The problem is acquisitiveness at the level of the person, and trying to paint ourselves as the noble and hard-done-by us opposed to a satanic, inhuman them obscures this issue.
Tell that to someone further down the ladder than you. Seems to me discussing what "broke" means to different people in different socioeconomic classes is entirely germane to the thread topic.
the whole thing is tending to subsistence.
"Thing" = What? Civilization? The economy?
ever noticed everything one does is connected to the government(s) is connected to your money?
No, because that's not true. At least it's not true of me. I prefer to see things as they are and not as I hope or fear that they are. Many of the things I do are only very tangentially connected to "the goverment" or money.
or more truly, the permission slips you can have in exchange for the work you do or the lifestyle one is permitted in exchange for their time.
It's true. We are wage slaves. There is only an accounting difference and the illusion of freedom.
Too bad the video is so shitty, but you get the idea. Every 4.97 sec the machine dispenses a penny. That's the minimum wage. Most people stop fairly quickly when they realize how little they are making.
if one is receiving, have you ever wondered, why are they so stingy? why don't they give a little more? it is not a two way street, it's three way. there's a hole in the bucket. congress people who are really bankruptcy trustees do not write tax laws on an egalitarian basis as we have been brought up to believe. in fact i don't think they have ever written any of them, just approved them. their true nature is ubiquitous authority everywhere all the time. and compliance.
Truisms and gobbedly gook tossed together, sprinkled with some sovcit nuttery.
the mercantile nature is ancient Roman.
This is impressive sounding, but I'm afraid I don't know what it means. "mercantile nature"? What the hell is that? Ancient Rome? I don't know. I picture ancient Rome as more than mercantilism.
the preident is a military leader.
Agreed. But presumably he is elected by the citizenry and is technically a civilian.
everyone calls them commander in chief. and they likewise call themselves that.
Who is "they"?
the corporation is set up to make war everywhere all the time. seems obvious now doesn't it?
By "the corporation", you mean the federal government? If so, well, yes. I prefer to speak of it as the military industrial complex. The MIC is extremely powerful and intertwined at this point. The line between the public and private sectors is virtually nonexistent. Vast sums of wealth (the hours/days/months and years of our lives) are extracted from the taxpayers and funneled to the top 1% via the war machine.
that's why serfs (us) have d's and r's, left and right, etc. one general could do this and it would help (ie, give more permission slips to) those. and another general could do that and it would help (ie, give more permission slips to) the others. the present of this is misery and the end of it is tragedy. with the stockholders taking the skim, the war machine cannot be in two places for the serfs (us) at the same time. think of it as maximum wage rather than minimum.
Roughly true I guess, though how this came to pass is probably more organic and chaotic than you likely believe. Which is not to say it is not then maintained as serving the interests of the 1%.
if the serfs refused to pay en masse tomorrow civilization would dissolve into chaos.
Not exactly. Frankly, if the serfs ever did much of anything en masse they would be cooperating on a completely unprecedented level and might realize they don't need the 1% and their endless fucking wars.
nice set of choices you got there.
Don't you think it is probably better to look for more choices before you declare we are all cornered and without options.
why should we hate each other over these fools?
Aren't we the fools?
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary 22:15-22 The Pharisees sent their disciples with the Herodians, a party among the Jews, who were for full subjection to the Roman emperor. Though opposed to each other, they joined against Christ. What they said of Christ was right; whether they knew it or not, blessed be God we know it. Jesus Christ was a faithful Teacher, and a bold reprover. Christ saw their wickedness. Whatever mask the hypocrite puts on, our Lord Jesus sees through it. Christ did not interpose as a judge in matters of this nature, for his kingdom is not of this world, but he enjoins peaceable subjection to the powers that be. His adversaries were reproved, and his disciples were taught that the Christian religion is no enemy to civil government. Christ is, and will be, the wonder, not only of his friends, but of his enemies. They admire his wisdom, but will not be guided by it; his power, but will not submit to it.
Last edited by Elihu on Sat Aug 13, 2016 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tell that to someone further down the ladder than you. Seems to me discussing what "broke" means to different people in different socioeconomic classes is entirely germane to the thread topic.
There's a Jewish saying something along the lines of, "Having an overflowing wallet is not as much a blessing as having an empty one is a curse". So yeah being dead broke is the worst. It's different than being on a tight budget. Although I don't blame middle-class people for considering themselves broke within their own context. The ability to realize you're in trouble before you reach the hand-to-mouth stage is a degree of financial awareness I wish more people had. The only positive spin I could put on being dead broke would be that, at that level, money really does increase happiness. So you get more bang for your buck so to speak.
There's a Jewish saying something along the lines of, "Having an overflowing wallet is not as much a blessing as having an empty one is a curse". So yeah being dead broke is the worst. It's different than being on a tight budget. Although I don't blame middle-class people for considering themselves broke within their own context. The ability to realize you're in trouble before you reach the hand-to-mouth stage is a degree of financial awareness I wish more people had. The only positive spin I could put on being dead broke would be that, at that level, money really does increase happiness. So you get more bang for your buck so to speak.
Since 2009 I have experienced lapses in money that I never thought I would experience. This with a family including a wife who has serious ongoing health problems.
It always bothered me to see others (usually white folks) complain here and there about being "broke". They weren't. They had things they could sell. Cars, stocks, houses even. A bad cash flow is not the same thing as "broke".
It had a pretty profound effect on me.
Mainly it made me extremely compassionate to those who are struggling and often failing to make ends meet. I always thought of myself as a compassionate person but I had never really had a visceral sense, and deep sympathy for, those folks.
It also made me way more compassionate for the homeless and the mentally ill, those who are simply unable to get a foothold in the system. The reasons for this go deeper than just being broke though. That would be another story.
It also gave me the greatest amount of appreciation for life, oddly enough. I remember holding a beautiful apple in my hand, relishing it's beauty and the fact that it had simply grown on a tree and was about to nourish my body. It was so beautiful in so many ways.
I have changed a lot from this terrible experience, in ways that I would never trade.
I still have hardly any money. My landlord just raised our rent again, with zero input from us. I could be just as broke in very short order. But there's a thing called faith that I never truly understood until very recently.
Love, and faith.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
The "original affluent society" is a theory postulating that hunter-gatherers were the original affluent society. This theory was first articulated by Marshall Sahlins at a symposium entitled "Man the Hunter" in 1966.[1] The significance of the theory stems from its role in shifting anthropological thought away from seeing hunter-gatherer societies as primitive, to seeing them as practitioners of a refined mode of subsistence.
NeonLX » Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:36 pm wrote:I want to stop rendering unto Caesar. But Caesar will see to it that I'm thrown into the iron cage.
Matthew 22 15Then the Pharisees having gone, took counsel how they might ensnare him in words, 16and they send to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, ‘Teacher, we have known that thou art true, and the way of God in truth thou dost teach, and thou art not caring for any one, for thou dost not look to the face of men; 17tell us, therefore, what dost thou think? is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?’ 18And Jesus having known their wickedness, said, ‘Why me do ye tempt, hypocrites? 19show me the tribute-coin?’ and they brought to him a denary; 20and he saith to them, ‘Whose [is] this image and the inscription?’ 21they say to him, ‘Caesar’s;’ then saith he to them, ‘Render therefore the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God;’ 22and having heard they wondered, and having left him they went away.
NeonLX » Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:36 pm wrote:I want to stop rendering unto Caesar. But Caesar will see to it that I'm thrown into the iron cage.
Matthew 22 15Then the Pharisees having gone, took counsel how they might ensnare him in words, 16and they send to him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, ‘Teacher, we have known that thou art true, and the way of God in truth thou dost teach, and thou art not caring for any one, for thou dost not look to the face of men; 17tell us, therefore, what dost thou think? is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?’ 18And Jesus having known their wickedness, said, ‘Why me do ye tempt, hypocrites? 19show me the tribute-coin?’ and they brought to him a denary; 20and he saith to them, ‘Whose [is] this image and the inscription?’ 21they say to him, ‘Caesar’s;’ then saith he to them, ‘Render therefore the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God;’ 22and having heard they wondered, and having left him they went away.
Yes, because He is not of this "world," in other words, the system that controls this world. If you are a Christian, that is your challenge: to dismiss/devalue the principles, standards, or qualities considered worthwhile or desirable--power, wealth, status, material goods, self aggrandizement, etc-- by the world system because those values are in total contradiction to all of His teachings.
The only time Jesus used or spoke of "violence" (no one was hurt) is when He confronted the money-changers, and when He spoke of people who corrupt the "little ones" ..."it would be better to be thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around your neck" . And who is behind the world system? Money changers and child abusers/corrupters. So why would He want us to hold onto/fight for/value the things of Caesar?
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"
However, at the same time, Jesus understood to be "in" this world, we have to play by their rules--pay your taxes--in order to survive, but in doing that, you don't have to adopt their value system. In other words, He encouraged us to continue our relationships with the world around us, but in a way that demonstrate His values, not the system's values. We are called to be “in” the world but not “of” the world.
Here's the thing. I don't think any of us can change the system, but by learning about the way the system really works, we can see it clearly for what it is: repulsive, dehumanizing, exploitative, etc.,...and try to expose it to others (not an easy job) because who wants to be part "of" a system that, at its core, is all about gaining the world for themselves--the top .01%-- at the expense of the rest of humanity? Psychopaths, perhaps...so let them have it.
Just imagine if people stopped defining themselves and others by what they earn, what they own, who they know, where they live, how they appear, those they control, etc.. Would the system survive? Probably, but at least we would know who our enemy really is.
'I see clearly that man in this world deceives himself by admiring and esteeming things which are not, and neither sees nor esteems the things which are.' — St. Catherine of Genoa
