I have amassed a lot of information today about labels in the American political arena. The writer of this article is WineRev and posted the entry as a comment in 'Crush their spirits' post kos in the Daily Kos website.
" Republican party taken over by the proto-fascists in an unholy combination of neo-con warmongers + theo-con American Taliban + Wall Street greedhounds."
What I am interested about is what ideas these labels serve. How people, being called as such or pursuing their interests under theses banners, are thinking about themselves. What do they profess as they are doing?
An interesting account of Ayn Rand and her capitalism by Devilstower, titled RIP John Galt. Further on, that testimony is based on what Alan Greenspan had confessed about free markets.
In need to preserve these flowing (following) thoughts for future reference.
You are truly content and fulfilled only if you are surrounded by people that are content and fulfilled. Otherwise you are as wretched and miserable as the most wretched and miserable person around you or even in the world over.
Property, the most revered aspect in the monetising societies becomes the haunt of a recluse, a cage, where you hide yourself to spare your feelings and your senses from your most wretched and miserable neighbours, the suburbs, the gated housing schemes, mere ghettos, self-imposed sanctuaries, to ostrich-hide your sensitivities from the wretchedness around you.
The laws against vagrants and beggars for loitering in high streets, your callous efforts to sweep under the proverbial carpet the rubbish you have so aptly and insensibly created. For which you are responsible for, and you must be ashamed about.
Monday, 27 October 2008
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Credit crunch 'may hit UK growth'. What kind of growth are they talking about?
I read in the BBC website about the poor UK growth would be hit. What kind of growth is that, that individuals should be concerned about?
Economies would never ever change, if they continue to operate within the current monetary framework. Being all engrossed in an insane pursuit of a growth based on imaginary, man-made, artificial 'products', that they could be anything else but products.
Economies invented constructs, hanging over precariously; looming; barely supported on thin pillars; like snakes eating their own tails, with nothing solid underneath to sustain their existence, as they are drawn out of the short-sighted, ignorant insistence, to satisfy the needs of steadfastly prescribed monetary rules.
In states administrations, growth indicators become an obsession. Rigidly adhered administrations would account as growth anything that comes into their clutches, no matter where it is coming from. They would have easily accounted as growth even illicit activities, being these loots of bank robbers, drug profits, black market if it was in their hands and if they did not fear the public outcry.
Still they welcome in their folds anything, that ingenious entrepreneurs out of dragons dens out there, all eager to make a penny, make money for the money, so gave away the once free phone directory enquiry service to a horde of disparate providers, council-run car parking to aggressive greedy operators, with telecom companies charging the tenths of the seconds and lots of other initiatives, a mundane task to go through.
And this is the growth they are after? Growth based on thin air? Growth that draws its profits directly out of the pockets, of individuals in a society, being no different than an additional tax, that individuals could without it. No wonder economies fail. That there is a credit crunch, as individuals are squeezed even further, by what governments regard and relentlessly pursue, as growth.
Economies would never ever change, if they continue to operate within the current monetary framework. Being all engrossed in an insane pursuit of a growth based on imaginary, man-made, artificial 'products', that they could be anything else but products.
Economies invented constructs, hanging over precariously; looming; barely supported on thin pillars; like snakes eating their own tails, with nothing solid underneath to sustain their existence, as they are drawn out of the short-sighted, ignorant insistence, to satisfy the needs of steadfastly prescribed monetary rules.
In states administrations, growth indicators become an obsession. Rigidly adhered administrations would account as growth anything that comes into their clutches, no matter where it is coming from. They would have easily accounted as growth even illicit activities, being these loots of bank robbers, drug profits, black market if it was in their hands and if they did not fear the public outcry.
Still they welcome in their folds anything, that ingenious entrepreneurs out of dragons dens out there, all eager to make a penny, make money for the money, so gave away the once free phone directory enquiry service to a horde of disparate providers, council-run car parking to aggressive greedy operators, with telecom companies charging the tenths of the seconds and lots of other initiatives, a mundane task to go through.
And this is the growth they are after? Growth based on thin air? Growth that draws its profits directly out of the pockets, of individuals in a society, being no different than an additional tax, that individuals could without it. No wonder economies fail. That there is a credit crunch, as individuals are squeezed even further, by what governments regard and relentlessly pursue, as growth.
Friday, 17 October 2008
What does he perceives, a supposed Barack Obama led, USA socialist take over, would do to him?
"I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country,"
That is what a McCain supporter stated, in Waukesha, Wis., GOP rally on Thursday October 9, as I read in YAHOO News website post titled 'McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd'.
So socialists led by Barack Obama will take over USA? But that is not what strikes me and why I have singled out that particular phrase from that article. What I want to find out is ....
... What is he mad about? Socialists? And provided that Barack Obama and his followers are actually socialists, and if they are, then what kind of socialists. What then these socialists would do? Take over the country? And what would they do to the country? Or, is it not, more precisely, what would they do to him, or, what he perceives they will do to him.
In his mind, this thought is overriding, powerful to the point that he completely ignores the state his country is already in, a result unopposedly attributed to GOP administration, the country in the grip of a capitalist takeover. Yet, this is still not a matter to consider about, as easily or not, someone, or he himself could argue at length and probably successfully for the merits of capitalist supremacy, without making any difference to the route USA politics and subsequent administration takes.
What it matters, is why he is overwhelmed with anger as many other GOP supporters and why it seems, that the republicans as a party are not able to control. To my mind this attitude comes down to ignorance, a state of mind where none or very little of the properties of certain arrangements (the socialist in this case) are known, where the mind gets loose, imagination grows wild, rampant and confused.
That is what a McCain supporter stated, in Waukesha, Wis., GOP rally on Thursday October 9, as I read in YAHOO News website post titled 'McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd'.
So socialists led by Barack Obama will take over USA? But that is not what strikes me and why I have singled out that particular phrase from that article. What I want to find out is ....
... What is he mad about? Socialists? And provided that Barack Obama and his followers are actually socialists, and if they are, then what kind of socialists. What then these socialists would do? Take over the country? And what would they do to the country? Or, is it not, more precisely, what would they do to him, or, what he perceives they will do to him.
In his mind, this thought is overriding, powerful to the point that he completely ignores the state his country is already in, a result unopposedly attributed to GOP administration, the country in the grip of a capitalist takeover. Yet, this is still not a matter to consider about, as easily or not, someone, or he himself could argue at length and probably successfully for the merits of capitalist supremacy, without making any difference to the route USA politics and subsequent administration takes.
What it matters, is why he is overwhelmed with anger as many other GOP supporters and why it seems, that the republicans as a party are not able to control. To my mind this attitude comes down to ignorance, a state of mind where none or very little of the properties of certain arrangements (the socialist in this case) are known, where the mind gets loose, imagination grows wild, rampant and confused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)