Zook
31st December 2010, 10:18
Good morning, Good Avalon ...
Took Mom out for a drive to the ocean this afternoon on a long and winding coastal road in a temperature totter about zero degrees Celsius. Sun was very bright today so it didn't matter much that my premium roast coffee which was brewed warm ... on the advice of McDonald's legal trogs so as not to burn the tongues off old folks and human frogs (some of you may know the latter as Liebermans or Androids) and thus reduce Old McDonald's profit margin ... grew cold by the time we reached the big rocks at Lawrencetown. As I watched the surf and a few souls who braved the stiff breeze battering their metal boxes for a closer glimpse of Old England, my mind drifted back to Avalon and mercurial things like civility, and the insidiousness of softness. Too much civility and we lose our toughness. Too little civility and we lose our civilization. Somewhere on the mutual path (of civility and softness), there exists a Goldilocks balance.
Fact: these are tough times we live in. IMHO, the only way to survive is to become tough in tandem.
I don't know when exactly it started, but there has been a systemwide surgical separation of civility and softness. We are being programmed to be uncivil; at the same time, we are being programmed to be soft. This separation does not exist naturally and did not exist in the days of men and women. Tough times triggered internal toughness. Tough crimes were met with tough punishment. Tough despots were met with tubs of tar and a roll in the feathers (at least the lucky ones were). Tough political systems were met with resistance and eventual obsolescence.
But what is happening today? Times are getting increasingly tough. People are getting increasingly uncivil, as expected. But are they getting tough in tandem to meet the times and the potential tipping points? Alas, this is not the case. Quite the opposite. There's been an engineered push towards softness even as the times require hard individuals, extreme vigilance and a coordinated pushback against the system of bankster crime and oppression. But even more egregious, there's been an engineered push towards incivility ... against the natural grain of civility that softness binds.
This, of course, should come as no big surprise; after all, the goal of TMastardsTB is to conglomerate the many local pyramids of moderate tyranny and moderate size into one global pyramid of total tyranny and super size. A tyranny of scale, if you will. To this end, their best tool still remains division. From division (chaos) to conquest (order).
Before I put on a tux and put in a limo for the shaded ride to the great hall of heroes, legends, and legerdebeings ... to pick up my Gold Medal For Stating The Obvious (GMFSTO) ... let me pose a few rhetorical questions.
(1)Who among us at Good Avalon is working (wittingly or unwittingly) in the duty of division? Seriously ask yourself this.
(2)There's been a lot of discussion lately on the message vs the messenger
(wrt Wikileaks). Question begs, why is it important that we detach Julian Assange from Wikileaks ... at the same time, attach the Saudi leader with the message to attack Iran? Remember this in your reflection, the attack-Iran message has been around for quite some time now, not least nor
least humorously in the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg&feature=related
Does anyone not see the hypocrisy here?
(3)What is more important: the preservation of civility at all costs ... or the battle against destructive softness in times that require constructive hardness?
(4)What exactly is the charter of Avalon if points of factual data can be so blatantly disfigured, and the disfigurement becomes the basis for future debate? Is it the charter of a civilian intelligence club ... or a beer pub? Case in point (for factual rectitude; nothing personal against you, Heretic), the Belfast Telegraph article. There is no reasonable doubt that Assange said those words attributed to him. Wittingly or unwittingly, Heretic mutated the fact of Assange's words into a doubt about their authenticity. This is not a trivial mutation, folks. It hinges the very credibility of Julian Assange and Wikileaks; and it does so without a need for preponderance. To be frank, I found it deeply disturbing that 70% of those pushing the thanks-button on the thread (and its various posts) did not deem it necessary to call Heretic out on his errant characterization of Assange's 9/11 remarks as being a rumor and nothing else ... in fact, reinforced this error by supporting his subsequent post(s) on the topic. Granted the support for Heretic may be an extension of the support for Assange and Wikileaks; or it may have been a visceral response against my own post(s) which are usually hard-edged ... but I'm merely keeping things in phase, e.g. hard times root hard truths. Those who seek softness by uprooting the hard truths are misguided, at best; and divisive, at worst. From division to conquest.
Good folks of Avalon, if you want the truth ... you have to be vigilant about it, not merely pass it on a plate over the tea and truffles table. Definitely, the truth was not being served in the thread (Hero or Pawn). Assange did, indeed, say the words attributed to him by any reasonable standard of evidence collection (certainly, by the same standard employed by The New York Times, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, etc.). And because he did say those words, he wittingly stands against the truth. Mendax is the fitting handle. Webster Tarpley is bang on with his exposition of Assange.
Humble opinions all around.
:smow::typing::smow::smow:
ps: For those that promote arguments by fallacy of popular appeal, in our case, the argument of repetition to reality, it's as simple as this: the truth can be repeated over and over and over again and never be a falsehood ... a falsehood can be repeated over and over and over again and never be a truth. To wit, repetition to reality is an ideology; not a rational argument.
ps2: But why can't we have both civility and hardness, you may ask? Short Ans: we can. Of course, there are those among us who only want the civility (and not the hard truths); those who only want the hard truths (and not the civility); and those that take long winding drives along the ocean (to get to the ocean!) wondering how a balance can be achieved without compromising the hard truths.
ps3: I had much more black hair four months ago.
Took Mom out for a drive to the ocean this afternoon on a long and winding coastal road in a temperature totter about zero degrees Celsius. Sun was very bright today so it didn't matter much that my premium roast coffee which was brewed warm ... on the advice of McDonald's legal trogs so as not to burn the tongues off old folks and human frogs (some of you may know the latter as Liebermans or Androids) and thus reduce Old McDonald's profit margin ... grew cold by the time we reached the big rocks at Lawrencetown. As I watched the surf and a few souls who braved the stiff breeze battering their metal boxes for a closer glimpse of Old England, my mind drifted back to Avalon and mercurial things like civility, and the insidiousness of softness. Too much civility and we lose our toughness. Too little civility and we lose our civilization. Somewhere on the mutual path (of civility and softness), there exists a Goldilocks balance.
Fact: these are tough times we live in. IMHO, the only way to survive is to become tough in tandem.
I don't know when exactly it started, but there has been a systemwide surgical separation of civility and softness. We are being programmed to be uncivil; at the same time, we are being programmed to be soft. This separation does not exist naturally and did not exist in the days of men and women. Tough times triggered internal toughness. Tough crimes were met with tough punishment. Tough despots were met with tubs of tar and a roll in the feathers (at least the lucky ones were). Tough political systems were met with resistance and eventual obsolescence.
But what is happening today? Times are getting increasingly tough. People are getting increasingly uncivil, as expected. But are they getting tough in tandem to meet the times and the potential tipping points? Alas, this is not the case. Quite the opposite. There's been an engineered push towards softness even as the times require hard individuals, extreme vigilance and a coordinated pushback against the system of bankster crime and oppression. But even more egregious, there's been an engineered push towards incivility ... against the natural grain of civility that softness binds.
This, of course, should come as no big surprise; after all, the goal of TMastardsTB is to conglomerate the many local pyramids of moderate tyranny and moderate size into one global pyramid of total tyranny and super size. A tyranny of scale, if you will. To this end, their best tool still remains division. From division (chaos) to conquest (order).
Before I put on a tux and put in a limo for the shaded ride to the great hall of heroes, legends, and legerdebeings ... to pick up my Gold Medal For Stating The Obvious (GMFSTO) ... let me pose a few rhetorical questions.
(1)Who among us at Good Avalon is working (wittingly or unwittingly) in the duty of division? Seriously ask yourself this.
(2)There's been a lot of discussion lately on the message vs the messenger
(wrt Wikileaks). Question begs, why is it important that we detach Julian Assange from Wikileaks ... at the same time, attach the Saudi leader with the message to attack Iran? Remember this in your reflection, the attack-Iran message has been around for quite some time now, not least nor
least humorously in the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg&feature=related
Does anyone not see the hypocrisy here?
(3)What is more important: the preservation of civility at all costs ... or the battle against destructive softness in times that require constructive hardness?
(4)What exactly is the charter of Avalon if points of factual data can be so blatantly disfigured, and the disfigurement becomes the basis for future debate? Is it the charter of a civilian intelligence club ... or a beer pub? Case in point (for factual rectitude; nothing personal against you, Heretic), the Belfast Telegraph article. There is no reasonable doubt that Assange said those words attributed to him. Wittingly or unwittingly, Heretic mutated the fact of Assange's words into a doubt about their authenticity. This is not a trivial mutation, folks. It hinges the very credibility of Julian Assange and Wikileaks; and it does so without a need for preponderance. To be frank, I found it deeply disturbing that 70% of those pushing the thanks-button on the thread (and its various posts) did not deem it necessary to call Heretic out on his errant characterization of Assange's 9/11 remarks as being a rumor and nothing else ... in fact, reinforced this error by supporting his subsequent post(s) on the topic. Granted the support for Heretic may be an extension of the support for Assange and Wikileaks; or it may have been a visceral response against my own post(s) which are usually hard-edged ... but I'm merely keeping things in phase, e.g. hard times root hard truths. Those who seek softness by uprooting the hard truths are misguided, at best; and divisive, at worst. From division to conquest.
Good folks of Avalon, if you want the truth ... you have to be vigilant about it, not merely pass it on a plate over the tea and truffles table. Definitely, the truth was not being served in the thread (Hero or Pawn). Assange did, indeed, say the words attributed to him by any reasonable standard of evidence collection (certainly, by the same standard employed by The New York Times, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, etc.). And because he did say those words, he wittingly stands against the truth. Mendax is the fitting handle. Webster Tarpley is bang on with his exposition of Assange.
Humble opinions all around.
:smow::typing::smow::smow:
ps: For those that promote arguments by fallacy of popular appeal, in our case, the argument of repetition to reality, it's as simple as this: the truth can be repeated over and over and over again and never be a falsehood ... a falsehood can be repeated over and over and over again and never be a truth. To wit, repetition to reality is an ideology; not a rational argument.
ps2: But why can't we have both civility and hardness, you may ask? Short Ans: we can. Of course, there are those among us who only want the civility (and not the hard truths); those who only want the hard truths (and not the civility); and those that take long winding drives along the ocean (to get to the ocean!) wondering how a balance can be achieved without compromising the hard truths.
ps3: I had much more black hair four months ago.