Comments by "Matthew Ingerson" (@matthewingerson) on "Secular Talk"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@loljk9443 I really don't mean to be rude, either.
But take a little time, think about your situation.
Think about how you get the things you need versus the things you want.
Now think about how you could end up losing the ways to acquire the things you need and want.
Think about the different kinds of things you LIKE that you need.
Now think about having to settle for things you didn't like, but that you still needed.
Remember, these are only thought exercises.
Think about all of the different things in life -- the different kinds of toothpaste, paper towels, canned soups, candies, potatoes (there are dozens), places to live, jobs to do, clothes, writing utensils...
Now let's move on from material possessions.
Think about the negative experiences in life -- think about the worst things you can imagine.
Think about the possible reactions to the worst things you can imagine. Think about the possible choices and remedies.
Now, realize that not everyone has the same access to necessities, choices, actions, and remedies.
There are literally billions, if not trillions of different combinations of needs and wants, experiences, and tragedies.
If you can think up a person, that person likely exists somewhere.
Here's a combination of things to think about:
A 68-year-old opiate addict of 40+ years, working as a school teacher for the past 40 years; hoards of junk filling their basement, but can't build a fire in the fireplace; doesn't use salt but likes pepper, doesn't like parsley but like basil leaves; grew up living in a house with parents and grandparents, but was abused by their uncle; competed in baking competitions at the county fair growing up, goes on vacation every year; cheated on their spouse; has $100,000 in credit card debt, 100,000 dollars in student loan debt; trades up for a newer car every few years; goes out to eat every weekend, buys $5 coffees every day instead of $1 coffees at home; has a $100/month phone bill when a $45 plan is available; complains about their quality of life; sits in their car, in parking lots, scrolling Facebook instead of going home; has zero savings in the bank, but lives in a $200,00 home on 10 acres of land; don't know how to plunge a toilet or turn off the water-main in the house, and has never seen 8 of the ten acres they live on.
The person I described above is just a few misfortunes or a couple of bad decisions away from being homeless, living in their car, with a cell phone, watching Youtube videos.
The wealthy-class has made it nearly impossible to live without a phone or an email address -- having a phone is damn near a necessity if you want to make money in this bullshite society.
You've just been programmed -- by wealthy-class propaganda and indoctrination through the media -- to believe that it doesn't or shouldn't exist, or that the people who end up like that somehow deserve it, or if a person is living in their car, they shouldn't have a cell phone.
Damn near any combination of person you can think of, exists somewhere. People living in their cars, or in the woods, with cell phones is NOT uncommon.
Again, I really don't mean to be rude, either. But get your head out... Just use your head.
There are MILLIONS of people who are suffering. BILLIONS of people live below the median standard of living.
I hope you never have to live in desperation. But, in my experience, living in desperation is the best way to open people's eyes.
Good Luck to you. ✌
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I've lived forty years in northwestern New England, about 1000-feet above sea level, at the base of a 3500-foot tall mountain. The north, east, and south are flanked by 4000 to 5000-foot tall mountains. To the west are the Connecticut River and the Green Mountains.
There is a stream/brook that runs through my property, fed by two other streams/brooks, a natural spring, and snowmelt.
Thirty years ago, the stream running through my property was deep enough to soak your whole body in during the summer, and the water ran fast enough to prevent slime from accumulating on the rocks. It had fish and other aquatic life in it. Now there are none visible.
For the last four years, it has dried up before the end of each summer, sometimes as early as June, which means the two streams/brooks that feed it dry up along with it, and I assume my dried-up stream means that the natural spring is dry too, which is probably the worst part.
We don't get enough snowpack in the higher elevations anymore to last into the summer like it used to. The frequency of mid-winter melting events has increased.
My dad worked for the State Dept of Transportation for thirty-plus years, plowing roads and whatnot, on-call 24/7/365. The amount of overtime he worked during the winter over that thirty-plus years was a trend-line downward.
The swamps on and around my property are dried out. A beaver dam on another part of my property dried up too. They used to be full of cattails and other vegetation. Now they're tinder beds.
The oldest and biggest coniferous trees on my property are dead, and the next sizes down are visibly dying. The youngest trees still look okay. But the middle-aged ones that are dead and dying shouldn't be.
We used to have wildflowers, along with wild raspberry and blackberry bushes: all dead. The wild blueberries are holding on, but the crop yield and berry sizes are much smaller.
The dried-out swamps and streams caused the insect and pest population to decline, which caused certain bird species to leave the area. The birds that still frequent my feeders are fewer in flock-size and species.
That's just what I've noticed.
Anyone in Alaska or Canada feel like adopting? I'm house trained.
2
-
@grittybunny Another interesting FDR question is: What would have happened to the US if the attempt on FDR's life would have been successful, and they swore in his running-mate, John Nance Garner?
Garner wasn't particularly in favor of The New Deal. Garner was a southern Dem from Texas, who was a 'fiscal conservative' and opposed 'debt pending'. Roosevelt got Garner on board with the plan, but they eventually had too many disagreements, and Roosevelt replaced him.
If FDR would have died sooner, and Garner would have taken his place, there is a good chance that Garner wouldn't have pushed for The New Deal. And without The New Deal, the US wouldn't have made it through the Great Depression in the way that it did.
The New Deal (a)provided a social safety net for the most vulnerable people, and it (b)gave a job to anyone and everyone who wanted a job but couldn't find one, and it (c)provided rights for the working-class to stop some of the exploitation by the wealthy-class.
But around the same time that the US got FDR and The New Deal, Germany was getting the opposite. So, if the US would have gotten John Nance Garner & his 'fiscal conservatism' instead of FDR & The New Deal, the US may well have gotten Fascism, right along with Germany, a hundred years ago instead of now.
So, again, the question is: What would have happened to the US if the attempt on FDR's life would have been successful, and they swore in his running-mate, John Nance Garner?
The Lindberg question is also interesting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bernie did rethink things. And he decided to give up on the working-class. Bernie has family, and he's more concerned with what could happen to his family after he dies.
Bernie knows what the right-wingers have done to working-class leftists through history.
Bernie sees the rhyming-nature of that history coming back around.
Bernie lived through the "Red Scare" and "McCarthyism."
Bernie doesn't want those kinds of things to happen to his family after he dies.
And, so, Bernie has given up on the working-class.
Bernie knows that there are too many foolish, working-class, right-wing addicts.
Bernie knows that there are too many knavish, wealthy-class, right-wing addicts.
Bernie knows that there are too many right-wing addicts with mental illnesses.
And, so, Bernie has given up on the working-class.
Berne knows that NONE of the right-wing addicts will willingly give up their addictions.
Bernie knows that NONE of the right-wing addicts can cure their own mental illnesses.
And, so, Bernie has given up on the working-class.
Bernie knows that, in order to maintain their addictive lifestyles, the mentally ill working-class fools will do whatever the mentally ill wealthy-class knaves tell them to do; just like they did during the Red Scare and McCarthyism.
And, so, Bernie has given up on the working-class.
Bernie has now entered the phase known as, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
Bernie is MORE concerned with the quality of life his family will have when he dies.
Bernie is LESS concerned with the quality of life for the working-class.
Bernie is ONLY concerned with his own family-unit minority
Bernie is NOT concerned about the working-class majority.
Bernie is the perfect example of why any effective leader(s) on the left-wing will have to be someone(s) without family -- it's too easy for the wealthy-class right-wingers to corrupt left-wingers who have families, and Bernie is a prime example.
Bernie has exchanged his working-class principles to secure a wealthy-class standard of living for his family after he dies.
Bernie has given up on the anti-wealthy-class nature of left-wing politics.
Bernie has given up on the pro-working-class nature of left-wing politics.
Bernie has given in to the anti-working-class nature of right-wing politics.
Bernie has given in to the pro-wealthy-class nature of right-wing politics.
Bernie has given up.
It's only surprising/upsetting if one doesn't know the facts, or rhyming-nature, of history.
2
-
2
-
@funTimesInTheSun I agree with, basically, all of that, and I would probably add more to the list. Also, if you didn't see my original-reply in this thread, I wrote:
"Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness correlate directly with Healthcare, Rehabilitation ("Corrections"), & Education. NONE of those things should EVER be privatized and/or profitized."
And, again, I would probably add more to the list we've come up with.
2
-
@funTimesInTheSun I've been flirting with this idea: all raw-necessities (food, clothes, & shelter) should, at the very least, have a government option. But, at best, the government would have a monopoly on providing those necessities at a consistent price. For example...
I think that fruit & vegetables should be strictly regulated. I think that the cost of an apple should be the same no matter where a person is located. And no one should get to accumulate unlimited-wealthy by selling apples.
However, if people want to take the apples and turn them into apple-pie, and try to sell those apple pies, then I'm open to that (for now).
But no one person or group gets to have a monopoly on apple pies, and no one gets to accumulate unlimited-wealth by making apple pies, either.
If someone creates a kind of apple-pie, and most people like that kind of apple-pie, then the person who created that kind of apple-pie doesn't then get to withhold apple-pies from other people, and they don't get to use apple-pies as a stepping-stone to social and/or governmental control.
If most people like that kind of apple-pie, then the person who created it can get an award, or something.
I know that's not perfectly written or fully thought through, but it's better than what w have now...
Like, the creators of the frozen apple-pies (which are mass-produced and sold at the grocery store) should not be millionaires or billionaires. I'm just not voting for, or participating in, that kind of illogical economic-supremacy.
Anyway...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
RFK is a RWer economically. Again, RFK is an economic RWer.
RW-politics are pro-wealthy-class politics.
RW-politics are anti-working-class politics.
RFK is a millionaire in the wealthy-class.
His campaign-donors are billionaires in the wealthy-class.
They are all capitalists and Capitalism is a RW-economic system.
RW-politics are anti-working-class politics.
RFK will fold to the demands of the wealthy-class.
Just like Biden, Trump, & Obama folded.
Just like Bush JR&SR, Bill & Hillary folded.
Just like Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and Ford all folded.
Just like most of Congress & Judiciary have folded.
And don't get me wrong; this domination of a populace-majority of working-class people by a populace-minority of wealthy-class people is nothing new -- the wealthy-class has been striving to, and succeeding at, dominating the working-class for millennia.
The wealthy-class has been doing it since the invention of currency; pharaohs, Mongols, Romans, Ottomans, Turks, Brits, Confederates, "Germans," Americans -- they've all done it.
But in our particular era, we'll talk about since FDR died.
FDR was a wealthy-class capitalist, too.
But he wasn't a complete dirt-bag.
He was absolutely concerned with self-preservation, as he saw the greed in the pro-wealthy-class policies of the "Roaring" 1920s were leading to trouble.
The working-class was so angry, they were rising up against the wealthy-class.
This has happened throughout history, and FDR knew it was happening then.
So, FDR implemented some pro-working-class policies to bring the working-class to heel.
But those pro-working-class policies weren't made permanent.
And the wealthy-class has been breaking those policies, and the government, ever since FDR died.
In the 1940s there was WW2.
In the 1950s & 60s, there was the Korean War, McCarthyism, The Red Scare.
In the 60s & 70s, there was The Cold War, Vietnam, and the Space Race.
In the 1980s & 90s, there were constant Central American and Southeast Asian invasions.
All of those situations were manufactured & fabricated by the wealthy-class to incite the working-class into a state of fear and submission, confusion and delusion.
The wealthy-class has used their ownership of the Military Industrial Complex to grow their wealth.
And with that wealth they have put military manufacturing plants in every congressional district.
And the wealthy-class owners then contribute to the campaigns of legislators.
Then, those legislators pass more laws to benefit the owners of military manufacturers.
It's blatant bribery & corruption, and RFK is not against that.
And with that wealth, the wealthy-class-RWers have not only taken over the legislature, they have taken over the judiciary.
Their most recent escalation really begun to ramp up starting in the 1970s with a series of SCOTUS cases.
The SCOTUS decisions in the following cases, all gave disproportionate benefit to the populace-minority of wealthy-class-RWers, and gave disproportionate detriment to the populace-majority of the working-class.
Buckley v. Valeo(1976)
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)
McConnell V. Federal Election Commission (2003)
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)
They are pro-wealthy-class, pro-authoritarian and pro-oligarchic decisions.
They are anti-working-class, anti-republic and anti-democracy decisions.
The Republican-party leadership supports the decision because they are an anti-republican, pro-authoritarian and pro-oligarchic political party.
The Democrat-party leadership supports the decision because they are ALSO an anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian and pro-oligarchic political party.
RFK isn't against any of that -- he's a millionaire who benefits from it.
His campaign is being funded by RW-authoritarian billionaire oligarchs from the wealthy-class.
And it's all because of RW-laws passed by RW-Repub & RW-Dem millionaires.
And all because of cases brought by wealthy-RWers to the wealthy-RW-SCOTUS.
And some of those people may have been elected, but many of them weren't.
RW-politics are the politics of unelected-hierarchies.
Most of the wealthy-class are unelected landowners & shareholders.
They rely on evolving their RW-economic systems to further entrench themselves into government, to further control & delude the working-class.
The greed of the wealthy-class is an addiction that is never satiated.
So they must adapt as their addiction grows.
We've seen this current adaptation a few times in history, already.
Capitalism > Corporatism > Fascism.
The wealthy-class used the legislature to manufacture the "fiduciary responsibility" to justify infinite profit-growth (on a finite planet) at the sake of everything else.
They created the rule in the system without a majority of people voting for it, and the unelected judiciary has decided it's the law.
As the wealthy-class grows their addiction for profits, they need more "help" from the government to maintain their profit-addiction.
So they take over government, evolving Capitalism into Corporatism, and Corporatism into Fascism.
As they take over government, they break it for working-class, and build it to benefit themselves. Basically forming a system of slavery like the Confederacy and the Third Reich, both of which were founded and funded by wealthy-class-RWers.
RFK isn't against that.
RFK is a member of the wealthy-class.
RFK benefits from RW-economic politics.
RFK is a RWer
Vote RW-extremist Repubs&Libertarians, for the fast, open-road to fascism.
Vote moderate-RW Dems&NoLabels, for the slower, disguised-road to fascism.
They were all bought, owned, bribed, and controlled by wealthy-class-RWers.
Just like RFK.
Good day, sir.
...I SAID GOOD DAY! 🎩🧥🍫
1