Urgently Addressing Immorality - Part B

Properly addressing the problems of atmospheric pollution, aquatic inundation and land degradation should be government and societal priorities.  

Yet the necessary action cannot and will not be achieved without successfully addressing, as a priority, the prevalence of networks of immorality.

The problem of excessive atmospheric carbon cannot and will not be achieved when the prevalent networks of immorality remain in positions of power.

Are you sure you are urgently addressing immorality?

If so, how have you been assisting the Revolutionary Climatological Needlepoint Committee, over the past few months?

The members continue to address immorality, as urgently as necessary, all over the world.

Perhaps you are aware that many politicians, all around the world, are operatives for the murky world of greed, hence their desire for huge sums in donations/bribes.

There are quite a few people, including politicians, who regard themselves as moral.  They may even promote themselves as upholders of particular expressions of morality. 

Unfortunately, many such people turn a blind eye to various other forms of immorality.  They may even hypocritically practice a few of those forms themselves, possibly covertly.

How do you attempt to highlight a conspiracy of silence?

Why are laws and regulatory authorities so inadequate?

Why are necessary societal services usually underfunded?

Why are the wealthy so often given privileged support and assistance by governments? 

How do you attempt to gain a true perspective in relation to anything at all?

How do you usually define and address the cruel and the pathetic?

How do you usually define and address the egotistical?

Who has helped you in life, and why have they done so?

How do you usually identify appropriateness?

What is your acquaintance with anthropology?

What is your acquaintance with archaeology?

What is your acquaintance with psychology?

What is your acquaintance with history?

What is your acquaintance with ecology?

What is your acquaintance with the arts?

What have you been learning about art and antiquities, and how?

Are you adequately honest?

Are you adequately well-informed? 

Do you have adequate empathy?

How many customs and immigration officials, police and military personnel, and other public employees, in every society, are involved with organised criminal activity, including the laundering of proceeds?

And how many are not?

How do you seek answers to such questions?

What have you been learning about the history of inadequate legislation and inadequate regulatory compliance?

What do you know about the ways in which money laundering is enabled by bankers, hedge fund managers, art dealers, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, casino operators, private equity owners, luxury car dealers, and various other people? 

How carefully do you assess whether any particular activity is of general benefit to a society as a whole, and even to humanity and nature as a whole, or more detrimental than beneficial?   

How do you know your activities always prevent suffering and other forms of harm?

How carefully, eagerly and honestly are you willing to question your assumptions?

What have you been doing to overcome your habitual ignorance and unreasonableness?

How do you identify and define your habits, including your habitual and presumptive thinking?

What is most unreasonable about your current habits?

How scientifically and empathically do you usually assess trends and possibilities and develop reasonable policies, practices and standards in relation to them?

How do you examine corruption in various parts of the world?

How well do you invest in experiences of possible value to you, possibly including experiences of nature, art, politics, science, philosophy, history and cookery, and how do you know?

How do you define a scandal?

What is scandalous in relation to the Horses of Saint Mark?

What is scandalous in relation to Napoleonic looting of art?

What is scandalous in relation to the Boscoreale Treasure?

While thorough investigations, in the public interest, are obviously necessary, the problem of possible journalistic scandals must also be seriously considered.

But what is more scandalous than dirty money, apart from all other forms of abusiveness?

All abuses of power are especially obnoxious to well-informed, kind persons.

How do you examine important investigations?

How do you examine Australia?

How do you assess assessments from one person or another, and for what reasons?

How do you define self-censorship?

How do you define tastefulness?

What do you know about political decay?

What is the current status of your political philanthropy, and how do you know?

What do you provide for the common good?

How do you prefer to compare one image with another and another and another and another, and for what reasons?

How do you prefer to compare one interpretation of history with another and another and another and another and another, and for what reasons?

Do you often or only sometimes, or possibly even never, ask yourself questions about your own knowledge, and your own beliefs, and about your policy preferences?   

The Revolutionary Climatological Needlepoint Committee hopes you are capable of distinguishing quite clearly between a lapdog and a watchdog.

How can you prove that your cultural activities are entirely devoted to good health, good thinking and pleasantly imaginative political practices?

 

What are the features of the way of life you would prefer to practice, and why?

 

What do you know about hypocrisy in relation to purportedly philanthropic practices?

 

What do you know about hypocrisy in relation to purportedly political practices?

 

How do you prevent yourself from expressing hubris, especially in the form of fake philanthropy?  

 

How do you try to prevent hypocritical practices from infesting your own activities?

How philanthropically do you make investments in and through your usual practices, and your unusual ones? 

 

How do you attempt to alert the public about deceptive practices?

 

What has history taught you about reasonableness and unreasonableness?

 

How well do you practice essential disobedience? 

How would you define a risk society?

What do you know about justice in relation to compatibility, generosity, civility, and the enlightened benevolence of political philanthropy as practiced through appropriately humane principles, policies and practices?  

The above questions are relevant everywhere in the world.  They matter everywhere.  They should be considered everywhere, by everyone capable of making such considerations. 

The Revolutionary Climatological Needlepoint Committee hopes you have been paying attention properly to its practices over the past for years.

How do you usually learn about good leadership?

How do you usually learn about bad leadership?

How do you know you dress appropriately for revolutionary climatological purposes?

How do you compare the pleasantness of peace with the spoils of war?

There can be no true happiness without adequate justice.

But what does justice really mean in practice?