Paris Hilton is the world's best poster child for a Communist revolution.
Her very existence shows the lie that we live in a capitalist meritocracy.
It's all about inherited wealth and nepotism.
Her very existence shows the lie that we live in a capitalist meritocracy.
It's all about inherited wealth and nepotism.
And you know what? Whilst she was playing the role of the spoiled, dumb blonde, overprivileged clown, she was fulfilling her (unintended) role in sowing the seeds of socialist/far-left discontent brilliantly. Unfortunately, even she has recently jumped on the 'woe is me' post-MeToo 'feminist'/'victim' bandwagon, which distracts us all from the *righteous* socialist mission/agenda, and instead blames everything on *men* and the *patriarchy* rather than the *plutocracy*. *sigh*
But it's all part of a media plan to keep down and/or divide the far-left, and instead make us 'feel bad' for the super-rich.
Anyway, if I were as rich as Paris's family, and my daughter/granddaughter was 'abused', as she claims she was, I would come down on the 'abusers' like a tonne of bricks, and *destroy* them, as RICH PEOPLE have the power to do, which is why I'm afraid I'm very sceptical about these rich people's sob stories. How fucking stupid and careless do you have to be to abuse a spoiled rich kid whose family have the means to *destroy* you? 🤷♂️
I agree with you. Her story of abuse at a Utah boarding school sounds specious. I think she just didn't like a routine medical exam like everybody else.
If it was true her family would have destroyed those people like a ton of bricks.
Given her privilege she doesn't have much to complain about.
I'd still like to see her do two years in a slave labor camp.
I was more bothered by a piece I'd recently seen where she alleged she'd been raped by an older man who had spiked her drink. Rape, assuming it's true, strikes me as worse than what happened at this exclusive school, but once again, I don't know how credible her recollection is.
shareI don't like Paris Hilton. But I tend to believe the victim until I have good reason to think otherwise. I wasn't convinced by the boarding school tale because no charges were ever filed and she was undergoing routine medical examinations.
But I just googled and she says she was slipped a roofie and raped when she was 15. I have no reason not to believe her.
That type of story makes me feel instantly sorry for the victim, if true.
It's a shame, but it now makes it difficult for me to treat her as a spoiled rich clown...unless, maybe, she's lying/bending the truth... 🤷♂️ I mean, let's be honest for a moment, it can/does happen, right? And it would be an effective way of getting people like me on her side.
So, what is she? A spoiled rich parasite? Or the victim of a RAPE?
Like I say, it would be MUCH easier to dismiss her as the former, if it wasn't for the latter (assuming it's true...)
I'm sorry, you would prefer hundreds of millions slaughtered? Because that is Communism's record wherever it has been implemented.
shareThe system needs to be corrected. How much suffering is created by our current system of corporate capitalism?
shareOur system doesn't systematically slaughter hundreds of millions. Capitalism: 1, Communism: 0
shareWhat did Hitler do at the behest of German industrialists? What do you think the U.S. war machine does?
And the evolution of communism in Europe and North America will be nothing like Stalinism & Maoism. Apples & oranges.
We don't live in a capitalist meritocracy, therefore we need more of the same?
shareI watched this the other day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73YEFD89IuM
It is already a well researched subject, but the media are not going to promote researches like that.
There might be merits for socialism, but communism is very much an absurd idea.
I wouldn't want to live under communism. I like my toys too much.
But for the best orderly management of the planet? It's Marx and scientific socialism.
Marx was wrong on a lot of things, he said recessions would get worse and worse, and it is unsolvable, but he is clearly wrong with the benefit of the hindsight.
But he was a very smart fellow, he had great insights on a lot things too.
So don't think him as infallible, I think he is one of smart people, which I can learn something from.
Who solved recessions?
shareI think it is Keynesian economics, which Keynes proposed to build infrastructures during recessions, and other various government spending and fiscal stimulus, to reboot economy.
I think that is the reason majority of infrastructures in US and western Europe were built in 70s and before.
Then comes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, they basically say recessions are not so hard to manage, we don't have to build infrastructures. Central bank interest rate adjustments, unemployment benefits and consumption stimulation would be enough.
That was called Neo-liberalism, "government is the problem", anyway infrastructure building stopped, and they became so full of themselves we had GFC in 2008, then there were some renewed interests on Keynesian economics, but I don't think it went anywhere.
Interestingly China I think is a big follower of Keynesian economics, and they haven't had a recession in like 40 years.
Interesting, isn't it? China is not really Marxist, not even a little. They are Keynesians.
shareOkay, I sure as hell don't want to live in China.
So we have successful economies where some horde wealth and live wonderful lives. I don't believe that means the world's resources are being used wisely.
The world works certain ways, like if you slam your head against the wall you will have a headache.
Marx and Keynes were knowledge seekers, their works built the foundation of modern economics. Make no mistake Keynes built his work on Marxism.
You just want certain things to happen, the certain utopia some described, but that is just wishful thinking.
Soviet was like that, it did not work out the way they intended, a great social experiment but failed. So we need to admit its failure, and learn from it.
They slammed their heads against the wall, to show you the truth, don't let it be nothing.