• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Overdosed on Socialism: Great Britain, R.I.P.

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Overdosed on Socialism: Great Britain, R.I.P.

David C. Stolinsky
Aug. 15, 2011

Want has been all but abolished. Today, fewer and fewer Britons want to work, want to marry, want to raise children, want to lead a life of any purpose or dignity.
− Mark Steyn, “After America”

Max Hastings is an eminent British historian. His scathing article on the recent riots in Britain makes enlightening but painful reading. Britain is further along the road to the welfare state than we are, so what is happening there is a warning to us. Our situations are not identical, but they are similar enough that we can look at Britain and see ourselves in a short time. It’s not a pretty sight.

We see rioting and looting by feral young people. The motivating force of the riots was not anger at another racial or ethnic group, but anger at the mere suggestion that their welfare benefits might be reduced.

Their nation will go broke if the benefits are not reduced, but this made no difference to the rioters, any more than practical considerations make any difference to drug addicts. Once a person is addicted to anything − be it heroin or government checks − an attempt to cut off the supply will evoke rage at the supplier, or at anyone handy.

It might be possible to resuscitate Britain from this overdose. But first Britain would have to recognize that there is an overdose, and what the drug is. I see little evidence of this. On the contrary, the “progressive” response is to administer even more of the drug:

● More payments for not working, so there are more people not working − who have nothing to lose by rioting.

● More payments for having children out of wedlock, so there are more fatherless boys − who have no moral principles that inhibit them from rioting.

● More multiculturalism − so there is no respect for British traditions that would preclude rioting.

● More secularism − so there is no concept of sin associated with looting and rioting.

● More liberalism − so there is less punishment for rioting.

In effect, socialists bribe people with money and social programs, in the hope that they won’t become violent. But paradoxically, socialism produces the dependent, entitled, demanding ingrates who are more likely to become violent. Hastings writes:

Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters…

Of course it is true that few have jobs, learn anything useful at school, live in decent homes, eat meals at regular hours or feel loyalty to anything beyond their local gang…

They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong…

They respond only to instinctive animal impulses − to eat and drink, have sex, seize or destroy the accessible property of others.

It’s sad to see a person die. But it’s sadder to see a civilization die. When a person dies, the principles and ideals he held dear may be handed down to his heirs. But when a civilization dies, that is the end.

The principles and ideals exist only in books, where we can study them if we are interested in the past, but where they no longer inspire us. When we visit the Parthenon, we are impressed with what the ancient Greeks achieved, but we are also depressed by the decrepit state of the building. We see a reminder of past glory − emphasis on past.

I grew up with admiration for the British people. I saw films like “Gunga Din.” No, it wasn’t a realistic portrayal of British colonialism in India. But it was a history lesson nonetheless. I learned about a murderous religious cult called Thuggee, from which we get the word “thug.” Members strangled their victims for money and to worship the goddess Kali. The cult was suppressed by the British using police and the military. I learned that murderous cults must be suppressed by force.

And I learned to love the sound of bagpipes, and to associate it with the arrival of rescuers intent on defeating a murderous cult. So years later, when I watched the film “The Longest Day,” a portrayal of the Normandy invasion that began the liberation of Europe from the Nazis, I was not surprised when British troops were accompanied by a piper − which actually happened. There they were again, intent on defeating another murderous cult.

Then there were the magnificent speeches of Churchill. During the darkest days of World War II, Britain stood alone against the Nazis for 22 months. The Soviet Union was allied with Hitler for almost two years, France had fallen, and America had not yet entered the war. But there was Churchill:

An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender.

Never give in − never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

You can always take one with you.

That is what I think of when I think of the British − the bulldog determination to defeat tyranny exemplified by Churchill, with the sound of bagpipes in the distance. But the Britain I admired is no more.

Just as the Tower of London is an impressive relic of the past, so is Britain itself. I can visit Edinburgh Castle and see mementos of the heroes who defeated Hitler, and the eagle standard that the Scots Greys seized from Napoleon’s troops at Waterloo. And I can listen to the wail of the pipes. But instead of a rousing march celebrating another victory over tyranny, they are sounding a dirge mourning the passing of an era − and the death of a great civilization.

Britannia used to rule the waves; now she can hardly defend her own sailors and marines. Britannia used to bring civilization to distant lands; now she cannot civilize her own young people. A female rioter declared, “We can show the police we can do what we want.” In two or three generations, the Brits descended from Churchill to that. But don’t feel superior − we are on a similar downhill course. If our current budget deficit requires similar cutbacks in social programs, we may see similar disturbances.

When the people of Magna Carta, the charter of rights dating back to 1215, cannot defend those rights in 2011, it is a sad day.

When the people who survived the Great Depression and World War II allow their great-grandchildren to grow up like animals, it is a sadder day.

And when the people who fought the Nazis for five years cannot stand up against their own feral young people for three nights, it is the saddest day of all.

The pipe tune I first heard as a child, and which caused me to fall in love with that untamed sound, was in the film “Gunga Din.” Later I learned the words. To me, they refer to all those we loved who are no longer with us. But now, they refer to the British nation itself. It’s dying from addiction to socialism. And if we don’t reverse course soon, the pipes will also be sounding a dirge for America.

http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.stolinsky.com/news/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=850
 

tumbleweed_texn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
Among the sagebrush and greasewood.
It sounds as if western governments have lost their parenting skills.......

If child wants an allowence, he or she must do chores. In other words, work for it.

If a child associates with unsavory influences, privileges are reduced. Privileges continue to be reduced until said child learns where his/her priorities lie.

If said child should act out in an unsatisfactory manner, commensurate punishment is rendered immediately. Should intolerable behavior continue, discipline measures increase. They continue to get more harsh until the little **** learns to behave.

You do not reward bad behavior. You do not praise laziness. You refuse to condone immorality. And you sure as hell dont pay the little snot to participate in this manner.

People, quit condoning bad behavior.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
The riots are not the problem, they are the symptom. They are the symptom of the increasing spread between the rich and the poor. And the increasing spread between the rich and poor? That's also a symptom. None of this will be solved until someone wakes up and realizes what they are a symptom of.

Wealth is being redistributed around the world right now. The so called "rich" countries, such as England, those in Europe, and yes, North America, have taken what I call the "Walmart path". It's so much easier to import cheap goods than it is to pay more for what we make ourselves. The developed countries have given up their manufacturing systems to take this easier path, and it's left a lot of people with no work. and a grim future.

I consider the Walmart scenario to be the best example. Walmart moves into a small town. Everyone shops there because it's cheaper. Local businesses close due to lack of business. Those workers lose their jobs. Now they can only afford to shop at Walmart. Who's the winner here? Walmart, that's who.

This has happened on a much larger scale in a lot of the countries who are having money troubles now. They've sold out to the cheap deal, and lost their ability to produce goods of their own. Their middle classes have become the working poor and welfare classes. There are no jobs for them to get so they can improve their situations, and these young people see no future for themselves.

The rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer. The rich resent the help the poor expect from government, and the poor resent the rich for keeping all the money for themselves, and not doing anything to create jobs.

It's only going to get worse. This is not the last time we'll see riots on the TV. They've already happened in Greece, and London. What's next? Detroit? Chicago? It could happen, and probably will.

If you're on welfare because the plant you worked in for twenty years shut down and moved to Korea, and suddenly you get a notice that you're welfare or unemployment will be cut off because they spent the money bailing out their friends on Wall Street, you really have nothing to lose, do you?
 

tumbleweed_texn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
Among the sagebrush and greasewood.
I recall a story of Moses bringing down from the mountain some stone tablets with 10 rules set in them. Hence the term set in stone. These ten rules were to give mankind a premise on how one should live their lives.

There was no post script voiding these rules should ones "baby daddy" become incarcerated. There was no nullification should your mothers union rep price her out of a job. No these rules were set for everyone for all time. The man upstairs knows thatwe as a species are often times not real bright. Thats why he only gave us ten rules. Look at Adam and Eve. They only had one rule.

The fault of society in these situations is that we have tolerated and rewarded laziness for far too long. It isnt the rich mans fault. He either worked for and earned his money, or he was born into it and he works to keep it.

If mobs are a symptom, saying its all the fault of society is just a band-aid.

If a person has a boil on their backside, they heat a needle and lance it. Sure, it hurts like hell, but you have to endure a little pain in order to fix the problem.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
And if a government, who is supposed to represent the people, chooses to bring in policies that encourage the disappearance of the livelihoods of those same people, then they are responsible for cleaning up the mess left behind. A government is responsible to all it's people, not just the rich.

It's easy to say, "get a job" if there is a job to be gotten. It's easy to call someone a bum from a distance, without walking a mile in their shoes first. When society starts to break down, there's more than one problem with it, the problem is systematic, has many faces, and takes many small solutions added together to fix it.

I have no problem with wealthy people who earned their wealth by hard work. They should be commended. I have a problem with wealthy people who had it dropped in their laps, or stole it, and chose not to use any of it to do any good. Also those who took it from others by gambling on derivatives, phony stock scams, market manipulation and the like, earned off the losses of honest hard working people.

One of those ten commandments states.

"You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor"

Explain how this fits into the standard capitalist model? At it's basest form, isn't capitalism all about obtaining prosperity by the acquisition of wealth? How is wealth obtained nowadays? More often than not, in the great casino called the stock market, where money is traded back and forth, and some profit while others lose. Seems to me these are the same people who got kicked out of a temple many years ago by someone we all know.......

Perhaps the boil that needs to be lanced is on the bum of some investment banker sitting on a lounge chair on a beach somewhere, at company expense.

Things won't improve until the money in this world starts being used for more than just earning more by taking it from people who cannot afford it. It's time to spend some of it on creating tangible things. Things people can use. Things that actually get an economy on it's feet. Then and only then will the social unrest cool down.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Kato said:
And if a government, who is supposed to represent the people, chooses to bring in policies that encourage the disappearance of the livelihoods of those same people, then they are responsible for cleaning up the mess left behind. A government is responsible to all it's people, not just the rich.

It's easy to say, "get a job" if there is a job to be gotten. It's easy to call someone a bum from a distance, without walking a mile in their shoes first. When society starts to break down, there's more than one problem with it, the problem is systematic, has many faces, and takes many small solutions added together to fix it.

I have no problem with wealthy people who earned their wealth by hard work. They should be commended. I have a problem with wealthy people who had it dropped in their laps, or stole it, and chose not to use any of it to do any good. Also those who took it from others by gambling on derivatives, phony stock scams, market manipulation and the like, earned off the losses of honest hard working people.

One of those ten commandments states.

"You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor"
Explain how this fits into the standard capitalist model? At it's basest form, isn't capitalism all about obtaining prosperity by the acquisition of wealth? How is wealth obtained nowadays? More often than not, in the great casino called the stock market, where money is traded back and forth, and some profit while others lose. Seems to me these are the same people who got kicked out of a temple many years ago by someone we all know.......

Perhaps the boil that needs to be lanced is on the bum of some investment banker sitting on a lounge chair on a beach somewhere, at company expense.

Things won't improve until the money in this world starts being used for more than just earning more by taking it from people who cannot afford it. It's time to spend some of it on creating tangible things. Things people can use. Things that actually get an economy on it's feet. Then and only then will the social unrest cool down.

Seriously? That is what you are going to base your argument on? Taxing someone elses's money IS coveting.

How do you aquire money at any time- you work for someone else, you invest in others giving them capital you believe they will profit from and then you as well (kinda like a loan- you ever had one of those?), you produce something or provide a service.

What you do not do is sit on your arse waiting for someone else to work, then take a percentage of it because you can't make better decisions for yourself. It is the grown up version of "I quite" everytime someone else starts winning at a game. Maybe if you stuck in long enough the tables might turn.

Lets look at something:
Things won't improve until the money in this world starts being used for more than just earning more by taking it from people who cannot afford it.

So are you saying that on the whole, people in today's America are poorer than their grandparents or their grandparents? Do you wan't to look back a little at life style?

What percentage of our country has an iron horse (a luxary)? What percentage of our country lives with relatives a generation above them? What percentage of our country has air conditioning (definately a luxary)? Who has a cell phone (a luxary)? What percentage of our income goes toward food (a necessity)?

I dare you to find what percentage of people are now living a lower quality of life than their grandparents. A car was only for the rich. Air conditioning was not even thought of.

Social unrest in America is due to a poor mind set. A desire to have someone else's possessions given to you (covet), rather than work for what you can and then be proud of it. I'm just proud of the work I do. Makes me feel good to contribute to society.

When are you poor? When you are in the lowest 15% of the population of Beverly Hills? Lowest 15% in the US? Lowest 15% in the industrialized world? Or the lowest 15% in the World?

If you really want to be equal with everyone in the world- get ready to lower your standard of living a LOT. Ready to eat a few times a week? Wear the same clothes? Give up your car? Give up your house? Do you really want it to be equal now?

Or.... do you just want someone elses' money to increase your standard of living?
 

tumbleweed_texn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
Among the sagebrush and greasewood.
Kato, I read the first few lines of your post and realized I had better things to do. The govt. may be at fault for the economis situation. It usually is. It is not at fault though concerning the individual. That responsibility falls to each person. There are hard times all over the world. If this trash is truly desperate, why are they not robbing grocery stores. They are even too lazy to cook. They choose to loot convenoence stores for pre-packagex crap.

Another reason I dont buy your aegument, ever hear of a little thing called the "Dustbowl"? My mother was was born right in the heart of it in Hinton, Ok. They had it rougher than just about anyone in modern times in a developed country. Not just her family, but everyones family was in dire straits. Rather than band together for pillaging, they banded together to survive and prosper. They had too much pride and too many morals to act like a bunch of feral filth.

Quit making excuses for this behavior or get used the idea that it may be you next they attack. There has always been haves and have nots. Thats the way of the world. How you handle that little piece of info is what defines you as a person.
 

Kato

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,679
Reaction score
0
Location
Manitoba - At the end of the road
I prefer to handle my info with a bit of compassion. My parents grew up in the Dust Bowl too, I grew up poor myself. I am still what you may consider poor. I am also not afraid to work.

That being said, there are many reasons for social unrest, and just lumping everyone into one group and calling them all trash is not the answer. They all have their own stories, and a lot of the poor are good people in bad situations.

They are not all trash. I firmly believe that.

This argument is over, IMHO.
 

tumbleweed_texn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
Among the sagebrush and greasewood.
Whos lumping all of the downtrodden into one lump and calling them trash?

I am though lumping together all of feral pack mentality thugs together and calling them trash. Because they are. Ones social situation shouldnt matter. Right and wrong dont change. Some people see adversity as a test of their fortitude. They dont go out in a Mad Max like band hoping to overcome by sheer numbers.

Im sorry that you feel the need to bail on the debate but being able to HUG the problem away isnt going happen. That reminds me of the bunny huggers who spent quite a bit of money trying to teach the wolves to be vegetarian. They didnt want them having to kill in order to eat. That little bit of feel good nonsense didnt work either.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
interesting concept.. the poor shop at walmart, because the product is cheaper... and local business close putting the poor out of work..

but walmart gets filthy rich in the process..

to just blame this on walmart is not looking deep enough..

way back when Sears and Roebuck offered a variety of products at a better price then any local store could come close to meeting..

yet business thrived.. ? the post office was profitable. .and manufacturing was on the rise.

Kmart followed.. little changed.. business thrived, manufacturing increased..

but something happened in the 70s.. why did that recession change the way Americans shopped bought cars, made things?

it isn't walmart.. it isn't even the huge labor burden, the huge regulatory burden.. it is a bit of all of them..

but what happened in the 70's was worse.. we became dependent on foreign oil and foreign investment.. and our country went into debt..

to get ahead is simple we need to produce more then we consume..

we need to produce more energy then we consume.

our regulations need to be productive, not consuming,

our taxes have to help our products not shackle them.

if I am wrong the other option is worse.. our poor are to stupid to survive.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Kato said:
I prefer to handle my info with a bit of compassion. My parents grew up in the Dust Bowl too, I grew up poor myself. I am still what you may consider poor. I am also not afraid to work.

That being said, there are many reasons for social unrest, and just lumping everyone into one group and calling them all trash is not the answer. They all have their own stories, and a lot of the poor are good people in bad situations.

They are not all trash. I firmly believe that.

This argument is over, IMHO.

there is one problem with your theory on blaming wallmart.. for businesses failing..

the thread is about the UK.. and well walmart hasn't had much of a foothold into the UK..

so how can they be blamed?
 

Latest posts

Top