October 18, 2012

John? Please, consider that you are a man, making repeated, assertive, absolute statements to a

group comprised mostly of feminists, most likely primarily women.

A man, telling us that you have some type of absolute knowledge, and are some type of conduit that is channeling absolute truths, and that we should listen to what you say because (you appear to believe) that you know so much more than we do.

The thing is, a whole lot of men, whole fucking violently insane patriarchal societies full of them, all over this planet, have been telling us all the shit that we poor helpless women must understand, and believe, forever, because, it is, of course, the absolute truth ~ the indisputable natural order of things, that men are superior to women, and, therefore, intrinsically know so much more than we poor biologically inferior beings are capable of.

And much (most) of the time, they've been terribly, tragically wrong, probably because they are so convinced of their innate superiority, and the total complete accuracy of their perceptions and judgments, that they fail to consider that their perceptual abilities and knowledge bases are fragmented and overwhelmingly ego-subjective, and therefore, their absolute judgments are derived from incomplete relative information.

Absolute woo.

Men have been telling women about their absolute truths, maybe since the dawn of humankind. I don't know; despite all this remarkable absolute truth, people are still killing each other, babies are still going hungry, kids are still being bullied to suicide, women are still being raped, etc.

Personally, I've had more than enough of this absolute truth in my lifetime as dictated to me by the gatekeepers of the patriarchal collective consciousness, and I pretty much couldn't care less about these marvelous truths these days. My intuition and experiences tell me these truths are not so absolute at all. Does biology determine identity? Maybe, more or less, relative to each individual. Does identity determine culture? Maybe, more or less, relative to each culture.

Maybe....maybe. I don't know.

Consider the possibility that change is constant. Consider the possibility that the processes of the universe, forces of natural selection, evolution, or whatever, have already led to the development of rapidly evolving beings on this planet who naturally transcend what were previously believed to be the biological boundaries of any life forms, including the biological limits that you appear to place on "identity".

Who knows?

All I know is what appears to be real for me, and I'm not sure about that, either ~ because that's constantly changing ~ but one of the primary aspects of my reality is actively working on several fronts to eliminate this widespread hatred that drives bullies to inflict pain and suffering on others, and causes children to take their own lives.

And it appears to me that the overwhelming majority of this hatred, and subsequent oppression, of women, and LGBT folk at the very least, is being perpetuated and manifested primarily by many of those who are 100% positive that they know the absolute truth.

IMO, things change, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and things are not always what they appear to be.

Thank you for your kind, tentative invitation to participate in your thread, but I don't believe I'll be able to make it.

Best wishes.

October 14, 2012

Yep. I've often wondered the same thing myself. And you know what's even worse?

It's where they put those jackalope crossings. I know that jackalopes prefer the flat desert areas of the west, but why do they have to put jackalope crossings smack dab in the middle of an 80 mile an hour zone straightaway on the interstates? It's, like, totally stupid. For one thing, they are a protected species; why can't they just make the crossing go under the highway? Like, duh. We have a crossing not too far from where I live, and one of my neighbors nearly went off the road when a jackalope ran out in front of her Jeep a few weeks back.

Here's a photo from the jackalope crossing nearby, out on Interstate 17.

October 13, 2012

(pic heavy) We do, but generally, only those who question authority,

or who are in control of the police state, recognize it as such.

Some determine what the status quo that serves them should be...



...some are the police, who will blindly follow orders given by the authority of those who determine the status quo...



....some are content to live in captivity, so long as they believe that they are safe, have comfy pajamas and a TV, and usually get three square meals a day...



Some are much too busy to care...



And then, there are the rest of us...





[div style="display:inline; background-color:#FFFF66;"][font color="black" size="12" face="face"]SUBMISSION. SAFETY. SECURITY. It’s the LAW![/font]

[font color="red" size="12" face="face"]Obey. Be Normal! Do Not Question. Work Will Make You Free.[/font]

October 3, 2012

Where, exactly, does Assange say that all government is evil?

IMO, it is best to communicate sincerely, and accurately, when trying to make a point. If you pull things that have no basis in reality out of the air, and then state these fabrications as fact, then how could you expect anyone to take what you say seriously?

If you don't believe that it is necessary to question authority, or to objectively point out obvious wrongdoing by those in authority because of certain predetermined prejudices, that's fine, that's totally your right.

But many of us feel that questioning authority, and questioning the actions of those in authority, are totally necessary for any type of basic honest government. And if those in authority do something that we consider to be wrong, we will call them on it directly. We desire to know the truth, and have our leaders represent us with standards and actions that are transparent and ethical. If you do not feel this way, that is also your right.

While I have long supported Julian and Wikileaks, I do not not love them beyond question, and if I see that they've fucked up, I point it out directly and honestly, instead of blindly and passionately defending them when they are wrong. I do not recognize, or admire, any authority as so great that it is beyond question reproach. That kind of crap is dangerous to all life.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1457875

In their blind loyalty, devotion, and obedience, many people loved and adored Adolf Hitler so much that they accepted everything he said and did without question. "Good Germans", they have been called. Those who do not question authority make model citizens in monarchies, dictatorships, and plutarchies, but they add up to less than zero in a democracy.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
Thomas Jefferson

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

October 3, 2012

Julian Assange speaks much truth in that video. But then, again...

President Obama, despite his best intentions, can only operate within the political and economic boundaries set for him by the 1%. He can only do so much. And the fact is, he serves at the pleasure of the 1%, and only nominally at the pleasure of the People.

Julian Assange is actually campaigning against those who limit the ability of President Obama and others we elect to solve the problems created by the greed of the 1%, and not against the President, who he apparently considers personally irrelevant and powerless insofar as his subjection to the restrictions placed by the 1% on his ability to govern according to the Will of the People is concerned.

What I find immensely disappointing and disturbing in the video is Julian saying that the only vote that matters is a vote for Wikileaks. He is clearly ignoring the fact that President Obama, despite the limitations placed on him in the realms of economic and political policies, will still be a million times better than Romney, based solely on domestic social policy alone, and Julian is very, very wrong for not acknowledging this reality, and just shot himself in the foot by denying this difference between republicans and Democrats.

We, as American citizens, while still being subject to the economic and political dictates of the 1%, will benefit so much more in the area of domestic social issues under a President Obama than we would under Mitt Romney. This is our very basic reality in the US. If President Obama is not reelected, many American citizens will unnecessarily suffer grave injustices and deprivations for many years to come.

So. despite the fact that there is much truth in that video, I am forced to give Julian Assange a huge thumbs down, no, actually, a fuck off, for his failure to consider how many more people will suffer at the most basic levels under Romney than they would under an Obama presidency. It is what it is. We do the best we can with what we can, and there is certainly no reason to make it any worse without serious necessity to do so.

There is a clearly a huge difference between Democrats and republicans in the areas of social and environmental issues. On this basis alone, I would vote for Democrats. Republicans do nothing that is positive and good whatsoever, Democrats at least do some good. Julian Assange should retract this video, re-word it, and post it again, because it is a huge untruth to say that the only vote that matters is a vote for Wikileaks, and by saying this, he greatly detracts from the the truths expressed in the bulk of the video.

In fact, if this clear falsehood was not present in the video, I would actually have been really impressed, and would have sent Wikileaks a small donation immediately. But unless those untruths are edited out of the video, I will never donate to Wikileaks again.

There are many things that have disappointed many of us during the past four years, but most of us fully recognize the limitations in the system under which many elected officials are compelled to operate. To me, this is a core issue that Occupy is all about: Removing the 1% from power by actions taken from outside the political system, and subsequently removing the restraints placed on genuine democratic policies placed upon them by the 1%, so that We the People, the 99%, can better control our own destinies through genuine self-governance, rather than simply be pawns subjugated by a wealthy and powerful elite.

It should be apparent to any reasonable person that our elected officials are, to a large degree, held captive by wealthy and powerful private interests. If someone can't recognize this, then, in my estimation their opinions are not worth considering, because their perceptions, and/or powers of discernment, and/or ability to logically and objectively evaluate factually, would clearly be untrustworthy.

Obviously, many of us recognize this reality.

October 3, 2012

"...moves towards...a transnational security state dystopia.

We believe knowledge is power and that knowledge should be in the hands of the people."

dys·to·pi·a/disˈtōpēə/
Noun:
An imagined place or state in which everything is unpleasant or bad, typically a totalitarian or environmentally degraded one.

The transnational security state dystopia is being instituted by the 1%, and is being instituted for the express purpose of insuring and securing their wealth and power, and the protection of all their material interests globally. Democracy, freedom, planetary environment, and the overall well-being of the vast majority of human beings worldwide all suffer immensely because of the undeniably sociopathic intentions, and actions, of the 1%.

Knowledge should be in the hands of the people, and Wikileaks reveals facts, knowledge, of facts that are purposely hidden, facts about the intentions and the violent and destructive activities sanctioned by the 1% that the 1% strongly desires to hide from the general population of the world. The 1% wishes to subjugate us under their authoritarian control. Actually understanding who our real enemy is, based on knowledge of facts about our enemy's nefarious intentions and misdeeds, is primary knowledge that is necessary to incite people to rebel against the aggressive authoritarianism of the 1%, and the forces financed by the 1% (and also financed by we hapless taxpayers who have already been partially subjugated to serve the 1%.

Wikileaks makes the sociopathic intentions of the 1% clear by exposing facts that illustrate the secretive and sociopathic essential nature of the 1% -a heartless, conscienceless killing machine that will mercilessly destroy anything that gets in the way of its all consuming gluttony and greed.




If you ever wonder why so many, on the internet, and elsewhere, seem insanely obsessed with destroying Julian Assange and Wikileaks and are spending so much time and energy on their crusade...well, it ain't rocket science.