The current time is marked by collectivism of a particular sort. It is marked by a unity of resentment against one group or another. The ability to fall in and march to the orgy of rage is largely dependent on selective ignorance.
Even the smartest just don't want to 'go there' on something. More often than not, the 'there' they don't want to go to is basic economics. Not because they don't have the mind for math, economics isn't really about math anyway. Not because they can't find quality information, there's plenty of introductory books or youtube lectures available. Not because they don't consider it important, the most grandiose economic theories and plans are almost always espoused by people with the least education on the topic.
No. The reason people don't care to become educated is because they know education will spoil the enjoyment of everyone's secret vice: righteous anger.
There is a single piece of information, which can be found either directly or indirectly in any book on economics, or statistics, that spoils the pity party of modern welfare advocacy.
It takes an incredibly dense and imperceiving mind to overlook this basic fact. The fact is so simple, that I am going to contribute far more words to its explanation than should ever be required. I will do this simply to stress the incredible and world altering implications contained. Once you read and understand this information, you will never be able to listen to Bernie Sanders again without considering him a complete and utter numbskull.
Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama will seem like absurd fools. In fact, anyone who discusses concepts of 'income inequality' and 'The Poor' or 'The Rich' will come off as woefully uneducated schysters.
When you fully grasp this simple idea, you will understand why I am so compulsively snarky in my comments on certain articles appearing on this site.
There Is No Such "Thing" As The Poor
The Poor is not a person. The Poor does not have an address, it doesn't wear clothes, it isn't a thing. It is what is called in linguistics a "nominalisation", from 'nom' meaning to name. It is an abstraction (except in Australia where it's a rock band).
When trying to understand language, it's good to use the wheel barrow test. Ask yourself, 'can I put it in a wheel barrow and take it home with me?'
You can't put love in a wheel barrow, nor can you put economics, or The Rich, or The Poor. All of these things identify abstract categories. They have no concrete existence.
You also cannot feed The Poor. You cannot help The Poor, or save The Poor. And most importantly, you cannot cure The Poor. You cannot get rid of The Poor, or kill The Poor, or make The Poor become The Rich.
That is because The Poor is an abstraction.
How To Lie With Statistics
Now, the above bit of detail should start you on a path of thinking that will lead you to all kinds of interesting questions. If that were the long and short of it, it wouldn't be so earth shattering, but there's more.
The Poor is not just a nominalisation, not merely an abstraction, it is also what is called a Statistical Category. The following is mainly from memory, and numbers have been rounded for ease of use and understanding. This is because I'm not going to spend 3 days combing through economics texts and IRS and Census data that you won't bother to read through and verify - the picture I present is broadly accurate, give or take a few percentage points here and there.
The Poor is a population group, and because of that, it is not eternal, in fact, no constituent of the cohort can be in the category for longer than say 70-80 years, i.e. the human life span.
But The Poor, as a statistical category, has existed for thousands of years. In every era of history, some people are poor, how can this be?
The Poor as a category will always exist, and has always existed, and the people who comprise this category are born, enter the category, and die, thus leaving the category. Some will leave the category before they die, to be replaced by others who, previously, were not in the category.
While this seems like a no-brainer, you would be surprised how many people I have heard reason about The Poor as if they are immortal and immutable, like an ageless and timeless bedraggled mass that has been staring accusingly at the rest of us throughout all time.
As noted, not all people who enter the Statistical Category of The Poor stay there for their entire lives. In fact, if you follow individuals based on their tax returns, 75% of the people who start in the Statistical Category of The Poor do not finish or die in the same category. That is, 75% of all of the people who are in the bottom 25% of "wealth earners or possessors" in the United States, move above the bottom 25% by the time they retire.
75% of those people in the bottom 25% when they start, end up in the top 40% by the time they retire. 30% of the people in the bottom 25% ended up in the top 25%!
Talking about The Poor and The Rich is ultimately meaningless, because it doesn't take into account flesh and blood human beings who traverse the cohort throughout their lives, getting richer or poorer. The fact is, that most people in their lives move up and down the income inequality divide, only very rarely reaching their maximum earning potential.
These same facts are actually true about The Rich as a statistical category. Most of the people we talk about when we discuss The Rich are those like Ray Dalio, or Warren Buffet. These people are less than 1/1000 of 1% of the population. These people are essentially the material lottery winners of life. They may or may not really 'deserve' the money they've gotten in life, but they have it.
The truth is, to be in the top 1% of income earners in the United States, you only have to earn, per annum, around $450,000. To be in the top 5% of income earners in the United States you only have to earn over $250,000. To be in the top 10% you need to earn $150,000.
The problem is that very few people can sustain that earning potential. Most of the people who earn that kind of money do so from small to medium businesses, and only for a year or two in a row before competition pushes their earnings back down. So someone may be in the top 1% for 1 to 2 years, and then drop down into the top 5% or even 10%.
This is exactly what we find, over 87% of people in the top 0.1% in 1992 were no longer in the top 0.1% by 2000. People get rich, and then invest that money in some new scheme, often losing large amounts of it, and having to start again in a lower earnings bracket.
Income dips or peaks are ultimately irrelevant, because a single year does not define a person's entire life. Someone who builds a business over 10 years may only be making $50,000 a year with the business, and once it's a success, they might sell it for $500,000 jumping into the 1% and then the next year returning to their normal earning potential of $50,000.
Conclusion
Ideologues use their rhetorical skills to play fast and loose with abstract ideas and statistical categories. They try to get you to buy into whatever scheme they are selling, to vote for whatever candidate they are supporting, or to contribute time and energy to whatever cause they are lauding.
Don't trust them, don't believe them. I am 100% sure you are pretty much struggling just to save yourself. Remember the counsel of every airplane stewardess: put on your own oxygen mask first before trying to help anyone else.
Reader Comments
noun
1.the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.
The way you "dissect" the phrase The Poor can be used with pretty much any abstract word. For instance the word "abstract". You use it in a specific way, but the word itself is abstract, and lends itself to many other uses as well.
Welcome to the world of language, where the vast majority of all words in existence have several meanings and only exist because somebody sometime decided that those sounds when stringed together should mean precisely that. And then somebody else at some other time used it differently to communicate something else - and in both circumstances, the recipient of the message understood what was meant.
There is nothing clever at all about this article.
Although I do approve of the final message, since discussions these days have devolved into a mere exchange of empty slogans.
Empty slogans... empty words... empty meaning... lots of talk. O_o
Oh!! And split up... like snake s tongue
illusions.can be made real
Yep BC... i prefer playing in the real
Like in... free will (choice)
Reorganizing social policy, or government policy, and arguing for revolution based on words with ambiguous semantics is a recipe for disaster on many levels. So we have a rather pedestrian truth leading to not-so-pedestrian carnage.
Take your definition. Well, that's ambiguous, because little is a relative kind of word. Little compared to what and to whom? Compared to someone in subsaharan africa? Or compared to someone in beverly hills?
I tend to define poverty on how many meals a day a person can consume, or more specifically the quality of the meals. So eating Ramen Noodles 3 times a day is more poor than someone who can afford meat/poultry 1 time per day.
I like to look at the subsistance level. Do they have clothes and shoes? Access to clean water? Access to work and so on.
Abel, the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, was destroyed by a similar Tower of Babel, by Cain, on another planet. The first part of the bible is allegorical.
Man confused their tongue by taking away their Triadic Language, meaning they conversed through the mind. When Man unhooked their DNA through the Speciel Mind, they could no longer speak this way and thus the "babble".
All this from understandings of Delamer Duverus.
Q: (L) What was the event a hundred or so years after the flood of Noah that was described as the confusing of languages, or the tower of Babel?
A: Spiritual confluence.
Q: (L) What purpose did the individuals who came together to build the tower intend for said tower?
A: Electromagnetic concentration of all gravity waves.
Q: (L) And what did they intend to do with these concentrated waves?
A: Mind alteration of masses.
Q: (L) What intention did they have in altering the mind of the masses?
A: Spiritual unification of the masses.
Q: (L) Who were the "gods" that looked down on the tower of Babel, at those who were building it with the intention of unification, and decided to destroy their works?
A: Lizards.
Q: (L) Okay, so the Lizzies blew up the tower of Babel. What else did they do to the minds of mankind; did they do something causing literal disruption of their understanding of language?
A: Close.
Q: (L) What tool did they use to accomplish this divisiveness?
A: Brainwashing of masses.
Q: (L) Did they do this through implants and abduction?
A: Partly.
Q: (L) What is the true meaning, the original meaning, of the Hebrew word "shem"?
A: Purity.
Q: (L) Why was this word related to the obelisks or standing stones later called "shems" by the Hebrews?
A: Symbolic of purity: unification. Uniformity.
Q: (L) Did these stones themselves actually possess any power?
A: Residual.
Q: (L) What object were the ancients going to place in the tower of Babel to...
A: Crystal.
Q: (L) Is "shem" also synonymous with "crystal"?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Shem, the son of Noah, was the ancestor of the group that built the tower, is this correct?
A: Yes.
So many angles to go with this post, where should we begin? For starters, let's recap what we have so far. Diamond traces back to mean: diamond, magnet and adamant. The Late Latin form of diamas is essentially a compound of two words: dia + mas. In the Spanish language, dia means "day" and mas means "more". You already know more is clear variation of Moor and a day is most symbolically recognized as the time when the sun is shining, so diamas really translates to mean Sun Moor. Though, if you look a little more closely, you'll notice that mas also looks like Ma's aka Big Amma Mama, so diamas is actually Ma's Sun or Masun or Mason or Amazon/A-Ma-Son and even Amaru/A-Ma-Ru. This also reminds me of Samson and wasn't he the strongest man to ever live? Reminds me of one of the main characteristics of a diamond. Go figure.
CRYSTAL being immature state vs the Diamond.
Diamond equates perfect knowledge of oneself... mastering the self.
Also [Link]
Details details.... nothing but buttons on a shirt.
Funny.... just yesterday, no shit, i noticed i had lost a button.... which i never used anyway... and realizing it... still managed to bother me.... but just abit.
'Poor' and 'Rich' are universal concepts subject to real-life quantifiable universally-determinable states-of-existence measured-up via the socio-economic compatibility of any community at a given time, location and its group-conscious level allows for.
... leave us not in temptation but deliver us ....
How do you know you aren't seeing gibberish?
I have 2 experiences with symbolism
1st - to do with people deliberately using symbols in their communications for whatever reason e.g. to ensure only the intended recipient gets it or maybe to try and bypass language which might change over millennia... so if I wanted to communicate something 3000 or 300,000 years into the future, might want to think of a way to do it that doesn't involve the languages we use today.
2nd - Certain dreams where the dream narrative takes on symbolic form. I only call it symbolic form as I presume it has to take on some form which usually if it does, it won't be entirely aligned to our normal waking day form of interpretation/thinking as during dreaming, you're not using the same 'mind' or parts of it as lets say what I'm using to write this message. Hopefully that made sense. With this regard I'm not sure it matters whether you can understand the meaning of dreams or not.... perhaps they just happen and its function is independent from your ability to understand it or not. Not sure on this though!!!
Symbolism in dreams isn't my 'specialty' if you will... Not yet anyway. Thats more 'Jungian'... I've not gotten into it. Linda is probably best to go through with that?
Btw... i sincerely enjoy reading your communication style when you heart does the writing... plus you are just so bright! (you re not the only one mind you )
Dreams talk to you to wake up.... the monkeymind you know.
I'm too literal and possibly mildly autistic to decipher symbols...
How do you know you aren't seeing gibberish?
TRUST is not 'a literal thing' ... knock knock... dont collude with depression.
To follow up: Symbolism = Secrets hidden in plain sight.
BEAUTIFUL!!
It tells a story but doesn't quite finish it off...
Like for example... poor and rich, why is it a hot button topic? Why do many live their whole lives trying to be rich? Where is the line between poor and rich? What is economic inequality? Is it a good thing? Is it bad? What about the massive and continually increasing gap between rich and poor? Hmm... so many questions unanswered.
But one question has been answered... poor and rich are abstract concepts.
Each is responsible to finish their own story.
Economic Inequality is a nonsense term, which is more theme and variation on the liberal philosophy of egalitarianism, which is largely a farce.
The increasing gap between The Rich and The Poor is nonsense as well, because these are statistical categories. It doesn't matter, because flesh and blood people move in and out of these categories throughout their lives.
In economics, it is understood that socio-economic mobility is by large fixed and that the bracket you are born in, is the bracket you are most likely to spend your life in. Economics happened to make up 50% of my degree and even though it was a number of years back, I am pretty certain this is what we were taught and enough evidence was provided to show this as economic fact, at least in the UK.
You can call it 'liberal' but that in of itself does not disprove something. Saying that people move in and out of categories doesn't disprove anything either. I think this moving in and out of categories is quite dubious at least for the majority.
A doctor will earn £100k plus year on year until they retire, so will a surgeon, so will a director, so will a lawyer, so will a high end engineer etc... it won't just be for 1 or 2 years. Also you didn't mention the markets and property investments... jobs are not the only source of income for high bracket earners, they invest in the markets i.e. employ professionals to manage their money most of which is managed properly and also invest in property which at least in the UK knows only one direction, that is up. So people who are already earning a lot, have investments both in the financial markets and other assets and are unlikely to 'drop' in the economic sphere back to 'poor'.
Likewise, if you're coming from a place of generational poverty (which exists at least in the UK) then you are unlikely to have enough in the way of funds to invest or unlikely to do jobs which have a route to higher earning brackets.
There are many resources you can read that will highlight the above... below I post one from the british government itself
Calling it liberal or saying people move in and out of categories doesn't negate what is widely accepted, taught and experienced as true by tens of millions of people.
[Link]
Personally, I'm trying to find a way to see what you are saying as true but I can't. I know you personally may have moved brackets from poor to rich but the circumstances that may befall you are unique and not applicable to everyone.
What you are (almost) all mentally trying to disect in this theme of RICH vs POOR... i mean... it s just like deciding to comb your hair but aiming your hand + comb thru your arsehole.
There are many different schools of Economics, and while many of them might agree on some terminology here and there, or some basic definitions (Marx spends pages simply defining what a "commodity" is), when we branch off into the moral philosophical underpinnings of economics, we run into a lot of core ideological assumptions. This is not agreed upon, if you read Thomas Sowell's book Intellectuals and Society, he will discuss this thoroughly, and it is from his work that I took most of my statistics and the topic of the article.
I am saying, explicitly, that if you follow the cohort via their tax returns, you get a very different picture of income mobility (in the United States). I can't say this applies to England. I'm pretty certain you were taught all kinds of nonsense at your university. ESPECIALLY with ECON. It's shorthand for saying that it is based on a naive idealism that is indicative of the liberal. But yes, you are correct, it doesn't prove anything, it's just a tag. . I'm not sure how to respond to this. I listed the percentages. What percentage would you classify as "majority"? I would think by definition 51%. If I can get you 75% will you grant me majority? Right, but these are rare jobs. In fact, even in England, there are massive shortages of Doctors (english born and trained) and engineers. Also Econ majors are not a majority. I mean, doctors are usually 1 in 1,000. [Link] Not explicitly, but I used an equity example of selling a business. I also think people over focus on investments as "unearned profit." They've obviously never invested. Well, the UK is pretty Islandish, so properties values can really only go up...
Most people can invest, no one is preventing you from opening a Roth IRA account, or even a regular equity account at any brokerage. And yes, if you manage your money properly, and invest it, you are unlikely to return to the bracket you started in. That is part of my point.
Anyone who saves money doesn't understand money. I disagree with this statement on the grounds that you can always find the money. You just have to make a choice. Many people do not make that choice. You are either poor today, or poor tomorrow, but poverty is unavoidable.
It takes even less today to start investing than it did 10 years ago, but many work places have matching schemes for IRA accounts and so on. Where there is a will, there is a way. And those would not be ideologically biased?
ATREIDES your following comment is the same DRAMAQUEEN shit spewed over n over again. GET OVER IT already!
~ Bill Plotkin
What you've quoted is largely post-modernist non-sense. It doesn't seem that way, but it actually is.
First of all it's obsessed with objectification, which is largely a word-game of the post modernists, trying to borrow semantic content from linguistics. It brings in a bit of pop psychology in talking about egocentrism, and then makes a bunch of nonsense claims. I don't think so. Even if one is egocentric, what else would they be? You are your point of orientation. What you are espousing here is a kind of self-effacing sklavenmoral.
On every airplane they tell you, put your mask on first. I.e. protect your life first, then help others. Egocentrism does not exclude helping other people. The first duty of a node on a network is to keep itself healthy and alive. Depends on what you mean by object. Does one see others as more or less equal to a spatula? This is that whole "objectification" nonsense that everyone prattles on about.
Most people in life are "mere extras", the overwhelming majority of people you encounter won't even have speaking parts in the "nonrelational drama" of your life. So I don't see this as even profound, though the author obviously wants to add moral weight to what he is saying. Offsides. This is category confusion, individuals are not comparable to economies. Economies are not people, or things, they are abstract mechanisms for communicating intrinsic scarcity. And that is wrong how? Or are you suggesting that they are special little snowflakes.
Let me ask you, who is worth more to society, Ted Bundy or Albert Einstein? Which one would you rather keep? But it is not tragic that people use the world, or eat animals. I like eating animals, pigs, cows, lambs. They taste good roasted. I like chopping down trees and burning them for heat, or using wood to build houses, and I don't mind a bit of veg now and again with my ginormous steak.
I don't think that people are trained to do this with each other in any significant way.
If you go to the DMV, you want to "get something" out of the person behind the counter, and you're not willing to pay a very high price for it. There are many interactions in life between parties for which there is no love lost on the parting. Bullshit. If it were true, no actually, it would be neither. That statement has no meaning. Sorry to pull a post-modernism out of my arse, but yeah, that's just word salad trying to come off as pith.
I guess the 71% of this planet who live on less than 10 dollars a day don't exist or are just going through a phase.
This is nothing but word juggling to justify the injustifiable. I would bet the author of this article has never been to Africa or Maranhão, not even to stay at a 5 star hotel.
Let me ask you, how many dinners have you had that came from a dumpster?
I have my poverty street cred, show me yours?
Onto your point, there are plenty of places in the world where $10 a day is practically middle class. $10 in America is bad, $10 a day in the backwoods of the Philipines is practically a fortune.
I used to work for a guy who had a house built in the Philipines, and he paid the workers double the normal wages for the area, and it was still only $4 a day. This was like 20 years ago, but he could take his wife and their entire family out to a restaurant for $7.
It's relative.
You can't take your situation and apply it to everyone.
An analogy:
If you are super healthy, you can't take your situation and use it as a stick to beat everyone suffering from illnesses and start saying stuff like 'illness doesn't exist' and it's an 'abstract' concept.... that we move in and out of good health. Some people actually have chronic problems and dispositions that put them at higher risk of remaining for pretty much all their lives in a place of turmoil with regard to health.
What you're doing, by bringing in his mother and chronic health issues, is personally attacking him, 'terrorising' I might say.
It's really low-class, irrespective of Marxist definitions of 'class'.
What is it you're trying to say anyway, that he should 'check his privilege'?
Calm down already!
If anyone is ill somewhere then my deepest condolences and I hope they get better soon. Maybe I could have used a different analogy. There, I hope you feel calmer and less terrorised.
Rule of thumb: However innocently meant - never mention 'mothers'. .. Unless specifically invited to do so (though even then, I'd rather not)
So you're just here for the free stuff eh. That figures.
Let's just collect some data here, how many Americans were operating your military dictatorship? How many pale faced gringos were using your torture cells? As a basic ratio, how many Americans where standing in the fucking firing line while you were slaughtering each other?
It seems to me you're just mad that your own people whored your country for nothing. The truth is, your part of the world has been a shit show from the beginning. It was a shitshow in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. And it's going to continue to be a shit show until you put down that tequila and those tortillas and get behind someone other than a socialist revolutionary with a hard-on for head shots.
So long and thanks for all the enchiladas.
That was for LonS re ... Calm down Already.
eduardo speaks the truth, this article is sophomoric to the extreme and it is a disappointment to see such an unoriginal simple minded libertarian screed on SOTT, the likes of which are a dime a dozen at the Wall Street Journal.
frankly, it's equally disappointing to see other writers jumping in and ganging up.
And if atreides mocking a US sponsored Coup d'Etat that destroyed democracy in the 5th largest nation in the world and led to the torture and murder of citizen who dare oppose (and that includes the torture of pregnant women), comparing it to a relation between a "John" and a "whore" doesn't tell Joe and Niall anything about hanging out with psychopaths, then I give up. For people who claim to wage a war on psychopaths, they can't spot one right below their nose.
I think the problem here is that you don't understand 'the establishment' as we do. For you it's 'the corporations'; for us it's more nuanced than that. Which corporations? And is it simply that they're doing bad stuff, or are there reciprocal behaviors in their target countries or markets? The 'establishment', ultimately, is a regime, which, if you look up the definition, means, besides 'government': "a system or ordered way of doing things."
What informs that system? Patterns of behavior. What informs those patterns of behavior? Ideas, which form overlapping ideologies. Where do those come from? Beliefs about how reality works. How do we wage a war on beliefs? Well, we don't. And if we could, would that be wise? What if those beliefs serve a purpose we don't understand and shouldn't mess with? Our philosophy is that we can turn each one over and examine them, but not scream like maniacs about 'killing' them.
In an earlier incarnation, SOTT's motto was 'The Daily Battle Against Subjectivity'. Subjectivity is everywhere, and mostly in our minds. We may all be all about 'the truth', but it's a never-ending exercise of the mind to get to or towards it. What was true yesterday, in one context, many not be true in tomorrow's. There's no room for rigid, fixed ideas here; you need the flexibility to adapt to changing contexts. Otherwise you'll be swept up in a cause and your circumstances will take a turn for the worse, if not here and now, then down the road.
Why am I not surprised.
And why am I not surprised at the lack of historical contextual knowledge on the part of the author of such libertarian poppycock..."your part of the world has been a shit show from the beginning: 18th, 19th and 20th centuries"...pure poppycock.
Exactly how ignorant can a Randyist be, anyway? I guess there is no limit.
Some of us consider "the beginning" to be quite a while before the 18th century.
The American continents were fully inhabited before the 18th century, had developed complex civilizations, and most definitely were not a "shitshow." (BTW - channeling Trump, now, are we? the words "shithole countries" have barely left his mouth and you're already parroting him. How despicably unoriginal of you)
Ever heard of the School of the Americas, where the gringos train fellow psychopaths, who happen to be from countries where the gringos are exercising their influence (because they want to steal resources/labor), to do their bidding?
That would be torture, rape, horrific mass murder...you know, Amerikkkan values.
And now you're rubbing their noses in more gringo shit. How dare you.
If you have a conscience, it is certainly not on display. On the contrary you seem proud of your country's brazen psychopathic acts of greed and wanton disregard for human life.
In fact your ignorance is even on display when you invoke incendiary racist slurs - "tequila", "tortillas" and "enchiladas" are from Mexico, whereas Eduardo appears to be from Brazil. Mexico is part of North America, Brazil is in South America. They speak different languages, eat different food, were colonized by different countries...what a numbskull.
Seriously, dude, get an education. Preferably before you write any more divisive, hate-inciting articles.
A fool opens his mouth to say something, a wise man opens his mouth when he has something to say.
(?)
I donno... also... you, LonS, et al can mention my ma all you want
Also our Book of Myths... it is herein stated.
Speech is to be used for three purposes only. To say something either:
1. Intelligent
2. Truhful
3. Kind
What a slow race!
Psychopaths are psychopaths no-matter where they're from and Latin America has, and has had, aplenty. Psychopathy is not an export.
They want the guilty party, they can look in the fucking mirror. When did tequila become a racial slur? They're all Spanish. Eduardo doesn't sound very fucking Aztec or Incan, now does it? They took that land from the natives. They enslaved, murdered, and clipped (you know, cut off arms and legs) of the natives. Now they want to bitch and moan cause the CIA bought their blow and funded their little coup d'etats so they could do it to each other? There's a few million native slaves buried under Eduardo's feet with a message: #SorryNotSorry. They're the colonisers you insipid mouth breather.
"'You all' [refers to some large, undefined group of people, but presumably, in this case, 320 million Americans] wronged me/my forebears in the past, so now 'you all'... OWE ME."
It's blackmail!
The point isn't whether or not historical injustices happened (they did); the point is that someone today is using those historical injustices to hook people into doing something for them, or giving them something. And they get you to do it by hijacking your empathy.
I feel sorry for you, living with that much pent up anger and hate, and so much ignorance and lack of understanding/empathy for your fellow humans..
good luck with that, sorry if I caused you to have an attack.
I mean really?!! And you pretend to contribute some worthiness to our world's (society's) sad state of affaires????
1. Figures don’t lie; but liars figure.
2. There are Lies, Damned Lies, and (worst of all), statistics.
3. I’m pretty certain J. Martin is speaking mostly about the USA, (where his stats are coming from), or, when more general, the ‘First World’, in what he’s discussing, and same should have been clarified as such. (E.g., See the valid point by PinkFreud of the inanity of a world where the 68 richest people in the world own more than the bottom 50%.)
4. Those objecting should have noted that J. Martin is, at times, speaking anecdotally. (I am not agreeing that such would be a valid point, and am reserving judgment, particularly with regard to my First World/US point as above.)
Anecdotality / anecdotalness? (I don’t know but I’m confident neither could be carried in a wheelbarrow.) is one of the first defenses used against statistics, and can be a valid point (as possibly here in the minds of PF, Potatoes and Tomatoes, et al.); or,
It can be used invalidly (such as what J. Martin would likely reply to the points of PF, P&T).
The worst example of the inappropriate use of anecdotality (I like that word) is the medical establishment arguments regarding vaccines, which, when kids who get a shot and turn that night, get turned into spinning autistics for life, uniformly claim such are ‘only anecdotal’ examples not supported by large studies. The problem with that BS argument there is that the Medical Establishment / PTB / MSM have done their damnedest to ensure that no large studies are done, and/or hidden any negative results, such as they did with SSRI anti depressants.
5. Finally, although I was raised an agnostic, attending only the Church of the Atlantic, (SURFices are held every day of the week depending on swell and wind conditions), I never read a bible - except while bored at weddings or funerals - until around 2002. And yet no one provided these quotes, which I had to look up:
-‘For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.’ (John, 12:8, King James Bible);
-‘For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.' (Mark, 14:7); nor,
-‘For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.' (Matthew, 26:11.)
(It's good that there was a transcription of what he actually said so that both Matt & John say the exact same words, and that one wasn't cribbing/plagiarizing from the other. (Facetiousness.)*
(Please note that I am not claiming that by stating what he has, that J. Martin is maintaining he is the new Messiah. As to me? I’ll have to think about it.*
R.C.
*I find it impossible to believe that even if the whole bible is literally true, that God/Jesus couldn’t enjoy a joke.
RC
Mirror Mirror!!
juvenile behavior.
The future of the human race lies in compassion, empathy and cooperation, not the libertarian BS you're parroting.
You're just parroting liberal nonsense.
Pathological people hide behind empathy, compassion and cooperation. They scam the rest of us by selling sob stories that pull on your heart strings.
Cucks like you just eat that shit up with a spoon.
A "poor" can have different meanings, whether you speak of a specific person, which - by the way - cannot be called an abstraction, or of the category "poor" of the statistician. French national institute of statistics define poverty as an income inferior to 50% of the median income. This speaks of the distribution of the income, not of the real conditions of life. Second, you cannot "fight" such a poverty because by the very definition there will always be a category of incomes described as poverty.
The core of the problem is the slipping of the discussions to ever meaningless subjects. This is right-left rhetorics. The point is that poverty is NOT an abstraction, as long as you think that modern economics is a solid science and a right way to construct a society and human relationships. "Economic value" is more than an abstraction. It is a human made concept, but one that has very real consequences on human existence. What society can you build upon "money" ? What are the natural functions of money ? 1 - create a hierarchy of incomes 2 - create the "lack" of money, when abundance could be at hand and destroy the control the PTB have on us.
Even basing poverty on 50% of the median income, here we have some statistical playing. Because the median income is based on geographical and national regions. The median income of France is much higher than the median income of Algiers.
Poverty needs to be an objective measure of survivability. With the left it is based purely on the subjective perception of "quality of life" or "living wages".
I think society does well to have programs and policies in place to keep people from starving to death, to ensure they have access to community clean water and shelter, but aside from that, I have no intention ensuring that people have DVD players, cellphones, or the latest FUBU kit.
like the moon
you are changeable,
ever waxing
or waning;
hateful life
first oppresses
and then soothes
as fancy takes it;
poverty
and power
it melts them like ice.
Fate – monstrous
and empty,
you whirling wheel,
you are malevolent,
well-being is vain
and always fades to nothing,
shadowed
and veiled
you plague me too;
now through the game
I bring my bare back
to your villainy.
Fate is against me
in health
and virtue,
driven on
and weighted down,
always enslaved.
So at this hour
without delay
pluck the vibrating strings;
since Fate
strikes down the strong man,
everyone weep with me!
[Link]
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick! "
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"
" I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size ,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
Feelings are, in the most part, highly subjective, and do not relate to the real world. Just chemical highs.
Just keep digging... i d love to take you out for Kaffee u. Kuchen ... if we d be close in physical material-plane distance, ... how much more can i possibly say on a forum?
What benefits can be reaped for putting love in a box? (Or sentence or 'words')
Love is the heart of god felt personally in the heart of man.
It s an experience of tears and/or kissing or plain careing. It is identical for everyone of course. There is nothing ... but the ONE... how can it be otherwise? I do know. I dont think i know. I dont assume i know. I ... get down n boogie
[Link]
I dont know how else to describe it... other than... i put the feel on my lips when i pucker up. Sincerely said... it s enlightening for both parties. Cute
Why watch movies when we can make movies?
Your continued fascination with supposition clearly shows you have not taken a peek at The Four Agreements.
This wizard says it better than I ever can
[Link]
I prefer to be poor. I like it. When you are poor, you are actually quite rich, because you belong to the whole earth, and the whole earth belongs to you. When you can go where you like and do what you want to do, it is wonderful. The earth is pretty damned wonderful, when that is the way.
But this is not the way, today.
Today, we live in fear and oppression. We live in a world of organized crime and the myriad devices that maintain it. And the regulations. Oh god, the devices and the regulations.
And that is the force (evil) that is now in control. Technocracy/government/organized crime.
Some of you still persist in calling it 'western civilization', as if there were some 'civilization' east, north, or south that is not evil but there is no such place, there is no such 'civilization'.
Technocracy is everywhere and it is evil everywhere that it is.
Another word for it is greed, but I would not call it 'western civilization'. I just wouldn't. You really think there is some government somewhere, that builds missiles and bombs and super computers and routinely runs every sort of scam and every possible deception, that is good? Show me.
Btw: I am wearing a pair of old boots, that are duct taped, in order to try to keep the snow and cold out. The temperature right now, is zero, and it will be around minus 20 tonight. I do not mind being poor, but I hate being robbed and disowned of what is mine. What is mine, is the earth.
The earth belongs to us and we belong to the earth.
If you are going to use technology, be sure you are not used by it.
But you are. It goes with the territory that your government claims. You belong to your government?
There is an evil, that is present.
And there is an end.
There will be an end.
To such great evil.
It will be difficult.
Meeting this 'end'.
That is certain.
HAVE A GREAT DAY.
ned, out
Absolute Mayhem: British PM squirms trying to justify nurses on food stamps
Politicians the world over are known for their verbal gymnastics and rhetorical agility when facing down tough questions from reporters or members of the public. British PM Theresa May, however,...What May should have said is that nurses will not be on food stamps forever, at the max, 80 years.
But, thanks to SOTT, I have knowledge of how the world really works, and access to incredibly accurate and well-researched articles, such as your's, and books, that help me to truly have a greater grasp on reality.
Keep up the good work my man. Your mom must be very proud of you.
Ergo, it's what you do with the resources you have, including your mind.
Well people have differing opinions on what constitutes being poor and rich obviously, ask a millionaire if they consider themselves rich and the answer is no, it’s ‘comfortable,’ billionaires to them are rich people, and if you have a dumpster to get food from, you’re probably considered fortunate, when you don’t have things called dumpsters...
Would the real question be what are people actually thinking of, when they are asked the question, would you agree that the economic gap between rich and poor is too big?
Are people really thinking that what passes as rich, just earn way too much... or are they thinking in the context of being squeezed out from affording basic accommodation, and decent food? The latter seem reasonable, and has nothing to do with rich or poor, and more so to do with governance of the economy, and that unseen dynamic that goes on behind closed doors, influencing economic policy.
This abstraction business seems a bit of a distraction, maybe some cognitive dissonance on my part... I don’t know, but the author seems to mirror the hard and fast... and the conclusion is somewhat generic.
Maybe that will be our downfall, a giant green radioactive gelatinous blob vaguely reminiscent of Ayn Rand's depressed slouch and complexion will engulf humanity.
Hard to imagine a more horrific end for us all.
As I counseled in another of your comments, it might be good to climb out of the libertarian bubble once & a while and broaden your horizons...the rest of the world has moved on. We've heard everything your saying, like, 50, 60, 70 years ago, it didn't work, the trickle-down didn't trickle, the rising tides only lifted a few boats....your divisive words are serving the agenda of the evil empire.
which regular writer of SOTT articles lately has the longest
list of discussion responses?
just noticing . . .
The term "Poverty" is simply a distraction to keep people from realising the ulterior motives of the underlying control system. When you truly know and understand that poverty is the biggest crime committed on this planet. it then becomes the number one goal of the overlords to keep people ignorant about it. Some will blame the people for not working hard enough to come out of poverty, some will blame the govt for their austerity measures, some will tout socioeconomic factors, wars, growing up in gettos, racial discrimination, drugs, gambling, cheating men and women who steal from their other halfs, and heaps other factors. These are all distractions to keep fools from getting wiser about the underlying mechanisms of the control system.
Poverty to me is another form of suffering. Learn from it if you can lest it will consume you and everyone else.
some people never learn. the horacio alger myth, these non-arguments, lost their sheen decades ago. you are so past tense.
generational poverty exists, it is created/destroyed by economic & monetary policy, which is exploited by uberwealthy psychopaths to control society and lock-in their strangle-hold on everything. They maintain their stranglehold through generations, as any student of history (clearly not the author of this article) knows.
small-minded arguments masquerading behind wheelbarrows of libertarian BS (capital letters for emphasis)..., you're merely doing the bidding of your psycho masters. you probably don't even realize it. sad & pathetic at the same time.
I think it's so totally obvious that most of his hyperbolic over simplifications are just compensating for a poorly developed ego and a very small penis. He's a pathetic mouth breather, a clown shoe wearing brown noser.
It's losers like him who are degrading SOTT, oozing their way around the internet with their special brand of obsequious and insipid rhetoric in favor of krypto-libertarian free market worshipping drivel.
It's obvious he has no intelligence whatsoever, has never read anything on history or economics, and has just floated through life as an entitled, vain and shallow materialistic douche nozzle.
Personally, if this a-hole keeps getting articles published on SOTT, I think I'll quit reading.
[Link]
Sounds to me this J. Martin fellow is a ticking time-bomb... He needs psychiatric help and a padded cell.
And as I said above in answer to one of the many snide, childishly provocative, trolling jabs you seem to get so much satisfaction from posting:
The future of the human race lies in compassion, empathy and cooperation, not shallow, simple-minded libertarian BS that reads like a second-rate Ayn Rand B-movie script.
This site used to be more about serious respectful discussion of the issues, you debase it with your mean spirited churlishness.
Very disappointing.
ps - hopefully someday soon you'll be ready to climb out of your libertarian bubble, try reading something like The Spirit Level or Viking Economics
But you need to consume certain energies in order to produce other ones, so the universe might read all those greenies 'conserving energy' as 'contractile'. Not trying to suggest people in absolute poverty are such, but those in relative situations, with options, y'all might be 'goin to hell', so to speak.
The only people I know who are really like that are baby oligarchs, and grotesque "Whaassup, bro'?" ex-public schoolboys masquerading as more-street-than-thou 'street' person grotesqueries.
Reminds somewhat of....
"The historical moment when Bolshevism triumphed for itself in Russia and social democracy fought victoriously for the old world marks the inauguration of the state of affairs that is at the heart of the modern spectacle’s domination: a representation of the working class rising up in opposition to the working class". - Guy Debord (translation approx. only).
Regardless of any disgruntles one may have of Leonardo DiCaprio - its nevertheless a superb film! Very educational too regarding the 'Class' subject matter.
Daniel Day Lewis' finest performance IMO. In fact... I think I'm gonna have to watch it again!
So the myth in our society is that people are competitive by nature and that they are individualistic and that they're selfish. The real reality is quite the opposite. We have certain human needs. The only way that you can talk about human nature concretely is by recognizing that there are certain human needs. We have a human need for companionship and for close contact, to be loved, to be attached to, to be accepted, to be seen, to be received for who we are. If those needs are met, we develop into people who are compassionate and cooperative and who have empathy for other people.
So... the opposite, that we often see in our society, is in fact, a distortion of human nature precisely because so few people have their needs met. So, yes you can talk about human nature but only in the sense of basic human needs that are instinctively evoked or I should say, certain human needs that lead to certain traits if they are met and a different set of traits if they are denied."
~ Gabor Mate
That's 'cause, one way or another, Jason's articles stimulate thought.
Don't know about anyone else, but that does me.
It's a cut throat media world out there and SOTT needs to be heard...rightly so. The best website I have ever had the good fortune to stumble across. Long live the articles.
This article and the trolling comments by its author stimulate divisiveness & anger, the motive for many, many comments.
Once again, language conspires to fail us. 'Competition', is very often 'mutual stimulation', can be, anyway.
Competition Ain't Nothing....[Link]
"Be the best you can be"..we've all heard it...but then what? Who lives in a vacuum like that?
I used to have this girlfriend Dorothy, who used to say....
"Some of my greatest victories have been my biggest defeats".
I could never work out if the tail was supposed to be wagging the dog on that, or vice versa.
Don't think she could either.
Such a lot of opinionated posturing - with so little of consequence or substance to show for all that ego and arrogance.
So much casual generalisation and judgementalism and negation of the real, lived experiences of billions of people.
So many one-liner comments that strive to be cutesy or pithy - and fail miserably either way.
For pity's sake, the basic premise of the whole article - "there is no such thing as the poor" - is simply wrong. And then the author goes on to indulge in mostly facile verbal aerobics which are supposed to persuade us of his rectitude.
OK, so let's not call them 'the poor'! Let's find a more accurate descriptor. One which accurately locates the causes of all the lacks....
A more accurate descriptor would run something like 'people whose societies do not provide them with adequate education, adequate employment opportunities, adequate remuneration levels, adequate worker protection, adequate social support, adequate medical care, and which routinely fail to uphold rights and entitlements for those affected by some or all of these inadequacies which cumulatively impact on their ability to earn enough regular and sustainable income to feed and house themselves and their families and to maintain a standard of living which most people in their society recognise as the minimum acceptable in that society'.
Of course there are many billions of people in this situation. Factually, tangibly, countably. It's of no consequence at all that some of these individuals may move up and down the income ladder over the course of their individual lifetimes. The reality it that when you're without enough resources the impact on your life is immediate - you need help NOW, not in 20 years when you may have managed to claw your way out of the pit.
The problem is that they these people don't actually get counted. The system instead prefers to exert far more energy in throwing up smoke screens which are designed to distract us from the reality and to set us at each others' throats, and spends quite a lot of resources in purposely inconsequentially 'studying' the 'problem' of those who dare to be poor - and to justify the system's self-awarded right to continue to vilify those who are casualties of widespread inadequacies. Many 'statistics' are produced in this effort.
All these inadequacies are, of course, fabricated, as is crystal clear to anyone who's ever had more than passing contact with any government department, not by the impoverished individual but by oligarchic, psychopathic systems which massively favor those who are not subject to these inadequacies. The harsh reality is that capitalism can only work when there are those who are exploited and/or impoverished in some or many ways by its activities - and when there aren't enough people available to shove under the bus for profit, it creates them deliberately. Unfettered capitalism, such as is rampant again now, is THE most efficient and ruthless intra-species impoverisher the world has ever seen.
Our author has failed to provide any substantive evidence to support his argument that there is 'no such thing as the poor'. Like those elites and politicians he mentions who are forever setting up tilting horses to distract us from the essential problems and set us against each other, he's made himself into one of those 'ideologues who use their rhetorical skills to play fast and loose with abstract ideas and statistical categories'. For them, it's all about managing perception and clouding the issues.
Makes me wonder if he was paid to do so.
Of course, the truth is, this isn't about them, this is about using them to get back at the people, groups, or society to which you feel resentful. This is about power. Ahh, the Cult of Human Rights, you're one of those. Here's where you assume uniformity of opinion. First you declare by fiat people's "entitlement" and then you assume we all agree on "the minimum acceptable standard of living" which again, I sincerely doubt.
You also use terms like society and government interchangeably, which reveals your socialist bent. For you, the only option for help people is probably going to be through increasing government power and control. You don't explicitly say that, just heading you off at the pass. I didn't say otherwise. I just said they wouldn't be there forever. Yes, this is generally how the con-man's pitch works. A collection of half truths and a time constraint which forces you to make a split second (and wrong) decision. Act now, WHILE SUPPLIES LAST!
The false time constraint and the implication of immediacy is common, but as you say: the poor aren't going anywhere soon.
I would like to point out that you have essentially and unthinkingly conceded my point. I don't actually argue against helping the poor, now or tomorrow, do what you like. But I do point out that flesh and blood individuals move up and down, which you concede. Pot meet kettle. This is precisely what I am claiming you are doing. But I am not suggesting we be at anyone's throat. You are the one who has identified some victims, and some perpetrators. Thank God you found the perpetrators. Now all we need to do is collect up the pitchforks and have at 'em. What does capitalism have to do with exploitation? Sounds a bit Marxist to me. Unfettered Capitalism? You just pulled that one out of you ass. The funny thing is, the end of this conversation is where you realize that Capitalism is the ONLY system that consistently and predictably lifts people out of poverty. It is literally the cure to the problem you pretend you're trying to solve.
We don't have Capitalism today, in fact, we've rarely had "unfettered capitalism" of any kind, but when we approach that system, it always leads to quantum leaps in poverty reversal. Both China and Russia are perfect examples, the more Capitalism they employ, the more citizens they lift out of poverty (in china, daily millions of people).
It is the American and Western Fascism practiced today that had led us to where we are, and it is only the extent to which America practices Capitalism that it is able to counteract the liberal facist tendencies and maintain any kind of pseudo-wealth. This is a pretty standard liberal tactic. You have also provided no evidence, so you're just the pot calling the kettle black. But really, there's no evidence you would accept. You would just keep raising the bar, because it's easy to request more evidence for a position than could possibly be found.
Your tactic is to try and set yourself up as the arbiter of evidence, to be convinced, and ultimately to triumph, having fixed the game. But intellectually you're so beneath my contempt that your presumption triggers my gag reflex, the evidence is out there, you find it, or remain in your bubble and be sour and shaking your fists at the exploitative capitalists.
There is a reckoning coming for people like you, and when it comes, there will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth. I don't like you enough to try to save you from your destiny, so please, please, keep believing and thinking just as you do. Please, live the rest of your life in impotent resentment like some caricaturish dickensian orphan. I wish. Just for the record, I am totally for sale and have 0 scruples. We're all whores in the end.
I love it when you finish off with fire and brimstone, lol! Makes me think of this:
"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers."
And, no, we're not all whores in the end.
"The historical moment when Bolshevism triumphed for itself in Russia and social democracy fought victoriously for the old world marks the inauguration of the state of affairs that is at the heart of the modern spectacle’s domination: an image of the working class standing in radical opposition to the working class". - Guy Debord
A proper meditator is mistrustful of language, mainly because it's frequently inexact, but also because much of it has been 'adjusted for political purposes.
No small thanks to CIA acid-stooge Timothy Leary, one such example is the word 'ego'.
Without an 'ego', without a 'sense-of-self', without an 'I am', you are dehumanised, you are an object, and can't help anyone much, not even yourself.
Hence...
"Better to be temporarily an egoist , than never to be just". - G.I. Gurdjieff
There's no better repudiation of the René Descartes cliché, than conclusions that arise from observing someone who has read about 'self-remembering', and thinks they already are self-remembering, simply because they're read about self-remembering.
I got into all that Gurdjieff stuff when I was a proper Northern Soul dancer, for the three reasons stated above, not so strange bedfellows.
[...]
'Contemplation is the last note in the thinking octave, but only the first note in the octave of a higher process.'
What interests me now, as I review our evolution in the Gurdjieff teaching, is that for so long I never doubted that all our talk and 'thinking' would provide the desired self-development. Of course talk gives you almost as much new gland life as being in love does. But why, since I knew that being in love doesn't necessarily lead to anything beyond being in love, did I assume that talk inevitably leads to something beyond talk—for instance, to Being? It took me so long to find the right answer to this question that I have never since been able to look back upon my thinking past with pleasure.
[...]
Many people have investigated doctrines analagous to the Gurdjieff science. To write of them in a word, in a few words, in infinite words, is to deform them—the truth that can enter into a formula is limited. To write abstractly of Gurdjieff's conceptions in relation to other great systems of thought, belief, religion, is equally futile. I know the danger of verbalizing over abstract ideas—unless it is to repudiate them. Negations are greeted kindly, and the thinker who offers nothing but an hypothesis is always respected. An hypothesis is a life-belt for the mind; thanks to it, the mind floats a little longer before sinking.
I know, too, what the very term 'search for truth' suggests of the absurd, the pretentious, the erroneous, the hysterical. Research seems futile. It is less so, however, than to settle one's self comfortably, eyes closed, into a life of which one understands nothing."
~ Margaret Anderson
René Schmené ... sometimes it seems nothing more than getting lost within wheels within wheels within wheels... I prefer watching David Bowie's 'Labyrinth' with my 8 year old nephew tbh.
Call me lazy-minded - but l'm quite happy leaving it all to the Cassie site to pick out the juicy little titbits peppered across the annals of time for me.
Go back and read my comment on Leary.
You quoted hi,. I repudiated him.
No one's asking anything of you. If you'd rather stay up playing schizophrenic ping-pong all night every night with LindaMay, why should I give a crap?
I ammmmm O_o
"In an egocentric world, a dehumanizing and nature-foiling cultural agenda stretches from childhood to the grave." — the author here says ego centric which can be surmised, with little difficulty really, to mean 'dominated by the false self'. At least I think so. ...is something you pulled from your crusty junkyard. So ner ner ni ner ner.
In the context of Plotkin's book egocentric is contrasted with soulcentric. Another political usage adjustment nightmare, no doubt.
I go by my own compass, for better or worse
~ Jeanne de Salzmann, First Initiation
Much of the popular literature on nafs, however, is focused on the Sufi conceptions of the term. According to the Sufi philosophies, the nafs in its unrefined state is "the ego", which they consider to be the lowest dimension of a person's inward existence - his animal and satanic nature. [2] Nafs is an important concept in the Islamic tradition, especially within Sufism and the discipline of gnosis (irfan) in Shia Islam."
Lots o' junkyard i's throwing texts around here. No Tanuki.
I'd say someone like you, who stays up all night every night, pebble-dashing the SOTT Comments section with a lot of word-salad junk-astrology cringe would definitely fit into that category.
But of course I bow to your evidently superior knowledge and experience, and in appreciation of the graciousness of your wit, charm and sincerity.
"And namely, firstly their division into numerous communities with various forms of organization for external and even internal existence, or as they themselves express it, 'state-organizations,' ceased to exist, and secondly in these said numerous communities there also disappeared equally, of their own accord, those various what are called 'castes' or 'classes' which had long before been established there.
"And in my opinion, as you also will surely understand eventually, it was precisely this second of the two mentioned chief abnormally established forms of ordinary being-existence, namely, the assigning of each other to different classes or castes that had specially become there the basis for the gradual crystallization in the common presences of these unfortunate favorites of yours, of that particular psychic property which, in the whole of the Universe, is inherent exclusively only in the presences of those three-brained beings.
"This exclusively particular property was formed in them soon after the second Transapalnian perturbation there, and, gradually undergoing development and becoming strengthened in them, was passed from generation to generation by heredity, until it has now already passed to the contemporary beings as a certain lawful and inseparable part of their general psyche and this particular property of their psyche is called by themselves 'egoism'.]
"From the time when the said egoism had become completely 'inoculated' in the presences of your favorites, this particular being-property became, in its turn, the fundamental contributory factor in the gradual crystallization in their general psyche of the data for the arising of still several other quite exclusively-particular being-impulses now existing there under the names of 'cunning,' 'envy,' 'hate,' 'hypocrisy,' 'contempt,' 'haughtiness,' 'servility,' 'slyness,' 'ambition,' 'double-facedness,' and so on and so forth.
"These exclusively particular properties of their psyche which I have just named, utterly unbecoming to three-brained beings, were already fully crystallized in the presences of most of your favorites, and were the inevitable attributes of the psyche of every one of them even before the period of the Very Saintly Ashiata Shiemash; but when there began to be fixed and to flow automatically in the process of their being-existence the new form of existence intentionally implanted in them by Ashiata Shiemash himself, then these strange properties, previously present in their psyche, entirely disappeared from the presences of most of the three-brained beings there. Later, however, when they themselves destroyed all the results of the Very Saintly Labors of this Essence-Loving Ashiata Shiemash, these same psychic properties maleficent for themselves gradually again arose anew in all of them, and, for them the contemporary three-brained beings there, they are already the foundation of the whole of their essence.]
That'll do.
with just words about it.
Experience that breathing .
From books and words come fantasy,
and sometimes, from fantasy comes union.'
"I dont know how else to describe it... other than... i put the feel on my lips when i pucker up. Sincerely said... it s enlightening for both parties."
Q: What does LindaMay wear behind her ears to attract men?
A: Her ankles.