atw: Re: OT: Grumbling About Elections...
- From: Robert Levy <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:25:55 +1000
I just want to give some positive feedback and say, without sarcasm, that I
appreciate the "OT" in the subject. That way I can ignore the whole thread, or
join in if I feel like it. (Which I don't, since I'm not even a citizen here!)
Thanks for using it.
As you were.
rwl
On 16/08/2012, at 8:53 PM, Christine Kent <cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If we take this discussion back to Warrens’ starting point, we have actually
> demonstrated, first hand, how the modern world works.
>
> We have a system. It can be a government or a corporate organisation or a
> recruitment company. It doesn’t matter which as they all have to comply with
> the prevailing paradigm of the system at large.
>
> So the politician, or the manager, or the recruiter will compromise what they
> feel they have to compromise in order to be allowed to remain within the
> system. The more corrupt the system, the more they have to compromise, and I
> think many of us would agree that we are seeing rather a lot of compromise
> these days.
>
> The system upholds itself with both written and unwritten rules, and enforces
> those rules either with a formal legal system or with social pressure.
> Without force it would collapse.
>
> When it comes to compulsory voting, our Westminster system would collapse if
> we all pulled out, so it must force us to stay within. It does that be
> forcing us to vote using the legal system, and by using members of the system
> who want to remain within the system to apply ridicule, abuse, bullying and
> a range of other social mechanisms to either force compliance or at the very
> least, enforce silence, so that those of us outside the system cannot further
> contaminate those within the system.
>
> There is never a shortage of individuals willing to use ridicule on behalf of
> the system against those who operate or at least try to operate outside the
> system in any one or more of a huge variety of ways. Those of us who refuse
> injections, never use mainstream medicine, refuse to vote, refuse to take
> drugs, refuse to eat chemically contaminated food, believe in ghosts, point
> out chem trails and can tell you exactly what chemicals are in them, belong
> to a cult, believe in quantum physics, know that the universe is not spinning
> around the earth – or anything else deemed to be outside the prevailing
> paradigm of the time, are demonised, which then makes it allowable for the
> official or unofficial enforcers to use whatever cruelty the culture deems as
> appropriate to demand compliance.
>
> How many in this group railed against (in other words attempted to bully)
> those of us who admitted that we do not vote, and then how many resorted to
> ridicule and put down strategies against those who refused to be silenced
> (oops, that was only me). These are the techniques of the unofficial
> enforcers. You are all either enforcers or the enforced. Or are you?
>
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
> Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 7:59 PM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: atw: Re: OT: Grumbling About Elections...
>
> Oh, but I didn’t call anyone names. I leave the name calling to greater
> minds than mine.
>
> But you see, you actually DIDN’T understand. You are so far embedded in the
> party system that you cannot perceive the possibility that the very system is
> fatally flawed. You are within the paradigm, as I predicted that a number of
> you would be (note that I did not identify anyone personally as my mind is
> not great enough to call individuals names).
>
> Curiously you can see that the press, a cornerstone of the Westminster
> system, is fatally flawed, but cannot see that the press and Westminster
> political structures are two inextricably intertwined parts of the same
> fatally flawed system.
>
> I am outside the paradigm. To me it is all so fatally flawed that nothing
> can be achieved within in.
>
> It is actually a very strange place to be once you have “fallen” out of the
> system. You can look back in and start to really comprehend what Shakespeare
> meant by all that “world is but a stage” stuff. You watch people dancing to
> the piper’s tune with bemusement, incomprehension and sometimes shock. You
> realise that, just as you cannot understand why they are playing this game,
> they equally cannot understand why you cannot play it any more. I was not
> abusing anyone, I was bemoaning my own alienation from the game you are all
> so comfortably playing, and bemoaning the increasing unlikelihood of ever
> again seeing my own reflection in the mirror of another human soul. You
> share a common culture, a common perception of good and bad, an agreement to
> obey the rules imposed upon you by your chosen master. I don’t.
>
> Now go ahead and ridicule me for being not only emotionally honest but
> psychologically and spiritually honest too. Go on, I am sure you can find
> some more juicy names to call me…
>
>
> Christine
>
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Terry Dowling
> Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 7:11 PM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: atw: Re: OT: Grumbling About Elections...
>
> Ahh Christine, condescension is always good.
>
> You don’t agree with me, therefore – by definition – you have an inability to
> comprehend.
>
> Christine, I truly admire your skills and even most of your morals and
> politics. I even enjoy your cook/food books. But almost every time someone
> disagrees with you, out comes not just the bitterness, but the condescension.
>
> Your point is taken. I appreciate your efforts and can see your frustrations.
> Got to admit, I’m not sure if you’re talking about the mistreatment of
> refugees or if ‘torturing children’ is just a metaphor. Put it down my
> inability to comprehend.
>
> I’d say that, in such circumstances as you describe, there must almost
> certainly be a third party or an independent against torturing children – or
> you’re living in a country with ‘Democratic’ in its name. If there isn’t such
> a party, maybe you need to think about starting one or running for the seat
> yourself.
>
> The thing is that by voting, you might not get exactly what you want straight
> away, but you can usually try to help make it better than it currently is.
> [And then you get outvoted. Unfortunately, that’s democracy.] To me, doing
> nothing is equally amoral to voting for bad choices.
>
> If you find you’re not being heard, you could try that tried and trusted
> avenue of buying a newspaper or TV station and trampling editorial
> independence.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
>
> From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
> Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 3:28 PM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: atw: Re: OT: Grumbling About Elections...
>
> … you cannot see how utterly corrupt it is.
>
> To vote for any of the current parties is like being offered the vote between
> torturing children in public and torturing children in private. Please vote
> for your preferred option. But please sir, I don't want to torture children
> at all. Bloody well vote for one of the other or stop whinging. NO SIR, I
> will not vote for torturing children any which way. I will speak against
> you, I will decry you, I will do anything in my power to stop you, but I will
> NEVER vote for torturing children.
>
> This might seem an extreme example and I already know that some of you cannot
> think conceptually enough to work out the analogy, but it is valid. This is
> what you are telling me I must do when you tell me I must vote for one
> imbecillic and corrupt sell-out or another.
>
> …so I know some of you can never, by definition, comprehend the words I say,
> even though they are such ordinary words.
>
> Christine
>
Other related posts:
