Sunday, May 29, 2011

Right back at you gordy

In the mess (and cess) posted below, kairosfocus (gordon e. mullings) apparently believes that anyone who questions or challenges him and his pet speculation (ID) is an evil Marxist/communist radical and is using the methods in his list of rules to attack him and ID. Either that or he's saying the list of rules is bad and that his numbered comments below it are good, or the other way around, or both, or blah blah blah, or whatever the fuck incoherent garbage he's spewing. He's one of the most incomprehensible maroons I've ever encountered.

He blames and accuses MathGrrl, me, and anyone who questions or challenges him or ID of the things that HE is actually doing and has been doing for a very long time. His hypocrisy and insanity know no bounds. The guy is a total loon and a menace to society.

And what the fuck does his swill have to do with ID??

Hey gordy, you should take notice of the redwood trees that are in your eyes, you pompous gasbag.



1:20 am

F/N: What I now suspect has been going on:


>> Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

(When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.)

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame. >>

1 –> These are of course some of Saul Alinski’s Rules for [Neo-Marxist] Radicals. (And, DK, since you are monitoring to try the Rules 3, 4, 5 & 11 credibility kill by red herring- strawman- ad hominem tactic game, when on p. xix RFR, Alinsky refers to the revolution, in the context of 1971 that strongly points to a modified marxian frame of thought, but in the ideas context of exactly that: the marxian frame of thought on revolutionary transformation by the masses towards the socialist and onwards the ideal, hypothetical golden age communist state. So, to cite p.10 on the marxian frame of thought is quite legitimate, even though he is not an orthodox, Moscow or Peking partyline Marxist Leninist or Maoist. Don’t forget that Marx and Engels saw ancient Christian communitarianism per Ac 2, 4 & 5 as a proto-communism, and that they actually argued that the rise of Christianity in the Empire was in effect a prototype of the triumph of socialism.)

2 –> The utter cynicism in rules 4, 5 and 11 easily explains the pattern of demands and unresponsiveness to reason and evidence we have been seeing over the past several months.

3 –> That is, the point has been to personalise, strawmanise and ridicule, not to seriously engage issues on the merits.

4 –> But the threshold of incivility was irrevocably passed this week gone, when an attack blog that imagines that vulgarity, abuse and outing behaviour are adequate responses to serious points on the merits, was spun off from MF’s blog.

5 –> Such destructive polarising incivility is a revelation of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the objectors who resort to it, and those who enabled it by using or tolerating attempted outing tactics and the disrespect of ignoring serious inputs on the flimsiest of excuses.

6 –> But what about the issue of living up to rules? Isn’t that failure a proof of hypocrisy and doesn’t it mean that any tactics that expose the hypocrites are warranted? Isn’t it true that we only act decisively when we think the angels are on our side and the devils on the other, and that we need to exaggerate even small points of concern in order to set the climate of retreat on the other side that makes for advantageous negotiations?

7 –> Not at all. All it reveals is the moral self-blindness of the radical objectors.

8 –> For, moral struggle to do the right is the lot of us finite, fallible, fallen, struggling and too often ill-willed sinners.

9 –> So, as Jesus of Nazareth highlighted, a key task is to be aware of the potential planks in our own eyes even as we set out to help our BROTHERS and SISTERS with the sawdust that has got in their eyes.

10 –> Once there is a failure to accept that partnership in moral struggle, the self-blindness we have been seeing leads to a destructive demonisation of the other, and this is a major root of the arrogance, disrespect, undue polarisation, outright rudeness, contempt, disrespect and hostility verging on hate we have so plainly seen.

11 –> And, these are of course precisely the sort of signs of might makes right amorality triggered by evolutionary materialism that Plato warned against 2350 years ago in The Laws Bk X.

12 –> And, it is precisely the same Plato’s Cave moral blindness that makes the person who launched an attack blog not see the irony of dismissively citing the clip from Plato but not recognising how aptly it applied to his sort of rude and disrespectful factionalism.


It is high time that we do better than that.


It's high time that you get off your high horse and stop being an insufferable, self-righteous prick, gordy!