info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why is the west failing? Do kids have anything to do with it?
52 views
Skip to first unread message
tooly
May 6, 2022, 11:08:29 PM5/6/22
to
How did this happen?
I remember nickelodeon and kids getting slimed. Seemed so harmless of course, but it was a time where authority was softening to the idea of psychology. " Start with the kids"[ was probably the spoken word in high eschelons.
'Start with the kids'...
What I was seeing were kids being 'let loose'...not by behaviors [though such was surely given free reign too]...but by expression. Kids were jumping, screaming, bouncing off walls. Where were the monitors; the overseers; the teachers and disciplinarians? No, not that way said the psychologists...handle with care; 'allow' free expression...let them grow wild under no compelling reason but that free expression.
What a difference compared to 1950's and before. My granddad always said 'children should be seen and not heard'. It was really a decrea of 'obedience' assigned to those so young, they could surely not understand the 'whys and why nots' of life. So...play, be free...but quiet to allow the adults room to make the hard decisions of life [that allowed those kids to play].
And so, on Nickelodeon, one could see a distinct 'new wave' in the children; a new sense of action...more bombast, more active...jumpy and jittery and 'all over the place'...but...just kids 'expressing themselves'. But no longer quiet; no longer 'not heard' and still 'very seen'.
Sounds healthy of course...until perhaps today's argument might counter the new radicalism as declaring something 'wild' on our midst; a snowflake occurrence of spoiled minds who 'think they know' while 'knowing nothing'.
Well...lmaybe not 'nothing'. Surely they know the cellphones, the intricaccies of window's 10 and now 11...of android connectivity that can summon up 'thought' on demand. they make fun of 'old foggies' who have trouble with keyboards, but yet, themselves not able to withstand even the slightest blister from toil. Stub a toe...and life becomes too painful to bear. But, the cellphones can always call 911 if needed [or elect a democrat to provide things free].
What 'thought' could make little difference, but only that the thought 'is expressed'; much like the slime that had to be poured atop heads of asundry visitors to Nickelodeon escapades. The world was now 'about them'...and technology allowed for a 'disconnect'...to retract and devoid one's self of that past...to just sever ties. Kids just having fun'...what in the world could be wrong with that?
The west now grapples with it's own survival...the USA close to collapsing into the very adversary it so long opposed and held at bay. It's funny how Biden says Trumpites are the most dangerous organization the USA has ever known...and yet, the TRUTH is that it is THEY [the new democrats, or Obamaites] are the REAL and TRUE most dangerous organization this country has ever known. By far; and no, they are NOT america. Never was, never will be. They are 'what' America has opposed for so long, but now come to usurp her will.
The pied piper tootled a following right down the primrose path to destruction. Can the USA survive this?
"Start with the kids"...a strategy taken up with Marxism come to roost in our heads. The enemy that seeks to destroy America.
I remember nickelodeon and kids getting slimed. Seemed so harmless of course, but it was a time where authority was softening to the idea of psychology. " Start with the kids"[ was probably the spoken word in high eschelons.
'Start with the kids'...
What I was seeing were kids being 'let loose'...not by behaviors [though such was surely given free reign too]...but by expression. Kids were jumping, screaming, bouncing off walls. Where were the monitors; the overseers; the teachers and disciplinarians? No, not that way said the psychologists...handle with care; 'allow' free expression...let them grow wild under no compelling reason but that free expression.
What a difference compared to 1950's and before. My granddad always said 'children should be seen and not heard'. It was really a decrea of 'obedience' assigned to those so young, they could surely not understand the 'whys and why nots' of life. So...play, be free...but quiet to allow the adults room to make the hard decisions of life [that allowed those kids to play].
And so, on Nickelodeon, one could see a distinct 'new wave' in the children; a new sense of action...more bombast, more active...jumpy and jittery and 'all over the place'...but...just kids 'expressing themselves'. But no longer quiet; no longer 'not heard' and still 'very seen'.
Sounds healthy of course...until perhaps today's argument might counter the new radicalism as declaring something 'wild' on our midst; a snowflake occurrence of spoiled minds who 'think they know' while 'knowing nothing'.
Well...lmaybe not 'nothing'. Surely they know the cellphones, the intricaccies of window's 10 and now 11...of android connectivity that can summon up 'thought' on demand. they make fun of 'old foggies' who have trouble with keyboards, but yet, themselves not able to withstand even the slightest blister from toil. Stub a toe...and life becomes too painful to bear. But, the cellphones can always call 911 if needed [or elect a democrat to provide things free].
What 'thought' could make little difference, but only that the thought 'is expressed'; much like the slime that had to be poured atop heads of asundry visitors to Nickelodeon escapades. The world was now 'about them'...and technology allowed for a 'disconnect'...to retract and devoid one's self of that past...to just sever ties. Kids just having fun'...what in the world could be wrong with that?
The west now grapples with it's own survival...the USA close to collapsing into the very adversary it so long opposed and held at bay. It's funny how Biden says Trumpites are the most dangerous organization the USA has ever known...and yet, the TRUTH is that it is THEY [the new democrats, or Obamaites] are the REAL and TRUE most dangerous organization this country has ever known. By far; and no, they are NOT america. Never was, never will be. They are 'what' America has opposed for so long, but now come to usurp her will.
The pied piper tootled a following right down the primrose path to destruction. Can the USA survive this?
"Start with the kids"...a strategy taken up with Marxism come to roost in our heads. The enemy that seeks to destroy America.
Arindam Banerjee
May 8, 2022, 9:36:41 PM5/8/22
to
Why blame kids?
tooly
May 15, 2022, 12:54:10 PM5/15/22
to
On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Why blame kids?
One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
The PILL freed up women like never before and allowed experimentation, expanding sexuality, and ultimately EMPOWERMENT [long before the political sense of that came to be].
Starting perhaps around the 70's, mother's [and father's for that matter] started to raise their daughters with raised esteem, and a growing egotistical expansion to seek all roles in society; to become authority; to LEAD.
To that end, it would be hard to argue against. Surely women's empowerment is a good thing; and once again, raised awareness to a GREATER Humanity [that thing that's been with us since our founding as a growing, expanding, learning...and thusly EVOLVING thing].
Alas, there is a ying and then a yang; too much of a thing here, might mean to little of a thing there. Somehow, women's empowerment...a good thing...took on the auspices of Marxism. Now, Marxism might be one of the most EVIL general philosophies ever produced by human beings...and if understood at it's most fundamental assessment, exists not for our 'great humanity', but actually to DESTROY that humanity altogether. For, at that fundamental assessement, Marxism teaches one essentialy thing: "There there can only ever be...the OPPRESSOR and the OPPRESSED".
Yes, volumes have been written...yet, if BOILED to it's ultimate essence, THIS is all Marxism says. That we...ALL OF US ...are either part of the OPPRESSED...or we are the OPPRESSOR. From that single angle, there can ONLY BE STRUGGLE; underclasses against aristocracy [ergo, the RUssian Revolution], or poor man against the wealthy, or an minority against any dominant majority, or any underruling race against the racial undertone of national foundation [CRT anyone?], or...in the case of women's empowerment and expanding role in society that the PILL afforded [that changed a lot attitudes from victorian households]....FEMINISM, which was simply the MARXIST employment of that new found FREEDOM and expansion....to WEAPONIZE one gender against the other.
STRUGGLE. THat's all there is under Marxism. END OF STORY. Even if one faction wins out in their struggle to become the dominance, it is THEN, THEY who become the OPPRESSOR...and whomever is under THEIR domain, now the OPPRESSED.
STRUGGLE. No longer can we be HUMANITY reaching for betterment amongst ourselves; where we find human grace with one another...but all we can do is FORTIFY and stand with whatever ARMY of the OPPRESSED we define to ourselves [or be an army of the defense of whatever domain that exists].
Of course, there are always those who are not faring as well in any society; individually, as groups, or...as in the case of historical households, the FEMALE...
Now, consider...FEMINISM not only captivated women et.al. as one Mother to her daughters [or even fathers who of course loved their daughters as is natural]...but is also skipped across that pond to reach into adademy; into our classrooms, into authority...and many intellectuals have been captivated...and much like CRT today, the INTELLECTUALIZATION of a thing seems to raise it's validity...at least to the degree is very very hard to FIGHT AGAINST...even if one knows, deep down in their own sense of that HUMANITY...
....SOMETHING JUST AIN"T RIGHT about all this.
IT's NOT HUMAN. It is, in fact, somehow...counter to the very thing we aspire to be. But...it does make us feel smarter [to embrace all the wordology of intellectualism]. And so it goes. TIme passes...
-------------
Now all this does not explain why we are in such a mess today; not entirely anyway. AUTHORITY has slowly taken a back seat to all them nicleodean kids 'just expressing themselves'...until today, well...we lost all FEAR of that authority...once called RESPECT.
ANd so, kids can not only demonstrated in front of Supreme Court justices personal homes, but they can also riot and burn things down all in indigniation of how so HARD THEY HAVE IT. When in fact...the TRUTH...is the problem is how so EASY THEY HAVE IT...and have had it for decades now. THEY HAVE NO REFERENCE of what true tyranny is; of what loss of free speech REALLY means; of what real starvation and lack of resource REALLY is.
THEY tear down western civilization not knowing what it is they do [someone else said something along those lines as the story goes].
Berliners somehow understood who the good guys were. It is something our own children no longer know. Maybe it's because they no longer RESPECT...well...the MALE of who we are.
No...this is not an argument where strong men should take back what weakness has provided us; the turmoil of today. It is recognition that, though strong, the greatest quality of his character was that he was GOOD. and that he KNEW NO FEAR [or so miniscule as to indetectable]. Unfortunately, that will not happen; as once on rampage, little will stop stampeding cattle.
> Why blame kids?
One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
The PILL freed up women like never before and allowed experimentation, expanding sexuality, and ultimately EMPOWERMENT [long before the political sense of that came to be].
Starting perhaps around the 70's, mother's [and father's for that matter] started to raise their daughters with raised esteem, and a growing egotistical expansion to seek all roles in society; to become authority; to LEAD.
To that end, it would be hard to argue against. Surely women's empowerment is a good thing; and once again, raised awareness to a GREATER Humanity [that thing that's been with us since our founding as a growing, expanding, learning...and thusly EVOLVING thing].
Alas, there is a ying and then a yang; too much of a thing here, might mean to little of a thing there. Somehow, women's empowerment...a good thing...took on the auspices of Marxism. Now, Marxism might be one of the most EVIL general philosophies ever produced by human beings...and if understood at it's most fundamental assessment, exists not for our 'great humanity', but actually to DESTROY that humanity altogether. For, at that fundamental assessement, Marxism teaches one essentialy thing: "There there can only ever be...the OPPRESSOR and the OPPRESSED".
Yes, volumes have been written...yet, if BOILED to it's ultimate essence, THIS is all Marxism says. That we...ALL OF US ...are either part of the OPPRESSED...or we are the OPPRESSOR. From that single angle, there can ONLY BE STRUGGLE; underclasses against aristocracy [ergo, the RUssian Revolution], or poor man against the wealthy, or an minority against any dominant majority, or any underruling race against the racial undertone of national foundation [CRT anyone?], or...in the case of women's empowerment and expanding role in society that the PILL afforded [that changed a lot attitudes from victorian households]....FEMINISM, which was simply the MARXIST employment of that new found FREEDOM and expansion....to WEAPONIZE one gender against the other.
STRUGGLE. THat's all there is under Marxism. END OF STORY. Even if one faction wins out in their struggle to become the dominance, it is THEN, THEY who become the OPPRESSOR...and whomever is under THEIR domain, now the OPPRESSED.
STRUGGLE. No longer can we be HUMANITY reaching for betterment amongst ourselves; where we find human grace with one another...but all we can do is FORTIFY and stand with whatever ARMY of the OPPRESSED we define to ourselves [or be an army of the defense of whatever domain that exists].
Of course, there are always those who are not faring as well in any society; individually, as groups, or...as in the case of historical households, the FEMALE...
Now, consider...FEMINISM not only captivated women et.al. as one Mother to her daughters [or even fathers who of course loved their daughters as is natural]...but is also skipped across that pond to reach into adademy; into our classrooms, into authority...and many intellectuals have been captivated...and much like CRT today, the INTELLECTUALIZATION of a thing seems to raise it's validity...at least to the degree is very very hard to FIGHT AGAINST...even if one knows, deep down in their own sense of that HUMANITY...
....SOMETHING JUST AIN"T RIGHT about all this.
IT's NOT HUMAN. It is, in fact, somehow...counter to the very thing we aspire to be. But...it does make us feel smarter [to embrace all the wordology of intellectualism]. And so it goes. TIme passes...
-------------
Now all this does not explain why we are in such a mess today; not entirely anyway. AUTHORITY has slowly taken a back seat to all them nicleodean kids 'just expressing themselves'...until today, well...we lost all FEAR of that authority...once called RESPECT.
ANd so, kids can not only demonstrated in front of Supreme Court justices personal homes, but they can also riot and burn things down all in indigniation of how so HARD THEY HAVE IT. When in fact...the TRUTH...is the problem is how so EASY THEY HAVE IT...and have had it for decades now. THEY HAVE NO REFERENCE of what true tyranny is; of what loss of free speech REALLY means; of what real starvation and lack of resource REALLY is.
THEY tear down western civilization not knowing what it is they do [someone else said something along those lines as the story goes].
Berliners somehow understood who the good guys were. It is something our own children no longer know. Maybe it's because they no longer RESPECT...well...the MALE of who we are.
No...this is not an argument where strong men should take back what weakness has provided us; the turmoil of today. It is recognition that, though strong, the greatest quality of his character was that he was GOOD. and that he KNEW NO FEAR [or so miniscule as to indetectable]. Unfortunately, that will not happen; as once on rampage, little will stop stampeding cattle.
Jeffrey Rubard
May 15, 2022, 7:42:48 PM5/15/22
to
Arindam Banerjee
May 15, 2022, 11:54:33 PM5/15/22
to
On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 02:54:10 UTC+10, tooly wrote:
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Why blame kids?
> One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
>
> A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
Was it the pill or your press promoting the role of hallowed Hollywood sluts?
> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Why blame kids?
> One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
>
> A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
Images, Tooly, images, all based upon lies and misrepresentations.
And lack of proper mythology and metaphysics, wrong physics instead.
>
> The PILL freed up women like never before and allowed experimentation, expanding sexuality, and ultimately EMPOWERMENT [long before the political sense of that came to be].
>
> Starting perhaps around the 70's, mother's [and father's for that matter] started to raise their daughters with raised esteem, and a growing egotistical expansion to seek all roles in society; to become authority; to LEAD.
Good. Strong women make a strong society.
> Starting perhaps around the 70's, mother's [and father's for that matter] started to raise their daughters with raised esteem, and a growing egotistical expansion to seek all roles in society; to become authority; to LEAD.
>
> To that end, it would be hard to argue against. Surely women's empowerment is a good thing; and once again, raised awareness to a GREATER Humanity [that thing that's been with us since our founding as a growing, expanding, learning...and thusly EVOLVING thing].
>
> Alas, there is a ying and then a yang; too much of a thing here, might mean to little of a thing there. Somehow, women's empowerment...a good thing...took on the auspices of Marxism. Now, Marxism might be one of the most EVIL general philosophies ever produced by human beings...and if understood at it's most fundamental assessment, exists not for our 'great humanity', but actually to DESTROY that humanity altogether. For, at that fundamental assessement, Marxism teaches one essentialy thing: "There there can only ever be...the OPPRESSOR and the OPPRESSED".
Agreed. Hitler too had strong views about the bads of Marxism.
> To that end, it would be hard to argue against. Surely women's empowerment is a good thing; and once again, raised awareness to a GREATER Humanity [that thing that's been with us since our founding as a growing, expanding, learning...and thusly EVOLVING thing].
>
> Alas, there is a ying and then a yang; too much of a thing here, might mean to little of a thing there. Somehow, women's empowerment...a good thing...took on the auspices of Marxism. Now, Marxism might be one of the most EVIL general philosophies ever produced by human beings...and if understood at it's most fundamental assessment, exists not for our 'great humanity', but actually to DESTROY that humanity altogether. For, at that fundamental assessement, Marxism teaches one essentialy thing: "There there can only ever be...the OPPRESSOR and the OPPRESSED".
But Marxism was popular as the white racist bigots were insufferably exploitative, having no moral checks.
Marxism means grab without hesitation, and that always has its appeal among the have nots.
The promiscuity resulting from outing family values is also acceptable to the bandits and fashionable people.
>
> Yes, volumes have been written...yet, if BOILED to it's ultimate essence, THIS is all Marxism says. That we...ALL OF US ...are either part of the OPPRESSED...or we are the OPPRESSOR. From that single angle, there can ONLY BE STRUGGLE; underclasses against aristocracy [ergo, the RUssian Revolution], or poor man against the wealthy, or an minority against any dominant majority, or any underruling race against the racial undertone of national foundation [CRT anyone?], or...in the case of women's empowerment and expanding role in society that the PILL afforded [that changed a lot attitudes from victorian households]....FEMINISM, which was simply the MARXIST employment of that new found FREEDOM and expansion....to WEAPONIZE one gender against the other.
>
> STRUGGLE. THat's all there is under Marxism. END OF STORY. Even if one faction wins out in their struggle to become the dominance, it is THEN, THEY who become the OPPRESSOR...and whomever is under THEIR domain, now the OPPRESSED.
But Marxism is a bad idea, so never practical. The Soviets I grew up with had strong family values, so they were not really Marxists.
> STRUGGLE. THat's all there is under Marxism. END OF STORY. Even if one faction wins out in their struggle to become the dominance, it is THEN, THEY who become the OPPRESSOR...and whomever is under THEIR domain, now the OPPRESSED.
>
> STRUGGLE. No longer can we be HUMANITY reaching for betterment amongst ourselves; where we find human grace with one another...but all we can do is FORTIFY and stand with whatever ARMY of the OPPRESSED we define to ourselves [or be an army of the defense of whatever domain that exists].
>
> Of course, there are always those who are not faring as well in any society; individually, as groups, or...as in the case of historical households, the FEMALE...
They have to be well treated.
> STRUGGLE. No longer can we be HUMANITY reaching for betterment amongst ourselves; where we find human grace with one another...but all we can do is FORTIFY and stand with whatever ARMY of the OPPRESSED we define to ourselves [or be an army of the defense of whatever domain that exists].
>
> Of course, there are always those who are not faring as well in any society; individually, as groups, or...as in the case of historical households, the FEMALE...
>
> Now, consider...FEMINISM not only captivated women et.al. as one Mother to her daughters [or even fathers who of course loved their daughters as is natural]...but is also skipped across that pond to reach into adademy; into our classrooms, into authority...and many intellectuals have been captivated...and much like CRT today, the INTELLECTUALIZATION of a thing seems to raise it's validity...at least to the degree is very very hard to FIGHT AGAINST...even if one knows, deep down in their own sense of that HUMANITY...
>
> ....SOMETHING JUST AIN"T RIGHT about all this.
>
> IT's NOT HUMAN. It is, in fact, somehow...counter to the very thing we aspire to be. But...it does make us feel smarter [to embrace all the wordology of intellectualism]. And so it goes. TIme passes...
>
> -------------
> Now all this does not explain why we are in such a mess today; not entirely anyway. AUTHORITY has slowly taken a back seat to all them nicleodean kids 'just expressing themselves'...until today, well...we lost all FEAR of that authority...once called RESPECT.
There is no respect without love, and love is paramount.
> ....SOMETHING JUST AIN"T RIGHT about all this.
>
> IT's NOT HUMAN. It is, in fact, somehow...counter to the very thing we aspire to be. But...it does make us feel smarter [to embrace all the wordology of intellectualism]. And so it goes. TIme passes...
>
> -------------
> Now all this does not explain why we are in such a mess today; not entirely anyway. AUTHORITY has slowly taken a back seat to all them nicleodean kids 'just expressing themselves'...until today, well...we lost all FEAR of that authority...once called RESPECT.
>
> ANd so, kids can not only demonstrated in front of Supreme Court justices personal homes, but they can also riot and burn things down all in indigniation of how so HARD THEY HAVE IT. When in fact...the TRUTH...is the problem is how so EASY THEY HAVE IT...and have had it for decades now. THEY HAVE NO REFERENCE of what true tyranny is; of what loss of free speech REALLY means; of what real starvation and lack of resource REALLY is.
They have been lied to all their pampered lives. They have seen infidelities and cynicism. No ideals, just selfish greediness and hypocrisy.
> ANd so, kids can not only demonstrated in front of Supreme Court justices personal homes, but they can also riot and burn things down all in indigniation of how so HARD THEY HAVE IT. When in fact...the TRUTH...is the problem is how so EASY THEY HAVE IT...and have had it for decades now. THEY HAVE NO REFERENCE of what true tyranny is; of what loss of free speech REALLY means; of what real starvation and lack of resource REALLY is.
>
> THEY tear down western civilization not knowing what it is they do [someone else said something along those lines as the story goes].
They are without positive examples for good leadership.
> THEY tear down western civilization not knowing what it is they do [someone else said something along those lines as the story goes].
>
> Berliners somehow understood who the good guys were. It is something our own children no longer know. Maybe it's because they no longer RESPECT...well...the MALE of who we are.
No respect without love first.
> Berliners somehow understood who the good guys were. It is something our own children no longer know. Maybe it's because they no longer RESPECT...well...the MALE of who we are.
Bad examples from robots crush love, making it lust.
Robots read out and enact bad stories.
Too much sex and violence, no humour and care. Zero spirituality, lots of cunning.
Sad.
>
> No...this is not an argument where strong men should take back what weakness has provided us; the turmoil of today. It is recognition that, though strong, the greatest quality of his character was that he was GOOD. and that he KNEW NO FEAR [or so miniscule as to indetectable]. Unfortunately, that will not happen; as once on rampage, little will stop stampeding cattle.
Fatheads will remain fatheads.
> No...this is not an argument where strong men should take back what weakness has provided us; the turmoil of today. It is recognition that, though strong, the greatest quality of his character was that he was GOOD. and that he KNEW NO FEAR [or so miniscule as to indetectable]. Unfortunately, that will not happen; as once on rampage, little will stop stampeding cattle.
Whether one is good or bad is for others to say, not for the party to declare.
Vote out the bad.
If you cannot then support a dictator and pray he is blessed.
May he initiate superpolitics - my essay on that in my fb timeline.
After that, hurrah! No worries, good will prevail for keeps.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Jeffrey Rubard
May 21, 2022, 7:08:10 PM5/21/22
to
On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 8:54:33 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 02:54:10 UTC+10, tooly wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > Why blame kids?
> > One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
> >
> > A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
> Was it the pill or your press promoting the role of hallowed Hollywood sluts?
> Images, Tooly, images, all based upon lies and misrepresentations.
> And lack of proper mythology and metaphysics, wrong physics instead.
Oh, Mr. Banerjee, I don't wish to speak about this topic; "discretion is the better part of valor", as you know.
> On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 02:54:10 UTC+10, tooly wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > Why blame kids?
> > One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
> >
> > A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
> Was it the pill or your press promoting the role of hallowed Hollywood sluts?
> Images, Tooly, images, all based upon lies and misrepresentations.
> And lack of proper mythology and metaphysics, wrong physics instead.
> >
> > The PILL freed up women like never before and allowed experimentation, expanding sexuality, and ultimately EMPOWERMENT [long before the political sense of that came to be].
> Had there been a strong moral basis, the pill would have been only useful.
> >
> > Starting perhaps around the 70's, mother's [and father's for that matter] started to raise their daughters with raised esteem, and a growing egotistical expansion to seek all roles in society; to become authority; to LEAD.
> Good. Strong women make a strong society.
> >
> > To that end, it would be hard to argue against. Surely women's empowerment is a good thing; and once again, raised awareness to a GREATER Humanity [that thing that's been with us since our founding as a growing, expanding, learning...and thusly EVOLVING thing].
> >
> > Alas, there is a ying and then a yang; too much of a thing here, might mean to little of a thing there. Somehow, women's empowerment...a good thing...took on the auspices of Marxism. Now, Marxism might be one of the most EVIL general philosophies ever produced by human beings...and if understood at it's most fundamental assessment, exists not for our 'great humanity', but actually to DESTROY that humanity altogether. For, at that fundamental assessement, Marxism teaches one essentialy thing: "There there can only ever be...the OPPRESSOR and the OPPRESSED".
> Agreed. Hitler too had strong views about the bads of Marxism.
> But Marxism was popular as the white racist bigots were insufferably exploitative, having no moral checks.
> Marxism means grab without hesitation, and that always has its appeal among the have nots.
> The promiscuity resulting from outing family values is also acceptable to the bandits and fashionable people.
What the Muslims call "the abomination", well... but as for the rest of it, "squeamish" people may have to grow up.
> >
> > Yes, volumes have been written...yet, if BOILED to it's ultimate essence, THIS is all Marxism says. That we...ALL OF US ...are either part of the OPPRESSED...or we are the OPPRESSOR. From that single angle, there can ONLY BE STRUGGLE; underclasses against aristocracy [ergo, the RUssian Revolution], or poor man against the wealthy, or an minority against any dominant majority, or any underruling race against the racial undertone of national foundation [CRT anyone?], or...in the case of women's empowerment and expanding role in society that the PILL afforded [that changed a lot attitudes from victorian households]....FEMINISM, which was simply the MARXIST employment of that new found FREEDOM and expansion....to WEAPONIZE one gender against the other.
> Males were a bit too overbearing, what. What works is being kind and thoughtful.
> >
> > STRUGGLE. THat's all there is under Marxism. END OF STORY. Even if one faction wins out in their struggle to become the dominance, it is THEN, THEY who become the OPPRESSOR...and whomever is under THEIR domain, now the OPPRESSED.
> But Marxism is a bad idea, so never practical. The Soviets I grew up with had strong family values, so they were not really Marxists.
Arindam Banerjee
May 21, 2022, 7:20:55 PM5/21/22
to
On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 09:08:10 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 8:54:33 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 02:54:10 UTC+10, tooly wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > Why blame kids?
> > > One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
> > >
> > > A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
> > Was it the pill or your press promoting the role of hallowed Hollywood sluts?
> > Images, Tooly, images, all based upon lies and misrepresentations.
> > And lack of proper mythology and metaphysics, wrong physics instead.
> Oh, Mr. Banerjee, I don't wish to speak about this topic; "discretion is the better part of valor", as you know.
Then you had better hear about it, Mr Rubard. And come to your conclusions. Telling lies about the most basic practical matters leads to disaster in the long term. Bad education never helps.
> On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 8:54:33 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 02:54:10 UTC+10, tooly wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > Why blame kids?
> > > One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
> > >
> > > A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
> > Was it the pill or your press promoting the role of hallowed Hollywood sluts?
> > Images, Tooly, images, all based upon lies and misrepresentations.
> > And lack of proper mythology and metaphysics, wrong physics instead.
> Oh, Mr. Banerjee, I don't wish to speak about this topic; "discretion is the better part of valor", as you know.
I am a pioneer in this, on my own for now, but I sense increasing support.
> > >
> > > The PILL freed up women like never before and allowed experimentation, expanding sexuality, and ultimately EMPOWERMENT [long before the political sense of that came to be].
> > Had there been a strong moral basis, the pill would have been only useful.
> > >
> > > Starting perhaps around the 70's, mother's [and father's for that matter] started to raise their daughters with raised esteem, and a growing egotistical expansion to seek all roles in society; to become authority; to LEAD.
> > Good. Strong women make a strong society.
> "That's how it's got to be".
> > >
> > > To that end, it would be hard to argue against. Surely women's empowerment is a good thing; and once again, raised awareness to a GREATER Humanity [that thing that's been with us since our founding as a growing, expanding, learning...and thusly EVOLVING thing].
> > >
> > > Alas, there is a ying and then a yang; too much of a thing here, might mean to little of a thing there. Somehow, women's empowerment...a good thing...took on the auspices of Marxism. Now, Marxism might be one of the most EVIL general philosophies ever produced by human beings...and if understood at it's most fundamental assessment, exists not for our 'great humanity', but actually to DESTROY that humanity altogether. For, at that fundamental assessement, Marxism teaches one essentialy thing: "There there can only ever be...the OPPRESSOR and the OPPRESSED".
> > Agreed. Hitler too had strong views about the bads of Marxism.
> > But Marxism was popular as the white racist bigots were insufferably exploitative, having no moral checks.
> > Marxism means grab without hesitation, and that always has its appeal among the have nots.
> > The promiscuity resulting from outing family values is also acceptable to the bandits and fashionable people.
> Hmm, yes. But it is *one tiny part* of the scene in which it is actually cleanly and completely set.
> What the Muslims call "the abomination", well... but as for the rest of it, "squeamish" people may have to grow up.
Good for me!
> > >
> > > Yes, volumes have been written...yet, if BOILED to it's ultimate essence, THIS is all Marxism says. That we...ALL OF US ...are either part of the OPPRESSED...or we are the OPPRESSOR. From that single angle, there can ONLY BE STRUGGLE; underclasses against aristocracy [ergo, the RUssian Revolution], or poor man against the wealthy, or an minority against any dominant majority, or any underruling race against the racial undertone of national foundation [CRT anyone?], or...in the case of women's empowerment and expanding role in society that the PILL afforded [that changed a lot attitudes from victorian households]....FEMINISM, which was simply the MARXIST employment of that new found FREEDOM and expansion....to WEAPONIZE one gender against the other.
> > Males were a bit too overbearing, what. What works is being kind and thoughtful.
> > >
> > > STRUGGLE. THat's all there is under Marxism. END OF STORY. Even if one faction wins out in their struggle to become the dominance, it is THEN, THEY who become the OPPRESSOR...and whomever is under THEIR domain, now the OPPRESSED.
> > But Marxism is a bad idea, so never practical. The Soviets I grew up with had strong family values, so they were not really Marxists.
> Too truly realized at a late date (I speak of my environment).
Jeffrey Rubard
May 22, 2022, 6:30:15 PM5/22/22
to
On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:20:55 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 09:08:10 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 8:54:33 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 02:54:10 UTC+10, tooly wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > Why blame kids?
> > > > One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
> > > >
> > > > A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
> > > Was it the pill or your press promoting the role of hallowed Hollywood sluts?
> > > Images, Tooly, images, all based upon lies and misrepresentations.
> > > And lack of proper mythology and metaphysics, wrong physics instead.
> > Oh, Mr. Banerjee, I don't wish to speak about this topic; "discretion is the better part of valor", as you know.
> Then you had better hear about it, Mr Rubard. And come to your conclusions. Telling lies about the most basic practical matters leads to disaster in the long term. Bad education never helps.
> I am a pioneer in this, on my own for now, but I sense increasing support.
However, Mr. Banerjee, it is usually not that "lies" are told about "the most basic practical matters", but that our own sense of proprieties is importantly skewed: we are "NIMBYs" about emotional and physical harm, somehow, and our "nodding acquaintance" with the idea secrets can be usefully kept from us, except only in suitable circumstances, bears strange fruit. Sometimes it *is* one's own fault, including through "negligence".
> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 09:08:10 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 8:54:33 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 02:54:10 UTC+10, tooly wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > Why blame kids?
> > > > One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
> > > >
> > > > A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
> > > Was it the pill or your press promoting the role of hallowed Hollywood sluts?
> > > Images, Tooly, images, all based upon lies and misrepresentations.
> > > And lack of proper mythology and metaphysics, wrong physics instead.
> > Oh, Mr. Banerjee, I don't wish to speak about this topic; "discretion is the better part of valor", as you know.
> Then you had better hear about it, Mr Rubard. And come to your conclusions. Telling lies about the most basic practical matters leads to disaster in the long term. Bad education never helps.
> I am a pioneer in this, on my own for now, but I sense increasing support.
> > > >
> > > > The PILL freed up women like never before and allowed experimentation, expanding sexuality, and ultimately EMPOWERMENT [long before the political sense of that came to be].
> > > Had there been a strong moral basis, the pill would have been only useful.
> > > >
> > > > Starting perhaps around the 70's, mother's [and father's for that matter] started to raise their daughters with raised esteem, and a growing egotistical expansion to seek all roles in society; to become authority; to LEAD.
> > > Good. Strong women make a strong society.
> > "That's how it's got to be".
> > > >
> > > > To that end, it would be hard to argue against. Surely women's empowerment is a good thing; and once again, raised awareness to a GREATER Humanity [that thing that's been with us since our founding as a growing, expanding, learning...and thusly EVOLVING thing].
> > > >
> > > > Alas, there is a ying and then a yang; too much of a thing here, might mean to little of a thing there. Somehow, women's empowerment...a good thing...took on the auspices of Marxism. Now, Marxism might be one of the most EVIL general philosophies ever produced by human beings...and if understood at it's most fundamental assessment, exists not for our 'great humanity', but actually to DESTROY that humanity altogether. For, at that fundamental assessement, Marxism teaches one essentialy thing: "There there can only ever be...the OPPRESSOR and the OPPRESSED".
> > > Agreed. Hitler too had strong views about the bads of Marxism.
> > > But Marxism was popular as the white racist bigots were insufferably exploitative, having no moral checks.
> > > Marxism means grab without hesitation, and that always has its appeal among the have nots.
> > > The promiscuity resulting from outing family values is also acceptable to the bandits and fashionable people.
> > Hmm, yes. But it is *one tiny part* of the scene in which it is actually cleanly and completely set.
> > What the Muslims call "the abomination", well... but as for the rest of it, "squeamish" people may have to grow up.
> One has to find a balance, between promiscuity and oppression, and the Hindus have found it.
> Good for me!
> > > >
> > > > Yes, volumes have been written...yet, if BOILED to it's ultimate essence, THIS is all Marxism says. That we...ALL OF US ...are either part of the OPPRESSED...or we are the OPPRESSOR. From that single angle, there can ONLY BE STRUGGLE; underclasses against aristocracy [ergo, the RUssian Revolution], or poor man against the wealthy, or an minority against any dominant majority, or any underruling race against the racial undertone of national foundation [CRT anyone?], or...in the case of women's empowerment and expanding role in society that the PILL afforded [that changed a lot attitudes from victorian households]....FEMINISM, which was simply the MARXIST employment of that new found FREEDOM and expansion....to WEAPONIZE one gender against the other.
> > > Males were a bit too overbearing, what. What works is being kind and thoughtful.
> > > >
> > > > STRUGGLE. THat's all there is under Marxism. END OF STORY. Even if one faction wins out in their struggle to become the dominance, it is THEN, THEY who become the OPPRESSOR...and whomever is under THEIR domain, now the OPPRESSED.
> > > But Marxism is a bad idea, so never practical. The Soviets I grew up with had strong family values, so they were not really Marxists.
> > Too truly realized at a late date (I speak of my environment).
> Better late than never.
Arindam Banerjee
May 22, 2022, 10:23:10 PM5/22/22
to
On Monday, 23 May 2022 at 08:30:15 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:20:55 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 09:08:10 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 8:54:33 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 02:54:10 UTC+10, tooly wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > Why blame kids?
> > > > > One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
> > > > Was it the pill or your press promoting the role of hallowed Hollywood sluts?
> > > > Images, Tooly, images, all based upon lies and misrepresentations.
> > > > And lack of proper mythology and metaphysics, wrong physics instead.
> > > Oh, Mr. Banerjee, I don't wish to speak about this topic; "discretion is the better part of valor", as you know.
> > Then you had better hear about it, Mr Rubard. And come to your conclusions. Telling lies about the most basic practical matters leads to disaster in the long term. Bad education never helps.
> > I am a pioneer in this, on my own for now, but I sense increasing support.
> However, Mr. Banerjee, it is usually not that "lies" are told about "the most basic practical matters", but that our own sense of proprieties is importantly skewed: we are "NIMBYs" about emotional and physical harm, somehow, and our "nodding acquaintance" with the idea secrets can be usefully kept from us, except only in suitable circumstances, bears strange fruit. Sometimes it *is* one's own fault, including through "negligence".
One needs to be brave, but not foolish. In a world of illusion, the choice is to go with it, or find some other place. Proceeding carefully, we may come to a serene place, a welcome glade among the bushes. People follow successful example. Not heeding the loud propagandists, is a start; after that is individual free will. When that is based upon truth and morality, there is good done.
> On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:20:55 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 09:08:10 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 8:54:33 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 02:54:10 UTC+10, tooly wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > Why blame kids?
> > > > > One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
> > > > >
> > > > > A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
> > > > Was it the pill or your press promoting the role of hallowed Hollywood sluts?
> > > > Images, Tooly, images, all based upon lies and misrepresentations.
> > > > And lack of proper mythology and metaphysics, wrong physics instead.
> > > Oh, Mr. Banerjee, I don't wish to speak about this topic; "discretion is the better part of valor", as you know.
> > Then you had better hear about it, Mr Rubard. And come to your conclusions. Telling lies about the most basic practical matters leads to disaster in the long term. Bad education never helps.
> > I am a pioneer in this, on my own for now, but I sense increasing support.
> However, Mr. Banerjee, it is usually not that "lies" are told about "the most basic practical matters", but that our own sense of proprieties is importantly skewed: we are "NIMBYs" about emotional and physical harm, somehow, and our "nodding acquaintance" with the idea secrets can be usefully kept from us, except only in suitable circumstances, bears strange fruit. Sometimes it *is* one's own fault, including through "negligence".
> > > > >
> > > > > The PILL freed up women like never before and allowed experimentation, expanding sexuality, and ultimately EMPOWERMENT [long before the political sense of that came to be].
> > > > Had there been a strong moral basis, the pill would have been only useful.
> > > > >
> > > > > Starting perhaps around the 70's, mother's [and father's for that matter] started to raise their daughters with raised esteem, and a growing egotistical expansion to seek all roles in society; to become authority; to LEAD.
> > > > Good. Strong women make a strong society.
> > > "That's how it's got to be".
> > > > >
> > > > > To that end, it would be hard to argue against. Surely women's empowerment is a good thing; and once again, raised awareness to a GREATER Humanity [that thing that's been with us since our founding as a growing, expanding, learning...and thusly EVOLVING thing].
> > > > >
> > > > > Alas, there is a ying and then a yang; too much of a thing here, might mean to little of a thing there. Somehow, women's empowerment...a good thing...took on the auspices of Marxism. Now, Marxism might be one of the most EVIL general philosophies ever produced by human beings...and if understood at it's most fundamental assessment, exists not for our 'great humanity', but actually to DESTROY that humanity altogether. For, at that fundamental assessement, Marxism teaches one essentialy thing: "There there can only ever be...the OPPRESSOR and the OPPRESSED".
> > > > Agreed. Hitler too had strong views about the bads of Marxism.
> > > > But Marxism was popular as the white racist bigots were insufferably exploitative, having no moral checks.
> > > > Marxism means grab without hesitation, and that always has its appeal among the have nots.
> > > > The promiscuity resulting from outing family values is also acceptable to the bandits and fashionable people.
> > > Hmm, yes. But it is *one tiny part* of the scene in which it is actually cleanly and completely set.
> > > What the Muslims call "the abomination", well... but as for the rest of it, "squeamish" people may have to grow up.
> > One has to find a balance, between promiscuity and oppression, and the Hindus have found it.
> > Good for me!
> A thing people say sometimes, usually usefully: "Speak your truth".
Yes!
> > > > > The PILL freed up women like never before and allowed experimentation, expanding sexuality, and ultimately EMPOWERMENT [long before the political sense of that came to be].
> > > > Had there been a strong moral basis, the pill would have been only useful.
> > > > >
> > > > > Starting perhaps around the 70's, mother's [and father's for that matter] started to raise their daughters with raised esteem, and a growing egotistical expansion to seek all roles in society; to become authority; to LEAD.
> > > > Good. Strong women make a strong society.
> > > "That's how it's got to be".
> > > > >
> > > > > To that end, it would be hard to argue against. Surely women's empowerment is a good thing; and once again, raised awareness to a GREATER Humanity [that thing that's been with us since our founding as a growing, expanding, learning...and thusly EVOLVING thing].
> > > > >
> > > > > Alas, there is a ying and then a yang; too much of a thing here, might mean to little of a thing there. Somehow, women's empowerment...a good thing...took on the auspices of Marxism. Now, Marxism might be one of the most EVIL general philosophies ever produced by human beings...and if understood at it's most fundamental assessment, exists not for our 'great humanity', but actually to DESTROY that humanity altogether. For, at that fundamental assessement, Marxism teaches one essentialy thing: "There there can only ever be...the OPPRESSOR and the OPPRESSED".
> > > > Agreed. Hitler too had strong views about the bads of Marxism.
> > > > But Marxism was popular as the white racist bigots were insufferably exploitative, having no moral checks.
> > > > Marxism means grab without hesitation, and that always has its appeal among the have nots.
> > > > The promiscuity resulting from outing family values is also acceptable to the bandits and fashionable people.
> > > Hmm, yes. But it is *one tiny part* of the scene in which it is actually cleanly and completely set.
> > > What the Muslims call "the abomination", well... but as for the rest of it, "squeamish" people may have to grow up.
> > One has to find a balance, between promiscuity and oppression, and the Hindus have found it.
> > Good for me!
> A thing people say sometimes, usually usefully: "Speak your truth".
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, volumes have been written...yet, if BOILED to it's ultimate essence, THIS is all Marxism says. That we...ALL OF US ...are either part of the OPPRESSED...or we are the OPPRESSOR. From that single angle, there can ONLY BE STRUGGLE; underclasses against aristocracy [ergo, the RUssian Revolution], or poor man against the wealthy, or an minority against any dominant majority, or any underruling race against the racial undertone of national foundation [CRT anyone?], or...in the case of women's empowerment and expanding role in society that the PILL afforded [that changed a lot attitudes from victorian households]....FEMINISM, which was simply the MARXIST employment of that new found FREEDOM and expansion....to WEAPONIZE one gender against the other.
> > > > Males were a bit too overbearing, what. What works is being kind and thoughtful.
> > > > >
> > > > > STRUGGLE. THat's all there is under Marxism. END OF STORY. Even if one faction wins out in their struggle to become the dominance, it is THEN, THEY who become the OPPRESSOR...and whomever is under THEIR domain, now the OPPRESSED.
> > > > But Marxism is a bad idea, so never practical. The Soviets I grew up with had strong family values, so they were not really Marxists.
> > > Too truly realized at a late date (I speak of my environment).
> > Better late than never.
> What if, in an individual's case, it was "never" rather than "late"? What proves this for other people?
Stupidity.
> > > > > Yes, volumes have been written...yet, if BOILED to it's ultimate essence, THIS is all Marxism says. That we...ALL OF US ...are either part of the OPPRESSED...or we are the OPPRESSOR. From that single angle, there can ONLY BE STRUGGLE; underclasses against aristocracy [ergo, the RUssian Revolution], or poor man against the wealthy, or an minority against any dominant majority, or any underruling race against the racial undertone of national foundation [CRT anyone?], or...in the case of women's empowerment and expanding role in society that the PILL afforded [that changed a lot attitudes from victorian households]....FEMINISM, which was simply the MARXIST employment of that new found FREEDOM and expansion....to WEAPONIZE one gender against the other.
> > > > Males were a bit too overbearing, what. What works is being kind and thoughtful.
> > > > >
> > > > > STRUGGLE. THat's all there is under Marxism. END OF STORY. Even if one faction wins out in their struggle to become the dominance, it is THEN, THEY who become the OPPRESSOR...and whomever is under THEIR domain, now the OPPRESSED.
> > > > But Marxism is a bad idea, so never practical. The Soviets I grew up with had strong family values, so they were not really Marxists.
> > > Too truly realized at a late date (I speak of my environment).
> > Better late than never.
> What if, in an individual's case, it was "never" rather than "late"? What proves this for other people?
Those denying obvious truths are stupid and their company must never be sought. Alas, the world loves stupidity; US is giving the incredibly stupid Zelensky 40 Billion dollars of borrowed money. There is a grandeur in that awesome stupidity; but who knows I may be wrong, it may be ruthless cunning, not studity as such meaning self-harm for the actors and harm for others.
Jeffrey Rubard
May 26, 2022, 6:58:21 PM5/26/22
to
On Sunday, May 22, 2022 at 7:23:10 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, 23 May 2022 at 08:30:15 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:20:55 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 09:08:10 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 8:54:33 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 02:54:10 UTC+10, tooly wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > > Why blame kids?
> > > > > > One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
> > > > > Was it the pill or your press promoting the role of hallowed Hollywood sluts?
> > > > > Images, Tooly, images, all based upon lies and misrepresentations.
> > > > > And lack of proper mythology and metaphysics, wrong physics instead.
> > > > Oh, Mr. Banerjee, I don't wish to speak about this topic; "discretion is the better part of valor", as you know.
> > > Then you had better hear about it, Mr Rubard. And come to your conclusions. Telling lies about the most basic practical matters leads to disaster in the long term. Bad education never helps.
> > > I am a pioneer in this, on my own for now, but I sense increasing support.
> > However, Mr. Banerjee, it is usually not that "lies" are told about "the most basic practical matters", but that our own sense of proprieties is importantly skewed: we are "NIMBYs" about emotional and physical harm, somehow, and our "nodding acquaintance" with the idea secrets can be usefully kept from us, except only in suitable circumstances, bears strange fruit. Sometimes it *is* one's own fault, including through "negligence".
> One needs to be brave, but not foolish. In a world of illusion, the choice is to go with it, or find some other place. Proceeding carefully, we may come to a serene place, a welcome glade among the bushes. People follow successful example. Not heeding the loud propagandists, is a start; after that is individual free will. When that is based upon truth and morality, there is good done.
"That would at least be something."
> On Monday, 23 May 2022 at 08:30:15 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 4:20:55 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 09:08:10 UTC+10, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 8:54:33 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, 16 May 2022 at 02:54:10 UTC+10, tooly wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > > Why blame kids?
> > > > > > One might be asked, 'why blame the kids'? Rightly so, the rock skips along the lake thrown from a distance...and one thing leads to another.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A lot of things came out of those turbulent 60's. It's hard to pinpoint a single accelerant. But perhaps some matches were larger than others. Civil rights surely set the nation and world upon a certain path. But also, and perhaps even more influential was the PILL. before the Pill [birth control], women were locked into old world convenience of nuclear families based upon practicality. It was probably easier to submit to the homemaker undertones of her sexuality for sake of, well, her own survival. Remember, getting pregnant too young once meant almost being banished from the community; and surely being of ill repute.
> > > > > Was it the pill or your press promoting the role of hallowed Hollywood sluts?
> > > > > Images, Tooly, images, all based upon lies and misrepresentations.
> > > > > And lack of proper mythology and metaphysics, wrong physics instead.
> > > > Oh, Mr. Banerjee, I don't wish to speak about this topic; "discretion is the better part of valor", as you know.
> > > Then you had better hear about it, Mr Rubard. And come to your conclusions. Telling lies about the most basic practical matters leads to disaster in the long term. Bad education never helps.
> > > I am a pioneer in this, on my own for now, but I sense increasing support.
> > However, Mr. Banerjee, it is usually not that "lies" are told about "the most basic practical matters", but that our own sense of proprieties is importantly skewed: we are "NIMBYs" about emotional and physical harm, somehow, and our "nodding acquaintance" with the idea secrets can be usefully kept from us, except only in suitable circumstances, bears strange fruit. Sometimes it *is* one's own fault, including through "negligence".
> One needs to be brave, but not foolish. In a world of illusion, the choice is to go with it, or find some other place. Proceeding carefully, we may come to a serene place, a welcome glade among the bushes. People follow successful example. Not heeding the loud propagandists, is a start; after that is individual free will. When that is based upon truth and morality, there is good done.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The PILL freed up women like never before and allowed experimentation, expanding sexuality, and ultimately EMPOWERMENT [long before the political sense of that came to be].
> > > > > Had there been a strong moral basis, the pill would have been only useful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Starting perhaps around the 70's, mother's [and father's for that matter] started to raise their daughters with raised esteem, and a growing egotistical expansion to seek all roles in society; to become authority; to LEAD.
> > > > > Good. Strong women make a strong society.
> > > > "That's how it's got to be".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To that end, it would be hard to argue against. Surely women's empowerment is a good thing; and once again, raised awareness to a GREATER Humanity [that thing that's been with us since our founding as a growing, expanding, learning...and thusly EVOLVING thing].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alas, there is a ying and then a yang; too much of a thing here, might mean to little of a thing there. Somehow, women's empowerment...a good thing...took on the auspices of Marxism. Now, Marxism might be one of the most EVIL general philosophies ever produced by human beings...and if understood at it's most fundamental assessment, exists not for our 'great humanity', but actually to DESTROY that humanity altogether. For, at that fundamental assessement, Marxism teaches one essentialy thing: "There there can only ever be...the OPPRESSOR and the OPPRESSED".
> > > > > Agreed. Hitler too had strong views about the bads of Marxism.
> > > > > But Marxism was popular as the white racist bigots were insufferably exploitative, having no moral checks.
> > > > > Marxism means grab without hesitation, and that always has its appeal among the have nots.
> > > > > The promiscuity resulting from outing family values is also acceptable to the bandits and fashionable people.
> > > > Hmm, yes. But it is *one tiny part* of the scene in which it is actually cleanly and completely set.
> > > > What the Muslims call "the abomination", well... but as for the rest of it, "squeamish" people may have to grow up.
> > > One has to find a balance, between promiscuity and oppression, and the Hindus have found it.
> > > Good for me!
> > A thing people say sometimes, usually usefully: "Speak your truth".
> Yes!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, volumes have been written...yet, if BOILED to it's ultimate essence, THIS is all Marxism says. That we...ALL OF US ...are either part of the OPPRESSED...or we are the OPPRESSOR. From that single angle, there can ONLY BE STRUGGLE; underclasses against aristocracy [ergo, the RUssian Revolution], or poor man against the wealthy, or an minority against any dominant majority, or any underruling race against the racial undertone of national foundation [CRT anyone?], or...in the case of women's empowerment and expanding role in society that the PILL afforded [that changed a lot attitudes from victorian households]....FEMINISM, which was simply the MARXIST employment of that new found FREEDOM and expansion....to WEAPONIZE one gender against the other.
> > > > > Males were a bit too overbearing, what. What works is being kind and thoughtful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > STRUGGLE. THat's all there is under Marxism. END OF STORY. Even if one faction wins out in their struggle to become the dominance, it is THEN, THEY who become the OPPRESSOR...and whomever is under THEIR domain, now the OPPRESSED.
> > > > > But Marxism is a bad idea, so never practical. The Soviets I grew up with had strong family values, so they were not really Marxists.
> > > > Too truly realized at a late date (I speak of my environment).
> > > Better late than never.
> > What if, in an individual's case, it was "never" rather than "late"? What proves this for other people?
> Stupidity.
> Those denying obvious truths are stupid and their company must never be sought. Alas, the world loves stupidity; US is giving the incredibly stupid Zelensky 40 Billion dollars of borrowed money. There is a grandeur in that awesome stupidity; but who knows I may be wrong, it may be ruthless cunning, not studity as such meaning self-harm for the actors and harm for others.
Jeffrey Rubard
Jun 4, 2022, 5:41:52 PM6/4/22
to
Arindam Banerjee
Jun 5, 2022, 7:06:46 AM6/5/22
to
tooly
Jun 20, 2022, 7:44:49 PM6/20/22
to
Arindam Banerjee
Jun 21, 2022, 7:39:27 AM6/21/22
to
0 new messages