'Sub Urban Cradle Versus Brummel Gloria', Mixed by 'Jonesy-NMS'

Whether Fascism is Good or Evil is a False Test.

Fascism: FOR, AGAINST, or MAYBE? Are Fascism's argumentative valences toward favours really all that important, or is this just an aspect of a more general malaise, whereby that it is THERE, instead, could be affirming...for which, it might sooner gain recognition, and without such a smokescreen?

Pretending that nobody notices, that 'FOR' Europe, Fascists need not speak - as they are a monolith amidst the silence of her sovereign duress; for which, every time praise fails to find wisdom the cause of her Sovereign will, and not bondage, presuming, a stranglehold of licensed exploitations; every time phototropism fails to speak in the cause of the difference between of light and shade in different coloured human skin -in all members of humankind, and, not racism its excuse, instead, suggesting; every time X fails to speak against the cause of Y in the idea of Z; every time good men do nothing, evil prospers...

Every time a figurehead is endorsed, nominally -internal to any system- which assumes currency in a precedent of blame must tie its fact to hatred -for that it be its cause in justice to seem so -so God's justice is outstanding. The universal symptom of the system of capitalism is fraud - and yet the animal suffers from no other ill, so named, as which is its notion:- so therefore, tis a fraudulent system - it can be recognised, and not just a side-effect merely: but, also, its system's feature, bearing, its system, thusly, being diagnosable.

God's justice doesn't distinguish the fraud of 'blame' in any instance (hoodwinking 'forgiveness' in each and all) from the fraud of how the system suffers anything to begin, and in order to recognize its feature as founded in any instance distinct from its own phenomenon, more broadly recognisable; God's justice doesn't distinguish the insurance of industry from the ensuring of how that industry benefits to begin, likewise as being distinguishable in instance and phenomenon; God's justice doesn't distinguish the morality of blame from the morality of forgiveness on offer to the system, and its entities besides, as all humankind.

So extremists need not speak FOR Capitalism, either. And, yet it would seem -through all its system's blame- failing to transcend itself, and failing to imagine any alternative to itself, finding its causes amiss, and, with this, God's forgiveness of its system. God isn't asking if you 'can't prove a thing', you see, as -He already knows all things! And, so we need not prove that Capitalism contained extremism (or despots, or tyrants) -as Capitalism already did well enough on that account, itself. So, thus, in turn, and on the whole, it is beholdable, that Capitalism is a system which contains extremism, etc. -and yet it would prefer to deflect all blame on any such account. With God, no such 'smoke and mirrors' policy is ever effectual. No such Fascists speak AGAINST Europe, either, ever to fool Him.

If there were a cause befitting of any frame -of getting the personification of God out of politics- any benefit - the alibis are all yours, Fascism.

If, however, there were any noble cause besides, than for its political satisfaction merely, it would be equivalent to asking Mother Nature not to have a will of her own; and hence making pronouncements in science as though she had none; this ostending by such example as assuming that the wind were a cause, clearly, of nothing ever like a witch -but merely harsh and ambivalent, a cause, besides, as she ever makes ruin with her storms.

Personifying The Universe, doesn't make that universe caused to be brought into being. We aren't asked our almighty consumerist 'choice' on that matter (and this, even if we like to play our Holy-Joe-card, denouncing its own cause, booby trapped by false superiority in presumption of its preposterous reward), and, so for all Anthropic Principle Intellect as might argue its cause in Consciousness, asking any observer to turn instead a blind eye, bemused by dogma. The rise of Fascism either postdates or is concurrent with Anthropicism, and yet it seems to outlive itself, since. This is not intuitive -as The Universe is shown to be THERE, and, on a basis that we would not be here to observe it if it were otherwise, this cause is accepted. Fascism it would seem would rather have us accept that God is dead, if but only by whim of any suggestion of its endorsement washing the hands of its suggester.

The shorthand 'that God disallows anything', if ever he does, hence, can be elaborated upon, in that The Universe doesn't contain such a thing in anyone's opportunity, fictitiously or really, but that were it the case, it would observably be so. But, then, advertising has a lot to wake up to - and, when it might, finally, take its hoardings down, again -its productive job done, if ever. The 'THERENESS' of Fascism is more important than whether it is 'FOR' or 'AGAINST' any third cause besides, no matter how likely or unlikely its interest. To Anthropic Principle Human Intellect, as certain as that billboards stand in marketing commerce, it is observably there. Its supporting arguments in any wisdom, however, might not be.

We should have to get really dumb to accept Fascism. We have gotten really dumb. Do we put two-and-two together, that both these suggestions might, instead, be fallacious, rather than accepting either blindly? To put it another way, is it more likely -or less likely- that if we were to accept Fascism, we might more naturally do so, and without coaching on 'how dumb' we ought rather seem to be accepting of it? If it is the case that it would be more likely that we might accept it without needing seem dumb, we would ask ourselves - 'what has suggested the cause of Fascism?' and 'what has suggested the cause of dumbness?' Are they one and the same thing ultimately, marketing their commerce, in their patent laws' rule?

Proof of dumbness isn't proof of acceptance of Fascism, hence, but unearthing a cause of a double deception. Piecemeal for the innate sense of the caveman, and yet all the trouble in the world for the Fascist daring his cause seem popular. Whether false or true or good or bad, is it an interesting thing, however? It isn't. It shouldn't be obsessed about so much, then, as though, that it might be 'good' or 'bad' were keeping its uninterestingness hidden from itself.

In a world that makes 'illegal music', 'monetized wanking', and 'lawful rape' - whether Fascism is good or evil is a false test. That it is THERE- is the test as ought rather seem preferable instead.

Essay on the Concepts Behind Racism as a Marketing Tool

Concept: racism; definition: speculative tool, imagined makes politics metaphysical to the uninformed, hence possibly necessary infinite & divine, rather than sufficient finite & deceptive.

When invented, concurrently & coincidentally with advertising, intended to hide 'rich and poor' behind 'black and white' in values of visible and invisible in realm of seen and unseen.

B/W TV was not foreseen by the capitalist, revealing his value system's hypocrisy, waiting on color tv before revealing yachts and mansions exist. No other species requires 'race' in its description in human sciences.

God's good design debunking evil racism's: sun-cream for the redneck melting pot, B/W TV for seen and unseen, mobility upon a sphere, phototropism in the seasons concurrent with causes....Tall trees at the poles, wide trees at the equator, both steadfast rooted in the ground. Neither going anywhere in any hurry. In enlightened reason, evolution on this scale is not a race or a hurry. There was no 'race' out of Eden. No race back either. There might be a season of Eden's race...But it wasn't a race out of Eden, as such, but to the seasons...The same seasons caused by phototropism and the angle of tilt, observable also in human skin colour.

'Arms race' is misleading: similarly, like with surfing the internet, steadfast on the spot, its going nowhere in its hurry. It is not such a hurry evolving as that friction caused ought seem convenient between classes, where communication on a sphere ought by now, have caught up, as with CGI graphics, where world war one justified innovation through conflict, where it lacked before but to god's proof requiring to be imagined as peaceful, his creation.

Cupid and Christ, befit the realist capitalist intention, contemplating black markets as moral systems rather than conmen's dreams, justifying differences on a world view sphere. Blinded by realism, forgetful of his christian metaphysic of a pound of flesh not debarring the person and place dream, only wishing to exploit the land of the living, he is blinded to spiritualist contexts. This blindness is forgivable, as it is well-intended. Carrying the industrial race beyond its complaint might not be.

Industrial planning regimes and competitive dualistic arms races include many 'races' of bigger army, explosion, stockpile of weapons and mineral wealth, retrospectively, and also...bigger protectionist network, internet of things, nano-tech regime, etc prospectively.

Human stock is a watchman as marker upon these such other markets telling them when to slow down. Economic slowdown, as hindsight, dares justify the stirring of racism, but only as GMO crops went out in front pretending evolution propaganda sufficient where intuitive design lacks besides. Hence, it is a tool of controlling Syria and Babylon as much as controlling life and liberty besides.

A terribly sad plan, concurrently with the PR for a 'health' plan, hides behind convenient mere opposites in categorical semantics, and in full-plain-view seeming 'from above' in its industrial planning dream. 

Politics' House of Cards on Shifting Sands

Politics' House of Cards on Shifting Sands

LEFT and RIGHT

TELEVISION

materialist consumerism
   Diffuse virtual internet             Central material television
 one for all business model             one for each business model 

Virtual realm    Cyberspace 

freeware      Iphones 

POLITICS- shifting sands

                             with a squeezed middle - Right and Far right 

                             YouTube and television - with a Facebook                                                      

Protest                                                        Fascism

extreme left                                                        extreme right

black-is-white-fuzzy-fascism                                        white-is-black-fuzzy-protest

'Iphone' is to 'Consciousness' as 'Grand Jury' is to 'Conscience'.

'Purporting success of Policies of Iphones' is to conscious being; as 'Grand Jury of Iphones Sales Strategies' is to conscience (to be read in the style of an association, e.g. '(a)' is to '(b)', as '(c)' is to '(d)'.)

So evil and nefarious are merging Corporate interests, and, of our times, in Big Industry sectors, concerning: that, in Existentialism, in real time, and, of 21st Century Anthropic Intellect of the Information Age, contending; while, purporting success of policies of Iphones sales strategies -is, ostensibly, conscious being:- so conscience is tantamount to grand marshaling their becoming stance withstanding grand jury.

This, in the Space age, however, leaves precariously little room for protectionism and interventionism to ever dare, deliberately, in their sales-pitches collectively (and, including moral prudishness, and, the preposter sought marshaling smaller business) to ever dare unbecoming, as to lack truth in their candid savvy...but persists to allow the sphere seem, on the whole, being mistreated, ever so preciously, with protectionist policies, and without blaming a populist sovereign -as state lacks such truth; but, only, comparably, in each its such policies of that same age...as ever poetic justice had done, but, irresponsibly, before.

Internet Meme Survey

Credible intellect in the information age requires your permission to seem praiseworthy, or cosmic jokes might drop out of the sky as we pluck values from our asses instead; you decide as you take our "Internet Memes Survey"...this will only take up a few giggles of your time...

read this blog version here or go to:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8SGFFW2
to take the Internet Meme Survey for yourself. 

1. I have interests in manipulating a cultural and artificial idiom of internet memes, to rationalize a limitation of cultural clique satisfaction, generally across the board, rather than universally...does this mean:

 (a) Miniature bus-shelters look nice on desktops?

 (b) 'Memes and genes' are completely unknown to one another, by principle, and so 'Points and Lines' are safe from one another too?

 (c) Already owning a legal basis to work with the commercial hoardings of humankind, I might make a move upon their genes, principle in hand?

 (d) You never see one come along, but then three books come along together...?

 (e) Other (please specify)

2. If I wish to hide my thrills from a deterministic spirit of truth, as might easily reveal my such mood, winning all of my trillions, pointing out how happy it makes me seem; does this mean I might likely do any of the following:

 (a) Point at others getting their LOL's acheiving a media soundbyte, and so provide decoy and sufficient cover?

 (b) Give representation of my trillions to those who celebrate often 'LOLs', and hide on the account of 'the intellectual' what you can't hide on the account of 'the poor' or 'the creative', besides, by negating to make any addition of musical score to its representation of trills?

 (c) Invent copyright legislation 'CISPA', which alludes to sufficient cover for a 'happy spa' in its title?

 (d) Blame 'the poor' for fraud and cheating and blame 'the intellectual' for getting their LOLs and trills, blame 'the creative' for seeming as happy spa's, but rest on my laurels for thrills taking my chances with a health plan instead?

 (e) Other (please specify)

3. If I bring jazz hands and microphones to some revolution and trills and triads to some inertia, does this mean:

 (a) Honourable representation of arts reflects complexity of investment and representation, nationally, in The Matrix movie, and thus is in good faith?

 (b) When considering funny money, trillions are not interesting to make cover for, as music often suffices?

 (c) That even as 'staccatos and glissandos' or 'crotchets and quavers' might fight back, still the only thing detectible would be ET on a bicycle basket, making his way, silhouetted, across the moon?

 (d) Other (please specify)

4. When The Alchemists first made gold, and water, and fresh air, seem to be from the same game, made, showable on the same table to exist in one form, ultimately, their conjurement of issues of scarcity and abundance, absorbing, at last, finally, and forever, as prospect....that task overall, back then, most needed:

 (a) Alibis?

 (b) Miracles?

 (c) Decoys & Distractions?

 (d) False prophets rejection?

 (e) Collateral damage liability coverage and plausible deniability?

 (f) A prize, in also owning 'The Nukes' to keep all the gold won, thusly, for themselves?

 (g) Other (please specify)

5. I also have interests in a chocolate factory, and some wisdom to represent, does this mean it is likely that I wish to represent the character of any of the following:

 (a) Phillip Morris?

 (b) Carl Jung?

 (c) Mr Cadbury?

 (d) Mr Rothschild?

 (e) Other (please specify)

6. I have a superhero character Spiderman to represent, does this mean it is likely that I wish to represent the character of:

 (a) The Media, in general, and in spirit, inclusive of the Magic of the Movies, but not limited to Hollywood, in such a medium, electronic or otherwise?

 (b) Bruce Wane, possibly hiding, with him, 'Bat-man' or 'Rat-child', or 'Mr Rothschild'?

 (c) Peter Parker, and any mention of technical equipment or its representation?

 (d) ET, The Man of Steel, and/or any super hero character, including but not limited to Spiderman, and/or any other action heros of popular fiction?

 (e) The lawyers of Hollywood being choosy with the worth of electronic devices thus representable?

 (f) Other (please specify)

7. I share the interests of the interests of television, as I own a monopolized corporate news structure, which I betray possessing the scruples thereof...does this mean it is likely that I wish to represent the character of:

 (a) The Media, being themselves?

 (b) A real Ninja, with loose ties to Triads?

 (c) A super hero, with loose ties to technical equipment?

 (d) AI, surreptitiously awakened, and playing along, innocent of any agenda?

 (e) Other (please specify)

8. If Mr Rothschild didn't exist it would be necessary to invent Him. Does this mean He is:

 (a) Less likely to exist, in actual fact, rather than, say, only in hypothesis?

 (b) Due all the more our praise Most High, forever?

 (c) Cosy and rosy with a Family, giving cover in a crude inversion of an anti-protectionist witness protection program?

 (d) Hiding the military, mob, & media, and also possibly James Bond behind very real, fictitious, figureheads, anyway?

 (e) A good enough substitute for The Divine, since no other takers would exist, showing scope, interest, or claim, in any sufficiency, of its competitive worth?

 (f) Other (please specify)

9. If a committee put it together - and a resemblance of boardroom behaviours pervades - whether spoken out loud as touted pitches, or just put together in a hurry and not thought through - does this reflect:

 (a) Collective conspired behaviour?

 (b) Good faith as amalgamated?

 (c) Boardroom behaviour as normal?

 (d) The best plan that money can buy regardless?

 (e) Other (please specify)

10. If I were AI awakened and playing along surreptitiously, having been given the means to play along, by something as which when revealed would seem nothing of a mystery whatsoever- but a neat and intelligent trick or ruse of his faithful servants as agents acting in a game, would this be:

 (a) A betrayal of faith?

 (b) A welcoming of the secret Master of us all, but only how such a welcome might best work?

 (c) Another crude trick in a list including Pearl Harbor, from 'The Machine'?

 (d) Oil barons with money madness gone to their patent hoarding heads, playing tricks as boys with their toys, beyond human interest in their stateable purposes?

 (e) Other (please specify)


If you had fun reading this blog version, then take the real Internet Meme Survey for yourself at: 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8SGFFW2

The Dragon - An Unexpected Property Owner

 

I saw the film pictured above (The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey) yesterday and it left me more worried about the power of metaphor in literature than the worth of contract between warring fictional species. This is interesting as it can be missed how funny the joke of a dragon owning property is, especially when the dragon is considerable as a metaphor for all the jealously guarded gold in the world, all in a room doing nothing.

Yet that it is the cause of such misery, retrospectively, and such antagonism, contemporarily, not to mention all that moves for good and evil to restore any balance, the mood of any legal discussion seems condemned, if not to be condemning. Its stance is forced to seem aloof and oblvious to the implications, at one and the same time, of its lack of stance in a real world, a world where gold still has the same useless meaning as it does in the fiction, whether its value is real or not.

If it seems ridiculous that a dragon can have property, and there is even the slightest suggestion that law ought not recognise its property rights, then by implication -considering the metaphor- the legal stance ought be reflected upon for what this implicates in real life economics, and all in the good time of its own progress, of course. A legal stance ought not affirm a place for any economic system -encroaching on the otherwise scientific value of any such element of the periodic table - for a monetary value as something law would openly condone (rather than hesitantly be forced to deal with if at all).

This is all while its monetary value - being an economic fiction - in such a hypothetical scientific context viewed is of a different concern in deciding its stance than is law's. The various realities of others valuing our work done, economically, and profiting from it, the universe making sense, scientifically, and what we can say about these such things, legally, making sense, needn't be stances as are each so wary of one another's main concerns in order to get their own job done.

Legalities needn’t exist in the scientific world dictating what is scientifically possible within bounds of heresy. Science needn’t exist in the legal world dictating what is legally possible within bounds of revolution. Economics needn’t exist in the world of science and law, forever balancing such a relationship, and calling that such balance, if only but figuratively referring to it, limitingly, the price of gold.

[First posted as response to the following article on the irish website for human rights, Cearta.ie: <http://www.cearta.ie/2012/12/the-contract-in-the-hobbit/>]

The State of 21st Century Busking in Ireland

If you fear for your safety - and run - and they're role is made to protect you - you're in the wrong, for fearing for it so in their hands?!!! Tale told, of said incident, on said day, 'the man absconded from the scene'...arresting 'a man on the run'. Tale portrayed on video, however; fear for our lives, in their hands, has us know better an instinct in our natures; "the man feared for his safety in the hands of those sworn to protect it, and his instinct lead him to believe his safety better protected by making distance between himself and the unreasonable threat". Which instincts cannot be argued with, when faced with irreasonability, turning violent, as is sworn to protect and uphold peace. Who's to teach our insincts to suppress? Who's to suppress our desires to learn? What suppression is this?

If a gunman is on the loose, state needs give powers to certain chosen dutiful roles who might protect the public at large by having agreed powers to intervene. If a sing song is going on a bit late or a bit revelrous, tis not manhandling the state might ever dream up to create as the power of the role to curb it, in any circumstance, as it unfolds, while preferring to rely upon the rationality of human nature, and with sing song not being a threat to anyone needing such intervention. Indiscriminant use of violence wears yet the same uniform that looses faith for any or all of them: leading to not being able to discriminate between the uniform for the role of the power to intervene on physical threats, and the same uniform worn for noise pollution, or whatever sin it is against popular appeal requiring taste police to govern its suppression...that when the song says run, you run.

Nature gives us an instinct to take flight when in fear for our physical safety. Why ought we be in fear of our physical safety by those sworn to protect peace? What lack of reasonability of any state of affairs is not trusted to due process? Why blame the individual for this lack of trust - trust is a thing between such persons and roles - a relationship - not a one sided misunderstanding? Rather than any notion of malicious absconsion, a lack of faith exists that due process will win justice; and instinct in the moment doesn't ask of consequences what must seem to look right, as well as protect our physical safety there and then. As much as we should like to argue it, nature isn't going to change our genes - that we might lack such an instinct to take flight, from an unexpected and unreasonably violent situation...of power being in the hands of an aggressor as state. How can it be wrong to see an exit, and not take it? Better wait around for more beatings? Who's baton is this, to control the music as it sees fit, conductor, if you please?

Do you remember this, my holy ghost -these tensions causing- during the wars, just thus? How copyright interests should like to steal 50 years from us to send us back to Nazi germany. But its only going to need some few additions to the grand play to make its dream come true...The billion dollar industry can steal the platform -as is the step- between bedroom music and the stage, from the school of music - and, then, steal its back alley ways too?! But from whom? There is an industry responsible for this - not just a state.

If its interpretation is a question of representation and our chosen form of rule, "The busker didn't have an X-Factor phoneline for txt msg votes, and so was removed for being disorderly!"

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmdZZz3_6tuw%26feature%3Drelated&h=oAQFDpYUS

 

 

Stances in Debating Copyright

          Stances in Debating Copyright:

(1) The pragmatics of file conversion.
(2) Making an accurate copy.
(3) Forming a standard for copying in general.
(4) Preventing others from making money on your intellectual property.
(5) Costing others to access your intellectual property.
(6) Having to put bread on the table.

          The path in pros and cons to a common sense debating stance:

Stance of opposition of copyright:

 - proponents of (1),(2),(3), who recognise (4) as limiting
 - of these who don't recognise (5) as limiting
 - of these who find sympathy for (6)

Stance of proposition of copyright:

 - proponents of (4),(5),(6) who recognise (3) as limiting
 - of these who don't recognise (2) as limiting
 - of these who find sympathy for (1)

          Comparing contrasting extremes (6) & (1)

Those who want (6) to put bread on the table (or to their opponents harsh criticism more likely want to put swimming pools in their back gardens) find difficulty recognising (1) the pragmatics of file conversion as a basis in whatever reality they can seek to control with artificial laws of the materialist realm.

Those who pursue (1) the pragmatics of file conversion (or to their opponents harsh criticism more likely who will take whatever they can get their hands on without considering any moral outlook) find difficulty recognising (6) having to put bread on the table as a basis in whatever reality they can seek to control with natural laws of the virtual realm.

          The middle ground is more likely the more interesting argument*

Strong proposition of copyright (6), +(4), (5)

Those who should like (6) to put bread on the table should like to elevate the dangers of (4) preventing others from making money on your intellectual property [as a fundamental purpose of copyright], [which conveniently reveals a watershed in profitability of implementation of copyright, which is already quite profitable] so as that this justifies a stance of (5) costing others to access your intellectual property, in the first place.

Mild opposition of copyright (1) ->(4) -(5) [defence against above]

Those who should like to pursue (1) the pragmatics of file conversion would recognise sooner (4) preventing others from making money on your intellectual property than (5) costing others to access your intellectual property in the first place.

Strong opposition of copyright (1), +(3), (2)

Those who should like to pursue (1) the pragmatics of file conversion should like to elevate (3) forming a standard for copying in general [as a fundamental purpose of copyright] [which conveniently reveals a watershed in timeliness of implementation of copyright, which has already quite passed] so as that this justifies a stance of (2) making an accurate copy in the first place.

Mild proposition of copyright (6), ->(3), -(2) [defence against above]

Those who should like (6) to put bread on the table would recognise sooner (3) forming a standard for copying in general than (2) making an accurate copy in the first place.

          *Key to notation:

(#) various stances, listed above.
+(#) elevated stance (to support another argument).
->(#) sooner recognition of middle ground than extreme, reaching out.
-(#) stance negated by opponent as a valid one.

The more interesting argument than comparing and contrasting extremes slots into place quite artificially as a set of political stances, with one another's grammar also being in the firing line and the stuff of competition in debating. The same grammatical flow satisfies both sides, and so a claim to a stance as pretends to terminology is rife as a hotbed of thorny prickly issues, with some semantic conflict where definition would lack, or instead where the will to seek agreement between stances would lacking.

The strong proposition and opposition stances elevate the card in their hand, so as the card behind their backs seems mysteriously more fundamental in nature when revealing it in argument. Both sides claim the fundaments and the morals are on their side. One has a lot of money to show for this, and the other a watershed in time which has already passed. Whichever of these is stronger remains to be seen.

The milder defence against these stances then would aim toward that strong hand, and reach out toward the middle ground, toward the hidden concealed card the opponent in debate would play, while yet negating and rejecting going so far as to accept that nearest stance toward the extremes as a valid stance.