life:apropos

By Way of Deception (not terribly deceptive… but they’re not the exactly that bright either)

Impossible Restraint

YOUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS END WHERE ANOTHER LIVING THING BEGINS.

EVEN IF YOU THINK THEY’RE YOURS

THEREIN LIES THE PICTURE

Suez for Israel. Thanks… Benjamin Disraeli

“‘Benjamin Disraeli to Queen Victoria after receiving the money to buy interest in the Suez Canal:  ‘It is just settled: you have it, Madam. . . .Four millions sterling! And almost immediately. There was only one firm that could do that – Rothschilds.'”

 “In the second half of the nineteenth century, Benjamin Disraeli, the leader of the conservative party, greatly influenced British politics. He, along with longtime rival William Gladstone, leader of the liberal party, instituted policies that would direct British affairs for decades after their own time in service had passed. The four-part miniseries, released in 1979 and starring Ian McShane as Disraeli, attempts to display not only the political career of Lord Beaconsfield, but also the private life of this most public of figures. It is well suited for those who are familiar with the history of Disraeli’s life and career, as well as for those who are just beginning the study of this period in history.

Episode three begins in the 1850’s with Disraeli defending his friend Lionel Rothschild, member of the famous banking family, who has refused the opportunity to take his elected seat in Parliament because he is a member of the Jewish faith. Rothschild was elected several times to Parliament, but was never allowed to enter Parliament until the law requiring members to take an oath to Christianity was changed in 1858. Though this scene deals with affairs of Parliament, it is also important because it displays the deep friendship and loyalty between Disraeli and Rothschild. They were frequent dinner companions, often discussing the events of the day, as well as public policy. This relationship would prove fortuitous when Disraeli pursued the purchase of shares in the Suez Canal in 1875.

Disraeli’s relationship with Gladstone is also examined in a curious dinner scene, which in all probability never took place. In the scene, which is largely set up by the wives of the two political rivals, the qualities of each man are discussed; Gladstone’s intelligence and Disraeli’s charisma are described as qualities that each man desired to possess. The two leaders are also shown in a closed-door meeting, trying to reach an agreement on their philosophical differences. This, in the film, never occurs; nor did it in reality. Their rivalry would become political legend, the men opposing each other at nearly every possible juncture. In Robert Blake’s Disraeli, the author attributes the beginning of the rivalry, which was filled with personal and public animosity, to the Parliamentary debates in December of 1852. Disraeli, who at this time held the position of Chancellor of Exchequer, presented his budget, which was considered controversial by some, to Parliament for consideration. After Disraeli finished speaking, Gladstone spoke out strongly against the proposed budget, helping to ensure its eventual defeat. They had never been close associates, but this public affront was largely the catalyst for the rivalry that would become increasingly vocal and publicly acrimonious as the years passed.

Disraeli’s relationship with Queen Victoria is presented in the last two episodes of the series. It was a fortuitous connection, both socially and politically. Disraeli was known for his charm, particularly when it came to his dealings with royalty. He would comment on his penchant for flattery concerning the Queen, saying that, “With other women I employ a camel’s hair brush, with the Queen I lay it on with a towel.” Regardless of the political advantage resulting from his relationship. Disraeli and Victoria felt a genuine fondness for one another. In the film, during some of the initial scenes involving Disraeli and Queen Victoria, he is shown standing when in her presence. Later, Queen Victoria offers Disraeli a seat while they discuss matters of the state, which he refuses out of respect for the crown; however, as the Prime Minister ages, he accepts the Queen’s future invitations to speak in comfort. Interestingly in these scenes, upon concluding his discussions with the Queen, he rearranges the chairs so no one will suspect that he did not follow the proper protocol while in the presence of Victoria. He refers to this as, “removing the evidence.” Two things of importance are displayed in this scene; first, the relaxed nature of the relationship between Disraeli and Victoria and secondly, the respect and apparent need to maintain appearances in relation to the crown. In direct contrast, Queen Victoria held absolutely no affinity for Gladstone, whom she detested and consequently would not allow to sit in her presence.

In terms of governmental policy, particular attention is given to Disraeli’s pursuit of interest in the Suez Canal. In 1875, the Khedive of Egypt, Ismail Pasha, who had accumulated a great deal of debt at the expense of his own government, was forced to sell 177,000 shares of stock in the Suez Canal. Disraeli, realizing the significance of the opportunity, committed the British government, without the approval of Parliament, to the purchase of the shares for the price of four million pounds. the scenes dealing with the purchase are faithful to historical accounts, including the popular story of how Lionel Rothschild agreed to provide the necessary funds to complete the transaction with the Egyptian government. However, the controversy in Parliament, thought it was limited but boisterous, is not depicted. Since this was led by Gladstone, its presentation in the film would have contributed to a more complete account of the political climate of nineteenth century Britain, as well as further examining the ill-natured relationship between Disraeli and Gladstone.

In his performance, McShane is very believable as Disraeli, capturing the nature and eloquence of the man. Furthermore, as this series covers several decades, the effects of aging on Disraeli, who suffered from various illnesses during his life, are shown convincingly through McShane’s performance and effective use of make-up. The production is unique and covers many of the important events of Disraeli’s life and career; however, there are so many that are of interest and historical significance that it does seem to jump haphazardly form subject to subject. In all likelihood, given the constraints on time, this strategy allowed for the best representation of Disraeli. While everyone can enjoy this series, there is little doubt that those who are familiar with Disraeli, Gladstone, and nineteenth century politics, will have a greater appreciation.”

http://clioseye.sfasu.edu/Archives/Student%20Reviews%20Archives/Disraliechr.htm

 

Jane vs. Bill

Bill Nye, the engineer guy, paid a visit to Monsantan’s home base and in an interview shortly thereafter he said this… “I went to Monsanto and I spent a lot of time with the scientists there and I have revised my outlook and I’m very excited about telling the world. When you’re in love you want to tell the world,” um… so, yeah, not even Monsatan shills say the L word about that  death plant. Methinks he was replaced they probably had a replacement already manufactured. naturally, means that Bill has been replaced or paid off handsomely seeing that he doesn’t actually have to eat the shit. Just has to promote it.

Coincidentally, prior to finding out about the above,  I discovered that Jane Goodall, an actual scientist, has written the the forward for a book which calls out the death dealing firms on their fraudulent antics and then some. Of course Goodall being a straight shooter doesn’t mince words and labels gmo supporters as delusional and anti-science (today’s modern “skeptics” = pseudoscience adherents).

i can’t believe this is from 1999…

this is what’s important

SaMa Yoga Life & Wellness

View original post

Censored Marriage

The fact that same-sex marriage occurred millennia ago won’t ever be broached by any talking heads; ever. Simply because it nullifies any debate. Period. The evolution of marriage is interesting in that it’s always been something sanctioned via the State as a business contract which includes familial alliances and other power brokering nonsense. Those who proudly label themselves under the Christian Right – a misnomer to begin with – are those who voluntary cease thinking simply because they have all the answers. All of which were cherry picked from a most precious resource: a book of fantasy and allegory drenched in fallacies written, exclusively, by pedo rabbis and popes millennia ago called The Bible.  So a couple of weeks ago I stumbled upon some pro-life site which invariably lead me to an article on the site about how gay marriage will destroy an already crumbling US of A and I commented and it was promptly censored. But for the life of me I can’t fathom why.  Original comment is below.

Which reminded me of this great question posed directly to them – them being those who mistakenly believe they are right about everything because G minus d wrote a book telling them were. To date not one of them has answered the question posed in the below image. I guess that means no. It’s not like they actually value life outside the womb you see. It’s only value is while it’s unborn.

It’s a simple enough question. But it must illicit all sorts of new things called thought into those who aren’t used to it.

Perversed Inverses

Hats & Pesticides

Apparently, as I was recently told, I am officially a tin foil hat wearing conspiracist – whoopeety – do; nothing like 80’s cliches to validate an already obvious statement. Alas, at least I am not one of them – the (new) “skeptics”, believers, mindless, etc. So, I know it’s been a year since the Nobel Peace Prize lost all of it’s already scant value by awarding Monsanto gene splicers with a prize for reducing global hunger (um, lol?)... lying fucking cunts.  This article about pesticide myths is spot on and needs a share ~

To tantalize the rational here’s a brilliant quote: “If we were serious about feeding people we wouldn’t grow enough extra grains to feed 1/3 of the world’s hungry and then pour them into gas tanks.”

                                                             PS. truthertoys.com is no more, frowny face.

Me & …

Me:

Anarchy is not synonymous nor even ideologically compatible with capitalism simply because capitalism will always produce monopolies no matter the shit being shilled. Where will the money for Anarcho-Capitalism come from? Which monopolizer of profitable resources will co-opt that? Capitalism is very much a centralized power play lover. Just as much as Communism is. While Anarchism is not. Albeit Anarchy would likely evolve into a statist like system and then into the full on State. Being social animals with about 40% finding a preponderance for theft and/or violence there eventually will be the need for a militia. And shortly after will come the town halls and committees because living socially requires things like communication or even cooperation. To be successful: Anarchy would need to be practiced individually or in small communities because it would never work for large populations simply because there are way too many assholes and/or Capitalists.

Dude:

Money is simply any commonly accepted medium of exchange, so the answer to your question “Where would money come from but for government” is easy: it would come from whatever commodity emerged as the predominant method of calculating transactions and storing value. Even money today only has value insofar as we expect other people will readily accept it as payment. If we didn’t trust that it would hold it’s value long enough for us to spend it, we would insist on some other type of payment for our goods or services. One could imagine many rival currencies, much as we have today, minted not by nation’s but by independent institutions that are trusted at least as well as we trust our central banks not to devalue our currency to the point where it’s only utility is wallpaper.

As for your remarks on capitalism leading to monopoly, I don’t know where you draw evidence to support that. The government is the sole monopolist in the land, they claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (law enforcement), on the printing of money (central banking), and in many countries the provision of essential goods and services such as healthcare, education and utilities. I ask you, when and where has it ever been a good idea to have one seller, one sole provider be responsible for meeting the incalculable needs of a society? You think it’s tough being a minority and getting a job in today’s economy, wait til the government is the sole employer. Then you’re really boned for speaking out, acting or looking different.

Me:

Government removed would create a vacuum that would be filled via capitalists by their the various services – no longer monopolized by the State but by a corporation (same FUCKING difference). Voila. Monopolies. Whatever lil pipe dream you Molyneuxs have it’s evidently free of base human failings i.e. greed, megalomania, etc. Examples of monopolies: AT&T, Standard oil, Microsoft (only OS option for PC’s at time of purchase), and cable companies within municipalities sequester neighborhoods so one only has one choice for a cable service. These were just from the top of me lil head so no doubt some digging would provide a much more extensive list of the elusive monopoly.

What the fuck is it with you “anarcho” capitalists and your obsession of force/security/privatization… oh wait. LOL, it’s inherent to capitalism that the hoarded booty be protected from others. Such as a NAP participant who doesn’t feel theft is an aggressive act.
I said, “Where will the money for Anarcho-Capitalism come from? Which monopolizer of profitable resources will co-opt that?” Not whatever you think I said (read much?). So, again, which one of you losers will be the Fed, which isn’t part of the State, a corporation in of itself, but a private conglomeration of bankers. If you prefer this could be something which provides an acceptable medium of exchange. Although, it wouldn’t be the Fed to start. Eventually it would become a carbon copy of the Fed being run by capitalist and all.