The 10 worst inventions of modern times
Bob has been thinking about the worst inventions in modern life. Sometimes these same inventions have good aspects, but by and large they do more harm than good.
Shrinks also do more harm than good as well as many other inventions. These seem to be the worst 10, in Bob's opinion. If you have any worse suggestions for this list let me know.
1. Lawyers: Evil scum are trained in lies and falsifications intended to abuse the public and raise huge sums form those who are already suffering. Partnered with other lawyers serving as "judges" these scum bayonet the wounded and strip the bodies.
2. The Police State: Legions of brutal enforcers protect and defend government tyranny by any abusive means possible. Under guise of "protection" they take away personal freedom and keep the people looking over their shoulder afraid of committing an "offense" and being destroyed.
3. Prisons: Massive cages for enemies of the state these hell holes are modern concentration camps for any man who crosses the police state domination. Millions of good men rot in these concentration and death camps.
4. Television: Once called "the vast wasteland" television is opium like in its mesmerizing of minds and wasting the lives of people. From the earliest years of life children are placed in front of buzz boxes and their minds diverted from real thought or feeling.
5. Public Schools: The prison for youth, public schools teach subjugation and submission to each new generation. Their lies about teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic are shown to be lies by literacy rates in the US which are lower than before public schools. The public schools are in fact state prisons to confine, dominate, and control the thoughts of subsequent generations.
6. Income Tax: The taxation on personal income robs people of the fruits of their labor and the profits of their wisdom. It is an insidious debasement of families and social structures, forcing the public into dependence on government for basic support that they otherwise could afford.
7. Feminism: The advent and dogma of feminism, no fault divorce, custody, child support, and the wanton destruction of families has been more harmful to more people than any other philosophy in modern times.
8. Female Suffrage: The worst part of feminism, female suffrage pushes governments into caretaker roles without rational checks on their abuse of power. Government decisions have become based on emotions, feelings, and handouts.
9. Monotheism: A fundamental belief of any monotheistic religious teaching is that all other monotheism is wrong. Monotheism has led to millennia of war, famine, death, and suffering, all done for the furtherance of the "one true" religion.
10. Medical monopoly: The medical monopoly has become pretty good at setting broken bones, but they are even better at fleecing the sick and dying. Teamed with the government and the lawyers, sick people are forced to pay or die, and often they die after paying. The government prevents competition with AMA doctors while constantly working to force people to pick up blank check costs for whatever the hell monopoly doctors want to charge. No competition from lower priced doctors is allowed to exist.
Shrinks also do more harm than good as well as many other inventions. These seem to be the worst 10, in Bob's opinion. If you have any worse suggestions for this list let me know.
posted by Bob | Wednesday, January 17, 2007
32 Comments:
Though many of the inventions you mention are not so "modern", I strongly agree that they all have done much more harm than good. Another evil monopoly, that is the bane of hard-working men who endeavor to save a portion of their earnings for the future benefit of their families, and that belongs on your list, IMHO, is the secretly controlled, politically connected, elitist cartel of central banks, such as our Federal Reserve (which is neither “federal” nor a “reserve”) and their evil off-spring: fiat currencies. For good reasons, America's founding fathers (except for the arrogant Alexander Hamilton) generally advised against the creation of a central bank and wisely stipulated in the Constitution that only gold and silver should function as our nation’s money. Because gold and silver are fungible (or has the same quality everywhere and can be divided into smaller units with no loss of that quality) and have intrinsic value as tangible commodities, they do very well as a reliable store of wealth, medium of exchange, and unit of account. Their authenticity and weight are relatively easy to verify. Obviously, this Constitutional provision, like most others, has been ignored or vilified (as with the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms) or simply gutted by executive edict and judiciary ignorance. BTW, I distinguish between fiat currency - of which the US Dollar or Federal Reserve Note, to be precise, is an onerous example - and paper certificates which are 100% backed by an appropriate precious metal, such as gold, silver, and, more recently, palladium and platinum. These certificates can sometimes be more convenient than metal coins in the everyday marketplace.
Set into motion during the Wilson Administration by a few, mostly foreign families, including the Morgan’s, the Rothschild’s and the Warburgs , the Federal Reserve’s despicable scam of counterfeiting money and creating credit out of thin air enables corrupt politicians to reward their friends with special spending programs without Congressional approval or the knowledge of the people, drag us into hegemonic wars via deficit spending, and steal the purchasing power of innocent, unsuspecting men via the stealth taxation of chronic monetary inflation. Gold and its precious metal cousins are hard, honest, un-manipulate-able, un-inflatable, un-debase-able forms of money which have always arisen naturally in the unfettered marketplace when productive men create actual wealth by means of useful goods and services and then voluntarily engage in mutually beneficial exchanges with other men of good will. Honest un-inflatable money makes the whole process flow more smoothly than direct bartering can and tends to even out the natural up and down cycles of business.
Central banks hate gold and have almost always attempted to suppress its value, demean its importance, or criminalize its ownership, as was the case in our own country from the time of Roosevelt's 1933 edict until the early 70's. All central bankers and the clueless politicians who fawn over their pseudo-cerebral pontifications should be run out of the country. Most especially our Federal Reserve, which has for many decades exercised behind-the-scenes dictatorial sway over most of the global economy to the detriment of salt-of-the-earth men and their families, should be destroyed forthwith. The phony, dog-dollars which these cunning reptiles have force fed generations of men emerging brain-numbed from mandated, property-tax-funded, feminized public schools make it nigh impossible for prudent, wage-earning men to save, let alone invest, for the long-term. Hence, the wealth disparity - between those who are first in line for newly printed (or, nowadays, newly digitized) "money" and the rest of us further down the food chain - yawns ever wider.
I got a little carried away with my rant. Thanks for bearing with me. Keep up the good work, Bob.
Andrew
Yes, feminism was indeed a catastrophe for modern society that will forever scar western women with a legacy of deep shame and dishonor.
Women were not meant to be free like men. They were meant to be controlled, because the natural balance existing between men and women depends on men leading and guiding - and that necessarily implies controlling and setting limits on women's behavior.
Give women the same rights and freedoms as men, and you have disrupted the natural balance between men and women necessary to form families, communities, and a common purpose. It's like removing all rules and discipline for children because you happen to believe children are "equals" to adults.
When a society lifts all controls on women, allows them to hold political office, and allows them the same freedoms and choices as men, it is a clear sign of a deep sickness and disorder in that society. Healthy, strong societies carefully observe the inherent, unchangeable natures of men and women, leaving them undisturbed, and even re-inforcing them as societies adapt to ever higher levels of knowledge and changes. It is vital that men place effective controls on women, otherwise those societies degenerate and collapse.
- Mr. Anon
1. Without lawyers, bloggers like yourself would not have the right speak out about their beliefs as you are doing.
2. Part of any organized society is the usurpation of certain individual freedoms for the benefit of the greater good. In the natural world, I have absolute freedom to kill at will, but in an organized society that right must be restricted so that other citizens may live.
3. I agree. Prisons accomplish nothing and are a drain on our resources and human capital.
4. Right on.
5. How else do we educate the millions of children in our society? Private schools are not affordable for most and home-schooling is only so effective when parents themselves are uneducated.
6. Hmm, interesting, I have never heard this argument before. Of course, government can't function without resources, and income tax, in theory, seems to be the most fair way of ensuring equitable support of the government from all citizens.
7. This argument is simply ridiculous. If you hate women, then move to a country that does not allow them rights.
8. Women are people just as much as men, and there is no rational justification for not allowing women to vote and participate in government.
9. I agree, but I think that you actually underestimate the evils that monotheism has unleashed on the world.
10. I agree, and the way to fix this problem is through universal health care, which requires the participation and legislation of a unified government. In an anarchical system, which you seem to promote, there can be no universal health care, because people would all be out for their own benefit without regulation.
Note to Aeropepe:
Without lieyers I would have the right to defend myself from the police state. My speech would not be so highly regulated and prohibited as it is today.
Individual freedom was the fundamental basis for the foundation of the United States. Police State domination of every aspect of our daily lives is the antithesis of freedom.
Literacy rates in the US are lower than they were prior to enforced public "education." http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/hp/frames.htm
Feminism hurts women almost as much as it hurts men. When the society is destroyed all the people are hurt. Men who love women are the most opposed to feminism. Faggot perverts who have no use for women are its supporters.
Women are not "just like men." Women are far less rational and far more emotional on average. Women care about themselves, not about their society, for reasons of evolutionary psychology. Voting should be limited to those who are concerned about the good of the whole society.
So-called "universal health care" which amounts to cutting a blank check to pay the extreme profits of the medical industry monopoly is the antithesis of the solution for health care. Breaking the government (police state) enforced medical monopoly to allow reasonably priced health care is the only real solution. Individuals seeking their own benefits is the basis of competitive economics. The people are harmed by an over priced "pay or die" monopoly which we have now, and which you propose.
The Pill and though not necessarily a modern invention -but more commonly widespread- vibrators for women. Most women are spoiled enough and men shouldn't make accomodating inventions that enable independent streaks.
To "anonymous":
Are you kidding me?!? The Pill and vibrators are signs of the downfall of Western civilization? The Pill serves just as much a purpose for men as for women... Any remotely responsible man would be financially and emotionally obligated to care for the child of a woman that he impregnated! And as for vibrators, I don't see how this even counts as a rational point of argument. When was the last time you masturbated? You are telling me that the fact that women have a tool for masturbating (which plenty of men use, too, by the way) is a sign that women are over-provided for?
Note to Aeropepe:
"The Pill" does not benefit men. It is an invention that shifts control and domination of families from men to women, and allows only women to make the most important decisions in our lives, the decisions about having children. A century of total discrimination for women and against men in medical research has developed a wide variety of products for women collectively called "the pill." In the same time a complete abstinence of research funding for men has prevented the development of any equivalent products for men. Instead of research men get lies telling us why research can't be done, lies which have no factual basis because no research has been done. The Pill is about female dominion and control of our children and families, and the subjugation of men.
To Bob:
I commented on male contraception in another post, but this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/) demonstrates that, as a matter of fact, there are similar male contraceptive methods in development, including a pill, a cream, a patch, an implant, and a shot. This is more options than women even have! It's great to be man! Looks like we win again!
aeropepe said: The Pill serves just as much a purpose for men as for women... Any remotely responsible man would be financially and emotionally obligated to care for the child of a woman that he impregnated!
The Pill serves women only, if and when they decide to actually use it. The Pill will not prevent remotely responsible men from being financially obligated to women they impregnate. The Pill is not idiot-proof as four decades of widespread use have clearly shown. If you believe in the Pill as a safety net for men, then make sure to leave a nickel under your pillow for the tooth fairy.
aeropepe said: You are telling me that the fact that women have a tool for masturbating (which plenty of men use, too, by the way) is a sign that women are over-provided for?
Yes, the device has become a substitution for the true thing among many women. It provides a certain level of false independence. Heterosexual women should use vibrators only with permission during the course of love play with their men, not as a substitution for men. Furthermore, there is no need to provide a phallic recreational toy for many rug munchers and feminists, who would otherwise have to go without the much-envied penis. Feminists and lesbians have done everything they could to destroy men, why should they reap the benefits (through pathetic mimicry) of a recreational device created by man?
The Pill created sloppy whores.
Thru the Pill, numerous choices have opened up for women at their disposal: whether to get pregnant or not, whether to lie or tell the truth to men that she is using the Pill, whether to keep a baby she is carrying or abort it, whether to shake down men for child support or not.
Using effective male birth control cancels out these choices women have before they even have a chance to be exercised.
Women are not designed to handle freedom responsibly. Women's freedoms and choices must be limited or denied them if men hope to restore the previously normal balance between the sexes.
~ Mr. Anon
Shrinks.
Bob, have you gone to a psychiatrist and found he was incompetent? Did you report him?
Note to Anonymous (January 21, 2007 6:29 PM)
Bob has observed shrinks and the damage they do for several decades. The shrink profession is based on fiction and nonsense beginning with Freud and Jung, and perpetuated by legions of their students all quoting each other's nonsense. Freud's promotion of cocaine addiction as the universal cure is no longer given credit but most of his other nonsense still is. Shrinks have done massive emotional and psychological damage to many, many people who went to them for help. Such things as created memories, and exacerbated troubles hurt people while justifying their excessive fees. It would be very surprising if shrinks helped as many people as they hurt. Bob has seen far more destruction by shrinks than help.
To be fair, Freud and Jung were psychologists, not psychiatrists. The value of psychoanalysis and the value of drug therapies are two completely different moral conversations. Freud used cocaine back in his day, but so did thousands of other professionals and commercial products, so it's hard to pin that on him out of context (his history of addiction, however, does make for an interesting conversation).
Bob,
Where did you observe psychiatrists? For how long? How many doctors did you watch?
If you were convinced they were hurting their patients, did you take notes and report them?
No doctor who is harming a patient should be allowed to continue in practice. Whatever the speciality.
Historically men with power have tried to hold onto that power, by dividing people into categories. And from there, restricting their rights. Not just by gender category.
For instance:
Martin Luther (1500s) strongly urged that German christian men restrict Jews. That was because, the prevailing view said Jews were all liars and dishonest.
Jews had limits on their employment and housing. That prejudice continued through the 20th c.
Note to Anonymous: To whom do you suggest that Bob report incompetent shrinks? The Board of Shrinks? ROFLMAO!!!
Sure, when a wolf is raiding your hen house, report it to the wolf pack. Not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.
Bravo Bob. I agree with pretty much everything in there especially television and Monotheism. They have led to the ultimate evil: televangelists! ;-)
Hail Mary full of grace.
The Lord is with Thee.
Blessed art thou among Cunts.
And blessed is the fruit of thy Cunt, Jesus.
4:18: Short on the beer cans there too.
Why should Mary get special treatment? She was only a pregnant whore/ cunt like any other.
Mary's not the point. No woman should get special treatment, even seriously unbalanced hysterical feminists like yourself.
do you like mary?
Re:
Bad doctors --especially psychiatrists:
Bob says it is useless to report bad docs to Medical Board. However, using the internet you can at least inform potential patients NOT to choose a doctor you know to be harmful.
Try this website:
http://www.ratemds.com/filecache/SelectDoctor.jsp?sid=48
You can anonymously provide the doc's name and your comments to warn others. It was quite helpful to me.
Note to Anonymous (January 27, 2007 4:19 PM)
Your comment suggests that only a few "bad doctors" must be avoided. The problem with the medical industrial monopoly is ALL the doctors, medical associations, and pharmaceutical corporations empowered by the government. Surgeries are done with no requirement that they be either safe or efficacious, and most are neither. Hospitals breed ever more dangerous infections. Shrinks cause severe emotional trauma. Except for broken bones and similar physical injuries most people would probably be better off avoiding them. For example, a healthy man in Kennewick, WA, went to his local clinic for a checkup. He ended up near death in intensive care for 4 weeks before finally escaping after losing his good health and over half of his pre-care weight. Millions of children suffer violent sexual mutilation. Hundreds of thousands suffer months of trauma for surgery on hearts, prostates, anything that can be cut, all of which has no beneficial effect on expected length of their lives. Listing a "bad doctor" is a total waste of time. The monopoly authoritarian medical industrial busine$$ is bad.
Bob:
Do you also shun dentists and optometrists?
Note to Anonymous:
Dentists and optometrists are also part of monopoly fleecing of the public. Independent dentists, for example, are arrested and jailed.
So bob, does that mean you never get your teeth cleaned, X-rayed or fillings done? No toothaches needing root canal?
You do not wear glasses, even at your age? No cataracts? Glaucoma?
Note to anonymous: It has been Bob's observation that many optometrists market glasses to almost all who come to get eyes checked, whether the person needs them or not. This practice is especially harmful to children. The eyewear frames are then priced at about 5 to 10 times market value. It is a scam much of the time. That isn't to say that there aren't people, occasionally who have real vision problems, but marketing treatment for rip-off prices is their game. Same with dentists. Some dental care is needed. Much of what is done is not. Monopoly pricing rules. Insurance encourages the many scams.
I'm a jew and you're right about monotheism (and I said that first so you will think I'm very special, fullfillment for me is to look special/unique to others, I'm not being cynical).
I don't know at all what my religion means, it feels nice to get into it, but there is no sense, and what my ancestors did so long ago isn't relevant.
But I'm not sure that polytheism is better, since there isn't much around already. And besides, what if there are two rival nations, everyone believe in 10 different gods...10 greek gods vs. 10 roman gods.
Perhaps it's all religion that is to blame, not specifically monotheism.
Mr. Bob, what do you think of Buddhism? I mean this is a religion that tells you to explore rather than to blindly believe - like science, and there isn't exactly a god either.
Do you believe in creation, evolution, or something else, or not at all a believer?
I currently believe that we are the gods, we are the most advanced creaters, built from more basic things slowly over time (evolution).
Note to Yosef:
Polytheistic religions such as Hindu, or European paganism, or pre-monotheism middle eastern religions, generally did not have a very specifically defined particular 10 Gods. In a polytheistic society there are various gods for different seasons, etc. Individual people spend more time focusing on one or the other but recognize that all the others, and those of the neighboring cities, are equally valid.
One of the most destructive aspects of monotheism is its assertions of "right" and "wrong." Monotheism always has some version of "right" which is defined (by some Priest or other) as "the word of God." It is then acceptable to do all kinds of violence in the name of upholding "right." A polytheistic culture generally has different Gods with different and conflicting messages. One God may oppose rape, for example, but the other God is out raping. One God may oppose murder, but the other God has been out murdering. Most of the mean, vindictive, authoritarian, my way or the highway, punish the bad, authoritarianism comes out of monotheistic "word of god" self righteousness. It has been my observation that monotheistic religions generally equate "right" with "that which keeps the priests in control," or as they tell us "its the word of God."
Religious debate is generally off topic of The World According to Bob Bob does not argue for one religion or another, nor promote any particular theology. But lets just say that Bob is highly skeptical of a "flash" divine creation, or of the power of any one God to control all things. There are too many dinosaur bones. The notion of unlimited divine power is also inherently monotheistic, and I'm skeptical.
Very nice write up. Easy to understand and straight to the point.
Post a Comment
<< Home