*edit, November 26, 2017 – I see that I said something in my previous edit that isn’t right. (And there’s a few other typos that you’ll notice, including in the screen image of a comment I made online, in which I mentioned political classes around the world and said that they are almost never corrupted. Obviously, That’s supposed to be ‘almost never not corrupted’.) I must have meant to say something else. “The company might do something like that that it feels would get into trouble.” should be “The company might not do something like that that it feels would get it into trouble.”
*edit, October 30, 2017 – I added a link at the bottom of the post to my essay about gatekeepers. I also no longer see Google-embracing Box as a benign entity. I’m not sure that any corporation, today, is a benign entity. Perhaps they exist, but I’d have to be shown one and convinced that it’s benign before believing that such appendages of the wild beast of Corporatocracy can exist on its body. Does the Corporation eschew tax evasion? Is it okay with destructive, anti-people neoliberal capitalism? Does the Corporation resist the darkness of the gangster Corporatocracy?, because if it did, the Corporatocracy would surely turn on it. (Wikileaks? Lavabit? Silent Circle?) If they can come into being – and there’s some evidence for that – then I doubt that the body that they exist on would not view them as infestations that have to be burnt away or cut out. Jesus made a point about sacrifice when he told his disciples – who afterall, and like all of us, came out of the godless world – ‘If your eye offends you, then pluck it out’. He didn’t mean that you should, under some circumstances, literally pluck your eye out. He meant that if you covet something and that covetousness is corrupting you, then give up desiring what you shouldn’t desire. The dark Corporatocracy I imagine has a similar approach, but the eye that that wild beast needs to ‘pluck out’ would be something, like a good corporate example, that it can’t allow to exist without risking others seeing it as good and the rest of the Corporate world as bad and something needing to be discarded.) I had a comment, a response to Box’s announcement about partnering with Google, labelled a “rant” and deleted on their public forum. And they up and deleted one of my files once, a scripture from the Christian Bible. I can’t absolutely know whether that was deliberate or not. (The company might do something like that that it feels would get into trouble. But a gatekeeper within the company?) The rep I had a back and forth with tried telling me that it was probably just a glitch. Eventually, I succeed in uploading the file again. I haven’t checked it since to see whether it’s still there. See my previous blog post titled Box Mystery.
An excerpt from the above linked-to AP article follows:
Police arrested a third suspect and hunted for two others Saturday in the gang rape and slaying of two teenage cousins found hanging from a tree in northern India, a case that has prompted national outrage…
India has a history of tolerance for sexual violence. But the gang rape, which was followed by TV footage of the corpses of the 14- and 15-year-old girls swaying as they hung from a mango tree, triggered outrage across the nation…
Uttar Pradesh officials initially appeared caught off guard by the reaction to the attack on the two girls. On Friday, the state’s top official mocked journalists for asking about it.
“You’re not facing any danger, are you?” Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav said in Lucknow, the state capital. “Then why are you worried? What’s it to you?”
The rapes (and possible murder of the victims by these courageous men) of two young girls in India caused “national outrage” in a country that “has a history of tolerance for sexual violence.” Sort that one out. A thoughtless poster named Bob1234 responded to one of my online comments (see screen capture below) with: “”heaven ne’er helps the men who will not act.” Besides being too lazy, or clueless, to indicate the source (Why bother with quotation marks if you’re not going to attach the source?) of the comment, It’s just empty. I’m sure that the rapists felt exactly that way. Don’t act and you will miss out on a little slice of heaven. Grab the girls, with the help of your equally strong and courageous male friends, and do with them as you please, whether they want it or not, and heaven is yours! But we don’t all agree on who God is and what heaven is. I don’t think humankind, collectively, is God. And I don’t refer to things I might steal from others as heaven. Someone who steals food because he’s starving, and when it isn’t causing another to starve, can be forgiven. Then there’s stealing that’s not acceptable. Then there’s stealing that is worse than unacceptable.
“Now look! someone came up to him and said: “Teacher, what good must I do to gain everlasting life?” He said to him: “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If, though, you want to enter into life, observe the commandments continually.” He said to him: “Which ones?” Jesus said: “You must not murder, you must not commit adultery, you must not steal, you must not bear false witness, honor your father and your mother, and you must love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him: “I have kept all of these; what am I still lacking?” Jesus said to him: “If you want to be perfect, go sell your belongings and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come be my follower.” When the young man heard this, he went away grieved, for he had many possessions. Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Truly I say to you that it will be difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of the heavens. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to get through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” – Matthew 19:16-24
One may opt for the paradigm of ‘riches for the strongest’ instead of Jehovah (in whose image man was made) and his standards, but, when the choice is made to just take what you want without regard for right and wrong, then the riches, over time, become something normal people wouldn’t want for free. Darkness is its own reward. Like Gollum, eating the fat, juicy, bloody, raw fish and gagging at the tasty, boiled potatoes, One who cleverly chooses to break rules, to steal treasure (including pleasure), ends up so perverted that what he or she desires is a nightmare.
The Indian mobster officials were “caught off guard” and didn’t have time to finesse their answers, revealing that they are just more… mobster officials in a mafia capitalist system that exists everywhere, despite differences due to culture and other factors.
I tossed in a number of comments in this forum, before commenting was closed for whatever reason. A few of those, including one with a typo, were disappeared. (This wonderful people’s forum doesn’t allow editing, at any point.) This is the CBC, whose slow death at the hands of our rightwing governments are mourned by many, including mainstream (fake) and real leftists. – I find that there’s a lack of critical examination of the CBC on the Left. I too desire to have a strong, public broadcaster. I also want to talk about that and not just when it impacts sports coverage. And yet, You don’t see much. I thought I’d find a lot of coverage on Rabble. (I see blurbs in the major media about impending cuts to the CBC.) But there’s little. Is it because the CBC can cause trouble for activists? Is it some sort of camaraderie for media workers? If the failure to examine the CBC critically means letting its destroyers and saboteurs off the hook, then I can’t support it.
A people’s broadcaster wouldn’t be a bully. Or undemocratic. There are no doubt some within the CBC, and without, who would like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to be a genuine people’s organization, but these days rat-like gatekeepers, including traitorous managers (such as Deepak Chopra, who belongs to a rightwing think tank while he runs Canada Post… into the arms of privatizers. See “Canada Post provided 800 pages on postal banking, but 700 are redacted.“), are everywhere and will no doubt be found within the CBC and might include those who are given (???) the task of managing these forums. Ergo… Why are some comments, clearly anti-corporatocracy in nature, accepted while other comments, anti corporatocracy and neutral, not accepted? Who knows? Shift changes maybe? A gatekeeper leaves and a human being takes his or her place-?
An anti-corporatocracy comment, by myself, in this discussion that ‘did’ get accepted:
(— @merhygail: It’s hard to argue with education. But there’s a limit to what I will accept as an excuse for bad behavior. I just don’t buy that you need special education to know when you cross the line. When you get together with a bunch of your courageous male friends to rape a young, defenseless girl and then attack her mother for asking for justice in relation to that crime, you can’t give me a cultural or religious excuse for it. I’m just not buying it.
I’ve read a slew of articles about China recently that also disturb me and which should disturb any normal people. The state there, post Tiananmen Square, [has] so thoroughly brainwashed the young people – millions of them – and the public generally that when they learn about Tiananmen, they support the state and shrug in reaction to the news about the slaughter of the democracy protesters. Some students cavalierly dismiss the idea that the state would kill young protesters, sloughing off the report and accusing the reporter of being dishonest.
That’s pathetic. India is frightening. And it all comes from uncaring elites and their political tools who are so bent on their game of ‘riches for the strongest’ in which they get to play God, that creating whole populations of murderous idiots is worth it. —)
From “Tiananmen Square: 25 years later, unrecognized by today’s youth” by Nathan Vanderklippe, the following:
“Young is 19 years old, the kind of bright young face who gets picked for glossy campus brochures. He attends Peking University, the top university in China. He is studying chemistry, out of a desire to help solve his country’s struggles with energy and the environment. He is a curious mind who scours Wikipedia for information, even on subjects outside the strictures of approved Chinese thought – such as what happened on June 4, 1989.
“On that day, China’s leaders ordered soldiers to open fire on pro-democracy protesters who had occupied Tiananmen Square.
“Many of those protesters once inhabited the very campus Young, and a new generation of very different students, now stroll. Had he been in charge he would have ordered them shot himself, he says.
““I would probably have chosen to do the same,” says Young.
“Hundreds, perhaps thousands died that day alongside their dreams of a society where speech is free, government is not corrupt and people have the right to choose their own thoughts and destinies.
“Perhaps nowhere is the demise of those dreams more striking than at Peking University, a place that 25 years ago was one of the hearts of the student movement.
“Today’s students bear little in common with an earlier generation who, nourished by an intellectual diet of Greek philosophers and French Revolution-era writers, dared push for a changed China.”
What is a gatekeeper? A gatekeeper (who can be appointed or self appointed) is anyone (and I mean anyone), with the right political views from the standpoint of the corporatocracy, who acts so as to hinder (in small and big ways) those with the ‘wrong’ political views. Gatekeepers are too free, since they can often break rules, including enacted laws, that others would not think to break or (in the case of official rules and laws) can’t break with impunity. Rule-breaking is, in fact, how the gatekeepers’ masters (who so often claim to be champions of law & order, also referred to as social harmony and stability) came to dominate in society. And lower level gatekeepers imitate that behavior and find that they too can climb over others and get ‘ahead’ by being similarly lawless. Our law and order governments are made up of people like that. Look at the world that they run.
The reply I typed for the commenter and which the forum disallowed, and which isn’t actually that long (except by comparison to all the quite short comments that are the norm in sorry forums like this), follows. I uploaded it to a service I use called Box. It’s quite handy. They provide basic, but quite generous, services for free. If the CBC has to be privatized, perhaps we can get those caring people to buy it:
The Issue Of Universal Sovereignty
The reality where our first human parents chose, as they were free to do (that’s the kind of God who created them) to abuse their free moral agency and side with a defecting angel in rebelling against the God of life and love. That rebellion raised issues. Is God’s way of love not the best? Are there equal or superior alternatives, such as ‘riches for the strongest’? The serpent (Satan) suggested to Eve, and Adam indirectly, that God wasn’t providing for them fully and that he was in fact holding them back, promising to Eve that her eyes would become open once she gave in to her temptation to ignore God’s warning (which, I believe, was prompted by his knowledge of Satan’s self-creation and intentions. Satan saw the worship that the first human couple were directing toward God and desired that for himself).
Issues take time to be settled. We have tried all sorts of self-government. We’ve created technology. We’ve had plenty of time to get our act together and show God that we don’t need him, that we can be, like Satan, our own God, choosing for ourselves what is good and bad.
The alternative to God’s disallowing (and hiding) that raised issue would have been for him to erase the rebels and all of us who would come from Adam’s seed. If there was no other way for God to deal with the darkness that crashed his party, perhaps he would have. But, in fact, he immediately had his plan of salvation formed once the rebellion was launched. He clearly had a way to accomplish the saving of kidnapped mankind.
Once the issue, or lesson, of universal sovereignty is settled, it will be settled for all time. Otherwise, again, Where would the love be? Who wants to live in a manmade hell forever? – For now, but only now, rebels can rebel, cause trouble for themselves ‘and’ for others. In the future, post-IOUS, individuals will be free to rebel – free moral agency is part of our design – but they won’t be free to influence the rest of society.
Do you know for a fact that that isn’t true?