I won't give you cash, but if you are willing to work with us, you'll be fed, clothed, sheltered, educated, trained, and armed to fight in the revolution.
SJG
Its the group I'm forming. You might call us liberals, but really we are radicals. men and women. Most of the women will be present or retired strippers.
No alcohol, drugs, tobacco, Recovery Movement, Motivationalism, Born Again Christianity, psychotherapy or psychiatric medication.
We will attack and destroy Capitalism and The Family.
We will quickly need to pass out snow shovels because any time anyone is able to change the rules for money / sex, then the heavens open and the manna comes down in all denominations. We will quickly be hip deep in it.
The prior examples of this are Oneida and LDS. And once they started to become rich, they became hated and persecuted.
SJG
Our standards for men will be extremely high.
The restrictions I've mentioned above are our own version of being Kosher.
But especially for the men, besides being Kosher, we expect a very high degree of self-awareness and political-awareness.
And as far as real homosexuality, no we don't go for that with the men.
Now with the women we take a different approach. We will allow them to see what we do and to live it, and we will be tolerant with them as they decide for themselves if what we are doing is really what they want.
So we will be over recruiting young women because we know that with them we will have more fallout.
Before though they get to governing rank, they will also be meeting up to the same standards as the men.
We figure that with the men, explaining it all should be good enough. But things work differently for women, so it seems. They need to see how it works out and see that other women are happy with it.
SJG
So I will join if one of these women is required to suck me off twice a day. Once before I wake up to wake me up, and once after afternoon tea. Let me know. I will pay your annual fee too
Guaranteed fucked and sucked dry each day. But that means in a once per day session, like you come to our club house in the evening and it happens. It doesn't mean all throughout the day. People will have other stuff to do.
But if we send you on any trips, we will send a rotating supply of our women with you.
As far as sleep overs, twice per week minimum is the guarantee. You can see that that is harder to deliver on, takes more women to do all the guys. So we can't promise more than twice per week.
Also if you have outside personal relationships with them, then probably you can get overnighters all the time.
And also, spending too much time with women will drive a guy nuts. People will have other stuff to do. It isn't all sex with dolled up hotties in high heels. But yes, much of it is exactly that.
But as any guy has his limits, he can only fuck them so many times in a day. So eventually he will always feel like he is being turned into one of them, if he spends too much non-sexual time with them. So there does need to be some kind of balance. Not all just sex. Limits to the non sexual time with them.
Yes, the men pay, and usually the women don't pay anything. The money pays for our club houses ( temples )and a network of shuttle vans. The money is strictly accounted for and my salary is $1 per year.
But we do have very high standards and it is invitation only. Anyone being considered will be interviewed by a panel of the men and a panel of the women. Then they will start being invited to our events, which generally means sucking and fucking. We will also start working with them on career and educational issues, and start training them in our doctrine. We need to raise the political-awareness and self-awareness. The more advanced women will also help with this, like during the in-between times they spend with you.
Remember, this is a share a woman program. So we have to make sure that we can all be on the same page on a whole host of issues.
If a novice member works out, they will soon be getting all I have described and then likely become involved in the governance of the organization and in the plans to make sure it continues beyond my own lifetime.
SJG
Have You Seen the Saucers
[view link]
My family in law are liberals and just bought me steak. I was happy to take their money. When I buy my Beechcraft g58 baron I am going to fly a Donald trump sign over their house and drop bags of dog shit on their property. It's funny because my father in law flies for United airline and retired col. Air Force and I will have a plane before him. A nice one at that.
Hey SJG here is a quote I read...
"It is wrong to tax a working person almost to the breaking point, then give it to a person who is able to work, but refuses to."
Is this the type of establishment you support, the Hillary and Obama types?
I like the idea of people paying more in taxes and giving it to me! Why not, others do it. Meanwhile I can protest and talk about the man while I receive my EBT card.
Sarcasm.
Or maybe you prefer a more extreme leader SJG? One that goes by the name Bernie Sanders? U did say the more extreme left on the political spectrum is what u prefer. Maybe because you want free stuff?
Beechcraft g58 baron ?
Read the specs and you'll see that the current American light twins like Beechcraft Baron and Piper Seneca are very hard to operate due to the low weight limit. It didn't used to be this way. Its because of an FFA reg of maximum 55mph stall speed at full load. So as these are old designs, they just dropped the max load rating to the point where it is just barely usable, so they could comply. So instead of buying new ones, people buy the old planes with the old specs.
Piper Seminole is based on the Cheokee PS-28's, and these are ugly. Besides, the engine out ceiling is only about 4000ft, defeating the purpose of a twin. Seminole is only for flight training schools, just to be able to show on paper that their students have twin time.
This Austrian made plane has been designed to work around the regs. I've not read this anywhere, but I noticed right away just from pictures that it has a high wing aspect ratio and a bit of a low top speed. This is how you have to do it, either go for high aspect ratio and lower speed, but with short take off and landing distance and good load carrying. Or make a higher cost plane which meets the higher safety specs, like say a Beechcraft Kingair .
I had a long conversation about this with a Piper Dealer at the Monterey CA airport some years back.
Austrian plane:
[view link]
On cover of flying magazine, I think last month. They confirm though that the engines are not counter rotating. This is the consequence of using automobile engines.
but at least it is not like a P-38 Lightening, where the engines counter rotate, but the wrong way.
Engines only 2 liters and 4 cylinder, dieseling on jet fuel.
I'll respond to Meat72 and former_stripper in a bit.
SJG
Let me first reply to Meat72 on issues of politicians
Well I voted in two general elections for Bill Clinton. And I voted in two general elections for Barack Obama. I voted in two general elections against George W. Bush.
If Hillary Clinton becomes the democratic nominee, I will vote for her, and the same goes for Bernie Sanders. I'll vote for the democratic nominee instead of a third party spoiler, like say a Ralph Nader, because I don't want the Republicans to win.
Now as far as primaries, that is a bit different. California's comes rather late, so usually my vote doesn't matter. But even if it did, I'd probably use it to send a message. In 2008 there were Hillary Clinton, and then slightly to the left of her Obama, and slightly to the left of him John Edwards of North Carolina, and then slightly to the left of him, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
Now I'm rating these people by what they say. As far as what they really believe, this is more complex.
So I voted for Kucinich. And I do wish we could get him, or someone like him, as President.
As it turned out though, I had voted early by absentee ballot; so by polling day, Kucinich had dropped out. But still, my vote would go into the final tallies and these are what the strategists look at. So in this way, my vote did count.
So as far as Hillary Clinton today, I think her efforts in 1993 to set our health care up so that everyone was covered were quite admirable. About the only fault with what she did was that it was so good, so little adverse consequence, that her opponents were able to scare people about it as it was also quite complicated.
I wish Hillary had stronger liberal credentials and had never been part of the conservative Democratic Leadership Conference, done commodities trading, or been involved in the White Water S and L scandal. But if she is the nominee, I'm voting for her. She has impeccable pro-choice credentials. And that she was involved with Children's Defense Fund will always rate her highly with me. Like it came out in the first of the 1992 debates, Children's Defense Fund stands up for the "Needs of children, as opposed to the want's of their parents."
As far as the primary, if it is to be Sanders and Clinton, I'm voting for Sanders. He is not really that much to the left of most of the Democratic Party. I would rather have someone much further to the left, but I doubt that they could get elected. So Sanders will be fine.
Lets see if we have anything here from Sanders:
[view link]
and also, Helping the Homeless:
[view link]
Meat72 wrote:
"Maybe because you want free stuff?"
I don't specifically want anything for free, other than what I and everyone else are entitled to. Everyone is entitled to not just free air and water, but to a complete economic safety net. Everyone is also entitled to a chance to do well. Welfare and EBT, and even a Rolls Royce and house in Beverly Hills, are not alone justice. Everyone is entitled to a chance to do well. When this has not worked out, we must try to achieve a remedy.
So I don't go along with the people who break their children. The last time I got to deal with such a person, I got to help put him into San Quentin.
I would rather have bashed his skull to shards using a short length of steel pipe. But as it worked out, educating police, prosecutors, judges, and journalists, it was better. And so now I'm looking for even bigger things of a similar nature that I can do.
I don't go along with the people who speak in a parental voice. And this is just one of the reasons it is important to make sure that the Republicans don't win anything.
SJG
@former_stripper wrote,
" I like the idea of people paying more in taxes and giving it to me! Why not, others do it. Meanwhile I can protest and talk about the man while I receive my EBT card. "
Well what keeps the middle tier of wage income in place is the government exercising it's power to tax and spend. The spending includes government employment, government procurement, and direct government benefit payouts. This money in turn recirculates, and tends to work it's way up the economic hierarchy. Money paid out to the people at the bottom, like welfare ( formerly AFDA but now TANF ) and EBT ( food stamps ) re-circulates the fastest.
I mean so if say @Meat72 and @twentyfive wanted to protest government taxation and spending, all they would have to do is refuse to accept their paychecks. If they then wanted to apply for welfare and food stamps so that their cut of the cash recirculation would be much smaller, all the better.
One of the problems here is that the people at the bottom lack political consciousness, so usually they are docile and end up on Alcohol, Drugs, Born Again Christianity, or Psychiatric Medication. And then also, our political and economic order depends upon familial child abuse, to keep people compliant, to keep the economic wheels turning, and especially to keep real estate bubbles in tact.
But this might be changing! If I can have anything to say about it, it will change.
The original idea of using welfare to protest comes here:
[view link]
Probably the best modern political treatise is this:
[view link]
So @former_stripper, if you are on EBT, good for you. Problem is most people are getting paid too much money to be eligible, and they don't want to relinquish this. And if you are protesting The Man, doubly good for you.
Back in the Eisenower-Kenedy years upper bracket income taxes were much higher and these were indeed our years of highest growth and greatest improvement in standard of living.
But a fuller reform of our society is going to depend upon deeper changes in people's thinking and living practices. This is also what I am trying to contribute to.
SJG
SJG, I'm not on any form of assistance. It was sarcasm. The thing is welfare was originally for those who needed it and couldn't work Now though it has become a way of life which is why people protest it, It's lead to what we have today with higher crime and more babies born to unwed mothers. I'm sure if FDR knew what would happen he would have changed it a bit (though it didn't become a huge problem until LBJ and his war on poverty. Many of us have seen the programs abused and nope no excuse.
Well, this idea that women have children just to get more welfare money is nonsense. The money is too little. No one is going to do that. But what is true is that attitudes have changed about single parenthood. Women are less likely to stay with abusive husbands. So you see more single mothers. So if the price of this is welfare, then it is money very well spent. More of the total number of children living with single mothers actually means less people who will be using children of their own to gain social status. So I see it as a promising indicator.
As far as welfare being a way of life. The money is too small. But also, everyone wants to do well. If they aren't then their is something which has happened which has thwarted them. Most of the time it is familial child abuse, plus just not enough chance to get living wage jobs within reasonable distance and allowing for child care.
So welfare is not the problem. Never has been. It is simply a half assed halfway measure, which in lieu of more complete measures, does somewhat mitigate problems. In low income urban neighborhoods, the AFDC mothers had been the best stabilizing element. But after Clinton-Gingrich, even this is gone.
Welfare has never been more than a very small portion of the federal budget.
SJG
Golden Dawn Documentary - Aleister Crowley and the Golden Dawn
[view link]
Inside The Secret Teachings Of ALL Ages (MANLY P HALL) HD
[view link]
Stan Tenen - Decoding the Hebrew Text of Genesis
[view link]
Giant Outdoor Chess Set
[view link]
Did you know that the address number of the Masonic Temple is Salt Lake City is 666?
[view link]
Albert Pike
[view link]
they don't mention that he is cofounder of the KKK
[view link][view link][view link]
most people consider this guy to be a fascist
[view link]
Julius Evola as something similar to Albert Pike
[view link][view link][view link][view link]
^^^^^ You are so way off on your thinking SJG. Stating no women have children so they can go on assistance is stating you're burying your head in the sand. There are generations of women whom that is all they know, and are advised to get pregnant for that support. This is where the liberals like yourself are swimming in ideaology and have no idea what really happens in the actual world. Have u ever worked with poor people on any meaningful level for any period of time, like working with the public? With your socially inept views I highly doubt u have much experience to draw from. Trying to keep my anonymity let me state I have extensive experience with the type that use the system and its the liberals that can't figure out that 1/3rd of the population is looking for a hand out.
Women do not have children just to get more welfare money. No one is that stupid.
I have contact with the poorest of the poor though community organizations, and just by casual fraternizing on a regular basis.
Everyone wants to do well, so that they can win the admiration of friends and family. They only give up on this when they are somehow forced to.
SJG
Ancient Egyptian Sex Secrets - AMAZING DOCUMENTARY FILMS
[view link]
SEX REBELS: How SEX Changed the World? (History Documentary) Empress Valeria Sex Stories
[view link]
Well, I guess we're all poor and stupid then, except for you.
I know that everyone wants to do well. They only give up when they are somehow shut out. Welfare is not justice, it is just a small stipend to try and mitigate the worst of the harm.
SJG
Again, standard deviation states that 68% of the population fits in an acceptable range of normalcy, 16% are high achievers and the remaining 16% are poor achievers. Considering humans are not robots u must account for discrepancy, which means several % points of the population will feign incapabilities, therefore pretending to have low performance abilities so they can capitalize on the free handouts. 1 in 8 people actually need the assistance, but historical trends state 25% are utilizing welfare/social safety nets. Now when you place further anomalies such as an aging baby boomer population, you can see how stressed our social programs have become.
Everyone does not want to do well, because many of the stupid fucks want to feel well. They don't want to do what is necessary to do well, which is hard work and dedication. Look at hurricane Katrina and hurricane Sandy as an example. More people were affected as a population during hurricane Sandy, but those people heeded warnings and prepared. Many Katrina victims did nothing when warned to leave, mostly because they never learned basic things it takes to adapt. The Katrina sufferers cried "poor me the government didn't help me" as a whole, but more property damage was done is Sandy yet little was made about them being victims. This isn't an apples to apples comparison, however there is a strong correlation to the fact that not all people want to do well.
SJG, I have known many who did have kids for welfare. Many people who receive welfare also receive money under the table or live with someone helping them.
Meat, everyone does want to do well, because they want the respect which comes with that. The social pressures on young adults to conform are immense. As far as statistical variations in people's life circumstances, people grow up in widely varying situations. Everyone who has the chance does everything they can to do well.
vincemichaels, if you are receiving an income, like wages, salary, business income, and if that is somewhere in the middle income level, then you can rest assured that you are fully benefiting from government taxation and expenditures. Government spending in payroles, pensions, procurement, and welfare recirculates. Without this, the middle income level would collapse and we would become just like most historical societys, that of the very rich and the very poor.
former_stripper, There undoubtedly are some who are not being truthful with the welfare agencies, and doing this is a serious crime. However, they really aren't getting away with much. Most of these people have been broken down so that all they want is just to stay housed and fed. So that they get that, they really aren't taking much. No, people are not stupid enough to have a kid just to get more welfare money. It hurts them too much, their life options.
SJG
SJG have you actually known people on welfare? I have and most of them look at it as free money. The ones who fall on hard times don't use it long and seek employment. The rest do use it for free money and many do have kids for welfare. You may want to visit a ghetto and see this in person.
SJG has no real life experience to draw from, which is why he lives in a fantasy world of ideaology. He also has never reviewed a strip club so therefore what his
Perception of what goes on in a club is also fantasy.
I am involved in community groups and have regular contact with the poor, housed and unhoused. I have volunteered in religious social services programs myself and I have been a case worker for such.
People who have the kind of life biography which will get them livable employment take that route. Everyone wants to be respected.
People only turn otherwise when they have been broken by shame, humiliation, and usually child abuse.
The streets of downtown San Jose are filled with broken people. But there are also unseen broken people, marginally housed and always at risk of homelessness. Most employment doors are closed to them. But they still try to function.
I have never seen anything to indicate that a woman had a child to get welfare money, as the money is not that much and the effect on her future life prospects permanent. Women do have children in a sort of fantasy that their relationship with the man will be made to continue. Sometimes they have children with the idea that the child will represent a return to wholeness for themselves, a way to heal from a disability.
While it would be better if no one every had a child except for when they could support and care for that child, punishing the people who do otherwise accomplishes nothing. Punishing the mothers is what guarantees another generation on welfare.
We need to solve our social inequities and lack of livable wage jobs problem, and most of all our familial child abuse problems. Welfare is not a solution, but it is a band aide. Cutting back on welfare or getting tough on the recipients only makes our societal problems worse.
To deal with the exploitation of children we have to start with the people who get away with it, and that is the two parent financially solvent and always housed middle class. They are the ones who set the norm, of using children and then blacksheeping them. And they have the family insularity which allows them to make themselves right and the child wrong.
SJG
" I mean so if say @Meat72 and @twentyfive wanted to protest government taxation and spending, all they would have to do is refuse to accept their paychecks."
To Stupid Jerk Guy
Why do you keep including me in your silly conversations I don't care to be involved in your nonsense and until you give me an answer to the questions you have been asked leave me out of your totally inane babble.
The only answer to any question you ever gave was you refuse to be interrogated. If so stop spouting off this stupid shit, or give your credentials legitimately.
Government taxation and spending are what keep the middle section of our labor market going. If you don't like receiving some of that money twentyfive, that's up to you.
And of course the money which recirculates the fastest is the money given to poor people.
SJG
Then our economic problems are easily solved according to your theory. Reparations to all who've been unjustly oppressed and velocity of money can begin, right?
You do realize that money is a zero sum game. It's fluid like water, which means it's never created or destroyed. It just flows and either you learn how to collect it through services and trade, or you get lazy and collect nothing. Again your stupidity reigns as people who live hand to mouth don't know how to reap what they sew, because they haven't done the necessary things. So how idiotic is it that you can't see people choose to be poor when they have abilities to be productive?
"You do realize that money is a zero sum game. It's fluid like water, which means it's never created or destroyed"
This of course is the diametric opposite of the truth. The government controls interest rates, the printing press, and the furnace. And then there is also the velocity of money and the availability of credit, and these are usually increasing. Take a basic Macro Economics course some day.
Some people have been able to position themselves in well paying careers, and many others have not. Some who have tried have failed, or they have been forced out.
And yes, familial child abuse is a severe form of oppression.
Injustice reigns because the very poor, the semi-poor, and the middle can be so easily turned against each other, while the rich benefit from this.
SJG
Rosicrucian Mysteries, Max Heindel, Oceanside California
[view link]
The fed sets policy and printing money does not create money. You're getting stupider with each comment that you make. If you understood simple supply and demand you'd know about economics, which clearly you don't especially in responding to another thread about creating a corporation so a stripper could write her business expenses off on her taxes. U and Bernie Sanders would make a great team of idiots. Bernie never made a paycheck until he was 40 years old and his only assets are what his current wife has, and he has $65k in credit card debt. Thus loser is similar in your thoughts, beliefs, and accomplishments. Be his VIP SJG.
The fed controls the money supply via the printing press, the furnace, and the money multiplication factor which is one over the interest rate.
I would like to have Bernie Sanders as President or Vice President, but one person can still only do so much.
And I also want to see the poor reject Alcohol, Drugs, Born Again Christianity, and Psychiatric Medication, and instead start to stand up for themselves forcefully.
And as far as the people who have children so that they can break them and make them into the black sheep, I would love nothing more than to be the one who gets to hunt these down and send their heads back by the basket full.
In the organization I am now working to build, everyone is involved in life long education and everyone is always being challenged to use more of their abilities. No one ever is expected to look for a job, as that is just a ritual of senseless humiliation. No, people are taken care of and any negotiations are always between equals.
Many have no place in this world, because they never did have such. It was denied to them early on. In the organization I am building, people will join forces and act to seize the legitimacy which has been denied them.
People like Meat72 and former_stripper, who want to advance this parental language of denigration, will have to find something else to do, as no one is going to listen to them.
SJG
[view link][view link]
Also Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City
[view link]
Discussion of Front Room Makeout Sessions
[view link]
Jestrite50 on requirement of front room makeout sessions
[view link]
and here:
[view link]
Anyone ever seen this? It does not look good.
[view link]
Doors - The End
[view link]
^^^^ Yet everyone will listen to me when I say "You're a loser!"
You're idealistic and never have had any experience dealing with real life situations, because you've never been in a strip club and you e never had a real working job for any sustainable period of time. You are the TUSCL whipping boy! U should probably go kill yourself, but u don't have the balls to do it.
quote: SJG People like Meat72 and former_stripper, who want to advance this parental language of denigration, will have to find something else to do, as no one is going to listen to them.
What does this even mean? Most taxpayers knows this is a problem and bashing middle class married parents? they are the ones we should be looking to, not a welfare hood rat with a bunch of kids by different baby daddies.
Child abuse is a form of oppression? for kids it's horrible or are you defending the parents sating they are oppressed. All classes abuse their kids.
It's like I'm always telling the evangelicals who are going out to poor people and telling them to stop being so rebellious and to get saved. I tell them, "People who have been treated with dignity and respect and been given the chance to develop and apply their abilities, are not likely to develop a problem with alcohol or drugs."
The evangelicals will agree with me in principle, but this is a far as it goes. They still go around treating the poor, the homeless, and all manner of addicts like they have a moral problem.
And then why not, because these evangelical outreachers have DESIGNATED BLACK SHEEP IN THEIR OWN FAMILIES!
So these evangelicals have adopted a parental language of denigration.
The middle class family was designed to exploit children, to use children to give the parents social legitimacy.
So when the consciousness of the poor can be raised, then they will be able to stand up for themselves and treat those who denigrate them as they deserve to be treated:
1. Ignore
2. Re-distribute the wealth via the ballot box
3. Kick in teeth
4. Bullet through the forehead
But as it stands now, the poor still accept the denigration, so its still Alcohol, Drugs, Born Again Christianity, and Psychiatric Medication, while our society is still unworkable and middle class people keep making babies so they can abuse them.
SJG
Atlantic City, one of the largest pipe organs ever built. Look how high the ceiling is. More information to come.
[view link]
Yes, it is the largest in the world!
[view link]
It is one of only two organs in the world to have an open 64-foot rank, and the only organ to have stops voiced on 100 inches of wind pressure (about 3.6 psi). Its console features seven manuals.
The pedal manual can be divided into left and right divisions
10x 32 foot stops
The Diaphone-Dulzian's low-C pipe stands 59 feet (18 m) tall, weighs 3,350 pounds (1,520 kg), and produces a frequency of 8 Hz,[10] a tone that is more felt than heard; the sound of the vibrating pallet is described as "a helicopter hovering over the building". The pipe stands upright for about 40 feet (12 m), the remainder is mitred (turned) towards the Right Stage chamber's grill. All pipes taller than 32 feet (9.8 m) are designed in this manner.
The organ's wind supply is the most powerful ever used in a pipe organ. The DC motors for the original eight blowers had a total power of 394 horsepower (294 kW). These were replaced with AC motors in the early 1990s, which have a total of 600 horsepower (450 kW) and their seven blowers produce 36,400 cubic feet (1,030 m3) of wind per minute.
[view link]
Some of the lower manuals are not only 61 keys, they are 73 or 85 keys!
( some piano music is written to take up all 88. But nothing in the standard piano repertoire goes beyond that , as with Boesendorfer's 97 keys.
[view link]
I saw one just like this in a local store, priced to sell at only $180k.
[view link]
)
[view link]
Largest Pipe Organs In The World
[view link]
Code Red Warning! This is like ColdnShallow turned into a 501.c3
[view link]
3 Nights in Tunisia - Diz, Jimmy Smith, Barbara Dennerlein
[view link]
acoustic piano action could never go as fast as these people do. I think even a semi-weighted keyboard would be too slow.
Dennerlein play list
[view link]
Ontario Canada, Universal Basic Income!!!!!!
[view link]
I think a basic income guarantee is mandatory. Capitalism is what creates unemployment. And Cecil Williams and the people who run Guild Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco have got it right. Poverty is caused by social marginalization.
So a corollary is simply this, everyone wants to do well. They want to win the admiration of family and friends. So if they are not doing well, then there must be some social marginalization or disability at work here. But as the main problem is marginalization, then we should not talk about disability, as usually this just means more marginalization.
And of course it is absurd that people should be accepting psychiatric labels. These are just an extreme form of oppression.
So for there to be justice there has to be this basic income guarantee, or what amounts to cradle to grave welfare.
The typical person on welfare takes far less out of our economy than those employed do. And if the welfare recipient is not driving around much in a car, then they are treading far more lightly on the earth than those who senselessly burn up gas and dump CO2 into the atmosphere to do jobs which produce absolutely nothing which people need to live.
Now welfare takes money out of gov't coffers, but in the US welfare has never been more than 3% of federal expenditure. This is much less than corporate welfare and other expenses directed to the betterment of the middle class in order to maintain political allegiance, or to keeping the poor down. So welfare is a cheaper way to keep our society going than the present state of affairs.
And then as far as federal accounts, it is the federal gov't which controls the printing press, the furnace, and interest rates which multiply the availability of money by the inverse of the interest rate. Suffice to say, federal accounts and the money supply are all under gov't control, hence it is artificial. It is just a matter of who and what are being served by it.
So as those who are not doing well are simply the victims of social injustice, we must redress this social injustice.
1. Stop using psychiatric labels, learning disability labels, or morality labels.
2. Offer people value producing work, not nonsense just to get a paycheck.
3. Provide this cradle to grave welfare system as efficiently as possible, and understand that everyone wants to be a useful and meaningful part of our society.
4. Follow my recommendation and hold parents accountable for exploiting their children, using them to give themselves a adult identity. This amounts to psychological child abuse. So besides criminal prosecution where practical, also prevent disinheritance and offer something like a divorce from one's parents when their is parent v child animosity. Make the parents pay, and pay dearly. Make it so that child exploitation no longer pays.
5. And for those who insist on calling the poor lazy or immoral, know that this is how Capitalism works. It is the family where this starts, with the designation of a child as the blacksheep. Those who denigrate the poor are just doing what their parents did to them. So the poor and marginalized need to start standing up for themselves rather than submitting. They and all of us must start engaging in public advocacy and non-violent civil disobedience.
6. And then since the New Economy and Libertarianism are really just the old Social Darwinism and Eugenics Movement, saying that the poor are not fit to compete, we all need to be prepared to do more than just be non-violent. We don't want to be like Anne Frank's father, hiding in an attic waiting for the Gestapo. We need to be ready to engage in guerrilla warfare, the use of lethal force, and without taking prisoners. Unless we are willing to do this, then we are helping the eugenicists who say that we are not fit to live. Gandhi and Jesus lived in violent revolutionary times. They were only able to accomplish their works because others were maintaining the constant threat of lethal violence on a large scale.
[view link]
SJG
"I fear I am writing a requiem for myself"
[view link]
45 comments