Posted by: graemebird | February 17, 2009

Brief Bursts Of Sympathy For The Devil

Here we have a sensational example of Fisk patiently, systematically, and thoroughly pulling apart the extremist filibuster and play-dumb-and-win ploy of Adrien.

  1. a. Demonstrate that there was a direct correlation between tree cutting regulations and loss of homes.

    Adrien, I already made it clear from the example of the Shire of Mitchell, which was in fact about as close to proving absolutely (or at least as much as is ever possible in public policy) that clearing restrictions led DIRECTLY to the destruction of property.

    However, given that you personally don’t accept that as fairly conclusive evidence (once again – as far as is possible in all policy matters), you have basically just ensured that any and all future analyses and interpretations of yours, on any subject, whatsoever, will be held to exactly the same standards that you now demand of everyone else – in other words, you will have to make a 100% water-tight case on every single matter you wish to intone on.

    b. Demonstrate that these policies were emplaced there for environmental reasons.

    You have got to be kidding me. If somebody says to me that they advocate the “socialisation of private property”, I don’t need to ask them, “Are you a socialist by any chance?”. I really don’t. If it walks like a duck…

    If you really are trying to pretend that somebody who demands that every tree cut down to build a house must be replanted elsewhere on the property, or that nobody may clear more than 6 metres of vegetation, or that burnoffs are basically prohibited… it takes very minimal powers of interpretation to understand that they are doing so on environmentalist grounds.

    But once again, you make your bed, you lie in it – you’ve now ensured that everything you say in future, right down to very casual observations such as “the sky is blue” will be the subject of a lengthy stonewalling. I’m sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

    c. Demonstrate that the Greens advocated them

    d. Demonstrate that the Greens controlled those councils.

    I’ve been sticking to “Greenies”, mostly, which is pejorative for environmentalists, myself. However, I think it is a reasonable matter of conjecture that the Greens DO support these policies. We will of course be investigating this massive crime in good time.

    MichaelFisk

    17 Feb 09 at 9:12 am

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Rather good isn’t it?
    But what is driving Adrien back into filibuster-prick mode when we sometimes have periods of human behaviour from him.
    Bear in mind that Adrien is putting on this callous performance IN THE FACE OF AN ASTONISHING AMOUNT OF DEAD, HEARTBROKEN, BEREAVED AND INJURED IN OUR MIDST!!!!!!!!!
    In the first instance we find Adriens callousness almost unbelievable. Think of all the people he is in effect spitting on?
    1. There are those people newly deceased who were lost to environmentalist anti-human hatred.
    2. There are those who have lost friends and family to anti-human environmentalist dogma.
    3. There are those  who have seen their family and friends disfigured and covered in burns.
    5. There are those so disfigured because of environmentalist bigotry.
    6 There are the many thousands who have lost their dream-homes and their lifes investments to the environmentalist anti-human doctrinairre spirit.
    7. Spare a thought to those innocent souls who really DO have an affinity with nature and identify with the innocent, harmless and furry little fellows that we are fortunate enough to have as some of our native species.
    The burned marsupials, and their burned little babies. THEIR lost habitat AS WELL………. their homes AS WELLl…….. all sacrificed to the anti-human fetishisms and obsessions of the environmentalist movement.

So with all these legitmately aggrieved people, and some less legitimately pissed off to the nth degree (like myself) ….. why is someone like Adrien rubbing salt into their wounds. in a cosmic sense; by this massive show of obtuseness?

Well I don’t know the answer to that I think that he ‘s probably just a callous prick. But in line with the title of the thread I want to try and have a brief burst of sympathy for the dildo and use all my creative powers to reconstruct him as a human being as opposed to some evil Gollum-like necromancer and hard-core fascist.

And if he is indeed a human being. With some sort of human feeling, and some sort of authentic appreciation of the natural world, well then there could be a thing thats driving him which could explain part of it. And if there was such a thing I would say it is the case that few actual humans want to see people being scapegoated for the stupid decisions that they themselves might have made.

How many centre-rightists, for example, would have wanted to see someone like Eisenhower scapegoated and blamed for being swept along with Washingtons pro-Moscow policies during World War II?

For someone like me its just disturbing thinking about it. He turned out to be a pretty good President in some ways. A well-meaning fellow. But few people have the independence of mind of  a Patton or a McCarthy, which is why Eisenhower, righteous man no doubt in many ways, was effectively swept along for a time, in the service of Moscow, and he became President, whereas the other two were murdered.

The 30’s were the RED DECADE in America. Perhaps even as much as a majority of graduates in America had been pro-Moscow. And of course the zeitgeist of Washington was fervently pro-Communist. But there was a clash in the making. Since in those days they STILL HAD A SENSE OF WHAT TREASON IS. They still took treason seriously in those days. When the people who had been supportive in some way or another, of Stalin, directly or indirectly, came face to face with the realisation that they had been pimped into helping treason along……. well you might get a typical whistle-blower situation on the fly. And the reason is you don’t want to see people being scapegoated.

McCarthy didn’t want to see people getting scapegoated either. He wanted to simply get an agreement going to remove any risky types from sensitive policy and military-defense positions. He didn’t want to name names. He was totally mystified and baffled when the commie-sympathisers (his fellow Senators too old to have served in the war and therefore to have been beyond reproach insofar as their patriotism or lack of treason was concerned) started callously insisting that he name names.  Just a couple of days ago some commie-environmentalist filth fell back on that self-same deal of trying to single out people for massive punishement.

I don’t wish to single out 50 people for massive punishment. I want to have 50 000 people sacked from public tit jobs that they have no legitimate claim on in the first place.

Well I’ll cut the analogy short here.  But I too don’t want to just pick out 50 proven culpable councillers and a couple of culpable magistrates and just abuse them to the hilt. I would rather spread the punishment further wider and deeper. And simply get anyone with a known environmentalist handicap out of the public service entirely.

I don’t have a fang-mark on the public teat. There is no particular reason why such failed analysts and ethically-challenged people should either.

But the bereaved in this affair must see justice. Somewhere, somehow, someone has to pay. All I’m saying is that rather than scapegoating some environmentalist centre-leftists, swept along in the council zeitgeist… all I’m saying is sack them all. Humiliate none that are repentant, jail few that are sorry and with the lightest punishments, but sack many tens of thousands that represent a future risk-factor in the public service.

I too have bursts of sympathy for the deluded. And I too don’t like to see a few unfortunates singled out for special life-shattering abuse.

Make tens of thousands of them get a real job in the private sector. Thats all the abuse I would hope for.  But sadly this is not to be.  We will be getting pre-emptive abuse from the other side and we will be drawn in to fighting back in kinds and getting behind whatever punishments can be applied.

If we are philosophers of righteousness like  Lysander Spooner, then matters of great peril and injustice can be resolved to the temporary humiliation of some but to the long-term benefit of all.  But if we slip up in our best practice of how reforms ought be handled, and if contention breaks out, then a relatively few will be punished out of proportion. And the problem will remain largely unsolved.

When righteousness and reason end and contention THEN STARTS UP AGAIN IN THE NEW ENVIRONMENT OF UNREASON things tend to follow on a path predictable in some aspects if not in others.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Bird & Fisk,

    I am personally often annoyed by the so-called environmentalists, but your posts, here and elsewhere, don’t help! (Calling people names as soon as they disagree doesn’t convince anyone.)

    I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SARAH. I’LL MODERATE MY CASE IF SOMEONE PLEADS FOR THEIRS. SO HOW MUCH CAN YOU LET THEM OFF THE HOOK FOR?

    I’M NOT PLEADING THEIR CASE FOR THEM. THEY KILLED THESE PEOPLE. WITTINGLY OR UNWITTINGLY. WITH GOOD INTENTIONS OR OTHERWISE. AS INDIVIDUALS OR AS SOME HARD TO EXPLAIN GROUP PHENOMENON.

    I AM LIKELY TO BE SYMPATHETIC IF SOMEONE CAN PLEAD A GOOD CASE FOR THE KILLERS. HOW MANY GOOD AIRFORCE SOLDIERS GOT ROPED INTO BOMBING DRESDON? HOW MANY FORMERLY GOOD SOLDIERS WHO HAD STUCK TO SOME SORT OF HUMANE WARRIOR CODE GOT PULLED ALONG WITH OPERATION KEELHAUL?

    YOU PLEAD THEIR CASE. ALL I GET IS ABUSE IF I TRY TO POINT OUT WHAT WENT WRONG. I’M NOT INCLINED TO PLEA THE KILLERS CASE FOR THEM.

    The only thing this post shows is that you are both hell bent to pick and choose elements that fit your world view while completely discarding any elements that don’t fit.

    MAYBE YOUR RIGHT? THIS CAN BE THE SITUATION IN THE INTERIM WHERE THE OPPOSITE SIDE BRINGS ONLY DERISION AND NOT UNDERSTANDING TO THE SITUATION. WHAT IS KNOWN IS THAT THE PEOPLE WERE MURDERED AND DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIFES-EFFORTS, DREAM-HOMES AND THE BEST YEARS OF THEIR LIVES BY ENVIRONMENTALIST-INFLUENCED DECSIONS.

    THATS WHAT IS KNOWN. SO FAR NO-ONE WHO HAS GRASPED THAT REALITY HAS HEARD PLEAS OF MITIGATION BUT RATHER THEY HAVE ONLY HEARD ABUSE AND CALLOUSNESS.

    I AM PERHAPS AT LOGGERHEADS WITH THIS FILTH AND AM NOT INCLINED TO REFORM MY OWN SELF. MAYBE IT IS YOU WHO WOULD BUILD BRIDGES.

    YOUR WORK IS CUT OUT FOR YOU.

  2. Bird,

    No-one is asking you to plead “their” case. What I am saying is that when someone who hasn’t yet made-up his mind goes on a forum where you post, they will have on one side people politely making an argument, and on the other side people such as you and Frisk just calling everyone else names.

    You seem to completely forget a central aspect of public debate, namely that there is an audience!

    SARAH YOU’VE BEEN PRETTY POLITE. AND I HAVEN’T ENCOUNTERED YOUR ANGLE AD NAUSEUM LIKE ALARMIST-TALK OUTTA COBY BECKS EXCUSES FOR NO EVIDENCE. AND SO I AM DISINCLINED TO KICK YOU IN THE THROAT UP FRONT ON THE BASIS THAT IT WILL SAVE YOU TIME IN YOUR ATTEMPTS TO GRATUITOUSLY ABUSE ME.

    I’M LISTENING.

    WHY DO YOU NOT SUSPECT THIRD PARTIES AREN’T LISTENING?

    I’M LISTENING AND PERHAPS THEY ARE LISTENING ALSO. SEEING WHAT YOU WILL COME UP WITH NEXT AND NOT THINKING BADLY OF YOU. SEEING THE POTENTIAL FOR SOME PROGRESS HERE MAYBE.

    BUT ITS NOT A SENSIBLE DISCUSSION IF THE FOCUS IS ON YOU, ME AND THESE ALLEGED THIRD PARTIES TO THE EXCLUSION OF MARSUPIALS IN THE TENS OF THOUSANDS WHO ARE DEAD …………………………………….AND HUMANS IN THE MANY THOUSANDS WHOSE HEARTS ARE BROKEN RIGHT NOW. WHOSE HEARTS ARE SHATTERED RIGHT NOW.

    BRIAN NAYLOR HAD IT SWEET. HAD THE BIG HOUSE IN THE COUNTRY. ENOUGH MONEY FOR ALL HEALTH CONTIGENCIES PRESUMABLY. LIKED BY MOST AND HATED BY NO-ONE. ESSENTIALLY AS FREE AS A BRUMBY HORSE RUNNING WITH THE WIND (PRIOR TO ENVIRONMENTALISTS IN HELICOPTERS SHOOTING THOSE HORSES DOWN FOR NO REASON AT ALL).

    FREE AS A BIRD. AND HE HAD HAD SOME FAMILY TRAGEDY. BUT HE HAD STUCK WITH HIS LADY. WHY ROB HIM OF THE BEST YEARS OF HIS LIFE? WHY HAVE HIM DIE WITH HIS LAST THOUGHTS MIRED IN THE SHAME THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROTECT HIS GIRL AND THEIR DREAMS?

    THIS IS SERIOUS AND MY PERSONAL IMAGE TO THIRD PARTIES WHO ARE NOT IMPLICITLY KEEPING THE GUESTS OF HONOR IN MIND (SOME OF THEM DEAD) IS SOMEWHAT BESIDES THE POINT.

    IF A MAN GOES TO THE COUNCIL TO GET HIS TREES CUT DOWN ALREADY A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED.SINCE ITS NOT THE COUNCILS TREES AND ITS NOT THE COUNCILS LAND.

    BUT IF THE WICKEDNESS HAS GONE THAT FAR AND HE GOES THERE AND THEY MAKE HIM FILL IN FORMS AND HE SAYS

    “I’ KNEW YOUR DAD… WHY SHOULD I FILL IN FORMS? WHY SHOULD I JUSTIFY WHAT I DO TO YOU? I’VE GOT A BAD FEELING ABOUT THIS SUMMER. I AM JUST NOT HAPPY ABOUT THINGS. YOU SAY THIS. YOU SAY ITS COOL. YOU SAY DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT.

    BUT I’VE GOT A BAD FEELING. AND I WANT MY BOYS TO BE ABLE TO CUT THE TREES DOWN.”

    AND SUPPOSING THEY TELL HIM HE’S GETTING OLD. ITS NO PROBLEM. THE COUNCIL HAS THE BEST SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ON THEIR SIDE. THE COUNCIL HAS THINGS COVERED AND THAT HE’LL GET FINED 50 000 DOLLARS IF HE CUTS A SINGLE TREE DOWN AND ON AND ON AND ON AND NEVER LOSING THAT FUCKING SHIT-EATING SMILE……………………

    YOU SEE ITS ALL WRONG. ITS WRONG FROM THE START. WHOSE LAND IS IT? ITS NOT THE COUNCILS. ITS NOT AGENDA 21’S. ITS NOT THE WILDERNESS SOCIETIES!!!!!

    AND A MAN HAS TO BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF HIS TURF ON THE BASIS OF HIS REASON, HIS INTUITION OR HIS WHIM.

    AND IF HE DOESN’T GET TO DO THIS ONE DAY SOMEONE WILL SURELY TAKE CARE OF THE PEOPLE WHO STOP HIM FROM CONTROLLING WHAT BELONGS TO HIM.

    BECAUSE WHEN PARASITES GET TOO ARROGANT THE HOST KILLS THEM OR THEY KILL THE HOST AND SOMEONE ELSE CLEANS THEM UP QUICK SMART.

  3. Bird,

    I only barely got past the first paragraph (reading high caps text is extremely arduous).

    “WHY DO YOU NOT SUSPECT THIRD PARTIES AREN’T LISTENING?”

    I said exactly the opposite. Namely, that in a public discussion there are always third parties listening, some of whom will be yet undecided.

    Undecided until they come up to one of your insulting rants, which will turn them off. And that is why your attitude on the forums, and here, is not helping.

    P.S: If you maintain your policy of editing posts with high-caps, consider this conversation over.

    SURELY THE IDEA IS NOT TO INDULGE THIRD PARTIES WITH THE DISHONEST IDEA THAT THIS IS JUST ALL BAD LUCK. WHEN ITS CLEAR THAT ENVIRONMENTALIST POLICIES KILLED PEOPLE, SHATTERED LIVES, RUINED PROPERTIES AND HURT THE ENVIRONMENT.

    WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF TALKING WITH THE THREE MONKEYS IN MIND AND NOT WITH THE VICTIMS IN MIND?

  4. I think you managed to piss her off.

    Quite a performance given she was actually annoyed by the greenies.

    In other words, not only aren’t you convincing anyone, you discourage even those who may well have the same opinion from talking to you.

  5. She SAYS she gets annoyed by greenies. Actually she gets annoyed by anti-greenies like Fisk. Thats not the same thing. Being mildly annoyed by the plague or marauding Mongol horsemen would be a perverse sort of idea.

    Its important for us to always keep the victims of environmentalism in mind when we speak about this issue. Not just our guys. But the tens of millions murdered via malaria.

  6. “It is amazing however that there are so many people convinced that there’s no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with global warming. Pythonesque.”

    Here is this stupid cunt Adrien. Who himself cannot find any such evidence and never has. But still he’s convinced its out there.

    WHAT IS AMAZING ABOUT IT YOU STUPID CUNT ADRIEN. If you yourself have never seen any such evidence, and you haven’t, then ought you not be suspicious by now?

    You are such a fucking dumb cunt mate. You are a moron.

    I’ll tell you what. You lied and said that there was a shitrain of evidence that I was ignoring. This was a lie. You try and find some of that evidence and see if I’ll ignore it you lying cunt.

    Third party you see how bad this movement is? It has people lying all the time.

  7. An environmentalist sodomite is inventing evidence by recourse to an alleged secret girlfriend.

    “My authority is my fiance, who works in the Victorian DSE – in summer she actually performs fuel reduction work. The Royal Commision is being conducted out of her office.”

    Swell. Magnificent objectivity. What a joke.

    “She has not given me permission to use her name.

    You will counter with some slur on her or myself. Perhaps calling me a woman again, which you presumably mean as some kind of insult. [This reveals more about you than anyone else by the way]

    Please just save yourself the trouble, and spare everyone else the tedium of reading your peurile nonsense, you fucking moron.”

    The sodomite has a secret girlfriend with secret evidence. And the royal commision is run out of grennie-town offices. What we have here is no royal commission but a whitewash.

    The sort of outfit responsible for killing everyone is the citadel from which the whitewash is being run out of. Rudd in action. Or so it appears.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: