Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

The London Riots, Thatcher's Legacy

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 6:35:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Once upon a time in the not so storybook kingdom of Great Britain, there lived a wicked sea witch named Thatcher, who took the helm of the land's ship of state and charted a new and painful course. Alas for the ordinary people of Great Britain there was no progressive Popeye the sailor man of the people to clobber haggy Maggie and stem the tide of her awful agenda aimed at X-ing out of existence the welfare system that had been established under the more caring Clement Attlee. As a consequence, she was able to proceed apace at bringing about a conservative sea change in her country's social and economic policies.

What this of course meant, if we cut through the idealistic ideology and rightist rhetoric of the iron mum and her pitiless party, was that through privatization and the rest of what came to be known as Thatcherism the British economy was placed more firmly back in the ungentle grip of big business, à la the United States. And, what's more, the social safety net that had been there to protect the blue-collar populace from falling into the dark abyss of inhumane poverty & privation that's always prepared for them by unchecked capitalism, well, a trend was begun that would lead to that social safety net being severely shredded.

The recent "riots" in London, and the racial tensions that are being released through them, are in truth a sociological sign of the outcome of this terrible, Thatcher-initiated trend toward harsh American-style capitalism and the erasure of the social welfare state. Mm-hmm, what we're witnessing right now is not merely riotously lawless rampaging and looting. No, whether it's presented as such or not, what we're currently observing on the BBC and CNN is actually coverage of the lousy living legacy of the dowager of Downing Street who used her time in power to inflict lasting damage that has led to modern Britain becoming a "broken society".

Sorry, free-marketarians, but the ongoing upsurge in discontent with their lot being manifested by the poor and minorities in the UK's capital is in fact yet another symptom of the inbuilt and inescapable failings of capitalism, vis-à-vis the working class and maintaining their wellbeing. Indeed, it can be interpreted as a plebiscitary vote of no confidence in capitalism, in its false promise of the "good life" for all who are willing to work for it. It's nothing less than another popular mandate for something more just and humane.

Say what? Well, the young people criminally acting up can of course be facilely and judgmentally dismissed as pillaging delinquents and pyromaniacal vandals. That is, if one is inclined, if one wishes to let capitalism off the hook for its underlying culpability, one can disregard the larger socioeconomic picture and condemn the recession-instigated insurgency taking place as a wanton riot, and its participants as destructive lawbreakers. But of course such episodes of rage against the status quo don't flare up out of a historical and social vacuum. I.e., such episodes arise not from the barbarism of those involved in perpetrating the mayhem, but from a barbaric context and conditions imposed by the powers that be on the disempowered denizens of increasingly Dickensian working-class communities.

Quite simply, what we're being rudely reminded of these days, by the now double-dipping recession, by the downgrading of the U.S.'s credit rating due to the shenanigans of conservative politicians perversely bent on protecting the superrich from having to pay taxes, by the worsening economic state of affairs in Europe, and by uprisings in Greece and now in London, is that capitalism is called capitalism for very good reason. Which is to say that capitalism is aptly called capitalism because it's a system of, by, and for the capitalists, not for workers, wage earners, and welfare recipients.

Yep, lest we focus too narrowly and selectively on the bad behavior of the anarchistic adolescents literally running riot in the streets of London right now, and forget the afore-alluded-to context of their "barbarism", please let me point out that it's ultimately the capitalist system that's the true culprit in the current worldwide recession. That is, it's part and parcel of the basic nature of deregulated capitalism for it to extend to its major players the carte blanche to engage in the type of self-interested and the-rest-of-society-be-damned behavior that produces economic catastrophes and suffering for the many.

This is precisely what happened when the Wall Street elite was deregulated to the extent that it had license to enrich itself at the expense of the global economy and billions of human beings around the planet who are experiencing totally unjust economic vicissitudes as a result. Capitalism showed its true and morally dismal colors when the likes of Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns found themselves in a position to precipitate what's now being called "The Great Recession", and proceeded to do so in a downright sociopathic fashion.

This was the sociopathy of capitalism, and it was made possible, allowed to openly fly its freak flag, by the implementation of the free-marketerian dogmatism of conservatives, going all the way back to the privatizing & deregulating zeitgeist introduced by Teflon Ronnie Reagan and Margret "The Milk Snatcher" Thatcher. And it's none other than this sociopathy and the cruel economics it's bred that are rearing their ugly head in the form of a violent uprising in not so merry ole London as I type.

And, oh yeah, there's one other quite fundamental way in which capitalism is seriously at fault, the little tendency of inequality to fall along racial lines under capitalism. For reasons explored in the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, reasons having nothing to do with superiority, white people today exercise hegemony over much of the earth. What this means is that under capitalism much of the global, and most of the Western power elite is white. Now while not too much of this dominance actually trickles down to working-class white folks, some certainly does. And non-white minorities are certainly consigned to an underdog status. This underdog status of course entails a good deal of inequality and unfairness, and occasionally anger erupts against a society that is structurally unbalanced in favor of Caucasoid capitalists.

All of this is quite endemic in capitalism, tragically and fatally so. The brutal fact of the matter is that the socioeconomic inequality of capitalist society dovetails with racial inequality to produce a status quo in which people of color are routinely discriminated against. It's precisely these class and racial inequities that are present even in so-called "good times", and that become exacerbated in a recession; and of course said recession, caused by the sociopathic nature of capitalism and behavior of capitalists; and the power wielded by conservatives acting as the advocates & champions of the interests of the capitalist elite that has brought us all to such a sorry economic state. Add to this the "austerity measures" and hardships recently imposed on average people, and throw in the police shooting of a black person, and you have a classic prescription for "riots"! Recall the LA uprising caused by similiar factors.

To sum up, it's the insidious tag team of capitalism-conservatism, going back to the inception of a trend toward the empowerment of capitalists and the disenfranchisement of the people, in the Reagan-Thatcher era, that has produced our current economic troubles and responses such as the London uprising. Thanks a lot, capitalism-conservatism! Yeah, thanks for creating a perfect storm of factors to send our society and global economy into decline. It's becoming more and more obvious, cryingly obvious that capitalism is another system inexorably headed for the proverbial dustbin of defunct systems and isms.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 6:39:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 8:04:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 6:39:24 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote: Nothing at all.

Firstly, your signature line says that "Only the Sith deal in absolutes", but I would opine that only absolutistic relativists (not as much of an oxymoron as one might think) equate all truths with closed-minded absolutes.

Secondly, do you have any actual thoughts, thoughts worth articulating in words, on the topic of the post? Or is self-amusing mockery all that you have to offer?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 10:13:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 6:35:06 PM, charleslb wrote:
A bunch of stuff I couldn't be bothered reading, but I am sure is London riots=Capitalist= Capitalism Sucks= I win!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 4:01:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I wonder if it's an individual thing, where anyone can be like this, or if it's sort of endemic of extremists, leftists where they incessantly blame. Blame is often not all that constructive except that it often brings with it punishment, and in politics punishment means a removal of power, or a certainty that there will be no return of power. This is also true of our current president who compulsively states that he inherited his situation.

The problem with blame is, after a while it becomes less effective and the person doing the blame looks a bit petty, and they also come off as contributing nothing to fix the problem, so therefore the person who feels compelled to blame specific people that they hate, becomes of lesser value to any situation. It also becomes apparent that the validity of their blame is warped, so that they have a distorted sense of what is truly the problem, but rather are more looking to satisfy their anger and hate.

The blamer also tends to be personally weakened because they have ceded their responsibility in a problem and claim victimhood. There is no solution for the blamer, because they have no interest in a solution, but rather solely the blame. Blame legitimizes their anger and hate, and it feeds their maladjustments, and further distorts their understanding of what is real to only suit their blame.

The blamer is generally void of individual creativity because he or she relies solely on the activity of others, so that they are parasitic on what they hate. Remove the catalyst of what they hate and they will find something else in which to hate and blame - it is who they are.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 4:11:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Keynesian poops things up

blame capitalism.

???

profit!!!

Post 1000s of characters

Not have argument.

????

profit!!!

does profit become less evil if bracketed by ????'s and !!!'s?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 4:40:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 8:04:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 8/9/2011 6:39:24 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote: Nothing at all.


Firstly, your signature line says that "Only the Sith deal in absolutes", but I would opine that only absolutistic relativists (not as much of an oxymoron as one might think) equate all truths with closed-minded absolutes.

Secondly, do you have any actual thoughts, thoughts worth articulating in words, on the topic of the post? Or is self-amusing mockery all that you have to offer?

What you have to consider is that Voren Na'al was a prominent Human male historian in the service of the Alliance to Restore the Republic and its various successor governments. He began his career as a reporter for the Galactic News Service. His experiences and imprisonment during the Imperial overthrow of the government of Corsin drove him into the arms of the Alliance. There, after a stint as a spy, he became a historian under Master Historian Arhul Hextrophon, tasked with compiling the histories of the Heroes of Yavin. Na'al traveled to Tatooine and Galvoni III to acquire information and context on the events preceding the battle, and conducted interviews with the participants, submitting the information in a report to Hextrophon. Subsequent reports included an attempt to discover the truth behind Han Solo and Chewbacca's adventures on Aduba-3, a 168,000 DSU report on the Rebel Alliance for Mon Mothma, an account of the events surrounding the Battle of Hoth and the tribulations of the Heroes of Yavin afterward, a piece on the Battle of Turak IV, and a report on the Battle of Endor.

With the dawn of the New Republic, Na'al's historical works led him to continued advancement. He became the Director of New Republic Council Research and Assistant Historian to the Republic, and he created reports on Grand Admiral Thrawn's and the resurrected Palpatine's campaigns, as well as of Han Solo's experiences in the Corporate Sector years before. He also edited and annotated "Ten Years After: Notes on the Mature Organizational and Administrative Structure of the New Republic," an article by the Chief Historian of the Kellmer Institute.

Na'al retired as Head of New Republic Council Research, becoming a history professor and marrying former deep-cover spy Rivoche Tarkin, with whom he had several children. After the Yuuzhan Vong War, he became archivist emeritus of the Historical Council of the Galactic Federation of Free Alliances, in which capacity he supervised the release of the second edition of an important historical chronicle.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 8:00:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think Charles is about a year away from stepping up his game to more diabolical plots that involve conservatives and capitalists as victims. It's like the progression of a serial rapist. It starts off with harmless stalking, to stalking designed to instill terror, to harassment and groping, to full-on rape, and eventually to murder. If you were to take Charles in the analogy, he's the groper.

Don't be surprised to find Charles on the news as the latest suspect in a mass murder plot.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 12:59:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/9/2011 6:39:24 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


lol, on a red dwarf kick recently?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 1:02:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So wait, people are rioting because they're no longer getting as many handouts and welfare checks as they used to? What a surprise! It reminds me of the riots in Greece, in which the social workers were protesting having their retirement age increased. That hardly means that they are in any way right.

You state that capitalism is the cause of the recession, although I say that capitalism is the reason the economy could actually get this high in the first place. In other economic systems, we wouldn't have recession; we'd just have one single permanent depression.

Finally, you somehow decided to tie in racism to this. You acknowledge that because of various geographic factors, Europe did better than Africa, and therefore whites are doing overall better off than blacks, but to then turn around and say that this is also caused by racism would be a contradiction.

I suggest you read "Racial Facts and Fallacies," a chapter in Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies. He points out how loan approvals, constantly considered racist, couldn't possibly have been systematically discriminating against blacks because blacks had a similar default rate to whites and Asians; had risky loans by blacks been disapproved simply because they were black, and not because it was risky, blacks would be defaulting less, not just as often. In another study, racism against blacks in a particular portion of the market in one area (housing, perhaps) was traced back to a single firm among about fifteen, and it was also the only firm owned by blacks. Quite the headscratcher, no?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 2:54:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 1:02:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
So wait, people are rioting because they're no longer getting as many handouts and welfare checks as they used to? What a surprise! It reminds me of the riots in Greece, in which the social workers were protesting having their retirement age increased. That hardly means that they are in any way right.

Translation: "I, the merciless mongeese, am by temperment and ideology thoroughly unsympathetic toward the worsening plight of needy people in this double-dipping recession, as I view them as lazy & lackluster specimens who deserve no compassionate quarter from society in the form of welfare assistance. This being my psychological and philosophical attitude, I must and do put a pejorative spin on their plight & pain, characterizing them in trivializing terms of being bad sports who react poorly when their "handouts" and "welfare checks" are threatened. This allows me to dismiss the existence of socioeconomic injustice under capitalism, and continue undisturbed in my dogmatic conviction that it's a super and swell system. Goody for me, and to heck with all those Greek and British losers blaming their misfortune on my precious capitalist system." Thus do you, my dear mongeese, preserve your faulty faith in a system currently causing massive and global suffering.

You state that capitalism is the cause of the recession, although I say that capitalism is the reason the economy could actually get this high in the first place. In other economic systems, we wouldn't have recession; we'd just have one single permanent depression.

So, you're saying that it's a good thing that modern capitalism has devolved (predictably) into a system whose modus operandi is a rollercoaster cycle of producing and then bursting bubbles? That's about as perverse a bit of spin-doctoring as saying that AIDS is a good thing because it demonstrates that there's enough freedom from sexual repression nowadays for a lethal STD to spread rampantly.

Finally, you somehow decided to tie in racism to this. You acknowledge that because of various geographic factors, Europe did better than Africa, and therefore whites are doing overall better off than blacks, but to then turn around and say that this is also caused by racism would be a contradiction.

Let's see about my supposed inconsistency on the tie-in of racism and capitalism as factors in what's taking place in not-so merry ole England. I acknowledge that geographic and environmental factors originally gave Caucasoids advantages that they parlayed into global hegemony. And then I point out that this has led to an asymmetry of socioeconomic power that non-whites (through no fault or inferiority of their own) are on the losing end of. I then go on to assert that capitalism, being an inherently non-egalitarian system, accommodates and helps structure into society racial inequities & iniquities such as discrimination and a higher incidence of poverty among non-whites, etc. Now how is it that in your thinking any of this is contradictory or fails to gel? It all actually gels quite dreadfully to form a very unpretty picture for minorities living under capitalism.

I suggest you read "Racial Facts and Fallacies," a chapter in Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies. He points out how loan approvals, constantly considered racist, couldn't possibly have been systematically discriminating against blacks because blacks had a similar default rate to whites and Asians; had risky loans by blacks been disapproved simply because they were black, and not because it was risky, blacks would be defaulting less, not just as often. In another study, racism against blacks in a particular portion of the market in one area (housing, perhaps) was traced back to a single firm among about fifteen, and it was also the only firm owned by blacks. Quite the headscratcher, no?

This is just the same old defensive response of true believers in the capitalist status quo, i.e. explain away all the injustices, racial and otherwise, inhering in capitalism as uneducated misconceptions. But unfortunately, for all concerned, we're still left with a large number of human beings experiencing a lot of hardship & pain as a result of the way real-world capitalism works when it's overly deregulated, which pretty roundly refutes your doctrinaire devotion to free-marketarianism. The London "riots" are, whether it's convenient to your ideology or not, yet another symptom of the utter & miserable failure of capitalism-conservatism in delivering on it's dishonest promise of "trickle-down" prosperity. Mm-hmm, the economic misery being generated by capitalism's miserable failure is motivating some of its disaffected victims to literally take to the streets. But I know, mongeese, you're now going to tell us how all of the world's contemporary woes are really somehow due to liberalism and can be remedied by more rather than less capitalism. Go ahead, have at it like a good apologist.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 2:56:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 2:54:40 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 8/10/2011 1:02:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
So wait, people are rioting because they're no longer getting as many handouts and welfare checks as they used to? What a surprise! It reminds me of the riots in Greece, in which the social workers were protesting having their retirement age increased. That hardly means that they are in any way right.

Translation: "I, the merciless mongeese, am by temperment and ideology thoroughly unsympathetic toward the worsening plight of needy people in this double-dipping recession, as I view them as lazy & lackluster specimens who deserve no compassionate quarter from society in the form of welfare assistance. This being my psychological and philosophical attitude, I must and do put a pejorative spin on their plight & pain, characterizing them in trivializing terms of being bad sports who react poorly when their "handouts" and "welfare checks" are threatened. This allows me to dismiss the existence of socioeconomic injustice under capitalism, and continue undisturbed in my dogmatic conviction that it's a super and swell system. Goody for me, and to heck with all those Greek and British losers blaming their misfortune on my precious capitalist system." Thus do you, my dear mongeese, preserve your faulty faith in a system currently causing massive and global suffering.

You state that capitalism is the cause of the recession, although I say that capitalism is the reason the economy could actually get this high in the first place. In other economic systems, we wouldn't have recession; we'd just have one single permanent depression.

So, you're saying that it's a good thing that modern capitalism has devolved (predictably) into a system whose modus operandi is a rollercoaster cycle of producing and then bursting bubbles? That's about as perverse a bit of spin-doctoring as saying that AIDS is a good thing because it demonstrates that there's enough freedom from sexual repression nowadays for a lethal STD to spread rampantly.

Finally, you somehow decided to tie in racism to this. You acknowledge that because of various geographic factors, Europe did better than Africa, and therefore whites are doing overall better off than blacks, but to then turn around and say that this is also caused by racism would be a contradiction.

Let's see about my supposed inconsistency on the tie-in of racism and capitalism as factors in what's taking place in not-so merry ole England. I acknowledge that geographic and environmental factors originally gave Caucasoids advantages that they parlayed into global hegemony. And then I point out that this has led to an asymmetry of socioeconomic power that non-whites (through no fault or inferiority of their own) are on the losing end of. I then go on to assert that capitalism, being an inherently non-egalitarian system, accommodates and helps structure into society racial inequities & iniquities such as discrimination and a higher incidence of poverty among non-whites, etc. Now how is it that in your thinking any of this is contradictory or fails to gel? It all actually gels quite dreadfully to form a very unpretty picture for minorities living under capitalism.

I suggest you read "Racial Facts and Fallacies," a chapter in Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies. He points out how loan approvals, constantly considered racist, couldn't possibly have been systematically discriminating against blacks because blacks had a similar default rate to whites and Asians; had risky loans by blacks been disapproved simply because they were black, and not because it was risky, blacks would be defaulting less, not just as often. In another study, racism against blacks in a particular portion of the market in one area (housing, perhaps) was traced back to a single firm among about fifteen, and it was also the only firm owned by blacks. Quite the headscratcher, no?

This is just the same old defensive response of true believers in the capitalist status quo, i.e. explain away all the injustices, racial and otherwise, inhering in capitalism as uneducated misconceptions. But unfortunately, for all concerned, we're still left with a large number of human beings experiencing a lot of hardship & pain as a result of the way real-world capitalism works when it's overly deregulated, which pretty roundly refutes your doctrinaire devotion to free-marketarianism. The London "riots" are, whether it's convenient to your ideology or not, yet another symptom of the utter & miserable failure of capitalism-conservatism in delivering on it's dishonest promise of "trickle-down" prosperity. Mm-hmm, the economic misery being generated by capitalism's miserable failure is motivating some of its disaffected victims to literally take to the streets. But I know, mongeese, you're now going to tell us how all of the world's contemporary woes are really somehow due to liberalism and can be remedied by more rather than less capitalism. Go ahead, have at it like a good apologist.

You really make me sad to call myself left of center. I read this sort of thing and want to open a branch of the Heritage foundation.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 2:58:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 4:40:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

What you have to consider is that Voren Na'al was a prominent Human male historian in the service of the Alliance to Restore the Republic ...

You pulled this one before. Get some new shtick or, well, here's a novel idea, perhaps make an actual contribution to the thread?! Or perhaps you're not all that cerebral, just rather narcissistic?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:02:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 2:58:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:40:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

What you have to consider is that Voren Na'al was a prominent Human male historian in the service of the Alliance to Restore the Republic ...

You pulled this one before. Get some new shtick or, well, here's a novel idea, perhaps make an actual contribution to the thread?! Or perhaps you're not all that cerebral, just rather narcissistic?

You are asking someone here this? You have cajones.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:11:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 4:01:11 AM, innomen wrote:
I wonder if it's an individual thing, where anyone can be like this, or if it's sort of endemic of extremists, leftists where they incessantly blame. Blame is often not all that constructive ...

Hmm, would you advocate then that we not critique the causes of the current global recession that's visiting suffering on billions of human beings and producing rageful repercussions such as the "riots" now taking place in the UK? Would that be genuinely "constructive" to the end of identifying and remedying underlying causes? Hardly, but it would work to leave capitalism off the hook for the way its inherent flaws & foibles have brought the world's economy to the sorry state it's now in.

What you're negatively characterizing as "blame" is in fact merely critical thinking about the structural reasons why capitalism is a system prone to producing poverty and pain for the multitudes, and for minorities in particular. This is obviously de rigueur to making any progress toward fixing our broken economy and society. Shielding capitalism from criticism and "blame" will only prolong The Great Recession and leave us vulnerable to future catastrophic crises. I trust that you're too decent a human being to wish to do such a thing to your neighbors and posterity.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:15:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 2:54:40 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 8/10/2011 1:02:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
So wait, people are rioting because they're no longer getting as many handouts and welfare checks as they used to? What a surprise! It reminds me of the riots in Greece, in which the social workers were protesting having their retirement age increased. That hardly means that they are in any way right.

Translation: "I, the merciless mongeese, am by temperment and ideology thoroughly unsympathetic toward the worsening plight of needy people in this double-dipping recession, as I view them as lazy & lackluster specimens who deserve no compassionate quarter from society in the form of welfare assistance. This being my psychological and philosophical attitude, I must and do put a pejorative spin on their plight & pain, characterizing them in trivializing terms of being bad sports who react poorly when their "handouts" and "welfare checks" are threatened. This allows me to dismiss the existence of socioeconomic injustice under capitalism, and continue undisturbed in my dogmatic conviction that it's a super and swell system. Goody for me, and to heck with all those Greek and British losers blaming their misfortune on my precious capitalist system." Thus do you, my dear mongeese, preserve your faulty faith in a system currently causing massive and global suffering.

I guess there's nothing to say beyond, you're a really bad translator. The problems of Greece were actually caused by increased government involvement to the point where government workers refuse to have any cuts to their benefits even if it means bankrupting Greece.

You state that capitalism is the cause of the recession, although I say that capitalism is the reason the economy could actually get this high in the first place. In other economic systems, we wouldn't have recession; we'd just have one single permanent depression.

So, you're saying that it's a good thing that modern capitalism has devolved (predictably) into a system whose modus operandi is a rollercoaster cycle of producing and then bursting bubbles?

Random successes are preferable to a stable failure, no? I think government manipulation of interest rates, although with good intentions, actually interfere with the market more than it helps, accentuating the boom and bust cycle.

That's about as perverse a bit of spin-doctoring as saying that AIDS is a good thing because it demonstrates that there's enough freedom from sexual repression nowadays for a lethal STD to spread rampantly.

What? It's actually more like I prefer the current epidemic of AIDS to everyone being dead.

Finally, you somehow decided to tie in racism to this. You acknowledge that because of various geographic factors, Europe did better than Africa, and therefore whites are doing overall better off than blacks, but to then turn around and say that this is also caused by racism would be a contradiction.

Let's see about my supposed inconsistency on the tie-in of racism and capitalism as factors in what's taking place in not-so merry ole England. I acknowledge that geographic and environmental factors originally gave Caucasoids advantages that they parlayed into global hegemony. And then I point out that this has led to an asymmetry of socioeconomic power that non-whites (through no fault or inferiority of their own) are on the losing end of. I then go on to assert that capitalism, being an inherently non-egalitarian system, accommodates and helps structure into society racial inequities & iniquities such as discrimination and a higher incidence of poverty among non-whites, etc. Now how is it that in your thinking any of this is contradictory or fails to gel? It all actually gels quite dreadfully to form a very unpretty picture for minorities living under capitalism.

Your problem is that you've already given a non-racist explanation for current racial inequality. This means that you cannot use racial inequality as proof of racial discrimination. You're essentially double-dipping your evidence in a way that doesn't make any sense.

I suggest you read "Racial Facts and Fallacies," a chapter in Thomas Sowell's Economic Facts and Fallacies. He points out how loan approvals, constantly considered racist, couldn't possibly have been systematically discriminating against blacks because blacks had a similar default rate to whites and Asians; had risky loans by blacks been disapproved simply because they were black, and not because it was risky, blacks would be defaulting less, not just as often. In another study, racism against blacks in a particular portion of the market in one area (housing, perhaps) was traced back to a single firm among about fifteen, and it was also the only firm owned by blacks. Quite the headscratcher, no?

This is just the same old defensive response of true believers in the capitalist status quo, i.e. explain away all the injustices, racial and otherwise, inhering in capitalism as uneducated misconceptions.

Well, if the "same old defensive response" continues to go unrefuted, I guess there's no need for a new one. What about Sowell's argument do you find to be incorrect?

But unfortunately, for all concerned, we're still left with a large number of human beings experiencing a lot of hardship & pain as a result of the way real-world capitalism works when it's overly deregulated, which pretty roundly refutes your doctrinaire devotion to free-marketarianism.

Actually, last I checked, corporate welfare and complicated economic hoops aren't a part of deregulation or the free market.

The London "riots" are, whether it's convenient to your ideology or not, yet another symptom of the utter & miserable failure of capitalism-conservatism in delivering on it's dishonest promise of "trickle-down" prosperity.

We've seen evidence of trickle-down prosperity in other countries, as their working classes paid with American capital are gradually able to afford better and better things. The economy has overall improved for everyone; the lower class today is richer than the lower class of a century ago. It works; you just refuse to see it as such.

Mm-hmm, the economic misery being generated by capitalism's miserable failure is motivating some of its disaffected victims to literally take to the streets.

A cause is not made better because people are rioting in the streets over it. See: Greece.

But I know, mongeese, you're now going to tell us how all of the world's contemporary woes are really somehow due to liberalism and can be remedied by more rather than less capitalism. Go ahead, have at it like a good apologist.

I already have, in perhaps five of your other threads, and yet you choose to ignore them and just create yet another thread, that you're probably going to abandon to create yet another thread, and so on and so forth.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:19:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 4:11:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Keynesian poops things up

blame capitalism.

???

profit!!!

Post 1000s of characters

Not have argument.

????

profit!!!

does profit become less evil if bracketed by ????'s and !!!'s?

Reganites poop things up.

Blame the left.

Elite capitalists profit!!

Post replies in defense of moribund capitalism.

Have no real arguments against the empirical reality of capitalism's unfolding failure.

The profiteering of elite capitalists continues amidst the pain of the poor.

Does the pain of the poor become less a sin to be laid at the doorstep of capitalism if bracketed out of one's consciousness and conscience by glib or convoluted ideological rationalizations?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:21:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Reagan was a money printer, not a capitalist.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:27:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 2:56:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

You really make me sad to call myself left of center. I read this sort of thing and want to open a branch of the Heritage foundation.

If that's really how you feel then perhaps you're not as left of center as you think, certainly not as left of center as yours truly. Yes, perhaps you would in fact feel quite at home among the Heritage Foundation types. I would suggest that you look into conservatism more deeply. Perhaps read a serious conservative intellectual such as Russell Kirk. You might discover that your own intellectual and political journey is indeed taking you in a rightward direction. I suspect that it is, but while I would be saddened if you were to turn to the dark side, I certainly support your right to do so and wish everyone to be who he/she authentically is. I don't think that you really sound like someone who's authentically leftist, and sincerely hope for you that you find your proper & comfortable place on the ole sociopolitical spectrum.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:50:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:15:39 PM, mongeese wrote:

I guess there's nothing to say beyond, you're a really bad translator. The problems of Greece were actually caused by increased government involvement to the point where government workers refuse to have any cuts to their benefits even if it means bankrupting Greece.

Government, government, government! As they used to say back in the days of record players, your needle is stuck. According to you government can do no right, and capitalists can do no wrong. Rubbish.

Random successes are preferable to a stable failure, no? I think government manipulation of interest rates, although with good intentions, actually interfere with the market more than it helps, accentuating the boom and bust cycle.

A predisposition to recessions and other crises is inextricably built into capitalism, i.e. it gives too much license and power to greedy individuals and entities who will always engabe in unconscionably self-interested behavior that produces economic troubles for the rest of us. This is the nature and cycle of capitalism, and only those thoroughly steeped in free-marketarian ideology find it difficult to recognize it even as capitalism is once again melting down before our very eyes and TVs.

What? It's actually more like I prefer the current epidemic of AIDS to everyone being dead.

I see, don't argue against, just argue right into my analogy. Unfortunately for you though, the reductionistic upshot of doing so is for you to say that AIDS and capitalism are both good things!

Your problem is that you've already given a non-racist explanation for current racial inequality. This means that you cannot use racial inequality as proof of racial discrimination. You're essentially double-dipping your evidence in a way that doesn't make any sense.

Nope, not to be ad hominem, but your logic is really quite convoluted and lame here. Genetic racial inequality doesn't have to exist behind racism and discrimination for racism and discrimination to exist and to structurally dovetail with the classism and power structure of capitalism.

Well, if the "same old defensive response" continues to go unrefuted, I guess there's no need for a new one. What about Sowell's argument do you find to be incorrect?

Unrefuted in your book. As for Sowell's argument, it suffers from the same problem as any argument used to refute or downplay the reality of racism, you can't refute reality, you can only choose to be in ideological denial about it. Arguments such as Sowell's only feed into rightist denial.

Actually, last I checked, corporate welfare and complicated economic hoops aren't a part of deregulation or the free market.

They're just a part of the capitalist status quo, a status quo that will always evolve when you give too much license to capitalists, who will invariably exploit it to set themselves up with plenty of corporate welfare and advantages.

We've seen evidence of trickle-down prosperity in other countries, as their working classes paid with American capital are gradually able to afford better and better things. The economy has overall improved for everyone; the lower class today is richer than the lower class of a century ago. It works; you just refuse to see it as such.

Ah, a trickle-down die-hardist. Arthur Laffer would be proud.

A cause is not made better because people are rioting in the streets over it. See: Greece.

People in pain don't always act out in a mannerly manner, but this doesn't invalidate their pain or the legitimacy of their criticisms of the system.

I already have, in perhaps five of your other threads, and yet you choose to ignore them and just create yet another thread, that you're probably going to abandon to create yet another thread, and so on and so forth.

Well, would it really be more constructive to get stuck in one thread arguing with you ad nauseum and ad absurdum?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 3:51:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 8:00:16 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I think Charles is about a year away from stepping up his game to more diabolical plots that involve conservatives and capitalists as victims. It's like the progression of a serial rapist. It starts off with harmless stalking, to stalking designed to instill terror, to harassment and groping, to full-on rape, and eventually to murder. If you were to take Charles in the analogy, he's the groper.

Don't be surprised to find Charles on the news as the latest suspect in a mass murder plot.

You merely reveal the extremism of your own mentality here.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 4:23:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charles, your mentality is far more extremist than Paradigm's.

It's almost as extremist as mine.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 6:06:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:50:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 8/10/2011 3:15:39 PM, mongeese wrote:

I guess there's nothing to say beyond, you're a really bad translator. The problems of Greece were actually caused by increased government involvement to the point where government workers refuse to have any cuts to their benefits even if it means bankrupting Greece.

Government, government, government! As they used to say back in the days of record players, your needle is stuck. According to you government can do no right, and capitalists can do no wrong. Rubbish.

Actually, I believe that government can do right, mostly in protecting our liberties. I don't believe that the redistribution of wealth is a valid government responsibility.

What I find funny here, though, is you telling me that I'm a broken record.

Random successes are preferable to a stable failure, no? I think government manipulation of interest rates, although with good intentions, actually interfere with the market more than it helps, accentuating the boom and bust cycle.

A predisposition to recessions and other crises is inextricably built into capitalism, i.e. it gives too much license and power to greedy individuals and entities who will always engabe in unconscionably self-interested behavior that produces economic troubles for the rest of us.

If the free market is handled properly, the risky behavior ends up punished; it takes government regulation to insulate the wrongdoers from their mistakes.

This is the nature and cycle of capitalism, and only those thoroughly steeped in free-marketarian ideology find it difficult to recognize it even as capitalism is once again melting down before our very eyes and TVs.

Melting down? You're exaggerating, and rather badly at that. It's nothing compared to Greece's crisis, that's for sure.

What? It's actually more like I prefer the current epidemic of AIDS to everyone being dead.

I see, don't argue against, just argue right into my analogy. Unfortunately for you though, the reductionistic upshot of doing so is for you to say that AIDS and capitalism are both good things!

Now you've gone from making little sense to making no sense. Capitalism has its flaws, but it is still on the whole better than socialism and has no better and viable alternatives. AIDS is a disease, which I'd rather have but not have, but is still better than death. Are their any other incorrect conclusions you'd like to draw from that?

Your problem is that you've already given a non-racist explanation for current racial inequality. This means that you cannot use racial inequality as proof of racial discrimination. You're essentially double-dipping your evidence in a way that doesn't make any sense.

Nope, not to be ad hominem, but your logic is really quite convoluted and lame here. Genetic racial inequality doesn't have to exist behind racism and discrimination for racism and discrimination to exist and to structurally dovetail with the classism and power structure of capitalism.

However, if you claim that the inequality is not the result of racism or genetics, but instead other environmental factors, you no longer have proof of the racism.

Well, if the "same old defensive response" continues to go unrefuted, I guess there's no need for a new one. What about Sowell's argument do you find to be incorrect?

Unrefuted in your book.

More importantly, unrefuted in this thread.

As for Sowell's argument, it suffers from the same problem as any argument used to refute or downplay the reality of racism, you can't refute reality, you can only choose to be in ideological denial about it. Arguments such as Sowell's only feed into rightist denial.

The thing is, it isn't denial. It looks at reality, and realizes that a certain fact (discrepancy in default rates) that would exist if the racism actually had a significant effect.

If racism, then discrepancy.
If no discrepancy, then no racism.
No discrepancy.
Therefore, no racism.

Now, are you going to try to refute the logic, or are you going to claim that logic doesn't apply again?

Actually, last I checked, corporate welfare and complicated economic hoops aren't a part of deregulation or the free market.

They're just a part of the capitalist status quo, a status quo that will always evolve when you give too much license to capitalists, who will invariably exploit it to set themselves up with plenty of corporate welfare and advantages.

Actually, if the status quo is such, then the status quo isn't even capitalism. I don't see anything inevitable about political abuse if the government is shrunk so that it can't give any checks to any corporations.

We've seen evidence of trickle-down prosperity in other countries, as their working classes paid with American capital are gradually able to afford better and better things. The economy has overall improved for everyone; the lower class today is richer than the lower class of a century ago. It works; you just refuse to see it as such.

Ah, a trickle-down die-hardist. Arthur Laffer would be proud.

If that was supposed to be an argument, you aren't doing a good job of it.

A cause is not made better because people are rioting in the streets over it. See: Greece.

People in pain don't always act out in a mannerly manner, but this doesn't invalidate their pain or the legitimacy of their criticisms of the system.

Unless you're willing to argue that the Greek riots are justified, we must conclude that the presence of a riot does nothing to change its source, which makes any argument based on the presence of a riot invalid.

I already have, in perhaps five of your other threads, and yet you choose to ignore them and just create yet another thread, that you're probably going to abandon to create yet another thread, and so on and so forth.

Well, would it really be more constructive to get stuck in one thread arguing with you ad nauseum and ad absurdum?

That's a laugh, you accusing me of argumentative fallacies.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 7:03:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:51:27 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 8/10/2011 8:00:16 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I think Charles is about a year away from stepping up his game to more diabolical plots that involve conservatives and capitalists as victims. It's like the progression of a serial rapist. It starts off with harmless stalking, to stalking designed to instill terror, to harassment and groping, to full-on rape, and eventually to murder. If you were to take Charles in the analogy, he's the groper.

Don't be surprised to find Charles on the news as the latest suspect in a mass murder plot.

You merely reveal the extremism of your own mentality here.:

Shortest post, ever... Yayyyyyyy!!!!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 2:29:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 2:58:10 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:40:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

What you have to consider is that Voren Na'al was a prominent Human male historian in the service of the Alliance to Restore the Republic ...

You pulled this one before. Get some new shtick or, well, here's a novel idea, perhaps make an actual contribution to the thread?! Or perhaps you're not all that cerebral, just rather narcissistic?

Been there tried that got me nothing.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 3:09:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 3:19:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 8/10/2011 4:11:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Keynesian poops things up

blame capitalism.

???

profit!!!

Post 1000s of characters

Not have argument.

????

profit!!!

does profit become less evil if bracketed by ????'s and !!!'s?

Reganites poop things up.

Blame the left.

Elite capitalists profit!!

Post replies in defense of moribund capitalism.

Have no real arguments against the empirical reality of capitalism's unfolding failure.

The profiteering of elite capitalists continues amidst the pain of the poor.

Does the pain of the poor become less a sin to be laid at the doorstep of capitalism if bracketed out of one's consciousness and conscience by glib or convoluted ideological rationalizations?

You know.

While the general idea you're sporting is probably true, I hope you realise that it has one major flaw.

Namely, given that just about every major news outlet in existence is owned one way or another by the same millionaires that you claim are responsible for the dissatisfaction and suffering of the masses.

Would it not be antithetical to print stories about corporatism and cronyism and millionaire's club back scratching and every other tactic the wealthy use to generate more wealth?

If their grip was really that tight...how can you legitimately claim to be aware of it, when major media news outlets are quick, particularly in England, to cry and scream about the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer?
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2011 9:15:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/10/2011 4:01:11 AM, innomen wrote:
I wonder if it's an individual thing, where anyone can be like this, or if it's sort of endemic of extremists, leftists where they incessantly blame. Blame is often not all that constructive except that it often brings with it punishment, and in politics punishment means a removal of power, or a certainty that there will be no return of power. This is also true of our current president who compulsively states that he inherited his situation.

The problem with blame is, after a while it becomes less effective and the person doing the blame looks a bit petty, and they also come off as contributing nothing to fix the problem, so therefore the person who feels compelled to blame specific people that they hate, becomes of lesser value to any situation. It also becomes apparent that the validity of their blame is warped, so that they have a distorted sense of what is truly the problem, but rather are more looking to satisfy their anger and hate.

The blamer also tends to be personally weakened because they have ceded their responsibility in a problem and claim victimhood. There is no solution for the blamer, because they have no interest in a solution, but rather solely the blame. Blame legitimizes their anger and hate, and it feeds their maladjustments, and further distorts their understanding of what is real to only suit their blame.

The blamer is generally void of individual creativity because he or she relies solely on the activity of others, so that they are parasitic on what they hate. Remove the catalyst of what they hate and they will find something else in which to hate and blame - it is who they are.

Comment: Very wise words. Words that earn respect among people who truly understand the truth to them.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."