The following passage is from David Harvey's book, "A Brief History of Neoliberalism" (https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780199283262.001.0001/isbn-9780199283262) :
>βThis history of neoliberalization and class formation, and the proliferating acceptance of the ideas of the Mont Pelerin Society as the ruling ideas of the time, makes for interesting reading when placed against the background of counter-arguments laid out by Karl Polanyi in 1944 (shortly before the Mont Pelerin Society was established). In a complex society, he pointed out, the meaning of freedom becomes as contradictory and as fraught as its incitements to action are compelling. There are, he noted, two kinds of freedom, one good and the other bad. Among the latter he listed βthe freedom to exploit oneβs fellows, or the freedom to make inordinate gains without commensurable service to the community, the freedom to keep technological inventions from being used for public benefit, or the freedom to profit from public calamities secretly engineered for private advantageβ. But, Polanyi continued, βthe market economy under which these freedoms throve also produced freedoms we prize highly. Freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of meeting, freedom of association, freedom to choose oneβs own jobβ. While we may βcherish these freedoms for their own sakeβ,βand, surely, many of us still doβthey were to a large extent βby-products of the same economy that was also responsible for the evil freedomsβ.33 Polanyiβs answer to this duality makes strange reading given the current hegemony of neoliberal thinking:
>
>"The passing of [the] market economy can become the beginning of an era of unprecedented freedom. Juridical and actual freedom can be made wider and more general than ever before; regulation and control can achieve freedom not only for the few, but for all. Freedom not as an appurtenance of privilege, tainted at the source, but as a prescriptive right extending far beyond the narrow confines of the political sphere into the intimate organization of society itself. Thus will old freedoms and civic rights be added to the fund of new freedoms generated by the leisure and security that industrial society offers to all. Such a society can afford to be both just and free.34"
>
>Β Unfortunately, Polanyi noted, the passage to such a
You might have heard it among left-wing circles, that traditional standards of attractiveness are something which have been artificially-imposed upon society as a means of repression. This can be seen in the fat acceptance movement and even anecdotally - if you walk down the average British high street you'll see hoards of young people with hair shining shades of purple, pink and green with piercings and peculiar white makeup, making the individuals look anaemic and odd.
'F*ck beauty standards' is the new one, with everyone insisting that 'fat is beautiful' and things of that nature. Now my synopsis of the situation is thus: Although some features of physical attractiveness are genetically pre-determined, in the majority of cases one's physical appearance can be greatly improved by working on yourself: whether that be through a good diet, personal hygiene or physical exercise, all of these things involve discipline, self-denial and willpower. All of these things are unable to be redistributed by government policy. The body-positivity movement is a necessary outgrowth of socialism, because if something can only come from the individual, it must be undesirable.
You cannot equalize the nation's muscle mass or body fat percentage via legislative fiat, so the communism that has gradually started to infest this country for the last 50 years has decided to try and denounce it as a valid point of pride for those who fall into a traditionally-desirable physical category if it is something they have had to work for themselves.
Whopper lies currently being promulgated by official church sources:
ONE: that church "discipline" (what they only like to call "councils" now) is locally driven. This whopper of a lie has been recently promulgated in church press releases regarding high profile church courtsβ’
The truth though, is that church courtsβ’ are actually ordered hits coming from the secretive slimy falsely labeled "strengthening church members committee" made up of mostly "seventies" and a few apostles. Stake presidents are NOT free to use local judgment when a hit has been ordered. My own stake dictator freely admitted this to one of my naive bishops.
TWO: That the formerly secret leadership handbook is now no longer secret. There is an ever growing body of evidence pointing to the continued use of a secret handbook that amounts to a prosecutors manual, obstruction of justice manual, and cover up manual, where members are thrown under the bus by bishops and stake presidents to preserve the public/media/b.s. image of the church. I strongly suspect this secret manual is online ONLY and available only to credentialed bishops and all stake dictators. I also strongly suspect that the churchCORP has developed an obedience score for members, that is visible on online membership records, and that resignation only takes this score to permanent and unchangeable zero. That credentialed leaders (most bishops and all stake dictators) can see this score easily. I suspect this score is simple, from 0-100.
There are some ongoing SUB lies that are connected to the above:
The lie that there is an "appeals" process following church courtsβ’
The lie that they even try to bring people back who have been tagged with a low obedience scoreβ’ (remember Lavina Anderson who got a recommend from her local leaders but the fascist regimeβ’ callously refused to recognize her as a member. I suspect that when her local leaders were putting together her recommend, that the obedience scoreβ’ hadn't yet been developed. They won't make that same mistake in the future).
She promulgated my intercourse causerie abominable.
I cogently elucidated modification as impossible.
Since acquiring a voluminous thesaurus,
My compulsion with polysyllables, enormous,
Remains stringently psychoneuroendocrinological.
