wow, what a fantastic lady – Saker, I bet your perception of Bashar Assad has improved to the sky – once hearing his wife – and it seems to me so cool, that her love of her husband is based on her feeling that she finds him so easy to talk to –
I want to move to Syria. If I didn’t have animals, I would join the Syrian army – and help with whatever I could there.
Cannot have much time for this woman or her husband. They started off as pro westerners. Allowed NGO to freely do their work and lay the foundations of revolution, privatising the economy etc, these Assads are about as anglophile as they come. They should have known better. They did not value the Syrian state’s historic relations with Russia and refused to let them expand their bases. Now Russians are having to save secular Syria from the Islamists that the Syrians allowed to flourish.
What you say may or may not be true, that young, London-trained eye-doctor Bashar, and young English investment banker Asma started out “as Anglophile as you can get, privatizing the economy, cooling against Russia etc”. However, they seemed to have learnt from their mistakes: increasing social justice, holding the country together against tremendous disruptive forces, and firming the old ties with Russia. Personally I think this couple ranks with President Franklin and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt for intellect, good will and social action. The world would have to go back this past 80 years to find such another pair. And unlike the Roosevelt couple whose work was unravelled by Anglo Capitalists after the premature death of Franklin, the Assads are still young enough to do much good for their country. There will be much reconstruction needed after the Assads have led their country to victory over NATzO – but unlike poor Franklin, Dr.Bashar Assad is likely to live to continue his work at diminishing inequality of income, overcoming ethnic prejudice and promoting social justice according to the principles of true Islamic compassion and true Ba’ath Party socialism.
It is a disservice being done to the Assads in pretending they to be equivalent to the Roosevelts. President Roosevelt bailed out the banking system that had been causal in the Great Depression. He made a recession into a Great Depression with his inanities. He provoked war with Japan. He cared not what occurred to common Americans (indeed a Russian historian spent years studying the US census records pf the time of the Great Depression and concluded that several million Americans died during that time as the result of the state of the economy – he more politely put it as many people “were missing”). FDR spent more money developing the nuclear bomb than the Nazis did on their entire air force. That vile device ought to be forever known as the Roosevelt Weapon of Mass Civilian Slaughter so we remember who was responsible for making the decision to create the thing. FDR was the most disasterous President since Lincoln. Washington must have been rotating at 6,000rpm in his grave at what Rossevelt was doing!
In casting aside the fibs of the Roosevelt hagiography industry we must understand that the man was a member of the elite best remembered as summed up by Lippmann at the time, “He is no enemy of entrenched privilege. He is a pleasant man who without any important qualifications for office would like to be President.” Lippmann further identified FDR as “a highly impressionable person without firm grasp of public affairs and without firm convictions”, concluding, “He is no tribune of the people.” This was to be well borne out by the FDR’s duplicitous conduct and actions.
It is inappropriate to pretend Roosevelt is morally, let alone politically, comparable in quality to President Assad and Mrs Assad.
Walter Lipmann, “the dean of US journalists and shaper of public opinion” was a man who, no matter whether he was arguing for socialism or conservatism, pro-Soviet or anti-Soviet, always held a strong opinion – and presented both sides passionately in different years. Starting in the early 1900s as a socialist, by 1930 he had become a conservative – hence his 1932 conservative diatribe against Roosevelt as “a man without firm opinions”. I never took Lipmann seriously – except as “a shaper of public opinion” ie, a weather cock.
More serious is Roosevelt’s decisive role in the development of the atomic bomb. I have treated this in my drama, loosely based on the life of the pacifist Einstein, called “The Dicethrower”. God moves in mysterious ways: the path to Hell is sometimes paved with good intentions (though more often with bad). Our only hope seems to lie in cultivating an attitude of charity and humility. “Humility is endless”.
There is a saying that if a man is not a socialist at age twenty he has no heart, but that if he is not a capitalist by age thirty, he has no brain. An interesting saying indeed. Something like this applies to many, many people, fooled at first, learning and realising later. Count Lipmann amongst that number. And, of course, he got the nature of Roosevelt exactly right (as events were to demonstrate).
No contradiction, the IRIN report is dated 2008, eight years into the Bashar Assad presidency and 3 years before the NATzO invasion. Although IRIN is heavily pro Soros’s “White Helmets” and against “the Al-Assad regime”, as shown by its typical destabilization-provoking headline “Wealth gap widening” the actual text acknowledges the Syrian government’s priority and actual projects to reduce the wealth gap. Under President Dr.Bashar Assad and First Lady Asma things were slowly but surely improving in Syria – until US Ambassador Robert Ford arrived in 2010 to stir up social unrest and trigger the US supported ISIS invasion. IRIN seems to me one of the many NATzO “Humanitarian NGOs” (with a strong US, Swiss and Swedish contingent) whose main function seems to be stirring up dissatisfaction and social disintegration in resource rich countries like Ukraine, Sudan, Iraq, Syria and Congo (to name only the articles that I have glanced at) preparatory to the UN sponsoring a “Humanitarian Armed Intervention” and/or “No Fly Zone” under the recent “Right to Protect by Invasion”. From the articles that I have seen, IRIR tend to blame disasters on the environment and/or the local govt (e.g. drought or “the Al-Assad regime”) rather than “Humanitarian Intervention” by the armed forces of Western Capitalism.
“as shown by its typical destabilization-provoking headline “Wealth gap widening” the actual text acknowledges the Syrian government’s priority and actual projects to reduce the wealth gap. “
Do you consider this a similarly typical destabilization-provoking headline from the World Socialist Website? “Growing poverty in Syria By Jean Shaoul 13 July 2010”
“A report published by the General Federation of Trade Unions at the end of last year accused the government of precipitating a widening wealth gap and abandoning the country’s poor. It asked, “Where are the results of economic reform which we were told would begin with the Tenth Five Year Plan [launched in 2004]?”
“The rich have become richer and the poor poorer…low income families who make up 80 percent of the Syrian population are looking for additional work to support themselves”, the report continued.
Another report, an assessment of the Tenth Five Year plan by the State Planning Commission, pointed to rising prices and wide disparities in income that had worsened the plight of the 34.5 percent of the population living below the poverty line.”
If I remember correctly, IRIN is the Iranian Shortwave Radio broadcasting service? I used to listen to it years ago but cannot get good reception any more. Iran must have done a big turnaround in opinion if it was them who said that about Assad.
“So, how are the Rich Kids of Tehran getting away with it? Talking to 24-year-old Hamid, who follows the account, he explained that “80 percent of the kids feeding the account are the offsprings of the ruling elite”. RKOT is not simply about a wealthy minority, he said, but is the showcase of a political class’s progeny – exactly the same political class that advocates modest behaviour and self-restraint.”
Vice News? Is this the same Vice News which is peopled by characters like Ostrovsky and owned by Rupert Murdoch? I began questioning the motives and sources and not the report. Sensational, but not in a good way.
“Contemporary Iran is marked by social inequality, poverty and economic insecurity no less pronounced than under the Shah. While the regime routinely characterizes the US as the “Great Satan,” it has collaborated with the US invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. “
Sounds like WSW is an affiliate of Vice News.
Why not? Rupert Murdoch probably bought a controlling share in The Guardian.
Your attacks on an Iran, as deformed as it may be by the actions of the Anglo-Zionist Empire, would be better directed at the perpetrator than the victim.
Perhaps had the Empire not removed Mossadegh, we would not be having this, I fear, increasingly pointless discussion.
The WSW site is crammed with books by or about Trotsky. Many of today’s neo-cons are said to have started out as Trotskyites.They are also headquartered in empire country. So I think its safe to assume what their World agenda is.
“Ever since the Faustian pact between Margaret Thatcher and Murdoch, successive governments have come to rely on his media empire as a weapon with which to manipulate public opinion and create the ideological climate suited to the unrestrained rule of the super-rich. But during the last decade the illegal methods employed by Murdoch’s employees—which are ultimately the product of this same lack of political restraint—have gone so far that they now threaten to destabilise the entire apparatus of rule.”
You say “increasingly pointless discussion.”
It’s only pointless if you wish to cover-up (or support) the real source of the Global problem being – the rich.
The Empire is now a global class and what we now witness is a Global class war
Asma is better than any of these Western female politicians. Her anglo centric orientation is not a problem, just because she lived in England and speaks english well doesnt mean she supports Anglo Zionist government. In London I see a lot of young muslim women like Asma. They are intelligent and good looking. This type of Muslim should be encouraged and supported.
As if it didnt happen in our own countries, Norway, Britain, Germany, Sweden, Russia. Everywhere. Massive conglomeration, destruction of the welfare state, immigration without integration, etc.
The interviewer (I didn’t get her name) mentions Mrs Assad has been the target of some sanctions applied against her specifically. Does anyone know any details about those?
“On 23 March 2012, the European Union froze her assets and placed a travel ban on her and President Assad’s other close family members as part of escalating sanctions against the Syrian government.[31][32] Assad herself remains able to travel to the UK because of her British nationality but she is barred from entering the rest of the EU.[33]”
Britain was most likely the country which offered her “asylum” to abandon Syrias’ fate to the Western backed Wahabists. Naturally she refused because she is devoted to Bashar.
Bashaar and Asma are an amazing couple. It blows me away how they remain grounded with all that has happened and with what still faces them. If they were they face of the NWO, the future would be a lot brighter.
I visited the link you provided. It is a series of photographs taken during a state visit of the Syrian President and First Lady to Spain. In the photos they are being received by the King of Spain and a Princess of Spain. Standard diplomatic protocol. Completely innocuous.
Just because someone has more than you (i.e. they are rich and successful while you are not) does not make them necessarily evil or wrong. What is wrong is to allow the emotions of envy and jealousy to distort your view of reality. Always remember your personal shortcomings are your own. They are not the responsibility of someone else. Rather than spreading calumny against your betters, try to improve yourself and work to perfect your own life.
Turning now to what the original poster wrote, “It blows me away how they remain grounded”. It is difficult to imagine the stress these two have had to live with day in and day out. Remaining grounded, let alone able to take important decisions rationally amongst all the troubles and personal dangers that surround, that would be a difficult undertaking to succeed with. Given the content of this interview one can’t fail to be impressed; “blown away” being apt terminology, courageous being also applicable.
“(i.e. they are rich and successful while you are not) does not make them necessarily evil or wrong.”
Wealth is the source of oligarchy since individuals cannot be trusted to be benevolent. Wealth is also intrinsically the source of inequality.
Every time you were becoming rich (in a society that allowed that) you should try to use the horrendous influence that provides you with to change the society so that it did not occur (e.g strive for 99% Income tax laws on more than a meagre amount and similar rules for inheritance).
Before you achieve that societal state you should personally manage your financial affairs to duplicate (as nearly as possible) the society rules that you were striving for.
So even if it is by ommission (i.e. lack of thought for others) richness is evil and wrong.
The system that allows the Bill Gates of this world to fluorish is corrupt. Your conscience would be better served by Tin cans & strings than Windows.
PS: I have no “betters” (or no “worsers”) so, please, speak for yourself. You’d probably be better served thinking for yourself and not be “blown away” so often by your “betters”.
Firstly, a perverse lust for power over other people is the means and objective of oligarchy. That power is enabled by acquisition of monopoly use of coercive force against other individuals.
Secondly, in asserting that individuals cannot be trusted to be benevolent you also apply that notion to yourself- after all, you are an individual. What you are proposing is a malevolent theory of humanity wherein all are fundamentally untrustworthy, you included. Hence, you cannot trust even yourself. If such an assertion were correct civilisation would be impossible. People could not form societies and live together, let alone in proximity to each other.
Thirdly, it would appear that you can’t abide anyone else having more than you, being better than you, succeeding at what they do while you achieve little other than stewing in resentment and envy. What a frustrating hateful existence to lead!
Fourthly, individuals are not equal. They are each individual and unique. Some are better than others at various activities and tasks. Some strive and attempt to improve themselves better than others. Some attain important life goals better than others. Some are better than others as people overall.
Fifthly, there are many individuals who are better than you. They have superior skills, refinement, focus, application, attitude to life, knowledge, ability, code of conduct, are more productive and have a superior life plan. It is a fact of reality. What you must do is recognise that you are responsible for your own life and work to perfect your own life rather than stewing away in a state of angry resentment, envy of others and hate. While you are busy stewing away, life and all its wonder, opportunity, adventure and excitement is passing you by. Every day invested in the worthless pursuit of resentment of others is a day lost. It isn’t coming back and you are a day closer to the end of your life. Spend life deliberately and carefully. It is precious. Don’t waste it pointlessly.
Sixthly, no-one else owes you anything. You cannot live at the expense of someone else, even someone you direct your hatred towards.
Finally, your ideas of economics are unworkable. They will never be implemented in any form. They are based on the foolish notion that somehow you can force others, regardless of what they may wish, to do as you demand. The question is, why should anyone sacrifice themselves to you. The answer is, they shouldn’t. After all, as an individual, you can’t be trusted.
Siotu
P.S. Unlike those who stew away in a pot of emotionalism (envy and resentment) Mrs Assad, First Lady of Syria, is active working towards and achieving her goals- what she identifies as the right things to do.
1.“That power is enabled by acquisition of monopoly use of coercive force against other individuals. “
Rubbish – it can e.g. be handed you on a silver platter by way of inheritance.
2,“Secondly, in asserting that individuals cannot be trusted to be benevolent you also apply that notion to yourself- after all, you are an individual. “
True.
What you are proposing is a malevolent theory of humanity wherein all are fundamentally untrustworthy, you included.”
Er, where did I propose that? (but see my concluding remark)
“Hence, you cannot trust even yourself.”
Well, the question would probably be better posed to those who know my actions but I do trust myself more especially with increasing age.
3. it would appear that you can’t abide anyone else having more than you”
I already said income tax on more than a meagre amount should be taxed at 99%. That infers I can abide others having more than I.
1% of 1Billion USD is still 10Million – would you wish for more? While originality & hard work do have some monetary value I don’t see that much among the landed gentry or the Banksters. Nevertheless, as income rises the 99% should be much increased on some sliding scale.
“being better than you, succeeding at what they do while you achieve little other than stewing in resentment and envy. What a frustrating hateful existence to lead! “
My main occupation is software development. I am, generally, neither frustrated or envious. As I already said, others are not better (or worse) than me. They may be smarter than me, more motivated than me but what is your measure of achievement? e.g. could it be motivation to design a new gene therapy that can be patented and sold at massive cost to the already rich only? at fear of repetition…your conscience (or mine, at least) would be better served by Tin cans & strings than Windows. Of course, your individual “smartness” in developing the new gene therapy would be based on the cumulative sum of all previous open source human discovery – it did not appear miiraculously from the sweat of your brow, but you now consider it ok to profit by selling to the selected few?
I agree that sloth should not be “rewarded” but that is accounted for in a reasonable return of 1% of income above a reasonable amount – at that rate do you imagine everyone will become demotivated and suddenly wish to starve to death?
4.
We agree on all points.
5.
This is generally a repeat of your prior points 1-4 so I have no new comment.
6. “no-one else owes you anything. You cannot live at the expense of someone else”
Only if you consider human life as worthless. Without a social fabric e.g. the suddenly unemployed would be destitute & the ill would be treated similarly.
As we see the continuing decrease in bargaining power of the global working masses by way of global off-shoring to the lowest common denominator cost centre you can forecast an increasing trajectory of the “useless eaters”. There will be increasing poverty and increasing suicide rates. So you are correct in one sense – these people will increasingly “cannot live at the expense of someone else” (being you & your like minded rich friends).
I was going to ignore your last response, writing it off as not worthy of further consideration, but on this occasion while I was driving the car I thought about how important the principles you propose to violate actually are. While you remain wrong, and I suspect are unlikely to be persuaded to reconsider your position, I have done you the service of providing you correction of at least a little of the errors and falsehood you subscribe to. My suspicion is that the ideas you have promoted are not actually yours in that you didn’t develop them for yourself, rather they are a mish-mash of half-baked notions received from media, education and intellectual passivity. They appear to have been accepted without analysis or serious thought being expended due to them satisfying some emotion or feeling or other. My intent and hope is that you may at least follow up with some investigation and analysis of the fundamentals. In other words I am hoping this encourages you to look at the ideas and principles, do some research, analyse carefully and think hard on what you find.
1/. What I wrote was, “Firstly, a perverse lust for power over other people is the means and objective of oligarchy. That power is enabled by acquisition of monopoly use of coercive force against other individuals.”
The lust for power over other people is the problem. It is both the means and the objective. As stated it is enabled by monopoly use of coercive force over others.
Now in haste to hate people with more wealth than you, it is noteworthy that you focus on inheritance and completely avoid the fundamental issue. The fundamental is lust for power over other people and the use of coercive force to enable that. How much wealth someone has is not the point. Indeed that is quite a different subject to investigate. Still, it is telling that while you resent inheritance, you let a free pass to political thugs & oligarchs who did not inherit much wealth (if anything) at all. Some of the worst aggressors and totalitarians were (and are) not inheritors of wealth. They gained power and position by various nefarious and unsavoury deeds. Meanwhile there are inheritors of wealth who do not employ coercion and force against others. You evade this.
To be specific, it is not important if someone inherits wealth, even great wealth. The issue is what each person does with what they have, how they act, how they transact with others.
By the way, your proposals of 99% and greater taxation (theft) and the like necessarily require coercive force employed against other people. That is the only way you would be able to force those who disagree with you to obey your diktats. In this lust for power to see your ideas imposed upon all other people you are demonstrating common ground with the oligarchy you pretend to oppose. The similarities are striking. These are immoralities you’d do well to avoid.
2/. It is a matter of logic. Your argument necessarily leads to a malevolent theory of humanity. The consequences follow.
3/. “I already said income tax on more than a meagre amount should be taxed at 99%. That infers I can abide others having more than I.”
No. It means you can’t abide them having more since you want to steal as much away as you can by employing a third party (the government) to do the stealing, coercion and ultimately violence on your behalf.
What you are promoting is a scheme to steal 99% and more of someone else’s property in the first year and another 99% and more in the second year and so on. By eroding the capital base of a person so viciously it is only a matter of time before it becomes impossible for that person to continue to produce and earn as they previously did. From that point they quickly descend into penury, which, of course, is the objective of your idea.
“1% of 1Billion USD is still 10Million – would you wish for more?”
If I had eaned $1 billion it would mean that I have been very successful in producing that which people demand and are voluntarily transacting with me to acquire. This income would allow me to continue to do as I had been, further improve my output in quality and quantity to produce more goods and services than I presently am able to do. Anyway, why shouldn’t I wish for more? That’s a matter for myself and it is none of your business.
Further, in regards to the $1 billion, if it is mine, then it is mine. How it is allocated, saved, invested, improved, traded, transacted, sold, consumed or disposed of is then my business. What is mine is not yours. What is my property belongs to me. It is not up to you to apply coercive force against me. You are not entitled to anything I own. Neither are you entitled to decide for me what I wish for, what goals I set, how I direct my life- for my life is mine and not yours.
Similarly this applies to you also. Your property is yours. It is not someone else’s. It certainly isn’t mine. How you allocate, save, invest, improve, trade, transact, sell, consume or dispose of it is not my business or anyone else’s. It is yours. What is your property belongs to you. It is not up to someone else to apply coercive force against you to attain control over your property. Neither is anyone else entitled to decide for you what you wish for, what goals you set, how you direct your life- for your life is yours and not anyone else’s.
This applies to other people as well. It is not up to you to force the disposal of their property according to your wishes. How they allocate, save, invest, improve, trade, transact, sell, consume or dispose of it is not your business. It is theirs. What is another’s property belongs to them and not to you. Again, it is not up to you to apply coercive force against another to attain control over their property or to convert it for your purposes. You not entitled to decide for others what any of them wish for, what goals they set, how they direct their lives- for their lives are theirs and not yours.
==
“As I already said, others are not better (or worse) than me.”
And you said that the Assads were “rich scum”. In other words there are others who you consider to be worse than you. The self-contradiction is glaring.
You also said you agreed on all points with item four in my previous post. Again, self-contradiction.
People are not equal. Each is a unique individual. Some are better, some are worse. For example, in comparing the quality of First Lady Assad’s interview with what you have provided it is readily apparent that she is better than you. She is worthy of respect. Are you?
==
Turning now to your ideas in respect to the acquisition of wealth. It is clear that you subscribe to a version of the Labour Theory of Value. The theory is false. Value is not ascribed to a good or service according to labour content (that is, according to amount of “sweat of brow”). Value is awarded according to subjective basis. It is awarded individually. For example, two people may consider a good or a service quite differently and thus ascribe different values to it. Their awarded values may even change with time. Each person is different. Each is making an evaluation according to their specific context, circumstances, attributes, situation, desires, etc. This has important consequence. For one, it blows the Labour Theory of Value completely apart. People do not purchase goods or services according to how much labour was expended in provision of said goods or services. They purchase according to their subjective valuations. That is, how much THEY value the good or service at consideration at that particular time.
The fact that people value goods and services according to subjective preference is readily demonstrated. Some of my neighbours have strong preference for one type of brand over another. For example, there are people who prefer Mac to PC. Some of my neighbours are like this. Not so long ago they would express their strong preference for one over the other. When they got into discussions they would debate the qualities and attributes of their computers and which one is best. One would not buy what the other would buy. Similarly there are those who strongly prefer one car brand over another. And the same goes for clothing, sports, high fidelity audio equipment, food types, diet, restaurants, fitness regimes, houses, suburbs, schools, polytechnics, art, landscape, plants, universities, holiday locations, music, furniture, literature and on it goes. The point here is that they each value individually and that value may change with time. Their evaluation is subjective, exactly as are yours.
This has consequences that are vital to understand. Should I want to make an income I have to be able to supply to other people that which they will voluntarily purchase from me. If I have nothing they want, then they will not transact with me. If, on the other hand, I am able to supply goods or services they’d like to have, then they will want to transact with me. The challenges for me are two-fold. First, is for me to be able to supply items which other people value highly enough to want to acquire them. Second, I have to supply them at a price other people are willing to pay. If I am too expensive, then they will determine that my goods or services are not as valuable to them as what I am asking. I must then adjust my price downwards to meet their valuation or else they will not transact with me. If I get it right, then I receive custom and can be well rewarded, especially if I am providing goods or services that people value highly and/or many people demand. If I am too cheap, then they will determine that the goods and services are worth more than I am asking. I am likely to get a lot of custom in that situation. The trouble for me is that it will cost more for me to supply the goods and services than what I receive for them. In this case my fate is to become impecunious. My success or failure is solely down to understanding and satisfying other people’s values. This is absolutely key.
If I want to transact with any people, I need to understand what it is they value. If I am able to successfully produce that which what others value and that which they place at a greater value than my cost, then I can make a living. If I can’t, then I will have to change what I am doing. What I choose to produce, what service I provide, who it is I aim to attract, that is up to me. That is my business. What people will buy from me and at what value they are prepared to transact is up to them. They do not care how much labour I expend. They do care about what valuation they place on the item. If I offer it to them for a greater price than what they evaluate it to be worth, then I am not going to be able to transact with them. They will walk away. There is the saying, “the customer is king.” It is apt, for they surely are. The customer should be king. It is as it ought to be.
Recapping. The Labour Theory of Value is false. Value is awarded subjectively on an individual basis.
“but what is your measure of achievement?”
That is an entirely subjective evaluation also. Mine is determined according to what it is I am considering at the time. For example, when I am at the gym it is measured by how many reps of each exercise set I can achieve lately compared to what I could do when I first started on my current training plan. When I am swimming, it is how long it takes me to finish my laps compared to last week’s effort. When I am with the kids it is how much I have been able to teach them along with how much fin we are having. When I am racing a car it is the lap time and whether we win or place or not. When I am fishing, well you ought to get the idea…. What I measure and the metric I select to so do are subjective choices. Same goes for you.
” e.g. could it be motivation to design a new gene therapy that can be patented and sold at massive cost to the already rich only? at fear of repetition…your conscience (or mine, at least) would be better served by Tin cans & strings than Windows.”
Another example of a subjective evaluation. This one is yours. What you must understand is that you have no right to force your values on to other people. They may place great value on gene therapy or not, as the case may be. The therapy may work as intended or not, as the case may be. People may want to buy it or stay away, as the case may be. There may be better solutions or not, as the case may be. People may avoid the health issue your splicing addresses by lifestyle decisions or they may not, as the case may be. They may be wealthy people or they may not be, as the case may be. People make their choices according to their own valuation, not yours. If you can meet the demands of their valuations you can make a good living, grow and provide even more. So long as you are providing what they want you will be rewarded. Get it wrong and you soon won’t be as well rewarded at all. This is another key point. An important reason why a person ought to keep what he or she earns is that they are demonstrating success in deployment of resource to meet the demands of other people. The better they are able to do it, the better they are rewarded. It is the very best means of ensuring that those who are best at efficiently utilising resource to satisfy the demands of other people are enabled and encouraged to continue to so do.
Of course, there are no guarantees in this. If a previously successful person makes an error and gets it wrong in that what they produce is no longer in demand, then the revenue stream reduces or even dries up. That is a big feedback signal, one which is more than difficult to ignore.
I have Windows installed on two of my computers and use it- it is convenient and increases productivity by saving a whole lot of time. I purchase tin cans with foodstuff within them. When they have been emptied and the foodstuffs consumed I use some of the tin cans for storing mechanical fasteners and the like. I use string for holding the tomato plants and the grape vines to trellis. I have been known to use string as a fix when shoe laces break. Sometimes I use string to tie up a parcel, but not so often these days as tape is better. Each thing for its correct purpose. No need to revert to primitive means. While this may bother you for some reason, well, that is your own subjective evaluation and it is unshared with the vast majority of people.
“Of course, your individual “smartness” in developing the new gene therapy would be based on the cumulative sum of all previous open source human discovery – it did not appear miiraculously from the sweat of your brow, but you now consider it ok to profit by selling to the selected few?”
This is a subjective evaluation also. Anyway, “smartness” has little to do with the ability to generate great wealth. It is an attribute of the individual that may be useful, but it is not causal when it comes to actual ability to earn. There was an interesting book published a while back. I think it was “The Millionaire Mind” or something like that. It demonstrated that some of the smartest people around (professors, holders of post-graduate qualifications such as doctorates and the like, senior bureaucrats, well qualified knowledge specialists of various sorts) were as a group not as wealthy as those that were considered unintelligent i.e. not smart. The book disclosed the mind-set of the builder of personal wealth. This was very often a person who was a tradesman or who had no qualification whatsoever. They certainly were not of the smart class. Smartness is not a strong indicator of wealth generation.
“I agree that sloth should not be “rewarded” but that is accounted for in a reasonable return of 1% of income above a reasonable amount – at that rate do you imagine everyone will become demotivated and suddenly wish to starve to death?”
Your “reasonable 1%” is yet another subjective evaluation. Your “reasonable amount” is also a subjective evaluation. The core problem with your approach is that you would have it that everyone would be forced to live under your subjective evaluations and not by their own. The only way this could be accomplished would be to erect a totalitarian central government and initiate violence against all who disagree with you. Actually, the reality is that you aint reasonable at all!
4/. Do we really? Evidence suggests otherwise.
5/. This was the application to the specific case- in this instance you. This is the area you ought to have considered most carefully.
6/. I wrote, “no-one else owes you anything. You cannot live at the expense of someone else”
To which you replied, “Only if you consider human life as worthless.”
Not so. One does not demonstrate a concern for the value of human life by coercion, fraud, theft and violence (which is what you are proposing). Human life is not worthless. That is why I respect the property of each person whether in themselves or in what they own. You ought to as well. I do not advocate taking their stuff. You should not advocate taking that which does not belong to you either. You ought not to advocate taking that which belongs to others. To do what you are promoting is the opposite of respecting human life. What you are promoting is the notion that people are slaves to be consumed for what you deem as a higher purpose- “higher” in that it is more valuable to you than are the people whom you would loot or destroy to attain your ends.
Again, had you considered that to achieve what you promote you would need an all-powerful state with all the huge apparatus of coercion and violence that entails? Think where that leads.
Always remember, you do not have the right to subjugate even one other person, not even by authorising a third party to do the subjugation on your behalf.
==
Re unemployment and similar personal crises. Do you not have friends, family, a local community or charity of which you are an active member? For that is how the civilised deal with adversity. They have community which they utilise to solve the problems themselves. What is most important is that it is done by individuals who are familiar with each other and they do it voluntarily. It is not something that is imposed from without or from above.
My experience of unemployment is this. When it happens (and I suspect it is going to happen for you in the not too distant future, that or a significant financial crisis of some sort) you ought to have some savings accumulated. You also ought to have a Plan B. Have you already been in contact with other employers? Do you have a network of contacts throughout your area or throughout your industry from which you glean knowledge of opportunities and what is happening? You should have. You need to know where you can go to pick up a new opportunity as quickly as possible. You should be ready to put your Plan B into effect immediately. Some I know activated their Plan B as soon as redundancies were announced even though they were not the ones who were under threat of job loss. The attitude was that if the employer is laying people off, then that employer is in trouble. Time to move on to a better, more prosperous, more stable outfit or even move on to superior climes.
Now if you have been careless enough not to have taken the precaution of saving for a rainy day, if you have been careless enough not to know what is going on and reckless enough not to have ensured you have contacts and options, well then you have indeed been extremely foolish. That lack of preparation for a completely foreseeable event is naive to the point of personal delinquency. It is juvenile and while I can see y of it occurring for a young person who has only recently entered the workforce for the very beginning of a career, there is no excuse for a grown adult to have behaved in such fashion- completely irresponsible. Still, even then, even in that situation there are solutions. There are actions that can be taken that do not involve stealing from others or having the commissars do it on your oh so helpless behalf. Here is what can be done.
Approach friends and family for assistance. They will be amenable to help. They may offer food, shelter, even lend money in an emergency (some will not even expect remuneration because they love and value you so much). They can provide advice and introductions to other people and opportunities. They may find alternative employment for you or vouch for you to potential employers. Your family members and friends are the people closest to you and they know you best. They can help you find your feet again. They are the #1 very best support network you can ever have, far superior to some faceless bureaucrat, commissar, case manager or oligarch for whom you are just a cypher, an eater to be fed and led. Why would you ever put yourself in the hands of a member of the nomenklatura who does not even know you personally, let alone care about you, in preference to your own friends or your own family?
If you are unfortunate enough not to have a family or any friends (Why, pray tell, might that be? What have you been doing with yourself all these years?), all is still not lost. There are charities and community organisations and clubs (I assume you have been in active support and involvement in some of the organisations that surround you. If not, why not? How can you speak of a society if you restrict your interactions with the people who form it? How can you speak of how it a society or community is formed when you do so little to involve yourself in it, let alone contribute to it? Where is your community if you are not active within it, hence not a part of it?). In your time of need, charities, community organisations and clubs can be approached to help you get back on your feet. Some will even make loans for you to start your own business! There are quite a few I know of that give grants.
Now here is the thing about these outfits. They are voluntary. They are operated by people in the local community. These are people who will know you or know of you. They have a great amount of information and can give you leads. And yes, they can feed you, clothe you, provide a shelter if necessary. They are all there. I would think that you are presently a member of a few local outfits in your community providing support for those who have already fallen on hard times… Well, you should be. And you should be contributing greatly, after all it is you who pretend to care for the unemployed and the sick etc. Invest some of your own time and money and avoid demanding the property of others be garnished for your aesthetic sensibilities.
BTW there is nothing presently preventing you from delivering most of YOUR own income to charitable organisations right away. Right now. Go do it. No more talkee, talkee. Time for doee, doee. Else you’d be a hypocrite. And we don’t want that!
==
It is clear your ideology reduced to practice demands the creation of a class of overlords, a class of oligarchs by another name, although one with a lot more power. It is these overlords who would be in control of everyone else. You would grant them power over all others so that they could ensure the collection of the 99% tribute, convert it and then direct it to whatever ends they determined (and it would not necessarily be the ends you support that they’d choose). You would grant them enormous revenue which you would trust them to direct as you would like them to. And here is yet another one of your self-contradictions laid bare, for you have previously claimed, “individuals cannot be trusted to be benevolent.” You must really believe they would, as the saying goes, respect you in the morning….
==
Your economics are unworkable because, apart from their criminal immorality, they invoke the problem of Socialist Calculation. It is insolvable. Still, that does not appear to have halted totalitarians and the like (and even the misled and ignorant) from trying to solve it at the costs of tremendous suffering, destruction of wealth, coercion, torture, rape, looting, warfare, violence, massive suffering, hundreds of millions of people’s lives etc. Nor does it appear to have halted the acolytes of such destruction and slaughter from repeating the patently false ideas that empower totalitarians, oligarchs, psychopaths and enable them to do as they have done. In this day and age there is no excuse not to know better. Wilful ignorance is immoral. You really ought to avoid it.
“I was going to ignore your last respons…[]…Now in haste to hate people with more wealth than you”
Nothing new – no comment
“Still, it is telling that while you resent inheritance, you let a free pass to political thugs & oligarchs who did not inherit much wealth (if anything) at all.”
Where did I give this free pass? (those you identify are among the most self-centred).
“To be specific, it is not important if someone inherits wealth, even great wealth. The issue is what each person does with what they have, how they act, how they transact with others. “
It is important. Wealth inheritance imparts unfair advantage – for example better education. The unfair advantage could be used as a wholly selfish device and, more often than not, is.
“What you are promoting is a scheme to steal 99% and more of someone else’s property in the first year and another 99% and more in the second year and so on. By eroding the capital base of a person so viciously it is only a matter of time before it becomes impossible for that person to continue to produce and earn as they previously did.”
Stealing? you may wish to call it reapportioning. If the meagre amount (prior 99% taxation) was of sufficient quantity to enable comfortable existence why could you not continue to produce & earn? of course, the social fund has grown by the 99% taxation amount and all public amenities are also available to you.
” From that point they quickly descend into penury, which, of course, is the objective of your idea”
Whoa, you have a vivid imagination. A meagre income does not infer poverty. There is no reason why the social fund could not be large and provide, sustainable, comfort for all.
“Anyway, why shouldn’t I wish for more? That’s a matter for myself and it is none of your business. “
It is when there’s not enough to go around – just because you’ve stashed it all under your bed.
“Further, in regards to the $1 billion, if it is mine, then it is mine. How it is allocated, saved, invested, improved, traded, transacted, sold, consumed or disposed of is then my business. What is mine is not yours. What is my property belongs to me. It is not up to you to apply coercive force against me. You are not entitled to anything I own. Neither are you entitled to decide for me what I wish for, what goals I set, how I direct my life- for my life is mine and not yours. “
If I can’t get a job and the kids are starving you can bet i’ll use plenty of “coercive power” – but i’ll also bet you’ve got a private army waiting and can enjoy some sport watching them kill me.
“And you said that the Assads were “rich scum”. In other words there are others who you consider to be worse than you. The self-contradiction is glaring.”
True – I erred. Of course Individuals are unique and more or less self-centred. Only those with equal care for others (assuming high sel-care) deserve respect. First Lady Assad is therefore due no respect.
““but what is your measure of achievement?”
That is an entirely subjective evaluation also”
If you develop the life-saving drug and sell to the rich only for your maximum profit while I die then my (and the vast majority of the population’s) subjective evaluation would be that you are due zero respect.
“I have Windows installed on two of my computers and use it- it is convenient and increases productivity by saving a whole lot of time.”
Your increased productivity might lead to a cure for cancer (for which only the rich may benefit) or the implementation of robotic systems (that result in the loss of occupation of millions of jobs). Your time saving could be the downfall of many others.
“The only way this could be accomplished would be to erect a totalitarian central government and initiate violence against all who disagree with you.”
Well, since individual’s, like you, don’t care whether individual’s like me live or die that is precisely what is required.
“Actually, the reality is that you aint reasonable at all!”
And the cure for cancer for the rich only is?
“Human life is not worthless. That is why I respect the property of each person whether in themselves or in what they own. You ought to as well. I do not advocate taking their stuff.”
You might if your child is dying and you don’t have enough to pay for the cure.
“Always remember, you do not have the right to subjugate even one other person, not even by authorising a third party to do the subjugation on your behalf.”
As exemplifiied, situation specific, that is exactly what I have the right to do.
“Re unemployment and similar personal crises. Do you not have friends, family, a local community or charity of which you are an active member? For that is how the civilised deal with adversity”
There are good & bad individuals – that is precisely why it should be the responsibility of society to provide the support. An introvert cannot be blamed for his unfriendly disposition.
“Now if you have been careless enough not to have taken the precaution of saving for a rainy day”
“BTW there is nothing presently preventing you from delivering most of YOUR own income to charitable organisations right away. Right now. Go do it. No more talkee, talkee. Time for doee, doee. Else you’d be a hypocrite. And we don’t want that!”
This is absurd – you have zero idea of my personal circumstances.
“It is clear your ideology reduced to practice demands the creation of a class of overlords, a class of oligarchs by another name, although one with a lot more power. It is these overlords who would be in control of everyone else.”
Are these not the same overlords you currently call the Republicans or Democrats or Conservatives or Labour? Do you imagine a revolt when the new Tax regime is announced after the blinkers have been removed from the masses eyes and they realise they have been hoodwinked by your selfishness (and cronies) all along?
Let me know when you have donated everything you own to the masses and you are reduced to wearing a grass skirt and rubbing two sticks together to make a fire. Until then you are showing your hypocrisy.
None of the ruling elite in our World is not wealthy (sadly). The “trick” is to be able to discern the ones of those that also have the peoples interests in their agenda. If we deny support to a leader that “might” help us,because they are wealthy. Then we will never have any help from politicians ever.
“The other 7 grand dukes of Russia were all captured and executed along with their entire family and all their relatives.
or Otherwise avoid repercussions from the new regime?
A small number became Bolsheviks themselves and escaped destruction, but most such people remained under a shadow of suspicion for the rest of their lives. One example was David Bronstein (known as “Trotsky”). Bronstein was the son of a wealthy factory owner and he became an important Bolshevik. Eventually he had to flee the country and was assassinated in Mexico.
Were those that evaded the risk to their lives able to keep much of their wealth?
No. The ones who escaped took what they could in movable valuables, but typically this was only a tiny fraction of their wealth, which was mostly tied up in land or other non-movable assets. A few had foreign bonds, notably French bonds, and this allowed them to remain rich after fleeing, but this was only a small number of people. The large majority of the refugees escaped with nothing but the shirt on their backs.
When you read about rich Russians in exile, in most cases those were Russian nobles who were already living in Western Europe at the time of the revolution and just stayed where they were. In those cases they were able to maintain their lifestyles somewhat, but of course their income was terminated, so they only had what savings had been set aside.
Was their lifestyle impacted significantly?
Obviously.
The life of an exile is lonely. I remember when I was a student at Princeton many years ago, several times in the very early morning, just at dawn, staggering back from the parties, once or twice I saw an elderly woman walking a large Russian wolfhound on the greens of the campus. This was one of the Great Russians (Bolshoi Russky) who had escaped when she was a little girl. She walked in such a graceful and delicate way that you cannot imagine, yet with her gaze fixed ahead, oblivious, like she was drifting through another world, and I was only seeing her ghostly shadow. It is an isolation and loneliness beyond comprehension.”
Globalism in essence is not a source of Poverty. For Example China,Thailand,Russia and Laos are collaborating in building a new rail route in south Asia. This is globalist activity but it will not benefit the West at all, it will be very damaging to them. It is about American based ultracapitalist hegemony against mutual co operative internationalism, which China calls Win Win deals.
wow, what a fantastic lady – Saker, I bet your perception of Bashar Assad has improved to the sky – once hearing his wife – and it seems to me so cool, that her love of her husband is based on her feeling that she finds him so easy to talk to –
I want to move to Syria. If I didn’t have animals, I would join the Syrian army – and help with whatever I could there.
Out of place but have to share this.
James O’Keefe series on campaign shenanigans at Project Veritas Action:
Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
Rigging the Election – Video II: Mass Voter Fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
More to come on a weekly basis.
Now you know the main reasons why the Dems love their illegal aliens, putting folks into homelessness and useful freaks of all flavors…
Cannot have much time for this woman or her husband. They started off as pro westerners. Allowed NGO to freely do their work and lay the foundations of revolution, privatising the economy etc, these Assads are about as anglophile as they come. They should have known better. They did not value the Syrian state’s historic relations with Russia and refused to let them expand their bases. Now Russians are having to save secular Syria from the Islamists that the Syrians allowed to flourish.
like Libya…
What you say may or may not be true, that young, London-trained eye-doctor Bashar, and young English investment banker Asma started out “as Anglophile as you can get, privatizing the economy, cooling against Russia etc”. However, they seemed to have learnt from their mistakes: increasing social justice, holding the country together against tremendous disruptive forces, and firming the old ties with Russia. Personally I think this couple ranks with President Franklin and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt for intellect, good will and social action. The world would have to go back this past 80 years to find such another pair. And unlike the Roosevelt couple whose work was unravelled by Anglo Capitalists after the premature death of Franklin, the Assads are still young enough to do much good for their country. There will be much reconstruction needed after the Assads have led their country to victory over NATzO – but unlike poor Franklin, Dr.Bashar Assad is likely to live to continue his work at diminishing inequality of income, overcoming ethnic prejudice and promoting social justice according to the principles of true Islamic compassion and true Ba’ath Party socialism.
Good reply, I wanted to contribute myself but you’ve said it all, just what I wanted to say.
Thank you Dr Maroudas.
It is a disservice being done to the Assads in pretending they to be equivalent to the Roosevelts. President Roosevelt bailed out the banking system that had been causal in the Great Depression. He made a recession into a Great Depression with his inanities. He provoked war with Japan. He cared not what occurred to common Americans (indeed a Russian historian spent years studying the US census records pf the time of the Great Depression and concluded that several million Americans died during that time as the result of the state of the economy – he more politely put it as many people “were missing”). FDR spent more money developing the nuclear bomb than the Nazis did on their entire air force. That vile device ought to be forever known as the Roosevelt Weapon of Mass Civilian Slaughter so we remember who was responsible for making the decision to create the thing. FDR was the most disasterous President since Lincoln. Washington must have been rotating at 6,000rpm in his grave at what Rossevelt was doing!
In casting aside the fibs of the Roosevelt hagiography industry we must understand that the man was a member of the elite best remembered as summed up by Lippmann at the time, “He is no enemy of entrenched privilege. He is a pleasant man who without any important qualifications for office would like to be President.” Lippmann further identified FDR as “a highly impressionable person without firm grasp of public affairs and without firm convictions”, concluding, “He is no tribune of the people.” This was to be well borne out by the FDR’s duplicitous conduct and actions.
It is inappropriate to pretend Roosevelt is morally, let alone politically, comparable in quality to President Assad and Mrs Assad.
Siotu
Walter Lipmann, “the dean of US journalists and shaper of public opinion” was a man who, no matter whether he was arguing for socialism or conservatism, pro-Soviet or anti-Soviet, always held a strong opinion – and presented both sides passionately in different years. Starting in the early 1900s as a socialist, by 1930 he had become a conservative – hence his 1932 conservative diatribe against Roosevelt as “a man without firm opinions”. I never took Lipmann seriously – except as “a shaper of public opinion” ie, a weather cock.
More serious is Roosevelt’s decisive role in the development of the atomic bomb. I have treated this in my drama, loosely based on the life of the pacifist Einstein, called “The Dicethrower”. God moves in mysterious ways: the path to Hell is sometimes paved with good intentions (though more often with bad). Our only hope seems to lie in cultivating an attitude of charity and humility. “Humility is endless”.
WRT Lipmann
He learned. Some don’t.
There is a saying that if a man is not a socialist at age twenty he has no heart, but that if he is not a capitalist by age thirty, he has no brain. An interesting saying indeed. Something like this applies to many, many people, fooled at first, learning and realising later. Count Lipmann amongst that number. And, of course, he got the nature of Roosevelt exactly right (as events were to demonstrate).
Siotu
“Dr.Bashar Assad is likely to live to continue his work at diminishing inequality of income”
This indicates that he was, rather, working at increasing inequality http://www.irinnews.org/report/76607/syria-wealth-gap-widening-inflation-hits-poor (Feb 2008).
If he was actually increasing inequality, how could he continue to diminish it (logical contradiction, no?)
No contradiction, the IRIN report is dated 2008, eight years into the Bashar Assad presidency and 3 years before the NATzO invasion. Although IRIN is heavily pro Soros’s “White Helmets” and against “the Al-Assad regime”, as shown by its typical destabilization-provoking headline “Wealth gap widening” the actual text acknowledges the Syrian government’s priority and actual projects to reduce the wealth gap. Under President Dr.Bashar Assad and First Lady Asma things were slowly but surely improving in Syria – until US Ambassador Robert Ford arrived in 2010 to stir up social unrest and trigger the US supported ISIS invasion. IRIN seems to me one of the many NATzO “Humanitarian NGOs” (with a strong US, Swiss and Swedish contingent) whose main function seems to be stirring up dissatisfaction and social disintegration in resource rich countries like Ukraine, Sudan, Iraq, Syria and Congo (to name only the articles that I have glanced at) preparatory to the UN sponsoring a “Humanitarian Armed Intervention” and/or “No Fly Zone” under the recent “Right to Protect by Invasion”. From the articles that I have seen, IRIR tend to blame disasters on the environment and/or the local govt (e.g. drought or “the Al-Assad regime”) rather than “Humanitarian Intervention” by the armed forces of Western Capitalism.
“as shown by its typical destabilization-provoking headline “Wealth gap widening” the actual text acknowledges the Syrian government’s priority and actual projects to reduce the wealth gap. “
Do you consider this a similarly typical destabilization-provoking headline from the World Socialist Website? “Growing poverty in Syria By Jean Shaoul 13 July 2010”
“A report published by the General Federation of Trade Unions at the end of last year accused the government of precipitating a widening wealth gap and abandoning the country’s poor. It asked, “Where are the results of economic reform which we were told would begin with the Tenth Five Year Plan [launched in 2004]?”
“The rich have become richer and the poor poorer…low income families who make up 80 percent of the Syrian population are looking for additional work to support themselves”, the report continued.
Another report, an assessment of the Tenth Five Year plan by the State Planning Commission, pointed to rising prices and wide disparities in income that had worsened the plight of the 34.5 percent of the population living below the poverty line.”
Apologies,
the WSW link https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/07/soci-j13.html for above quote.
If I remember correctly, IRIN is the Iranian Shortwave Radio broadcasting service? I used to listen to it years ago but cannot get good reception any more. Iran must have done a big turnaround in opinion if it was them who said that about Assad.
“Iran must have done a big turnaround”
Yes, the ones “who matter” are doing just fine…
Iran http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/meet-the-rich-kids-of-tehran
“So, how are the Rich Kids of Tehran getting away with it? Talking to 24-year-old Hamid, who follows the account, he explained that “80 percent of the kids feeding the account are the offsprings of the ruling elite”. RKOT is not simply about a wealthy minority, he said, but is the showcase of a political class’s progeny – exactly the same political class that advocates modest behaviour and self-restraint.”
Vice News? Is this the same Vice News which is peopled by characters like Ostrovsky and owned by Rupert Murdoch? I began questioning the motives and sources and not the report. Sensational, but not in a good way.
“I began questioning the motives and sources and not the report.”
Did you get anywhere else after you began, or was that it?
You’d probably be better off beginning with the substance, or maybe this doesn’t suit either?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/02/pers-f11.html
“Contemporary Iran is marked by social inequality, poverty and economic insecurity no less pronounced than under the Shah. While the regime routinely characterizes the US as the “Great Satan,” it has collaborated with the US invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. “
Sounds like WSW is an affiliate of Vice News.
Why not? Rupert Murdoch probably bought a controlling share in The Guardian.
Your attacks on an Iran, as deformed as it may be by the actions of the Anglo-Zionist Empire, would be better directed at the perpetrator than the victim.
Perhaps had the Empire not removed Mossadegh, we would not be having this, I fear, increasingly pointless discussion.
The WSW site is crammed with books by or about Trotsky. Many of today’s neo-cons are said to have started out as Trotskyites.They are also headquartered in empire country. So I think its safe to assume what their World agenda is.
“Sounds like WSW is an affiliate of Vice News”
It’s WSWM (World Socialist Web Site)
Here’s what they have to say about Murdoch:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/05/murd-m25.html
“Ever since the Faustian pact between Margaret Thatcher and Murdoch, successive governments have come to rely on his media empire as a weapon with which to manipulate public opinion and create the ideological climate suited to the unrestrained rule of the super-rich. But during the last decade the illegal methods employed by Murdoch’s employees—which are ultimately the product of this same lack of political restraint—have gone so far that they now threaten to destabilise the entire apparatus of rule.”
You say
“increasingly pointless discussion.”
It’s only pointless if you wish to cover-up (or support) the real source of the Global problem being – the rich.
The Empire is now a global class and what we now witness is a Global class war
“So I think its safe to assume what their World agenda is.”
Ubob – please make sense (you usually do) andicomment on the content.
No more benevolent Monarch’s man – get up off your knees.
Asma is better than any of these Western female politicians. Her anglo centric orientation is not a problem, just because she lived in England and speaks english well doesnt mean she supports Anglo Zionist government. In London I see a lot of young muslim women like Asma. They are intelligent and good looking. This type of Muslim should be encouraged and supported.
Ah common.
As if it didnt happen in our own countries, Norway, Britain, Germany, Sweden, Russia. Everywhere. Massive conglomeration, destruction of the welfare state, immigration without integration, etc.
We all suck.. We all (removed,MOD) suck.
The interviewer (I didn’t get her name) mentions Mrs Assad has been the target of some sanctions applied against her specifically. Does anyone know any details about those?
Siotu
“On 23 March 2012, the European Union froze her assets and placed a travel ban on her and President Assad’s other close family members as part of escalating sanctions against the Syrian government.[31][32] Assad herself remains able to travel to the UK because of her British nationality but she is barred from entering the rest of the EU.[33]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_al-Assad
Britain was most likely the country which offered her “asylum” to abandon Syrias’ fate to the Western backed Wahabists. Naturally she refused because she is devoted to Bashar.
Bashaar and Asma are an amazing couple. It blows me away how they remain grounded with all that has happened and with what still faces them. If they were they face of the NWO, the future would be a lot brighter.
“It blows me away how they remain grounded”
They are not “grounded” – they are rich scum http://www.gettyimages.in/event/spanish-royals-receive-sirian-president-102268368#princess-letizia-of-spain-and-king-juan-carlos-of-spain-receive-arab-picture-id102619682
Anonymous
I visited the link you provided. It is a series of photographs taken during a state visit of the Syrian President and First Lady to Spain. In the photos they are being received by the King of Spain and a Princess of Spain. Standard diplomatic protocol. Completely innocuous.
Just because someone has more than you (i.e. they are rich and successful while you are not) does not make them necessarily evil or wrong. What is wrong is to allow the emotions of envy and jealousy to distort your view of reality. Always remember your personal shortcomings are your own. They are not the responsibility of someone else. Rather than spreading calumny against your betters, try to improve yourself and work to perfect your own life.
Turning now to what the original poster wrote, “It blows me away how they remain grounded”. It is difficult to imagine the stress these two have had to live with day in and day out. Remaining grounded, let alone able to take important decisions rationally amongst all the troubles and personal dangers that surround, that would be a difficult undertaking to succeed with. Given the content of this interview one can’t fail to be impressed; “blown away” being apt terminology, courageous being also applicable.
Siotu
“(i.e. they are rich and successful while you are not) does not make them necessarily evil or wrong.”
Wealth is the source of oligarchy since individuals cannot be trusted to be benevolent. Wealth is also intrinsically the source of inequality.
Every time you were becoming rich (in a society that allowed that) you should try to use the horrendous influence that provides you with to change the society so that it did not occur (e.g strive for 99% Income tax laws on more than a meagre amount and similar rules for inheritance).
Before you achieve that societal state you should personally manage your financial affairs to duplicate (as nearly as possible) the society rules that you were striving for.
So even if it is by ommission (i.e. lack of thought for others) richness is evil and wrong.
The system that allows the Bill Gates of this world to fluorish is corrupt. Your conscience would be better served by Tin cans & strings than Windows.
PS: I have no “betters” (or no “worsers”) so, please, speak for yourself. You’d probably be better served thinking for yourself and not be “blown away” so often by your “betters”.
Anonymous
You are wrong.
Firstly, a perverse lust for power over other people is the means and objective of oligarchy. That power is enabled by acquisition of monopoly use of coercive force against other individuals.
Secondly, in asserting that individuals cannot be trusted to be benevolent you also apply that notion to yourself- after all, you are an individual. What you are proposing is a malevolent theory of humanity wherein all are fundamentally untrustworthy, you included. Hence, you cannot trust even yourself. If such an assertion were correct civilisation would be impossible. People could not form societies and live together, let alone in proximity to each other.
Thirdly, it would appear that you can’t abide anyone else having more than you, being better than you, succeeding at what they do while you achieve little other than stewing in resentment and envy. What a frustrating hateful existence to lead!
Fourthly, individuals are not equal. They are each individual and unique. Some are better than others at various activities and tasks. Some strive and attempt to improve themselves better than others. Some attain important life goals better than others. Some are better than others as people overall.
Fifthly, there are many individuals who are better than you. They have superior skills, refinement, focus, application, attitude to life, knowledge, ability, code of conduct, are more productive and have a superior life plan. It is a fact of reality. What you must do is recognise that you are responsible for your own life and work to perfect your own life rather than stewing away in a state of angry resentment, envy of others and hate. While you are busy stewing away, life and all its wonder, opportunity, adventure and excitement is passing you by. Every day invested in the worthless pursuit of resentment of others is a day lost. It isn’t coming back and you are a day closer to the end of your life. Spend life deliberately and carefully. It is precious. Don’t waste it pointlessly.
Sixthly, no-one else owes you anything. You cannot live at the expense of someone else, even someone you direct your hatred towards.
Finally, your ideas of economics are unworkable. They will never be implemented in any form. They are based on the foolish notion that somehow you can force others, regardless of what they may wish, to do as you demand. The question is, why should anyone sacrifice themselves to you. The answer is, they shouldn’t. After all, as an individual, you can’t be trusted.
Siotu
P.S. Unlike those who stew away in a pot of emotionalism (envy and resentment) Mrs Assad, First Lady of Syria, is active working towards and achieving her goals- what she identifies as the right things to do.
1.“That power is enabled by acquisition of monopoly use of coercive force against other individuals. “
Rubbish – it can e.g. be handed you on a silver platter by way of inheritance.
2,“Secondly, in asserting that individuals cannot be trusted to be benevolent you also apply that notion to yourself- after all, you are an individual. “
True.
What you are proposing is a malevolent theory of humanity wherein all are fundamentally untrustworthy, you included.”
Er, where did I propose that? (but see my concluding remark)
“Hence, you cannot trust even yourself.”
Well, the question would probably be better posed to those who know my actions but I do trust myself more especially with increasing age.
3. it would appear that you can’t abide anyone else having more than you”
I already said income tax on more than a meagre amount should be taxed at 99%. That infers I can abide others having more than I.
1% of 1Billion USD is still 10Million – would you wish for more? While originality & hard work do have some monetary value I don’t see that much among the landed gentry or the Banksters. Nevertheless, as income rises the 99% should be much increased on some sliding scale.
“being better than you, succeeding at what they do while you achieve little other than stewing in resentment and envy. What a frustrating hateful existence to lead! “
My main occupation is software development. I am, generally, neither frustrated or envious. As I already said, others are not better (or worse) than me. They may be smarter than me, more motivated than me but what is your measure of achievement? e.g. could it be motivation to design a new gene therapy that can be patented and sold at massive cost to the already rich only? at fear of repetition…your conscience (or mine, at least) would be better served by Tin cans & strings than Windows. Of course, your individual “smartness” in developing the new gene therapy would be based on the cumulative sum of all previous open source human discovery – it did not appear miiraculously from the sweat of your brow, but you now consider it ok to profit by selling to the selected few?
I agree that sloth should not be “rewarded” but that is accounted for in a reasonable return of 1% of income above a reasonable amount – at that rate do you imagine everyone will become demotivated and suddenly wish to starve to death?
4.
We agree on all points.
5.
This is generally a repeat of your prior points 1-4 so I have no new comment.
6.
“no-one else owes you anything. You cannot live at the expense of someone else”
Only if you consider human life as worthless. Without a social fabric e.g. the suddenly unemployed would be destitute & the ill would be treated similarly.
As we see the continuing decrease in bargaining power of the global working masses by way of global off-shoring to the lowest common denominator cost centre you can forecast an increasing trajectory of the “useless eaters”. There will be increasing poverty and increasing suicide rates. So you are correct in one sense – these people will increasingly “cannot live at the expense of someone else” (being you & your like minded rich friends).
“Finally, your ideas of economics are unworkable”
Why not e.g. /interview-of-syrias-first-lady-asma-al-assad/comment-page-1/#comment-286617
However, I fear you are a reflection of what is not a malevolent theory but, rather, an actuality of that and therefore there there truly is no hope.
Anonymous
I was going to ignore your last response, writing it off as not worthy of further consideration, but on this occasion while I was driving the car I thought about how important the principles you propose to violate actually are. While you remain wrong, and I suspect are unlikely to be persuaded to reconsider your position, I have done you the service of providing you correction of at least a little of the errors and falsehood you subscribe to. My suspicion is that the ideas you have promoted are not actually yours in that you didn’t develop them for yourself, rather they are a mish-mash of half-baked notions received from media, education and intellectual passivity. They appear to have been accepted without analysis or serious thought being expended due to them satisfying some emotion or feeling or other. My intent and hope is that you may at least follow up with some investigation and analysis of the fundamentals. In other words I am hoping this encourages you to look at the ideas and principles, do some research, analyse carefully and think hard on what you find.
1/. What I wrote was, “Firstly, a perverse lust for power over other people is the means and objective of oligarchy. That power is enabled by acquisition of monopoly use of coercive force against other individuals.”
The lust for power over other people is the problem. It is both the means and the objective. As stated it is enabled by monopoly use of coercive force over others.
Now in haste to hate people with more wealth than you, it is noteworthy that you focus on inheritance and completely avoid the fundamental issue. The fundamental is lust for power over other people and the use of coercive force to enable that. How much wealth someone has is not the point. Indeed that is quite a different subject to investigate. Still, it is telling that while you resent inheritance, you let a free pass to political thugs & oligarchs who did not inherit much wealth (if anything) at all. Some of the worst aggressors and totalitarians were (and are) not inheritors of wealth. They gained power and position by various nefarious and unsavoury deeds. Meanwhile there are inheritors of wealth who do not employ coercion and force against others. You evade this.
To be specific, it is not important if someone inherits wealth, even great wealth. The issue is what each person does with what they have, how they act, how they transact with others.
By the way, your proposals of 99% and greater taxation (theft) and the like necessarily require coercive force employed against other people. That is the only way you would be able to force those who disagree with you to obey your diktats. In this lust for power to see your ideas imposed upon all other people you are demonstrating common ground with the oligarchy you pretend to oppose. The similarities are striking. These are immoralities you’d do well to avoid.
2/. It is a matter of logic. Your argument necessarily leads to a malevolent theory of humanity. The consequences follow.
3/. “I already said income tax on more than a meagre amount should be taxed at 99%. That infers I can abide others having more than I.”
No. It means you can’t abide them having more since you want to steal as much away as you can by employing a third party (the government) to do the stealing, coercion and ultimately violence on your behalf.
What you are promoting is a scheme to steal 99% and more of someone else’s property in the first year and another 99% and more in the second year and so on. By eroding the capital base of a person so viciously it is only a matter of time before it becomes impossible for that person to continue to produce and earn as they previously did. From that point they quickly descend into penury, which, of course, is the objective of your idea.
“1% of 1Billion USD is still 10Million – would you wish for more?”
If I had eaned $1 billion it would mean that I have been very successful in producing that which people demand and are voluntarily transacting with me to acquire. This income would allow me to continue to do as I had been, further improve my output in quality and quantity to produce more goods and services than I presently am able to do. Anyway, why shouldn’t I wish for more? That’s a matter for myself and it is none of your business.
Further, in regards to the $1 billion, if it is mine, then it is mine. How it is allocated, saved, invested, improved, traded, transacted, sold, consumed or disposed of is then my business. What is mine is not yours. What is my property belongs to me. It is not up to you to apply coercive force against me. You are not entitled to anything I own. Neither are you entitled to decide for me what I wish for, what goals I set, how I direct my life- for my life is mine and not yours.
Similarly this applies to you also. Your property is yours. It is not someone else’s. It certainly isn’t mine. How you allocate, save, invest, improve, trade, transact, sell, consume or dispose of it is not my business or anyone else’s. It is yours. What is your property belongs to you. It is not up to someone else to apply coercive force against you to attain control over your property. Neither is anyone else entitled to decide for you what you wish for, what goals you set, how you direct your life- for your life is yours and not anyone else’s.
This applies to other people as well. It is not up to you to force the disposal of their property according to your wishes. How they allocate, save, invest, improve, trade, transact, sell, consume or dispose of it is not your business. It is theirs. What is another’s property belongs to them and not to you. Again, it is not up to you to apply coercive force against another to attain control over their property or to convert it for your purposes. You not entitled to decide for others what any of them wish for, what goals they set, how they direct their lives- for their lives are theirs and not yours.
==
“As I already said, others are not better (or worse) than me.”
And you said that the Assads were “rich scum”. In other words there are others who you consider to be worse than you. The self-contradiction is glaring.
You also said you agreed on all points with item four in my previous post. Again, self-contradiction.
People are not equal. Each is a unique individual. Some are better, some are worse. For example, in comparing the quality of First Lady Assad’s interview with what you have provided it is readily apparent that she is better than you. She is worthy of respect. Are you?
==
Turning now to your ideas in respect to the acquisition of wealth. It is clear that you subscribe to a version of the Labour Theory of Value. The theory is false. Value is not ascribed to a good or service according to labour content (that is, according to amount of “sweat of brow”). Value is awarded according to subjective basis. It is awarded individually. For example, two people may consider a good or a service quite differently and thus ascribe different values to it. Their awarded values may even change with time. Each person is different. Each is making an evaluation according to their specific context, circumstances, attributes, situation, desires, etc. This has important consequence. For one, it blows the Labour Theory of Value completely apart. People do not purchase goods or services according to how much labour was expended in provision of said goods or services. They purchase according to their subjective valuations. That is, how much THEY value the good or service at consideration at that particular time.
The fact that people value goods and services according to subjective preference is readily demonstrated. Some of my neighbours have strong preference for one type of brand over another. For example, there are people who prefer Mac to PC. Some of my neighbours are like this. Not so long ago they would express their strong preference for one over the other. When they got into discussions they would debate the qualities and attributes of their computers and which one is best. One would not buy what the other would buy. Similarly there are those who strongly prefer one car brand over another. And the same goes for clothing, sports, high fidelity audio equipment, food types, diet, restaurants, fitness regimes, houses, suburbs, schools, polytechnics, art, landscape, plants, universities, holiday locations, music, furniture, literature and on it goes. The point here is that they each value individually and that value may change with time. Their evaluation is subjective, exactly as are yours.
This has consequences that are vital to understand. Should I want to make an income I have to be able to supply to other people that which they will voluntarily purchase from me. If I have nothing they want, then they will not transact with me. If, on the other hand, I am able to supply goods or services they’d like to have, then they will want to transact with me. The challenges for me are two-fold. First, is for me to be able to supply items which other people value highly enough to want to acquire them. Second, I have to supply them at a price other people are willing to pay. If I am too expensive, then they will determine that my goods or services are not as valuable to them as what I am asking. I must then adjust my price downwards to meet their valuation or else they will not transact with me. If I get it right, then I receive custom and can be well rewarded, especially if I am providing goods or services that people value highly and/or many people demand. If I am too cheap, then they will determine that the goods and services are worth more than I am asking. I am likely to get a lot of custom in that situation. The trouble for me is that it will cost more for me to supply the goods and services than what I receive for them. In this case my fate is to become impecunious. My success or failure is solely down to understanding and satisfying other people’s values. This is absolutely key.
If I want to transact with any people, I need to understand what it is they value. If I am able to successfully produce that which what others value and that which they place at a greater value than my cost, then I can make a living. If I can’t, then I will have to change what I am doing. What I choose to produce, what service I provide, who it is I aim to attract, that is up to me. That is my business. What people will buy from me and at what value they are prepared to transact is up to them. They do not care how much labour I expend. They do care about what valuation they place on the item. If I offer it to them for a greater price than what they evaluate it to be worth, then I am not going to be able to transact with them. They will walk away. There is the saying, “the customer is king.” It is apt, for they surely are. The customer should be king. It is as it ought to be.
Recapping. The Labour Theory of Value is false. Value is awarded subjectively on an individual basis.
“but what is your measure of achievement?”
That is an entirely subjective evaluation also. Mine is determined according to what it is I am considering at the time. For example, when I am at the gym it is measured by how many reps of each exercise set I can achieve lately compared to what I could do when I first started on my current training plan. When I am swimming, it is how long it takes me to finish my laps compared to last week’s effort. When I am with the kids it is how much I have been able to teach them along with how much fin we are having. When I am racing a car it is the lap time and whether we win or place or not. When I am fishing, well you ought to get the idea…. What I measure and the metric I select to so do are subjective choices. Same goes for you.
” e.g. could it be motivation to design a new gene therapy that can be patented and sold at massive cost to the already rich only? at fear of repetition…your conscience (or mine, at least) would be better served by Tin cans & strings than Windows.”
Another example of a subjective evaluation. This one is yours. What you must understand is that you have no right to force your values on to other people. They may place great value on gene therapy or not, as the case may be. The therapy may work as intended or not, as the case may be. People may want to buy it or stay away, as the case may be. There may be better solutions or not, as the case may be. People may avoid the health issue your splicing addresses by lifestyle decisions or they may not, as the case may be. They may be wealthy people or they may not be, as the case may be. People make their choices according to their own valuation, not yours. If you can meet the demands of their valuations you can make a good living, grow and provide even more. So long as you are providing what they want you will be rewarded. Get it wrong and you soon won’t be as well rewarded at all. This is another key point. An important reason why a person ought to keep what he or she earns is that they are demonstrating success in deployment of resource to meet the demands of other people. The better they are able to do it, the better they are rewarded. It is the very best means of ensuring that those who are best at efficiently utilising resource to satisfy the demands of other people are enabled and encouraged to continue to so do.
Of course, there are no guarantees in this. If a previously successful person makes an error and gets it wrong in that what they produce is no longer in demand, then the revenue stream reduces or even dries up. That is a big feedback signal, one which is more than difficult to ignore.
I have Windows installed on two of my computers and use it- it is convenient and increases productivity by saving a whole lot of time. I purchase tin cans with foodstuff within them. When they have been emptied and the foodstuffs consumed I use some of the tin cans for storing mechanical fasteners and the like. I use string for holding the tomato plants and the grape vines to trellis. I have been known to use string as a fix when shoe laces break. Sometimes I use string to tie up a parcel, but not so often these days as tape is better. Each thing for its correct purpose. No need to revert to primitive means. While this may bother you for some reason, well, that is your own subjective evaluation and it is unshared with the vast majority of people.
“Of course, your individual “smartness” in developing the new gene therapy would be based on the cumulative sum of all previous open source human discovery – it did not appear miiraculously from the sweat of your brow, but you now consider it ok to profit by selling to the selected few?”
This is a subjective evaluation also. Anyway, “smartness” has little to do with the ability to generate great wealth. It is an attribute of the individual that may be useful, but it is not causal when it comes to actual ability to earn. There was an interesting book published a while back. I think it was “The Millionaire Mind” or something like that. It demonstrated that some of the smartest people around (professors, holders of post-graduate qualifications such as doctorates and the like, senior bureaucrats, well qualified knowledge specialists of various sorts) were as a group not as wealthy as those that were considered unintelligent i.e. not smart. The book disclosed the mind-set of the builder of personal wealth. This was very often a person who was a tradesman or who had no qualification whatsoever. They certainly were not of the smart class. Smartness is not a strong indicator of wealth generation.
“I agree that sloth should not be “rewarded” but that is accounted for in a reasonable return of 1% of income above a reasonable amount – at that rate do you imagine everyone will become demotivated and suddenly wish to starve to death?”
Your “reasonable 1%” is yet another subjective evaluation. Your “reasonable amount” is also a subjective evaluation. The core problem with your approach is that you would have it that everyone would be forced to live under your subjective evaluations and not by their own. The only way this could be accomplished would be to erect a totalitarian central government and initiate violence against all who disagree with you. Actually, the reality is that you aint reasonable at all!
4/. Do we really? Evidence suggests otherwise.
5/. This was the application to the specific case- in this instance you. This is the area you ought to have considered most carefully.
6/. I wrote, “no-one else owes you anything. You cannot live at the expense of someone else”
To which you replied, “Only if you consider human life as worthless.”
Not so. One does not demonstrate a concern for the value of human life by coercion, fraud, theft and violence (which is what you are proposing). Human life is not worthless. That is why I respect the property of each person whether in themselves or in what they own. You ought to as well. I do not advocate taking their stuff. You should not advocate taking that which does not belong to you either. You ought not to advocate taking that which belongs to others. To do what you are promoting is the opposite of respecting human life. What you are promoting is the notion that people are slaves to be consumed for what you deem as a higher purpose- “higher” in that it is more valuable to you than are the people whom you would loot or destroy to attain your ends.
Again, had you considered that to achieve what you promote you would need an all-powerful state with all the huge apparatus of coercion and violence that entails? Think where that leads.
Always remember, you do not have the right to subjugate even one other person, not even by authorising a third party to do the subjugation on your behalf.
==
Re unemployment and similar personal crises. Do you not have friends, family, a local community or charity of which you are an active member? For that is how the civilised deal with adversity. They have community which they utilise to solve the problems themselves. What is most important is that it is done by individuals who are familiar with each other and they do it voluntarily. It is not something that is imposed from without or from above.
My experience of unemployment is this. When it happens (and I suspect it is going to happen for you in the not too distant future, that or a significant financial crisis of some sort) you ought to have some savings accumulated. You also ought to have a Plan B. Have you already been in contact with other employers? Do you have a network of contacts throughout your area or throughout your industry from which you glean knowledge of opportunities and what is happening? You should have. You need to know where you can go to pick up a new opportunity as quickly as possible. You should be ready to put your Plan B into effect immediately. Some I know activated their Plan B as soon as redundancies were announced even though they were not the ones who were under threat of job loss. The attitude was that if the employer is laying people off, then that employer is in trouble. Time to move on to a better, more prosperous, more stable outfit or even move on to superior climes.
Now if you have been careless enough not to have taken the precaution of saving for a rainy day, if you have been careless enough not to know what is going on and reckless enough not to have ensured you have contacts and options, well then you have indeed been extremely foolish. That lack of preparation for a completely foreseeable event is naive to the point of personal delinquency. It is juvenile and while I can see y of it occurring for a young person who has only recently entered the workforce for the very beginning of a career, there is no excuse for a grown adult to have behaved in such fashion- completely irresponsible. Still, even then, even in that situation there are solutions. There are actions that can be taken that do not involve stealing from others or having the commissars do it on your oh so helpless behalf. Here is what can be done.
Approach friends and family for assistance. They will be amenable to help. They may offer food, shelter, even lend money in an emergency (some will not even expect remuneration because they love and value you so much). They can provide advice and introductions to other people and opportunities. They may find alternative employment for you or vouch for you to potential employers. Your family members and friends are the people closest to you and they know you best. They can help you find your feet again. They are the #1 very best support network you can ever have, far superior to some faceless bureaucrat, commissar, case manager or oligarch for whom you are just a cypher, an eater to be fed and led. Why would you ever put yourself in the hands of a member of the nomenklatura who does not even know you personally, let alone care about you, in preference to your own friends or your own family?
If you are unfortunate enough not to have a family or any friends (Why, pray tell, might that be? What have you been doing with yourself all these years?), all is still not lost. There are charities and community organisations and clubs (I assume you have been in active support and involvement in some of the organisations that surround you. If not, why not? How can you speak of a society if you restrict your interactions with the people who form it? How can you speak of how it a society or community is formed when you do so little to involve yourself in it, let alone contribute to it? Where is your community if you are not active within it, hence not a part of it?). In your time of need, charities, community organisations and clubs can be approached to help you get back on your feet. Some will even make loans for you to start your own business! There are quite a few I know of that give grants.
Now here is the thing about these outfits. They are voluntary. They are operated by people in the local community. These are people who will know you or know of you. They have a great amount of information and can give you leads. And yes, they can feed you, clothe you, provide a shelter if necessary. They are all there. I would think that you are presently a member of a few local outfits in your community providing support for those who have already fallen on hard times… Well, you should be. And you should be contributing greatly, after all it is you who pretend to care for the unemployed and the sick etc. Invest some of your own time and money and avoid demanding the property of others be garnished for your aesthetic sensibilities.
BTW there is nothing presently preventing you from delivering most of YOUR own income to charitable organisations right away. Right now. Go do it. No more talkee, talkee. Time for doee, doee. Else you’d be a hypocrite. And we don’t want that!
==
It is clear your ideology reduced to practice demands the creation of a class of overlords, a class of oligarchs by another name, although one with a lot more power. It is these overlords who would be in control of everyone else. You would grant them power over all others so that they could ensure the collection of the 99% tribute, convert it and then direct it to whatever ends they determined (and it would not necessarily be the ends you support that they’d choose). You would grant them enormous revenue which you would trust them to direct as you would like them to. And here is yet another one of your self-contradictions laid bare, for you have previously claimed, “individuals cannot be trusted to be benevolent.” You must really believe they would, as the saying goes, respect you in the morning….
==
Your economics are unworkable because, apart from their criminal immorality, they invoke the problem of Socialist Calculation. It is insolvable. Still, that does not appear to have halted totalitarians and the like (and even the misled and ignorant) from trying to solve it at the costs of tremendous suffering, destruction of wealth, coercion, torture, rape, looting, warfare, violence, massive suffering, hundreds of millions of people’s lives etc. Nor does it appear to have halted the acolytes of such destruction and slaughter from repeating the patently false ideas that empower totalitarians, oligarchs, psychopaths and enable them to do as they have done. In this day and age there is no excuse not to know better. Wilful ignorance is immoral. You really ought to avoid it.
Siotu
“I was going to ignore your last respons…[]…Now in haste to hate people with more wealth than you”
Nothing new – no comment
“Still, it is telling that while you resent inheritance, you let a free pass to political thugs & oligarchs who did not inherit much wealth (if anything) at all.”
Where did I give this free pass? (those you identify are among the most self-centred).
“To be specific, it is not important if someone inherits wealth, even great wealth. The issue is what each person does with what they have, how they act, how they transact with others. “
It is important. Wealth inheritance imparts unfair advantage – for example better education. The unfair advantage could be used as a wholly selfish device and, more often than not, is.
“What you are promoting is a scheme to steal 99% and more of someone else’s property in the first year and another 99% and more in the second year and so on. By eroding the capital base of a person so viciously it is only a matter of time before it becomes impossible for that person to continue to produce and earn as they previously did.”
Stealing? you may wish to call it reapportioning. If the meagre amount (prior 99% taxation) was of sufficient quantity to enable comfortable existence why could you not continue to produce & earn? of course, the social fund has grown by the 99% taxation amount and all public amenities are also available to you.
” From that point they quickly descend into penury, which, of course, is the objective of your idea”
Whoa, you have a vivid imagination. A meagre income does not infer poverty. There is no reason why the social fund could not be large and provide, sustainable, comfort for all.
“Anyway, why shouldn’t I wish for more? That’s a matter for myself and it is none of your business. “
It is when there’s not enough to go around – just because you’ve stashed it all under your bed.
“Further, in regards to the $1 billion, if it is mine, then it is mine. How it is allocated, saved, invested, improved, traded, transacted, sold, consumed or disposed of is then my business. What is mine is not yours. What is my property belongs to me. It is not up to you to apply coercive force against me. You are not entitled to anything I own. Neither are you entitled to decide for me what I wish for, what goals I set, how I direct my life- for my life is mine and not yours. “
If I can’t get a job and the kids are starving you can bet i’ll use plenty of “coercive power” – but i’ll also bet you’ve got a private army waiting and can enjoy some sport watching them kill me.
“And you said that the Assads were “rich scum”. In other words there are others who you consider to be worse than you. The self-contradiction is glaring.”
True – I erred. Of course Individuals are unique and more or less self-centred. Only those with equal care for others (assuming high sel-care) deserve respect. First Lady Assad is therefore due no respect.
““but what is your measure of achievement?”
That is an entirely subjective evaluation also”
If you develop the life-saving drug and sell to the rich only for your maximum profit while I die then my (and the vast majority of the population’s) subjective evaluation would be that you are due zero respect.
“I have Windows installed on two of my computers and use it- it is convenient and increases productivity by saving a whole lot of time.”
Your increased productivity might lead to a cure for cancer (for which only the rich may benefit) or the implementation of robotic systems (that result in the loss of occupation of millions of jobs). Your time saving could be the downfall of many others.
“The only way this could be accomplished would be to erect a totalitarian central government and initiate violence against all who disagree with you.”
Well, since individual’s, like you, don’t care whether individual’s like me live or die that is precisely what is required.
“Actually, the reality is that you aint reasonable at all!”
And the cure for cancer for the rich only is?
“Human life is not worthless. That is why I respect the property of each person whether in themselves or in what they own. You ought to as well. I do not advocate taking their stuff.”
You might if your child is dying and you don’t have enough to pay for the cure.
“Always remember, you do not have the right to subjugate even one other person, not even by authorising a third party to do the subjugation on your behalf.”
As exemplifiied, situation specific, that is exactly what I have the right to do.
“Re unemployment and similar personal crises. Do you not have friends, family, a local community or charity of which you are an active member? For that is how the civilised deal with adversity”
There are good & bad individuals – that is precisely why it should be the responsibility of society to provide the support. An introvert cannot be blamed for his unfriendly disposition.
“Now if you have been careless enough not to have taken the precaution of saving for a rainy day”
That was, nearly, funny – these guys hate their jobs so much they commit suicide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
“BTW there is nothing presently preventing you from delivering most of YOUR own income to charitable organisations right away. Right now. Go do it. No more talkee, talkee. Time for doee, doee. Else you’d be a hypocrite. And we don’t want that!”
This is absurd – you have zero idea of my personal circumstances.
“It is clear your ideology reduced to practice demands the creation of a class of overlords, a class of oligarchs by another name, although one with a lot more power. It is these overlords who would be in control of everyone else.”
Are these not the same overlords you currently call the Republicans or Democrats or Conservatives or Labour? Do you imagine a revolt when the new Tax regime is announced after the blinkers have been removed from the masses eyes and they realise they have been hoodwinked by your selfishness (and cronies) all along?
“You really ought to avoid it.”
You really ought to find a conscience.
Let me know when you have donated everything you own to the masses and you are reduced to wearing a grass skirt and rubbing two sticks together to make a fire. Until then you are showing your hypocrisy.
Ah, more smoke and mirrors – your ego is of an equivalent size to Siotu’s.
“Until then you are showing your hypocrisy”
Stalin’s dekulakization would now suit you fine.
None of the ruling elite in our World is not wealthy (sadly). The “trick” is to be able to discern the ones of those that also have the peoples interests in their agenda. If we deny support to a leader that “might” help us,because they are wealthy. Then we will never have any help from politicians ever.
Is this another “trick”? (definitely light research here though).
http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/14992/how-much-was-the-wealthy-elite-harmed-by-the-bolshevik-revolution
“The other 7 grand dukes of Russia were all captured and executed along with their entire family and all their relatives.
or Otherwise avoid repercussions from the new regime?
A small number became Bolsheviks themselves and escaped destruction, but most such people remained under a shadow of suspicion for the rest of their lives. One example was David Bronstein (known as “Trotsky”). Bronstein was the son of a wealthy factory owner and he became an important Bolshevik. Eventually he had to flee the country and was assassinated in Mexico.
Were those that evaded the risk to their lives able to keep much of their wealth?
No. The ones who escaped took what they could in movable valuables, but typically this was only a tiny fraction of their wealth, which was mostly tied up in land or other non-movable assets. A few had foreign bonds, notably French bonds, and this allowed them to remain rich after fleeing, but this was only a small number of people. The large majority of the refugees escaped with nothing but the shirt on their backs.
When you read about rich Russians in exile, in most cases those were Russian nobles who were already living in Western Europe at the time of the revolution and just stayed where they were. In those cases they were able to maintain their lifestyles somewhat, but of course their income was terminated, so they only had what savings had been set aside.
Was their lifestyle impacted significantly?
Obviously.
The life of an exile is lonely. I remember when I was a student at Princeton many years ago, several times in the very early morning, just at dawn, staggering back from the parties, once or twice I saw an elderly woman walking a large Russian wolfhound on the greens of the campus. This was one of the Great Russians (Bolshoi Russky) who had escaped when she was a little girl. She walked in such a graceful and delicate way that you cannot imagine, yet with her gaze fixed ahead, oblivious, like she was drifting through another world, and I was only seeing her ghostly shadow. It is an isolation and loneliness beyond comprehension.”
I read the article and comments, but could not find one word that explains the reason of all troubles brought to Syria and Syrians: “globalism”.
Possibly because that is now a given. I think that you would find little disagreement here with your proposition.
Globalism in essence is not a source of Poverty. For Example China,Thailand,Russia and Laos are collaborating in building a new rail route in south Asia. This is globalist activity but it will not benefit the West at all, it will be very damaging to them. It is about American based ultracapitalist hegemony against mutual co operative internationalism, which China calls Win Win deals.
Excellent God help us
Hi.
Im wondering who interviewed her, could someone source it, thanks.
What real lady she is and a trooper second to none ….