Unconscious Bias

The latest fad in corporate, political and social media debate is Unconscious Bias.

What does it mean and why is it being used in discussion?

The phrase is used during a conversation where two people disagree on an issue.

One party will say of the other that their view is weakened because it derives from an Unconscious Bias.

This is the latest pseudo-intellectual defence of someone who is desperate to win an argument and to win the title of "Correct View" and winner of the debate.

There is some truth to the concept behind the phrase, because it is not a new concept.

Unconscious Bias sounds like it stands for a new enlightenment, discovered recently.

It is not.

Same pig, different lipstick.

The concept that our views, beliefs, tenets, rational conclusions are influenced by our personal morality is ancient.

Influenced. Not derived from. There is a difference. And this difference is the problem.

Of course our life experience and our morality and character can influence our arguments and our positions on an issue for debate or discussion. But those arguments do not derive from this. They are at best a source of influence. That influence can be recognised and rejected by a conscious mind.

In contrast, Unconscious Bias proponents claim that your view is derived ONLY from an Unconcious Bias and that you have no control over it nor even awareness of it.

You can see the power of such a claim made against an opponent during debate.

You can say to your opponent that they are not aware that their argument derives solely from a power in their mind that they have no control over.

This means that the opponents argument is not a product of rational deliberation, logic or intellectual insight, but their argument is derived from an all powerful, unconscious Big Bang that is devoid of reason.

So instead of rationally concluding an argument or position on an issue, the opponent has always had a their view arrived at through a weakness of character than an intellectual exercise.

Therefore, the opponents argument is not rational but irrational and consequently weak, subjective and fallible.

The truth is that rational people already identify any biases they might have and are ready and willing to destroy them for the sake of truth. They may begin unconsciously, but the power of reason is in its deliberate action of seeking out what is unconscious and thus making it conscious.

Everyone has conscious biases. Biases chosen by reason or morality.

It is a harder intellectual exercise to convince us that someone has a bias they are not aware of, but that they are aware of.

The onus of proof is on the claimant, "You have an unconscious bias."

Further, if the logic is sound and the facts are empirically verifiable, then Unconcisous Bias doesn't matter. The proponent cannot argue that a valid argument is defeated by such a claim. A black cat is a cat, no matter what the Unconscious Bias.

The Truth about Obesity?

Obese people are aesthetically repulsive.

Obese people are obese because they ate too much shit food.

Obese people are weak and lazy who care nothing about their health or their appearance.

When have we heard these kinds of statements in discussion or debate?

Not often and not without being vilified and condemned.


Today, there is no acceptable public place or forum to speak your mind about anything.

Anything, let alone important issues that need discussion and free expression.

Fear of vilification or punishable discrimination now outweighs the desire to express the truth.

Thus, although the world and social media is covered in Q&A meetings, debates and social issue forums, none of the panels, speakers or attendees are free to speak their mind without the tangible threat of being attacked for their expression.

Now more than ever, we are effectively banned from conducting meaningful discussion or debate, where truth is the objective.

By truth, We mean simply saying what's on your mind: your experience, your feelings, your rational conclusions, your opinion.

So much of what we think is now offensive and unacceptable, even honest expression is forbidden.

In 2015, the British Medical Journal published an editorial "You can't outrun a bad diet" stating that lack of exercise and sedentary lifestyle had almost nothing to do with weight gain, that weight gain is mostly caused by diet. Shortly after, the editorial was removed following a barage of complaints.

Why the censorship?

Because, the truth hurts. The truth hurts, and therefore simultaneously creates a victim and an offender. The discussion is now no longer a search for truth or an activity of sharing ideas. The discussion ends and has become a trial, where judgment and punishment will be forthcoming.

Worse than the consequent absence of truth seeking and knowledge sharing are the lies, fallacies and frank false appeasement and sycophancy that replaces it.

This is a double whammy. We avoid the truth and encourage lies.

This being the result, how could we ever expect to benefit, resolve, improve as indidivudals and as a society?

If you find fat people ugly, you cannot express that. So how could we ever know what people think about fat people and the aesthetic relationship?

If fat people tell us that they are fat because they have a genetic cause or something beyond their control, how can we move away from stagnant effect to cause, and then address the cause?

If we argue against this lack of control, and that will power, competing priorities and choices are the cause, you will be prosecuted.

To most people, fat is instinctively aesthetically repulsive. But no one will ever say that in public.

Most people see a fat person and judge that the person is lazy and weak. If they are in most cases lazy and weak, then we can move forward toward the truth of causation.

If there is no problem with obesity, that obesity is good or not an issue for society to be botherered discussing, then why is it such a huge and popular topic? Why such offense, if it doesn't matter, if opinions against fat are false, wrong, bad?

No one enjoys, or takes a compliment, for being told they are fat. Nor that they are ugly.

But is the purpose of a forum that claims to be held to seek understanding, shared ideas, and resolution, actually held as the primary objective? Or is the purpose of the forum to justify a vulnerable sector of society in the continuation of their habits, to preserve and protect their feelings and to feel good about yourself for standing up for and supporting sycophantically a vulnerable group?

Is the true purpose of the rational debates really just an exercise in making all attendees feel good?

Honest debate is not concerned about feelings, but about truth. Rational. logical understanding and the benefits of philosophical inquiry cannot be achieved if they are stopped from continuing as soon as someone's feelings are hurt.

The truth hurts. And today, whatever hurts is bad and must be crushed and punished and damned. Not hurting people outweighs the truth, therefore the truth is kept unspoken and unseen.

That is the real danger.

If we can't say what we think, then we can't expect to obtain the truth, subjective or objective.

The progress of curing cancer through foetal stem cell research was all but ended by the Catholic Church and protests from the masses of people who put their personal beliefs above ending the suffering of others.

So, what remains in the latest collection of human knowledge about the world?

Lies, falsehoods and unveiled knowledge.

Fat people are not normal. They are not beautiful. They are wrong. They are aberations.

Fat people drain the civic funds when they seek treatment for fat-related illnesses, which are preventable.

Fat people literally don't fit in society.

Fat people create an instant instinctive disgust.

The truth hurts.

Clive James - A Homage - Australian Bars

[the following is an interpretation of how Clive might have addressed the modern bar culture]

Bars in Australia today are a far cry from how I remember them…

Before I was banned from entering bars in Australia.

In my day, a bar was a place you went to unwind and relax and recount the horrors of the week with friends and strangers.

Today, a bar is a place to go to wind up not down. A place where the pretence of the week was just a warm up for the real thing.

A bar is a place to dress as pretentiously as the conversation. A place to sell the best you to anyone looking. A place to get noticed, photographed and maybe just maybe to score.

The Australian bar today is not a place you go to relax, but a place you go to confirm your power, your wealth and status. It’s not a place for the light-hearted.

Ironically, an Australian bar requires no demands acute sobriety. Sitting on half a bar stool, with your gut sucked in and your muscles glowing throw a tight shirt, the bar has become a stage… where pensive reflection is pressed down and heroic persona forces its way over the sadness just beneath the surface.

Perhaps this titanic change in bar culture is a reflection of modern society’s obsession with the self. Where the weakness of realism is too real for punters to accept. Today’s bar hopper is under social contract to perform, to entertain, to keep the positive spin of the day’s latest fad.

Perhaps that’s why, I feel I don’t belong in this modern version of the village billabong. I’m too sad, too lonely and too outspoken on issues that really matter.

Perhaps that’s why I’m proud and relieved to be banned from the Australian bar of today.

The Boron

Ever get stuck with someone in a social situation and the conversation is awkward, quiet, strained, uncomfortable?

You're struggling to break the awful silence with some banter and you're failing.

You're in a social relationship with the person whether you like it or not.

You were left there by someone, or you just end up in close proximity with a person.

The nauseating silence chews at you. You have to say something.

You try the standard banter. The response is awful. It's clear this person is not into collborating with you, or their own attempts breed further awkward silence and failure to connect.

Could be you're stuck in the presence of a Boron.

A Boron is a boring person. Someone who has nothing to say that interests you and is uninterested in what you have to say.

The conversation is boring. The person is boring.

You've met a Boron.

Maybe you are the Boron. How do you tell?

Because you connect with everyone else. You have a full-on interesting conversation with others.

You notice that no one else can connect with the person.

It's not you. It's them. They are a Boron.

Run!

Toxic Masculinity

The latest slogan to appear all over social media is Toxic Masculinity.

A new name for an old complaint.

Men are bad.

Gee whiz. Never heard of that one before have we?

And like women are totally harmless, right?

The term was coined by a psychologist in the '80s.

The concept? Been around for about 200,000 years.

The term is another 2.0 version of ancient endless terms signifying the same old ancient complaints.

The term, currently used, stereotypes the entire male sexual gender.

So, weren't stereotypes bad? Wasn't tarring a whole group with the same brush a bad thing?

Oh... only when we say so.

If We wanted to stoop so low, we could use SJW arguments that the term is offensive, by SJW definitions.

Toxic masculinity as usual is another poorly defined slogan thrown around social media without any discussion of what it means. Sound familiar?

Without any definition accompanying its use, it's impossible therefore to tell what people mean when they use it. But let's have a guess.

Firstly, it feels pejorative, morally charged, superior, prejudiced, presumptuous, stereotyped, can we say negative?

Is this kind of negative terminology not in direct contradiction to the shoutings of SJWs?

Shouldn't the term be banned from speech, by the standards of the constantly offended hoi polloi?

The appeal of the term Toxic attached to the enemies of SJW, manly men, must be too much for planet-savers to bear. No definition required.

Masculinity is fine by itself. But the toxic version sounds... harmful. Bad. Must need to be treated as a problem. Removed or eradicated from society.

Papers scanned via scholarly writing sites do offer a range of definitions.

Academics qualify the term, as reference to the bad side of masculinity, especially We assume when it offends women or weak men, and society tolerates it. So, bad masculine behaviour is seen as Normalised. Society has accepted the bad side of masculinity. And now we planet-savers must campaign to destroy it.

And what do we do about Toxic Femininity?

Toxic Social Media?

Toxic SJWs?

Toxic Man-haters?

Toxic Causes?

Toxic Protesting?

Nothing.

Ironically, Misandrists accuse men of Misogyny.

How about re-focussing on Toxic Humanity? Or how about plain old rudeness?

Climate Rage

Today, Australians mass together across the three real cities in the latest privileged planet saving cause, a rage against inaction on the Climate Emergency.

Other countries kicked off the global whinge and now it's Australia's urban privilegeds' turn.

More surveys and news items are declaring the Climate as the number One concern for society; especially politicians, and you and me.

Not poverty, financial and political corruption, household debt, mental health, cuts in higher education, media control, monopolies, housing affordability, lack of effective policing, increased home invasions and car-jackings, the rising cost of medical treatment and energy, insurance gaps, the trend away from full-time work to part-time and casual, foreign takeovers, robots taking jobs, paedophile organisations preaching against sin, crushing costs of living...

No. Not that shit. Don't matter.

Climate Emergency!

Our top concern. Worthy of mass protest.

Screaming hysterical masses demand someone fix the Climate. Fuck the economy, farmers, the jobless, the disabled, the poor struggling to make ends meet. Fuck them. Climate Change is killing us right now and all our future generations are next (if we survive to have them). We're all gonna die and its our own fault (not us, but those who aren't us).

Drop everything else. We need to focus all our efforts on the climate and those evil people who fucked it up.

Who are those evil doers who destroyed our climate?

The government. Politicians. Greedy corporations. Murderers!

Questions:

How did you get to the protest? Did you walk?

How were all your clothes, cars, houses, furniture and appliances manfactured?

Where do you get your electricity from?

Why did you vote in a political party that doesn't believe in climate change?

At the last UN climate summit, where was our Prime Minister?

He decided to brown-nose Trump instead.

The devices you buy every year to tweet your rants and instagram yourselves on holiday and eating, how were those devices manufactured, powered?

All that shit food you eat, how did it make it from the farms and factories to your big mouth?

How come you don't protest outside the Chinese and Indian embassies, consulates?

The two largest polluters in the world haven't heard any demands or complaints from you. Not a peep.

You demand Action Now! Exactly what do you want to be done, and done now? Do you have a clue?

We think you're just another mob of social-media addicted, Cause-seeking frauds proudly pretending to make a heroic effort to save the planet.

I'm saving the planet! I'm so awesome.

Look everyone. Look at me, waving banners, wailing slogans, crying, yelling cliches at the world, tweeting my fingerprints off, because that's how you save the planet.

Today thousands of disrupted vehicles sit still in gridlock, exhaust pipes pumping out greenhouse gasses, waiting for the traffic to clear.

Real people are struggling to live, suffering, terrified of the next bill, the next illness, keeping their job, keeping their family together, lonely, getting knocked back by real problems.

And today you're telling them the fucking climate is their most important concern.

You fucking stupid pack of useless dishonest self-contradicting wankers.

Hope the climate joins your protest and rains on you dickheads.

Why Respect the Law?

Comply with the Law. Familiarise with it. Accept the findings of the Law. Understand what you can of Law likely to cross your life path.

But why respect the Law?

The Laws are the product of the minds of people, not an almighty God.

The Laws are made by elite individuals, Parliament, Courts, not the collective public.

Laws are not made democratically (Aristotle's version not "representational" democracy).

Laws are inconsistent across the world. In Russia it is against the law to be homosexual, but not in Australia. In some US States marijuana use and possession for personal use is legal but not in the UK.

Even within nation states the Law is still subject to interpretation of individual people.

Laws are so hard to understand the average citizen needs an expert to interpret them, a person trained for years in particular laws.

All this means that the Law is fallible and does not deserve that resepected status it holds among most.

The Law is the best thing we have for ensuring a society has rules controlling behaviour and some vague idea of a moral society.

Why respect only the best thing we currently have?

Yet in court there is no fallibility, no misinterpretation, no incorrect judgment.

Even with courts of appeal, the same respect is demanded of the Law.

It is reasonable to agree that any group of people need rules.

It is unreasonable to respect the Law.

But to praise it, to fight and die and harm for it, to use it as a moral compass, to hold it among other respected things like family, friendship and love and security, wisdom, talent, physical ability, resilience, science, spirituality, courage, sacrifice, altruism, is ridiculous and self-contradictory.

These things are not respected for their infallibility, but for their intrinsic value. These things are respected as the ends to most of our means in life.

The Law is respected for like a God, as an end for all means, for its perfection, its superiority, its heavenly power and authority above all else.

Why this mindless respect then?

The reason is fundamental. Humans have a fetish for objective truth.

Humans believe that above us all exists close but often unreachable truth, not man-made, but true in itself.

The Law is, to too many, such an entity living like a God in the heavens above us.

Like the Latin Bible, the Law is so high above the average person we need experts, interpreters, Lawyers, to study it, pass exams and explain and work it for us.

The Law is just a bunch of the latest temporary fickle rules of a particular society.

The Law changes, is often against the morality of contemporary society because it changes slower than our morality.

The Law is man-made, not carved on stone tablets by God sent down to us from the sky.

The Law should be obeyed. But the Law does not deserve our respect.

What is a Bogan?

A famous Australian poet called Banjo Patterson coined the term Bogan in his poem City of Dreadful Thirst in 1902.

"We don't respect the clouds up there, they fill us with disgust,
They mostly bring a Bogan shower -- three raindrops and some dust;

What did he mean?

He meant the term Bogan as something below standard. Something pathetic. Something that is not enough; below par. He was referring to the Bogan river, which was less than a river should be, as a metaphor for the rain. The Bogan river was a sad trickle of muddy sludge that couldn't live up to the status of a flourishing river. Banjo used Bogan metaphorically to represent the rainfall that was uttlery useless.

Since then it was used metaphorically as something below standard; something of low standard.

We can see how it was used to differentiate between groups' characteristics; sophisticated versus peasant. Different standards, often polarised, held between the two groups.

And so the term Bogan had evolved to mean something of the lowest level, metaphorically.

Today, Bogan refers to a group of people in society with the same shared low standards. Peasants.

A Bogan today is a person of low standard. Unsophisticated. Unrefined. Base.

Today, so many Australians display the same behaviour as an unsophisticated, uncivilised, unrefined person that the general public calls them Bogan.

Bogans reject civilised sophisticated refined behaviour. They see it as ponsy, pretentious, dishonest behaviour and they refute it aggressively.

Being quiet in public, reserved, patient, tolerant, well-mannered, well-dressed and well-spoken is anathema to so many Australians.

This being the case, we see examples throughout Australian society.

In fact the whole world has versions of Bogan.

In the UK, they're called Chavs. In the US, Red-necks. In France, Bouffons.

So their behaviour is predictable.

We know from the fundamental cause above everything about them; they're favourite food, music, employment, hobbies, interests, beliefs, morality, tastes, dress and bearing, attitudes to advanced societal changes e.g. gays, transgender, politics, morals, problem solving, dispute resolution etc.

They are by nature morally and politically conservative.

That's because they've identified the final acceptable standard for all things and they stick to them no matter what.

The best effort of a Bogan is their least effort.

This reverance for the lowest standards is a life-style, a belief system, a moral system.

Consequently, they promote their Bogan behaviour to themselves and their children. They are a self-replicating sub-societal sect within society.

Bogans are the proud peasants of the current era.

They also love loud noises. Loud speech, loud music, loud cars. They have no care for self-awareness. They dress outdoors like they dress at home.

They have no interest in refining themselves to the higher levels of social sophistication, but mock it.

They'd rather eat a dried up petrol station pie than a fresh well-cooked steak in a restaurant.

Bogans are the lowest form of human in a civilised society and they're proud of that.

Bogans swear and spit and burp and fart and yell and argue in public.

An impromptu dispute in the street with another party will be resolved by the Bogan with either violence or by yelling "Fuck off cunt."

When you understand how low your standards in everything can be, you understand Bogan.

They prouldy claim to speak their mind.

Bogans empty their thoughts, emotions, into speech in any social situation, like an endless shotgun.  No bullshit. This is because they reject civilised expression and controlled, appropriate behaviour. Whatever is in their skull comes bursting out of their snarling mouth without any control or planning.

Bogans aspire only base life activities: to eat, fuck, shit, drink, yell, sleep, repeat; and they do nothing to refine themselves.

That is their life goal. To exist as a caveman. A wild dog.

So what's the problem?

1. They vote,

2. They have kids,

3. They occupy some same spaces as refined people.

4. They cross our paths every day.

5. They drive.

6. They promote low standards across society.

7. They can't be argued with or de-escalated in dispute. They are uncompromising.

Further:

Having a huge proportion of society aspiring to low standards is a backwards step in the evolution of civilised society.

How do we more refined civilised types cope, manage?

Bogans simply need to be mocked, laughed at, treated with disprespect and ignored for them to become harmless abberations.

We can't eradicate this sub-sect.

Like terrorists and religious nuts, we will never rid society of Bogans, but we can treat them in a way that keeps them at the bottom of the barrel of civilisation where they belong, where they want to be.

Our New Global Messiah - Greta Thunberg

Greta Thunberg is a 1st World 16 year old "girl".

She is another naive imbecile on the world stage with millions of idiot followers who influences cause-seeking morons in public and public office.

Just like all the others out there with the same sickening influence and political power, Trump, Putin, Morrison, Xing Ping and other idiot leaders in Brazil, the Philippines etc etc.

Like all teenagers, she claims to have Autism, Asbergers, depression and other markers of genius and superhuman talent and insight.

Like all Millenials, she has clutched onto a globally catastrophic cause too big to understand, but believed in with the dumb verve of an evangelist religious nut job.

She's found a band wagon and taken the reigns and off she hurtles down a road to anywhere.

Her cause doesn't matter, like none do to Millenials. As long as the cause aims to stop the world from exploding, from billions of lives being destroyed unless the cause acheives a naive poorly understood political outcome and public action.

The cause doesn't matter, because it's not the cause that drives the hysteria. It's the immature teenage drivers all humans crawl through on the way to adulthood.

I want everyone to love me, respect me, follow me, agree with me, comfort me, hug me.

I want to express my self-inflicted anxiety, fear, hysteria, depression and other teen stresses caused by watching the news, Home and Away, being oppressed by my parents, teachers, authorities and stressors caused when my phone dies in the middle of a Tweet or Text, when I can't find a phone charger, when I get less than 10 Likes, when someone says something negative to me on social media.

But I don't want to earn it honestly, because that takes effort, struggle, sacrifice, patience, diligence, intelligence. Oh it's all too hard. Earning respect and acheiving valuable goals is harder than cleaning my bedroom or doing the chores for mummy and daddy.

It's much easier to Tweet, Facebook, Instagram and email from the comfort of my messy bedroom or in class at school.

When I join a Cause, I'm no longer alone. I'm respected. I belong somewhere. I'm fighting the evil authorities and the evil corporate world, the evil patriarchy. I'm a Warrior!

I'm smart. I'm superior. I'm a Hero. I'm infallible.

But oh yeah. I'm also a victim. I'm down-trodden. I'm oppressed. I'm treated like a child.

The Cause may be real. Climate change, rising sea-levels, global warming, may all be actual scientifically verifiable events. They seem to be, if you scan mainstream science and political action from international organisations like the UN.

However, the veracity and value of the cause is NOT the point for Millenials like Greta.

The point is the fundamental point of any teen, any Millenial.

I want something great for nothing.

That something has to be a huge cause that creates a band wagon of brothers resisting the oppressive authorities and in doing so, allows me to express my teen angst, exhibit my awesome childish wisdom, my moral and intellectual superiority, and turns my weaknesses into awe-inspiring strengths.

Contrarily, I want to follow causes that are laced with as many oppressed minorities as possible.

Minorities who have one, some or all of the following lifestyles or conditions:

1. Austism.
2. Veganism.
3. Gender Confusion.
4. Homeopathic medical treatment.
5. Alternative Lifestyles.
6. Homosexuality.
7. Allergies.
8. Transgenderism.
9. Disabilities.
10. Minority religious beliefs.
11. Minority ethnicity.
12. Immigrants: especially asylum seekers.
13. Obesity.
14. Annorexia.
15. Depression.
16. Anxiety.
17. Phobias.
18. Environmentalism.

Millenials like Greta seek to check off as many of these items from the lifestyle shopping list available these days.

None of this stupidity would matter, if it wasn't for a couple of serious problems for society now and in the future.

1. Adults support them.
2. Politicians support them.
3. Their stupid ideas become law, policy, societal tenets.
4. Children grow up thinking they are equal in wisdom about the world as adults or even more wise.
5. Children grow up thinking you can get anything for nothing.
6. Real wisdom and deserved respect are devalued right down to low levels.
7. Mediocrity is celebrated, promoted and is the highest standard. No higher standard is required.
8. Bullshit is treated like the truth.
9. Educators grow them.
10. They share the same platforms as real intellectuals.


Why are we adults being dictated to by naive children who know nothing about the world, nothing about the complicated co-dependent systems that struggle to keep our shitty world intact?

Has anyone noticed why no political or corporate organisations are lead by children?

Has anyone noticed why no children are Judges, surgeons, engineers, published research scientists?

Where do we find great works of philosophy written by children?

The world is far more complicated than your simplistic view imagines.

You haven't had sex, children, serious intimate relationships. You haven't suffered the harsh lessons of a long life: failed marriages involving kids, chronic physical illness, inability to pay bills, balancing your budget to sustain a household, struggling to find work and keep your job because you have dependents, struggling through years of formal study, saving for a mortgage and struggling to avoid a default. You have no idea what suffering is. You know why?

Because you haven't lived yet.

Being a child does NOT automatically grant you a life-time of wisdom.

Being a child does NOT make your understanding of complex systems like government, law, politics, sociology, psychology and human nature greater than that of leaders, experts, your parents.

Being a child makes you as simple-minded and ignorant as your short life has made you.

Parroting the latest Cause jargon doesn't fool anyone either. Big adult words you hear on TV are well-known cliches and vaccuous policy slogans used by fraudulent adults to fool adult morons.

But even adult morons have an advantage over you. They have suffered for real, they have substantial life experience.

Before you go and change the entire world with your Tweets and your ranting balling outbursts and school-wagging protests, how about you go clean your fucking bedroom, do the dishes and read a book first.

Wisdom comes with age, not watching TV or reading Tweets.

Wisdom comes from learning, suffering, adapting, experiencing life. That takes time, a long time.

And you children by definition don't have time.

The various Causes you latch onto are often very serious issues that should be actioned, discussed, analysed, broken down into their component sub-systems for debate and resolution.

The Causes you support may indeed be real, but that doesn't automatically mean you understand them. Nor does it mean you have the intellectual capability of doing anything about them, besides screaming and wailing about them like a fucking retard throwing shit at cars on the street because they're noisey and scarey.

We have one final thing to say to Greta and her childish fraudulent pathetic self-victimised, depressed anxious autistic deluded idiots of her immature ilk:

Grow the fuck up.

Until then, shut the fuck up.

Millenials - The Future

Can you imagine a future with Millenials at the helm of our societies and governments?

What characteristics define Millenials?

1. Ban all words and practices that offend anyone.

2. I deserve a high paid job no matter what.

3. Hard work does not lead to success. The rewards of success are attained by right.

4. All negative statements, acts, discussions are anathema and must be prevented, stopped, opposed and punished, without condition.

5. Everyone's a winner. There are no losers.

6. The rights of the individual outweigh the interests of society, authorities and government.

7. Anything that makes you feel bad or sad is wrong.

8. Nothing is worth war or conflict.

9. All discussions must be positive and include nothing negative.

10. Equality means equality of outcome, not opportunity.

11. Conventional beliefs are to be challenged always and doubted due to their origin in archaic, patriarchal and obsolete authority. E.g. international borders should be abolished.

12. Authority is a false concept and its manifestations are to be destroyed.

13. We are all victims and victims of multiple causes. Therefore, we all need our victimisation to be addressed by destroying the cause of our victimhood.

14. Everyone is the same, in value, in capability, in treatment.

15. If you disagree with me, you are offensive and aggressive and wrong.

16. I must have the right to speak freely, but no one else does, if they disagree with me.

17. Everyone is good, no matter what they do.

18. There are no facts, only opinions.

19. We should not sacrifice or compromise in order to achieve a greater good for society or for ourselves.

20. All men are violent and aggressive and oppressive.

21. Sexual gender is a choice.

We could go on.

But this is enough to make the point.

If our leaders, our influencers, our law makers and policy makers and our government follow the Millenial tenets above, we need to plan now for the consequences.

What is Justice?

As usual with important concepts, the term "justice" gets bandied around in conversation, statements and debate with little explanation.

If you ask anyone on the street or even lawyers and judges, you will hear a range of distinct, vague and inadequate answers.

That's because people don't discuss the meanings of terms.

People say things like, "Justice has been served." or, "We did not get justice."

As far as We can tell, there are two popular but distinct uses of the term "justice."

Legal Justice:

What is just is what the law says, especially how it is interpreted by lawyers.

Moral Justice:

What is just is what accords with someone's morality.

Legal Justice is what occurs with the conclusion of legal proceedings: the verdict, the ruling, the sentence, the outcome.

Moral Justice occurs when someone agrees that an act accords with their morals, what they think is wrong or right.

The problem with Legal Justice is that the courts, judges and lawyers are fallible and thereby may be mistaken in their decision. So, what was just may not be just.

The problem with Moral Justice is that it is subjective, so that two people may think the same act is both wrong and right respectively, just and unjust.

So, the term now appears useless.

We want justice to be objectively true despite fallible rulings and despite personal morality.

Now we see that justice will not afford us what we need it to be.

The pursuit of justice is therefore futile.

Justice is tied to subjective personal morals and so cannot be sought for its independent objectuive truth or certainty.

There is no justice, only morality.

Freedom of Speech?

There is a movement developing currently that says it supports free speech, but.

This movement contradicts itself by supporting concurrently statements X and not X.

Hate speech is a common phrase used today to limit free speech. If you say something contrary to this movement, they will attempt to shut you down by referring to your speech as hate speech, and speech that incites violence.

This movement is expressed by a logical fallacy.

At the same time, there is an overlapping movement to protect victims proactively from having their feelings hurt.

These vicitmisers argue that free speech limits statements that "might" offend someone.

The problem with this movement is that if you can only say something that doesn't offend someone, you cannot say anything.

How is that freedom of speech?

Angst

People!

Angst is NOT a synonym for Anxiety.

Angst is the German word for Fear.

Furthermore,

Begging the Question does NOT mean, that issue compels us to ask an obvious question.

Begging the Question means someone making a point has not defended their argument or assumption with a satisfactory explanation.

Freedom of Speech but with Owning the Consequences

SJWs will argue aggressively that freedom of speech is okay, but the speaker needs to take responsibility for the consequences of what they say and do.

If we use that logic, we can argue that a woman who is raped had the freedom to express themselves in their clothing and therefore need to accept responsibility for the rape.

Not so good now is it.

The Need for Negative Critical Heated Debate

Arguing is vital for societal and individual progress, resolution, discovery and wisdom. Without unfettered honest argument, we are all doomed.

We start arguing from a young age with our parents. They argue back and the formula we are all familiar with plays out. We learn to defend our views, our values, our egos with words and statements, apologies and other tools to do so. We argue with passion directly proportional to the importance of the subject, the delicacy of our ego, the nature of our temperament and other factors.

It is natural and good for an argument to touch our soul, our raw nerves, our values. It is natural to feel passionate in an argument.

As we get older, we learn more about the periphery of arguing and its structure, its nature and potential to be improved or degraded, its value, the argument itself, becomes a personal life-long subject of inquiry and tool for development.

Then approaching adulthood we meet people who paradoxically argue against arguing. Or if not in pursuit of wholesale opposition, they presume to lay down the limits and scope of argument subjectively in a way to win. The rules and the intellectual prerequisites are argued to be abided by before proceeding. How arrogant. And thus ad hominem is born among other fallacies to win the argument by cheating - through other means than clarity, logic, empirical evidence and the more objective structural attributes of the argument.

Instead, the less cultured antagonist will stoop to mean and cheap cheating to defeat the opponent through insults and fallacies.

As if that weren't enough to discourage the activity or arguing, the honest then face a movement among people that an argument should never be negative, non-constructively critical, or offensive. The argument should not be driven or accompanied by emotion or passion.

With all these rules and limitations, the argument itself faces extinction, if such a movement gains powerful backing and succeeds in its aim.

The aim will remove the human and humanity from an argument.

We argue that these limitations beyond logic and evidence and objective tools and frameworks must be removed.

An argument without passion is merely an academic or intellectual pursuit to solve a harmless puzzle.

And of course the many things in dire need of public debate today are likely to offend by their very nature. Abortion, obesity, sexual orientation, gender identity, terrorism, religion - all gone.

What is needed now more than ever is passionate heated debate, because then we know its honest and truth is the goal, not a trophy for best person.

If we are stopped from seeking truth from the very beginning because we're too negative or too critical or offensive, then those immense complicated and important arguments will not happen and the problem will remain and will grow and will do harm to all.

Fear of arguing is a poor development of humanity. It will lead to more hatred and suffering.

The Voice of the Youth... Baaaaaaaa

The Gen Y and Millenial generations are quickly becoming monolithic in their views about serious societal and political issues.

It doesn't seem to matter what the issue is, if it involves a minority, it must be supported and supported without deliberation, argument or any facts.

Whatever the issue, every single person is perfect and good and flawless and correct, without condition.

Thus, if someone wants to identify has a Skoda sedan, they must be supported and any contrary view is wrong and must be crushed.

This axiomatic mindless fundanmentalism is the litmus test of any debate.

But what's behind it?

Fundamentally, there are psychological drivers:

- I don't like authorities telling me what is good or right, so I reject all authority.

- I am weak and politically powerless so I will join a group of likeminded weaklings to feel like I belong and I am supported.

- I lack the intellect and knowledge to argue in support of my personal views, so I will defer to emotion to defeat opponents.

- Logic and science are very powerful and a threat to my ego, so I will join movements that oppose them.

So we can now predict with accuracy the causes Gen Y and Millenials will support based on these fundamentals.

They will support all minorities who suffer existentially from criticism by logic, science, reasoning and other powers behind conventional thought.

- Muslims
- Obese people
- Transgender people
- Feminists
- Vegans
- Homosexuals
- Alternative life stylers
- Ecological warriors and Environmentalists
- Religious people
- Ethinc groups and immigrants from minorities

Our young people will mindlessly support all these groups NOT because they can see a need, but because they are in fashion and they satisfy the fundamental drivers behind their support above.

This is fraudulent, anti-intellectual, and promotes the worst characteristics of human beings:

- Bullshitting to look good
- Knocking others down to make us feel better or more powerful
- Cheating
- Enjoying the defeat of superiors
- Pleasure from defeating authorities
- Schadenfreud

The problem for young is that the smartest of us can see right through this thin veil. We know what you are doing and why. You can't fool us. You are a sheep and you Baa because you are pathetic.

We're on to you.

Please Don't Hurt Me... Or I'll Crush You!

The time we are living in will be remembered in history as many things, including the Age of the Vengeful Victim.

In the past, an arguer would be defeated by Logic, Empirical Evidence or deferring to Moral Taste. There the argument would end. The loser withdrawing to their room for contemplation or self-pity.

Today, the Loser in the argument can rebound and make an Appeal to authorities for having had their feelings hurt. A punishment will be sought.

Today, the Loser can conclude the argument by pressing for a breach in social, employment policy or legislation. Thus the Loser gets to win the argument by ad hominem.

The failed polemicist thus converts into The Victim. A victim demanding retribution.

This last resort of the meek is not lost on today's contenders, who are now beginning to shy away from frank and fearless argument altogether.

The fear of being punished by an opponent with the weight of law behind them is prophylactic.

Why risk serious and enduring harm just to speak your truth?

How will this trend evolve?

Honest debate will end. The pursuit of truth cut short. The search for truth and clarity too risky to pursue. What will society look like in such a world?

A society where serious problems go unsolved for fear of the consequences of offering diverse views.

And all the while, the meek shall celebrate the power of professing their views free from criticism and intellectual testing.

This is a world prohesied as warning from Huxley to Orwell to Russell and all those who cherish Freedom of Speech and the merciless pusuit of truth and accuracy and intellligence over emotion and appeasement of psychological fragility.

It is a world doomed to silence. A world ruled by the ignorant, the pathetic, the frail.

We advise all those who have benefited from the sacrifice of Free Thinkers and brave interlocutors hitherto to stand against the oppressive minorities who demand our silence in favour of their being found utterly Wrong.

Dennis Prager argues that a debater should not seek to Win an argument, but only to clarify where the debaters differ. A clarity of difference. But how can we clarify where we differ, when we cannot speak without fear of severe punishment?

Truth-Seekers of the World, UNITE!

Civil Language

If current trends in social and civil behaviour continue, a number of consequences are likely.

Apart from no one speaking the truth or their true thoughts in discussion, for fear of being charged under the law, there is the gradual removal of even simple historical and cultural greetings and spoken manners.

The following traditional terms will gradually disappear:

- Thank you
- How are you?
- Please
- Welcome
- Nice to see you
- How is he/she?
- You look good/well/great

Two drivers behind the disappearance are developing concurrently:

1. Fear of offense
2. Social-Media Speak

Fear of offending someone is currently annoying, but will soon be a factor prior to all social contact.

Text messaging and email language is now appearing in verbal conversation.

Both developments are changing the language used traditionally without fear or concern.

That change is not seeking improvement of communication or eloquence or respect. That change has a hidden agenda to prevent an opponent from defeating your argument, and thereby your delicate fragile ego.

Thus, the agenda is fraudulent and anti-truth. It must be stopped from developing and shown up for what it is.

Because Political Correctness and the Internet has now given voice to minorities, we are now seeing the explosion of minority views on social communication domains. They thought they could just announce their bullshit minority views without response.

Now they are not happy with the responses and want to shut them down, because the responses seek truth not bullshit and so there is the dispute.

Now the responders won;t be shut down, so the minorities appeal to the law and the politically powerful to shut down their responders.

That's cheating. That's lazy. That is not how we argue and discuss important issues.

But the fear of speaking the truth extends beyond disussion to common traditional greetings and banter.

From here on, people are too scared to say things to others at the point of meeting for fear of offending them. So, it would be safer to say nothing, or something contrived as neutral.

When we live in a world where saying anything can be taken as offensive, people will stop talking all together.

Is that good for a community?

Being Fat is Good

Another fad spewed out of the little brains of small people across mainstream social media and media is...

Being obese is good.

Woman who are fat are beautiful.

Fat is attractive.

Proponents argue along the same formula we've being seeing now for years:

Pick a minority group that's been picked on and tell the world they are awesome and you the General Public must agree, you must change your minds and behaviour to promote and support this group, you must change your language and your values, because they are WRONG.

As We have said many times before, we live in the Era of the Minority.

The smallest voices now have the loudest voice and power they could only have dreamed of before the Internet and Political Correctness.

So all the stupid, the talentless, the boring, the scared, the pathetic, the morally fucked, now hold the front and centre position on the global stage.

So all the most fucked ideas out there held by 0.8% of humans are now Popularly Held.

Holy Shit.

The New List is long.

Men are Evil Rapists.

You can choose your sexual gender.

Meat is murder.

It's racist to even talk about Ethnicity unless it's a lovely statement.

Opening doors for women is a masculine powerplay designed to bribe a woman into having sex with men.

Words you use must be vetted by minorities in case they offend, and if so those words must not be used and replaced by words minorities have chosen for you.

Ugly is beautiful.

Right is wrong.

Good is bad.

And Super Fat Women are objectively beautiful, if you disagree you are wrong and you are disgusting.

What the fuck!

Can you imagine the world in 10 years if you extrapolate the trend?

It's a future of lies, fear, division, suppression, litigation, where genuine rational people are silenced leaving only morons running debate and establishing the current world view on everything.

The weak will inherit the earth.

The world will be dominated by fad trends and bullshit lifestyles and minority beliefs, dictating the opinions and values of everyone. And if you oppose, you will be crushed. Because the governments will back them up as will your employers.

This freedom ending catastrophe must be killed immediately before it gains even more momentum and it's too late to repair.

Kill it dead where ever you see it.

Before it kills you.

Schools Suck - What Should We be Teaching Our Children in School?

We need to start teaching our children in schools what they and we need them to learn, not what they are being taught currently.

We assume here that the fundamental purpose of school education is twofold:

1. To produce school-leavers who will be Good citizens.

2. To develop the social aspects of children, so they become skilled in social success and the management of other people.

If there are other primary reasons for organised schooling, We would like to know them.

As it is, the goals above are assumed as primary objectives, for which every effort in schooling aims.

Now, is the current suite of education programmes acheiving the goals above?

No they are not.

Schools teach what has always been taught and is therefore thoughtless and aimless.

Education departments are run by university graduates with no life experience or philosophy of education training, lead by old teachers and bureaucrats who wallow in a swamp of group think and bland governmental education policy, itself driven by elections and sophistry.

Those with the authority and resources to produce and implement good schooling strategies are politicians and the bureaucrats who serve them. These disinterested and unskilled drones rush to the latest educational research papers and studies to present the facade of "making change" in education, but really only aim to leave their mark, their legacy.

Thus, poorly implemented experimental theories in the latest developments, or fads, in education and schooling are trialled on students every year. Every year a new "idea" is imposed upon schools, whose teachers are then forced to squeeze these squares into round holes and make it work. In the meantime, the students are flung about like a plastic bag in the wind of experimental schooling.

That's the means. Let's look at the ends.

Do we teach our children what will make them good citizens and happy individuals? No.

For example, do we teach children how to manage other people formally? No we don't.

Do we teach children how to persuade, argue, apologise rationally? No we don't.

Do our children leave school with an understanding of how the world works? No they don't.

So many requirements of having production of Good citizens and people who know what steps to take toward managing others are not met by education as it currently stands.

If we assume this to be true, let us move on to what a school should teach its students, Eight Subjects:

Philosophy, Economics, Mathematics, Science, Politics, Classics, PE and Life Skills.

1. PHILOSOPHICAL SUBJECTS

RHETORIC

Public Speaking: Argument, Apology, Delivery (Breath Control, Enunciation, Stature, Engagement, Courage).

Debate: Persuasion, Sophistry, Rebuttal, Retort, Refute, Passion vs Reason

Public Address and Policy Expression

Questioning. Interrogation. Passive Voice. Implication.

Informal Argument and Conflict Resolution

PHILOLOGY

Language development, use and misuse

LOGIC

Argument: premise to conclusion, tautology, dialectic (debate)

Theories and methods of reasoning

Articulation and expression

EPISTEMOLOGY

How we know what we know and to what degree

Claims to know

ONTOLOGY

What is existence? What is real and what is unrreal?

Reality and Metaphysics

RELIGION

Theories of Belief, Faith, Orthodoxy, Sect, Cult

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, Animism, Totem, Humanism

ETHICS

Wrong and right. Good and bad. The Good Life. Morality.

Jurisprudence: Law, Justice, Crime and Punishment.

AESTHETICS

Theory: Beauty. Taste. Subjective versus objective. Judgment.

Practise: The Fine, Dramatic and Performing Arts (Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, Plays, Dance, Music, Calligraphy), Expression (prose, verse, poetry, playwriting)

Ancient and Modern Fine Art

English Literature: Analytical reading, effective and creative writing.

2. ECONOMICS / FINANCE

Macro and micro.

Finance: trade, currency, banking, capital, securities, debt, crisis, trending, growth, recession, indicators, fiscal and monetary policy

Theories of Economics: Capitalism, Marxism, Keynesean, Adam Smith, Laissez-faire

Personal budgeting, wealth management, investment, saving


3. MATHEMATICS

Why maths matters. Development of Logic.

Arithmetic, Geometry, Trigonometry, Algebra, Calculus, Statistics

Proportion and ratio

Applied Mathematics: engineering, life-skills


4. SCIENCE

SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Observation/Experience, Hypothesis, Experiment, Testing, Proof, Evidence, Peer Review, Apology

Empirical verification and falsification

Research and Articulation: Thesis

History and Philosophy of Science

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

Physics (Quantum Physics, Mechanics, Dynamics, Statics), Chemistry, Biology

Astronomy, Geology, Meteorology, Evolution  (i.e. space, earth, sky, life)

HUMAN BIOLOGY

Anatomy / Physiology

Health and Pathology, Biochemistry

Treatment, Pharmacology

Medicine

First Aid

PSYCHOLOGY

Theories of the mind

Mental illness and treatment


5. POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

POLITICS

Types of rule/government: Monarchy, Tyranny, Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Timarchy, Plutocracy.

Separation of Powers: Executive, Judiciary, Legislative

Liberty and Control. Concepts of Freedom.

Rights. Authority. Representation. Rule. Participation. Law and Custom.

Current Issues: Terrorism, Globalisation, Labour Markets

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

How political groups relate. Trade, UN, Conflict and Security, NGOs, Treaty, Asylum.

WARFARE

History and Philosophy of human conflict and war

Current Military Studies

HISTORY

Empire, Colony, City States, State Sovereignty, Feudalism

Mediterranean, European, East Asia, Americas, Africa, Oceania

The Renaissance, The Enlightenment, The Reformation, Romantic Period


6. CLASSICAL STUDIES

Ancient Greek and Roman History, Politics, Society and Literature

Classic Literature Ancient and Modern

Classic Languages: Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Chinese, Arabic, Old English, Germanic, Slavic


7. PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT

Mechanical, Game and Competition theory

Physical exercise to develop cardiovascular, musculature fitness, endurance, toughness, adaptability

Martial Arts and Self Defence

Sports: team and individual

Talent discovery


8. LIFE SKILLS

Isolating subjects already studied above, but applied to individual living.

E.g. budgeting, law, politics, health, career, relationships, maths, economics, rhetoric

Domestic Skills: budgeting, cooking, service provider management, maintenance, planning

Consumer Awareness: consumer law, smart buying, due diligence

Substance abuse, addiction, vehicle driving, health maintenance, friendship, sex education, conflict resolution, crime, social media.

How the immediate society works:

City Planning, Local Government, Policing, Council Services, Energy Distribution, Traffic, Education, Health, Social Welfare, Industry, Housing, Labour Markets

People Management: How to engage with people to meet individual interests balanced by good citizenship: conflict resolution, relationship development, character vs persona, influence and persuasion, stress management, applied sociology and psychology.

Social Media: pros and cons, identity protection, predators and trolls, mental health, networking, online communities, freedom of expression vs social responsibility

Conflict Resolution to include: bullying, harrassment, passive aggressive, situational awareness, disengaging and de-escalating, support networks, negative discrimination, mindfulness.

STRATEGY

Strategic thinking, Planning Ahead, Implication

CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING

Individually tailored programmes, further education, career options and work experience

Engagement from industry

Job searching, application writing, CV writing, interviewing, career planning

Managing disappointment


PHILOSOPHY

Not itself a subject, but an overarching and fundamental intellectual activity, to be applied across all Subjects. The philosophical method will be taught prior to each philosophical subject.

The children able to learn these subjects are most likely to succeed in understanding from 12 to 18 years of age.

Six subjects at one 50 minute lesson each per day, with all eight subjects spread over two weeks.

Teachers should be taught philosophy, as fundamental to their training.

If our children studied the subjects above, they would become better citizens than if they were taught only the current suite of subjects.

Some will argue this is way too much to learn and teach. Firstly, if you list the hours of subjects currently taught and then remove all the useless lessons, you will see a large gap in which to fill with many of the new subjects above. Secondly, the subjects above can be taught at a basic level, with the teacher focussing on the "gist" of each subject, rather than spending hours on details.

Thirdly, students should be taught the application of each subject in their life, and thus will continue the lessons out of school, as each subject makes an appearance in various situations they face in the course of their daily activities.

Therefore, the teaching method should be to introduce an idea and the student will fill in the details as they mull over them during the lesson and out of school. As each subject has a practical application in life, the student will conduct their own internal lesson, elaborating what they have learned in the course of their daily activities. Outside of school, the student becomes their own teacher, having been taught the skill of self-learning during school.

Some will argue life skills are the responsibility of parents not schools. We refer them to the notion that it takes a village to raise a child, not just two stressed out, time poor, under-skilled parents.

Since we all live together in a society, living under the same limitations, rules, opportunities, strengths and weaknesses, it follows that we all have a responsibility to look after each other as best we can, not just our kin. This is what makes the basics of a good citizen.

If a clod of dirt be washed away, the earth is as much the lesser.

There have been studies that show...

Ah... the last argument of the fallen.

Philosophers have known for millenia the fallacy of the Argument from Authority.

Modern amateur polemicists are just catching up.

It's latest manifestation takes the form of the deference to a "study", as final or definitive truth or support to the argument.

"I must be right, if a study supports my argument." thinks the arguer.

However, the simplest retort is to counter-argue, "Studies have shown the opposite".

Yes, It is almost true that for every study's conclusion, a contradicting study's conclusion can be found.

Thus ends the potency of the argument form authority, where "a study" or "studies" are the claimed authority.

But this contradictive approach needs to be made clearer to naive polemicists.

You cannot end an argument by the lazy claims of a study being the final word.

To acheive the goal of your argument, to win the argument, to convince by intellectual force the opponent's argument, you will fail if you choose the argument from authority.

The argument from authority begs the question. The question remains.

By choosing this tactic, you are revealing yourself as a charlatan, whose previous argument was so weak, as to be abandoned in favour of "God says so."

Why We Need to Tax the Rich, but Can't

What's wrong with the rich?

Well...

Firstly, they corrupt democracy.

The Rich interefere with and thereby diminish the democratic process.

They either earn or buy access to politicians. They shape and influence political decisions.

They are respected and employed by politicians. Pollies are often even drawn from the billionaire's club.

They are represented by political parties or politicians individually, as though they needed representation in the same way the vulnerable do.

Having jumped in bed with politicians, they then promote policies that are against or indirectly worsen the state of the rest of us: such as employment conditions, job creation, taxation etc etc.

The profits and wealth of the rich are hidden by accountants and lawyers and overseas bank accounts and investments to avoid paying business and personal income tax, at the least.

They got rich through making money by any means, or because they picked the right parents.

The wealth of the rich creates a socially harmful disproportionate imbalance in the wealth of the state, whereby the wealth of the state is held beyond the reach or use of the state, and therefore the state's ability to fund social services is diminished.

The rich are protected by governments from failure, bad decisions and often even crime.

That's just for starters, but it's enough for Our argument.

Here we already have several reasons to take action.

But let's balance the equation. Baby, bath water style.

So, what good comes from having billionaires roaming the streets?

Obvious arguments from apologists usually start with:

-They employ everyone.
-They advance socially required developments, through investment or core business, such as medicine, travel, communication, energy production, which in turn are highly valued by us all.
- The pay the most tax, per capita, providing the most revenue to a state
- They spend more, thus creating jobs and adding to the profit for small businesses.
- They spend more on charities, proportionately.

Is this true? Or even partly true?

If it is true, does it matter?

Can we do without all that? Can we go on living without the filthy rich?

Perhaps a final comment will seal the deal.

Being very rich comes with a world view.

The view of the world they have developed is a direct consequence of their being rich.

They look back at the history of their wealth experience and conclude life lessons.

They make conclusions, hold beliefs and acquire a moral taste on social issues based on their lived experience, their rich life.

Some common examples held among many rich include:

- Some people are naturally superior to others, and others are naturally inferior, as far as societal value, intellect, aptitude for success, people management etc.

- Money is the measure of a person's value

- Money is power

- Money buys happiness and people

- Money is a panacea

- Money buys justice, freedom and politics

- The rich are smarter than the poor

- You make your own luck

- The poor should serve the rich

- It's okay to be cruel to the poor, they deserve it, they are born servile

Imagine these views being the basis for political decisions in a democracy.

A plutarchy would be the manifestation of these conclusions.

It is the ugliness of the rich, morally, intellectually, socially, that demands action from the rest of us.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes called rule by the few an Aristocracy, not a democracy. This includes so-called representatives of the people.

What happens when the Aristocrats are either the rich, or those representing them? That is de facto Plutocracy.

A solution has been proposed ad nauseum to simply tax the rich, thus more equally redistributing the wealth of the state.

There is a considerble show-stopper to this proposal.

So, returning to the original question, what's wrong with the rich?

Who enabled them in the first place? The government is the only authority that has the power to enable the rich.

Therefore, the government is the only authority that has the power to disable the rich, through such as targeted taxation.

But when the government represents and consists in the rich, we are asking the rich to tax themselves.

So, considering the simplest of actions would never be implemented by the rich upon themsleves, such as to destroy their own status, there is no recourse for the rest of us.

No recourse that is, but rebellion.

Good luck everyone!

Arse-Kissing By Any Other Name

Arse-kissing

Brown-nosing

Chair-sniffing

Pandering

Greasing-up

Blowing smoke up their butt

Flattering

Ego-waxing

Sycophancy. We've all seen or partaken of the behaviour these gerunds signify.

Some of us have received it.

What is Sycophancy? What is it, really?

It's seeking the favour of someone, for some personal good outcome, by denigrating oneself or another in comparison, or by exgerrating on, or falesly attributing to, the object's character, reputation, decision, view or acheivement, whilst seeming to believe in their statement whether believed or not.

It can be issue-specific and therefore temporary, or it can be the consistent state of the relationship.

For witnesses, or even the subject and object, it can create a feeling of sickness or disgust.

It is a complex system of lies and withholding of the truth:

- hiding the real goal of the behaviour
- lying about some or all of the statement made
- hiding the true opinion the subject has of the object
- it attempts to hide the closely-held strategic intent of the performer
- it presumes a level of superiority in the object that may not be real
- it distracts from an honest development of the issue previously being discussed
- it reflects some now exposed view or character of the performer

For witnesses, there may be a strong compulsion to call it out.

Those performing the behaviour are often mocked or reprimanded.

It is often easily recognisable, making it a risky exercise clearly worthy to perform and thus the goal must be high-value and worth the risk.

The behaviour is contrasted against praise, diplomacy, tact, admiration, commendation, where a hidden personal good is not sought, but that of a goal to some common interest whereby a strength or positive aspect is identified.

If it be shown that this former behaviour of sycophancy is harmful for no common good, then rational discussion is demanded in order it can be mitigated or annihilated.

The executioners of such mitigation or annihilation, as always in the war against wankers and idiots,  can only be those with courage and vision.

So, is it harmful, to what extent, and is it then justified?

Sycophancy, or arse-licking, is a behaviour that seeks to gain an unfair advantage, by achieving a status of being favoured amongst a group.

Thus, the first harm is that sycophancy that achieves its goal is unfair. Instead of favour by merit, there is favour by fraud.

The harms consequential of unfairness, such as getting a head start in a race etc, should not need to be enumerated, as anyone who has witnessed such unfairness can attest.

If it is accepted that unfairness should be mitigated, brought back to balance, wherever it is found, then one must also accept that sycophancy be treated the same.

Extent cannot be a property of unfairness, as all degrees of unfairness have the same value: a little unfairness is in need of rebalance, just as a large unfairness.

Then, is the harm of unfairness from sycophancy justified?

In extreme cases, where lives are in danger, such as between Nazi German POW staff and their Jewish prisoners. Here, sycophancy is justified where a person's life is decided by the behaviour.

However, outside such extremes, as feigning sycophancy to preserve life, in the conduct of everyday modern Western life, there is no justification.

What other harm avails itself?

Sycophancy attributes traits and reckonings of such high calibre to a person, whom has them not.

This falsity causes in all members involded further harmful falsities:

The object of sycophancy is encouraged that their judgment is indeed accurate, good, correct, and may continue an erroneous course of actions on that basis.

Further, witnesses to the sycophancy, having been equally fooled, themselves continue a course of action inspired by the object that is also just as erroneous.

It is assumed for sake of argument that wrongly inspired courses of action are likely to lead to harmful conclusions. QED.

A third harm, may be argued in general, being the standard harm caused by all manner of deception when such is fundamental within a group of people working together for a common goal.

When an organisation of people is infiltrated by institutional deception, such as sycophancy, a culture will develop naturally that has at its root the covering of truths. It is assumed such a fundamental framework based on deception is likely to become toxic and undermine the goals personal and communal of that organisation.

A fourth harm relates to respect and reputation. The witnessing of sycophancy, where it is thinly veiled, has a proportional effect on the respect and reputation of both subject and object.

For savvy witnesses, the respect and reputation of both parties plummets, albeit by different means.

The gullable recipient of sycophancy has their personal value diminshed for being so blind, vane and naive.

The sycophant has their value diminished in the eyes of their peers witnessing, by their having used fraud and deception to successfully compete against them. Further, it is obvious to such peers that the sycophant intends to compete with them and acheive a favour or advantage over them, by immoral and anti-social means.

The sycophant has thrown down the gauntlet at the feet of their peers, unashamedly, unapologetically.

Further harm is consequent from the suspicion amongst peers that the sycophant may be colluding with one or more of them, thus creating a sense of mistrust and the consequent harms that follow such in any group proclaiming to work together for the common good.

A final harm is the opinion now held by the subject of sycophancy, of the peers against the sycophant. Favour is relative, so the favour of the sycophant having been won, requires the favour of the remaining peers to be relatively diminished, along with their advice and counsel.

Thus far, We have shown the harms created by sycophancy. They are deep and wide, they are self-perpetuating and self-justifying. To this extent, the sycophant must be stopped.

But how?

Calling out behaviour is risky.

Evidence will be required. Yet the sycophant only succeeds after ensuring that evidence is unattainable.

The annihilation of sycophancy can only be acheived by the object valuing the views of many against a favoured one.

The value of a group can only be achieved by the group itself developing its value in the eyes of the object.

Once this is attained, a class action calling out the sycophant will be treated with respect by the object, who is likely to second-guess the sycophant from then on.

Best of luck!