Some Maxims

Incompetence ought to be assumed before malfeasance (following Occam’s Razor and the maxim—assigned to various authors—that we should “never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence”) but, in many cases, easily preventable incompetence might as well be deliberate; accordingly, these maxims appear to be applicable to the scandalous, burgeoning cases of misfeasance and malfeasance which blight our commonwealth.

Informal’s Assertion:

Callously indifferent incompetence may be indistinguishable from malfeasance.

Informal’s Corollary:

A concatenation of malfeasance functions indistinguishably from a conspiracy.

Informal’s Axiom:

The larger the bureaucracy the higher the likelihood of indifferent incompetence.

“The lot of princes, Domitian remarked, was most miserable: they were not believed when they uncovered a conspiracy unless they were murdered.”  (Condicionem principum miserrimam aiebat, quibus de coniuratione comperta non crederetur nisi occisis.—C. Suetonius Tranquillus, De Vita Caesarum, “Domitianus”, XX.)  If you haven’t spotted a conspiracy, you’re not paying attention.*

*  John Nolte observes, for example, “If you don’t think there’s an agenda behind this, you haven’t been paying attention the last 40 years.” 

UPDATE I: 

Informal’s Annotation:
As an online discussion of totalitarianism or authoritarianism or the Second World War grows longer, the probability of an inappropriate but smug reference to “Godwin’s Law” approaches 1.

UPDATE II:

Informal’s First Principle of Satire

No satire of modern behaviour and doctrines can be so ridiculous that some people won’t interpret it as accurate reportage.

Informal’s Second Principle of Satire

No supposed proposal invented by a satirist can be so ridiculous that some people won’t support it.

Informal’s Commentary on the Two Principles of Satire

Purportedly progressive people are particularly likely to confuse satire with actuality.

Flim-Flannery

Flammery’s Lament

“They’ll run a front-page feature*

     too full of awful lies; 

they’ll state that I’m a creature

     of avaricious guys.

They’ll run a weekend-story

     to spread deceit and fear,

forgetting all my glory—

     an Aussie of the year!

Then comes a little stinger

     on Monday, on page three:

some dreadful paper’s stringer

     will dare to sneer at me.

Why are such people teasing?

     I cannot understand!

I’m clearly born for pleasing—

     a prophet of the land.

“Desert seers were oft abused†
     by those they came to lead.

Similarly, I’ve been accused

     of clumsiness and greed.

I am not the worst of chaps,

     no author of a plot;

scientific dunce, perhaps,

      a genius I am not.”

*  Tim Blair reports that Tim Flannery “might be exaggerating just a little”.  The delusional and, perhaps, paranoid Prof. Flannery said:  “The campaign [against the IPCC] was very much like the sort of media campaign that I’m used to when people try to discredit me.  And the way that works is usually on a Friday they’ll run a front-page story saying what a ratbag I am.  You know, front page, and that’s all right, interesting, someone’s been a bit, you know, corrupt or a bit rotten.
“And then on the Saturday they’ll run a page three story, usually a much longer story, listing everything you’re supposed to have done, and all the reasons why you’re a ratbag. 
“And then on the Monday they’ll put a little stinger in. A little reminder, just to remind people what a rotten person you are.”
†  John, iv. 44; Mark, vi. 4; Matt., xxxv. 57. 

Call That a Conspiracy? This Is a Conspiracy!

An alternative to CAGW

The problem with the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis, to many people disordered by an inconvenient preference for logical reasoning, is that, for CAGW’s proponents, their all-encompassing, misanthracist hypothesis explains everything:  all results prove their hypothesis; all data which contradict their models’ forecasts are conveniently used to confirm the hypothesis.  If the meaningless, mathematical average of global temperature increase, it must be because of anthropogenic carbon dioxide; if the average decrease, it must be because of the dangerous, turbulent effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide; if the average remain the same, it must be because of the strange, unpredictable nature of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

The circular reasoning for proponents of the CAGW hypothesis cannot be disproven (they believe) because the hypothesis holds that all changes of climate—for better or worse—are forced by carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) and, paradoxically, that any period of no change is a concomitant part of the modelling.

Two sides, however, can play this game.  The SCI-FI-PAL* theory maintains that the world is not endangered by any increase or decrease of carbon dioxide but by the costly theories of alleged scientists, self-interested purveyors of doom, and their foolish fellow travellers, who falsely prophesy in the vainglorious pursuit of profits and in support of the powerful. 

Any evil of the modern world is the fault of the SCI-FI-PAL collective.  Are educational standards falling in your schools?  It is because educational theories and practices have been perverted by the SCI-FI-PAL thinking in faculties of education.  Are meteorological or economic forecasts too often wrong?  Clearly, SCI-FI-PAL-style reasoning has infected the forecasting staff and their computer programmers.  Have the standards of the supposed journalism of our national broadcasters fallen?  Blame SCI-FI-PAL thinking. Have supposed democracies stupidly appeased wicked dictators or, equally foolishly, tried to subvert their domination without considering the consequences?  The politicians have been afflicted with SCI-FI-PAL wickedness.

Proponents of CAGW calumniate anyone who refuses to profess the new faith as illiterate and unscientific, yokels and deniers.  Again, two can play that game.  If an adherent of the CAGW cult proclaim anything at all, it can be completely refuted by saying, “Sadly, you’re just saying that because of your SCI-FI-PAL beliefs,” and, should a CAGW-cultist call you a denier, remind him or her that every single architect of the Holocaust was a wicked supporter of SCI-FI-PAL. 

The SCI-FI-PAL theory cannot be disproven, for the theory shows that doubters of the theory are contaminated by their sycophancy, and only those who promote the SCI-FI-PAL attempt to disprove it.  QED.

Remember, all conspiracy theories emanate from our universities.  Why?  The universities are controlled by self-interested cabals who are attempting to indoctrinate society into mindlessly licking the arses of those who have (or want to have) power.  Resist!  Resist the proctoleichous SCI-FI-PAL collective!

*  selfish conspirators instigating, for income, perpetual arse-licking.