Posts Tagged ‘Society’

2 Articles on Preservation of Freedom of Life and Humanity – reposted by @AgreeToDisagree – 7th March 2012

In 1% tricks and traps, conflict of interest, critique, Democracy, democratisation, Equality, equitable political power distribution, Invasive Laws, Orwellian, political correctness, politics, preventing vested interest, separation of powers, social freedoms, Socialism, vested interest, voting methods, voting strategy on March 7, 2012 at 6:36 am


Government Is Not Civilization, It Is Slavery – by JGVibes, posted on March 05, 2012

One of the most pervasive misconceptions in our culture is the idea that “government” has anything to do with the structure or organization that we see in our society. This is one of the primary reasons why people have such a difficult time considering the very real possibility of a world without the organization known as “government.” When someone suggests that we simply do away with this unjust and unnecessary organization, they are typically met with some very negative knee-jerk reactions from whoever they may be talking to. This kind of conversation typically ends very quickly because both sides have completely different ideas of what the word “government” actually means, making it very difficult to find common ground.

If we attempt to examine government from an outsider’s perspective, we would see a world where people are grouped into two different categories, those in government and those not. At face value, we can see that these two groups of people have completely different standards and expectations, even though they are the same species and have the same basic needs. Looking closer, we can see that these different standards and laws are not neutral, they are very much benefiting those in government at the expense of those who are not. The most important discrepancy to mention here is the fact that those in government have a license to kill anyone who happens to disobey them.

Pointing out this fact is vital in understanding the true relationship between those inside of government and those outside of government, and that is the relationship between slave and master. If someone has the right to initiate the use of force on you if you disobey them, you are essentially their property. If you don’t believe me, go on over to Google and type in “slave definition,” and the first definition you will find is the following: “A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.” Now, doesn’t that sound a whole lot like the relationship between people inside government and people outside government? If you can force people to do things against their will, then you are treating them as if they were your property.

However, if you ask any random person on the street to define “government” for you, they would probably give you the story that they were taught in government school. You know, the one about how government is the backbone of civilization, and the means by which people in the community come together for mutually beneficial projects. Well this may sound good, but it isn’t at all true, because the government is comprised by a miniscule fraction of the population, and they would not be able to provide anything at all if it wasn’t for the resources that they forcibly extracted from the rest of society. Therefore, it is safe to say that all functions that are currently being carried out by the organization known as “government” could actually be better served by individuals in the community working together for common goals. Voluntary trade, charity and other peaceful methods of interacting would create a far better society than the one that we see today, which is filled with violence and forced associations.

It is not a new thing for people to confuse government with culture and have the misconception that without a central planning structure, everything that makes a society great would vanish. This fact was recognized by some of the more radical “founding fathers” of America, including Thomas Paine. In his most famous literary effort “Common Sense,” there is a section called “Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution.” In this piece, Paine discusses the difference between government and society.

Paine writes, “Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without a government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.” His statement is as true today as it was during the first American Revolution. Culture, society and security are absolutely capable of continuing in the absence of a central control system.

The most common argument against having an organized civilization without government is the notion that we are all somehow stupid, worthless savages who would not be able to figure out how to build a damn road if there wasn’t someone with a gun in our face every step of the way, telling us how, when and where to do it. But if people are stupid savages, and politicians are people, then isn’t the government made up of a bunch of stupid savages who can’t be trusted with a license to kill? Aren’t they just the same as us and even in many cases far worse than us?

There is nothing that the government can do that you and a large group of likeminded people can’t do better. The government doesn’t provide services, they simply take money from everyone (except their buddies, of course!) and use a very small portion of that money to pay people in the community to do things for their neighbors that they probably would have done anyway in the natural course of human interaction. Looked at in these terms, it becomes apparent that the government is nothing more than a violent middleman, who forces his way into nearly every interaction that takes place between each of its so-called “citizens.”

Everything that the government does is an attack on people who don’t belong to that organization. If you think about it, every single action that the government takes is some kind of punitive measure taken against people who don’t belong to that organization. Even when the government claims to be doing something nice, they are doing so with resources that they obtained by using threats and violence, which really doesn’t make much of a case for the virtuousness of government.

This organization is not here to protect our rights as it claims to. In fact, when the government steps in and gives itself the responsibility to “protect” your rights, it is simultaneously stripping you of your ability to actually defend your own rights. When you are dependent upon the whims and capabilities of another human being to protect your rights, you are literally handing your rights over to them and essentially submitting to slavery.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

The best way to ensure peacefully such freedoms is thus to ONLY vote for people who fit into the below groups :

a) Non-plutocrats (for money is the root of all evil, the wealthiest are doubtless closest to evil for their sequestration of wealth, especially in foreign tax havens, takes money out of circulation in the financial system. A good cut of point for vote eligibility will be 50 times a 401K, at 20 million in value approximately, conflict of interest via business links will be limited.)

b) Non-nepotists (See Gaddafi and sons, see Mubarak and sons? Enough said. Anytime there are family blocs in your organisation or political party or government department, civilisation ends and communalism and familial favouritism – nepotism – begins.)

c) Non-oligarchs (This is trickier as one cannot identify these persons immediately and will have to research where they stood on various issues. Oligarchs tend to group think and again another form of authoritarianism occurs. Where authoritarianism occurs, natural progression will be towards Orwellianism and paternalism, and eventually feudalism and dictatorship.)

d) Non-racists (Apartheid speaks for itself and no civilisation can move forward if any group is disenfranchised)

e) Non-theocrats (This is the same as Apartheid except this is a religious based apartheid. The best administrators are agnostics IMHO, as they are least likely to disenfranchise any citizen with religious based special privileges or what not. Conversely faith systems should be left to their own devices, and zoning is the best way to keep non-compatible factions of populace apart.)

f) Non-GLC linked businessmen. (The problem of collusion and bad law writing with intent to collude, can be seen – for a glaring example – even in the Judiciary when the profit paradigm is based on prison contractors and prison suppliers.)

g) Non-Term Limitless Politicians (These fief formers are the basket-case bastions of feudal mentality. The most shameless even appoint their family members and children throughout their ‘political parties’ which are merely glorified ‘Clan Associations’ that cannot be allowed to hold political or law changing powers which can be used to siphon taxpayer funds for special privileges, near million dollar funeral funds, raise salaries far beyond yearly (GDP growth + Inflation) etc., BUT NEVER used to lower Candidacy Election Deposits, or close loopholes in law that allow GLCs to collude and profit off the people or grant 2 items listed in (h) below, or end APARTHEID.

h) Any politician who wishes to retain Eminent Domain laws and refuses to grant Allodial titles, assents to raises in public sector salaries beyond inflation rate + GDP growth or refuses to place limits on the private sector in raising public sector salaries (say no more than 10 times inflation rate + GDP growth). Inflation is a killer but must also be balanced by a 2.1 child policy (with the 3rd child subjecting the parents to a ‘Support An Orphan for Each Child More than 2 Bill’ – that makes it necessary to pay for the maintainence of an orphan for every child more than 2 that a family has – much like ‘match a dollar for every dollar donated’ kind of set up) so populations will not unbalance equilibrium of an already overstressed environment, unless technology and building paradigms are shifted to something more sustainable.

;in repressive regimes like the Arab Spring countries, bloody revolution by whoever who is not under constant watch, has to occur instead. Otherwise use the democratic method.


Targeting Free Expression by Stephen Lendman – 3-3-12

Free expression in all forms is fundamental in democratic societies. Without it, all other freedoms are at risk.

Included are free speech, a free press, freedom of thought, culture, and intellectual inquiry. It also includes the right to challenge government authority peacefully, especially in times of war and cases of injustice, lawlessness, official incompetence, and abusive government behavior.

Denying it risks tyranny. Voltaire defended it, saying “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Howard Zinn called dissent “the highest form of patriotism.” It includes the right to speak and write freely, assemble, protest publicly, and associate with anyone for any reason lawfully.

Democracy depends on it. Bill of Rights freedoms affirm it. Nonetheless, US history is strewn with abusive laws. The 1798 Sedition Act criminalized publishing “false, scandalous and malicious writing” against President John Adams or Congress, but allowed it against Vice President Thomas Jefferson.

The 1917 Espionage Act imprisoned anyone convicted of “insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or (encouraging) refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States.”

It targeted First Amendment speech against WW I and American’s participation in it. The 1918 Sedition Act went further. It criminalized “disloyal, scurrilous (or) abusive” anti-government speech.

The Supreme Court upheld the Espionage Act, notably in (Eugene) Debs v. United States. A five-time socialist presidential candidate, he served prison time for opposing militarism and America’s WW I entry.

In 1968, the Warren Court disallowed draft card burning on grounds it would disrupt the “smooth and efficient functioning” of American recruitment.

However, in 1969, the Court upheld student rights to wear black arm bands, protesting the Vietnam War. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), it ruled government can’t punish inflammatory speech unless directed to incite lawless action.

In Texas v. Johnson (a 1989 flag burning case), Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion, saying:

“(I)f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”

America has no Brennans today. As a result, speech and all other liberties are threatened. Under either major party, the nation’s hurtling toward tyranny.

Forgotten is Jefferson’s warning, saying:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance.” He also said free speech “cannot be limited without being lost.”

Former US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall added:

“Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression (regardless of its) ideas…subject matter (or) content….Our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship.”

Suppressing Free Expression

Major media scoundrels are thought control gatekeepers. Instead of reporting vital information accurately, they suppress it. The free interchange of speech, ideas, and opinions suffers. Public opinion’s manipulated to support what people should oppose, denounce, and refuse to accept.

Police state laws pass largely below the radar. They erode and destroy fundamental freedoms. The USA Patriot Act alone wrecked key constitutional protections, including:
Fifth and Fourteen Amendment due process rights;
First Amendment freedom of association rights;
Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches and seizures;
prohibitions against unchecked government surveillance powers to monitor virtually all our activities, and use secret “evidence” unavailable to counsel in prosecuting politically targeted defendants.
In addition, the Act created the federal crime of “domestic terrorism.” It applies to US citizens and aliens. It states criminal law violations are considered domestic terrorist acts if they aim to “influence (government policy) by intimidation or coercion (or) intimidate or coerce a civilian population.”

By this definition, anti-war and global justice demonstrations, environmental and animal rights activism, civil disobedience, and dissent of any kind may be called “domestic terrorism.”

As a result, Occupy Wall Street and other protesters may be arrested and so charged.

HR 347 increases the likelihood. The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011:

“Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority.”

“Defines ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.”

On February 6, a Senate amendment titled, “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011” passed unanimously with no dissent.

On February 28, the House suspended the rules and passed HR 347 388 – 3. The bill awaits Obama’s signature.

Only the fullness of time will determine how much damage is done, but clear red flags are raised.

On February 29, Russia Today reported how First Amendment rights are risked, saying:

“Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further,” this measure threatens legitimate protests near locations where US officials are present, even with no knowledge they’re there.

Participants may be criminally prosecuted for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Section (c) states:

“the term restricted buildings or grounds means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area –

(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection.’ ”

In fact, they may be covered wherever they are any time for any purpose. Virtually any event may be designated “significant.”

Among others, they include congressional sessions, party conventions, G8, G20, IMF, World Bank, and NATO meetings/summits, public appearances for any reason, funerals of prominent officials, locations with visiting foreign dignitaries or despots, and other events unrelated to government business.

Vague language leaves it up for grabs how authorities will use this measure, and how courts will interpret it if challenged.

OWS protesters target government, corporate, and related locations for redress. Many hundreds already have been harassed, violently attacked, arrested and detained.

Expect worse if they’re criminalized for exercising their First Amendment rights. As a result, they may be subject to arrest, prosecution, imprisonment up to 10 years, and/or fines.

Whether it turns out this way isn’t clear. However, numerous police state laws currently target First Amendment and other freedoms. Activists are wrongfully imprisoned on bogus domestic terrorism charges.

A Final Comment

Will sweeping anti-OWS crackdowns follow under HR 347 and other measures entirely destroying inviolable constitutional rights cast aside to enforce tyranny? Only the fullness of time will tell, but don’t bet against it.

Remember Jefferson’s warning that “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

In today’s climate of permanent war, corporate predation, and state-sponsored fear, if ordinary people don’t defend their rights, who will?

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at

Also visit his blog site at and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

From : A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government; “All governments must have citizens in order to exist”.

What kind of citizen are you? A slave (unthinking followers of law are no different from slaves) or a freeman who decides that government will not be allowed to infringe on you? Will not apply GST or VST? Or forced military conscriptions, or subject any group to APARTHEID? Or allow any group to give themselves undeserved or inapplicable and disenfranchising special privileges? Vote by the above list of criteria in the response to article 1 to put a stop to the oppressive nonsense that is now society.

‘I was stupid’: Love Story star Ali McGraw admits she should have taken money in divorces from famous ex-husbands – by Daniel Bates – Last updated at 7:42 PM on 6th January 2012

In Uncategorized on January 10, 2012 at 5:33 am

She shunned any money from her three ex-husbands because she thought it was the right thing to do.

But now veteran actress Ali MacGraw has revealed she regrets not asking for more because it left her on the brink of financial ruin.

The Love Story star said she feels ‘stupid’ for caving in to her exes including producer Robert Evans and screen icon Steve McQueen.

Her marriages effectively put an end to her own career meaning she had to rely on her husbands to provide for her.

But when all the relationships crumbled it left her nearly broke and for the last 17 years she has been forced to live a quiet and humble life in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Hopeless romantic: Ali did not want to take money from her ex-husbands

MacGraw, 72, told Town and Country magazine: ‘I had a romantic, ‘Aren’t I a good girl?’ take on divorce, but the truth is that was stupid.

‘When one stops working at the height of one’s career, it’s just stupid not to say, ‘I want to make sure I have a house.’’

MacGraw’s first marriage was to college sweetheart Robin Hoen, a banker, but they divorced after a year and a half.

She became famous after starring in ‘Goodbye Columbus’ in 1969 and ‘Love Story,’ for which she was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress.

Her performance also won the heart of Paramount Pictures producer Evans whom she married and had a son with, Joshua.

Two years later she she left him for McQueen after meeting him on the set of the Sam Peckinpah thriller ‘The Getaway’.
Love story: She left her second husband Hollywood producer Robert Evans for bad-boy actor Steve McQueen

Love story: She left her second husband Hollywood producer Robert Evans for bad-boy actor Steve McQueen

According to McQueen biographer Marc Eliot, their marriage was marked by rampant adultery and drug abuse on his side that fuelled his image as a Hollywood bad boy.

He communicated in grunts, beat her up and forced her to serve up meat and potatoes to him at 6pm on the dot, which he would eat on his own in front of the TV.

By 1978 – and after she miscarried his baby – they got divorced as her own life became consumed with alcohol-related problems. The pre-nup McQueen forced her to sign ensured she walked away penniless.

Macgraw took a break from acting and her career never fully recovered, although she did appear in the U.S. TV series Dynasty in the 1980s.

Car wreck: Ali and Steve’s relationship was marked by adultery and drug abuse

In an interview she said: ‘I haven’t made a living lately at all.

‘I’m much more famous than I am rich, but I’m able to scale back my lifestyle. I know a lot of people who were where I was who can’t imagine living any simpler, but I haven’t got a lot of expensive wants.’

Reflecting on her time in the spotlight, she added said: ‘People think it’s fabulous, but the truth of it is that it’s exhausting.

‘There’s so much craziness that comes along with being a movie star that you can get so confused. Unless you’ve spent your whole life waiting to be the centre of attention, it’s pretty terrifying.’

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

Become less ethical over the years? Or compensating for age? Money cannot do that. Keeping ethical is another form of PC that is like being a vegetarian instead of eating meat. Try to take those words back Macgraw! Set an example as an older person, because this obsession with money for money itself is causing the downfall of ‘the West’, with statements like that leading the way to perdition.

Sex in society: too much raunch, too young by Joan Bakewell 5:30PM GMT 06 Jan 2012

In Uncategorized on January 10, 2012 at 5:28 am

The sexual freedoms gained in the Sixties have nothing in common with today’s dismaying bombardment of explicit images at children.

“Three million people saw your bottom!” So ran the shocked letter I received in the late 1960s after I had presented Late Night Line-Up wearing a daringly short skirt. Back then, minis were still news: Jean Shrimpton had recently caused an international storm by wearing one at the Melbourne races in Australia. Certainly, no women wore them to present BBC chat shows – no women presented chat shows in those days.

Looking at the pictures today, a miniskirt seems harmless. But some people took offence: they felt mine was too raunchy. They were alarmed, convinced that such clothing somehow put the morals of the nation at risk. It might enflame people’s lusts and prompt them to acts of sexual behaviour that, by the standards of the day, were to be deplored: sex before marriage, for example.

Sex makes one generation fearful for the next. It has always been so. And in each generation, there are always those who consider the more risqué edges of the entertainment industry to be going too far. In 1890s Paris, onlookers took against the frills and suspenders of can-can dancers. By the 1950s, its Crazy Horse cabaret was making witty mockery of such shows, while itself leaving little to the audience’s imagination. At the same time in Britain, nudes posing in tableaux at the Windmill Theatre were still not permitted to move.

Now I find myself caught up in concerns about the sexualisation of children today. This week, I was quoted as condemning outright Lady Gaga and other performers for seeming obsessed with appearing at their raunchiest in their pop videos and on prime-time television shows. So have I changed sides? Or has the world changed?

It could be that I have grown old. I am now in my late 70s; I no longer belong to the generation that rejoiced in outraging its elders and struggled against the strictures of Mary Whitehouse (I thought she was wrong then, and I still do).

But in my time, I have loved the gyrations of Pan’s People, the Top of the Pops dancers whose routines were flirty rather than raunchy. Late Night Line-Up regularly championed what then seemed like avant-garde works showing life in the raw (in all senses) – films such as Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, and plays such as Nell Dunn’s Up the Junction. Has there been a significant change since then or am I an ageing spoilsport?

In 2001, I made a four-part series for BBC Two called Taboo, which looked back at how censorship had changed over my lifetime. During filming, I broke several taboos of my own: using words that would normally be bleeped out; watching a porn film in production; and being filmed casting an appraising eye over a young male with a sturdy erection. I also had the ”fun’’ of pornography explained to me by young men, including Toby Young, today a pillar of Michael Gove’s educational establishment. None of this, I argued, was harming my moral values. Sex I considered a life-enhancing activity, promoting pleasure, well-being and, if you were lucky, a lasting, loving relationship. But, most particularly, it was watched by adults who were able to judge for themselves, certainly not by children. That is what is different today. Children are the new target market.

What has changed is not the fascination with sex; that will always be part of human nature, and people will continue to find ways of gratifying it. Once, such pleasures were exercises in power, with secret indulgences often illegal. Herod served up the head of John the Baptist to have Salome dance for him. Victorian gentlemen had their cabinets of Eastern erotica. In the 1950s, you had to belong to a private club to be allowed to watch strippers at work.

While our curiosity with sex persists, the means of access to sexual material has broadened exponentially. The media explosion brought on by the internet brings performances within the reach of anyone, children included. And today’s smartphone-savvy youth think nothing of forwarding explicit images and video clips to others’ handsets. This week, a new set of contestants entered the Celebrity Big Brother house to take part in Channel Five’s fly-on-the-wall show whose audience is mostly millions of young people. Prior to his incarceration, one housemate proudly boasted of his intent to have sex on screen – “and none of this under-the-covers —-”.

On New Year’s Day, any family that watched Sherlock, the BBC’s adaptation of the Conan-Doyle stories, may have been surprised by the scene featuring a nude dominatrix. Despite dozens of complaints, mostly about its suitability for a pre-watershed audience, the episode is due to be screened again in full at 7pm tonight. Perhaps inevitably, it is already among the most viewed on iPlayer, the BBC’s online watch-again service.

And then there are pop videos, now available on demand, thanks to digital television and YouTube. At the touch of a button, I can watch a barely clothed Rihanna wiggle and grind her way through a song (her recent UK concerts had one critic complain of “relentless crotch-level bombardment”); or a Lady Gaga clip in which a drink is forced from a glass down someone’s throat; another where she lies among the black ashes of a burnt-out bed with a skeleton beside her. There is a mix of surreal mockery and exhilarating outrage in such performances. And their production values are outstanding. Money has been spent and creative talents engaged to put these artistes where they are, among the world’s great entertainers.

So what is there to complain about? It is the availability – indeed, the marketing – of such raunchy videos to the young and impressionable that disturbs me. Something has shifted in our culture to bring sub-teens within the orbit of suggestive sexual activity. T-shirts with cheeky, even lewd slogans – jokes that only adults can understand – are designed and sold to the under-10s. Children can hunt on a multitude of television channels for something that looks vaguely adult and vaguely transgressive. Can it be good for them? I for one would not be prepared to take the risk.

The responsibility of bringing up young children must be harder today than ever. In my day, I had Brownies and choir practice to keep me busy, and each afternoon at 5pm, the safe haven of BBC Radio’s Children’s Hour. Today, the options are almost infinite. Even childhood is changing. Girls are reaching puberty younger than ever. How are we to bring up our daughters to give them a sense of worth and confidence that doesn’t depend on tacky raunchiness?

The Islamic world takes a hard line, protecting its young, and even its adult women, with a series of religious prohibitions that reduce their freedom and spontaneity. We obviously don’t want to go that way. But we can’t be surprised by their shock and distaste for some of the West’s indulgences.

Above all, I don’t want to stifle the sheer joy of self-expression, the delight and pleasure to be had from music, from dancing and singing. These are among the riches of human experience. Every child deserves to know them and love them. But to learn of them from entertainments meant for adult tastes is to risk damaging that treacherous path from innocence into grown-up judgment. There’s just too much raunch being marketed to those who are too young for it.

[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]

You have not grown old Joan, but rather it is the Lower Class demographic that has attenuated itself as part of mainstream society with these self affirming displays. Being such a large number of Lower Class people it is inevitable that this would happen someday, 99% culture could be what is considered Lower Class – this is enforced with lack of wealth distribution for a start and obviously alienates the aging who are unable to participate in the demonstrative and boisterous activities of this class, health and aesthetics notwithstanding.

The discerning class conscious types will remain as insular and ‘covered up’ as ever (with the best advocating all and sundry’s democratic right to self-expression while attacking mob-rule) though trappings obtainaed with wealth do not equate to class (selfish sequestration or land and money by billionaires in tax havens or secret accounts – while people in their own countries starve and are jobless than researching a better society or at least opening soup kitchens in their own neighbourhood for a tart (Self Pride is a ‘No 3rd world in my backyard attitude.’), refusal to eschew asset declarations) and is increasingly being confused with class which again precludes protection of the very freedoms and modes of life unthinkable the ‘classy’ themselves detest! (i.e. it is not class to impose one’s way of life on others, it is a right though to demand the same reasonble space for the same expressions).

It is even possible that Joan has never had an opportunity to CHOOSE what class she belonged to and simply followed (or was hijacked) by her family or social circle and society around her though rising in class stature is a very difficult thing as much as ‘slumming’ in youth can create problems later in life when the individual ‘grows up’ or tires of having fun or is manipulated by society again into ‘agedness’ or ‘pc-ness’ or ‘appropriate mainstream-ness’.

Young children and all society should be made aware of ALL demographics and social choices and aspects and characteristics of the same, so that self determinism will be allowed them as in a free democratic society, as well as laws to prevent manipulation or enforcement of local society, socil circles, even parents, on the same young children and citizens of a nation. This is the essence of civilisation that appears to have bypassed Joan entirely that even results in Jopan writing an article like this. Meanwhile many prominent and free minded thinkers are targetted for abuse and even incarceration or chemicala and electronic control by the psychiatric establishment and religious fundamentalists for their free thought.

Some of us know because we have suffered decades of such persecution in countries and societies posing as modern democracies while merely being mob-rule minded oligarchs and pharisees abusing all differing modes of expression in life witrh money and collusion with the state.

Much like the thing with the Dalai Llama which is quite vicious and abusive of child rights. I felt sorry for that kid in the movie. I try to avoid ethnocentrism, but taking a little kid away from his family at such a young age and laying all that heavy spiritual responsibility on him is child abuse. B

AgreeToDisagree January 8, 2012 at 6:28 am