Yea cuz Kubrick was a real easy guy to understand. Just because you are projecting your own views upon his characters does not mean it is the truth, he had a dark sense of humor and unparalleled gift for satire. Unless you've studied the countless examples of symbolism in his movies it's not going to be possible to understand his movies. If you don't understand the most basic concept of forced medication and the history of fluoride, then you're a goner, lost forever in la-la land with the rest of the brainwashed masses.
Your awesomeness never ends. You are the gift that keeps on giving. Seriously. I would love to see you find a single other person in the world (preferably not currently housed in a mental ward) who thinks Kubrick intended Jack Ripper to be anything but a comically absurd parody. Well, lets see. I do know that in the early 20th century, it used to be common for parents giving away their betrothed daughters to have all of the daughter's teeth removed and replaced with a false set of chompers before marriage so that the new husband wouldn't have to pay for it when all of the girl's teeth inevitably rotted out. And I know that flouride ion substution in public water supplies has prevented that. And I do understand basic tenants of public health that led to enriching flour to prevent pellagra and milk to prevent rickets. I understand that you no longer are allowed by "the man" to subject your children to malnutrition, even if you want to. I also know that forcing children to get vaccine shots to before attending school in order to prevent epidemics of polio, measles, or mumps has eliminated your freedom to die or be permanently disfigured by horrible preventable diseases. And I also understand Mary Mallon was forcibly removed to an isolated island in order to interfere with her right to infect and kill thousands if not millions of Americans with typhoid fever. I think that is a pretty good thing. So yeah, in general, I think that basic public health has scoreboard against neurotic/psychotic paranoia. Seriously, the way you revert to a sort of ideological rigidity when your paranoia is challenged makes me hope you are putting on an act. Because if not, that sort of cognitive rigidity is indicative of a genuine mental disorder. Really, genuinely, and truly. For this last paragraph I'm being entirely and sincerely honest and not making fun of you. If you aren't putting on an act, if you really believe these things you should consider visiting a mental health professional and discussing your opinions on things like water fluoridation.
Kubrick put in almost 5 minutes of dialogue on fluoride just to poke fun at 'conspiracy theorists'? Really. If Kubrick did have negative views on fluoride, do you think he'd use a serious character to tell the truth, or a comically absurd character? Kubrick was the master of sleight-of-hand and deception. Not sure why you need to validate your politically authorized beliefs by attacking mental ward patients, quite a few brilliant and highly gifted minds (that albeit work differently than yours) end up there. It's still forced medication, unless you have access to your own pure water source (which extremely wealthy people do, because they know what's up with fluoride and tap water). Do you not have a problem with forced medication on people? To give you another example, look at people from Italy (no fluoridation) vs. people from Great Britain (fluoridated). Furthermore, the most basic of basic knockouts of fluoride is that if you look at your fluoridated toothpaste bottle, it will say "contact poison control if more than a pea sized amount is ingested." But yet it's okay to drink and shower in water that contains fluoride? GMAFB. lol vaccines. More people did not get vaccinated for swine flu last year than did, and I didn't exactly see a pandemic wiping out vast populations. Surely if you got the vaccination, you would be immune to disease while all the poor non-vaccinated suckers would be getting sick left and right, no? Again, if everyone else was vaccinated, surely they'd have nothing to worry about. 'Public health' is financed by big business and propaganda, and always has been. There are infinite lies and statistics that can be made up if there's enough money behind the scam. Ooh, it has to be paranoia. I am soo scared of the boogyman created by mass hysteria and groupthink created by propaganda and junk science funded by huge front groups and big $. But no, things frighten and confuse me because everyone else thinks differently than I do. The fact that the media never discusses fluoride and will never admit the swine flu vaccination was a bunch of bunk to instill fear in the public and make profit for their superiors certainly means everything is a'OK, right folks? Typical strawman: attack a person's 'mental health' and accuse him of being 'paranoid' because his views differ from yours. These people are kuh-raaazee! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc23SFOc61E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEaYyfWJcdc Keep poisoning yourself though and don't listen to me, I'm not deterred by your attack and strawmen. When you've already reduced your IQ this much through forced medication and poisoning it's hard to think for yourself and way easier to attack people's character instead.
Yes if you consider obesity. If we are in the same health insurance plan and I am obese causing hypertension, diabetes, etc. because of my poor diet and lack of exercise than I cause premiums to go up effecting you as well. It's this reason these taxes are even being considered. Everyone wants lower healthcare/health insurance costs but no one wants to exercise and eat right. The responsible health conscious people are subsidizing the lazy overweight people (I know it's not that black and white), yet it's the one issue you won't hear Conservatives raising hell over. Yet they raise hell over lazy welfare recipients taking more than they kick into the system but not the lazy obese people taking more in benefits and costing everyone more in premiums. If the government began taxing welfare recipients more Cons would cheer. If the government began taxing obese people more it would be Communist/Socialist/Marxist/Hitlerist Hypocrisy as always.
The reason Americans are fat and poor eaters is because we're basically programmed from birth to. The diet of the 50's middle class was mainly raw milk, raw butter, raw locally grown produce, locally grown meat w/o antibiotics, and other good stuff. The govt. sold out and let big agriculture take over the smaller farms, and introduced a bunch of genetically modified produce as well as GMO meat, which is why organic, hormone-free grass fed meat is roughly 4-5x the cost per pound. Couple that with the hectic lives of Americans and the consumption of fast foods, sodas, HFCS, and all kinds of other processed junk and here we are. So the problem is the warfare on the American diet either overtly or covertly done out of greed and malice. The answer is NOT more taxes, it comes down to the population waking up and resorting to a more self-sufficient and less corporatized lifestyle. Vote with your feet, so to speak, otherwise your grandkids will wake up drinking Gatorade out of the water fountains like in the movie 'Idiocracy'.
I agree with you however the general public is not going to do that. So considering the government pays Billions in Medicare and Medicaid costs due to obesity how should they best go about getting people to eat right and exercise? After all if you lowered the cost of this care you could lower taxes. Maybe they should just deny coverage to anyone who doesn't eat right or exercise? After all I have heard Conservatives state that welfare recipients should not receive benefits if they test positive for drugs or continue to have kids. I would bet if I polled the public people would like to see those same recipients denied benefits if they weren't actively looking for a job. The logic is the same. Deny benefits based on lack of personal responsibility. Now we're talking healthcare instead of welfare and suddenly no one wants to go there because old young rich poor Rep Dem black white obesity crosses all lines.
Back in the old days there was no need for medicare (before massive regulation, inflation and monopolization), people just went to church hospitals and there was a lot of competition in medicine. I'm one those paleo dudes who thinks everything about the current system sucks. Good food is getting expensive, people are eating worse which leads to massively ridiculous health care costs, and the system is designed to keep people sick in order to make profits. So I eat extremely well, and avoid hospitals and doctors like the plague. I don't believe in socialized medicine and paying for those who are irresponsible. People just need to stop spending their money on useless crap, use that money to eat well, and exercise. Maybe I'm in the extreme minority here, but I don't believe in the 'free lunch', and don't trust a government that claims to be able to give the public whatever they want, because historically it's always been a scam. So I look out for myself, and study nutrition constantly to avoid any problems. The only thing I don't have an answer for is what happens if I get into a major life or death emergency, so all I can pray for is that nothing happens to me. Either way the health care system of this country and the obesity problem is a MAJOR crisis, and I don't see anything good being done that won't take away our privacy.
Can you name something that is taxed in a way that it puts it out of reach of the poor and makes it only accessible to the rich? One instance? I think your argument here doesn't hold much water. The fact is, the items taxed the most are luxury goods, not basic staples which usually go tax exempt. It's a balance. There is a need for a federal, local, and state gov't that can operate effectively. We have seen the dangers of allowing capitalism to police itself - it creates disaster whether it be in the financial sector, with things such as oil drilling, with consumer safety, with medical malpractice, and working conditions. Gov't does have an important role to play. And no one is saying we need to adopt a European style approach here. I don't support that at all. I think our competitive advantage is in free markets and not nationalizing too many industries. But what people forget is that companies do not do what is best for a country or it's citizens or it's employees. It does what's best for it's bottom line. And I have yet to see the real case made that it's ok for a company to dump pollutants and carcinogens into the environment, completely exploit and endanger employees, disregard the safety of it's products, or take actions that put an entire financial system at risk so that said company can make an extra 10% margin on return. It's not a black or white issue. If you are against taxes, you are basically saying you want the wild wild west. Deregulate means that you empower those who are not just entreprenuers, but also all the scumbuckets of the world. And how on earth are you going to have things like Medicare, a national highway system, a national army, technological research and development at a national level, clean air and water, and many other things, without freaking taxes??? If a soda and candy tax is enough to break America's back, then we're screwed anyway. If you think that's going to lead to 1000% taxes - I just think you're not being genuine in your debate here.
So are you against the lottery as well? It's basically a means for a state to generate money from the poor. Poor people buy lottery tickets because they hope to get lucky and strike it rich. It's just a revenue generator, but in reality it's playing off of people's desperation to make money, but from a pay off perspective it's a really bad deal. Isn't that a tax? Since each lottery ticket you buy...only a fraction actually goes to the winning and the rest pocketed by the lottery program...and then, the winner gets their winning taxed as income. So it's like a double tax. And you think asking for 5 cents more on a candy bar is bad!!!
The Wild Wild West is a vast improvement over what we have now, because at least back then you had competing factions of organized crime, so that no particular one got out of hand. Now we only have one. Do you see why? Also, you don't need federal taxes when you have a free market controlled by competing private enterprises without regulation. Local municipalities can tax based on the demand of the public. Building roads is a dicier issue but it's the least of our current problems. Vote with your feet was the old motto, we no longer have that option with the federal juggernaut in full control.
This is a completely inane strawman argument. There was a time when principles mattered more than the 'good intentions' of some yuppie liberals, which eventually lead us straight into the fiery pit of hell. Furthermore, people wouldn't need to take bridge jumping measures such as buying lottery tickets if the govt. didn't squeeze every cent out of our pockets through taxation, not a cent of which do we get to choose how they spend it. Complete extortion.
Oddly, I agree with much of what Red Chocolate is saying here, except I don't believe that there's an organized group driving the entire strategy (in this case, I believe RC is implying that it's the Federal Government). I have been pondering if, rather than this group, this mess is essentially what my faith refers to as "Satan". Consequently, the way to fight Satan (I think) is by strengthening your faith i.e. strengthening yourself by exercising, eating well, not abusing natural resources, helping the needy, treating people better, acting positively for your community, protecting freedoms, not getting owned by money, etc. Far less cool than a red being with horns and a tail that whispers and has no gender, but makes more sense to me.
Great post. I think the world (this system) is structured on a hierarchy consisting of front groups intended to disguise the 'real' head of the beast, who can not show his face until the goal has been manifested, or the pinnacle moment of crisis is reached. The governments/UN are front groups of varying degrees. We the people are the 'fuel' that keeps the machine running. 'The Matrix' draws a lot of allegories to this. People of a 'certain' power-hungry nature who can be blackmailed easily are groomed and elected to positions of varying degrees of power. Those who get to the top of the visible front groups are the most power and money hungry, the best actors and liars, and should not be trusted, for the most part. We mostly good, simple people at the bottom are generally unable to recognize the difference between an actor and a well-trained liar, because we see so many actors daily and seem to not associate the top politicians with very crafty illusionists. It is a complex system that I cannot fully grasp, even after a lot of research and thinking. While I may or may not believe in 'Satan', there are a lot of supernatural, hidden mysteries inside and outside of this world that we can only barely fathom to understand, unless we're fooling ourselves. The Bible may or may not have been an allegory written by man, but if you follow its teachings and live a principled life, you can pass on with a clear conscience. Unfortunately, not everyone out there likes to follow those precepts, especially when they are immune from the law and possibly do not believe in an afterlife. This lets them treat the world as a fun little playground while enjoying a life of immense luxury, constantly amused by our unceasing gullibility. I agree that the best we can do is rely on our own mind, treat ourselves and each other well, but still be aware of realities, as harsh as they may be. Could be wrong, though.
What happens when one crime group becomes dominant? This is the biggest problem I have with your ideology. I agree with your negative sentiments and distrust towards govts, but letting corporations run wild without regulation is much much worse. Besides obvious things like environmental fallouts, I think assuming private enterprises will compete fairly is naive. The big companies will eventually eat up the smaller ones, and w/o regulation the big companies will collude to control a monopoly on the market. I'm not saying govts do a good job of preventing this, but without regulations things would be even worse. In the end you will still need some laws and some form of enforcement, and like the way govts can be bought off by the private sector, the law enforcement agencies can be bought off too. If you blindly follow it as an absolute authority on morality I agree. But for those that do question and try to rationalize what the bible says, it becomes much harder (God sanctioned genocide, homosexual=bad, eat shellfish=bad, etc.) If you pick and choose which parts of the bible you think should be followed and what parts should be ignored, then I'd question the need to follow the bible as a moral guide in the first place. Red Chocolate, have you considered that the old testament was used by the Jewish elite of the time to control their own populace, and that the bible is now being used by the current elite to control the masses?
^In case that sounded like I don't believe in the noumenal or supernatural that is not the case. I am quite open to the existence of the supernatural.
I see what you're saying, but I differ with you in that I don't think there are the Evil Human Resources people specifically selecting anyone for anything. I don't think there are front people. I don't think there are front organizations. I think those are all people who go to work like you and me and hate their jobs like anyone else, and the HR people are regular people and so on and so forth. I just think that, generally, the collective complaceny of humanity relating to self-improvement creates a kind of supernatural multiplier effect for the negative traits of each person or group of people. So, without intending to do so or putting a strategy in place, the disregard for health (example) polarizes taxpayers and tax collectors > which in turn creates a closer relationship between (for example) humans and cheap fastfood. So you're pushed AWAY from the people who you have selected as responsible governors and closer to those who probably have a great interest in you caring more about money and less about health. I think self improvement is things like health, deserved wealth, charity, confident+grounded, community, etc. In complete honesty this is just a very raw idea in my head right now. I'm testing out whether I agree with it out of convenience for my faith or whether there is some sense in it. In any case, my objective of self-improvement doesn't change, nor do my actions on a daily basis. The main thing to always remember is that humas are actually far more capable of adapting and changing and being flexible than we believe. I think quitting cigarettes is (example again) made to look far more difficult than it actually is, and there are intentional or unintentional things in our environment which make that thought to snowball in our heads. My point is, self-improvement is not so difficult and it's easy to convince people to start doing it. It's something worth preaching versus "you will go to hell if your beard is not long enough". lol As advice, from a friend to a friend RC, although I disagree with some parts of your message, the best way to get through is to support people to improve themselves. It is impossible IMO to explain your whole theory and have someone believe it and then act on it. If the goal is truly improvement, then help people improve, they don't have to believe exactly what you believe.
Basically what you're seeing right now in this country. Certain group(s) were probably always in full control, but they are recently starting to really make it obvious. Yes, there has been and will always be corruption in any collectivist society, or any society period. The answer is probably something that man has always struggled to achieve, but never has been able to. I certainly do not have a rebuttal to your argument, hence the constant internal battle in the mind to come up with an answer. Self-sufficiency is the key to avoiding these kinds of problems. The moral principle of this allegory that we live in is that one must put full faith in his fellow man at all times, never to kill unless as a last resort, and to follow one's good moral instincts which I'd like to believe we are born with. It is a spiritual challenge and I believe that is why man has been given the free will to choose between 'good' and 'evil'. If everyone were to lay down their weapons and refuse to go to war, and instead plant crops and rebuild agriculture back into a 'primitive' yet completely sustainable existence, then victory can possibly be had with enough cooperation. Such a thing will never happen in the present narcissistic, egosyntonic society, which was created through propaganda. At the present rate, it is clear that this present system based on the corruption of the monetary system was never meant to be sustained, and it must collapse through chaos to be rebuilt, into an unknown and likely dangerous future for humanity, who is presently divided on a vast number of levels. I get the feeling that the industrial and post-industrial age was a massive trap designed to get humans conditioned to rely on robots and machines more than their own mind and ingenuity. I have a love-hate relationship with technology for this reason. I cannot stress enough how the monetary system is the root of the problem, because ordinary men will not fight wars unless they are desperate for money or in a state of fear, which can be induced in the average man given enough money to create propaganda. Without money it is highly difficult to hire large numbers of mercenaries. The historical challenge was to get humanity united, and for some reason it was never able to happen, likely due in part to the monetary system or human nature, or possibly both. I think part of the problem is the gullibility of mankind, and its inability to recognize those who walk amongst him who are not like him, the 'psychopath' as it is presently defined. I understand, I was raised Jewish and read much of the Old Testament. I am in no position of authority to automatically dismiss any of the old scriptures, but I can fully see how they were used to control the masses, especially when superstition and folklore were all the norm, and people needed some scare tactic in order to keep them from revolting every so often. People fear death a lot more now that we experience longer lives and are becoming more atheist, and thus will not stand up and fight for many causes. I think it is okay to pick and choose parts of the Bible that you agree or disagree with, as without the ability to use your free will there really would be no need for you to live in this existence, unless it was merely a test. But a test of what? As of right now, we are in a period of transition in which ancient scriptures are going to be gradually replaced by some sort of 'New Age' religion, which is highly dependent on science, another variant of religion. The old priests wore black coats, the new priests are 'experts' who wear white coats. Science, preservation of Earth, and globalization of humanity without borders is the next chapter in this saga. Sounds nice on the surface, until you realize that it will only give the ones with control even more power. Do you trust them?
