- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 3,320
- Reaction score
- 1
This one is funny considering Sowell is, IIRC, a big fan of market deregulation and other trickle-down nonsense.
This one is funny considering Sowell is, IIRC, a big fan of market deregulation and other trickle-down nonsense.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one (Muhammad) who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind. I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle.-Gandhiji
“Only in the detached from reality world of goofy Hollywood and modern academia could a mass murderer like Che Guevara be turned into something of a cult celebrity.”
Paul Kengor
1)Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it.
2)Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.
3)There is no better than adversity. Every defeat, every heartbreak, every loss, contains its own seed, its own lesson on how to improve your performance the next time.
The one and only, Malcolm X
Islam is a declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men. Thus it strives from the beginning to abolish all those systems and governments which are based on the rule of man over men and the servitude of one human being to another.
Sayid qutb
Here's one of my favorites from Frederick DouglasI was born a slave, but nature gave me a soul of a free man.
Toussaint Louverture
I particularly like the top quote. Thanks for sharing
I'm wondering why the revolutionary has "no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property or even a name of his own"? What could've possibly caused this state of desperation? The miseries of the common people were not created by the revolutionary. He exploits them to effect change within an oppressive environment, which is not of the revolutionary's making.
The revolutionary was already doomed from the start, not by the mere fact that he decided to become a revolutionary, but a desire not to live in shackels. What a dumb quote.
"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty."
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
-Thomas Jefferson
I don't think modern people are truly capable of understanding that quote, because to them a "revolution" is something far different to what it may have been, compared to, for example in Nechayev's case, a revolution against the regime of the Czar and aristocratic hierarchy, enforced through brutal methods of punishment. He is speaking of the mental state that was required, to achieve a revolution in that day and era. A mental state that was hardened against any sort of sentimental weakness, which may cause the revolution to fail.
From the modern perspective where being a "revolutionary" means putting up a whiny post on Twitter, then yes, his words do not make much sense. No "revolutionary" of today's age would feel the sense of impending "doom" as clearly as Nechayev and his "nihilist revolutionaries" would have (who were mostly sent to Siberia for life or executed). They were men who accepted that they were essentially "living dead", and mere instruments of a change that they felt was necessary. A change, that indeed, was eventually realized.
The nihilists, represented by Nechayev, and the subsequent Bolsheviks, culminating in the rule of Stalin, were never under the impression that there weren't going to be millions and millions of people dead as a result of the revolution. The common people were going to suffer, and that, to them, was necessary, so that the existing power structure could be brought down. As Dostoyevsky (a man who was somewhat learned of the nihilist/socialist talking points at the time) explains through his character "Shigalyev", the commonly accepted number of casualties among the nihilists, caused by the revolution, would amount to tens of millions dead, by starvation, warfare or disease. 90% of the people that remained, would be virtually enslaved so that a higher level of production could be reached, to bring mankind further as a whole, in the hands of the 10% that took power. And so it ended up being, during Soviet rule of Russia.
The plights of the "common people" was, as ever, wholly secondary to the lack of power experienced by the revolutionaries under the current state.
His fighting ended up putting the weak and needy in the chains of a whole new oppressive government though so what good is celebrating his supposed courageous fighting when it was all for naught?
There are reasons to criticize Castro but I don't think its fair to put him on the same level as any old Arab kleptocrat or other Communist villains of history like Stalin or Mao like some people seem to. Yes his regime is oppressive and Cubans aren't free but he succeeded in breaking the power of the landholding oligarchy, significantly reduced economic inequality, and established well functioning social services which improved the lives of the poorest Cubans. All of those issues are issues that most of Latin America still struggles with today. To be fair, Cuba might be the least free Latin American country but I'd rather be born poor in Cuba than in Brazil or Colombia or virtually any other Latin American country with maybe a few exceptions.Because, under that oppressive government, the weak and needy have much, much better lives with access to education, health care, and employment opportunities.
The "all for naught" suggestion is just ignorant.
There are reasons to criticize Castro but I don't think its fair to put him on the same level as any old Arab kleptocrat or other Communist villains of history like Stalin or Mao like some people seem to. Yes his regime is oppressive and Cubans aren't free but he succeeded in breaking the power of the landholding oligarchy, significantly reduced the economic inequality, and established well functioning social services which improved the lives of the poorest Cubans. All of those issues are issues that most of Latin America still struggles with today. To be fair, Cuba might be the least free Latin American country but I'd rather be born poor in Cuba than in Brazil or Colombia or virtually any other Latin American country with maybe a few exceptions.
And because it was made by a guy named @Trotsky I will list my favorite Trotsky quote. It was the only one I still remember from A Revolution Betrayed:
Leon Trotsky — 'You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.'
"I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter I'd probably be dating her"
-Donald Trump