[ckaihatsu]

I never called you a Stalinist. Nor have I recharacterized your ideas. I have simply addressed them as uninformed socialism. This really isn't debatable, as I've defined above.

Your solutions AREN'T feasible, because they refuse to address reality. That you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't help.

If someone came on the scene and said "I know nothing about alcohol, have never studied it, have never dealt with drunks" etc but proposed a solution to alcoholism, he'd be ridiculed as a complete fool. Yet, here, you openly admit you're too lazy to research the topics you talk about, but insist that your solutions to a problem you don't understand are intelligent alternatives.

If you don't understand why people reject them, you have some serious deficits

You're continuing to just *bicker*, and you're not really discussing any political *content*.

[Wolvenbear]

Um... how about they're the same thing in colonialist constructs like Canada, USA and Israel.

They are both "arms" of an oligarchy.

Ridiculous. Less than 1% of corporations today could even remotely fall within this definition. It's mind numbingly dishonest to claim that the mom and pop auto repair is a branch of government because it's a corporation. Nor are these little businesses oligarchies. That's beyond nonsense. It's like picking up a fantasy book and trying to debate fairies...only one party is dealing with reality.

Worse, even if your oligarchy bupkiss wasn't obviously wrong, it would still be irrelevant to the claim that corporate charity is impossible.

Wrong AND irrelevant. Impressive.

You're continuing to just *bicker*, and you're not really discussing any political *content*.

There's no bickering. I told you on the merits why you were wrong. You told me that you didn't want to deal with reality and you wanted your solutions to be judged on....I really don't know what. But since you had no idea what you were talking about, and your solutions were literally worse than keeping the status quo, your arguments were rejected.

Now, unable to defend your bargain basement pablum, you try to pretend I didn't address it. But I did Repeatedly. You're just unable to come up with a counter.

[ckaihatsu]

There's no bickering. I told you on the merits why you were wrong. You told me that you didn't want to deal with reality and you wanted your solutions to be judged on....I really don't know what. But since you had no idea what you were talking about, and your solutions were literally worse than keeping the status quo, your arguments were rejected.

Now, unable to defend your bargain basement pablum, you try to pretend I didn't address it. But I did Repeatedly. You're just unable to come up with a counter.

You *haven't* addressed any *points*, or items, of what my politics are -- you're just being blithely *dismissive*, which isn't dialogue or discussion.

[QatzelOk]

You *haven't* addressed any *points*, or items, of what my politics are -- you're just being blithely *dismissive*, which isn't dialogue or discussion.

Exactly.

To see what style Wolvenbear is tapping into - the snotty person who can huff through a failure in logic - you can consult the following variations on this theme that are currently mass media sensations:

Bari Weiss

Neera Tanden

Kevin O'Leary

And there are many more like this on mass media.

What these people do is to spotlight how dumbed down that the oligarchs expect (or desire) their audiences (their serf-class) to be.

Instead of logic and information, the serf class is supposed to respond to high school style smearing, and high emotion words. The serf class is supposed to have no time for reasoned debate and transparency. The serf class is supposed to just want gotcha moments and smirking smears about being a "poop head" or something equally sophisticated.

This is another reason I haven't watchet TV for 20 years. It is IMPOSSIBLE for billionaire media to do anything to your head other than to "dumb it down."

It's the only "Information tactic" that leads to a profit, and this is all corporate media can respond to. Profit.

So dumb arguments and high-emotion stupidity, are the only informational "charity" that capitalist media can offer.

[QatzelOk]

POST_MODERN ANALYSIS
Usury Kings and their re-definition of "sharing"

...in every case of things being contiguous with their own images or becoming confused with their
own code, there is a threat of incestuous virulence, of a diabolical alterity...

Working inside the logic of capitalist charity, and what definitions of it are currently possible, it is the word charity that is problematically defined (in public discourse) to mean coded charity.

Real charity isn't advertised or used to brand a product or personality. So only coded charity - a very different animal - appears in public. All other forms of charity hide in dark shadows.

By generously offering simply "the codes of charity" to the lower classes - that is, by just limiting itself to speaking the language of charity, which costs itself virtually nothing - the kings and clowns of capitalism are able to continue to extract the maximum "tribute" from their gaping-mouthed serf class, while the words of charity are ever-present during their interactions. The serf is made to feel humbled, dependent, and grateful when presented with the language of charity, carefully coded to mean its very opposite.

Words like "philanthropy" and "fund" take the place of (displace) any real act of sharing or of transfer from rich to needy.

1. The *incest* is in the (violent) limiting (restricting) of the definition and function of "charity" - capitalism acts like a torturer of word-meanings time and time again. Destroying word definitions is yet another get-rich-quick scheme.

2. The resulting *virulence* takes the form of income inequality and nature-destruction - extinction being the ultimate *diabolical alterity* (shitty new order).

[Rancid]

I enjoy it when capitalism has its way with me.

[QatzelOk]

me

Capitalism is all about "me."

But it falls apart when "we" are in big trouble.

This is why it fails so dramatically at any kind of real charity.

[Rancid]

Capitalism is all about "me."

But it falls apart when "we" are in big trouble.

This is why it fails so dramatically at any kind of real charity.

Mine mine mine said the capitalist.

[Wolvenbear]

businesses/#:~:text=The%20vast%20majority%20of%20U.S.%20businesses%20are%20small%2C,received%2C%20or%20portfolio%20income%20of%20a%20financial%20firm.

Here are three examples of the FAKE charity of capitalism to ponder:

1. TUSKEGEE CHARITY

This has nothing to do with charity. No matter how you look at it.

So, despite not providing a single example of a charity acting poorly, you condemn ALL of charity as wrong. What a ridiculous and dishonest argument. I'd expect nothing more from you.



Awwww, that's cute. Hims pretending hes being mistweeted.

I have addressed all your points on the merits...for what little there are. Considering your entire argument is that "charity doesn't work, as shown by the fact that the world still has problems", you simply don't provide anything worth real discussion, and yet I have patiently explained why your arguments are flawed. And, time and time again, you have responded with "I don't care about reality...provide me an answer that fits within my worldview and my desired outcome and leave out the details", just like in our debate on homelessness.

You don't want to deal with matters, you just want to hear that pure socialism is the answer...right or wrong.

I would be very careful about criticizing my opponent for his debating style if I was engaged in the logical fallacies and blatant dishonesties you were my friend. It's hard to throw stones with a broken arm, and, from the debate style I have seen, you are in a full body cast inside an iron lung. You are the epitome of the old parable of criticizing a man who has a mote in his eye when you have a beam....except in your case, it is a girder for a high rise.

You take hypocrisy to a new level.

[QatzelOk]

It's mind numbingly dishonest to claim that the mom and pop auto repair is a branch of government because it's a corporation.

Luckily, no one has said that in this thread so far. You were the first.

And just to stretch your brain a wee bit - it just takes a bit more knowledge of theory, both economic and political to understand the connection between unequal income, and social opportunity, and how that differentiated opportunity exacerbates inequality in a viscious circle, slowly removing political agency to more and more who are left behind.

This ruination of large groups of people opens up the possibility of *fake charity* as a new subfield of the scamming classes, and the marginalized are once again exploited by the already rich-and-corrupt.

(You might need more theoretical knowledge in order to understand the real social impact of economic behaviors. That you can't address anything theoretical means that you don't have much to contribute to a discussion other than to shut it down with spammy strawman retorts.)

[Wolvenbear]

Luckily, no one has said that in this thread so far. You were the first.

Saying that all corporations are "arms of the oligarchy" is the same thing. So, nope, that was you. Apparently, now, you recognize it sounds stupid and wish to pretend it never occurred. This seems to be your sole method of debating. Make an incorrect point, and then, when called on it, insult your opponent and completely change the subject.

And just to stretch your brain a wee bit - it just takes a bit more knowledge of theory, both economic and political to understand the connection between unequal income, and social opportunity, and how that differentiated opportunity exacerbates inequality in a viscious circle, slowly removing political agency to more and more who are left behind.

That's a lot of words that really don't say anything. You literally just strung together several terms in an incoherent sentence to try an make yourself sound smarter than you are. I mean, I guess you have to do something, since you don't even have a high school level econ understanding.

Income inequality, or unequal income, is not a real factor to consider. It is merely a reflection of hundreds of other factors, virtually all of which are surmountable, and that nearly 90% of the workforce who succeed suffer from early in their career. Virtually no one STARTS rich. You are paid according to your education, your experience, your longevity, your work ethic, etc. These factors are mostly within your control.

This ruination of large groups of people opens up the possibility of *fake charity* as a new subfield of the scamming classes, and the marginalized are once again exploited by the already rich-and-corrupt.

(You might need more theoretical knowledge in order to understand the real social impact of economic behaviors. That you can't address anything theoretical means that you don't have much to contribute to a discussion other than to shut it down with spammy strawman retorts.)

Pure nonsense. The fantasy of "ruination" of large groups of people. The idea that charities scam their donees, or explot them. All are unworthy of discussion because they are just that, PURELY theoretical. Discussing remote possibilities as if they are reality and ingoring what is actually occuring is what fake intellectuals do. Economics requires discussions of what ACTUALLY occurs.

Pull your head out of DU or Daily Kos and live in reality. It'll help.

[QatzelOk]

Pull your head out of DU or Daily Kos and live in reality. It'll help.

I've never read either of these two information sources.

Perhaps you are debating against someone from those spaces on the Internet because you are unable to understand anything that is more grounded in theory.

That's a lot of words that really don't say anything. You literally just strung together several terms in an incoherent sentence to try an make yourself sound smarter than you are. I mean, I guess you have to do something, since you don't even have a high school level econ understanding.

Here, you are admitting that you didn't understand a reference to theory that I was really hoping you would. And "a high school understanding of Economics" is not enough to argue about the impossibility of capitalist charity.

You are in over your head. Try arguing in the comments section of the news sources you mention as being on your "despise" list. (I am just trying to be helpful : ))

[QatzelOk]

When he "retired," he was part of an American delegation to the Central Treaty Organization, reporting to Ambassador McClintock at the US Embassy in Beirut. His job was to "vaccinate" livestock and stamp out hoof-and-mouth disease, mange, etc. throughout Lebanon.

That was just an operative cover. I mean, he did actual work, but having the appearance of some sort of beneficial activity is why he was there.

The NOCs were basically bribing the farmers and ranchers in the hinterlands (more or less the Beqaa Valley) so that they would not side with the communists. He probably wasn't supposed to write that stuff in his diaries...

Thanks for this personal anecdote, blackjack21.

There are other stories out there about "aid" projects being covert intelligence missions. So many skip-a-years holding orphans in their freshmen hands for a few months... leading to so many false flag attacks and fomented civil wars.

[ckaihatsu]

Thanks for this personal anecdote, blackjack21.

There are other stories out there about "aid" projects being covert intelligence missions. So many skip-a-years holding orphans in their freshmen hands for a few months... leading to so many false flag attacks and fomented civil wars.

Now they have *videos*, too....


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=youtube+afgha ... &ia=videos

[QatzelOk]

Now they have *videos*, too....
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=youtube+afgha ... &ia=videos

I'm not sure what the link is between the videos you suggest, and the many kinds of charity scams. Some of the scams are actually financial scams, and others are intelligence operations. But others are "scams" in the sense that they help the volunteers more than they help the recipients of the charity.

Here is one video that touches on the difference between "the good intentions of wealthy western aid workers" and "the charity that they are able to provide" in foreign countries:

Here, the video touches on orphanages, and how well-meaning young skip-a-years from wealthy countries try to help by lending their attention to orphanages in less developed countries (for a short time).

And while many of these young people are looking for authenticity and a way of actually helping others, the process of flying to the other side of the world and holding a baby for a few months... might actually be very harmful to these children and their communities. This "fly off somewhere and help someone" might also inspire one to question why there is no such desire to stay and help in your own community. Is "flying somewhere poor and playing demi-god" a big part of the attraction for these charity volunteers?

The study reveals that short-term volunteer projects can do more harm than good.

Wealthy tourists prevent local workers from getting much-needed jobs, especially when they pay to volunteer; hard-pressed institutions waste time looking after them and money upgrading facilities; and abused or abandoned children form emotional attachments to the visitors, who increase their trauma by disappearing back home. "The more I delved into it, the more disturbing I found it," said Amy Norman, one of the researchers.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not sure what the link is between the videos you suggest, and the many kinds of charity scams. Some of the scams are actually financial scams, and others are intelligence operations. But others are "scams" in the sense that they help the volunteers more than they help the recipients of the charity.

Here is one video that touches on the difference between "the good intentions of wealthy western aid workers" and "the charity that they are able to provide" in foreign countries:

hGVW4hJblUs

Here, the video touches on orphanages, and how well-meaning young skip-a-years from wealthy countries try to help by lending their attention to orphanages in less developed countries (for a short time).

And while many of these young people are looking for authenticity and a way of actually helping others, the process of flying to the other side of the world and holding a baby for a few months... might actually be very harmful to these children and their communities. This "fly off somewhere and help someone" might also inspire one to question why there is no such desire to stay and help in your own community. Is "flying somewhere poor and playing demi-god" a big part of the attraction for these charity volunteers?

Noted, and I mean to suggest *cultural imperialism* with the link I provided.

[QatzelOk]

Noted, and I mean to suggest *cultural imperialism* with the link I provided.

Actually, I understood the link between "the West's Afghan Wars" and *fake charity* a day after you posted.

For me, the "Right to Protect" is an example of a fake charity slogan. The idea that the West needs to bomb resource-rich and defenseless countries in order to "protect them" is a blatant example of a fake charity that actually is the opposite of charity.

But because you didn't state this outright, I wasn't sure if that's where your text was going.

[QatzelOk]

In an article called How Concentrated Wealth Wrecked the West: Six Question for Justin Ferrell, they explore how fake, coded charity is destroying the social peace in Teton county, Wyoming, by allowing "billionaires to chase the millionaires out of town."

Chuck Collins: One thing you describe is the role of elite or “gilded” philanthropy in Teton County as worsening inequality while giving the donors a veneer of generosity and virtue. How does philanthropy contribute to inequality in this context? Where do most of the charity donations go?

Justin Farrell: First it is important to know that this community, and especially its wealthy residents, view Teton County as one of the most philanthropic communities in the country. It has one of the highest concentrations of NGOs per capita. Yet, as I show throughout the book, the bulk of philanthropic giving – which includes economic and social capital — tends to flow to a handful of organizations in the arts and environment sector, at the expense of social service organizations who really need the support.

In that sense, environmental philanthropy is very similar to other patterns of elite giving throughout the ages, and written about in great depth and clarity in Anand Giridharadas’ book “Winners Take All.” In my book I zero in on these same dynamics, yet show how “caring” for the environment becomes a justification for perpetuating deep inequality. Further, nature itself provides a moral “loophole” that permits extravagant spending and natural resource use for homebuilding, so long as it is related to enjoying and protecting nature. More generally, these justifications are rooted in western myths and altruistic assumptions about American conservation, and modeled after titans of yesteryear, such as John D. Rockefeller Jr....

In this case, billionaires use "preserve nature" charity as a way of making the lives of poor people impossible. How much "nature" is actually preserved in the process... is a story that mainstream media can be payed to focus on.

[Wolvenbear]

I've never read either of these two information sources.

Perhaps you are debating against someone from those spaces on the Internet because you are unable to understand anything that is more grounded in theory.


Here, you are admitting that you didn't understand a reference to theory that I was really hoping you would. And "a high school understanding of Economics" is not enough to argue about the impossibility of capitalist charity.


You are in over your head. Try arguing in the comments section of the news sources you mention as being on your "despise" list. (I am just trying to be helpful : ))

No, I'm debating your inability to understand basic economic principles. You clearly didn't understand Friedman, who argued the opposite of what you claimed. Considering you have lied repeatedly about the few examples you have put forward, I'm not certain you're in a position to criticize others.

[QatzelOk]

You clearly didn't understand Friedman...

We are all products of our environment. And I understand how Friedman wanted to strip away all social benefits of the poor by calling them "welfare dependent," - meanwhile all humans depend on their social support systems including Friedman, even though he plays the *self-made man and demi-god* to merchant class usury-worshippers.

Friedman's words made it respectable again to rob the poor.

...who argued the opposite of what you claimed. Considering you have lied repeatedly about the few examples you have put forward, I'm not certain you're in a position to criticize others.

Yes, Lies are *the glue* that makes fake charity *a thing* in our late-stage capitalism. In the words of one of its media mouthpieces, lies are the rug that really ties the room together.