There is one episode of the BBC radio sitcom Old Harry’s Game, where, due to overcrowding in Hell, Satan goes up top to try and prevent people from committing so many sins and clogging up hell. So he (not gender neutral; I doubt many howler monkeys would mind in the case of te devil; and Andy Hamilton sadly stopped writing the show before howler monkeyism took off – I’m sure he’d have written a brilliant episode about howler monkeys having been sent to hell, but not being allowed in because even hell has standards and besides, the demons are unionized) goes on a campaign to get people to behave more nicely, so he has the TV-show reworked into “perfectly content housewives”, etc.
This locks in with my position that government always sets the example; and now please let ’em set the proper example.
Because the bad example has been set so thoroughly for so long, hell is getting overcrowded.
IMHO the state has no say on immigration. It’s the people that are affected, so,they are the ones that should have a say in it. Like chosing whether to sell/rent them living space. Freedom of association. After all, who complains when someone moves house from one city to another?
You wanna stop the aversion against immigrants is the state’s involvement in social welfare, through compulsory payments. If only the state would keep its mits off, immigrant haters would have much less hatred of immigrants.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche and https://maoistrebelnews.com/2013/05/31/what-is-the-juche-idea/ inform that the North Korean juche idea’s purpose is, to empower the people, to help them escape bourgois oppression, through independent empowerment.
Fer goodness sakes: I can’t put any blame on the North Korean victms, they had no choice in the matter (meaning that DPRK is just as democratic as any western state), but socialists/communists in the west CAN know better than to voluntarily believe the self-deluding nonsense Kim Il Sung espoused to justify his oppression of an entire country’s worth of humans.
Noryh Korea is so collectivist that no individual is allowed any independent empowerment, to the point that the state is even the only food supplier. And is responsible for the default mode of starvation of the entire country’s population, so the individuals have no other choice than to grow their own food. I presume that in order to escape imprisonment as traitors to the revolution, they must bribe the equally hungry officials with some portion of their food.
A reason for private ownership
This brings to mind, a reason for private ownership of the means of production, especially in such a communist hell hole like DPRK: suppose you don’t live in a bourgois suburb; you know, a nice house, with a garden around it, where, instead of a pond with koi for decoration/relaxation, you can grow vegetables, you know, for survival, not bourgois pleasure. Instead, you live on the 30th floor of a housing baracks, without garden. But you’re still hungry, so what do you do? You rent/purchase a plot of fertile land, and till that to grow your own food. You can’t rent from the state; all land is for all the people.
Once again: in 1917 people might have been forgiven for embracing socalism, bt in 1945-1950 there was no reason gr someone to embrace it, other than sadism. Never mind about the socalists that are still active today.
This post is a sequel to:
Another, more positive way of thinking of rulers, is:
They may think they’re in charge: responsible for the state of the country, but people do what they want nonetheless. It’s the people that are the elephant, the politicians are the riders.
So it’s because of the people, when a civil war has not yet broken out. In spite of politician’s best efforts to start one I might add. The people sometimes break a law here and there, which keeps things running smoothly. It’s not the “wise, benevolent” rule of the overlords that does do. For instance, people crossing an empty cross roads, in spite of the stop light being red, reduce emmissions and should be rewarded, but instead are being fined, because they are a threat to (non-existent) traffic.
Now, of course, politicians appeal to the elephants in the people’s minds. The elephant in the elephant’s mind, if you will. This is sometimes called populism. Other times people call it demagogy/propaganda, yet other people call that public information campaigns.
I call it scandalous, like with the efforts of politicians to ifluence the vote of the referendum on the association treaty with the Ukrayne. Think about that for a mo’: the politicians (that claim they only execute the will of the people) openly tried to steer the will of the people!
It’s starting to dawn on me, that there might be other reasons for the non-stop war than the fourth reich; Perhaps the government armed ISIS, in order to have a stronger enemy, so that the war would last longer/ kill more American soldiers. , So make it a more fair fight, instead of just the traditional big bully vs. little bullied victim.
Sounds silly? Why then, arm ISIS so shortly before picking a fight with them? (A fight that was inevitable, since IS is an Islamic organisation; Islam is the new communism)
Or is it simply that the US governmnt is so imprison-happy that they, instead of imposing a new ban on something (drugs have proven useful in this regard), chose to actively import new prisoners from other continents, and keep them locked up on questionable evidence, often genuinely bought from the witnesses
Socialism is the ideology that leads to greatest selfishness. After all: starving people have little energy/resources to empathise with others.
This is demonstrated on the streets of Athens, where people are starving to death, while passed by on the streets by those few lucky enough to still have a job.
At least with capitalism people will still have enough wealth left over in order to care for others. Again, a quick recap of Social Atrophy is in order:
By removing contact with others (by moving social wellfare out of the hands of the people, into the hands of the state, people are trained to have less concern for their fellow man: after all: “If already so much from my paycheck goes towell fare,,why should I bother about the less fortunate?”)
Some of the leading lights of socialism were not only unpleasant characters, but also antisemites: both Stalin and Hitler ordered the persecution of jews.
Yes: Hitler WAS a real socialist: both in the classical sense (control over the means of production) as in being an example for all socialists that were to come. One of those socialists was the Labour party mayor of Amsterdam, who was responsible for the pogrom of 2010. And his name was: Cohen. A jew responsible for the persecution of jews? Yes. How’s that for identity politics, eh? I do sincerely hope the jewish inhabitants of Amsterdam were smart enough to not vote for the labour party, because the cadidate was a jew. Turns out his loyalty lay more with his party’s ideology than with his race/religion.