[Karlmarks]

Watching Morning Joe. and they had a Col. Jacobs and another fellow {Time Editor?} on talking about the suicide rate and what the military was trying to do about it. The Col. seemed to be saying the families and the public were to blame, and beyond that the military just couldn't figure it out, or they were doing the damn level best to keep soldiers from "checking out".

I thought it would be helpful for some of the truth tellers around here to explain it, for them.

I was in the army 4 years 10 months and twenty eight days, and I think it is rather obvious. The col. brought up how the troops were treated after Viet Nam, and seemed to think that was somehow different because a lot of those folks were drafted, as if the volunteers ought to learn to live with their choice. F^%#*&g tool. I will have more to say later.

[jackie Obrian]

Many of these "volunteers" are doing it for the college money but then finding they can't go to college because they're being sent for 4 or 5 tours in which it becomes painfully obvious that they aren't fighting for freedom but rather acting as mercenaries and pawns for the military industrial complex. Couple that with inadequate mental care for sufferers of PTSD and lack of deprogramming once reintegrated into society and it's pretty obvious why so many are choosing to take the easy way out.

[Karlmarks]

Many of these "volunteers" are doing it for the college money but then finding they can't go to college because they're being sent for 4 or 5 tours in which it becomes painfully obvious that they aren't fighting for freedom but rather acting as mercenaries and pawns for the military industrial complex. Couple that with inadequate mental care for sufferers of PTSD and lack of deprogramming once reintegrated into society and it's pretty obvious why so many are choosing to take the easy way out.

Thank You.

[vosteglog]

The suicide rate is very carefully and statistically calculated by those who implement modern warfare.

The war is not only going on "over there," it's being perpetrated upon all of us in the general population.

This is Social Engineering... Modern Eugenics. Very precise and mathematical.

Game theory became a mathematical formula that could be applied to any number of warfare situations
over long periods of time.

Social Engineering is now a hard science. It's no longer philosophical or subjective. It's mathematically precise.

The reason for this is that the ruling elite have super computer systems that grind away 24/7, analyzing data...

And ironically, the data these super computers analyze comes directly from those of us working and playing
right here on the WWW.

[spapsinee]

Social Engineering is now a hard science. It's no longer philosophical or subjective. It's mathematically precise.

I disagree with you on this statement. Social-anything cannot be a hard science because humans are intrinsically subjective beings. For example, the whole modern system of (main stream) economics is viewed as a "hard" science, with mathematical models and implied precision. However, no mathematical model can account for millions of individual minds with objectives and preferences that change every single day. You cannot make a mathematical model on what everyone's preferences will be one day from now, let alone years from now, and you can't with mathematical precision guarantee that a certain act of social engineering will succeed or not.

[vosteglog]

I disagree with you on this statement. Social-anything cannot be a hard science because humans are intrinsically subjective beings. For example, the whole modern system of (main stream) economics is viewed as a "hard" science, with mathematical models and implied precision. However, no mathematical model can account for millions of individual minds with objectives and preferences that change every single day. You cannot make a mathematical model on what everyone's preferences will be one day from now, let alone years from now, and you can't with mathematical precision guarantee that a certain act of social engineering will succeed or not. I agree with you 100%. Human are intrinsically subjective beings and there is no way that these mathematical models will succeed in anything other than destroying civilization.

It's utterly futile to attempt such a thing. Only fools, psychopaths and/or demons would have the hubris to attempt to control the world.

And yet here we are, being eugenically and socially engineered using hard science to do it.

[ImapFidaarram]

You cannot make a mathematical model on what everyone's preferences will be one day from now, let alone years from now, and you can't with mathematical precision guarantee that a certain act of social engineering will succeed or not.

What do you mean you cannot?

Sure you can. Mathematical AND computer models of society exist and they are being worked on daily.

Think about price of gas in a period before elections. Say, they didn't figure out how society reacts? Sure they did.

Besides, you don't need to have hard science on every person, it is statistics they are after.

[spapsinee]

What do you mean you cannot?

Sure you can. Mathematical AND computer models of society exist and they are being worked on daily.

Think about price of gas in a period before elections. Say, they didn't figure out how society reacts? Sure they did.

Besides, you don't need to have hard science on every person, it is statistics they are after.

Maybe we're defining our terms differently. When I think of a hard science, I think of mathematics, where 1 + 1 = 2, 100% of the time and it can be no other way, or a chemical reaction where X amount of chemical Y mixed with X amount of chemical Z will always produce the same reaction 100% of the time. Social sciences can't be hard sciences, because individual minds react differently to individual circumstances, and those minds change all the time. I.e. the gov't adds a regulation here and a new law there, and their mathematical models predict a certain outcome. Or the central bank makes a new model that predicts if they engage in some monetary action there will be a hard, definite response. These predicted outcomes, no matter how hard they want it to be so, cannot be 100% accurate. Sure they may be "generally" right, by prodding the citizenry in a certain direction, but it's still subjective, and nobody can guarantee a certain human response to any given action.

Read Mises' Human Action. It changed the whole way I looked at life after I read it.