Masterbate With Household

.





"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" (G. Orwell)

First the collapse of the financial system caused by speculation, irresponsibility and institutionalized theft, loss of capital in favor of speculators, their advisers and shareholders.

Second rescue. More than a half billion euros, of the billions Europeans, not Americans, disappeared by magic, between injections, stimulus plans and subsidies in the form of loans at 1%, to return them at market price.

Third pay the bill. They have caused the collapse and debt speculate cry to heaven. We too many social rights, they say, too much unemployment insurance, medical expense too, too many public services ... and too many taxes for their breed. Must be cut to pay the debt caused by a state too complacent with the new worker: the middle class.

Fourth, dismantle the financial system nonprofit, the boxes must be given away to the bench for his prey. It is the last competition and should disappear as a social entity.

Fifth declining wages and labor rights. Must compete with the third world, no rights, trade unions and living wages.


The result around racism, contempt for the weak and the forgotten of solidarity. The migrants must return to their countries of origin to prevent the continued enjoying the few remaining social services. Are no longer welcome, they steal our jobs. The end of the social, feudal right moves thanks to blackmail and that the unions are led by his mercenaries. Back piecework and the end of collective agreements.


The result: no longer serves a rotten democracy, in which the theft of some has become legal, that justice defends the robbery, rewards and punishes the crime of honesty, in that mock elected of voters, shielding their pensions and wages, publicly They bully and hide their wealth in tax havens that refuse to dismantle.


The solution: the revolt absolute collectivization of resources, labor and the means to develop, and the pursuit of the robber and his gang, and the seizure of all assets.


How: do we need to explain?

.

Kates Playground Gums

OF REVOLT OF THE GOYA

.

Your car is German, a Russian vodka you drink, you eat the kebab is Turkish and Italian pizza. Your democracy is Greek, the footage is Brazilian coffee and movies you see are American. Tea is Tamil, your shirt is from India, gas in your car is in Saudi Arabia and your electronic equipment are Chinese, numbers that accounts are Arabs and the Latin letters you write. What are you complaining that your neighbor is an immigrant? Get a grip. Share

if you are not racist.

.

Travel Trailer Curtain Wire

.

"Agustí Villaronga is a filmmaker peripheral. If you were dead or had been born in central Europe, he would be put on DVD trays labeled "cult." As Catalan, here was said "weird" .

Its natural circuit of the room was small theaters original and most prestigious festivals, but also peripherals. Before the Goya, for example, came to receive a tribute and retrospective in the highly prestigious (but marginal) Rotterdam Film Festival (incidentally, there Finisterrae won another film Catalan). "

DNA (Culture & Leisure)

What the "&" is because they can not put a "Y". And that means going about in culture, so much so that fantasies are allowed encyclopedic. And then are surprised that blogs are so successful.

now speak of the Catalan Lobby to reason why the favorite did not win. So fare at the box office.

to the fascist and reactionary has said that she would have liked that Alex will take more prizes. Will does not understand that at the periphery of culture and different language, is made movies as good or better than at home.

.

Very Heavy Periods And Lupus

RACISM IN COFFEE - 5

.

CHAPTER V



Jorge. - As I recall, Mr. Judge, we left the conversation at the right of ownership.


Ambrosio. - Indeed. And I am really curious to hear him defend in the name of justice and law, its purposes of plunder and pillage.
A society in which nobody's sure thing, do not be a society, but a horde of wolves, always ready to devour each other.


Jorge. - Are not you think that's what happens today?
You accuse us of wanting to plunder and rapine, but, in contrast, are not the owners who continually plunder the workers and taken away the fruits of their labor?


Ambrosio. - The owners use their property as they see fit and have the right to do so, just as workers have their arms free. Employers and workers freely contracting the price of the work, and when the contract is not violated, none has the right to complain.
The charity may alleviate the pain too acute, undeserved suffering, but the law must remain intangible.


Jorge. - But what do you think of free contract! If the worker does not work, eat, and freedom is like the traveler assaulted by the robbers, which gives the bag so you will not take their lives.


Ambrosio. - Let's admit it, but why not be denied the right to every man to have his own as he pleases.


Jorge. - Theirs, yours! But how and why they can tell the landowner that the land and the products are and how you can call his own goods to the capitalist working tools and other capital created by human activity?


Ambrosio. - The law recognizes the right.


Jorge. - Ah! If it is just that, then the robber also may have the right to kill and steal, just have to make some articles of the law that recognize that right. And, moreover, that is precisely what has made the ruling classes have made the law to enshrine the encroachments already perpetrated, or as a means for new ones.
If all your "supreme principles" are based on codes, simply that tomorrow a bill decreeing the abolition of private property, and what you call robbery and burglary suddenly become a "supreme principle."


Ambrosio. - That's not possible, the law must be fair and must comply with the principles of law and morality, and not the result of a whim unchecked, otherwise ...


Jorge. - So is the law that creates the right, but the law that justifies the law. So what is the law according to which all existing wealth, both natural and created by the man's work belongs to a few individuals and gives them the right of life and death over the rest?


Ambrosio. - is the right of that every man should have to dispose of the product of their activity. It is a natural human feeling, without which civilization would not have been possible at all.



Jorge. - Well, here's how it becomes an advocate for labor rights. Excellent, but tell me, how is it that those who work are those who have nothing, while the property belongs precisely to those who do not work?
Do not you think that it is logical to treat the current owners as usurpers, and that justice would be necessary to expropriate to return wealth to its rightful owners, the workers?


Ambrosio. - If there are owners who do not work is because they have worked before, they or their ancestors, and had the virtue of saving and ingenuity to make good savings.


Jorge. - Sure ... you imagine a worker who earns just generally for food, saving and amassing wealth.
You know perfectly well that the origin of property is violence, robbery, theft legal or illegal. But let there who have managed to save money on the product of their work, their own personal work, if you want to enjoy later, when and how you look, there is no objection. But the picture changes completely when you start looking what you call: make good use of savings. That means doing work for others and steal some of his work, it means hoarding goods and sell them more expensive than they cost, it means creating artificially high prices to speculate on it, means removing the other ways of working to live freely, to force them to work for little pay. And many other things like that and have nothing to do with the sense of justice and show that the property, when not derived from the prey frank and open, it makes work of others.
Does it seem to you just a man that's give with their work and ingenuity has put together a little capital, can then steal the other the product of their work and also provide all their descendants the right to live idle at the expense of workers?
Does it seem fair that because men have been a few workers and savers who have accumulated capital, the rest of humanity should be condemned to perpetual misery and brutalization?
On the other hand, although one has achieved only through their efforts, have a lot of resources so it could not be allowed to cause harm to others, to remove the media of life. If someone made a road along the coast, why could not claim the right to deny others access to the sea. If someone could grow alone an entire province could not condemn the hunger so all its inhabitants. If you have created new and powerful means of production would not be entitled to use his invention to subject the rest of men, let alone, to associate all his descendants the right to dominate and exploit future generations.
Apart from that, how can you expect, even for a moment that the current owners are descendants of workers or employees? Would you like to explain the origin of wealth of all the lords of our country, the nobles of old stock and the new managers?


Ambrosio. - No, no, please let us put aside personal issues. If ill-gotten wealth, this is not a reason to deny the right of ownership. Let bygones be bygones and start looking useless for centuries.


Jorge. - Do not remove, if desired. For me the thing is not important. Separate property must be abolished, not only because it may have been more or less ill-gotten, but because it gives the right and means to exploit the labor of others and always end up putting most of the men under the will of a few.
But, by the way, how can you justify individual ownership of land with his theory of saving, when it can not be said to have been produced by the work of the owners or their ancestors?


Ambrosio. - Here's the question. Uncultivated land, barren, worthless. The man in question, the pay, makes it fruitful and, of course, is entitled to the fruits that without his work would not have occurred.


Jorge. - Ideally, this is the right of workers to the fruits of their labor, but that right ends just ceases to farm the land. Do not you think?
Now, how is that current owners have territories, often huge, that does not work for themselves, who have never worked and often do not even leave work to others? How is that few have ever been cultivated lands? What kind of work may have resulted, in this case, the right to property?
The truth is that the land and further the origin of property is violence. And you can not justify it if it is not accepting the principle that law is force, in which case ... Woe to you if one day are weaker!


Ambrosio. - In any case, you miss the social utility, the inherent requirements of the civil partnership. Without property rights there would be no job security or orderly, and society would dissolve into chaos.


Jorge. - What! Now I talk about social utility? But if in our first conversation I spoke of the evils that property produces, and you reminded me of the question of abstract right!
But just for tonight. Excuse me, I go. Speak again.

.

Mammal Respiration Vs Reptile Respiration

IN COFFEE - 4

.

                                                       CHAPTER IV



Caesar. - I like to reason with you. She has a way of presenting things that seem to be right ... I am not saying that is wrong at all.
In the current social order is indeed real or apparent absurdities. For example, an impossible thing to understand is the custom. While people starve or not have food pellagra good and plentiful, the government makes the reception of American grain, which has more than you need and want to sell it. It is like one who, being hungry, refused to eat. However ...

Jorge. - Yes, but the government is not hungry nor the owners have the grain of Italy, in the interest of which, the government decreed rights of entry on wheat. If you decide to those who are hungry, no one would refuse to import the grain.

Caesar. - I know, and understand that you achieve with these arguments cut through the village, they see things together and on one side. But, in order not to deceive, it is necessary to examine all aspects of the issue and I prepared to do when I interrupted.
is true that the interest of owners strongly influences the imposition of entry fees. But on the other hand, if the borders were open, Americans that can produce grain and meat in a better position than us, would eventually fully cater our market, and then what would our farmers? The owners would be ruined, but workers would still be worse. The bread could be sold for five cents a kilo, but if there is no way to win these five cents, people would starve as before. On the other hand, Americans, more or less expensive, want to collect their goods, and if Italy did not occur, what would be paid?
I say that in Italy they could grow crops suitable for your soil and climate change with other countries: wine, for example, oranges, flowers ... But what if those things that we can produce at a good price, not because others want or do not use it themselves? Not to mention that, to transform the culture needed capital, knowledge and, above all time, "while what we eat?

Jorge. - Perfect! Have you put your finger on the pulse. Free trade can not solve poverty, unable to resolve it as protectionism. Favors free trade hurts consumers and producers, and, conversely, favors protectionism harms farmers and consumers, so that workers who are both producers and consumers, is the same and always will be until it is abolished the capitalist system.
If self-employed workers and not for the benefit of employers, any region could produce enough for their needs and then would only have to agree with other countries to distribute the work of production as soil quality, climate, easy to get raw materials, the customs of the inhabitants, etc.., so that all men could have the maximum enjoyment with minimal effort.

Caesar. - Yes, but that is only a utopia.

Jorge. - I will now, but when the people have understood that and can live better, be transformed into reality. There is no obstacle to the selfishness of some and the ignorance of others.

Caesar. - There are many obstacles, my friend. You think once expelled the patterns, swim in opulence ...

Jorge. - Do not say that. On the contrary, I think to leave the state of deprivation that keeps us capitalism, and to organize production so that largely satisfy the needs of all, it is necessary work hard, but not the will to work is lacking, the people, is the possibility. We regret the current system, not because we have to keep idle in comfort, not that we like, and because they are the idle codes governing the work and prevent us from working in good condition and to produce enough for everyone.

Caesar. - You exaggerate. It is true that owners often do not work in order to speculate about the scarcity of products, but even more so because they lack capital.
Earth and not enough raw materials to produce. We need to, you know, instruments, machinery, premises, means to pay the workers while they work, ie capital, and that can only be achieved over time. Many companies are nothing more than a project fail due to lack of funds! Imagine if you also as you like it, came a revolution. With the destruction of capital and the huge mess that would be generated only get more misery.

Jorge. - This is another mistake or another lie of the defenders of this order: lack of capital. The capital may be lacking to any company because of hoarding made by others, if short, will find that there are plenty of idle capital, just as there are plenty of uncultivated land. Do not see many
machines will rust, how many factories are closed, how many houses are uninhabited or sparsely inhabited, while most are not home and the builders can not find work?
food is needed for the workers while they work, but also to eat even if they are unemployed. They eat little and badly, but are alive and willing to work, as an employer needs them. Therefore, it is not because they lack the means to live, so that workers do not work. If they could work on their own, accept, too, if really necessary, living as they work to be unemployed, because they would know that he would leave temporary sacrifice finally the state of misery and oppression. Imagine
, the time that an earthquake destroys a city, ruins a whole country. And before long, the first being rebuilt more beautiful than before and the second is not no sign of disaster. Curious then the owners and the capitalists are the means to rebuild everything in a blink of an eye, at the same place where there was no money to build a house for the workers.
Regarding the possible destruction that would lead the revolution, it is hoped that the people do not want to destroy what would become of their property. Either way would not be worse than what happened in an earthquake.
In principle there should be no impediments to achieve the goal, but two, which would be impossible to overcome without: the unconsciousness of the people and the police, but


Ambrosio. - You talk of capital, labor, production, consumption, etc., However, law, justice, morality and religion never says anything.
Find the best use of land and capital is very important, but even more so
moral issues. The ideal is for everyone to live well, but to achieve this utopia were to renege on the principles of law, on which every civil society must be founded, so I prefer a thousand times to keep the current injustice. And also think that there must be a supreme will to regulate it all.
The world is not made by itself and there must be an afterlife, I say God, heaven, hell, because you are unable to believe it, but there must be something that explains everything and where the apparent injustices of here are below their compensation. Do you believe may violate the harmony of the universe? No one can and we have no choice but to accept the provisions. Complete
once and for all, to bribe the masses, to raise chimerical hopes in the souls of the disinherited, fanning the embers. Do they want to destroy civilization inherited from our ancestors, through a revolution social?
If you do good work, if you want to alleviate as much as possible the suffering of the wretched, tell them they are resigned to their fate, because true happiness is in content. Moreover, everyone must carry his cross, all social classes have their trials and their obligations, and not always the happiest people are those living in opulence.


Jorge. - Come, honorable judge set aside the declamations about the "great principles" and conventional indignation, we're not in court and now no one has to pronounce sentence against me.
As guess, to hear him speak, you are not among the disinherited! And it's so useful resignation of miserable for those living at their expense.
First of all, let him pray, transcendental and religious arguments, in which not even you believe. The mysteries of the universe does not know anything and you do not know more than me, so it is useless to bring them to discussion. On the other hand, consider that the belief in a creator god and father of the men would not be a good weapon for you. If the priests, who always have been and are in the service of the lords, delegitimize the duty of the poor resigned to their fate, others might legitimize (and in the course of history there who has) the right to justice and equality. If God is our common father, we are all brothers. And God can not some of their children and martiricen to exploit others, and the rich, the rulers, Cains would be cursed by the father. But never mind that.


Ambrosio. - Well, let's religion, because you would be useless to talk about it.
But I guess that supports the existence of a moral right and above all else.


Jorge. - Listen, if it were true that the law, justice, morality, require, and consecrate the oppression and unhappiness, even of a single human being, I would say immediately to law, justice, morality, are nothing but lies, infamous weapon forged to defend the privileged, and such have been when you understand how you understand them.
The law, justice and morality should seek the highest good of all, in other words are synonymous with arrogance and injustice. And it's so true that this concept meets the need of the existence and development of society, which has been formed and persisted in human consciousness and is gaining increasing momentum, despite all efforts to the contrary, of those so far ruled the world.
can not defend yourself, but with poor sophistry, these institutions with the principles of morality and justice as you understood when speaking abstractly.


Ambrosio. - Certainly, you are very presumptuous. Not enough to deny, as I think it does, the right of property, but also claims that we are unable to defend it with our own principles.


Jorge. - Exactly. And if you want I'll show you next time.

.