"Scream Helplessly At the Sky" Events Planned For Election Anniversary

http://www.newsweek.com/americans-scream-helplessly-sky-donald-trump-election-anniversary-690889

"Updated | Thousands of concerned citizens will take part in a new ritual of sorts: commemorating the anniversary of Donald Trump's election by screaming at the sky.

Over 4,000 Facebook users have RSVP'd—another 33,000 are interested in attending—to the Nov. 8 event being held in Boston that is literally titled "Scream helplessly at the sky on the anniversary of the election."

- Similar events planned for New York and Chicago

Some notable tweets captured in the Paul Joseph Watson's video on the event:



"I intend to scream begging for help at the sky . . ."

- Elizabeth Price

"Ha! This is awesome. I'll be screaming helplessly at the sky in CA. Hard to believe this nightmare has lasted this long."

- Kelly Saltern

"We could have a yelling parade from the park to the capital"

- Kim Roche

"This needs to be global please."

- Lynn McArdle

"This is the greatest FB event I've ever seen."

- Dawn Marie

The ridiculous, contrived meme screamer after the election is even being glorified. Of the screamer:

"She-ro"

- Stephanie Janssens

"Totally feeling that. Like everyday. :("

- Ann Marie Pinault

When one organizer chose to illustrate the Facebook event page with a picture of white men screaming:

"Why is the cover picture seemingly a bunch of white men screaming?"

- Rochelle Milne Burnaford

"who cares"

- Hunter Mojarikessen

"It's 2017, if you don't understand that representation matters than you are a part of the problem."

- Rochelle Milne Burnaford

____________

So which of you will be attending? Be honest.

;)



Isn't this what religious people do daily?
 
The 1942 cyclone that started the famine just happened to be one of the 10 deadliest storms on record by the way.
Major natural disasters don't necessarily trigger famines that wipe out millions. The storm was bad no doubt but it was colonial policy that made Bengal vulnerable to famine and it was imperial indifference to the suffering of the people there that aggravated and prolonged it.
 
The same is said about the relationship to Stalinism and true Marxism/Communism or whatever. The reality is that the British Empire thought of itself as running a free market system and the English were the intellectual pioneers of free trade.

No, it's not the same. Those apologizing for true communism assert that it has never even been fairly tried ever, even by self-professed communist governments. Free market types generally admit that there is no such thing as a free market on a national scale, but either way, British India was not a self-professed free market economy. The British ran a mercantile economy, where the colonies and imperial possessions produced raw materials like cotton and rice and Great Britain produced manufactured goods. If you are trying to critique imperial, mercantilism economies, then you are on the right track.

Even just in practical terms, there is no reasonable way this is a market issue. If grain stocks were destroyed by the British Army, what has that got to do with markets? And when the Prime Minister, according to you, is deciding what gets shipped where on a micromanaging level, then again, how is this a free market?
 
No, it's not the same. Those apologizing for true communism assert that it has never even been fairly tried ever, even by self-professed communist governments. Free market types generally admit that there is no such thing as a free market on a national scale, but either way, British India was not a self-professed free market economy. The British ran a mercantile economy, where the colonies and imperial possessions produced raw materials like cotton and rice and Great Britain produced manufactured goods. If you are trying to critique imperial, mercantilism economies, then you are on the right track.

Even just in practical terms, there is no reasonable way this is a market issue. If grain stocks were destroyed by the British Army, what has that got to do with markets? And when the Prime Minister, according to you, is deciding what gets shipped where on a micromanaging level, then again, how is this a free market?
In some ways the extreme circumstances of the Bengal famine did deviate from free market economics since it was a war time economy. But its the free market principles backed by imperialism that governed India more generally that made it vulnerable to famine and not just the one of 1943. In the absence of such policies I believe India would've had fewer and/or less severe famine.
 
I'll get the popcorn

tenor.gif
 
In some ways the extreme circumstances of the Bengal famine did deviate from free market economics since it was a war time economy. But its the free market principles backed by imperialism that governed India more generally that made it vulnerable to famine and not just the one of 1943. In the absence of such policies I believe India would've had fewer and/or less severe famine.

But India wasn't governed by free market principles.

The very example you are trying to use demonstrates this quite well, as it is a story of local economic decisions being made by top level government officials.
 
No, it's not the same. Those apologizing for true communism assert that it has never even been fairly tried ever, even by self-professed communist governments. Free market types generally admit that there is no such thing as a free market on a national scale, but either way, British India was not a self-professed free market economy. The British ran a mercantile economy, where the colonies and imperial possessions produced raw materials like cotton and rice and Great Britain produced manufactured goods. If you are trying to critique imperial, mercantilism economies, then you are on the right track.

Even just in practical terms, there is no reasonable way this is a market issue. If grain stocks were destroyed by the British Army, what has that got to do with markets? And when the Prime Minister, according to you, is deciding what gets shipped where on a micromanaging level, then again, how is this a free market?

Dat East Indian Trading Corporation.......
 
"I will be there, you can guarantee it!! My lungs will roar with liberal thunder hoping that someone will hear it and end the Nazi Drumpfs reign!" - @Rational Poster

"Everyone who hates racism, bigotry and advancement of the White race should attend! Yell and scream at this travesty world!!" - @HomerThompson

"If you do not attend this you are a cucked out snowflake who needs a safe space." - @Peloquin

"Yell, scream, chant, kick, growl!! End this nightmare with your voice!! Hear our liberal rebel yell!!!" - @Fawlty

"I cannot wait!! We need to let loose our woes having such a Nazi fascist pigdog as our leader!! Tears are in my eyes everyday over this but on this day, i will be screaming with tears of joy!!" - @Overpressure

<TheWire1>
 
But India wasn't governed by free market principles.

The very example you are trying to use demonstrates this quite well, as it is a story of local economic decisions being made by top level government officials.
Did you read what I posted earlier? The war economy changed the rules a bit, just as it can with the US, but in general the empire was run according to so called free market principles. In reality it was a legal structure which favored the exploitation of India by British capital but economic systems, when actualized, rarely meet the high theoretical standards and the theory here was free market capitalism.
 
Dat East Indian Trading Corporation.......

The East India Trading Company was a royally chartered company that politically ruled India and fielded one of the world's largest armies. Thy enjoyed a government enforced monopoly on most of the Indian trade. Not a free market entity.

Did you read what I posted earlier? The war economy changed the rules a bit, just as it can with the US, but in general the empire was run according to so called free market principles. In reality it was a legal structure which favored the exploitation of India by British capital but economic systems, when actualized, rarely meet the high theoretical standards and the theory here was free market capitalism.

No, it wasn't. For most of the history of the British Empire in India, trade in India was dominated by government enforced monopolies, the most powerful of which actually ran the Indian government well into the 19th century.

It was a mercantile system that was dissimilar to free market capitalism. You couldn't just buy a ship and go into business trading in Indian goods or build a factory in Calcutta.
 
The East India Trading Company was a royally chartered company that politically ruled India and fielded one of the world's largest armies. Thy enjoyed a government enforced monopoly on most of the Indian trade. Not a free market entity.

It also had a direct relationship to the bank of england, and interestingly seems to be a good example for what we currently see today from corporate institutions, banks, and government body's.

Tangent conversation i guess. I just rarely get to talk about EITC.
 
It also had a direct relationship to the bank of england, and interestingly seems to be a good example for what we currently see today from corporate institutions, banks, and government body's.

Tangent conversation i guess. I just rarely get to talk about EITC.
I agree that it's an incredibly interesting subject.

People like Edmund Burke, who was sort of a proto-free marketeer, were huge critics of the EITC because they thought it was distorting India's economic development. They thought one company, backed by governmental authority, had far too much power over the Indian economy, and they were right imo.
 
"I will be there, you can guarantee it!! My lungs will roar with liberal thunder hoping that someone will hear it and end the Nazi Drumpfs reign!" - @Rational Poster

"Everyone who hates racism, bigotry and advancement of the White race should attend! Yell and scream at this travesty world!!" - @HomerThompson

"If you do not attend this you are a cucked out snowflake who needs a safe space." - @Peloquin

"Yell, scream, chant, kick, growl!! End this nightmare with your voice!! Hear our liberal rebel yell!!!" - @Fawlty

"I cannot wait!! We need to let loose our woes having such a Nazi fascist pigdog as our leader!! Tears are in my eyes everyday over this but on this day, i will be screaming with tears of joy!!" - @Overpressure

<TheWire1>
I feel honored to be included in your late night ramblings. Guess being an out of work cop has its perks
 
I agree that it's an incredibly interesting subject.

People like Edmund Burke, who was sort of a proto-free marketeer, were huge critics of the EITC because they thought it was distorting India's economic development. They thought one company, backed by governmental authority, had far too much power over the Indian economy, and they were right imo.

If we told the story of haliburten/Blackwater/ect. and Iraq 50 years from now, I wonder how similar the story would be to the colonization of India, and the EITC.
 
Major natural disasters don't necessarily trigger famines that wipe out millions. The storm was bad no doubt but it was colonial policy that made Bengal vulnerable to famine and it was imperial indifference to the suffering of the people there that aggravated and prolonged it.

No. The oversimplification here is way off the chart. Bangladesh had it's own ongoing issues that had little to do with "colonial power". Colonial power being a prime cause is bizarre actually.
Could have they done more? Perhaps, but it's not cut and dried as some would like one to think.
 
If we told the story of haliburten/Blackwater/ect. and Iraq 50 years from now, I wonder how similar the story would be to the colonization of India, and the EITC.

One thing the British did was to stop the burning of widows, kind of narrow minded on cultural differences.
 
American discourse is just 80% of the right wing justifying objectively poor policy by focusing on and masturbating to 1% of the left wing, while 80% of the left wing tries to introduce both groups to things like science, economics, history, etc.

{<jordan}
 
I agree that it's an incredibly interesting subject.

People like Edmund Burke, who was sort of a proto-free marketeer, were huge critics of the EITC because they thought it was distorting India's economic development. They thought one company, backed by governmental authority, had far too much power over the Indian economy, and they were right imo.

Interesting book that actually claims India benefited in many ways economically and otherwise.






"Now, however, a new book written by an Anglo-Indian challenges this notion. It asserts that in fact Britain laid the foundations for modern-day India and the prosperity that it enjoys today.

The girders for every bridge, the track for every mile of railway and the vast array of machinery required for India's infrastructure were all carried there by the same ships that helped exploit a land thousands of miles away. The engineers who laid the cornerstones for India's development from Third World nation to burgeoning industrial superpower were British.

"The indisputable fact is that India as a nation as it stands today was originally put together and created by a small, distant island country," says Dr Kartar Lalvani, founder of the vitamins company Vitabiotics and a former Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year, in the book he has spent the past eight years writing, The Making Of India: A Story Of British Enterprise. It comes out later this year.

He adds: "The 'sins' of the Empire have been widely and frequently written about while the other positive side of the imperial coin, of which Britain can be proud and which laid the foundations for modern-day India, has always been overlooked. This is the first book of its kind to recognise Britain's vast contribution to India's social, civil and physical infrastructure provided during two centuries of colonial rule."

THE British administration of India, a country then with a population of 500 million, diverse religions and spread over 17,000 square miles, was "superbly efficient", he argues. Dr Lalvani was born in Karachi, in 1931, where his father was a successful pharmacist and the family lived comfortably. But in 1947 the partition of India forced them to flee to Bombay, where they had to start their lives from scratch. With that background he is better placed than most historians, who have judged India from afar. He claims that India's success as the world's largest democracy, during a period when many other fledgling nations have endured strife, is largely down to imperial rule. It established the framework for India's justice system, civil service, loyal army and efficient police force.

Dr Lalvani, who came to the UK in 1956 to study, believes that both nations benefited from the trade links that were firmly established in the 17th century and continued under the often maligned East India Company, which founded its first trading post in Surat, on the west coast of India, in 1613. Within 40 years it had another 22 bases, supplying the motherland with everything from salt to opium. At the time India, a country of disparate states, had no uniform government and it seemed that France might gain control as it also sought to expand its empire overseas. That prospect was ended by the victory of Robert Clive over French forces at Plassey, in Bengal, in 1757.

It paved the way for the British Raj to rule India for almost two centuries, for the East India Company to thrive and for fortunes to be made by individuals.

There were cases of corruption and greed and cruel reprisals against opponents but Dr Lalviani says: "It is important to note that there is a substantial list on the credit side.

"They include railways, roads, canals, mines, sewers, plantations and the establishment of English law and language.

"Great cities including Bombay, Calcutta and Madras were built and some of the finest universities and museums in India were founded. The first definitive atlas of India was drawn and there were great social reforms, such as the eradication of thugee (violent highway robbery), the banning of the custom of suttee (the burning of widows on the husband's funeral pyre) and female infanticide.

"Perhaps most innovative of all was the bringing together of several different states into one unified India."

Gradually the power of the East India Company was eroded to be replaced by more direct British government of India, leading to more investment. The Indian Army was formed and its top officers trained in new military academies, modelled on Sandhurst.

At the heart of India's development was the expansion of the rail network, originally built to secure the colonial hold, which still prospers.

Within 25 years, 10,000 miles of track were laid joining distant parts of the nation. By independence, 136,000 bridges had been constructed.

Today Indian Railways is the world's largest employer, with a staggering 1.6 million workers on the payroll. By the mid-19th century India had a postal system, the spread of the English language allowed communication between people from different backgrounds, and the arts were thriving.

Wildlife and ancient buildings, such as the Taj Mahal, were protected.

As long ago as 1905 India's first national park was opened, in Assam state, to allow the endangered rhinoceros to flourish unmolested by hunters.
 
Kind of a dodge but okay.

Not one bit, im not nor is anyone arguing for Colonialism.

But idiots world over are arguing for hey communism let's bring back that awesome.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top