How some try to change a message.

[RandomThoughts]

And why the ideal is important.


For example, when you look at the wiki leaks things, what does it all mean? what is its intent? If it is to reveal what is done that is wrong, and how secrecy is being used to try and protect a few, then it has the same ideals I have, showing that secrecy is being used wrongly.

If it was to use to embarrass it would be wrong, unless the intent is that the people should see the actions done wrong. Secrecy interestingly can be a way to protect a group from scrutiny from public.

If a group has a societal role, and uses their activities to control the effect of others lives, then items within that set, when they are not in the same ideal they say they are about, should be revealed.

If Bush says spy on your neighbor to protect America, and it really is about protecting a few people he likes, then his programs should be revealed.

If a program was said to be to help some group, and that was actually the group it helped, then that secrecy would be ok, because there would not be a change from what they say it is for, and what they use it for.

That is why those that say they do one thing, and do another, should be revealed. And when actions show that is part of the system, then civilian review and transparency should occur to stop the temptation of theft by secrecy.


So if a program's secret use, is not the same ideal as its public reason, then it should be shown as a falsehood, if the concepts are the same, then the secrecy would only hide details, but the intent and the effect of the part in secrecy would do the same thing as what the public knows about it.


Say something is to help someone, then the program does the opposite. That should be revealed

Say something is to help someone, and that is what the program does, then it does not need to be revealed.

See how simple that is.

And why is that, because that is part of a bigger concept that marketing and PR are saying something is one things, when they are something else. The concept of transparency is to remove propaganda, or false marketing that is used against populations to get them to go against themselves.


Someone says we are here to help, then they hurt, without transparency, people support them in hurting people because of that break between what they say their intent is and what it is.

The reason PR exist is because the truth behind what is done people would not accept. Also why I do personally post on concepts of beer and travel money, because I like beer and would like to travel also, as with the other more important concepts of society getting better.


And also reviewing the long concepts of battles and actions, I find that their is a consistency that when someones intents are the same as the small parts of their actions, then things work out better. Hence why marketing and PR, should be revealed and why I support transparency, and also why when my actions match my intents, I don't have to worry about transparency, and the light only helps does not hurt.



In the same way, I have noticed most of the opposites, what they do is take something and do not let people decide on what it is, instead they create something like it, but with different meaning or to create a different message, then that different thing is associated with the original.


That is most of my thought on the wiki guy, he is within the concept of transparency so easy to support as he is said to be, however the media could try to make it look like it is outside of the effects or intents of transparency ideals, by saying other things about him, or about what the messages are.

If they are saying they are embarrassing, then instead of discussing the messages, they are trying to change what the messages are. Should they not have a conversation on why they are embarrassing. If something gives someone shame is it because they did wrong, and would it being shown help society.



Really deep stuff, but basically, if the program matches what it does, then secrecy is not an issue, but most people use PR to hide their intents and actions, and get people to go against themselves. Then the truth of their actions should be revealed, both to help them make better decisions on what to do, and to try and protect those that steal free will by lying.




Anyway, still due beer and travel money and many experiences.

But what I am really thinking on is why are so many events correlated but not spoken of openly without using correlation. Best guess is correlation allows for distortion, and again ask, why don't you say what you mean to say if you can? And if you can't even say what you mean to say, how free are you really?




On the topic of transparency.

Heres the thing, The Girl Kate Klim, I have more respect for then any other person, although it is also respect for the source of her music, but figure for her to sing it is a compliment to her. What I can not reconcile is the difference between the two. I think they are the same, but also different, and have not solved that paradox yet.