So how is it that the horrible systemic inequality in this country resulted in a obese, black, women (3 strikes) becoming the richest women in America?
The idea is that you're not supposed to ask those kinds of questions, because the answer would disprove the assumption. That's why asking obvious questions results in cries of racism.
"Systemic inequality" means whatever they need it to mean, at any given point in time. The meaning changes depending on the audience. But the demands to "correct" systemic inequality remain the same, regardless of the audience.
The answer is *always,* "Surrender your agency, and we'll take those things from other people, those things that you want. Then you'll all be "equal" or something..."
What amazes me is the fact that so few people have an inability to move past step one in the sequence of actions required to bring about that which was sold to them. Can they not imagine what might happen if they were to follow things to their logical conclusion?
All of those outcomes can be accomplished by slight of hand. When the majority of what those people consume, knowledge-wise, is spoon-fed, they follow along nicely.
The problem here is that the issue is almost never defined. When Pelosi references, "Systemic Inequalities," she doesn't reference what is unequal. Sure there are inequalities, there always will be, but to which is she referring?
As I'm always telling my kids, my nieces and nephews, and children of friends, "Life isn't fair. Life will never be fair. You just have to live with it."
Punishing one group for what another group doesn't have is wrong. We can't control where we were born, or what natural resources we have. We also can't control what the rest of the world does with their resources.
This looks to me very much like business as usual.
Over the past few decades different factions of the global elites have come up with perpetual war - on drugs, on terror, on racism, on viruses ... Why not a war on 'systematic inequality'? It sounds like a good ploy especially if you define systematic inequality in such a way that it can never be eliminated -like poverty in the United Kingdom (see https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/)
None of these wars is winnable. They're just a way of channelling funds from the common five-eighths to the petty empire builders, parasites and bureaucrats who make the whole edifice hang together.
Precisely! Systemic inequality can never be [allowed to be] defined in a way such as to achieve a final victory -- because it’s based on a sliding scale.
The never-ending aspect is what makes it useful. Many people can be perpetually conned into believing that “progress” has been made, even though there is no clear end goal. People are slightly less unequal than they were the day before...
It’s great for stringing people along, and getting rich while doing it. It’s a series of, create the problem, and sell the solution.
These nonsense schemes are becoming more clear to the younger generations. They’re asking questions and they often don’t receive a satisfactory answer, anywhere they look.
I think a lot of these schemes are starting to fall apart.
They, the elitist, could all do what Yeshua told the wealthy young man. Sell ALL you have and give it to the poor. But he was very rich and didn't want to do what was necessary to solve the "inequality". Just like today. "They" want the actual working people to become discriminated against and distribute what they have worked for. Just like all the people for unlimited immigration. All of the elitist have large homes, more than one, so open up YOUR properties and house these people. You have vast amounts of money. Feed and clothe them. Educate and take care of their medical needs. You and your house staff do the work. Anything about "climate change", "global warming", the earth cooling, etc is just so much BS.
You're 100% correct. The "elitists" are the only ones capable of private ownership. It's us plebs that should give everything away.
It's like the Karl Marx quote: The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. However, It should be appended with, "for the plebs."
The problem is that there is always someone who owns the means to take the property away from others. Another way to look at it. Communism is never a natural state. It always comes about as the result of another form of government collapsing, followed by a "revolution" read coup.
Nobody heads, or funds, a revolution -- to relinquish their own private property. But they will fund or head a revolution to take things away from *other* people.
That's why I've never understood people who buy into the whole Marxist trope. Marxism is really an ideology by which oligarchs come to power. There are no ideological Marxists at the top. Marxism is for the followers -- not the rulers.
I just don't see how more people don't realize that.
So how is it that the horrible systemic inequality in this country resulted in a obese, black, women (3 strikes) becoming the richest women in America?
You're racist! That's all. 😂🤣
The idea is that you're not supposed to ask those kinds of questions, because the answer would disprove the assumption. That's why asking obvious questions results in cries of racism.
"Systemic inequality" means whatever they need it to mean, at any given point in time. The meaning changes depending on the audience. But the demands to "correct" systemic inequality remain the same, regardless of the audience.
The answer is *always,* "Surrender your agency, and we'll take those things from other people, those things that you want. Then you'll all be "equal" or something..."
What amazes me is the fact that so few people have an inability to move past step one in the sequence of actions required to bring about that which was sold to them. Can they not imagine what might happen if they were to follow things to their logical conclusion?
Yes, I don’t know if they are too busy to think, if they are distracted with difficult life circumstances, or brainwashed?
The answer is yes. 😉👉
All of those outcomes can be accomplished by slight of hand. When the majority of what those people consume, knowledge-wise, is spoon-fed, they follow along nicely.
The problem here is that the issue is almost never defined. When Pelosi references, "Systemic Inequalities," she doesn't reference what is unequal. Sure there are inequalities, there always will be, but to which is she referring?
As I'm always telling my kids, my nieces and nephews, and children of friends, "Life isn't fair. Life will never be fair. You just have to live with it."
Punishing one group for what another group doesn't have is wrong. We can't control where we were born, or what natural resources we have. We also can't control what the rest of the world does with their resources.
Yes, Comrade, that is korreckt.
You see, the entire “climate change” agenda is about implementing worldwide Marxism — and no one cares more about “inequality” than Marxists.
"no one cares more about “inequality” than Marxists."
You're 100% right about that. Marxists will achieve 100% misery and spread it equally. 😉👉
While the plebs are owning nothing, and NOT happy -- the leaders of the global Marxist movement will be sitting back laughing.
This looks to me very much like business as usual.
Over the past few decades different factions of the global elites have come up with perpetual war - on drugs, on terror, on racism, on viruses ... Why not a war on 'systematic inequality'? It sounds like a good ploy especially if you define systematic inequality in such a way that it can never be eliminated -like poverty in the United Kingdom (see https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/)
None of these wars is winnable. They're just a way of channelling funds from the common five-eighths to the petty empire builders, parasites and bureaucrats who make the whole edifice hang together.
Precisely! Systemic inequality can never be [allowed to be] defined in a way such as to achieve a final victory -- because it’s based on a sliding scale.
The never-ending aspect is what makes it useful. Many people can be perpetually conned into believing that “progress” has been made, even though there is no clear end goal. People are slightly less unequal than they were the day before...
It’s great for stringing people along, and getting rich while doing it. It’s a series of, create the problem, and sell the solution.
These nonsense schemes are becoming more clear to the younger generations. They’re asking questions and they often don’t receive a satisfactory answer, anywhere they look.
I think a lot of these schemes are starting to fall apart.
I hope you're right!
They, the elitist, could all do what Yeshua told the wealthy young man. Sell ALL you have and give it to the poor. But he was very rich and didn't want to do what was necessary to solve the "inequality". Just like today. "They" want the actual working people to become discriminated against and distribute what they have worked for. Just like all the people for unlimited immigration. All of the elitist have large homes, more than one, so open up YOUR properties and house these people. You have vast amounts of money. Feed and clothe them. Educate and take care of their medical needs. You and your house staff do the work. Anything about "climate change", "global warming", the earth cooling, etc is just so much BS.
You're 100% correct. The "elitists" are the only ones capable of private ownership. It's us plebs that should give everything away.
It's like the Karl Marx quote: The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. However, It should be appended with, "for the plebs."
The problem is that there is always someone who owns the means to take the property away from others. Another way to look at it. Communism is never a natural state. It always comes about as the result of another form of government collapsing, followed by a "revolution" read coup.
Nobody heads, or funds, a revolution -- to relinquish their own private property. But they will fund or head a revolution to take things away from *other* people.
That's why I've never understood people who buy into the whole Marxist trope. Marxism is really an ideology by which oligarchs come to power. There are no ideological Marxists at the top. Marxism is for the followers -- not the rulers.
I just don't see how more people don't realize that.