
> Scholarships, the Young Global Leader program and
> so on.

So you think people who go to good schools "and so on" are like Pol Pot. That's a brilliant insight and I thank you for it. I would never have learned that from "conventional intellectuals," meaning people who know what they are talking about.


--------------
> We put a mark in a box every few years and then
> whoever is put into power takes that as a license
> to impose programs that the public did not ask
> for.

You disapprove of representative democracy. We knew that. Because it's run by people like Pol Pot, who is a Platonic sage king, which is your job.


--------------
> The 2030 project is to impose ideas and
> persuade the general public to lower living
> standards and give away civil rights. Not to
> consult the public and then implement, as should
> happen in a democracy.

That's just your Trotsky of the moment. It will go the way of Orwell, Malthus, the Frankfurt school, and the War on Cash as soon as you realize how foolish it is.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The definition of communism is communal ownership
> of the means of production. The community does
> not include the state, because communism posits
> the "withering away" of the state.
>
> No one can adduce a single instance since 1979 and
> probably much earlier in which any senior Chinese
> leader has advocated the "withering away" of the
> state or communal ownership of the means of
> production. To the contrary, over the last decade
> the PRC has worked to use China's formidable
> economy to increase the power of the state, which
> is a fundamental principle of fascism.
>
> This isn't a question of fascist "implementation"
> of communism but rather the wholesale abandonment
> of communism.

Marx is a false prophet masquerading as a philosopher. His followers are absolutists under the delusion that they are following scientific methods so the ends justify the means. (The means are brutality). It's "my way or the highway" under Marxist rule. This strengthens the state instead of making it wither in reality.

ALWAYS look at the reality of Marxism not just the theory. The theory is self-defeating, the reality is unpleasant in every serious attempt to implement it. Even more repulsive is the idea that it needs to be implemented worldwide before this utopia can happen, because by then it will be too late to oppose the reality of what it results in.

There is no private property in the PRC, only the illusion of it. The CCP can take it off you at will. You may pay money for a home or an item but it still doesn't belong to you. It – and you – are property of the state, which is run by what proclaims itself to be a worker's committee.

Oh and by the way, in the PRC, you'll see plenty of propaganda to this day speaking about workers, equity, social justice and the like. These are the mantras the CCP and other similar organizations use to sell their program to the naive.

What--you don't like communism anymore? Just yesterday you were telling us that China is communist and hence that communism was responsible for China's unprecedented economic performance. But today you're not praising communism anymore.

One gets dizzy.


---------------
> Marx is a false prophet masquerading as a
> philosopher. His followers are absolutists under
> the delusion that they are following scientific
> methods so the ends justify the means. (The means
> are brutality). It's "my way or the highway" under
> Marxist rule. This strengthens the state instead
> of making it wither in reality.

More clumsy sleight of hand. Tit Tot was whining about communism. I showed that he was off the mark. Now he switches to Marxism, hoping to avoid his previous contradictions, and then embraces my point about China using economic growth to strengthen rather the state rather than letting it "wither away."

They say imitation is the greatest form of flattery but sometimes it's just embarrassing.


-------------
> ALWAYS look at the reality of Marxism not just the
> theory. The theory is self-defeating, the reality
> is unpleasant in every serious attempt to
> implement it.

Listen, Mr. Tot, it is I who am constantly looking at what governments do rather than what they say. It is you who ties himself in knots by insisting China is communist rather than capitalist and then having to defend the implication that communism works better than capitalism. That you would now suggest that I pay attention to actions rather than words is ridiculous.


-------------
> Even more repulsive is the idea that
> it needs to be implemented worldwide before this
> utopia can happen, because by then it will be too
> late to oppose the reality of what it results in.

There you go again: nightmares of centuries past. You can't name a modern Marxist state because there is none. You cannot even name a purportedly communist state that preaches global revolution because none do. You're caught in your paranoid nightmares, blind to the realities of policy and bitter that you don't get to run things.


-------------
> There is no private property in the PRC, only the
> illusion of it. The CCP can take it off you at
> will. You may pay money for a home or an item but
> it still doesn't belong to you. It – and you –
> are property of the state, which is run by what
> proclaims itself to be a worker's committee.

More plant food. Property rights in every country are contingent. Your property may be taken through eminent domain, regulatory changes, confiscation for crimes, taken by suit, or requisitioned through taxes. The differences are of degree and not kind. You just don't understand that.


-------------
> Oh and by the way, in the PRC, you'll see plenty
> of propaganda to this day speaking about workers,
> equity, social justice and the like. These are the
> mantras the CCP and other similar organizations
> use to sell their program to the naive.

You cannot document a single instance of the PRC talking about "equity" or "social justice."

LW's definition of communism is absolutely correct.

Go read Marx and Engels for yourself.

As for the "never going to happen" part, no so-called "Communist" country ever actually claimed they *were* communist. They were socialist governments run by a "dictatorship of the proletariat" etc. attempting to create a communist society in the distant future.

In reality they were like George Orwell's "Animal Farm."

Think of a hunter gatherer tribe or religious colony if you want communism.

Hey, screen name. If you pay close attention to what I have written in this thread or elsewhere, you'll realize that I have never thought communism "was going to happen."

So what's your point?

An in depth learning of how the organization in charge monitors and controls the masses below them.

Hmmmm, this reeks of The Strengthening Church Members Committee and Home Teaching, visiting teaching, personal priesthood interviews, bishop's interviews, etc.

Frightening in so many ways.

When I was on my mission circa 1968, there was an elder in my district who was in better than average shape. He said he had been recruited by BYU Security to wander around the showers at BYU athletic facilities naked to see he he would get hit on by any gay men who happened to make it past BYU's "rigorous screening standards."

He refused the job because he thought it was unethical to try and tempt someone who might be doing his best to "live the commandments."

I suspect that at that age and my state of naiveness, I only had a vague concept that homosexuality even existed, I remember his statement because it shocked me that BYU would do such a thing. Yeah, naive.

In college, my girlfriend's branch president tried to recruit her roommate to rat out people that were not being totally mormon. She said no.

I think my gf and I were his target.

In a close-knit LDS ward and/or stake, it's a good thing if - when those who are inclined to be tattle-tales are known by the rest of the group; a street-smart leader will listen with a grain of salt IF he's doing his job right.

As for a lot of matters, the individual leaders make that determination or not, it's 'leader roulette'

Communists lost 30+ years ago. Sad to see people still defending them.

I've known several people who actually lived behind the Iron Curtain so I know the real deal.

Mormon society and oligarchy is very similar.

Just substitute real walls and prisons for mental and societal ones.

Soviet Russia was a totalitarian regime run by an ossified inner circle who were all suspicious of each other. Modern Russia, China and North Korea don't have socialist collective leadership any more. They have centuries old imperial absolute rule with different labels.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/2023 09:00AM by anybody.

So have I. That is why it is essential that it does not come back again. Even if it dresses itself in rainbows instead of red flags, and academia instead of union reps. Do not be fooled. It is still here.

I don't believe that for an instant. You constantly say things that show a complete lack of comprehension of the situations in Eastern bloc and East Asian socialist states.

I think you know no more nor less than what you see on Fox News during your coffee breaks at the Kwik-E-Mart.

screen name Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Communists lost 30+ years ago. Sad to see people
> still defending them.

Show me where anyone defended communism. I mean other than our friend from the north, who insisted that China's economic miracle--going from 2% of global GDP to 19% over less than 40 years--was due to its communist government. The rest of us have noted that China has been using capitalism for that same 40 years and hence that communism had nothing to do with it.

You understand that, right?

For those who wish to see some of the actual slogans used by the CCP government of the PRC on their posters see here:

https://chinamediaproject.org/2021/04/18/the-ccps-2021-propaganda-blueprint/

Nice attempt at diversion. Getting back on topic, you said that

1) today's China is communist, and

2) communism does not work as an economic system.

Yet over the last 44 years, the PRC economy has grown from 2% of the world economy total to 19%, which is a far superior performance to any other large country in human history. How do you explain that? How did a communist government achieve that?

Because if you can't answer those questions, your claim that China is a communist state that uses communist economic policies will look silly.

There's always been a big difference between what people say and what they actually do -- and this is even more so for governments.

Not even Cuba and North Korea are actually "communist" -- and they never were. They (and other countries like the old East Germany (DDR), Vietnam, etc) were *socialist* countries who kept saying they were trying to achieve true communism in the far distant future.


Both I and LW have tried to tell you this, but for some reason you don't seem to get it.

As for the PRC and ROC, they are different governments who both claim to be the legitimate government of the same territory. This has happened many times in history, and continues to happen.

Again, this has been explained to you several times.


As for slogans, banners, propaganda, "little red books," etc., etc., do you think everyone carrying banners and yelling bombastic propaganda actually believes it? How many times did you proclaim "I know The Church is true" without actually believing it?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2023 06:23PM by anybody.

China is ruled from Taipei just like the two American continents are ruled from Rhode Island and the UK is governed from Gibraltar. I'm not sure why you don't understand that.

I thought the Earth was ruled from Kolob.

"The Lives of Others"

One of the best movies I've ever seen.

It is vital to remember the past to defend ourselves against the slippery slopes of the present. We are much closer to that world than we think.

That was stolen from the Keith Olberman podcast!
LOL

> That was stolen from the Keith Olberman podcast!

That would make Olberman nearly 400 years old.

Group Think led by a charismatic leader who has no accountability, no responsibility, and (his) selection was routine, no real opponent or consideration.


sound familiar?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Group Think led by a charismatic leader who has no
> accountability, no responsibility, and (his)
> selection was routine, no real opponent or
> consideration.
>
>
> sound familiar?

East Germany's leaders were anything but charismatic. Ulbricht and Honecker certainly weren't, nor were most of those under them. Both of them were essentially approved and supported by the USSR an outside power.

The exception was Egon Krenz who came in at the end. But even he had the face of a horse. Krenz tried to copy the usual tropes of western politics – holding babies, doing ordinary things etc. It didn't work and Germany reunited. Some of his colleagues were more successful after the Wall came down.

I went to The Soviet Union in 1975 with my parents and uncle. The Finns in Helsinki begged us to not go because the Soviets could not be trusted. Our greeting was having our train cabins and luggage searched by Soviet Soldiers with an attitude.

I’ve never seen authoritarianism at those levels. What ruled was people being terrified of the government. I also learned even with its iron fist The Soviet Union could not control people. We were constantly hit up by people who wanted to trade medals, belt buckles, antiques for American chewing gum and antiques. Illegal to do but people wanted the American goods. I also learned there were many good people in the Soviet Union who were stuck in a bad system. We experienced acts of kindness from people who could have gotten in trouble for it. One man even got teary eyed in Leningrad and tha I’d us for the help they received for the US during WWII.

So I read all this paranoia about the US becoming an authoritarian state. Some day the religious right will take over. Others say the radical left will. The US is too big and too diverse to be taken over. 70% of Americans can’t name the three branches of government. That’s the real problem. Americans get

played by non stop divide and conquer games and drama. Fear porn.

That’s real problem. Now if the US does fold something else fills the void. There won’t be any US Constitution to go to. You want real authoritarianism, piss what you have here in the US away.

The world is becoming more and more authoritarian. The people doing it think they are helping.

We can at least hope the Elders of Zion will swoop in and save the day when the constitution is hanging by a thread. Kind of like Boyd K Packer's war stories.