Hi and bring it on!

rather surf i though love extravagantly refered to the amount of love you throw around not the amount of money you throw around to those you love.
   I used to understand the anti materialism message untill i found out it played in to the hands of the right rather than the left and then i stopped understanding it.
  the so called materialistic countries also stick out for less pronounced classism, their poor get an education that takes them out of the complete ignorance htat used to leave the poor in such a humbling position. or for giving medical care to the poor or houseing or social security the welfaRE STATE SEEMS TO MILACROSLY MAKE COUT¡NTRIES RICH. Yoyu will say at the expense of poor countries i say that they used to have empires and the poor in european countries stayed very poor.
  I THINK THAT THE POOR COUNTRIES ARE POOR BECAUSE THOSE WHO GO TO HELP THEIR DO IT WITH VICTORIAN VALUES TEACH THE NATIVES TO READ AND WIRTE BUT NOT TO BE LAWYERS AND ECONOMIIST Aabnd such a country need a lot of high¡y skilled workers or it does not work especially if they have the political organisation colonialism left in these countries and we taught them to produce for the world market we put them inot hte mnodern world a¡without the instruments to handlle it.
  materialism non materialism is just new word for rich and poor , and we all know how those who loved poverty breed it before, how their praise of humility and poverty stopped the poor for asking for more kept them in their place but did not change the attitudes of the rich. They had to change the wording to  get people to swallow the old story that was in the past so disatrouse for the poor.
      Good sounding things always serve bullies. the mafia is full of moralistic phrases you have to help the family for instance. ç

      I  have been criticised for talking about education for the poor on the liv¡nes oh so you think you are better than them they are fine as they are arrogant b·"t*+. agri rose macaskie.

the anti materialist brigade here in europe are the group that are so artfull they manage to get a reputation for morall and anti materialist while they also make  peoplle vote for the unsavoury and dishons¡est supporter of the rich Berlusconi in italy and his ilk in SPain. it is i know how to say one thing and do another better than anyone else in the world, they are the artfull dodgers to beat all artfull dodgers. they are the experts at ¡blackening their detractors so i will get it in the teeth. agri rose macaskie.

I  dont know if I explained myself well when i said that those who spend a lot of time calling people materialists then do for the wellfare state which is to say that part of the west that is best for the poor.
        I used to listen a bit sadly to how materialist we all were and i took it in, I did not just refuse to believe that this is the case because saying we are materialist attacks our vanity and is painful, which is in this case to say  to say shaming an attack on our ego it means we are less than perfect. Sad things are also painful we feel the loss of a person maybe psyciatry calls all sorts of different pains pain and tha tmakes it hard to understand what they are talking about.  I  believed we are materialist, our business men do buy products from the poorer countries too cheap i knew it was true and that. Our materialism has a bad effect on others.
    I wished that those who called everyone materialist would notice the many among our population who are kind to others and who work very hard for their children and are nice to their neighbors but still i did not see any reason to attack the anti materialsists for  anything else, only for calling all members of rich countries populations materialist instead of attacking the really mean. . I suppose that that  the anti materialist exagerate is a pretty big reason to attack them those who exagerate the faults of others do a lot of harm. Keeping things exact is important.

      Later i found that the religiouse groups that were so given to calling people materialist were getting their population to vote for the right, it is not a theory it is that i have seen it, ht ereligiouse are the bastion of the right in many countries  and they are one of the groups who say that we in the west are materialists and who spend most time emphasising this, and they are the ones that vote for the right in the south of europe. It is also, in great part, the religiouse who vote for the right in north america and i dare say the religiouse also call everyone materialists in North america. 
      The right though it says that it will help the poor by helping the economy, has more of a record of gnawing away at the public health service and government schooling the trade unions and it is to be suposed they might do for things like the minimum wage and if people are poor with a minimum wage historically without one they were much poorer. So if you vote for them you really do for the poor or the future poor who may not be todays poor, th ereligiouse groups say we are good we have kitchens that feed the poor if you give soup to the poor with one hand and vote for the right with the other you are not helping th epoor you aer doing for them though you pretend to help them with your hand outs.

      Those who talk about materialism also undo the welfare state by keeping the idea that the rich countries are materialists so to the fore that people begin to forget all the social advantages the poor have won in these countries and only remember that they are the rich countries and so they forget to defend all the things that most benefit the poor, the things that other countries need.
        Maybe good trade unions in Africa would lead to the africans pressurising the a buyers to give the right price for their goods and gettign that fair price. If this happened then the canny from rich countries could no longer rip of poor countries. An education that brought up the general level of learning to graduate level would help trade unions to do this. A ninteenth century level of education, hte sort the charitable hand out, a “these good people need to learn to read and write and that will do for them because they are simple country folks”, level of education such as the charitable seem to think adequate does not help people in a country that is so big that it needs a lot of civil servants and that has an economy based on exports so is of necessity part of the modern world. .
        It is a sign af the success of the welfare state that all the countries that have it should be rich. England had an empire before the welfare state existed or before it worked well and the empire did not  make eglands poor rich.

    The religiouse groups here dont believe in schoooling, at least they are not very keen on higher education, most especially on humanities, they are always trying to do down literature to me and for me it was people like Harriet Beecher Stowe who did for slavery and Dickens and other writers who made people aware of poverty and and how it was so bad that something had to be done to stop it. It was writers and thinkers not preechers who did for the worst social abuses.

    A neighbor of mine here in Spain, who is a journalist for the right here, says educatoin lowers the possibility of giving advantages to the best students and so  having a country with a good porcentage of really talented peoplle in it .
      It is easy enough to state something like that it sounds reasonable but though there used to be a few good writers here in spainin the past when education was a priveledge for the few, i dont believe that the overall balance of talented people number of doctors lawyers good journalist etc., was high in the past i think it is higher now and much higher, so reality does not bare out his areguement.

      It is shocking to find that those who pretend to be charitable are behaving in a way that will turn back the clock to times when the poor were even poorer than they are now and that by a mile, a lot poorer not a bit poorer and a lot more ignorant than now. 
        keeping the poor very ignorant allowed richer peole to converse with them in  away that was very humiliating, to go over their heads all the time. Thet
ignorance of the poor  allowed the rich and powerfull to count them out of all important discussions. There are people so little habituated to talking that they can hardly get out a sentence much as their idea of things might be valid, they have too little practice expressing themselves to take part in important discussions that effect their lives.

      There are those who deny that you can think without vocabulary it is wrong to think you cant think without vocabulary a film is often little more than a collection of situations and you can remember what situation lead to what result it is incredible how little words there are in some films. You can think without words, if you see someone eaten by a lion you can remember that scene even if you dont know the words to explain
  it and you will always know that lions eat people.
        It is so shocking for me to see this sort of meanesss from those who make such a fuss out of being good that was hard to acknowledge that this was happening even to myself and it is  harder to talk about it. There are many religiouse people who are very given to looking kind because they spend so much time criticising others for materialism or any other type of meaness, who do give out sandwhiches to the poor and do then get all their followers to vote for the right and that not a moderate right but a right who shows everysign of doing for higher education for all. Education for all is called “equal opportunity” by the polititians.
      doing for everything that is part of modern states and that the part of them that makes them states where the poor arent too miserably poor is not good. 
    One arguement of these moralists is that things in the past were better, we were less materialist in the past, not even ppeople like christ have got rid of materialism, things like that stay pretty much the same in all times. These moralistic groups depend on people’s short memory when they say that things in the past were better, things in the past were horrible for some sections of society and poverty does not make people nicer it makes the jungle more needy which tend sto make things more violent. Thhose who pretend that hte past was better depend on distorting the character of the poor, they depend on  their ability to lie to pretend that things were spiritualy  better before. And liers know tha tpeople will distrust their memory if people in authority talk in a sure enough voice and can be lied to. agri rose macaskie.