An Acceptance of Failure
“An Acceptance of Failure”
That is often how the comment reads. It doesn’t matter what the post was about, there is a embodied response that suggests the situation is terminal – like it was the last thing you read before the plane crashed on take off – done often enough though it is a habitual response for some people and self-imposed negativity that one imagines is difficult to escape from.
Even though it’s a different time and space with technology and the internet, the relevant past will be there somewhere. Seeing the comparison in context is not always so easy.
In this case I look back to the man we call the ‘Father of Conservatism’ who lived in the later half of the 1700s.
Edmund Burke is a well known writer from the post French Revolution period, an Irish Englishman of some considerable repute and he had this to say;
“Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”
I look at that time and place as the conservative concern began to grow over the declining wellbeing of society.
It’s probably more relevant to men today than it was back then as our post feminist outcome has left men not only suffering from the elevation of female authority and those continuing repercussions but also from the loss of our collective ability to work together.
We’ve been left floundering to cooperate, socially, politically, and commercially.
In the decline, men probably say too little about what they are doing or could be doing out of fear of some form of attack on their efforts.
What do you think?
@1 Downunder this is not a new phenomenon. All that has changed is the victims are now men and not witches.
And what is the purpose of it all? To gain power, property, jobs and money.
Does the feminist movement gain public money?
Does a separated female parter gain property?
Who’s property and money do the accuses gain?
Regardless of a trial or verdict, do the now so-called rape victims gain money?
We hear criminal defence lawyer Samira Taghavi who points to new laws are akin to the Salem Trials.
The Salem trials from 1692. Ask yourself, are these trials are exactly what the Governments are doing to men.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6p7hxi
Comment by Lukenz — Mon 12th July 2021 @ 12:18 pm
12 months of insanity in puritan America in the 1600s and I think it’s fair to say insanity since their dogs were executed for helping the witchcraft.
But really the post wasn’t about causes even though I did mention the French Revolution but rather about the affects on male unity and their ability to function as more than individuals.
Comment by Downunder — Mon 12th July 2021 @ 1:08 pm
Mary Wollstonecraft. 1759-1797
Wrote Vindication of the Rights of Women.
Also Vindication of the Rights of Men.
“Let women share the rights and she will emulate the virtues of man”
So a Feminist.
Not like today’s feminists, who pretend men don’t exist.
Unless for persecution, or propaganda.
Also from the same period of time.
Thomas Paine 1737-1809.
Who caused revolution.
And his Agrarian Justice.
The contract between citizens and Government.
How socialism, requires the taxing of wealth.
The taxing of land, and property.
Interestingly we are mostly an income tax, society.
And poverty, remains a big problem, as a result.
Land and Property, a tax safe haven.
For investors, making income.
To then accept failure.
Would be an admission.
Mankind’s failure, not of its mind.
But the failure to listen.
To wise men, and wise women.
An original feminist.
Wrote of rights, for men and women.
An original socialist.
Wrote on the cause of poverty.
Little learnt.
Exploitation remains.
From Mary.
“The neglected education of my fellow-creatures is the grand source of misery I deplore”
Comment by DJ ward — Sat 17th July 2021 @ 9:42 am
Interestingly we are mostly an income tax, society.
And poverty, remains a big problem, as a result.
Land and Property, a tax safe haven.
For investors, making income.
Investing in property or investing in inflation?
Was there some reason you left taxing the person out of the equation?
Comment by Evan Myers — Sat 17th July 2021 @ 10:18 am
Is the argument.
Failure is inevitable.
So we should accept it.
The point, of trying.
Failure is not however inevitable.
A decision to butter a slice of bread.
Can certainly exist as a result of the decision.
The criticism, only the perfection, of the buttering.
Left to god, the bread would however not become buttered.
A decision of the human mind, in contempt of god.
The will of man, interfering in the inevitable.
Doing human things.
One may not intend to fail.
Yet the rocketeer, may celebrate, discovering the flaw.
That resulted, from an attempted launch.
Inherently doomed, to failure.
A sun is doomed, to a set path.
Predictable, for billions of years.
Yet humans failures, and success, ripple through space.
Changing the predetermined path of Gods laws.
God therefore acts, absolutely.
In contempt, of human success, and failure.
But even failure, accepted, is magical.
Humans playing God.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 17th July 2021 @ 1:29 pm
#4 Evan
I don’t have to much of a problem with how our tax works.
Income tax, and how businesses are taxed.
There are false arguments to me.
So I am concerned, about outcomes from taxation.
A person buys a house for a million.
Sells it for two million.
Did they not make a million.
Even if they went to buy a new house.
For a million.
Would they not be in the same standard, as they started.
But a million richer.
Obviously that’s profit, likely untaxed.
And obviously there’s inflation.
Reality is to buy the same.
They needed, double the money.
To meet the market.
How long then for your money.
To only be worth, half.
But your house, to be worth double.
Has inflation been misrepresented.
The rich growing richer.
By becoming poorer.
Who else then funds, the ever spiralling loss.
To make money, someone must have lost money.
Should it be the poor.
Mortgage free.
Squeezed more for rent.
With hands out, in dependency.
The rich call for lower taxes.
Yet we need rental subsidies, for the poor.
Amazingly, the rich, giving money to the rich.
Pretending, morally in helping the poor.
Rates, is an example, of land taxation.
So we already have some land and property tax.
……..
So Thomas Paine looked at how land and property generated wealth.
But that wasn’t in an environment of hyperinflation.
A penny, was a penny, for a lifetime.
A dollar erodes in decades.
………
A person who pays rent, has paid income tax, already.
The landlord, spends it tax free on mortgage payments.
And land tax’s.
Why was the tenants income taxed.
Does the normal homeowner, not pay tax on his mortgage payments.
So who then wasn’t paying taxes.
But the landlords, was not taxed.
Should the tenants rent be tax free, as well.
As is the landlords, income, tax free.
Is the interest alone, neck high.
To maximise capital gain.
Likely tax free, profits.
How then are the poor advantaged, by taxes.
Landlords with a tax on income advantage, can out bid them.
The imaginary worth, higher, and higher.
And the poor, kept poor, with mortgages they pay tax for.
But do not own.
………
Taxes, and inflation.
Are arguments similar to sandbox civilisation games.
The impossible levels, are what they say.
We have democracy, and globalisation.
And a welfare state.
Taxes, are compulsory, not voluntary, for its maintenance.
Inflation is the inability, to have stability.
Inevitable in a fixed population, like a bubble.
With lots of imaginary money, as debts, created.
That there is nothing with a fixed price, like gold once had.
To measure how good, or bad things are.
Certainly there are many, freehold and wealthy.
And done well, from good decisions, with the taxes of the day.
To reduce home ownership, to citizenship.
Would be similar to Mores Utopia.
Even communism.
Yet it is the sales pitch, of capitalism.
Tax’s are dictated by need, and democracy.
Wealth is by culture, and the nature of humans.
Do the poor now riot in the streets, and now loot.
Certainly, there rent will be paid.
If not, then the homeless, desperate, looting.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 17th July 2021 @ 7:11 pm
Sorry I asked.
I think you should go back to poetry now.
Comment by Evan Myers — Sun 18th July 2021 @ 6:53 am
Inflation was a natural result, of making money.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/128428976/robertson-must-come-up-with-a-plan-to-tame-inflation
That is not to say making money, is not necessary.
If you want the average person, to have $100,000 of money.
If an immigrant or baby arrives, you will need to make more.
You shouldn’t have inflation, if the number stays the same.
The problem becomes using money, as stimulus.
Increasing housing was needed, so money was created.
As a result of more money, more projects started.
With stimulus, unemployment should be low.
If the money tap stops, will it stop at $106,900.
And how many jobs, require the stimulus.
The article mentions, two methods of inflation control.
Price fixing, and tighter government spending.
While increasing spending, looks like adding fuel to inflation.
So there must be, a way to do both.
Rise in government spending, should be less than inflation.
If it’s budget was $100,000, the next should be well less than $106,900.
That should help keep our dollar stable, with international inflation.
One can compensate, one for the other.
As the government responds to wage inflation, it employs less.
Yes there’s a pay rise but we have 99 jobs, not 100.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 23rd April 2022 @ 12:16 pm