A Quasi-Political Analysis of Microsoft and the Social Activists (satire)

It's sad that Microsoft has no presence on the competition at Google+. They copied gmail just like Apple copied everyone else with the iPhone.

Just so you know, I don't use my Hotmail account much since 2006. I stopped using Hotmail because of the rise of email spam due to sloppy security.

I also stopped using Yahoo chat circa 2005 due to the increasing risk of being attacked by chatbots since 2001. Though this has been "fixed" by getting rid of chat rooms on Yahoo chat.

Much of this is due to the insecurity of Windows prior to XP and specially of older versions NT server software in general.

This is primarily a Microsoft problem due to their factional nature. They hired right-wing fascists circa early1990s but rarely hire socialists or left-wingers due to the New Left's anti-corporate stance.

You'd only get hired IF and only IF you were paid to infiltrate to do something like what happened to Windows ME (a hack by the left who were annoyed at the right-wing neo-conservative faction using Microsoft addresses to traffic in porn). Though the programmer that kluged ME was a hired gun.

However, the anarchists are canny, because they aren't left or right. Anarchists are known to call the Left fascist for using violence like the Black Bloc (BB) even though the evidence says that most BB are dissatisfied with the old Left and the New Left for not being radical enough. BB use the same tactics as animal activists and other saboteurs. They attack property, not people. Ergo they are non-violent to people.

Right-wing neocon elements in the military & police form attack almost everyone in the name of law. Ergo, the military and police are violent to people and are known to damage property to achieve their objectives.

For they, along with doctor, nurses, teachers, and anyone dealing with the State are usually agents of the State regardless of which side they root for.

Observed events of tactics show that the agents of the state's tactics are representative of patriarchal forms of government. Let's consider the military. Because large groups of military work together, they have a very large number of circles of influence. This is why there is oversight by a command of hierarchy i.e. a commanding officer and the troops in the case of the military.

It cannot be determined what the BB and the New Left are representative of, because the rule is no more than three people are supposed to decide on what to do. This is to limit the circles of influence.

Therefore the New Left does not work by command by hierarchy but by roughly anarchist methods, which is harmonious in very small groups, but in large groups, become chaotic with non-violent groups unintentionally working for the State by blocking BB and similar radicals.

However, anarchists who are pacifist and non-violent tend to use non-violent tactics against the State. Jaggie Singh was a prime example of this: at no time in the past 25 years has there been any evidence of Mr Singh using violence.

Though the Montreal police complained that shooting teddy bears with a jury-rigged sling shot was a form of passive violence i.e. non-violent. This is ridiculous because teddy bears are cute, while tear gas makes your eyes run tears.

Sadly though, there are few articulate pacifists like Singh amongst the New Left, who have gone radical due to their tendency to party a lot and live in denial of their alcoholism and drug addictions.

However, the previous paragraph is not an indictment against the New Left, as their problems with drugs make them aware of what the homeless people face daily.

As it stands now, politics is polarized between the left and the right for the traditional reason that with conflict comes change.

As for myself, as a Buddhist, I cannot be left or right; I'll always be in the middle, rolling and tucking.

---

Originally posted October 27, 2012 0311H

Schizophrenia as Reaction to The Madness Called Society (satire)

I personally do not believe the schizophrenia is a mental illness, but rather the result of the breakdown of social conditioning, evidenced by inappropriate behaviour and thought due to loss of inhibition against them.

Unconsciously, the schizophrenic is more likely to break the rules and introduce novel rules, while defending society's rules to the death even when it means his loss of freedom as mental patient.

In contrast, the reason why some schizophrenics are non-compliant has nothing to do with rules but with a strong phobia about loss of autonomy.

Rather than now breaking into a long rant using evidence to back up my claims, I will instead encourage the reader to read the book mentioned in the reference below.

For it is repression of the libido that may be the first sign of stress that accumulates resulting in schizotypies (eccentricities) which might evolve into schizophrenia, depending on the social culture into which an individual is born.

It is more useful to develop a prevention strategy to reduce the effect of stress on people's psyches, to prevent schizotypies from becoming full-blown psychotic breaks which are consistently mislabelled schizophrenia of unknown etiology.

Am I denying that people with schizophrenia are schizophrenic? No, but I am denying that it is foremost a mental illness. Rather, schizophrenia is the result of social repression in that the inappropriate behaviour and especially speech which is usually repressed due to social conditioning is an internal rebellion against social rules that manifests in inappropriate external forms.

The cure for schizophrenia then is to recondition the schizophrenic mind in a democratic socialism which allows the positive inappropriate behaviour and speech (aggression leading to laughter) but disinhibits the negative inappropriate behaviour (aggression leading to violence).

This also requires other people to embrace their eccentricities, and to avoid denying that society is form of madness.

---

Reference:

Marcuse, Eros and Civilization

Revolution by the Beatles Actually Anti-Revolutionary

Check out the lyrics:

"Revolution"

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We don't love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright, al...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright

---

Nothing in it says destruction; rather, it says "wait, the time is not right."

Indeed, violence will not usher in a revolution.

It will just lead to police state mentality by the State due to the People scaring the lites who want to profit from free enterprise capitalism and the mind-numbing consumerism needed along with the People streamlined into academia to prepare them to become productive members of a society moving too fast for 20 percent of the People.

In short, the System needs to be reformed and eventually replaced, because it is antiquated and does not serve the needs of everyone, but rather the needs of the elite.

Black Bloc tactics will only ushed in that police state faster.

So mark my words, because more of the wasteful destruction of a revolution will never create a revolution like in the Old World.

New World logic demands the non-violent alternative because it worked for the Old Left.