Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Internet Links
Topic: Brit fails history
started by: Malcolm

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2015,10:20

< Ouch >.

QUOTE

The home secretary also warned that when immigration was too high, "it’s impossible to build a cohesive society."

Germany seems to disagree with you because they've agreed to take in a couple hundred thousand refugees.

Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 06 2015,10:24

Every day I read a new article about Germany failing to cope/adapt well.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 06 2015,11:34

I've been enjoying the liberal elite in this country arguing for immigration (they don't want to lose their low cost maids, gardeners, and nannies), while their socialist elite overlords in Europe are fighting against it.

She's right about immigration, and it doesn't take the boys down at NASA to figure that one out.

If you have a house with 10 people in it who all have the same basic ideals and morals then add 11 other people with completely different morals and ideals, guess what happens?

There is such a thing as too many immigrants, particularly when you're talking about people who are refusing to adapt to your culture/society.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2015,11:38

I can understand the Brits being hesitant to accept immigrants. Hell, they tried to invade and colonize most of those countries anyway (pictured in red):

Once you toss away the landlocked countries, it gets even better.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 06 2015,12:14

(Leisher @ Oct. 06 2015,13:34)

QUOTE

She's right about immigration, and it doesn't take the boys down at NASA to figure that one out.

I've tried but I just cannot find this video I saw the other day that went into great detail about how wrong she is. And it had links to original sources to back it up. And now I can't find it. Damnit.

Long story short, every case of mass immigration of refugees into a first-world country has been a clear economic boon. Such refugees are almost universally hard workers desperate to stay and fill in low-paying gaps in the labor market that residents of the host nation don't want. And crime rates among such refugees average more than 40% lower than that of the citizens of the host country.

QUOTE

If you have a house with 10 people in it who all have the same basic ideals and morals then add 11 other people with completely different morals and ideals, guess what happens?

First no one is talking about more than doubling the population of any first-world country by dumping tens of millions of refugees on them. If the EU absorbed all the refugees, it would lead to a population increase of 0.01%. So at best your analogy should be to take a house with 10,000 people in it and add 1 person. To which I say who is going to even notice?

Secondly you assume that those 10,000 people all have the same ideals and beliefs? Is that what you really think, that all the people currently living in a country are completely at peace with each other and in full agreement on everything? What?

(edited to fix math error)

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2015,12:21

QUOTE

Such refugees are almost universally hard workers and fill in low-paying gaps in the labor market that residents of the host nation don't want.

This seems logical because only people willing to bust their ass are going to damn near kill themselves or go bankrupt traveling halfway across the world to set up shop in some place they've only known about through hearsay. Are the thieves, lowlives, and killers really going out of their way to come here, a joint that's got an in-place (if pathetically just) legal system coupled with money and infrastructure to make their lawlessness even harder?

QUOTE

If you have a house with 10 people in it who all have the same basic ideals and morals then add 11 other people with completely different morals and ideals, guess what happens?

The same thing that happened when we decided to let Israel resurrect itself in the middle of a chiefly Arab region?

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 06 2015,12:31

On other bigger, more popular forums my standard line has been, when someone expresses fear about Muslims moving in, is, "Don't worry about it. Historically when a Muslim population moves into a country, their neighborhoods always end up being great cultural centers, and the hip, fun places for young people to have a good time."

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2015,15:21

(GORDON @ Oct. 06 2015,14:31)

QUOTE

< TN pachyderms > disagree.

QUOTE

Both of Tennessee’s Senators, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), helped pass the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill which would have tripled the number of green cards issued over the next ten years.

Granted, they're probably doing it for political reasons. However, sucking out all the useful members of a society is a tremendous way to ultimately weaken the psychos in charge of their particular third-world hellhole. Every one family that hauls ass out of there and into civilization is one less family to sit around in a country with a high birth rate and a higher radical fundamentalist rate. That's one less family to worry about accidentally bombing the shit out of when your ordinance isn't quite accurate enough. It's one more family that might write back home and inform their buddies their main problem ain't the West but the tight-ass interpretation of their faith being imposed on them by lunatics.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 06 2015,15:41

While there are some individual exceptions, on the whole immigrants do eventually take on the cultural aspects of their new homeland. If they don't then the odds are even higher that their children will. The only exceptions are those that join a highly isolated community like the Amish or an Orthodox Jewish enclave in New York. There are some such isolated Muslim communities in the US, sure, but not very many. And so far most aren't so isolated that the children don't eventually acculturate even if the parents don't.

Even more importantly, though, is the birth rate issue. Studies show that within two generations of moving to a first-world nation the birth rates of incoming emigrants has dropped to the same rate as the nation they have moved to. If you are worried about some other national/racial/religious group breeding so heavily as to overrun you, the best way to ensure that actually does happen is to make sure they stay in their own country and stay poor.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 07 2015,08:06

I had a long great response typed up last night and then Batman Arkham Origins decided to crash and wiped it out. I'll try to recreate that magic...

Front Street: I am a third generation American and I'm pro-immigration. A culture/society needs an infusion of new thinking to stay fresh. I do not think a mass deportation is a good way to fix this country's immigration issues. I think a plan needs to be created to help those folks who are working hard to acclimate themselves to our society to stay. We need those kids of people. However, for those folks who refuse to learn our language, laws, etc., get jobs, and pay taxes, they need to go. Ditto for the criminals, obviously.

Instead of all the money we waste acclimating our culture to illegals, I'd prefer if we spent that money acclimating them. Offer them free language training. Offer interpreters (jobs!), but stop wasting money creating multilingual forms and signs (for citizens...an important distinction). Offer them a path to citizenship that they must take or hit the fucking bricks. This doesn't apply to migrant workers who may want to return to their country, obviously they're here for a purpose and not a new life. (and in their cases, put it on the company who brought them in to take care of them and provide all they need to be here without issue.) The point is I think as a country we're bending over and spreading our cheeks for illegals when we should be telling them they can stay, but it's our house, our rules.

I just want to get that out there so you know I'm not aligned with the "They took our jobs!" mentality.

QUOTE

Long story short, every case of mass immigration of refugees into a first-world country has been a clear economic boon.

Fuck do I wish the past was an indication of the future. I'd be rich as shit. Snark aside, I tend to believe that in the past, but today is a whole new world. I wonder if a study done now regarding our country's immigration issue and factoring in all costs would reach the same conclusion? I highly doubt it.

Take the costs of the INS or Department of Naturalization or whatever they're called now, the costs of multilingual signs, the costs of training that so many government employees have to go through for communicating with illegals, insurance costs due to accidents and whatnot with illegals, the lost tax revenue, the cost of healthcare/education (fucking college!)/social services/yada yada yada for illegals, and on and on. We don't need to argue the points on this, I think we all know the list.

Does cheap labor offset those costs? That might sound snarky, but it's a legit question. How much are taxpayers losing so folks can keep their nannies and gardeners and day laborers?

My point is you say it's a clear economic boon, but I'm not seeing it. My grocery prices are fucking insanity.

QUOTE

Such refugees are almost universally hard workers desperate to stay and fill in low-paying gaps in the labor market that residents of the host nation don't want.

I agree with your point, but I don't agree with your language. Back in the day when Ellis Island was being overrun with folks seeking the American Way, I'd say 90-95% were coming here for the right reason. Now I'd put that number around 75-80%. And I'm strictly talking about the U.S. "Almost universally" is ridiculously high an paints far too rosy a picture of everyone coming here illegally. The fact is there are people coming here for the free ride and our prisons do have a lot of illegals in them for violent crimes (I'll get to that in a second). Again, I don't really disagree with a majority, but I think your language made it sound too high.

As for Europe's immigrants, a lot are fleeing wars, so I'm not sure they're as hard working. Going to a country seeking a dream of hard work equals prosperity is a different mindset than running from a country so your family isn't murdered by religious extremists. I'm not sure it's fair to lump each group's work ethics together?

QUOTE

And crime rates among such refugees average more than 40% lower than that of the citizens of the host country.

I'm pretty sure France would disagree strongly. I also disagree with that number, but in a realistic way. I think initially that number is probably very accurate. If you had a guest come stay with you, that first week they'd be on their best behavior, but as they got more comfortable, they'd do more and be more like themselves. Thus, I believe immigrants crime rates are equal to anyone else's crime rates. If I qas questioning the study, I'd ask what time frame is their cut off point? Do they just count the first year someone is here or do they take lifetime numbers?

QUOTE

My analogy was not meant to be a direct measure of the issue.

As for who's going to notice, in both the U.S. and Europe, people have noticed. France, the U.K., and the Netherlands have stolen lots of headlines over their immigrants' inability to acclimate themselves. Our country's immigration issues are so large that our potential presidents have to weigh in on it.

And to be fair, in the EU's case, it's not the hard working, grateful immigrants who are being noticed and causing the uproar. It's the we're here to make your country Islamic, murder your journalists, and cut your soldier's heads off in your own streets assholes who are behind the EU's issue with immigrants. Granted, they're a small portion, but that's where my issue lies.

If an immigrant into ANY country refuses to acclimate themselves to that country, then fuck them. Send them away. That country shouldn't have to change it's ways for that immigrant.

QUOTE

Secondly you assume that those 10,000 people all have the same ideals and beliefs? Is that what you really think, that all the people currently living in a country are completely at peace with each other and in full agreement on everything? What?

No. My point was about the folks not acclimating, specifically those "We're going to turn it into an Islamic country" people. If you don't think they exist there's some very good YouTube videos from demonstrations in the UK where they are openly giving speeches about that in the streets of London. Life would be boring if everyone agreed on everything, but the people who disagree to the extent that they feel they have the right to commit violent acts need to go.

QUOTE

I agree with this, and do believe that Islamic extremism will eventually be defeated because folks will get to taste life and will realize they like it. Ask Japan.

QUOTE

Even more importantly, though, is the birth rate issue. Studies show that within two generations of moving to a first-world nation the birth rates of incoming emigrants has dropped to the same rate as the nation they have moved to. If you are worried about some other national/racial/religious group breeding so heavily as to overrun you, the best way to ensure that actually does happen is to make sure they stay in their own country and stay poor.

Not making this a race issue, but aren't the birth rates among black people here in the U.S. proving this statement to be incorrect? Serious question, I think they had a higher birth rate than crackers?

End of the day, new and exotic boobs are awesome, but they need to follow the house rules and not try to cut my dick off in the middle of the night.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2015,08:29

I need to have an argument supported, here: In history, point out times when a group with "convert or die" in their religious code has moved in to another country, and tell us how that host country was made better by their presence.

response: "Muslims don't have that in their religious code!"

retort: "Doctor seuss charlie," or whatever that phrase was. The 10% isd giving the rest a bad name.

Now go.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2015,08:33

QUOTE

I wonder if a study done now regarding our country's immigration issue and factoring in all costs would reach the same conclusion? I highly doubt it.
...
My grocery prices are fucking insanity.

Completely irrelevant, as our immigration issue isn't about a mass immigration of refugees. The things I pointed out on this issue all revolve around massive waves of refugees escaping potential genocide or extreme political oppression.

Some of the other things I quoted do apply, but not the one about economic boons or hard workers desperate not to be deported (back to where their family will be executed by their genocidal government).

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2015,08:43

QUOTE

My point was about the folks not acclimating, specifically those "We're going to turn it into an Islamic country" people.

Sure, some people are assholes. And fuck them. Odds are their kids will be more accultured, so if everyone has some patience it's a self-correcting problem. And do note that if the EU took in every refugee from the current crisis it would turn the EU from 3.5% muslim to 4.5% muslim. This is hardly "taking over" even if that is what every single one of them wanted.

QUOTE

Yes, but don't worry that's not about race. That's because poor people still have more children on average than not-poor people, and minorities skew more poor than whites. But those third-worlders are having even more children than our minorities by a wide margin ... until after they get here and eventually settle down and have an appropriate number of children for their economic level, whatever that might end up being.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2015,08:51

QUOTE

Look to the history of China. The number of times that China was overtaken by invading hordes is crazy. And each time the invaders that took over ended up eventually being absorbed into the Chinese culture and stopped wanting to kill everyone. China just turned them Chinese.

And some argue that this was good for China. Sure a lot of people died, but China had a problem with bureaucracy growing thick and strangling the usefulness of the government and those invaders tended to prune back that bureaucracy whenever they took over.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2015,09:03

So you're saying it's our generation that will have the hardest time of it, Star Trek VI-style, until they assimilate?

I'm not sure if I like that. I think we have plenty of problems already in our country, including "too many damned people," and adding more people with their own carload of problems doesn't really help aside from a fresh influx of cheap labor.... which also seems a little shitty.

With Obama pulling us out of the world, I think we are setting ourselves up for another world war. We also went hands-off after WW1, and let the trouble spots simmer and boil over. This was the basis of our foreign policy for 50 years after WW2, keep a lid on shit.

I think the world is going to be an interesting place in 25 years, and I bet a dollar ISIS, or whatever "islamic hegemony" becomes, is going to be the catalyst.

edit - And thank you for having tact. I was wincing and expected a harsher response to my statement.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2015,09:06

Again, the arguments about the refugee crises and how it will likely effect the EU has almost no relation to the US and our own illegal immigrant problems. There is a large different between waves of refugees fleeing potential death and waves of illegal immigrants just looking for a paycheck.

QUOTE

edit - And thank you for having tact. I was wincing and expected a harsher response to my statement.

I should clarify that when I say the bureaucracy was "pruned" I don't mean they were laid off. But history is a much harsher place and China is an exception to the rules. In most other cases in history where invaders took over they just tended to kill everyone. And if the invaders failed to take over they themselves were probably killed.

The whole idea of not slaughtering your enemies and bathing in the blood of their women and children is still pretty fresh and new, historically speaking. So there's little precedent about how things will eventually shake down here long term. All we have are the studies about how children growing up in the new national culture tend to prefer their cell phones and big screen TVs over their parents' burqa and jihads.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2015,09:17

(TPRJones @ Oct. 07 2015,06:06)

QUOTE

I think Leisher's point is valid, though. Taking his example of Paris, the muslim immigrants aren't spreading themselves out throughout the countryside, they are converging into specific neighborhoods, and giving outsiders are hard time. I could google examples but I don't feel like it. The media does not help anything when they whitewash the problems this causes, for example how "youths" torch a hundred of so cars every week, or whatever the number is.

So when you say only 1% of the overall population of the EU is coming in, I don't even know how many that is... 150,000? This is 15 small cities of 10,000 people who get a taste of something they don't like... casual racism, discrimination, their neighbor getting arrested for honor killing their daughter over a white high school boyfriend, or just a woman in a scandalous miniskirt, and they decide, yeah, this culture is corrupt, time to embrace the old ways.

Also, playing the numbers, let's say only 1% of them are here to be troublemakers. You just added an invisible, reinforced battalion of terrorists to the EU. I understand why people would have a serious problem with this. I think there is plenty of gray area to be considered without just spouting off, "you are a racist if you disagree with our refugee policy." That doesn't help, but it sure happens a lot.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2015,09:27

France is a bad example. The problem with France is that it is full of the French, who tend to be xenophobic racist assholes these days. It wouldn't matter who was moving in, if they aren't French they will hate them and make them want to live in isolated communities and not mix with the rest of the society. Which of course is the exact opposite of how to deal with the problem at hand.

These days the French make the Germans look accepting and inviting of others.

Posted by Leisher on Oct. 07 2015,10:38

QUOTE

Completely irrelevant, as our immigration issue isn't about a mass immigration of refugees. The things I pointed out on this issue all revolve around massive waves of refugees escaping potential genocide or extreme political oppression.

Some of the other things I quoted do apply, but not the one about economic boons or hard workers desperate not to be deported (back to where their family will be executed by their genocidal government).

I wouldn't say irrelevant, as I'm not sure the Mexican immigrants into this country couldn't be considered refugees of a sort, but I understand the distinction you're making between what we've both written.

Actually to expand on that point, a lot of Mexican are fleeing the rampant violence from the drug war in Mexico and a dead economy, so I would argue they might not technically be considered refugees, but they really are...

QUOTE

Sure, some people are assholes. And fuck them.

Agreed, although I'd argue they need to go. I think there's free speech and there's actively trying to disrupt a society/culture. I think the moment they're even remotely linked to a violent act, they've got to go. I think it'd be hilarious if the government they are railing against publicly offered them free tickets to where ever they want to go and a check to help them establish themselves there. Once the person rejected it, said government can publicly point out that they must be doing something right if the asshole won't leave.

QUOTE

Odds are their kids will be more accultured, so if everyone has some patience it's a self-correcting problem.

Agreed again. See way above where I mention Japan.

QUOTE

Yes, but don't worry that's not about race. That's because poor people still have more children on average than not-poor people, and minorities skew more poor than whites.

That makes sense, but it's an odd statement when you think about it. "Dear racists, sick of black people? Make them all middle class and your problem is solved." However, I can't argue what you're saying. The black families I know and that are in my neighborhood aren't having 6 kids. They've got 1-3 like all the white, Asian, and Hispanic families.

QUOTE

It's actually my point from way earlier about the Brits. You don't conquer a territory unless you kill everyone who has a claim to it. Unless you do that, you're just renting it. The U.S. is the best example I can give of a proper conquer. They eliminated the inhabitants to such an extent that the descendants have no numbers, no power, and have slowly been assimilated.

QUOTE

he problem with France is that it is full of the French

I laughed.

Although, it's not just France. Germany is having issues. The Netherlands are as well, and I already mentioned the YouTube videos from the UK? There are UK citizens (whiteys) driving through Islamic neighborhoods were they're threatened with violence and whatnot.

So again, there's a very specific sort of refugee/immigrant that is causing major issues in Europe right now, and that's exactly who I'm talking about when I said that British chick is right.

The distinction between our refugees/immigrants and the EU ones I will happily admit is massive. We have elderly vets here pulling down Mexican flags and shredding them, then replacing them with the U.S. flag and the shop owners who did it don't do shit. If someone did the same with an ISIS flag or whatever in the UK, they'd have their head cut off in the streets.

I don't think we necessarily disagree on the subject, at least not by a lot. I just think Gordon and I are far more concerned with the extremists than you are.

Posted by Stranger on Oct. 07 2015,11:21

1- build the wall

2- cell phones are a luxury.

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 07 2015,11:29

QUOTE

The Spanish (specifically the Dominicans) converting damn near the entirety of the Americas by the sword. The faith is immaterial, it was just attached to the conquistadors, but it's why everyone down there speaks a Romance dialect instead of some descendant of Incan or Mayan language and the colonizers were the ones that brought modern tech down there.

QUOTE

This was the basis of our foreign policy for 50 years after WW2, keep a lid on shit.

Fuck that noise, I'm tired of paying for it.

You will notice a distinct upward trend since then because we have insisted on footing the most expensive bill possible at every opportunity. You'll also notice that entitlements started climbing post WWII and again after Korea and again during 'Nam and again after the first Gulf War. Need I go on? Check how the interest payments and infrastructure are getting squeezed out. The basis of our foreign policy for that 50 years wasn't economically feasible.

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2015,11:45

QUOTE

I don't think we necessarily disagree on the subject, at least not by a lot. I just think Gordon and I are far more concerned with the extremists than you are.

On the whole I concur with this summary statement.

Can extremists make a mess of things if they try hard enough? Sure, on a localized basis. Can they take over? Not a chance in hell until they massively outnumber us. And that would take many generations, by which time the kids no longer care to make a mess of things because they just want to listen to Taylor Swift and watch Twilight.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2015,12:52

(TPRJones @ Oct. 07 2015,08:45)

QUOTE

Can extremists make a mess of things if they try hard enough? Sure, on a localized basis. Can they take over? Not a chance in hell until they massively outnumber us. And that would take many generations, by which time the kids no longer care to make a mess of things because they just want to listen to Taylor Swift and watch Twilight.

And we are left with the old question: How many killings/how much crime committed by refugees are acceptable?

Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2015,12:56

Acceptable? None of course. But then turning our backs on the innocent refugees in need is equally unacceptable.

There are no answers here that don't involve someone doing something unacceptable. The only question is will we be better people than they are or not?

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 07 2015,13:03

QUOTE

And we are left with the old question: How many killings/how much crime committed by refugees are acceptable?

I'll answer that when they outstrip the domestic crime rate. If we're specifically talking the worst case of trigger-happy jihadists, when the Bloods and Crips start ceding turf to them, I'll begin to worry.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 07 2015,13:05

My highest priority is my family's safety. I would use my MIL as a bullet shield to protect my son in a heartbeat. As such, I would support tougher immigration protocols... hell, I'd even be happy if the current immigration laws were followed. I'm pretty easy like that.

As for taking in Syrian refugees, as I have heard Obama is considering, yeah, fine, take them in. And then send them back when the shooting is over. And immediately deport every single one convicted of any felony. Or is all of that too racist?

Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 07 2015,13:13

QUOTE

And then send them back when the shooting is over. And immediately deport every single one convicted of any felony. Or is all of that too racist?

I say we exercise the deportation option if they're inciting direct rebellion or guilty of violent crime within 10-20 years of moving over. Some felonies are still bullshit, namely 99% of drug possession laws on the books. Killers, thieves, and rapists? Ship 'em back if we're convinced they aren't potentially worse out of our sight. I've got a thing about sending back violent people with a vendetta to a country full of dudes that make a living off exploiting such situations.

Posted by GORDON on Oct. 18 2015,06:38

This guy claims that small towns in Germany of 400 people are being required to house 1000+ immigrants. When residents complain they will be swarmed under, are called xenophobes. He cites references bu I didn't click on them.

< http://moonbattery.com/?p=64188 >

Posted by GORDON on Nov. 03 2015,13:58

This animated map is why I'm not going to Europe any more for vacations.

< http://www.takepart.com/article....ally-is >

Posted by Leisher on Jan. 05 2016,10:40

< An estimated 1,000 immigrants throw fireworks at people and sexually assault 90 or so women in Germany. >

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 05 2016,11:23

We haven't hit the threshold yet of "how many rapes is too many" so too bad for Europe.

Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 05 2016,12:10

I can only read the first paragraph, but damn.

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 20 2016,12:02

(GORDON @ Oct. 07 2015,15:52)

QUOTE

(TPRJones @ Oct. 07 2015,08:45)

QUOTE

And we are left with the old question: How many killings/how much crime committed by refugees are acceptable?

Apparently Sweden's Immigration department (whatever) is covering up crimes committed by their refugees.

< http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive....-up.php >

So... if the "elites" keep pushing for more refugees, and a growing population of "normal people" are getting hurt by it < and are thinking that maybe enough is enough, > is there an argument to be made that "the elites" have a vested interest in keep the "normal people" distracted, and are using an influx of refugees to do so?

Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 20 2016,12:06

QUOTE

if the "elites" keep pushing for more ~~refugees~~ low-cost manual labour

Fixed.

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 20 2016,12:07

Same question.

Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 20 2016,12:13

The dudes near the top of society generally don't give a fuck what goes on elsewhere so long as they can keep their wealth and influence. They aren't the sort of folk running around in refugee circles.

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 20 2016,12:21

(Malcolm @ Jan. 20 2016,15:13)

QUOTE

There's an argument to be made though that what keeps the plebes in line here in America are food stamps, HUD apartments with air conditioning, and welfare that can be spent on xboxes and flat screens. WIthout those things we'd have a lot more bored young men on the streets engaging in mischief. Also giving the plebes immigration issues to deal with keeps the attention off of our betters.

So same thing, except Europe, and in higher percentages. People are a lot less likely to be out in the streets grumbling when there's a decent chance of getting attacked by a mob of young men from syria.

I don't know.

Burn it all.

Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 20 2016,12:26

QUOTE

That's not what everyone wants. That'll weed out the lazy and unambitious. Some rabble-rousers are quieted neither by bread nor circuses.

Secondly, if your theory is that figurative opiates and luxury placate the populous by giving them things to fill empty time, then one should be able to just as easily fill that void with necessity rather than desire and get the same results. People wouldn't be bored out on the streets if they had to till their own soil and sew their own clothes.

Posted by GORDON on Jan. 20 2016,12:29

(Malcolm @ Jan. 20 2016,15:26)

QUOTE

Secondly, if your theory is that figurative opiates and luxury placate the populous by giving them things to fill empty time, then one should be able to just as easily fill that void with necessity rather than desire and get the same results. People wouldn't be bored out on the streets if they had to till their own soil and sew their own clothes.

I think the great majority of people would sit in the street and starve to death if they were actually forced to take care of themselves. Those who didn't would just resort to crime until they got shot. Either way, social upheaval... which is not good for business.

Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 20 2016,12:51

QUOTE

That's why god invented religion.