The title of this blog entry refers to this earlier one:
Shane Killian sells out!
It’s time to revisit that issue. Look at this meme:
The whole premise of that meme is a lie. Capitalism and corporatism are one and the same and have been for at least 300 years. The attempt to make a distinction between them is profoundly dishonest, implying that “real” capitalism does not exist. If so, it never did and never will. The only real alternative to crony capitalism is Democratic Socialism, period.
Here’s what really happens:
A individual has an idea.
That individual forms a company and makes a product with that idea.
Consumers give the company money for the product.
The company becomes successful.
Someone else has a better idea and creates a better product.
The first company uses its money to buy out the new product from its inventor and sells it in addition to or even instead of the original product, increasing its profitability and leaving the actual inventor with almost nothing later.
As a result, the company makes money no matter what product it sells.
Always remember this: Those who already have a lot of money will always have an unfair advantage over those who don’t.
Government corruption does NOT produce corporatism. Tyranny and abuses can also come from economic forces too if government does nothing to stop them with policies such as “trust-busting” and progressive income taxation, among other tools at government’s disposal to redistribute wealth. That is why Libertarianism is worthless.
Note: This is a slightly expanded version of an earlier blog entry: Four Ways to Create a Religion of Hypocrites.
- State that religion no longer needs clergy……and replace them with leaders that are as authoritarian as the clergy ever was.
- Claim that men and women should be equal……but then deny women membership in the all-powerful leadership council of the religion.
- Condemn as heretics those who believe in your religion but dare to challenge the claims of your religion’s current leadership, while at the same time claiming to welcome as friends the followers of other religions.
- Claim there is harmony between science and religion, but also claim that anything your leaders say is absolutely true, even if on topics science is expected to address.
- Claim to shun partisan politics, but favor a government of their own, which is as partisan as it gets.
Any one of these makes a religion not worth following, but what should you do if you find a religion that has all five of these contradictions?
Read this story written and posted on Facebook by one of my friends.
Cheri and me as newlyweds.
I was in my mid-thirties and had been looking for someone to love since I left high school.
Then I met a beautiful lady named Sara. She seemed to have a wonderful personality, but even after I made clear how attracted I was to her, she said she saw me as just a friend.
Anyway, I had a choice to make. Walk away from her, or remain and be her real friend. I chose the latter. At one point, I even helped her get a job at a Target in Arlington, Texas. Where a certain woman was already working.
Sara then met a guy named John Ellington. The moment I saw them together, I knew she had found the right man for her. A year later, I get invited to their wedding. Guess who was also invited?
Cheri Day, my own future wife and Sara’s co-worker at Target. Cheri was actually sat near me. It turned out Sara was playing matchmaker because she thought I would be a good guy for Cheri to be with. Her plan worked. I danced with Cheri at the wedding and we swapped addresses and phone numbers and we began dating. We often double dated with Sara and John.
This is a direct sequel to Treachery of Baha’is @ reddit
Baha’is in reddit have come up with a new tactic for attacking those who dare to leave and then criticize their former religion; they are claiming most ex-Baha’is are just Muslim enemies of the faith who never joined.
First see this:
At one point, a Baha’i named t0lk asserts:
A word of caution about r/exbahai, it is mostly populated by Muslims and not by people who were formerly Baha’is.
This was noticed and commented on here:
In my younger days, I was often rejected by girls and young women even though I tried to be as loving towards them as possible. I assumed that it might have been because they thought I was ugly or weak. But the real issue seems to be something I often see in politics too.
Women naturally want men that are strong to protect them and their children, and our culture seems to depict men that have a strong sense of empathy and compassion for others to be “weak”, therefore such men are not considered as suitable for a domestic partnership as men that are highly aggressive towards others.
Likewise, people generally want a leader that is highly aggressive for the same reason. That explains why George McGovern lost so badly to Richard Nixon in 1972 despite having a much better character and this was repeated with Jimmy Carter losing to Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Donald Trump winning his election in 2016.
But what people often fail to consider is that the same aggressive attitude that makes a man look strong can be twisted to hurt or abandon the very ones the man is supposed to be protecting, including his love partner and their children. By contrast, a loving, empathic man can encourage a woman to stand up for herself rather than just let a man fight for her. And he would not leave her as long as she loved him just as deeply.
I have known several cases of women who used to see me as just a friend who after being abused and/or neglected by the men in their life, later took another look at me and decided I would have been the better partner for them after all. And I would consider it an honor to help care for them.
Likewise, I am hopeful that the American people will stop being seduced by the mere appearance of strength and seek in future Presidents the most powerful character trait anyone can have: LOVE! Its being seen as weakness is sheer ignorance. Have you ever seen a mother bear fight to protect her cubs?