To Troll A Predator

Remember that time we caught that paedophile?

Sirs, we have been shamed.

Long poops and automatic lights.

The other day I had to rock a piss, so, as you would, I headed to the rest room.

Life As J-RPG

I had a revelation today, I think of academics (and life) like a video game. But not just a sandbox video game, more like a very set sort of RPG.

Main Quest: Finish schooling, get degree.

Evil villain that dogs me at every turn: Laziness. Secret reveal: The final ultimate boss was not actually laziness, but my own sense of superiority (or something).

Side Quest: Read all of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.

I have the perverse understanding that if I complete all the side quests I'll be awarded with an ultimate secret weapon that will enable me to finish my main quest much more easily.

Polite or rude?

I'll now spin you a yarn, and I'd like your feedback.

Were my actions in this scenario polite or rude?

A Reply To Messieurs Alcock, Pollard, Sooley, et al: An Abridged Version for the Ignorant Reader

Objections:
1. Leftist societies have no use for educators.
2. Leftist societies abolish money.
3. A traditional state is needed to guarantee money.

Replies:
1. Yes, they do.
2. No, they don't.
3. No, it isn't.

Brevity

is a virtue.

A Reply To Messieurs Alcock, Pollard, Sooley, et al

Or, a Defense of the Left:

In a recent debate prompted by my Facebook liking of various far-left political affiliations, namely anarchism, there arose such a furor in the Commons, principally constituted by the members of this blog herein (‘The Newfie Diaspora’) with regard to my predilection for what some might call juvenile hijinks. In order in all due course to give my reply to the weight and heft of Messieurs Alcock, Pollard, Sooley’s thrust, I will endeavor herein to reply posthaste. While it may be questionable to use such and such a blog as a sounding board for my own ideas therein, I would rejoind that such and such a blog is precisely for the expression ideas therein, and that it can only benefit from such fiery oratory. On to the objections. Namely three such prominent objections occurred against my endorsement of a formula predicated upon the natural value of liberty for all wherein the rights of all are guaranteed by all and extend into all.

The first of these such objections: In such a society whereas capital corporatism has been put to the task, as it were, there would be jobs but naught for the vaunted rural agrarian farmer, or indeed his more urban counterpart, that great man the factory worker, and therefore my choosèd profession of perambulator and educator would henceforth be rendered obsolete by the production and cooperation of all with all.

The second of these such objections: The compossible possibility of fiduciary remuneration viz. a viz. a leftist society, wherein the ostensible task is made manifest by the abolition of wage, property, private ownership and personal profit rendering all such fiduciary remuneration moot.

The final such objection: Without the benevolent benefaction of the étatiser, the possibility of financial reimbursement for labour completed that has been supposedly been made redundant via leftist society is not only now undesired and the task therein of such and such a society, but more, it is made precisely impossible because the aforementioned étatiser is required as guarantor for all basis of exchange.

Principal replies:

The first reply: Indeed, while in many forms of our leftist doctrine, the great factory worker has been vaunted above all else, I have, I apologize, yet to encounter the suggested abolition of any other trades and tasks or found such to appear in any leftist tract or treatise. I must reply quite simply that all such doctrines espouse and endorse a vogue of vocations all verifiably vast in their variety. In other words, that somehow principally I am espousing a philosophy that would end my principal occupation is in the final analysis not borne out by any current doctrine of our leftist movement.

The second reply: Again, pardon my unfamiliarity with the doctrine I supposedly endorse, but yet I have found very little to no evidence of your understanding of this basis for society, predicated upon the dissolution of remuneration as such. Even that most eminent politics of our esteemed peer, Karl Marx, claimed: To each according to his contribution! The principle organizing feature of such and such a society, i.e. leftist, is a system of reimbursement wherein reward is meted out by contribution. The supposed slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is in fact referring to a far-off point where production outstrips consumption! How laughable. The only such to espouse otherwise is the noble Kropotkin, whose views strike up such a minor minority that we hardly count them, and certainly not as our own. This form follows for almost every doctrine of the left. How then, you may ask, is this any different from the execrable capitalism which we claim to detest? Quite simply that the full value of the labour engaged in, at present, is not awarded to the labourer, but is awarded to those who enable the labourers labour, the capitalist.

The third reply: I am curious to see why such and such an objection occurs, as though money were somehow a recent phenomenon. Prior to the great states of Europe and Asia that we see to-day, exchange undoubtedly occurred. And furthermore, the basis for this exchange was quite simply not mandated or regulated with any degree of regularity, for in those halcyon days of tribal warfare and divisive personages, what agreement could be made? Precious metals, since their discovery, have served as an estimable basis for exchange, and so in reply to the third objection I see no reason why, for instance, gold standard cannot be the form of exchange for non-hierarchical government as much as for a hierarchical government. Make no mistake, I am not advocating that, though many economists and other pundits of the Right have done so, to remove government intervention into the issue of money. That somehow crude arms or force of strength is needed to secure a basis for exchange is patently absurd, as we see in the humorous example of the Rai stones of Yap. Prior to the first minting of coinage occurring as it did in 600 BC which we might mark as the official date of official intervention into the official issue of exchange, as well as concurrently and even after, there existed quite a number of alternative forms of exchange:

seashells, beads, obsidian (volcanic glass), disk-shaped stones, bamboo, grain, salt, tobacco, cigarettes, liquor, tea, cocoa beans, honey, butter, dried fish, spears, swords, arrows and arrowheads, axes and axeheads, knives, guns, bullets, empty bullet cartridges, hoes, spades, nails, plastic, paper, animal skins, cloth, clothing, blankets, gemstones, jewelry, feathers, whale teeth, shark teeth, ivory, bone, cattle, camels, slaves, and wives

(C. Opitz, An Ethnographic Study of Traditional Money: A Definition of Money and Descriptions of Traditional Money, First Impressions Printing, Ocala, 2000.)

While it is certainly humorous to posit as our new basis of exchange our wives (!) in this estimable utopian goal of ours, it is sufficient to demonstrate that exchange can occur without external meditation from an official source. And worthy to remember is that while our brethren on the left wish to abolish the state as it is at present, there is no reason its replacement in the form of unionized industries, or non-authoritarian collectives, or local and directly democratic municipalities, whichever system you swear by, might not agree upon some other standard of exchange for themselves.