Thursday, 11 February 2010

White House warns UK ruling could 'complicate' intelligence-sharing

This is hilarious... Listen Baeraech, you don't have any fucking intelligence to share; not a scintilla. And you can be as disappointed as you fucking like, but you don't run the UK's legal system, so don't be surprised if it throws [up] more than the occasional decision that you don't like your way. Actually: fuck you - our legal system has fuck all to do with you, and makes its decisions as if you don't exist and therefore cannot consider your interests, because your interests don't exist, either. As a consequence, when it's not protecting the interests of our Establishment, it just occasionally manages to protect our rights and liberties.

White House warns UK ruling could 'complicate' intelligence-sharing

In any event, you have a culture based almost entirely on secrecy. Dear God, you're terrified of giving an opinion without clearing it with your superiors, first, just in case you say something embarassing and "off-message". What a bunch of fucking wankers you are. And, more than that, you spend your time actively withholding (sorry, that's "managing" in your language), information. Did you think that others (ie, everybody), weren't doing that, too? The upshot is that not one of you cunts knows what's going on.

I trust that I've managed to convey my utter contempt for the assumption that you've made, a propos the UK courts keeping your shitty little secrets. Fuck you: be embarassed.


Ana said...

" have a culture based almost entirely on secrecy..."

Dear Lord Matt!
Yesterday after sleeping I was pissed of because of some problems at my building and I started thinking, okay I know I shouldn't do it since it only makes you feel angry, about how can it be that this world is upside down and nobody complains even knowing the truth... blah blah blah....

I remembered that US is an example for the world and if it's corrupted blah blah... it affects other countries... blah blah blah blah blahblhablhakdgnalgagognnre

If you had written it two hours earlier you would made me feel a little better.

But NO. You didn't.
Why Matt, why?

I was about to write:
"How US politics affect a Brazilian building"

Can you imagine it?
The thing is that whenever we say anything about US corruption or politics:
"You are being anti-American."

I wrote a comment in a thread about "Oppositions events at SL"
It was done one about Darfur, another about Burma.
I said that it's very easy to make oppositions to countries where violations are being broadcast everywhere but where are the riots about US foreign politics blah blah blah blah blah blah blha blagkhawoignvb....

I don't know why nobody answered.

Maybe it is because I said at the end:

"I bet that the next riot will be about China's freedom of speech and other problems which is very fair but not enough."

OMG! I just realized that there will be a riot about China at SL.
Maybe that's hy d=they didn't answer.

I'm tired of seeing how passive people are.

I don't understand.

Radagast said...

[shrug] People get angry and ask for change, and then they get dispirited, because nobody joins them, and they get ignored, and those who have the authority to change things don't want anything changed, because they're doing nicely as things are, etc, etc, etc. In short, nothing changes, so why bother? Or, put another way, I want everybody else to change, so that I don't have to.

The world is as it is because it benefits somebody or other to have it as it is. If it wasn't a benefit, then it would change. It's like the depressive who says "cure me of my depression," and when one begins to explain that it is their very approach to life that gives rise to depression, they get angry and insist that they'd rather stay depressed than change.

Anyway, I was poking fun at O'Bama for a very particular reason: the very idea that the US has any influence over other countries' legal systems... The US, with this very announcement, very clearly demonstrated to me that it does believe that it has that influence. It appears to take it so much for granted that it's prepared to make a public announcement about it. Well, fuck you, O'Bama - you're nothing but a Bounty Bar.


Ana said...

I have noticed in my neighborhood that people fear telling what they think and don't want to fight for any tiny little thing that is obviously wrong.
When someone says something they like but never say "I think this person is right and I feel the same. I don't it neither and I would love if it could stop."
Why don't they say?
Fear is one of the reasons and I think that "I don't want to get involved. Too much work." is another...
It's easy to indoctrinate people.
I dunno.
But I will not be the first to say it any longer and I truly hope I can do it because it's me who have the headache at the end of the day.

Radagast said...

Hmmm. I suppose it's rather like the Emperor's New Clothes: nobody dares state what appears to be the blindingly bleeding obvious, for fear either of being thought stupid, or of being punished. And so people are required to proceed as though what they are told is the Truth, when they don't believe a word of it (and that must put enormous strain on them).

And, yes: it's easy to indoctrinate people, when one doesn't permit them to have their own ideas!


PS It's instructive, viewing all this from a distance, isn't it?

Ana said...

From a distance!
That is what I have to learn: I have to remember, and accept, that unfortunately there is nothing, nothing that I can do.
I have already experienced many times being the one who said the king is naked and those who have agreed with my after says nothing to back me up.
I don't have a clue about what has happened to the boy who said it at the story.
But today, especially in these days, I'm sure that at least their parents would have said to him: "Shut up!"
I will follow their advice.

Radagast said...

Ah, well, that's where art and life differ... The boy in the story was rewarded. If you remember, even the king had felt obliged to go along with the lie, for fear of appearing stupid. When the boy spoke out, the bubble burst, and everybody felt able to say it as they saw it.

Anyway, you don't have to convince anybody else - just conduct yourself according to the way that you see the world. In that way, one may proceed such that others' realities never intervene in one's world, and one never has to adjust oneself for others' convenience. That's what I'm choosing to do, anyway - as I've said, before: I've never been allowed into the human world, and I may only reciprocate.

It's a simple mechanism, but it appears to work, very well.


Ana said...

You made me realize that the way I behave makes people feel ashamed and when I passes by those who act badly, are corrupted or have no values don't have the guts to look at me straight into the eyes.
Of course those who likes to humiliate others look at me but I stare back very quickly and do something with my body - tiny little movements that I am cannot even describe but I'm sure you know - that make them uncomfortable.
I believe that I do it because of all the things I have witnessed when I was little.
Justice. I always searched for a tiny little justice.
I don't think you were exclude from "human world". You were exclude from... amoral world.
Okay, okay those who have Nietzsche as master: it's time to name the evil.
I'm sorry but I hope you have received the memo the man sent.

SO the story of the boy must have some adjustments.

"Nobody says anything and the boy thinks to himself: "can't people say he is naked?" "is it only me who is seeing him naked?" "why don't anybody says he is naked?"
an he keeps searching for this answer for the rest of his life till he realizes that freedom is a eternal fight and there are times when people are frightened to say the truth and other where they search for a revolution..."

What a bore!
No children will find this ending interesting.
Maybe that is why the author, who is lazy, decided to end quickly the story by saying that everybody said the king was naked.
Are you still reading it?

Radagast said...

Still reading "it"? I always get confused by those unspecified pronouns! I'm still reading your comments, if that's what you mean.

Anyway, there seems to be a Venn diagram, where amorality and immorality share some common ground... That is, one does something that one knows transgresses what is generally viewed as acceptable, and then one claims that the distinction between right/wrong is irrelevant, because the end justified the means. So it is with torture, apparently, although that's not a precedent that anybody should've set me, even though they did.

MI5 undoubtedly has some dirty secrets, and it's almost certainly been told to engage in some unequivocably illegal activity by senior politicians, probably right up to and including the Prime Minister. This being likely, it is in everybody's interests to keep as tight a lid on it as possible, so expect the Official Secrets Act, or some similar piece of state apparatus, to be wheeled out in order to ensure that this particular discussion goes no further.

The boy has cried out "hahahaha... Look, he's got no fucking clothes on," and everybody turned away and pretended that the only explanation for the boy's lack of sight is his stupidity, which mirrors their own, of course.


Ana said...

I meant the comment because I was writing too much.
I'm tired now.
Too damn hot here!
I want winter! I know, I know: too cold for you. I'm dreaming of sleeping with blankets and edredon.
It is so good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Radagast said...

Our winter is drawing to a close, here... The spring bulbs are beginning to show themselves, and the buds on one or two trees are starting to swell. Having said that, we had a very minor snowfall, today.

Anyway, this topic is all but done... Those who are positioned such that they have to continue to espouse the beauty of the king's new outfit (ie, the tailors), can't even hear the little boy, anymore, let alone acknowledge what he has to say.