The Drumpf End Game

Now the Drumpf cabinet is named and shamed, we can start laying odds on the endless range of cockups that will have Donald Drumpf impeached, imprisoned, assassinated or worse, first.



The nominees for supervening cockups are:



- Starting a war/armed conflict with a Middle or Great Power
- Military invasion of foreign nation
- Corruption during office - financial gain/favour
- Corruption during office - nepotism
- Historical corruption leading to criminal charges
- Slander/libel
- Inciting civil unrest, hatred/violence
- Sexual Assault
- Accidental launching of nuclear weapons
- Discriminatory action against people groups based on ethnicity or religion

You Get the Government You Deserve: The Trump Election

Well well well.

Never have the terms OMG or WTF been expressed to their full potential until now. Donald Drumpf (his real name is not Trump) is “elected” President of the United States of America. That’s one way to say it, anyway.

We could not let this one go. This singular event is the very Death Star to this Blog's Rebel Alliance.

A billionaire business man, raised on privilege and inherited capital and connections, driven and developed through greed and other putrid anti-social, anti-democratic caveman mental defecations, is the President of the United States of America.

 

OMG! WTF!

 

A business man shat out of the arse of privilege into the toilet bowl of the landlord sector.

A business man who has for all his adult life, almost fifty years, known only one way to do the life thing: to make money, to live, to manage people, to solve problems, to view the world, to value the world and to consider humanity.

A man for whom moral values are not learned or experienced or developed, but for whom are irrelevant.

BUSINESS MORALITY

In business, what governs behaviour is outcome, not morality. 

There is no deontology versus teleology. The ends do not justify the means; there is no justify, the ends are achieved by the means. Period.

The business morality you observe is a mirage. The man is moral but only because we, with morals, observe and judge the man's behaviour - based on our own morality. That doesn't mean the man has morals we can't judge, that means we have morals and we judge the behaviour of the man in terms of our own morals.

It is therefore merely an assumption that all behaviour is conducted from a moral basis - a sense of right and wrong, good and bad. Some behaviour has no moral basis. In some cases, a man may be amoral. However, that doesn't stop an amoral person from conducting behaviour we find abhorrent and that we should not act on that person against such behaviour. We should and we must.

The business morality is in fact your morality. The business behaviour is purely pragmatic. Business is beyond good and evil. 

All this is not to say that seemingly moral principles or norms are absent from the suite of business mantras. Greed is good, profit is supreme, invest in yourself, everyone and everything has a price, money buys happiness, if you die poor it's your fault.

Any uni student with half a brain can draft a thousand more, if they spend enough time watching billionaire businessmen. These words are not moral axioms. They are simply practical and objective summaries of the relationship between ends and their means.

Drumpf is not original here. He's done it all, and the same way they all do it. He's bought people, paid regulators off, bribed and favoured politicians, hired and fired, ass-kissed, blown, lied, bullied, swindled, mugged, black-balled and turn-coated. He's achieved the ends through the means.

 

What's different is he's become so powerful in his own mind that he has arrogantly stepped out of his world and into another world, a frontier world more alien than anything the complete sci-fi genre could match, the Starship Billionaire Businessman lands on the planet Democracy.

This leap of realms is akin to that between the Rock Stars and the Hollywood Actors. Different worlds, but one always fantasises about being the other. There's no difference between politicians and businessmen (Google any former politician and see what they're doing now).

 

Now we reach the crux of the question:

 

 

How has a billionaire business man, in the sense above, been elected democratic leader, executive power, commander of the armed forces, president of the most politically, economically and militarily powerful sovereign state on earth?

OMG WTF!

The question slapping us across the face on that day we realised it wasn’t a joke, is “How?”

Instinctively we balk and think "How does the exact opposite of what every sane human regards to be the ideal leader in a modern democracy, become President?"

Even though we all know how nuts the Yanks are, how the US is already largely corporatized, money mad, has always been heading in the direction of becoming the world’s first nation-state to be governed by a single corporation, we didn’t actually think the population would vote toward that Dystopia!

But they did. And that’s a huge step toward the actual single private company taking over the country. It’s a concept hitherto strictly limited to the unlimited realms of sci-fi fantasy and even then usually requires a violent pre-cursor, an invasion, an insurgency, a rebellion, a coup d’états, a malevolent insidious takeover, NOT a democratic presidential election! 

Over the days that followed "It's not a joke" Day, we divided our "How" question into self-explanatory subordinate "How" questions:

First generally:

How did a billionaire win a democratic election?

How did a moron even stupider than George W Bush get that far and then win?

How did someone get in with everything going against them?

How did someone get that far with so little experience?

Specifically:

How did that particular guy win considering his... his morals, his personality, his character, his everything!?

WHY DO WE HAVE GOVERNMENT?

The fundamental reason we have government (in so far as what would require it to be created in the absence thereof) is that people living together cannot be left alone. People harm other people in any community and that’s why we need rules and rulers.

 

So even at the most fundamental level, we have government exactly for the very reason to protect us from people like Donald Drumpf!

WHAT ARE WE IN FOR?

Victims of this election must ask themselves, belatedly, what am I in for?:

What are Drumpf's inclinations, beliefs, positions, likely behaviours on:

 

- tax, the direction for the country's wealth, the manufacturing industry, the environment, corruption, gun laws, protection of the vulnerable, poverty, inequality, the labour market, education, opportunity, international relations, regulation, social welfare, public transport, healthcare.

 

Well let's see. What is the business community's position on these issues? What is the billionaires' position on these issues? What do the country's wealthiest and most privileged think about these issues?

 

George W Bush we can understand a little. His dad was normal. George Junior was awkward at it, but he was polite, professional and at least gave the appearance of a grown-up. He didn’t flaunt his wealth, privilege or his power. He was fairly stable, although clearly a bit dim, a bit arrogant, a bit privileged, but we can understand why voters voted for him.

Obama was no surprise. On appearance, in the run-up, he was the ideal caring, intelligent, professional dad we all wish we had. Even with a name that rhymed with Osama, being African American and having a Muslim background, the voters saw through it at the man inside and voted for that.

Hiliary is a no-brainer. A successful, smart, powerful woman, with a fragile history in the bedroom just like we all have. She’s the one. The first woman to become US President. No more to be said.

Then this ugly, smart-arse, rich as fuck, wanker pops out of nowhere. This typical dumb-ass, bully money-eater with his stupid buildings, hotels and other crap rich wankers get richer on. He knows nothing about politics, geo-strategic events, world history, humanity. He doesn't care, he doesn't give a flying fuck. He knows business. He knows how to get money, lots of it and fast, and by any means necessary. Now he wants to know how to get his family and friends richer and more powerful, so they can all bask in the glory of conquering planet democracy, shitting on it and becoming its leaders.

 

Congratulations America, you got the President you deserved.

Australia Day Awards - Pathetic

Happy Australia Day!



It's a day when the Prime Minister of the Australia introduces and thanks the nominees for Australian of the year and the whole country cheers when the winner is awarded "Australian of the Year" and it's sub-categories: Young Australian of the Year, Old Australian of the Year, Normal Australian of the Year and Australian Hero of the Year.

But are they really impressive people? Are they really that wonderful and inspiring?

No they're not.





The real heroes, the really impressive people, are out there unknown in the back arses of our shitty communities.

The real people deserving of an Australian of the Year award are the people struggling to make it, who then break through the shit life dealt them, and the shit people and the government throw at them every day, and they succeed through all that.

They achieve greatness after all those walls up against them. Against bad luck, bad people, bad choices. They smashed through with sheer determination and achieved the same great thing some well-funded schmuck paid for with a cheque, but guess who got the award?

Party Politics - A Necessary Evil

Throughout the socio-political history of mankind, there has only ever been two groups of people, created out of chance or heredity: the powerful and the powerless. You can't have one without the other, and it seems we'll never have neither.

This fact explains tyranny, oligarchy and aristocracy, but also today's slowly evolving and still relatively new representational democracy. This power-based division explains the immediate offspring of this perverse version of Aristotle's original definition, namely "party politics".

As soon as man invented the idea of one person representing his locals in a parliament, man upgraded the idea to get "like-minded" representers to join forces. It all sounds quite sensible. In democracy, representatives vote on ideas (nowadays called Bills) to decide on whether they become law (Acts). So, if you can get more people on side with like-minded ideas, you are more likely to have Bills passed that suit your locals.

So, what the hell happened?

Now, that innocent idea has devolved to something more caveman than modern man. The party system has re-created that recurring ancient enemy of fairness, taking us back beyond feudal Europe, back beyond ancient Egypt, back to the plains of the Africa where small-brained morons were divided between those with the biggest males, lots of rocks and sticks, and those who were smaller and not as inclined to violence, and were therefore walked over.

Now, despite attempts by other "kinds" of wannabee-neverwillbee parties (eg. parties representing racists, hippies, single-interests) there are, as were 50,000 years ago, two political parties:

1) The party that represents and is drawn from the elite rich and powerful; and

2) The party that represents everyone else, who will necessarily be screwed as a result of those above.

In the UK it's the Tories and Labour, in the US it's the Republicans and Democrats, and in Australia it's the Liberal and Labor parties.

The workers and the wankers. Thanks to the rich, taking most of the wealth from the country for themselves, the rest have to go without. Going without has necessitated "socialist" ideas, the need for the weak to get together and demand benefits are provided to the disadvantaged and wealth is spread more fairly.

So what's the problem?

The problem is the concept at the heart of democracy is destroyed by political parties. Your representative in parliament is not representing you or their constituency. They are representing their party. If a Bill is introduced that contradicts the party policy, your MP will be instructed by the party to vote against it. Is that what we mean by democracy?

Why would a political party vote against its constiuents? Because they don't care what you think. They care about their power and their elite status, which is defined and upheld by its moral code.



So, it has become necessary to balance against this horrible power in society. That's where the socialists come in. To stop the powerful getting away with aristocratic policies, the rest of us have welcomed party representation for our own counter-cause. Thus, workers parties and socialists represent our needs against the oligarchs - on our behalf.

So?

Well, the "party", this instrument of modern-day democracy, sounds anti-democratic. That's because it is. Is that a good thing? We realise that we actually don't have a democarcy at all. We have "representatives" who don't represent us, but represent their party that claims to be, like a religion, in the best position to know what we want.

(what about our right to vote, isn't that enough power to threaten our MPs to properly represent us? Well, how represented do you feel? Which MP ever asked you for your advice before voting in parliament on a Bill that will affect you significantly? Does your MP even know you exist? You cast one vote every several years, and not on any Bills, just to pick some complete stranger you nothing about and the feeling is mutual, an MP who belongs to a party. How politically influential are you?)

Well?

Well, unfortunately, until like Switzerland (where they have Direct Democracy - voting on actual Bills by referenda) we embrace the spirit of democracy, the powerful will seek to abuse us and that necessitates an opposition... socialism.



So, although party politics is not exactly democractic, without it, and without effective resistance via a counter-party, we will eventually be ruled by a single corporation.

And for most of us, that will be no party!

Compassion - It's like Freckles

Have you ever wondered how someone could be so callous, so heartless, so insensitive?

Normally, you would consider such behaviour understandable, if it were obvious that external or environmental contributing factors, such as retaliation, alcohol, momentary lapse of reason, severe stress, etc. were evident.

However, sometimes you'll be taken aback by the calm, rational decision a person makes to be utterly brutal without even blinking and then carrying on as though nothing happened. Sometimes it's like that person has no compassion at all.

Well, maybe they don't? Maybe some people don't even have the faculty of compassion, sympathy, empathy, or whatever you want to call the thing words like compassion are meant to signify. How would I like it, if that was me or my loved one? That kind of thing. Words fail description of such an obvious characteristic of most human beings. We feel compelled to suffer and identify with other beings when they are, or may be, vulnerable. We want them to feel better, we want to help.

Some of us seem not to bear such a burden at all. It's hard to tell, because all we have to go on is behaviour. When the behaviour contradicts our expectations, we look for excuses. Sometimes we don't find any. Could it be that some of us physically cannot care for the suffering of others? It would certainly explain a lot.

We the Authors argue that this is so theoretically tenable, it may as well be true - although it may not be empirically verifiable - it doesn't need to be true, because just pretending it is true will make living with others easier.

Sometimes Contingent truth is neither good, nor useful. There's no good reason to seek truth for truth's sake. Sometimes, whatever works is better than whatever is true.

So, if you go around simply assuming that some humans don't have the faculty for compassion, you will be able to explain and predict human behaviour that would otherwise inconvenience you, at best, and destroy you, at worst.

Compassion may seem subject to the tenets of Cultural Relativism - different people groups around the world would have different views on what deserved compassion and what didn't. Some parts of the world do seem to have different levels of compassion based on their social norms. But every culture in the world, every religion, every ideology, uses the language of compassion. It is not a Western concept.

Officially, it is thought by most people that the only humans that are without compassion are psychos, psychopaths, the demented and deranged. But why stop there? Why assume the condition is only available to nut jobs? Why not sane, normal people? Physicians, businessmen, judges, lawyers, politicians, sales assistants, work colleagues, bus drivers, teachers? Why not?

Therefore, We argue the following: some humans have no compassion. They never have, they never will. Like freckles, blonde curls and long legs, you either have them or you don't. Compassion is not learned or acquired. It is like an organ. You've got one or you don't. If you don't have compassion, you can appear to people as if you do by mimicing the behaviour of those who do, in order to blend in with acceptable society - like a psychopath. They walk amongst us.

Understanding this argument will make your individual life easier. Know your enemy.

But there is a bigger, societal issue at stake also:

Those who don't have a faculty for compassion are responsible for almost all human-caused suffering in the world. We as a society need to identify these morally disabled individuals and deal with them. We can't have amoral humans wandering the earth getting powerful and important jobs.

We need to quickly identify them and ensure they are not given opprtunities to harm others - just like we do with sex offenders and violent psychopaths released into the community.

Next time you see one, don't twist yourself into a knot trying to explain the behaviour. Tell yourself, I've found a live one, and warn others.

Catholic Priests and Little Boys

Be honest. What was the first thing you thought when you read the title?

Sodomy? Buggery? Rape? Sexual repression?

Now ask yourself why you thought that and to what degree you think it understandable.

Did anyone think anything different? What on earth would that be? 

Who would disagree that when a person on the planet hears the term "Catholic Priest" their mind is quickly and easily drawn to the sodomy of young boys?

This product of a mental process is not a statement, so it will be difficult for anyone to argue for or against; it can't be refuted, as it claims nothing. The fact that when we hear about Catholic Priests in the news, we next receive the thought that the issue has to do with a claim by a man that was raped, is not a logical conclusion derived from deductive reasoning. It is not empirically verifiable, because it is not a construct that propounds to say anything about nature. It occurs too quickly to be reasoned.

Therefore, the mental process of identifying Priests with sodomy of boys cannot be a conclusion derived by inductive reasoning: eg. the sun came up every morning until now, therefore it will come up tomorrow. It may appear as a causal relation, but this is not itself a rational conclusion. All you intuitively know is that there is something connecting the two things.

The problem with not being reasonable,is that there is no proposition, no sentence making a claim from which we can proceed to analyse, criticise, propound or refute. It's just an instant, automatic association between two data; but why is it also accompanied by a strong mental feeling about something in the world, so that we would treat it as we would a solid fact?

This status alone, of thinking that Priests and sodomy go together, would provide one with a weak reason to develop the process further into a proper argument, if it wasn't for one thing. It is more than a feeling. It is more than a mental thing, a thought. It comes with a powerful kind of understanding that rivals reasoning. It is supported by our understanding of ourselves, humanity, language and logic.

More than a strong feeling of association or causal relation, this strange kind of non-rational understanding makes sense to us. It makes sense to us because of the tools of reason we already have developed over a life-time, which apply themselves to the feeling as Kant's categories apply themselves to phenomena. Those tools are rational arguments we have developed from watching and learning about human nature, society and also our language and logic use/misuse.

The addition of how we understand humanity strengthens our faith in the feeling that there is a  relation, possibly causal, between Catholic Priests and sodomy or any sexual intereference with little kids. That is because some of us know empirically how repressing sexual urges affects us. Many of us have experienced long periods of compulsory abstinence from sexual relations. We know how it feels, what it does to us, how it stretches our ability to cope and changes our perception of reality and even our morality. For some, it is too much to handle, and any thing with a hole in it will do.

Rape has nothing to do with power. To rape, you need an erection, which is derived by the anticipation, real or imagined, of impending sexual intercourse. Rape is about getting your rocks off. The power is a secondary bonus. It is also a necessary ingredient for rape. It is logically entailed that you be more powerful than your subject to rape them. Your prey must be weaker than you, or else you won't get off with them. Little boys and women are generally weaker than your average rapist: an adult male.

Therefore, Priests don't rape and fiddle with boys because it makes them feel powerful. If so, why don't they pay equal attention to adult clergy and support staff or parishioners? Because these are adults who can't be threatened from going to the police or fighting back.


Priests rape little boys because they need to get off really badly and little boys are easy to threaten and get your way with. They'll keep quiet. Their prey is often very impressionable, vulnerable, isolated, weak, the perfect target.

Now, why do Priests need to get off so badly? That is the real question. Answer that and you are half way to a solution or at least a proper explanation.

Priests need to get off really badly because they are sexually repressed, because the Church forbids them from arguably the most powerful of urges, sexual satisfaction. Priests are forbade to engage in anything sexual: whether sexual relations, self-gratification, marriage, intimacy with others, the whole shabang.

It is as simple as that.

Without reasoning, we all say to ourselves, "That explains the vast numbers of incidents displayed in the media every week". Imagine how many go unreported.

Solution: keep the vulnerable and weak away from the sexually excited or sexually repressed and powerful.

A maternity nurse once told me that my child was crying for just one of five reasons. She said the needs of a baby are simple. They just wan't the basics in life: sustanance, physical comfort, reassurance, warmth and maternal contact (mum's love).

Adult males are the same. Their needs have evolved, but are still few in number and fundamentally simple: sex, power, love, comfort, survival, pleasure. Take any one of these away and you are playing with fire. Take the most powerful one away and you are playing with fire and dowsed in petrol.