either that, or choke (crash and/or burn) on lies
-=*=-
'Working' title:
evil is ...
.. as evil does
Subtitle, Q: A vanity vehicle for inflated egos, a sheltered workshop for infantile retards, or a serious forum for adult debate?
-=*=-
'Executive' summary:
People who think that we are already in the 'best of all possible worlds' may exit; the following is not for you.
1. The situation.
2. The morality.
3. Application.
-=*=-
1. The situation:
First of all, thanks to all those who 'chipped in' (on the nom de plume theme.) Visible or not, acknowledged or not, being on 'the right side' is its own reward, sadly sometimes the only reward. (Note: 'only' IMHO, as usual and of course.)
Like it or not (I don't), recognise it or not (most sheople® don't), we - and here I mean genuine truth-seekers - are engaged in a mammoth battle: the (largely immoral) exploiters vs. the exploited (aka we the sheople.) Exactly because the exploiters are largely immoral, I call them 'The Kleptocracy®.' Such exploiters have always had the upper hand; after all, they've got most'a the dough, and with this behind them they grab the 'levers of power.' From time to time the exploiters lose a bit, or have some power wrested away. A good example was "Eight hours to work, eight hours to play, eight hours to sleep; eight bob a day!"
Thanks to Howard&Co's 'Work Chumps™' (thanks Frère J) - and Hawke/Keating too, I suppose, unionism is severely crippled if not actually dead-walking. Too bad. But unionism is not the only casualty; since WW2 there had (yes, had) been a degree of 'trickle-down' which kept the sheople relatively content. But with the rise and rise of "Greed is good!" (let's face it; it's just not), so-called economic rationalisation and globalisation et al., the trickle-down is getting ever less (this is partly obscured by the avalanche of cheap Chinese junk.) Howard&Co shriek about "Jobs, jobs, jobs!" - but are crippling careers (de-funding education), they are also crippling Medicare and flogging Medibank... the list of filthy misdeeds is looong. Possibly the worst is the largely Costello-caused (CGT-halving) drastic inflation (250%) of house-prices. To get into the market now requires acquiring massive debt/stress, and permanently "Poof" goes the great Aussie dream for lots'n lots'a the sheople.
As if the above wasn't bad enough, we've got a possible CO2-caused climate change on the way; basic cause is too many people and too much greed: this greedastrophe® could compromise our very existence.
-=*=-
That's the situation; unavoidably politics mixed with the kleptocracy, but there are two related extra factors; Hollywood and the (venal!) MSM (main-stream media.) Over time, via its 'drama' offerings (perhaps better now referred to as info-tainment) Hollywood portrays all possible perversions, and combined with the MSM via the pervasive 'fifth-column' (flat-screen) TV in almost every living-room, these forces of evil are accessing - and compromising - the minds of the sheople. The problem here is that rather than being informed, the sheople are being deliberately misinformed, aka propagandised. In short, we the sheople are being lied to, aka deceived.
-=*=-
2. The morality:
The next loop begins with innocence; we're all born with it. How and when we lose it is up to our environment; first to our carers, then to our playgrounds/schools and finally to 'real life' itself. For me, it's a real paradox, that parents try to instil morality into their sprogs, when all around us is a drowning sea of immorality.
For 'historical reasons' (more specifically, following 'suggestions' by a certain 'dialectic dilettante'), I started developing some formalisations; a sample for anyone interested is the chezPhil morality.
The basic crimes are lying, cheating, theft and murder. The whole thing is driven by reflexive altruism (i.e. I don't wish to be murdered[1], therefore I agree not to murder some other); and a key tenet is "Fair go, ya mug!"
An aside on "Bringing up Baby:"
It's possibly the biggest crisis anyone has to face, when s/he is first confronted with a shattering of innocent trust. An example might be a lie, an act of meanness or violence of some sort. The more vicious the breach, the more intense the trust, so the deeper the crisis. Naturally enough, it's likely to come from an immediate carer - a parent, say; a sibling, some relative. If a child is 'lucky' enough to be first so confronted by a peer on the playground, then the crisis will be less, and if the parents/carers are clever enough, the child will be prepared in advance and the crisis minimised. Q: How many children are so lucky? A: IMHO, few. Far too few. (And you wonder why; why isn't this info widely available? I had to arrive at this by experience-stimulated imagination; why isn't it in every "Bringing up Baby" book?) How this inevitable crisis is handled may well determine an entire lifetime. (More's the pity, then, when innocence is mishandled by death-fearing religion. Child abuse, in spades. And possibly, religion is the second biggest problem, after the worst, the kleptocracy-sourced abuses.)
Back on the morality track, the sea of immorality emanates from the kleptocracy, it's pushed by the politicians and transmitted - even amplified(!?) - by Hollywood and the MSM - including big bits'a the AusBC and SBS. Boo! Hiss!
I term this flood of lies the pushed-paradigm propaganda.
-=*=-
Intermezzo:
"All politicians lie!"
Unfortunately, this may be true. Interestingly enough, though, the statement came into common currency due to our current PM's example. Actually, multiple examples. Many, many, ...
That most of the lies are to do with money is no surprise - one word: kleptocracy.
Examples of the money projects associated with lies are a) at all levels from local 'up,' development. b) lots'a so-called 'normal' businesses. According to RF (g'day), one simply can't 'make it' in business if one is 'straight,' i.e. moral. What a condemnation! c) Mining/resource 'harvesting.' Although I lack data on all mining (Q: Why is info sooo hard to find? A: Silly question) - we have examples showing that little, even *no* royalties are imposed on some projects. The paucity of info would suggest that there's something (filthy!) to hide. d) the 'biggie,' murder for oil[#]. Apropos oil, we saw in WD/1525 that some kleptocracy had set out to pocket 82% of Bolivia's oil and gas. It really is that bad. (Probably even worse; the company-accountants' finagling...)
-=*=-
3. Application:
Preamble: I came to WD because of the Iraq 'thing;' all things changed with that despicably criminal act and all its ghastly consequences; '9/11' was merely the hook that the kleptocracy exploited to hang the biggest crime since WW2 on.
As a declared seeker of truth, also justice and a "Fair go, ya mug!" I regard with intense suspicion those who would stand in the way of achieving my aims. (Massive understatement.)
Specifically, what to do about destructive, malignant pro-pushed paradigm trolls?
The applications of interest here are:
a) the same rules for all, and
b) the overall integrity.
-=*=-
Terminology.
Preliminary: since 'too err is human,' we may distinguish between accidental and deliberate.
Any statement inherently false and/or proved not to be true is termed a lie[2].
Corollary 1: any poster deploying a lie is termed a liar.
The identifier associated with posters is (should be) their real name.
Corollary 2: any poster not using their real name is said to be using a nom de plume.
-=*=-
To cases; The Webdiary rule of interest here is this: "I will not publish attacks on other contributors unless your real name is used." The 'I' is Margo (g'day), and the 'your' is any and all posters.
The possibilities here do not look too good; the very first question that must be answered is Q: How does Webdiary establish that a poster is using their real name? (IMHO, A: The risible "Trust me!" is hardly a valid 'How.' Then, what sort'a argument is a 'valid email address,' given that one needs exactly that to register?)
The reason this question must be answered under the current Webdiary rules is a) obvious - it relates to whether attacks will be published, and b) ubiquitous - if B, B & H can lie us into murder for oil (IMHO they did) and if a majority of the voters re-elect them (they did) then the morality of the majority must be suspect (it is) - one reason, one of many good reasons, to deploy the term sheople
-=*=-
The aim of this post should be fairly obvious by now, but I'll spell it out anyway (looping): if Webdiary is to be truly "Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent" then it must ensure (if/when an attack scenario arises) that posters are who they say they are, apply the same standards to all, and (IMHO and new) ensure that no attack is made without substantiation.
As an aside I reiterate: this is an opinion forum, as opposed to a Darlinghurst courtroom. However, naked opinion is just that, nattering is just that, and gushing, or any other insubstantialities are just that: insubstantial. And, one might'a thunk, a waste of time, space & bandwidth. But not just that either, a (shocking!) waste of the lives of all those who may be so distracted.
I don't really care who posts what (i.e. it's all just data to me - mostly), but by establishing the "real name/attack" nexus, it is (again, one might'a thunk) incumbent on Webdiary to honour their own rhetoric. The recent 'outing' of a poster as running under a false-flag (i.e. using a to-the-community-undeclared nom de plume, and then only due to his own indiscretion) was, to me, quite a surprise.
Spades termed bloody shovels:
To term the deployer of lies a liar, to term the deployer of slurs by innuendo a scurrilous scoundrel, to term the deployer of unsubstantiated attacks a slanderer - or terming the deployer of an undeclared nom de plume an internet fraud (and not just by the way, if applicable, a lying coward), should not be assessed as abuse - if/when such terming is simply relating bits'a the demonstrable truth. Hmmm?
Oh! All 'only' IMHO, as usual and of course.
Facit:
Webdiary has mishandled the nom de plume aspect. They are - or so it seems - actively encouraging destructive, malignant pro-pushed paradigm trolls. Unsubstantiated, and IMHO unsubstantiable personal attacks have been allowed (some directed at me, yes. Sour grapes? No. Aggrieved? Yes.) It is a fair criticism, that they are in breach of their own stated guidelines. We will now watch how Webdiary develops.
Final comment:
Webdiary is what each makes it. To be 'perfectly honest' (Haw!) 'entities' such as the cyber-avatar (currently) identified as Pаul Mоrrella (and the C Parsons/Eliоt Ramѕey construct(s) should probably be included here) obviously represent real people (or are software simulations; same thing really) - and as such, are as entitled to their opinions as any other entities in this so-called free-speech place and epoch. The problem becomes one of attack; rather than insisting on attacks only being 'allowed' (authoritarian!) by deployers of 'real names,' wouldn't it be better - be more practical, and make more sense - to constrain attacks to those attacks that are a) attacks on the facts (as opposed to the person) and b) properly substantiated, as in 'This item is right/wrong because ...?'
That might better resemble 'adult debate,' hmmm?
-=*end*=-
PS I can't finish this without some detail:
1. The operative statement from the cyber-avatar (currently) identified as Pаul Mоrrella is this: "That my name does not appear across the net on forums is not unusual. Most forums do not use the names of posters. In fact, on more than one, it is discouraged to post under a birth name."
Comment: Possible amphibology; given the circumstances most probably deliberate (what alternatives? Careless? Negligent? Nah...) IMHO, it's simply a ruse. We ask ourselves why that?
2. Pаul Mоrrella: "I have not attacked any person on this site in a personal nature."
Comment: I do not assess this as being a correct description of reality.
Consider this from Mоrrella: "for correcting him, on what were, some dodgy statements. I could, and in fact, I did, point out that I do not appreciate being led on a merry-go-round of dodgy claims and sham links in an attempt to back up false statements."
Comment: Nothing from Mоrrella here, but unsubstantiated assertion. He did not 'correct' me on anything, he merely asserted a contradiction. And so it went. Any alleged 'sham link' for example, would require comprehensive, substantiated negation. Not only not done, not even approached.
3. Consider that a) my recent identifying of a red herring, and b) another poster (g'day CR) identifying the ad hominem nature of remarks were both assessed as 'personal attacks' by Pаul Mоrrella.
Comment: This is indicative of the standard of (non!)debate experienced with this avatar. Further, I requested a 'why' for the red herring; toadal® silence. Again, why that?
Then this: "The material quoted ... is ugly. It is from an ugly site. If you doubt me, read the ads on the right column." Once again, toadally, utterly risible and irrelevant. This is like saying that WD is all about Pol Pot, based on the contributions of a certain you-know-who in both guises.
Note to Pаul Mоrrella: kindly consider giving valid answers to the queries previously directed to you (perhaps start with 'why the toadal red herring'), or cease and desist entirely from any further mention of my (yes, real) name.
PPS I changed my mind. I've already written 'Bye' to Pаul Mоrrella at least twice. The real shocker is the massive waste of time attributed to his incursions. Accordingly, I suggest he cease and desist entirely and forthwith, from attempting any further reference or transaction vis-à-vis me.
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] murder —n. 1 intentional unlawful killing of a human being by another. [POD]
[2] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [ibid.]
[3] theft n. act of stealing[4]. [Old English: related to *thief] [ibid.]
[4] steal —v. (past stole; past part. stolen) 1 (also absol.) take (another's property) illegally or without right or permission, esp. in secret. 2 obtain surreptitiously, insidiously, or artfully [ibid.]
[#] 'Murder for oil' epilogue:
As related by me a squillion times, I, along with many others around the world, have spent the last 4+ years documenting the (illegal!) invasion turned (brutal!) occupation (both hideously murdering), and the soon to be actualised US theft[3] of Iraqi oil. On the basis of motive, opportunity and method, it has been demonstrated that GWBush planned to invade Iraq before '9/11,' Cheney had his eyes on Iraqi oil before '9/11,' then B, B & H deployed their filthy WMD lies as the precursor to "Shock'n whore®" - and now the Anglo/Christian CoW® is in what appears to be (permanent!) occupation of Iraq. From the very beginning of the occupation the trend has been continuous, first the Bremer orders, then the bastardised, so-called 'democratic' constitution and election - of an obvious US-puppet, then the insult-to-injury 'benchmark' oil law (to force wretched, rip-off PSAs - but being resisted, good on 'em.) All that remains for us to observe - at the moment hindered by what may be legitimately termed 'patriotic Iraqi resistance,' augmented by sectarian strife (say), this latter possibly prompted by CIA-type psyops - is the actual pumping of the oil by the mainly US then UK 'oil majors.'
(The 'oil majors' won't make their move until they consider it's safe to do so. Quite understandable - and hardly worth the term 'cowardly;' although murder and stealing is rightly termed 'criminal.' Add all the pink-misted Iraqi 'collaterals,' one gets 'murder for oil.')
Now, sheople is as sheople does; I'm not terming any single one immoral or a liar (let alone a proxy-murderer, say) - but all the same, another principle I use is WYSIWYG. Using this principle, I pose the following question: what should one term anyone prepared to deny murder for oil?
Any argument(s)? Well, 'everyone knows' is both false and fallacious, 'GWBush&Co said it's not' is risible, as is 'they didn't have to war for it, they could'a just bought it.' The very fact that the MSM almost never mentions it is indicative. But if 'murder for oil' isn't patently obvious, if it is indeed disprovable, why hasn't some disproof appeared?
Hence the challenge to one and all: provide a convincing proof that it ain't murder for oil. Then the appropriate ending for this epilogue would be "... and they all lived happily ever-after."
No comments:
Post a Comment