The Message Column

The Eclipse

 2nd edit

a portent, a new revolution?

No, the eclipse represents the triumph of observation and tradition. The eclipse represents humanities ability to use empirical methods. The eclipse represents the strong notion that tradition and long term organizational competence augment our lives. And thus, consider that the people of our nation knew about, years before hand, this eclipse, and sanely planed for a chance to view it in suitable and hospitable locations.

The eclipse represents the triumph of science. The eclipse represents that realm of nature outside of human control. The eclipse represents the understanding of the great cycles of nature. Astronomers understand the natural rhythms of our solar system with such precision, that they can predict the future and past positions of objects in our solar system. The predictability of the eclipse represents the supremacy of observational science and long term institutional stability. Governments and corporations can't change it. No pope can deem that it will not happen. The eclipse will happen, did happen, is happening (it's still happening here, in Massachusetts 3:14 PM EDT, 2017).

Should we loath those ancients, who gave us Astronomy, if they also owned slaves? How could we ever really know?

No governor can say 'stay away, don't express your right to be here' (which seemed to be the correct thing to suggest). No council can vote it away. It's predictable, through the methods of empiricism, and as determined by revered ancestors and codefied within the science of Astronomy. Should we suggest that those revered ancestors are to be supported in our collective memory and say that we ought to hold them as examples of what is good about human-kind? Or do we have to ask other questions? Do we have to ask 'did they own slaves' before we can posit that we need to tip our hat to those who were able to ascertain that The Moon and The Sun transit the heavens with utterly determinable trajectories? Do we say that we understand how awesome this discovery was? That we honor and are thankful for the ones who discovered the regularity of astronomical phenomena, even if we don't know who they are. Or do we have to know, we need to know 'did they own slaves? Did they treat other people shabbily'.

Here I was writing about the eclipse and what it means. And here I am trying to also write about other things current in the news: the eclipse of reason that seems to be happening within some of the inner inner sanctums of the sanctum seekers of various political moieties. They got away with firing up 30,000 true believing non-haters, some of whom devolved (as does happen) into a frothing mob and then did battle with their elders (not very much older) in the Police and Security parts of our great society (not the one that Roosevelt crafted).

Some of the truculent partisans who did battle with the Police call there 'movement' by a name that implies that they are against a certain kind of governance. The tactics and methods of this 'movement', with black masks, and riot starting, and acting out to 'stiffle' the 'opposition', seems to indicate that the name that they use would imply that, if they believed what the name is supposed to mean, that htey would have to be against their own actions.

We look for order in the chaos and we would like for the world to be a safe and secure. We seek to have a world that's all good for all the people. But we understand that the urge to have that creates the urge to fight against those who seek to take that away. And if it really were a situation where they have to live out their fight-fantasies, they are ready to do it. We don't really want that. It's not a good thing to send children off to fight, and often to die, against real enemies. But there it was, that tribal 'we will fight for our rights' thing, going on near the Common, and it's not that anyone was trying to take anything away from anyone there, and they all believe in their rights, and the ones who started to do battle with New England's Finest, they really were given the wrong information, so it seems. It seems that many were lead to believe that very bad people were to be at that small 'free speech' thing, where they do Shakespeare in the park. No, they weren't bad people. So it was a case of possible willful disemination of false information by the 'leaders' of various factions of politically active 'operators. Who are the ones who are feeding information to those people out in the streets fighting against imaginary enemies and thinking that real nazis and clans people were there, when they were not. Who was it that were giving them bad information.

The most of the kids, wanted to do the whole burning-man thing and do a street theater all day chant and howl in the streets of Boston, they were like 'aint no nazis or clan here.'

The fear of some is that this crowd is perceiving that all Republicans are the bad nazi type. In fact the nazis are mostly historical, by now. And the real truth about 'the clan'? You can search for that information on your own. It was always about politics and making people vote a certain way, and for certain moieties to retain their influence, and keep it all the way that is preferred by various cartel entities and state-ist actors, in the public sphere. And the only thing that is wrong with wanting things to maintain status quo is when you turn that into a tyranny. Shutting people up is a form of tyranny. Accusing someone of being a fascist, also can be a tyranny. Hitting people, shoving people, punching them and throwing things at them because you imagine (delude) that they are of some opposition . . . that's got to qualify as tyrannical as well. Assault is assault. And that's the charge you'd get if it got there. There is no charge of 'tyranny', because tyranny is an abstract concept. A very useful one, but abstract.

The kids who went to battle against the police, when they discover that no actual nazis or klan were present, might just decide that they've been duped. And they might discover that free speech actually is very important.

It's better to let the chatty bird keep singing, if it's a dangerous bird, so we can know where it is. That's how we know when someone becomes a problem because the nature and quality of what they present turns rapidly more sour. It's only if we have some line of communication open, and we are attending to them, that we'd have a chance to do peaceful and human soul-building mitigation for a lost-cause-seeming person. Or do we just cast them into hell because they had a bad day and are not versed in the polemics of public personality management; and they post something that can easily be interpreted as retrograde by . . . ? ? ? . . . by who? And that unknown who, are now a force to be reckoned with because the phenomena of 'doxing', which is another topic of current interest.

That's the hard part, right? Monitoring the poisoned person about to explode. In the case of the some of these leftists, now, they have this new thing where they use a false-authority to decide who it is that are the bad people, for example there are a couple of websites recently who lost their 'privledges' to use certain 'internet services' involving transaction verification. And in another case a provider told a web site to go packing . . . and it's because they don't like the politics of that site.

I don't like the politics of the site either. But how is it that they are allowed to just shut off something without some kind of a formal process? The left has been very clearly behind what has been termed (and a misnomer in other circles) 'net neutrality' where they say that meeann meaan baddy corporote moneywhole corporations ought not to be able to shut off someone's internet speeds, shunt it, treat it differently because internet is a utility and a right by now . . . (I don't have their argument memorized because I have shunted a lot of what I hear from that crowd as if it's just noise).

In any case, how is a pay service and a hosting service also not almost just the same as a 'utility' provider? And thus how can it just be turned off? If you think your neighbor is a Nazi can you badger the utility company to shut off their water and electricity? So how is a hosting account, if it really is a critical infrastructure, or a pay service, different from a gas utility for heat and cooking, or a water connection, for washing, (do you drink the water from your facet?) ? Of course there are big differences. However there are also analougous freedoms and rights that apply to both water and gas, and transaction and hosting services.

And these 'service providers' have taken the word of a hyper partisan 'league' who has a list of 'hate' sites and has proceeded to try and shut them all down. Many of these sites are main line conservative sites. These people aren't my cup of tea in all of their aspects, but what right does anyone have to shut them off, even if what they see seems to be 'hate speech'? In a lot of cases a brilliant orator is totally misunderstood and accused of all kinds of retrograde conceptions, but guess what, words are not nooses and why is it that there are so many emboldened to use them that way. You make one small error in a tweet while your tripping-boo at the beginning of a flight and dare to snark out about the tragic ironies of the great and horrible things of our world, such as AIDS and racism, and people of what some call a different race, using those heavy words, like 'black' and 'white' and making very broad generalizations. . . without very much thought because you were tripping-boo, and tired, in the seat. And the voice-recognition-thing is on and it's pulling it off into a feed somewhere and self twitting off to the world because your assistant forgot to tell you to un-check that feature and now . . . your career is over by the time you get to your final destination. It's not a made up story, though I've fictionalized it here. In fact, the concept is called 'doxing' and it's a most vile new kind of sport. Doxing, the sport of weenies. Why? Why is doxing the sport of weenies?

Because you, with no trial, and simply based upon hearsay, decided to make a game of outting someone of some crime that you imagine. If there is a real crime, please tell someone in authority charge with handling that kind of thing as long as you feel it's that's serious. But some other person makes a bad pun about a racial group and suddenly their life is in ruins? How could anyone be proud of doing that to someone?

I'm not saying that retrograde people who are horrible in their meanness, and are on the prowl themselves, and out to humiliate others should not be 'mitigated'. That 'mitigation' ought to be done in the form of an intervention, and not with the aim of just destroying someone, but trying to ascertain what their real deal is, to see if it's just some weird art thing, or some kind of horrible personality disorder? Or due to . . . other things, who knows? Acid victim? PTSD? but to just hate-on the snarking dude-fusser, who seems to be hating on everyone: aren't you just being as bad as you imagine that person being? Maybe you just don't get the humor of such a showman?

In the case of people who make a play of doing horrible graphical presentations of the sumhumation of other people, is it for some kind of 'art' project? Like artists get paid to do graphics for movies. Maybe they are working on a horror film?

OK, now what if they are the type who say phrases such as:

"All [some group] should have [something horrible happen to them]"

can we question that, even if the ill will isn't there, and it's just a put on, because people do that, that such statements imply that there is something 'off' about the person who makes them, or posts them. Some people just have an emotional turrets, and they will tweak anyone they find. So if they find out that you are a [some self-identifying ethnic category] then they will say that all [pejorative of the type of which you self-identify] are [some untrue, or maybe painfully sometimes true slur about people that's been used to hurt 'your kind' for generations, so get over the hurt, the guy saying this is a very damaged and dude-fussing kind of malcontent. His curse on you is actually against himself].

So there it is: we can choose to break the curse of the fowl malcontents, who will slur you all day and curse you in their sleep. A curse always back-atchas. You send your little crippled delusional intentions as a curse off to someone, and it comes right back atcha. So I do get it, I do understand that if we are faced with those who self-identify as 'nazi' that it must be a luscious and gratuitous pleasure for some not being at their best moral behavior to indulge in the cursing-back. It's going to come right back-atcha.

Offensive genres

'Offensive' is a matter of opinion.

I find offensive certain vile things of the horror genre. I don't enjoy the usurpation of loving characters to become horrific charactertures of an evil maniac who does unspeakable horrors upon the world. So, when I see a poster of an 'evil clown' I just hate to see it. I don't like it. I find it disgusting and distasteful and I get a sad feeling because I ask: of all of the things that we can spend our time on, as artists and creative content providers, and these 'best and brightest' in Holywood and Manhattan, then spend their time crafting stories of creepy clowns out for blood. And they present the 'villain' in the closeup and detailed view that should be reserved for the heroic. They make an anti-hero. They spend millions, tens of millions, requiring the best and brightest in the crafts to make all the fetid apparel associated with the production, all the artwork and posters, and they pay handsomely, at union wages is my guess, for the lavish Hollywood treatment about degenerate clowns. It's really quite horrific.

Why do they do this? why do they promote the horrific? Is it really a fetish for evil? Why am I accosted with these horrid graphics continuously?

Here is the answer: it's not my business so I have no right to say and I really don't care. I know who wrote the book that the movie is based upon. He's a writer with a wellknown political persuation. He's revvered and well-respected. He writes creepy books.

Some people don't understand why. They might start to claim that it's hateful to do this, that horror is a kind of hate speech because it makes a lot of people very uncomfortable. People could misinterpret it and decide to try and act like that evil clown. People might think that the creepy stuff is cool and want to recreate it.

So should that writer be barred? All his books burned? His films, destroyed? because he writes about creepy things and someone misunderstands his genre and his audience, who do like his stuff and pay for all of the horror movie stuff to be created.

Or in the case of a foolish woman who agreed to do a photography session posing with a mock severed head. Many people found that hateful and tasteless, and intellectual bullying of the worst kind with a curse upon a living person, and sitting president (of the United States of America). If she had a web page, was she thus unhosted? If she had a pay account, did they rescind it with short notice?

The thing about 'fascism' is that it gives results for the result oriented. And they say 'oh, no, it's not a bad thing, this lack of a just process, it's actually a benefit. The trains . . . run on time now. I can get all that I need to get done without having to worry about anything or anyone who I might run over, crush, on my way about on my important business.

Fascism is like looking at the sun during an eclipse. Ya, it doesn't hurt right now. So they are all lying, right? It feels so good to dox all the rightwing fascists, eh? so good. Oh, what power, like the Sun at midday. But you go blind. You get your things right on time, but you end up putting yourself in a straight jacket of other people's expectations; unellected, un accountible know it alls who makes lists of people they don't like and then go out and try to ruin all of the people on the list.

Facism only covers the sun of Liberty for a short little chicken-little induced street theater of revelling protestors. And then the players grow tired of being triggered to make themselves the fool and chase for snipes, and wait for the second coming on the mountain top. Oh, but he made a mistake in prophecy, Jesus won't be coming to a New York mountaintop this century, after all. It's whats often called 'the madness of crowds'.

The arguement pro to doxing an Nazi

But the sites are nazi sites. The people who are shut off are 'bad people'.

why that is still a bad thing to do to someone

That might be so, but shutting them off like that violates them because: what if you are wrong about them? Why are they so horrible? Who was it that decided that they were so horrible? Is there a real process?

And so the real thing is that the idea of 'free speech' exists because the 'shutting off' of those who are assholes retrograde in what they convey, and suggest degeneracy as a method and a manner (what some call 'hate speech' ), those who are to be 'shut off', are often just victims of a pogrom. And who is it that gets to be cultural arbiter? They just decide, one day, they don't like creepy clown posters, and they think it's a plot by the evil 'they' to do damage to their children's psyches? And they say

"oh, you who made this poster of the evil clown, now you must also be shut off because the Northern Rich-guy Law Council, with millions in donations from people of the ultra right, has put you on a list . . . and we don't like your posters and don't want them hangin' in our plazas, courtyards, and public spaces. And this evil curse that you try and put upon us through your vile fetish images, and statuettes, and consumer grade high quality latex masks for use at your pagan festival of Halloween . . . well we don't like it. ecchheee. And you have been shut off."

But they are nazis, they are haters.

That may be so but who made the political action committee or the web host providers or the pay and transact company the arbiters of speech and content? Why do they have this authority? And how is it that so many of the lists that we hear about that come from them seem to just associate anyone who isn't of that political affiliation (being an ultra leftist), how is it that what some say are mainline organizations, albeit conservative ones, are put within a list of loathsome nazis and klan?

These people, these political people of the left, simply shouldn't be allowed to do this kind of ruining of people's livelihoods without any kind of appeal or review of such a process. In very many ways these lawyers who shill for money from those concerned about the continuation of the politics of bullying, that some of these leftists have thought to be 'perfection' that this politics of bullying is a kind of criminal conspiracy against anyone with opposing views, violating our first amendment rights. Here is the deal, all you social media mavens: if the Internet is the new public square, where everyone goes to meet, shutting someone out of it is akin to violating their right to assemble.

The main focus isn't on the speech or the politics of those who they have shut out. The focus is on: who gave them the authority to do such, without any process for review? And why should these child-minded false-marxist cartel bigots, of the left, have so much power as to be able to ruin people's livelihoods at a whim of some law clerk paid for by . . . ?

Why? And without a process for appeal or review. And with no guidelines that don't violate various well-established civil rights. And so, we see, that the Orwellian becomes the every day. the hypnotized completely don't understand and think they are righteous, when, in fact, they are being common and garden variety. Hey, but they get their packages delivered right on time, just like the trains that used to be in the Italian republic in the 1920s and 1930s.

'Protesters' against 'free speech' rally arrested

(agitators countering a counter agitation?)

Many arrests in Boston on Saturday, August 19, 2017

What happened in Boston was an eclipse of the reasoning of some of the message givers on the side of the 'counter protesters'. They put their people out in force, and sent out the danger signal messages to 'combat' what was, essentially, a non-crowd. There were no bad players from some dangerous fringe group having a Nazi rally, but that is what the counter crowd seems to have imagined. Let's hope that they understand what it really was, and that they were being used by the message makers who put out there that this small rally was some kind of evil coven of bastard racists. Not so.

Hopefully, the eclipse is over, and the 30,000 can realize how they were duped. And all of those of us who might have gone to hear a candidate give an oration, or just wanted to go and meet some celebrities, or hear them speak, we were denied the opportunity to do so. No nazis would have been there.

Or am I deluded? And I have it all wrong?

The content is directed at a demographic. Clearly the feed towards these younger constituents has been tainted with a lot of misinformation. Content that has been paid to be directed towards people, that is paid for by political or corporate or governance operations, is 'unmonitored' by courts, and yet very many 'service providers' will break it all out for you and see the 'effect' of the 'advertising dollars' on your 'target demographic'. We know that this is being done to these youngsters who are being fed bullshit partial misinformation about the conservatives who oppose the Socialist agenda of some of the Democrats. The use of the paid-for-directed content ought to be examined. It ought to be a matter of full-disclosure: anyone who pays to influence a demographic ought to be known about, and the reason and stated agenda, of their push ought to be well defined. What purpose to use public money to effect people's minds like that?

The great eclipse, August 21, 2017

The eclipse is just about over. The sky has brightened back up. The crowds will disperse, or have already dispersed. And the American nation is pretty much the same.

Fear mongers who predict apocalypse? Political charlatans who get gratuitous satisfaction by scare mongering their base into a needless frothing crowd? Should we worry about their effect upon the world? We should understand and respect the fact that very many of the people who heeded the call to rally for what they feel is just and right, that those 30,000 are smart enough to understand that they were duped into thinking that someone bad was to be in Boston. They were duped. And they can understand that. Let's hope they get the insight and wisdom to see that, if that is true. Or if my points of view are incorrect, may I get the insight and wisdom to see that. But as far as knowing if someone else has the insight and wisdom to do the correct thing (the right thing) and follow the path of peace, and love . . . if you think you can see that someone doesn't have that aspect, how did you become psychic and empathetic?

As far as those who were arrested, I believe that they might be the most upset at finding out that they were duped and no Nazis were actually there, or supposed to be there.

Well, they are all young. And I know that the judges are mostly on the side of 'righteousness', and these kids were deluded to think that they were fighting for something real . . .

So the harshness will be meted out in whatever fashion that is popular in Boston this administration. I'm sure most of these truculent will get a shake, and when the pepper has all settled, well . . . someone will have a meal. Hopefully no one was hurt too badly. Hopefully adequate leniency will be applied to some of the kids who were behaving very badly, and doing battle with people not that much older than they are, and also probably of the same mind about most of their politics.

Yes, they seemed to have been duped. And my guess that they will hold anger at those who provide the channels of misinformation that had been fed to their 'demographic' of 'younger constituents'. Maybe they will start to understand why so many of us have tuned out of the poison feeds of knee-jerk anti-whatever-it-ism, whatever the cartel kingpins don't like. They play the game that they can persuade. Look what they did in Boston, wasting the indignation and ruining the lives of their most fervent true believers, who would be a better asset for our society understanding that Boston Police are always on their side. The Massachusetts State Police are always on your side. Even if you are a criminal, being arrested, they will try to get you justice (not as a euphemism for something bad, or meant with ironic snark, though I could see how it could be played that way). Police are real people and they work for the cause of all, even if they also need to arrest someone who is being truculent and willful in their lawbreaking.

Do you think that the police on Saturday wanted to have to arrest so many of these angry kids? Do you think that the police enjoy arresting the truculent and enraged-by-a-cause true believers?

The arresting officer might even agree with a lot of the important views of who that they are required to arrest.

Police are not an enemy, but an asset. Police deserve respect, just like any other person does as well.

last week on Blathings . . .

I'm trying to be ironic, and thus
I fail
how ironic?
not?
this isn't 1986

 
 whatever squared
 

hover above images for a modification effect.

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

Oh tiny font nonsense,
just because your letters are smaller
doesn't mean you have some alternative importance.

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

      🖐♥♥Love♥♥🖑
      ♥♥🖑Cops🖐♥♥

      

Is it obvious parody or News or both?

 

hover above images for a modification effect.

🖐♥♥Love♥♥🖑
♥♥🖑Cops🖐♥♥

      

     
Vote Once
One Vote
here is a fresh link, a new path to some older content:
   
   
 

 
 we all know
 that you know we know
 

In Wicked Need of an Edit

🚛 🎓 🎔 🌀

Political and Media Inanity

Kafka was a dillhole, Orwell was a submissive? depends on who you ask. . .

Truck-u-later

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

Weary with it.

Aug 15, 2017

delight in the delete.

Remember the Sultana!

April 27, 1865

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



  well, little else now.