The Message Column

June 24,2016:Results of yesterday's vote: Britain votes to stay Britain.

Well, this is news: the vote is over and the British have chosen nation over beauracracy. They have chosen democracy over institutional indifference.

So what happens next? The scheming never ends.

Cry baby, Cry baby,
where did you go?
Of into wild drift
of blizzarding snow?

hover above images for a modification effect.

PULSE

hover modifies the back ground for the page.

this image selector div is for the page body background

hover modifies the back ground for the column.

this image selector div is for the column background

  Praise     Praise     Praise
   the        the        the
   Lord       Lord       Lord!
  for    because    
 Easter  He's so awesome! 
  welcome to The Message Column!

      🖐♥♥Love♥♥🖑
      ♥♥🖑Cops🖐♥♥

      

  When you're
  crazy lonly
  no one reads
  your mind
  you find
  the highway stop
  too cold 
  must move on
  to home
  some dream
  outside
  of time
  greenlawn heart growing
  stronger
  give up the fear
  
  
 
 

hover above images for a modification effect.

🖐♥♥Love♥♥🖑
♥♥🖑Cops🖐♥♥

      

changing it now.

     oh those arbitrary frames!
      spinning, but not this line.
     
spin me a yarn neon
spin me a yarn neon
spin me every where but not here!
here is a fresh link, a new path to some older content:
   photo pile!
   
 

In the bigger world
eerybody says
that you can never make a 
girl like that
happy

It's a brighter day
But I know
that it's all going to 
come out OK

And it doesn't matter how hard
he tries
she won't look him in the eyes
and then she says
bye bye
bye bye
bye bye

 

In Wicked Need of an Edit

🚛 🎓 🎔 🌀

Political and Media Inanity

Kafka wrote comedy. Orwell was a pessimist. Depends who you ask.

Truck-u-later

in this column Truck-u-later steps in deeper . . .

The muck and mire of politics is a stink pit, a mud waller. It's a smelly cesspool of resentment where those who succeed follow theories on how to 'get yours'. Theories, indeed.

We respect the effective things that work. The public respects, without question, processes proven honest and necessary. But then new ideas get put forward by ? ? ? some governance who want to modify the current methods, and yet have the same kind of mass acceptance to the new idea the same as for those proven and true parts of governance. There seems, at times, to be a push for new process that would be at the same level of credibility as the old processes, but without the democratic necessity of people actually wanting this as part of their day-to-day dealeo. (dealeo: all the rigarmarolle that they have to endure to just tred water, oh mixed up allegories). How does 'cause' accomplish the acceptance of imposed order into the dealleo? They have to use bought and paid for people. People who spout cause and adhere to on-message operations to condition the public to the new methodologies (walk away, people. Do not fill out their forms. You have to invite the vampire in, remember).

The bought-and-paid for people, well, they are bought, and paid for. And franchise people? They only want the part that has their branding, their logo, the markings of their cartel.

Governance devolves to cartel conference governance. Nearest-shrimp-bar yearnings lead the ruler ship class by the nose, by a nose ring, I suppose. The micro-tyrannies of bully-governance and do-as-they-tell-you institutionally demented policy bullying . . . without regard for the well-being of the clients of government: we the people. Those who must follow the new dealleo, who don't really want to be part of it, often have no choice due to misfortune. For those who do have a choice this delusion of the new-delleo, that new part of the process that eveyrone has to follow, spreadsheet of money mongers shows that it will work (work for who), we choose to not do what the redictiphone of false-cause governance tells us to do. We don't disobey, persay. But we are civil. And if you want to know our story maybe we don't tell it to you becuase we fear reprisal? And we write about topics of great importance in vailed analogies and with obvious rantting automatica (writing of a spontanious sort) that we don't edit well when we first present it so as to have plausible deniability (it's all just fiction, right? Can't I say anything? Well, of course I'm a reputibile person and listen to those of so accuse . . . but that doesn't mean that I do what the redictiphone says to do. Only if it makes sense to do it.

One might imagine that those who delude to be the best and the brotatious wouldn't be inclined to want to be lead around by a nose ring, but fashions fleet like the shadows of withering plants, fifty years later the tangle vines become? We can imagine the scene: the long fallow garden of bad-governance left fallow for fifty years and the children-of-the-? have now . . . ? Who gets to write that story?

We live in a world where having friends helps us. We are purported, by many, to be 'social creatures'. But their is much complexity in the very many societies, each with some different set of crazy rules: 'tradition' some call it. Others call it hazing.

Yes, we live in a world where (some) people like to 'be in control'. Those do what they do and perhaps afford for themselves some sense of center, a locus of themselves that they use to sit upon as a throne above the cares of the cedar swamp, deep in the forest of ignorance (iggovernance) except for what is immediate. We all live, at times, that way, where the 'outside world' is something that we ought to just blow up (not wanting to use explosives, I'm guessing, but just as a metaphor for 'total annihilation of false idols'. false idols? Well, that is a conundrum, isn't it? If the idol is false then it needs no annihilation, as it never had effect in the wider world, in the first place. So that takes us to that curious case of pogrom: an old world habit. Some tribes were mean to other tribes. Some tribes were slavers. Some tribes were hunted down and made into slaves by other tribes. And it all just kept going on and on for a very long time and it really still does, in many senses. People are enslaved within the strictures which get bound onto them, and augment their behavior with (depricate?) alternative deprecated behaviors? Obsession, chemical or sex addiction. I'm not going to write a discourse on this.

It would be a lurid tale of sex-drugs-and-power-mad-politically motivated governance of one tribe, or tribes, at war with other tribes. People playing the political world as a bunch of chumps. Buying up politicians with sex and booze and pills. Compromising and corrupting everyone that they can . . . oh the inhuman lusts utilized as sexual weapons so that the power-proxiers of the proxied can rule the world from their catamaran yacht somewhere east of the western lands and west of the eastern lands. Off in someone's bad play novelization of life and politics whose 'just saying' nonsensical, vague, accusatory, innuendo and false conjecture (false? you know it is false but you say 'oh it could be true'. )

Al right, now, let me just change the subject. The subject of the imagination of horrid governance will now turn into a discussion concerning conjecture. If we know that a statment is false then can we fairly ever say that we present as conjecture such a statement? I posit that a conjecture is something that might be true. And thus if we know that the statemenet is, in fact, false, then we should not present that statement as conjecture. And we could thus call it a 'false conjecture'.

Oh, well, I'm defining terms. And so what? What does it matter? We still have these visions, these horrid visions, of the tribes of international suck-it-all-for-us politics, who enslave the world to their bad ideas, and mandate governance of incompetent franchisees and their ilk (oh the out rage here!)

And the real truth? We all try to get along and get our stuff accomplished, whatever that happens to be. In the real world if there were tribes of international suck-it-all-for-us politics, who enslave the world to their bad ideas, wouldn't we, those who they seek as their slaves to fetish governance (like global whateveaa), wouldn't we tell them? Look it, this is just a fetish of yours, non substantiated bunk science? You've been mislead by agenda'd causes of some grand international scheme of some even more sinister nature: the urge for central and total control of some small subset of people: world governance and no way to say 'no, we don't want this anymore'. They would, of course, deny it all. Maybe they might call us a 'denier' and put us on a list . . . or . . . is it just group delusions of institutional dementia: the thoughts of the ghosts in the machine, and not the result of anyone thinking those things. It just shows up as a cause of an organization, and though everyone is sekptical, skepticism is somehow forbidden.

I say that if people really are under hypnotic delusions than they would snap out of it at some point, hopefully of their own choosing (say right now) and they would start to understand that blind adherence to 'cause' is always questionable behavior which might provoke them to subhumate others and ignore the rights of others. When blindly following for a 'cause' you are worshipping wind, and falling under the sway of corrupt practices of institutionally demented governance.

The cause of no one mandated to be the cause of all, and with punishment for dissent.

My theories on institutional dementia are designed for the purpose so as to provide a valid narrative that alos disallows blame for those eggregious in their errors concerning their proper roll in the society at large. I use 'society' in singular. I assume that each soul here has it's own purpose of lving and that gets provided by . . . a nature that we dare not discuss within the realm of politics. That being so, we are given this cause as our life, and we have to walk the paths that we see. We can't walk the ones that we don't see yet, unless sight means more than the ability to sense something. We could be guided upon them, perhaps.

In any case we all have to decide for ourselves what we each want as individuals. We all live in one world. Does that mean we should have a world government? And if we did have such, don't we then need to know what kind of government it is? Obviously no one mind is large enough to govern everything. Even computers, if the intellegence were artificial, there can't be one single point of decision, one world urge, the Urge Central (hence the name of this website). It simply can only exist as a methaphor or allegory for something central to an individual. We, none of us, can control the world, the universe, with our wishes. We can't do it with computers. We can't do it with nuclear weapons, we can't wish the world to be as we would have it. The delusion of one-world-governance is that it is ever a good idea, in the first place, to consoladate power like that. We all know that power, routed into a house, is broken into multiple circuits. On a street, in a town, how many different circuit breakers or fuses are there? Thousands, no doubt. In government, institution, and governance it should also be thus. People should be given leeway to do what needs to be done but circuit breakers on power should exist that will trip when someone gets out of control.

I say some pie in the sky idea, and it's useless without a concept for implementation. I guess what it means is that we need to be able to see what people do. The press is the circuit breaker. The printed word is the tripped breaker. The warning: someone is out of control, some institution has gone rouge, some governance has become self-serving and thus obsolete. Without a free press there is no process to do this. When cartel governnace is a bought and paid for certainty, and nations are ruled by money-lords by proxy (through bought-and-paid-for politicians) we can get a heedless and incessent operation that seeks to condition everyone to a new dealleo which actually doesn't help. And once it becomes the vampire, or the parasite, once it takes much more than it gives, once it becomes a tyranny, the people have to walk away. the paths to the doors of hte institution are no longer used, no one seeks their services. Their mission becomes void, their purpose obsolete.

This has happened to very many of our current institutions. (has it really?) They still exist, however, with zombie purpose. They are fully funded and on-message with the grant-hounding leadership. the grant is what buys and pays for the sychopantic adherance to the on-message of the operant bully governance (or heedless cartel).

Our purpose: perhaps to identify who are those who have been so bought? Just for our own head. Just for our own knowledge, not to go on a pogrom against them. There seem to be too many of them. They are deep and buried down in their hidey hole well-funded office. They can not be rooted out. They are ubiquitous.

So what can we, the citizens, do? Citizens of what? Voided promise of cartelled proxied governance? It is meaningless. We do not invite it into our abode. We will not harbor thought that it is real. If it does not serve the people then why would the people serve it? Do not feed it. It's only real if you talk about. So I'll shut up now and all of it will disappear as if it had never been.

June 22, 2016

Billion dollar ideas? They are all around us!

Alright. We'll be changing it up a little bit!.

Cal:

"I never minded the surveillance society. I've always been kind of an exhibitionist"

June 6, 2016

"I never minded the surveillance society. I've always been kind of an exhibitionist."

 a beat . . .

  Praise     Praise     Praise
   the        the        the
   Lord       Lord       Lord
  for his    for his    for his
 unfailing  unfailing  unfailing
   love!      love!      love!

  well, nothing more here today.