aw. RE: aw. RE: aw. RE: aw. RE: Why did Elser plant the bomb?

[Kai Frederik Lorentzen]

> Is capitalism fascist? A genuine question. I'm not sure of the answer.

Max Horkheimer: "Who does not want to talk about capitalism shall keep quiet on fascism".
(Wer aber vom Kapitalismus nicht reden mag, der soll auch vom Faschismus schweigen)
Though this was written in the 1930s, more recent tendencies in Western societies
(especially since 9/11) give, imo, the sentence a certain actuality. Some political
scientists speak of "post-democracy", others of "neo-totalitarism". What do YOU think?

> But the bio-tech bloc, orgasmic over the staggering amounts of money to be made via stem-cell research, is equally happy with
> Obama. I'm right there with them: I want them to find technologies to help paralyzed people walk, even if they get stinking
> rich in the process.

Nah, it's not about "Eat the rich" or such (got rubys & money myself). Your argument as such
cannot be beaten. But what's the other side of the coin? What's the price? Already by now folks
work on the identification of gens for alcoholism, schizophrenia and even so called a-social
behavior. Though, as a sociologist, I don't think that these things (and others) are caused
primarily genetical, I have no doubt, that bio-scientist and politicians will test the shit
out of the now given possibilities of so called 'gen-therapy' to influence people into a
by-any-means-conformistic way of living. Handicapped people already get rarer and rarer.
This is the Darwin year, and everybody is talking about the "survival of the fittest".
They key-word is "selection". Selection on a social scale. 


>
> Just as the Nazis pushed (Aryan) motherhood, the bio-techies are pushing the commodification of babies. They don't care if the>babies end up in the hands of gay or straight couples or affluent single people, it's the sale price that matters. In that>sense, they can appear socially progressive. A gay couple drinking (expensive) Free Trade coffee while pushing their acquired 
>(via fertility docs, payments to lawyers, poor people, etc.)baby in an (expensive) stroller brings sanctimonious tears of joy to>these folks. Again, I'm right there with them. I think it's real progress that gay couples can start families. One thing you 
> won't see in the movies is a likeable protagonist having an abortion. Forget that abortion is legal. There've been a bunch of 
> movies (Knocked Up, Juno) that add a veneer of hipness to the Right-to-Lifer's message. The bio-techies are great at making 
> their retro message appear progresive.

 
 
Yes, I also think it's real progress that gay people can start families! But
therefore you 'just' need a willing Leihmutter, not bio-technology. Btw, over here,
where we have gay and lesbian marriages, also movies with likeable protagonists
having an abortion are not uncommon. While we're talking about abortions and technology:
Ever heard about the fact that in India, for-socio-economic reasons, much more girls 
than boys fall victim to abortion? Since ultrasonics enable the parents early to know
about the coming child's sex, this tendency increased dramatically in recent years... 
 
I don't think that babies should be commodified.
 
 
Kai  
 
 
 
 
 
>
> Laura
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Kai Frederik Lorentzen
>>Sent: Feb 16, 2009 7:40 AM
>>To: kelber at mindspring.com, pynchon-l at waste.org
>>Subject: RE: aw. RE: aw. RE: aw. RE: aw. RE: Why did Elser plant the bomb?
>>
>>
>>
>>Well, at least the diet-manuals of the Nazis were full of sentences like
>>"Dein Körper gehört nicht dir, dein Körper gehört dem deutschen Volk!"
>>(Your body does not belong to you, your body belongs to the German people).
>>Add the latest possibilities of wonderful bio-technology and you see where
>>all this is going ... Where are my smokes? Kai
>>
>>----------------------------------------
>>> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:05:40 -0500
>>> From: kelber at mindspring.com
>>> To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>>> Subject: RE: aw. RE: aw. RE: aw. RE: aw. RE: Why did Elser plant the bomb?
>>>
>>> Is "physical fitness a mission of the state" fascist? How about this take: In opposition to ferocious lobbies by capitalist agribusiness conglomerates
>>> and fast food empires that push their high-fat,artery-clogging wares, leading to an obesity epidemic; beleaguered public health officials desperately try to get some health-related laws on the book: banning restaurants from using trans-fatty acids, maybe getting a little funding for physical ed, all based on the idea that the government ought to take an active role in public health. Fascism?
>>>
>>> Laura
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----------------
>>>>From: Kai Frederik Lorentzen lorentzen at hotmail.de
>>>
>>>>
>>>>3) To consider "pysical fittness a mission of the state" is indeed fascist.
>>>>
>
>