Date: March 21, 2018
“Military history is filled with great thinkers who changed the way wars we fought, peace was won, and nations prepared for conflict. Some even influenced the way business strategy is determined. Which famous military mind is most like yours?”
This one may test your patience…
…There are way to many ridiculous questions…at least one that doesn’t even make sense…some you need to be a history buff to give an intelligent answer for…
By the time I got half way through, I was ready for it to be over…but it mercilessly dragged on…
It would have benefited from being limited to, maybe, a dozen questions.
“You don’t believe in getting too deep into conflicts, making you a lot like the general who ran the First Gulf War, General Norman Schwarzkopf. General Schwarzkopf didn’t want to invade Iraq, knowing full well what the results of an occupation would be. Instead, he used a combination of surgical strikes and counterintelligence to move the Iraqi army into position for defeat. Perhaps one of the fastest wars in history, the First Gulf War was fought by showing inflatable tanks to Iraqi spies and passing false reports to the media, while using cutting-edge stealth bombers to pepper targets with laser-guided explosives.”
But still…I’m a “Stormin’ Norman”…Hmmm…
…I guess…That was my war, after all…It might as well be him.
…It’s not like I entered this with any preferences.
Date: March 20, 2018
“I say that our conversation requires precision, and a concerted effort to strive towards it, because it is due to its absence, on some occasions more deliberate than others, that otherwise plainly false equivalences can be espoused and used as foundations upon which other arguments are built. When we use words such as “drove”, “radicalised”, “inspired”, “far-right”, “extremist” etc., we must do so consistently, and adhere to definitions so that our implications aren’t smuggled but are explicit and transparent. We must also acknowledge that the truth of a matter exists independently of whether, and however validly, it is argued for or against. Just because there are two opposing views on a given issue does not mean that the truth must lie between them, and where it happens to, it does not mean that it can only be found at the half-way mark. The implications arising from terms like the first three among my examples above, concern the constitution of responsibility, and its degree. I wish here to discuss whether we can conclude by implication, as Rowley does, that Tommy Robinson and others bear some responsibility for an atrocity such as that at Finsbury Park akin to that borne by Anjem Choudary for bouts of Jihadi violence.
But unless we wish to continue devaluing the meanings of our words in such conversations so that we can each rely on one another to be speaking the same language and genuinely make some progress, we must stop relying instead on such equivocations and false-equivalences to virtue-signal and score cheap points.”
I’m most interested in the discussion of legal [as well as moral and ethical] culpability, as I’ve also recognized this being used to stifle open, free speech…speech about deeply important social issues of our time.
When it gets to the point where speech, and the people behind that speech, are grossly mischaracterized…and those same people cannot even express an honestly held thought, question, emotion, etc…something has gone dangerously wrong, within society.
…People aren’t hearing, listening, comprehending and dialoging, anymore…They are using tactics of domination, to make people they don’t want to hear from “simply go away”…which, effectively, kills all peaceful solutions…
…Peaceful solutions are what we should be pursuing.
The longer I have been out here as a MAP…the longer the list of people grows, who’ve accused me of substantive culpability in “child sexual abuse” [sexual violence against children]…despite myself holding no prior knowledge of specific incidents, never giving any assistance in such an event…never advising such behavior…never commissioning or encouraging such incidents…and always condemning any violation of the free will principle…As well as never having engaged in such violence, myself…
Some people are pissed off at me over my long history of associations and initiatives…and they think I should suffer for it, in whatever way they can manage to inflict said suffering.
It’s a sad, ruthless world we live in…when nobody can thoughtfully say anything, about the issues that impact their own lives, without being personally violated for having made the effort.
Date: March 20, 2018
It seems the trendy thing to tell kids these days…is that if you have any social sex life at all, “you are being sexually assaulted” as result of your sex life.
…And we get the old misnomer…that “It’s okay to understand you own your own body”…and “have a right to say no”…But you don’t have the right to say yes…which negates the whole idea, that kids own their own bodies…Clearly, if they cannot have sexual relations for their own purposes…then they do not fully own their own bodies.
Being a sexual, human child…and living according to your own nature…is criminalized…And you’re only conditioned to say “the right things”, think “the right thoughts” and react “in the right ways”…meaning, obey the state.
It’s in this mess of a social framework, that we get the kinds of articles [or statements] like the one linked above.
I’m not up to discussing the finer points, which distinguish sex life from sex abuse [not today]…but I wanted to point out a thing or two…
These types of articles generally accept the state propaganda, and repeat it as fact…They rarely recognize any human right to sexuality, where it comes to young human beings…So, understand that any reality based discussion of human sexuality [including harmless, childhood sexuality], has already been debased and sidestepped, right from the start.
But even taking that into account…there is a massive elephant in the room, where it comes to this article…
The stated purpose of this article, is to explain “Why Kids Don’t Tell About Sexual Abuse”…
…Given that KeepKidsSafe” regards “inappropriate touching” [a terminology of state propaganda, tainting all sexual touch] as “sexual abuse”…it’s fairly safe to presume, that they are grouping even sexual touch that a child would seek out, in with “sexual abuse”…
If we are at all to be honest…we must acknowledge, that one of the reasons many children say nothing, is because they liked [or even loved] the experience, and wish to both protect it and repeat it.
Nowhere in that article, is this elephant in the room even hinted at.
Even if they don’t want children to think, act and long in that way…is it right of them to omit this basic fact of nature?
…Isn’t that dishonesty?
|Sub-Blog Archive | MAP Educational Center
Date: March 19, 2018
“A 2008 study published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety. But why exactly would those that scare more easily tend to support conservative views? One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas, Paul Nail, has a pretty interesting answer:
“Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living. The fact is we don’t live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It only makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun.”
This aligns with my personal experience with extreme conservatives.
They’re all about making threats, and acting as if I’m some sort of a threat for being an openly speaking MAP.
The paranoia and fear is rampant.
…They display angst to an extreme, even where it is not rationally justified…constantly running around looking for things to be offended, and alarmed by…to spook everybody else in their clan with.
Date: March 19, 2018
“–Classic Interview:Â Chris Shelton, former high-level Scientologist and author of the book “Scientology: A to Xenu – An Insider’s Guide to What Scientology is Really All About,” joins David to discuss Scientology, getting out of the Sea Org, and being labeled a “suppressive person.”
Date: March 19, 2018
“The Church of Scientology is launching a new television network, and marketing it as a revealing affair that will shed a positive light on the secretive and contentious organisation.
The organisation appears to have begun marketing its coming service Sunday evening with a Twitter account, which links to a countdown clock to the launch Monday night, and has been regularly updating with videos every hour.
The only thing more interesting than what you’ve heard is what you haven’t, a promotional video teases…
Date: March 19, 2018
“YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki announced Tuesday that the Google-owned video website will link information from Wikipedia to content in hopes that it will combat the flood of videos promoting false conspiracy theories that have plagued its service.
The move will add background information provided by Wikipedia to certain videos on YouTube, Wojcicki said during a panel at the South by Southwest tech and music festival in Austin…
…Now we get the opportunity to have fake news [aka false information] published by Wikipedia inflicted upon us, wherever we encounter content on YouTube that strays from pop culture “wisdom”.
Do I even need to go over the many deep problems with this?
There are slanted and biased pages on Wikipedia, controlled and manipulated by dogmatic zealots with an agenda, who watch the page like a hawk and quickly undo edits they don’t personally like…
…Wikipedia has deep, deep integrity deficit issues…and these deficits are at their worst, when applied to socially heated issues.