I’d like, for once, to argue with people who’d gotten their preposterous opinions on their own, reflecting the genuine shapes of their own minds as buffeted by private experience… rather than arguing indirectly with The State’s proxies in the form of brainwashed consumers who inadvertently ingest opinions and pre-fab personality traits with the media products they absorb like addicts.
‘T‘s that shit you let fly that lays the ground on which you sound bitter or crazy for your all of a sudden one day saying something that implies your not thinking that shit should fly. Like, by the time of the meddlesome mother’s objection to her kid’s having to recite “under God” in school, you missed the boat on calling out in front of God & her PTA just how retarded the goddamn Pledge is in the first place.
How many y’all ever really thought ‘Ye’ was a musical genius? Name one track he’s ever done that even ever accidentally rocked your brain stem. I mean, what’s his actual legacy defining moment?
Can’t one at least take pleasure in Maga cum Dickface’s abrading his anus all over the oval rug, branding the presidential seal, or is it that his followers’ certain justification of their hero’s soiling of the inviolable accessory just grate on each last nerve that conveniently responds to trumped up triggers? As in, the only reason that shit’s sacred is because of them. Fuckin’ hypocrites. Imagine the gall it takes to profess to hold something dear that you don’t hold dear.
The following image is from 1885, one century before the rhetoric of the Ray Gun Revolution’s being cemented in history. For the Millennial, an adequate comparison for context would be when Bo Rama was re-elected, his nation’s approving his legacy in all of its vainglorious disposition matrix, which is just another stone along the path of what will continue to pass for one of those many feel good American moments one’s questioning is questionable.
This article in the Berliner Zeitung takes a feelgood event and — maybe in striving to be fair & balanced or, even more maybe, in an effort to avoid appearing to ignore the devil in our midst, lest they confirm the treachery the anti-Islam crowd crow about whatever the media do or don’t do — highlights a controversy that turns it into a referendum on the radical associations of religious Muslims at home. If indeed it were only as fair & balanced in background detail as it is through its otherwise laudable microscope.
On its face — assuming one read the face from start to finish — it appears pretty fair & balanced. I would even give it high marks for the editor’s inclusion of pertinent details one doesn’t find in other articles, yet I cannot help but stroke it with a thick red marker for something I find missing, albeit on the obscured ground of the light kind of propaganda-by-default that results from the critical mass of a nation assuming one’s own occupy higher ground. The extent to which one’s own are not above reproach is considered, if taken into consideration at all, hardly relevant to the topic at hand.
The topic at hand is a band of imams & rabbis taking to the streets on tandem bicycles, pedaling together against anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, so to spoke. But all is not well, for one-or-another of the participants “has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood”, which is not okay if you’re an imam not under the aegis of one-or-another of the host nation’s spy agencies, if you’ll excuse the digression.
It is the Berlin Office for the Protection of the Constitution who says so in a report. For those unfamiliar with this office, it is not a grassroots-minded, independent watchdog, but rather a opaquely-funded, government spy agency. But who better to gather intelligence than an intelligence agency with absolutely no history of- or proclivity for bending the rules on behalf of their conflicts of interest, if you’ll excuse the sarcasm.
The article is fair & balanced insofar as it gives the do-gooders the final word, those who remark that the imam in question is not who the spooks say, and others who are, anyway, more concerned about the downside of shutting people out of the conversation, which would drive them into the limbs of the rads, if you’ll excuse the trans-lingual pun.
The mosque man’s alleged connections aside, one should order one’s own house. If the concerns are real and legit, then they’re just doing their job in reporting on them. I have to wonder still what the official constitutional protectorate has to say about their host state’s support of Saudi Arabia, not just because of the latter’s alleged support for the same Muslim Brotherhood, but as it relates to the former couple’s brutally collegial project that has created the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.
Just as the strife between the Union side of the current government coalition threatens (at least as one reads in the media) to destroy European unity with its collateral damage, does no one find it strange that the same government should supply weapons to regimes that violate the same human rights as the party named in that particular intelligence report, said to model themselves after the historical regime, unreformed, while that current regime are with the support of their Western allies killing thousands and driving many more away from home, exacerbating the refugee crisis, which crisis is what this internecine political strife is all about? This connection is not even alluded to by any of the parties mentioned in the article or its editors, regardless of which of the ostensible two sides they come down on: for the iman ridin’ the bike vs. against the imam ridin’ the bike.
While we have learned from the media about the horrors in Yemen, it has not been as comprehensive and obsessively set to REPEAT as has been their reporting on the War between the CDU and CSU. Lemme ask you this: If the imam in question had procured for this so-called brotherhood just such weapons as Berlin has the Kings of Oil, would NATO missiles have destroyed his entire neighbourhood by now, or would they find a better solution?
Update: es geht weiter so. .. . ..mit Gänseblümchen:
Now one might ask (and, trust me, more than one has) why I never just purchased a contract, thereby enabling a more frequent use at a reasonable price, much more convenience, etc., etc. This question crucifies itself upon the assumption that I would have used my phone more if I could have. But it was precisely the way I was using it that led to the realisation that I not only didn’t need it but simply didn’t want it.
Nevertheless on 29 September 2017 at 1:49pm, I was loathe to load an additional €15 to prolong the first new expiry and to avoid losing the 15+ that was already on it. ‘Use it or lose it’ was the agitated cogitation until on 29 March of this year when I lost that entire thirty-something because I didn’t want to prolong the anti-ecological cliché any longer. Obviously I wasn’t using it to make many calls or write a significant number of texts. That last time it served an emergency is in a cloud of forgotten memories.
I have a landline. I won’t go so far as to make the hereditary affirmation that if it were up to me I wouldn’t even have that. It is at least partly up to me, it comes with the Net, and I wouldn’t have it otherwise. My ability to tele-connect makes the expenditure of both the fiat transfer and cognitive tax justifiable. The sometimes inconvenient convenience remains worthwhile. I am all-too aware that the industry I therewith support is manufacturing a world into which I will no longer be able to venture if I don’t change my immobile ways. So be it.
The sole subsequent mobile telephone that I purchased as a replacement of the first one (solely because the former’s display no longer displayed legible lettering) and into which I stuck the SIM card — which was what I’d really purchased on that summer day at a flea market — has become anyway little more than a camera, albeit digital and of quality quite limited, the bulk of primary evidence of which can be found in the hover images here.
The longer background (should this be (or remain) of any interest) is that basically I bought my first mobile telephone used at Boxhagener Platz Flohmarkt, not because I wanted it, but because the first guy I wanted to book T & me grimaced when I said, “No, but I got an email address.” I got the phone. We got the gig.
The most interesting tidbit of this tale only occurred to me as recently as a couple of days ago when I turned on my one-time to me embarrassingly chic flip-phone for its other primary purpose — to be able to track the time for the three hours that followed. A new message appeared. “SIM nicht registriert”. This displayed so prominently for so long that I actually almost wondered if I’d ever be able to see the clock again.
So from 29 March of this year, when my moola minima vaporised into an un-spendable pun, to apparently exactly two months later, I was nevertheless able to receive calls and texts. Now, the final expiry of expiration must have been last Tuesday, I’d wager, 1:49pm. I hadn’t turned it on from the previous Friday until Wednesday so I make this assumption based on the always accurate carrying out of the Terms which this time, seemingly arbitrarily, granted me an additional two months’ passive use. I’m sure in that time I would not have received those few texts in tact… but for some goddess’ grace period.
What occurred to me between Wednesday and now is that the SIM card was never really registered, at least not to me. Having bought it used, I even had to have its digital lock picked by the kind of pro who can do such things. Not that I hadn’t been trackable all this time, but at least in the court of law, I’d’ve had a better chance than someone who’d signed their name along a bottom line. Or I might’ve had the least of lesser chances and been locked up for purchasing a stolen phone and going so far as to assist in the achievement of its unlawful unlocking and, not least of worst, evading the law that says you’re not allowed to use your devices without allowing your being traced & tracked by name & number. At any rate, as far as I can tell, +49301785853304 is over & out.
The machine that houses it, however, remains reusable. Indeed. The following corresponding hover image comes by way of an inadvisable shimmy to the depth of this one-time riverside swimmery (I wudn’t walkin’ that plank, palms & knees for me) and the use of that former courtesy phone of persisting paltry pixelation. Quite conversely, it is only the row of postal addresses of the rooftops in the background that remain from this photograph:
The descriptive measurement becomes a value judgment by way of the insertion of no more than an additional word, a simple syllable, a mere morpheme, which is then nothing less than a transgression of journalistic responsibility that triggers a number of possible conclusions about what actually happened. However, the application of “nur” in this context is not only bad reporting pregnant with the plausibly prejudicial ableist attitude beclouded in traffic law & order. It’s also inaccurate, which mere minutes of research might have made clear. As you can glean from the item’s accompanying photograph, there is in fact a light at the reported intersection. Either the Unfortunate wasn’t crossing at this corner and the driver dragged him the distance, or the nearest light was *twice as far away.
They still couldn’t cover the stuff, not holding enough of our currency, but they’re damn good dam builders with a close relationship to the pastry chefs. What can I say? We’re pigs. As long as we keep eating donuts, they can afford our product.