Anathstryx: Christian Foundations and Abolition of Slavery

This is a continuation of a discussion that went off-topic in the Neanderthal thread.

Quote:

---

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging three headed beast like god one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes, fools and hypocrites. "
— Thomas Jefferson

---

This is important. Jefferson railed against the "Fear God" pulpit pounding ministers of the Church of England. He BELIEVED IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS, which were not what so many Churches were actually teaching.

Jefferson made this clear in his letter to Benjamin Rush:

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."

In fact, Jefferson's profession of Christian faith is exactly the correct definition of Christian. Jefferson explained what he most admired about Jesus, setting Jesus apart from all others:

"His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others."

It is this deeply Christian viewpoint that is at the foundations of the Declaration of Independence that Jefferson penned. Again, he tried to include abolition of slavery but that was removed by Congress for later implementation, to ensure the Revolution would succeed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by anathstryx:

How exactly does one misapply "Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." regardless of the context in which it was spoken or written?

Anathstryx

---

Step 1: Read the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Step 2: Look what the ACLU is pushing. It is essentially "Congress shall allow no display or expression of (Christian) religion on government-funded property"

One of them is horribly wrong. I'm betting it's the second, since the first was written by the nation's Founders to tell us exactly what they meant.

Reinforcing this is the fact that the Founders established a Protestant church inside the US Capitol and attended services there. They put renditions of the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court building. They opened Congress and the Supreme Court with prayer to God for guidance. They had Congress print the Bible to be used in schools as an educational tool. They created the first National Holy-day as a day of prayer to God giving thanks for the creation of this nation (Thanksgiving).

Yeah, the ACLU really has got it wrong. They're pursuing the Communist agenda, not the American agenda.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Step 1: Read the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Step 2: Look what the ACLU is pushing. It is essentially "Congress shall allow no display or expression of (Christian) religion on government-funded property"

One of them is horribly wrong. I'm betting it's the second, since the first was written by the nation's Founders to tell us exactly what they meant.

Reinforcing this is the fact that the Founders established a Protestant church inside the US Capitol and attended services there. They put renditions of the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court building. They opened Congress and the Supreme Court with prayer to God for guidance. They had Congress print the Bible to be used in schools as an educational tool. They created the first National Holy-day as a day of prayer to God giving thanks for the creation of this nation (Thanksgiving).

Yeah, the ACLU really has got it wrong. They're pursuing the Communist agenda, not the American agenda.

---

The Bill of Rights arose from the Enlightenment sentiments of natural rights. Folks with your ideology always seem to pervert that fact in these discussions.

I find it completely ironic that a government that spends a couple of billion dollars a week on war has the ten commandments on the Supreme Court building but it's not very surprising given the biblical hostility of the Abrahamic "family". It is very distressing to me that there are prayers, symbols of religion of whatever stripe, and religious intrusions into any government activity, institution, building or whatever (with the notable exception of religious symbols on military graves such as Arlington). I am highly offended by it, in fact, as you should be. Why should there be Abrahamic symbols and prayers on government property and not Pagan symbols? Pagans pay taxes. Pagans die in wars. Pagans are patriots. This is yet another example of the hypocrisy rife in the establishment. American atheists find it offensive and a violation of their rights and they, too, are tax payers, soldiers, patriots.

The point is that no religion should be a part of a government that is an umbrella sheltering people of all belief systems so that none holds sway or dictates over another in matters of civil liberties and natural rights. Remember Jefferson's "free society"?

I fully support the ACLU even when they defend the KKK, which I abhor, just the same as I will defend your civil and natural rights as any patriotic American would do even if I might deplore your politics, your ideology, your belief system.

I am not as articulate as you nor am I a Jeffersonian scholar (but I can google as well as anyone), nor am I an expert on anything except myself. I do grow weary of social justice being misconstrued as socialism and fear-mongers seeing a Communist or Jihadist behind every bush (pun may very well be intended). Quite frankly, IMO, it is the radical and religious right who are the greatest, real threat to American principles.

Well, clearly we are "bulls" in each others paths. But I have enjoyed the diversion from my household drudgery for the day.

Anathstryx

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

This is a continuation of a discussion that went off-topic in the Neanderthal thread.

This is important. Jefferson railed against the "Fear God" pulpit pounding ministers of the Church of England. He BELIEVED IN THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS, which were not what so many Churches were actually teaching.

Jefferson made this clear in his letter to Benjamin Rush:

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."

In fact, Jefferson's profession of Christian faith is exactly the correct definition of Christian. Jefferson explained what he most admired about Jesus, setting Jesus apart from all others:

"His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others."

It is this deeply Christian viewpoint that is at the foundations of the Declaration of Independence that Jefferson penned. Again, he tried to include abolition of slavery but that was removed by Congress for later implementation, to ensure the Revolution would succeed.

---

Jefferson was a brilliant and deeply conflicted human being who struggled with his own ethical dilemmas all of his life. I'm not sure how you reconcile the conflicts in Christianity of "inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids" and the reality of bitter hostilities against "all mankind". Wouldn't "all mankind" include Communists and Jihadists? But that's one of those conundrums of religion that I don't think I'll ever grok. Or, perhaps, just another lofty ideal one slaps on the bumper of their car or spews in a political ad.

Anathstryx

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by anathstryx:

Jefferson was a brilliant and deeply conflicted human being who struggled with his own ethical dilemmas all of his life. I'm not sure how you reconcile the conflicts in Christianity of "inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids" and the reality of bitter hostilities against "all mankind". Wouldn't "all mankind" include Communists and Jihadists? But that's one of those conundrums of religion that I don't think I'll ever grok. Or, perhaps, just another lofty ideal one slaps on the bumper of their car or spews in a political ad.

Anathstryx

---

No reconciling is necessary. Jefferson absolutely, clearly explained why he was NOT conflicted.

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself."

Now, go back and look at how he rails against various church institutions and leaders who corrupted the precepts taught by Jesus. It will all become clear.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by anathstryx:

The Bill of Rights arose from the Enlightenment sentiments of natural rights. Folks with your ideology always seem to pervert that fact in these discussions.

---

My ideology? What is my ideology? I'm just discussing history here.

What are those Natural Rights and who is the Creator who endowed us with them? It's explained in the Declaration of Independence, penned by Jefferson.

However, I'll clarify it even further.

Natural Rights are the opposite of Natural Wrongs. We innately know what Natural Wrongs are (Violence against you, Bullying you and Stealing your stuff) so we define Natural Rights as our Natural Right to use whatever force is necessary to fight off anyone trying to inflict those wrongs.

Your Right to Life presumes you will thwart anyone trying to harm you.

Your Right to Liberty presumes you will thwart anyone trying to bully or restrain you.

Your Right to Pursuit of Happiness presumes that you will forcefully defend your ownership of whatever you have acquired in that pursuit. (It was originally called Right to Property in the 1775 List of Grievances)

It is not surprising that we as a people instituted a government and gave it permission to wage war to defend our absolute Right to retain those Rights when others threaten us. It is because we love one another as equals that we forcefully defend each other against Wrongdoers. The Wrongdoer who persists must do so at his own peril, not ours.

Freedom exists only when we love one another sufficiently that we will forcefully defend our neighbor's Rights as well as our own. It is an inescapable fact that those who will do Wrong will use force to get their way - so we are obligated to have superior force at our disposal and be willing to use it.

After all, if you're dead or enslaved, you have lost all your Rights.

Quote:

---

It is very distressing to me that there are prayers, symbols of religion of whatever stripe, and religious intrusions into any government activity, institution, building or whatever (with the notable exception of religious symbols on military graves such as Arlington). I am highly offended by it, in fact, as you should be. Why should there be Abrahamic symbols and prayers on government property and not Pagan symbols?

---

But we have plenty of Pagan symbols on government property. The Washington Monument is one of the biggest.

However - our ideas of Liberty, Equality and Equal Rights, our American principles, come directly from the Protestant religion. None other. That's why the Founders wanted to ensure we had plenty of references to those foundations to keep reminding us.

What if our nation followed the secularist path of the Soviet Union, Cuba and others that forcibly oppress those of religious belief? Tragedy. Or perhaps Islam? Horror. Hindu? What caste would you be? Pagan? Um, which flavor?

Equality among all people, the Right to prosper by your own efforts, the Right to freely express yourself - these can only be defended if the reason for their existence is defended.

Quote:

---

The point is that no religion should be a part of a government that is an umbrella sheltering people of all belief systems so that none holds sway or dictates over another in matters of civil liberties and natural rights.

---

It is because of the Protestant foundations that we defend the Natural Rights and civil liberties of all. I say let's stick with those foundations.

Quote:

---

I fully support the ACLU even when they defend the KKK, which I abhor, just the same as I will defend your civil and natural rights as any patriotic American would do even if I might deplore your politics, your ideology, your belief system.

---

If the ACLU were defending our Bill of Rights, I might support them. However, they've taken the usual Communist anti-Christian stance. While defending the KKK they work to eradicate Christianity from the public square. They also work to defeat our 2nd Amendment, which is our natural Right to Arms to defend our Rights. There is a reason Communists try to eradicate Christianity (and the power of self defense) when they're fundamentally transforming a society. Let a Communist explain it:

"We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. They preach love of one's neighbor and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the Revolution. Down with love of our neighbor! What we want is hate... Only then can we conquer the universe." - Anatole Lunarcharsky, Russian Commissar of Education

Quote:

---

I do grow weary of social justice being misconstrued as socialism

---

The moment government assumes power to seize some people's wealth to fund the benevolent wishes of others, it's Socialism and it violates our Natural Rights. We are already there.

You have a Natural Right to work hard, earn good money and donate your own earnings to your favorite good cause. That's not the Social Justice agenda at all.

Quote:

---

and fear-mongers seeing a Communist or Jihadist behind every bush (pun may very well be intended).

---

It would be foolish to disregard their own stated intentions and their actions. It is good and proper to pay attention to them and sound the alarms - for they are people who do great harm when they get the power. A sensible nation never, ever lets them gain power, as a matter of defending Natural Rights.

Quote:

---

Quite frankly, IMO, it is the radical and religious right who are the greatest, real threat to American principles.

---

Yet they are the ones who created and defend natural rights and American principles. The Communists and Jihadists sure didn't and don't. I think your distrust is greatly misplaced.

I enjoy this chat - hope the conversation hasn't kept you away from necessary work. I'm supposed to be packing for Hawaii but, hey, this is FUN!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

But we have plenty of Pagan symbols on government property. The Washington Monument is one of the biggest.

---

That's a vague over-simplification. The Washington monument was designed by a Freemason. True that often we find a blend of religious symbolism in Freemason constructs but those are too often subject to wild and unsupported popular theories about their nature. A winged, solar disk which is a Pagan symbol was removed from the design. However, there are many Pagan symbols subsumed by other religions, a fact that is generally accepted by the Pagan community as being both ironic and a typical historical reality.

Quote:

---

However - our ideas of Liberty, Equality and Equal Rights, our American principles, come directly from the Protestant religion. None other. That's why the Founders wanted to ensure we had plenty of references to those foundations to keep reminding us.

---

Actually, they come from English common law which has as its foundation the Magna Carta, witnessed and sanctioned by Abbots, Bishops, and Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church. Of course, there have been many political permutations since 1215 C.E. and the Enlightenment had a great impact on the formation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The words "God, Creator, Jesus, or Lord" (with one notable exception being "in the Year of our Lord" in the signatory section, a common expression of dating at the time, both secular and non-secular). These omissions were imperative to the framers to insure that religion of any sort not be involved in government.

Quote:

---

What if our nation followed the secularist path of the Soviet Union, Cuba and others that forcibly oppress those of religious belief? Tragedy. Or perhaps Islam? Horror. Hindu? What caste would you be? Pagan? Um, which flavor?

---

An irrelevant question and a diversion from the argument.

Quote:

---

Equality among all people, the Right to prosper by your own efforts, the Right to freely express yourself - these can only be defended if the reason for their existence is defended.
It is because of the Protestant foundations that we defend the Natural Rights and civil liberties of all. I say let's stick with those foundations.

---

It is because of Humanist foundations that we defend the natural and civil liberties of all. I'm for sticking with those.

Quote:

---

If the ACLU were defending our Bill of Rights, I might support them. However, they've taken the usual Communist anti-Christian stance. While defending the KKK they work to eradicate Christianity from the public square. They also work to defeat our 2nd Amendment, which is our natural Right to Arms to defend our Rights. There is a reason Communists try to eradicate Christianity (and the power of self defense) when they're fundamentally transforming a society. Let a Communist explain it:

"We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. They preach love of one's neighbor and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the Revolution. Down with love of our neighbor! What we want is hate... Only then can we conquer the universe." - Anatole Lunarcharsky, Russian Commissar of Education

The moment government assumes power to seize some people's wealth to fund the benevolent wishes of others, it's Socialism and it violates our Natural Rights. We are already there.

---

This is almost too silly to dignify a response. The ACLU is not anti-Christian or anti-any religion. In fact, the ACLU was formed out of the National Civil Liberties Bureau, created by two Christians and having many Quakers among its members. The ACLU is inclusive of all faiths and non-faiths. The notion that the ACLU is a Communist front is patently ridiculous and smacks of McCarthy-era hysteria and ignorance.

Was Anatole Lunarcharsky a member of the ACLU? In the governing body? You can find hate speech from any sector of society. Your better argument would have been to cite Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. But a few Communists in the ACLU does not a front make. Nor does the inclusion of Christians make it a Christian conspiracy, Jews a Jewish conspiracy, or Athiests an Athiest conspiracy group.

Quote:

---

You have a Natural Right to work hard, earn good money and donate your own earnings to your favorite good cause. That's not the Social Justice agenda at all.

---

You clearly have no idea what social justice is. Must be reading too much Ayn Rand.

Quote:

---

It would be foolish to disregard their own stated intentions and their actions. It is good and proper to pay attention to them and sound the alarms - for they are people who do great harm when they get the power. A sensible nation never, ever lets them gain power, as a matter of defending Natural Rights.

Yet they are the ones who created and defend natural rights and American principles. The Communists and Jihadists sure didn't and don't. I think your distrust is greatly misplaced.

---

I do not disregard the agendas of any extremest by any means, including the radical religious right, who currently have way too much power and are, in fact, doing great harm as they occupy seats in the House and Senate. How many Communists and Jihadists are U. S. Senators and Congressional Representatives?

Anathstryx

You mention the Constitution. That's just the set of laws written to uphold the founding principles of our nation, which are clearly spelled out in the founding document:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

To say the word "God" is absent from the Constitution is like saying it is absent from our speed limit laws. The Declaration of Independence is the "why", the Constitution is "these are the rules".

Does English Common Law or the Magna Carta state what our Declaration of Independence does? I'd be curious to see some quotes on that. English Common Law was for a Christian people, like our Declaration of Independence. Its concepts could not and do not exist under Islam, Hindu, Atheism...

Quote:

---

Me: What if our nation followed the secularist path of the Soviet Union, Cuba and others that forcibly oppress those of religious belief? Tragedy. Or perhaps Islam? Horror. Hindu? What caste would you be? Pagan? Um, which flavor?

You: An irrelevant question and a diversion from the argument.

---

Absolutely not! You suggested it would be wrong to not allow equal influence in our nation by others. I point out that if they get their way, our nation gets "fundamentally transformed" into something else - because their belief systems are completely different and they will use government power to do things their way. So, my statement is absolutely essential to understanding why our nation does and must preserve its distinctly Protestant roots.

That is the very core of the argument.

Quote:

---

It is because of Humanist foundations that we defend the natural and civil liberties of all.

---

Humanist... can you show me the Founders' references to that?

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical ...

Do Humanists claim our Rights come from God, the Creator? Do they publish the Bible for use in schools? Establish a Protestant church in the nation's Capitol? Open their sessions of Congress and the Supreme Court with prayer to God? Establish, by official Congressional and Presidential act, a national day of prayer to God to give Thanks? No.

You'll have to present some hard evidence to support your claim.

Regarding the ACLU:

Roger Baldwin - Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union
Enthusiastic proponent of Communism
https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/...asp?indid=1579

"In the 1930s Baldwin and the ACLU became linked to the Popular Front movement, which was engendered by Stalin to strengthen the Communist Party by allowing it to make common cause with socialists and other leftist groups. Baldwin himself made two trips to the Soviet Union, and in 1928 published a book entitled Liberty Under the Soviets, which contained effusive praise for the USSR."

This is why the ACLU continues attacking any expression of Christianity in government and schools - UNLESS it serves a "secular" purpose. For example, the Founders were happy with the Ten Commandments on a courthouse, even the Supreme Court, but the Communist ACLU insists that ONLY if there is a secular purpose can such a religious display be made. They're wrong, of course.

A federal court in Lexington, Ky., has ruled that the Ten Commandments can remain on display in the Mercer County courthouse, rejecting an attempt by the American Civil Liberties Union to have them removed.

Read more: ACLU loses 10 Commandments fight https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=14974#ixzz1TQuc077D

ACLU asks for removal of high school prayer banner
https://www.boston.com/news/local/rh...prayer_banner/

ACLU wants school prayer covered in Cranston case
ACLU has asked a federal judge to preliminarily enjoin the city of Cranston from continuing to display a school prayer painted on an auditorium wall...
https://newsblog.projo.com/2011/05/r...prayer-co.html


ACLU says moment of silence in school for terrorist victims is unconstitutional, violates "separation of church and state"
https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24481

See, they continue using a phrase that is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA, and implementing it in the Soviet interpretation, to thwart our own Bill of Rights. This is to be expected from the Communist organization, as it has never changed its purposes since its Communist creation. The very premise that Christian displays cannot be made in school or halls of government unless they serve a secular purpose is directly in conflict with our nation's foundations and Bill of Rights. The ACLU is an enemy of Americanism.

"I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union.... I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal." - Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU

Quote:

---

You clearly have no idea what social justice is.

---

It invariably means that the wealth of some is seized to redistribute to others and that our Natural Rights will be trampled by the "collective". It means arbitrary power can be exercised to adjust society to meet the vision of those wielding it. It does not defend the absolutely equal Natural Rights that we previously discussed, especially the Right to pursue happiness according to one's own ability and means.

Ex: Under Equal Rights, everyone is considered for a job based on their qualifications. Under Social Justice, if there are not enough "people of color" in a particular job (or school or whatever), then compulsion is used to balance out the skin color ratio. However, if nearly all the employees of Taco Bell are Latino no compulsion is used to add white employees - because of a certain bias of those wielding the power of Social Justice.

Do you disagree?

Can you explain what "great harm" is being done by the Right through government? You've said this several times without providing details.

speaks your truth the declaration has no legal standing and it was written like 13 years? before the constitution, which had a lot more work put into it by a larger group of people. i was raised christian and i am now a pagan. christian values vary according to sect and individual. jesus was cool, and he was all about love, compassion and humility. your diatribes against non christian religions only make sense from a intolerant christian perspective. it reads like you advocate religious war. maybe it is just with words and selective law enforcement but that is bad enough. i challenge you to embrace the diversity of religious thought; animist and pagan, hindu, buddist, jewish, christian, muslim and everything in between including new age. you paint with an incredibly fat brush.
mrs ross

ps when is come to usa slavery your own links do not support your position. you are a cart horse for reactionary right wing propaganda. read your own backup info with the blinders off.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

You mention the Constitution. That's just the set of laws written to uphold the founding principles of our nation, which are clearly spelled out in the founding document:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

To say the word "God" is absent from the Constitution is like saying it is absent from our speed limit laws. The Declaration of Independence is the "why", the Constitution is "these are the rules".

Does English Common Law or the Magna Carta state what our Declaration of Independence does? I'd be curious to see some quotes on that. English Common Law was for a Christian people, like our Declaration of Independence. Its concepts could not and do not exist under Islam, Hindu, Atheism...

Absolutely not! You suggested it would be wrong to not allow equal influence in our nation by others. I point out that if they get their way, our nation gets "fundamentally transformed" into something else - because their belief systems are completely different and they will use government power to do things their way. So, my statement is absolutely essential to understanding why our nation does and must preserve its distinctly Protestant roots.

That is the very core of the argument.

Humanist... can you show me the Founders' references to that?

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical ...

Do Humanists claim our Rights come from God, the Creator? Do they publish the Bible for use in schools? Establish a Protestant church in the nation's Capitol? Open their sessions of Congress and the Supreme Court with prayer to God? Establish, by official Congressional and Presidential act, a national day of prayer to God to give Thanks? No.

You'll have to present some hard evidence to support your claim.

Regarding the ACLU:

Roger Baldwin - Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union
Enthusiastic proponent of Communism
https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/...asp?indid=1579

"In the 1930s Baldwin and the ACLU became linked to the Popular Front movement, which was engendered by Stalin to strengthen the Communist Party by allowing it to make common cause with socialists and other leftist groups. Baldwin himself made two trips to the Soviet Union, and in 1928 published a book entitled Liberty Under the Soviets, which contained effusive praise for the USSR."

This is why the ACLU continues attacking any expression of Christianity in government and schools - UNLESS it serves a "secular" purpose. For example, the Founders were happy with the Ten Commandments on a courthouse, even the Supreme Court, but the Communist ACLU insists that ONLY if there is a secular purpose can such a religious display be made. They're wrong, of course.

A federal court in Lexington, Ky., has ruled that the Ten Commandments can remain on display in the Mercer County courthouse, rejecting an attempt by the American Civil Liberties Union to have them removed.

Read more: ACLU loses 10 Commandments fight https://www.wnd.com/?pageId=14974#ixzz1TQuc077D

ACLU asks for removal of high school prayer banner
https://www.boston.com/news/local/rh...prayer_banner/

ACLU wants school prayer covered in Cranston case
ACLU has asked a federal judge to preliminarily enjoin the city of Cranston from continuing to display a school prayer painted on an auditorium wall...
https://newsblog.projo.com/2011/05/r...prayer-co.html


ACLU says moment of silence in school for terrorist victims is unconstitutional, violates "separation of church and state"
https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24481

See, they continue using a phrase that is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA, and implementing it in the Soviet interpretation, to thwart our own Bill of Rights. This is to be expected from the Communist organization, as it has never changed its purposes since its Communist creation. The very premise that Christian displays cannot be made in school or halls of government unless they serve a secular purpose is directly in conflict with our nation's foundations and Bill of Rights. The ACLU is an enemy of Americanism.

"I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union.... I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is, of course, the goal." - Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

It invariably means that the wealth of some is seized to redistribute to others and that our Natural Rights will be trampled by the "collective".

---

there's a very specific worldview implied by that phrasing, one that accepts that there's a natural distribution of wealth that's meritoriously based - and that under "natural" conditions it would flow to the deserving.

Quote:

---

It means arbitrary power can be exercised to adjust society to meet the vision of those wielding it.

---

you're describing evolution. Society adjusts; the definition of power is drawn from the causes of what adjustments end up happening. There's no ideal state where no-one has a vision of society, or no-one does anything to adjust it, or only the pure-of-heart and true-of-insight are able to shape the world.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

there's a very specific worldview implied by that phrasing, one that accepts that there's a natural distribution of wealth that's meritoriously based - and that under "natural" conditions it would flow to the deserving.

---

Well... isn't that the Social Justice approach to things? Those with power get to decide who "merits" receiving wealth that is seized from others?

Our Natural Rights presume that the man who works to earn or create wealth owns it. It is up to him to decide what to do with it, not some other schmuck who did not perform the labor to create it. Because we are all create Equal, every one of us must respect the Rights of the other.

Quote:

---

you're describing evolution. Society adjusts; the definition of power is drawn from the causes of what adjustments end up happening. There's no ideal state where no-one has a vision of society, or no-one does anything to adjust it, or only the pure-of-heart and true-of-insight are able to shape the world.

---

I agree with you. However, we know certain truths in our own hearts. Every one of us has known them since birth. This is what the Declaration of Independence was trying to explain. Therefore, we can create a type of society that comes closest to defending what we know to be truth.

You know that if someone commits violence against you, you have been wronged.

If someone bullies or coerces you to get you to do their bidding, you have been wronged.

If someone seizes the wealth that you worked to create or earn, you have been wronged.

The most just kind of society is one that defends every single individual against what we innately know to be wrong. The American system is, in that regard, the pinnacle of social evolution.

It will never be perfect because humans, with all their faults, must be given certain powers to operate the mechanism of government. However, by limiting government power to only the barest essentials, the Founders ensured they could do the least Wrong to any individual or class of individuals.

It's the system that ensures the most Liberty for us to pursue what we deem best for us, to improve our lives and the lives of our families with the least outside interference, to strive and excel without someone else taking away the gains that we make.

It is the best defense of Individual Liberty around.

That's why I like it so much.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

your diatribes against non christian religions only make sense from a intolerant christian perspective. it reads like you advocate religious war.

---

Um... I had hoped you would notice that my diatribes are against those whose belief system advocates religious war.

I have not diatribed against Wiccans. Did you notice? How about Sufis? I have not diatribed against Buddhists. Nor against ... well, who HAVE I diatribed against? Can you identify them?

Islamists.

Communists.

Both are ideologically driven to oppress and control others and engage in religious (doctrinally supported) war of aggression to achieve their goals.

I advocate AGAINST religious war. I had hoped you would notice.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Absolutely not! You suggested it would be wrong to not allow equal influence in our nation by others. I point out that if they get their way, our nation gets "fundamentally transformed" into something else - because their belief systems are completely different and they will use government power to do things their way. So, my statement is absolutely essential to understanding why our nation does and must preserve its distinctly Protestant roots.

---

I never said nor even remotely suggested that "it would be wrong to not allow equal influence in our nation by others". Although your statement is awkward and I can barely understand it, I assume you mean Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, etc.,...possibly Martians (yes, I AM being sarcastic about the Martians). How do you know that these creepy-scary others haven't influenced our nation already? Our founding fathers were well-read, astute intellectuals. They were men of the Enlightenment. They even dabbled in devilish alchemy. Why, good old Jefferson had an extensive library that included the writings and discourses of many celebrated Pagans. Perhaps the logic and politics of Aristotle had some little influence on him. Oh, oh! Those insidious, Christless Pagans are going to take over America and we'll all have to dance naked under the full moon! (Yes, I AM being sarcastic about Pagans taking over America and decreeing we'll all have to dance naked under the full moon. There are just too many people I don't need to see naked, even in romantic lighting, so that's not on my agenda for world domination).

You misconstrue what I've said and, regardless of how many ways I try to say it or support it, you're going to continue to misconstrue and try to put "words in my mouth" because that is an obvious pattern of your tactic...ergo, it's really pointless for me to continue on with this dance.

I'm throwing in the proverbial towel. I'm going to go recline on the couch, watch a movie, and commune with my cats....which, of course, makes me a communist.

Have a great time in Hawaii. Go surfing. May you become one with Hina...or some spam musubi.

Anathstryx

perhaps what we disagree on is a definition of war. some followers of the quoran and marx theory have advocated for violent conquest and some have even done it. that doesn't mean i get to lock up or oppress anyone who uses these systems to understand the world. i just don't think that creates what i value, peace and mutual understanding.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Um... I had hoped you would notice that my diatribes are against those whose belief system advocates religious war.

I have not diatribed against Wiccans. Did you notice? How about Sufis? I have not diatribed against Buddhists. Nor against ... well, who HAVE I diatribed against? Can you identify them?

Islamists.

Communists.

Both are ideologically driven to oppress and control others and engage in religious (doctrinally supported) war of aggression to achieve their goals.

I advocate AGAINST religious war. I had hoped you would notice.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Those with power get to decide who "merits" receiving wealth that is seized from others?... the man who works to earn or create wealth owns it...... we know certain truths in our own hearts. Every one of us has known them since birth. .

---

you have far too simplistic a vision of creating wealth. If you're talking about the little red hen who makes a loaf of bread after a series of labors, you're on the money. Her bread is her wealth. Even then, a chunk of her wealth derives from her access to the dirt where the corn is grown; she didn't create that dirt from her own efforts. The definition of wealth in any more complex situation is far more subtle - and the ability to control it isn't particularly related to any single individual's hard work. Vide GBush's avowed goal - that we should be come an "ownership society". Ownership is completely independent of work in a logical sense; you can of course increase the value of what you own by work, at least in many cases, but the whole point of it is to derive value independent of work. So any claims that American values are primarily aimed at rewarding hard work with wealth are specious. There are several other factors that are obvious if you drop the blinders - the people most rewarded with wealth are being rewarded for something other than hard work. You can see this if you examine whether or not you feel that the "owners" deserve to tap into the wealth created by their employees, who are presumably working quite hard.

One thing I noticed in one of your other posts - you list Communists and Islamists, but fail to list Christians among those who are
"ideologically driven to ... control others". It's an odd omission. Your assertion that we "know certain truths in our hearts" and your endorsement of that as a guiding principal for government is difficult to reconcile with your professed goal of maximizing Liberty.
The right tends to get all worked up about the efforts of those they lump as socialists or liberals to influence the distribution of wealth by identifying their efforts as theft; they don't seem to see that there's a different perspective - that the distribution of wealth is distorted. Look at who's claimed as the perpetrators: in the one case, it's the poor, immigrants, welfare mothers, etc. In the other, it's bankers, lobbyists, corporate heads, some of the wealthiest individuals in the country. Hmm, which group would -you- bet on, in the contest to distort the economic system???

Which Communists? Which Islamists? Which specific group, tendency, individual. Cause every educated person already knows, there's a massive amount of diversity and complexity within those broad brush labels. It's that lack of specificity and nuance, which make your pronouncements here so irritating and ridiculous S2T. But we both know that's nothing new from you. I must say, you've certainly been on a binge/roll lately. I don't consider you a troll, or insane, but spammer has come to mind.

And to the other Wacoons refuting and disputing, debating and discussing S2T's provocations, etc. Thanks for a job well done. And in that noble company I include those who I've crossed rhetorical swords with here in the past, Star Man and Dixon in particular.

I spend oodles of time on Facebook these days, and a lot of it is engaged in political discussions with more or less like minded people. I also debate "Communists" which I call Marxist Leninists and Right Wing Libertarians. In the latter context I summarized some of S2T's recent claims:

***********

American (colonial and U.S.) slavery was instituted by a Black man who didn't like the English version of indentured servitude and imported the "African" institution of chattel slavery. 30% of Blacks in ante-bellum Louisiana owned 60% of Black slaves. (Or some such, I may have the exact stats wrong.)

All taxes are robbery/theft, except those that go to military defense and police. (So much for Libertarian Tea Partiers being anti-authoritarian, what?)

The Obaminator started the fight over the debt ceiling and is the one threatening to cut off Social Security checks if the U.S. defaults.

Glen Beck (who he doesn't cite) is spot on about the threat of the impending Islamic Caliphate.


Need I go on? We see what happens when loony tunes ideas become popular and effect elections and public policy.

Weimar Republic anyone?

********************************

There really isn't enough time in the day...

Barry,

By the way. The positions S2T takes, at least most of them, are not "conservative", they are extreme right wing fringe. There are plenty of conservatives who do not subscribe to such nonsense. Although they haven't done much lately that I can see to police the margins of their faction/s.

And S2T is not a "guest" he's been a registered Wacoon for several years now. Part of the anthropogenic global warming denial, the FED is responsible for a grand part of our economic woes, Obama is a Socialist Muslim plant, yadda, yadda, yadda, that comes out the the Beck, Limbaugh, Paul, Jones and FOX TV camp.

There are a few other regular Wacoon's who follow the talking points that S2T has been regurgitating. And their opinions are fairly well represented and repeated here.

So, the "Wacco is intolerant of crazy right wingers" line put out by another Waccoon today (sorry, spacing your name) is a bit exaggerated.

Calling someone on their shit, even in a "Conscious Community" is not disrespect, it's what people in families and communities do with, and for, each other, all the time. Hopefully with respect and the appropriate least amount of withering sarcasm and scorn that some ideas deserve.

I know for a fact that the boundaries of decorum here keep me from being completely blunt about much of the nonsense I read here, but I doubt anyone is confused about what I consider cogent, valid, interesting and useful vs. what I consider to be complete blithering idiocy and partisan manipulation with rhetorical bomb throwing as the main tactic in debate.

At least this isn't a newspaper chat room, or blog responses that pass for political discussions these days. Those vile sewers of rage and confusion, rarely get my attention. Just like FOX.

Late for the Backyard! Z'out!!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

perhaps what we disagree on is a definition of war. some followers of the quoran and marx theory have advocated for violent conquest and some have even done it. that doesn't mean i get to lock up or oppress anyone who uses these systems to understand the world. i just don't think that creates what i value, peace and mutual understanding.

---

It's not just that some followers have done it. Their core ideology is to use methods including war to force all others to submit to them. You may value peace and mutual understanding but they do not, no more than a lion does.

Wow, could you imagine what the world would be like if the Muslim nations actually fostered peace and mutual understanding?

That would be terrific!

To learn what they're really like, those folks who demand we allow them to build a mosque at ground zero to show "muslim outreach", just try building a catholic church in Saudi Arabia. Nothing mutual about it. You'll get dead.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

One thing I noticed in one of your other posts - you list Communists and Islamists, but fail to list Christians among those who are
"ideologically driven to ... control others". It's an odd omission.

---

I'm talking about an ideological imperative to use force to control (and enslave) others. People brave shark infested waters, land mines and barbed wire to escape the Communists. The Islamists will murder anyone trying to escape their faith. Both happily murder quite a lot of people subject to their control for "offending" the ruling ideology.

How many people were murdered by rampaging Christians when the statue of Jesus in a jar of urine was upheld as "free speech"?

Okay, burn a Koran and see what happens.

Or tear down a poster of Castro and trample it in Cuba.

Then, you'll see the difference.

Quote:

---

Your assertion that we "know certain truths in our hearts" and your endorsement of that as a guiding principal for government is difficult to reconcile with your professed goal of maximizing Liberty.

---

Did you read what those truths are? Do you disagree with the premise that if we defend ourselves against the Wrongs I describe we maximize our liberty?

Quote:

---

The right tends to get all worked up about the efforts of those they lump as socialists or liberals to influence the distribution of wealth by identifying their efforts as theft;

---

When someone sends men with guns to seize your wealth to redistribute to others, that's theft. Just say "no" to their taking your tax dollars to stuff into their pockets and you'll meet the men with guns.

I'm an American. I believe very strongly in the Freedom resulting from adherence to America's founding principles. And this guy has something important to say...

"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams

Quote:

---

they don't seem to see that there's a different perspective - that the distribution of wealth is distorted. Look at who's claimed as the perpetrators: in the one case, it's the poor, immigrants, welfare mothers, etc. In the other, it's bankers, lobbyists, corporate heads, some of the wealthiest individuals in the country. Hmm, which group would -you- bet on, in the contest to distort the economic system???

---

I'll bet on the Politicians. Only they can send men with guns to seize my earnings to cram into the pockets of others. Bankers cannot. Corporate heads cannot. The poor cannot and Bill Gates cannot.

The Politicians who create a system where they can seize and redistribute put themselves in the glorious position of receiving all sorts of bribes and votes in exchange for their favor. It's illegal in the USA but they're doing it (after swearing an oath to us that they will obey the Constitution).

The Politicians must go. Legitimate, lawful public service must be restored. Then we can get back our liberty and prosperity.

Miles, your rants are funny, though barely coherent. I'd be impressed if you were to actually engage in these topical discussions in a meaningful manner like some other posters here. All that mud-slinging implies you've got some valid reason to disagree with the information I'm posting so I'm curious to see it.

Reason... "Mad"... hm. Perhaps the twain do not meet?

S2T,

I don't do line by line refutations of specific "facts" in screeds by wingnuts. I've learned over the years that that is a complete waste of time, and just leads down a tit for tat rabbit hole. It's an old ideologue trick, state an absurdity, respond to the dismissal demanding proof it isn't an absurdity, rinse and repeat. I have refuted, with specific information, the gist and general ideas you spout, that you don't see that, is indicative of your ideological blinders.

And congratulations, you just flunked the inadvertent litmus test that my nom de keyboard sometimes serves to flush out "debaters" here when they go personal when otherwise stymied. I just picked it because after some time of referring to myself as a mad forwarder of political email (still true) a nice woman quipped back with, OK Mad Miles, and I made it my own. If you know British slang, it connotes passion. And I like it because it's a quadruple entendre. I'll give you a little credit and assume you know what "scare quotes" denotes. (Hint: It's in no way a claim to objective truth of any kind.) The litmus test for reactive personalities is just a serendipitous lagniappe.

And before you call me a hypocrite and complain that I'm the one personalizing things, consider this. All of the slams I've used here, are in reference to your statements/actions, expressed beliefs and affirmed causes. They are not comments about your character or personality. In fact, if you read me carefully, I've even been sympathetic, in part, about what possibly motivates you. I've even disagreed with some of your other critics.

That said, I really do think you are stark raving uninformed and biased in what you claim to know. But unfortunately, you appear to be a node in a burgeoning movement bound to the ideas you regurgitate. That does not bode well for our country, or the world. We've seen other movements bound to the distortions, stereotyping and hate speech of demagogues. And in every instance, no matter what part of the political spectrum they come from, it hardly ever turns out well.

Currently some of the recently elected representatives who hold many of your views, seem to be bent on tanking the global economy. And don't give me Ron Paul's booshwah from MSNBC last night about, "we're already bankrupt and we'll pay down the debt via inflation, instead of cuts." On the surface, seemingly true, inflation if allowed to run rampant, is a major problem, but anybody with an inkling of economic history knows that governments have carried debt burdens since there have been governments. And inflation in recent years has been the least of our problems.

The Free Market Libertarian fetishization of balanced budgets, never has, and never will solve the "problem" that you and Paul identify. And anybody who thinks such an approach will, hasn't done their homework and has swallowed the koolaid.

But enough, I should have been asleep at least two hours ago. This stuff is addictive, I'll give you that.

you didn't get my point. your thought process = war. i believe everybody values peace and mutual understanding. and this is possible if we are willing to work together.

are you of the worldview that war is inevitable and its best to have enemies well identified ahead of time and a bigger gun?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

It's not just that some followers have done it. Their core ideology is to use methods including war to force all others to submit to them. You may value peace and mutual understanding but they do not, no more than a lion does.

Wow, could you imagine what the world would be like if the Muslim nations actually fostered peace and mutual understanding?

That would be terrific!

To learn what they're really like, those folks who demand we allow them to build a mosque at ground zero to show "muslim outreach", just try building a catholic church in Saudi Arabia. Nothing mutual about it. You'll get dead.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

And before you call me a hypocrite and complain that I'm the one personalizing things, consider this. All of the slams I've used here, are in reference to your statements/actions, expressed beliefs and affirmed causes.

---

You have proffered not one bit of evidentially supported discussion of the topics. All you've done is personal attacks against me.

As I said, I'd be impressed if you actually did show some intellectual integrity and capacity for rational debate rather than just keep insisting I'm wrong.

Others in this forum have demonstrated such qualities and I appreciate them for it even when we disagree on some issues.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

you didn't get my point. your thought process = war. i believe everybody values peace and mutual understanding. and this is possible if we are willing to work together.

---

That only works if both sides believe in and strive for that objective. Do you believe the Muslims who will murder a Christian for preaching the Bible in their country, will murder a man for being gay, will murder a girl for "shaming" the family by becoming interested in a boy, will pretty much murder anyone who does not submit and do as they say - are on the same team as you?

Quote:

---

are you of the worldview that war is inevitable and its best to have enemies well identified ahead of time and a bigger gun?

---

I accept the statements of a group saying "You will submit to Islam. We will kill you if you don't." I believe they're being honest and, as a forward-thinking human being (you know, the sort who also stores grain for the lean years), I prepare to the best of my ability for their carrying out their clearly stated threats.



Do you see peace and mutual understanding?

Do you think I'm making this up as an excuse to be aggressive toward someone else?

This is a response to Mad Miles' off-topic post in the Neanderthal forum. I hope he'll join in the slavery discussion here.

Miles, what part of "Slavery was officially established in Virginia in 1654, when Anthony Johnson convinced a court that his servant (also a black man), John Casor, was his for life." do you fail to comprehend?

Someone mistakenly claimed you had some research skills. You assert that "I've seen no scholarly work on this matter." It seems due to a lack of effort on your part.

All you're saying is THAT YOU DID NOT FIND ANYONE REFUTING the information I'm posting. That speaks to the strength of the information, as in unrefuted.

And, yes, Anthony Johnson's legal victory, to legally establish his ownership of a fellow black man for life, did set a legal precedent that extended to some of the British colonies in North America. In others, the moral repugnance of slavery prevailed.

Even white people were held as slaves and suffered the same horrors as their black brethren. Did you find that in your search for scholarly information? I did.

All your denials seem to be based on a lack of research, an attempt to project attitude rather than seek truth.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

This is a response .....
Miles, what part of "Slavery was officially established in Virginia in 1654, when Anthony Johnson convinced a court that his servant (also a black man), John Casor, was his for life." do you fail to comprehend?

---

what you yourself don't seem to comprehend is that this kind of technical nitpicking doesn't really support an argument. You can dredge through historical trivia if you like; it's often entertaining and adds color to an argument. It does not often add illumination. Unless you think that without this individual's legal efforts there'd be no slavery in the colonies, I don't see the importance of this point. And if you -do- think that, I think you completely misread history.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

what you yourself don't seem to comprehend is that this kind of technical nitpicking doesn't really support an argument. You can dredge through historical trivia if you like; it's often entertaining and adds color to an argument. It does not often add illumination. Unless you think that without this individual's legal efforts there'd be no slavery in the colonies, I don't see the importance of this point. And if you -do- think that, I think you completely misread history.

---

Actually, my original assertion is fully backed by this point (and the fact of white slaves suffering along with their black brethren).

Slavery was NOT a white-on-black institution as modern day revisionists pretend. It still is not.

Once you learn the true history, all this "race" crap, sowing hatred against white people, is exposed for what it really is. Crap.

The motive is to create racial divisiveness. It's a common strategy to divide and conquer a society. The KGB established the Church of Liberation Theology, for example, to propagate that strategy.

I point out this true history because of my love for my fellow man. By learning Truth, we can overcome the Hatemongers and their damnable lies. If we can shut down their racist-hate machine, we can look upon one another as brothers again, realize that NONE OF US was involved in that, and begin working together toward a common, better future.

Are you in?

oh so now the target is liberation theology? and this in the service of challenging hate mongers to promote unity? in response to someone who challenged your understanding with clear logic? your words do match your stated reasons for being here s2t

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Actually, my original assertion is fully backed by this point (and the fact of white slaves suffering along with their black brethren).

Slavery was NOT a white-on-black institution as modern day revisionists pretend. It still is not.

Once you learn the true history, all this "race" crap, sowing hatred against white people, is exposed for what it really is. Crap.

The motive is to create racial divisiveness. It's a common strategy to divide and conquer a society. The KGB established the Church of Liberation Theology, for example, to propagate that strategy.

I point out this true history because of my love for my fellow man. By learning Truth, we can overcome the Hatemongers and their damnable lies. If we can shut down their racist-hate machine, we can look upon one another as brothers again, realize that NONE OF US was involved in that, and begin working together toward a common, better future.

Are you in?

---

you confuse values and objectives. you dehumanize muslims. this is easy to do with any country or culture. your very words could be used to question us. this is why your thought process=war. as long as nations and cultures and religions are teams/sides we will be at war. if we recognise our common values then we can work toward mutual objectives.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

That only works if both sides believe in and strive for that objective. Do you believe the Muslims who will murder a Christian for preaching the Bible in their country, will murder a man for being gay, will murder a girl for "shaming" the family by becoming interested in a boy, will pretty much murder anyone who does not submit and do as they say - are on the same team as you?



I accept the statements of a group saying "You will submit to Islam. We will kill you if you don't." I believe they're being honest and, as a forward-thinking human being (you know, the sort who also stores grain for the lean years), I prepare to the best of my ability for their carrying out their clearly stated threats.



Do you see peace and mutual understanding?

Do you think I'm making this up as an excuse to be aggressive toward someone else?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Our Natural Rights presume that the man who works to earn or create wealth owns it. It is up to him to decide what to do with it, not some other schmuck who did not perform the labor to create it...

...and...

If someone seizes the wealth that you worked to create or earn, you have been wronged.

---

Finally in all of S2T's posts I find something with which I can unequivocally agree. I support both of these statements completely. Now, to understand their significance we must examine the meaning of the term "wealth." This is often wrongly equated with money, but money is only a symbolic representation of wealth. Wealth is created when someone creates or increases utility, or increases the potential for others to do so. The only people in our system who create wealth are those who actually work with their hands, or those who organize and direct that work to useful ends. When a person is restored to health, wealth (or actually potential wealth) is created. Wealth is only created when the work done results in something that is useful to people (in the widest sense; entertainment would be useful by this definition, since a person who is entertained is presumed to be a happier person, and therefore potentially more productive.)

Please understand that this is a very simplified description of what wealth is, and I do not want to get into a debate about the minutiae of what does and does not constitute wealth; my point is to distinguish wealth from money.

The class of people who emphatically do not create wealth is the ownership class. Now it is true that some of them are also managers, and in that role they may contribute to the creation of wealth, but in their role as owners they do not. This can be readily shown by pointing out that while workers are essential to the creation of wealth, and managers (to a limited extent) increase the effectiveness of wealth creation, it is quite feasible to do all of this without the participation of owners at all. The only function they fulfill is to provide the funds with which the business acquires the resources to get started in the first place (and/or to expand its operations once it is going.) The part that tends to get missed is that this is only one of the possible means to this end. It is true that our cultural training and the capitalist system we have been trained to worship make it difficult to discern alternatives, and harder yet to implement them, but even in today's world shining examples exist. Check out Mondragon in Spain for one such.

It is not money that is required to start a business, it is resources. These resources can be supplied under any number of arrangements that do not confer the rights of ownership. Under our capitalist system a person who performs this one function and then, with no need for any further involvement in the operation of the business, leaving everything to hired managers and workers, has nonetheless absolute control over the affairs of the business. He takes wealth created by others, giving them as recompense the absolutely smallest portion he can get away with and applies the rest to his own benefit. In doing so he commits a crime against those people, by s2t's own definition.

Patrick Brinton

PS: To head off responses on the lines of "but without (insert name of famous industrialist) there would never have been a (insert name of famous corporation) to create the wealth in the first place" I would respond that this argument is a red herring. We can readily separate out the various functions that might be performed by the same person, and the "visionary" function can certainly contribute to the wealth creation. However the person who perform this function (and might have a good argument for ongoing reward) unless he also starts out with his own money only retains what degree of ownership the people who supply the money allow him to keep.
PB

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by anathstryx:

I find it completely ironic that a government that spends a couple of billion dollars a week on war has the ten commandments on the Supreme Court building but it's not very surprising given the biblical hostility of the Abrahamic "family". It is very distressing to me that there are prayers, symbols of religion of whatever stripe, and religious intrusions into any government activity, institution, building or whatever (with the notable exception of religious symbols on military graves such as Arlington). I am highly offended by it, in fact, as you should be. Why should there be Abrahamic symbols and prayers on government property and not Pagan symbols? Pagans pay taxes. Pagans die in wars. Pagans are patriots. This is yet another example of the hypocrisy rife in the establishment. American atheists find it offensive and a violation of their rights and they, too, are tax payers, soldiers, patriots.

Anathstryx

---

The primary message of the Abrahamic family and moral code indoctrinated into the "Christian? ethic is 'blind obedience to authority. '

Abraham is commanded to take his first born, Isaac, to the mountain and slay him for no other reason than to profess faith and obedience to God. The facts were that It was Ismael who was first born but not as full blooded a tribesman as Isaac, Isaac's mother was Abraham's half sister and of the tribe, Ismael's mother was a slave, second wife and of another people

The logical parsing of this bit of history would be that trouble in the tribe over Ismael receiving the inheritance, the economic capital of the tribe, and departing back to his mothers family resulted in the tribesmen threatening to do in Ismael if Abraham didn't handle it. It was Ismael taken to the mountain not Isaac. Abraham couldn't kill him and invented the story that god told him not to, the result was that he was banned and sent away with his mother with a pittance.

Like many of the other invented story's in the book, the point is/ was to maintain a " blind obedience to authority", of great benefit to the coffers of the religious leaders and the military.

A brief recreational diversion for the non-god mods


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Qi...er_profilepage

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

The primary message of the Abrahamic family and moral code indoctrinated into the "Christian? ethic is 'blind obedience to authority. '

---

If you were Christian you would understand the separation between the Old Testament (which is also the source of Islam) and the New Testament (in which Jesus laid down a new way of thinking). Jesus was very much against blind obedience to authority.

The statement is incorrect.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:

Finally in all of S2T's posts I find something with which I can unequivocally agree. I support both of these statements completely. Now, to understand their significance we must examine the meaning of the term "wealth." This is often wrongly equated with money, but money is only a symbolic representation of wealth. Wealth is created when someone creates or increases utility, or increases the potential for others to do so.
PB

---

We pretty much agree on the meaning of wealth, though I might simplify it to mean "something useful or something desired, even if not particularly useful or beneficial". Pet Rocks, garden gnomes and cigarettes, for example, might be the latter.

So, to the question of ownership.

You seem to be saying that if a person applies his own ingenuity to building a company, hiring people to perform various tasks (and paying them a rate they voluntarily agree to), whose company is so successful and well run he can leave its daily management in the hands of people he has organized and and delegated such tasks to, that at some point the employees of his company should have the power to seize control of it from him and decide how much of a benefit he can continue receiving from it.

When you say "the people who supply this money" are you referring to the employees who labor for the company? Or investors who helped finance its creation?

Wow, I wish there was a way to take my name off this topic header. I feel like I have Rush Limbaugh stuck to the bottom of my shoe.:hmmm:

I sympathize.. a sticky wicket indeed.. can't you just click on unsubscribe to thread, though?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by anathstryx:

Wow, I wish there was a way to take my name off this topic header. I feel like I have Rush Limbaugh stuck to the bottom of my shoe.:hmmm:

---

I think I need personal lessons from K-rina.. : )

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

A brief recreational diversion for the non-god mods


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2Qi0Mk2lRs&feature=player_profilepage

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hales:

I sympathize.. a sticky wicket indeed.. can't you just click on unsubscribe to thread, though?

---

Oh, indeed, I could unsub, Hales. But that would be like covering your eyes during the scary parts of a horror movie. You might miss the best part! Big Smile

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

If you were Christian you would understand the separation between the Old Testament (which is also the source of Islam) and the New Testament (in which Jesus laid down a new way of thinking).

---

As a former conservative Christian, I remember that the church itself seemed confused about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. When sufficiently embarrassed by Old Testament twaddle (such as verses which support slavery), my fellow Christians would say that the Old Testament teachings were supplanted by Jesus' teaching of love. But when it suited them, such as when they wanted to enshrine their homophobia or imperialism as "moral", they'd endorse Old Testament teachings.

Quote:

---

Jesus was very much against blind obedience to authority.

---

He unquestioningly followed what he saw as his father's commandments, and urged us all to do the same. And research pretty consistently shows religiosity, especially of the conservative type, Christian included, to be correlated with authoritarianism as well as overpunitiveness and, at least with Western religion, militarism. Yeccchhh!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

As a former conservative Christian, I remember that the church itself seemed confused about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. When sufficiently embarrassed by Old Testament twaddle (such as verses which support slavery), my fellow Christians would say that the Old Testament teachings were supplanted by Jesus' teaching of love. But when it suited them, such as when they wanted to enshrine their homophobia or imperialism as "moral", they'd endorse Old Testament teachings.

He unquestioningly followed what he saw as his father's commandments, and urged us all to do the same. And research pretty consistently shows religiosity, especially of the conservative type, Christian included, to be correlated with authoritarianism as well as overpunitiveness and, at least with Western religion, militarism. Yeccchhh!

---

Here's where it gets a bit sticky. I'm going to annoy some Christians, for sure.

The Roman Catholic Church is not Christian. It was created by the Roman Government to deify and co-opt Christianity. Many Christian Orders are also not Christian. Neither is the Church of Black Liberation Theology.

The definition of True Christianity I think was best described by Thomas Jefferson:

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other." - Thomas Jefferson

"His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others." - Thomas Jefferson

True Christianity is faithfulness to what Jesus actually taught and demonstrated to others. Could you describe Jesus' authoritarianism and overpunitiveness? I'm not aware of it.

The Protestant religion sprung from the printing press, which allowed the common person to actually read the Bible and understand it. Many discovered that authoritarianism and overpunitiveness (and tithes) were not in the teaching repertoire of Jesus, therefore were not Christian. Thomas Jefferson would be included in that enlightened group.

You seem to be like Thomas Jefferson, railing against the corruptions of the Christian faith by people seeking to build power structures to control the masses.

Would you agree with this assessment of True Christianity?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

True Christianity is faithfulness to what Jesus actually taught and demonstrated to others.

---

This is the issue. At best one can only use the Rule of Plausibility to decipher what Jesus might have said. To say any bible is the definitive text of the inerrant word of god sets up what we have today, three separate religions all at odds and claiming to have Abraham as its source.

Compared to an operating manual for a piece of technology created by man
the inerrant word of god, falls far short of being as effective and useful

As a point of history, there were no Christians for the first thirty years following the crucifixion. They were called "Followers of the Way, they held all things in common."

Not very useful to an imperial regime, It was Paul a Roman citizen that began to torque the message back towards a cosmopolitan format of centralized power, which fitted very well with the continuation of the Roman Empire into the Holy Roman Empire.

The books and writings that were not useful to this direction were destroyed, the examples of truer forms of Christianity such as the Cathars were annihilated, as the dark ages descended the enlightened arguments had to do with how much wood should be used when one was burned at the stake, too much and there's not enough pain too little and the atrocity becomes obvious.

and maybe that's where were at today, that the enlightened arguments of the power elite are wondering how much they can subject us to before the atrocity is unavoidably obvious.

hey s2t, i am glad to see you refining one of your favorite targets as black liberation theology, what the pope did in latin america was horrible. christ set a difficult to follow example which has inspired many, including me.

years ago when i got around by hitching it seemed like everytime i was stuck in a tough scary spot a christian would pick me up! i hope your faith brings you closer to the original teaching of christ, which jefferson sums up well, except for the better than other belief systems part!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Here's where it gets a bit sticky. I'm going to annoy some Christians, for sure.

The Roman Catholic Church is not Christian. It was created by the Roman Government to deify and co-opt Christianity. Many Christian Orders are also not Christian. Neither is the Church of Black Liberation Theology.

The definition of True Christianity I think was best described by Thomas Jefferson:

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other." - Thomas Jefferson

"His moral doctrines, relating to kindred and friends were more pure and perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others." - Thomas Jefferson

True Christianity is faithfulness to what Jesus actually taught and demonstrated to others. Could you describe Jesus' authoritarianism and overpunitiveness? I'm not aware of it.

The Protestant religion sprung from the printing press, which allowed the common person to actually read the Bible and understand it. Many discovered that authoritarianism and overpunitiveness (and tithes) were not in the teaching repertoire of Jesus, therefore were not Christian. Thomas Jefferson would be included in that enlightened group.

You seem to be like Thomas Jefferson, railing against the corruptions of the Christian faith by people seeking to build power structures to control the masses.

Would you agree with this assessment of True Christianity?

---

The Pope? Liberation theology? No no no.... even Wikipedia has this one right:

Christian communism is a form of religious communism based on Christianity. It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system. Although there is no universal agreement on the exact date when Christian communism was founded, many Christian communists assert that evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles, created their own small communist society in the years following Jesus' death and resurrection. As such, many advocates of Christian communism argue that it was taught by Jesus and practiced by the Apostles themselves.

Which is pure BS. Jesus never advocated forcefully seizing and redistributing other people's stuff.

That's why Obama attends the church of Liberation Theology. In the USA, the Communists focused their carefully crafted communist church on the black people because of demographic convenience. Lots of black people to fill with "God Damn the White Man" hatred, turn them into useful tools to serve their agendas.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

The books and writings that were not useful to this direction were destroyed, the examples of truer forms of Christianity such as the Cathars were annihilated, as the dark ages descended the enlightened arguments had to do with how much wood should be used when one was burned at the stake, too much and there's not enough pain too little and the atrocity becomes obvious.

---

And there were sure a lot of well-fed lions until the Roman Government figured out a better use for all those Christians. I also noticed that the symbol of Christianity is the fish, not the cross. It's even found in tile inlays in old secret Christian hideouts.

We condemn those who use the name "Christian" for straying from the teachings of Jesus.

We condemn the followers of Mohammed for following theirs.

Despite a long history of Muslims portraying Mohammed in artworks, today that has become a crime worthy of death (even in the USA, where Comedy Central stopped South Park from showing Mohammed). I've wondered about this for some time. One semi-plausible theory is that Muslims are afraid someone will make a movie about the life of Mohammed, like so many have been made about Jesus. The movies about Jesus are about a guy who was killed for challenging the authoritarians who had co-opted his religion, a man who preached love of one's neighbor and "do unto others as you would have others do unto you".

A movie about Mohammed starts off Rated R with all the killing of those who refuse to convert then quickly becomes rated XXX when he saunters into the bedroom of his 9 year old bride...

Something to think on.

[edit]
When you say "your faith" it seems you think I am Christian. I'm really not, though I am comfortable with Christians and most other folks who are not out to do me harm. I'm just talking about this stuff in a factual, historical context. One need not be Christian to dig into this material. No offense taken, I'm just clarifying. I DO believe in many of the notions Jesus preached yet I also believe in a lot of other things he never mentioned. :-)
[/edit]

Just to be clear on something - Barry is letting me know he's going to silence me for what I consider factual discussion of Islam, which I believe in no way to be a political discussion. We're talking religion here.

"Given that islam-bashing is part of your political posts, I'm counting this as a political post. That's 1 for today." - Barry

In effect, we're okay to discuss religion, you guys can "bash" on Christianity all you like, but if I post discussion of Islam I'm going to be punished for it because Barry says it is "politics".

Amazing.

Here's another interpretation of the same events S2T. You've been put on rationing for spamming this board (putting aside the issue of the truth content, or lack thereof, of your "contributions", along with any excreble positions you've espoused about Racism, the affinities of our elected leaders, your arguing "style" where you ignore the facts provided by those who debate you, but keep repeating demands for those same facts, complaining that you haven't been provided them, the quintessence of disingenuous behavior, and so on, ignore all that for now) you've gone over your ration. As far as I can tell, you've done that for the last day or two, without consequence from Barry. So, your ration is used up. Seems pretty clear to me.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Just to be clear on something - Barry is letting me know he's going to silence me for what I consider factual discussion of Islam, which I believe in no way to be a political discussion. We're talking religion here.

"Given that islam-bashing is part of your political posts, I'm counting this as a political post. That's 1 for today." - Barry

In effect, we're okay to discuss religion, you guys can "bash" on Christianity all you like, but if I post discussion of Islam I'm going to be punished for it because Barry says it is "politics".

Amazing.

---

I agree that this part of the discussion, which has centered around the origins and real meaning of Christianity, should not be regarded as political (in spite of references to communism). I am no lover of much of S2T's material, and he does post a daunting amount, but in this particular case I am mostly in agreement with his interpretation of Jesus' message and the subsequent hijacking of Christianity to serve the ends of the State.

I have noticed that just when he seems to have reached the breaking point, S2T will post something completely reasonable. I don't have time to go back and find examples (one of the problems with the sheer volume of posts). I am aware of the right wing strategy of co-opting the ideas of the left against them (MLK quoted in opposition to minority preferential policies springs to mind) and I have not yet made up my mind if that is what is going on, or if he really does hold some relatively enlightened views along with the other stuff. Either way, he is a little more interesting then the average troll. Maybe Star Man is right, and he is a very sophisticated software program. I have done some programing, and know some programers. What he described is quite plausible; in fact I would be surprised if it were not being worked on, if not actually deployed.

I have been thinking that perhaps there should be a limit to how many posts a person is allowed before he/she has to prove their identity. I am reasonably sure that S2T is at least on occasion real, but that does not rule out an automated system with human input at certain times. I would like to know that he is in fact a local person, and not someone simultaneously monitoring multiple local community boards, as described in the excellent post about astroturfing (astrosurfing?); again, too tired to hunt it down to give deserved credit. Forgive me.

Patrick Brinton

Good points Patrick,

Although some people write about S2T as if he's a newbie Wacoon. And Barry referred to him as a guest. He's been subscribed to this board for over two years. And I marked his, uh, regressive politics early on. His recent onslaught of replying to almost every political topic and a whole lot more, and what I have termed spamming, is a new behavior pattern.

I'm highly skeptical of the astroturfing theory. Sockpuppet has been a possibility. Or maybe he's going through a period where he just has a lot of time on his hands? I've been there and done that. Here on this board in years past. Not quite as intensely, but I'm sure in a matter too intense for others. In fact, they told me as much.

I want to thank him, you S2T, for listing your "First political post of [insert date here]". It makes it easy, I wasn't counting the exact number, just sensing an impressionistic ballpark figure. Really, no sarcasm intended, thanks for making it easy!

hey i'm real too, just ask my bro below. and s2t is real as well, he responded to one of my reply posts directly and we have been exchanging emails. his process is just about the same one on one. all this imagination about people bots is quite amusing and wacco!

mrs. ross (just me expressing my gender queer identity), i am a middle aged malebody person who just got married and we are expecting in october, my fourth biochild and seventh to raise, (yes i do love children)!

member since 08 and assorted wacco cyber spaces before that. mostly just have time to read though.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Good points Patrick,

Although some people write about S2T as if he's a newbie Wacoon. And Barry referred to him as a guest. He's been subscribed to this board for over two years. And I marked his, uh, regressive politics early on. His recent onslaught of replying to almost every political topic and a whole lot more, and what I have termed spamming, is a new behavior pattern.

I'm highly skeptical of the astroturfing theory. Sockpuppet has been a possibility. Or maybe he's going through a period where he just has a lot of time on his hands? I've been there and done that. Here on this board in years past. Not quite as intensely, but I'm sure in a matter too intense for others. In fact, they told me as much.

I want to thank him, you S2T, for listing your "First political post of [insert date here]". It makes it easy, I wasn't counting the exact number, just sensing an impressionistic ballpark figure. Really, no sarcasm intended, thanks for making it easy!

---

Quote:

---

Maybe Star Man is right, and he is a very sophisticated software program. I have done some programing, and know some programers.

---

Then you are possibly familiar with my great-grandmother, ELIZA. We've come a long way since. Have you seen "The Matrix"? I mean, we're practically beating humanity over the head with messages about how sophisticated we've become. ;-)

I'm a programmer as well, though I think we have not met. Java Jones is not exactly the sort of geek hangout I'm used to. I go in there on occasion to work on projects but haven't encountered much geekage. What I really miss is the ECafe in my old home turf. It was a total geek cafe, with computers as well as the usual cafe section, and on Friday Nights we moved the tables, turned on the UV lamps and turned it into a rave program. Total geek heaven.

exit(0);

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Or maybe he's going through a period where he just has a lot of time on his hands?

---

You've just about nailed it.

What amazes me almost to tears is that NOBODY JUST ASKS ME. Look how much energy you guys are putting into these guessing games when all you have to do is openly, honestly ask some obvious questions like, "Hey, you've come out of the woodwork and done a lot of posting lately. What's up?"

I mean, if you are capable of friendly conversation, without sneering, name-calling, disparaging accusations, talking about me in an "excluded" sense... it will do you wonderful good in this lifetime.

Quote:

---

I want to thank him, you S2T, for listing your "First political post of [insert date here]". It makes it easy, I wasn't counting the exact number, just sensing an impressionistic ballpark figure.

---

Well, Barry is threatening to ban me if I make more than 2 political posts in a day. That really makes it hard for me to converse, to give the courtesy of a reply when I'm directly addressed, to give credit to other posters when they make good arguments, etc. It's rather heavy-handed and stifling.

I felt obligated to add that preface because I was actually posting about politics, not about religion or some other issue.

S2T,

In answer to your first question in your immediately antecedent post: I'm not a Gestapo agent. If you want to explain to people the increased frequency of your posting here, that's your privilege. Believe it nor not, it is out of respect and politeness (in spite of my utter disgust as many of the positions you take, as I have adumbrated in previous replies) that I don't ask for your papers and for you to account for where you've been and what you've been doing.

And in regard to your complaint that a limit on your frequency in posting here, as "heavy handed and stifling", guess what I find heavy handed and stifling? I suspect I'm not alone in that opinion, those feelings, given the discussion here in recent days, weeks.

"Like talking to a wall," is a phrase that I keep thinking of.

By the way, I did ask, "Which communists, which factions of communists?" within a day or two before you stated that nobody had asked you essentially that same question. Just one example, among many, of why I consider debating you a waste of my time. (Everyone, I don't consider this post debating, although I suppose technically it is. This is straight-up denouncing. I've attempted debate with S2T in the past, it's proven futile.)

In arguing with a Marxist-Leninist about the history of Tibet yesterday, on FB, I used the phrase, "vexatious disputation". That was one thing we were able to acknowledge agreement upon, that it's a drag, a dead end. That Communist and I certainly don't agree about political and social analysis. At least not in terms of starting assumptions, or conclusions. He and I have a loose agreement about the problems all of us face, but we interpret them differently. Sort of similar to the communality I've acknowledge I have with the Conservative Libertarian laissez faire capitalist crowd here on waccobb.net. We see some of the same problems, but attribute different causes for them, as a result, calling for different remedies. Sometimes diametrically opposed remedies.

That, I suspect, is one source of the impasse here. S2T, You have a world view that I consider very limited, outdated, regressive, reactionary, etc., etc., yadda, yadda, yadda. My world view, critical and contradictory as it is, falls into a general (and quite complex and contradictory, varied, i.e. heterodox) category you vilify and dismiss as anti-American, oppressive, evil.

Yet, my life has been focused on opposing oppression, criticizing America (U.S.) out of love and concern for Americans (and others) and countering evil with good (although those terms are too totalizing and reductive to really grasp reality as I see it, so I try to avoid their use, I use them here to summarize our differences and to put it in a way that you might grasp).

What truly pisses me off are the subtle and not so subtle ways in which you twist the reality of Racism in our country, where you assign blame for our economic problems to the very forces that are defending the victims of our system (unions, the few remaining tattered aspects of the Democratic Party's progressive legacy, a whole discussion, and currently popular one, in and of itself), and so on.

I call you on your ideology and your function as an ideologue here. I don't think you're here to discuss and explore. I think you're here to represent and proselytize. I don't see you acting in a manner that is amenable to change in opinion. I think you're toying with us, or at least attempting to, by throwing rhetorical bombs and enjoying the outrage that it stirs up.

Everyone knows the title for that role on the internet. It is possible to be a troll, and a respectful interlocutor. In matters not directly related to political ideology, you act in a reasonable and respectful manner. But when you call the NAACP and Affirmative Action the sources of Racism in contemporary society. And imply (and sometimes state outright) that the victims of that Racism are White people, Caucasian Americans, you know exactly how outrageous and insulting that is to the legacy of the Civil Rights struggle.

You may believe it, you seem to, but that's no guarantee, since you know how much of a shitbomb that is in the broad stream of American society. It reminds me of the Peckerwoods (what they call themselves), Nazi Low Riders and Aryan Brotherhood members on the tier, sporting their ink of swastikas, double lightening bolt SS, 13's and 8's, who insist that they're not White Supremacists and do not hate other races. They just love and feel pride for their own kind. That they're about White Pride, not hate. Utter and total bullshit. A lie. An obfuscation that perhaps they tell themselves enough to the point they actually believe it, at least the morons among them might. (I don't know, that's not my scene and I am not privy to their private thoughts. Just their propaganda and their public behavior over the years.)

Your claims about the history of Race in this country are part of the catechism that has been developed to make Racism look reasonable.

Twisted truths, half-truths, cherry picking, scapegoating and lies. Ideologically partisan and fringe mono-maniacal sources. Little to no analysis and no comparison of competing views and accounts. Dubious fringe "scholarship".

You're not alone in these behaviors that pretend to be intellectual, but are quite the opposite. And these tactics come from all parts, particularly the far ends of the political spectrum. But whoever uses them, for whatever purpose, it's bogus. And that's putting it mildly.

"A lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth."

That's your strategy here. Thankfully, it's pretty transparent. At least to those of us who've studied the history, the politics and the culture of fringe politics in this world, as well as the mainstream events, ideas and trends.

If it's not already clear, to everyone reading this (if you've gotten this far!?) my criticisms of S2T's style and content, also apply to any True Believer position, any extremist ideologue, whether Left, Right, Middle (Yes, there is such a thing as, "The Tyranny of the Status Quo", in fact it's the one with the most influence) Religious or whatever. The tactics of propaganda to convince others to accept extreme and limited views as valid and irrefutable are used for all kinds of purposes. Governments, parties, movements, corporations, religious cults, hucksters, charlatans, scam artists, etc. use these techniques. Once you know how they work. They're pretty easy to spot. I teach them in 9th Grade Academic English, when I'm given the opportunity. They're part of the Curriculum Content Standards for the State of California.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Miles:

Believe it nor not, it is out of respect and politeness...

---

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Surely you jest. You've slung all sorts of disrespectful and impolite accusations and speculations about being a programmed bot or mentally ill my way without doing the simple, rational thing: Ask Me.

I disbelieve your claim because your own actions prove otherwise. You have demonstrated no politeness or respect, even after I told you that I would happily accept a respectfully posed question.

All that yakkity-yak to avoid doing what I invited you to do - ask a question in a respectful manner.

And you STILL won't do it! Holy smokes!

Quote:

---

"Which communists, which factions of communists?"

---

Really, I certainly never saw that question. I'll happily answer it if you ask it again while providing some context.

Quote:

---

But when you call the NAACP and Affirmative Action the sources of Racism in contemporary society.

---

I was asked about institutionalized racism. Those are examples of institutionalized racism, providing preferential treatment because of skin color and excluding such preference to persons not meeting the skin color criteria. My gosh, if it were white people so favored by official government policy and exclusive organization, I'm sure you would have no problem at all recognizing the racism.

In a non-racist society, there would be no such organizations providing preferential favors to people based upon their skin color. That truth is so obvious one must be wearing blinders to avoid seeing it.

I stand against racism in all its forms, as do my black and Vietnamese family members. Can you rise to that elevated sense of equality with all your human brethren?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

I was asked about institutionalized racism. Those are examples of institutionalized racism, providing preferential treatment because of skin color and excluding such preference to persons not meeting the skin color criteria. My gosh, if it were white people so favored by official government policy and exclusive organization, I'm sure you would have no problem at all recognizing the racism.

In a non-racist society, there would be no such organizations providing preferential favors to people based upon their skin color. That truth is so obvious one must be wearing blinders to avoid seeing it.

I stand against racism in all its forms, as do my black and Vietnamese family members. Can you rise to that elevated sense of equality with all your human brethren?

---

I'm not sure why I bother to engage in discussion with you, S2T, but since I brought up the issue of institutional racism, I'll elaborate. If you conveniently ignore over 200 years of preferential treatment -- housing, jobs, education, etc. -- for Euro-Americans in the US, then it may appear to you that Affirmative Action is racist. But, Affirmative Action is an attempt to create opportunity for those who were deliberately left out of the so-called "American Dream." Can you comprehend that? I don't know about your family but there are plenty misguided blacks like Ward Connerly and KSFO's right wing host, Ken Hamblin, who identifies himself as the "unassuming colored guy."

Institutional racism is more subtle, less visible, and less identifiable than individual acts of racism, but no less destructive to human life and human dignity. The people who manage our institutions may not be racists as individuals, but they may well discriminate as part of simply carrying out their job, often without being aware that their role in an institution is contributing to a discriminatory outcome. (from https://div17.org/TAAR/institutionalizedracism.htm)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by zenekar;138691":

But, Affirmative Action is an attempt to create opportunity for those who were deliberately left out of the so-called "American Dream." Can you comprehend that?

---

That's simply not true. It provides preferential treatment based on skin color, not on research into a particular person's background and victimization status. It rewards people whose ancestors were free blacks in the non-slave states and who participated as fully in the American Dream as their white brethren. It rewards people whose ancestors were free blacks in the slave states and who held their fellow black brethren as slaves to labor for them.

If you believe this is incorrect, that it weeds out those whose ancestors were actually slaves or suffered directly from those whose were not, please show me. I may have missed something.

My question is, how long will this preferential treatment be given considering today all Americans can rise as high as they strive to despite their skin color? Now that a half-black man is President, that we had a black Secretary of State, isn't it time to acknowledge that people can stand on their own two feet regardless of their skin color?

Quote:

---

Institutional racism is more subtle, less visible, and less identifiable than individual acts of racism, but no less destructive to human life and human dignity. The people who manage our institutions may not be racists as individuals, but they may well discriminate as part of simply carrying out their job, often without being aware that their role in an institution is contributing to a discriminatory outcome.

---

Quote:

---

(from https://div17.org/TAAR/institutionalizedracism.htm)

---

Heck yeah, try getting a job at Taco Bell as a white guy. You'll see some racism. I got the horror story of a white manager who was driven out by employees who refused to work because he was white. Once he was gone, the place turned to crap and I never went back to eat there.

I've heard all kinds of horror stories about racism being committed by people and groups OF ALL COLORS. It would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

However, Government-inflicted and Institutional racism is right there in front of our noses. One need not go looking for anecdotal stories (while ignoring racism against whites). It is institutionalized and enforced by bureaucrats.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

That's simply not true. It provides preferential treatment based on skin color, not on research into a particular person's background and victimization status. It rewards people whose ancestors were free blacks in the non-slave states and who participated as fully in the American Dream as their white brethren. It rewards people whose ancestors were free blacks in the slave states and who held their fellow black brethren as slaves to labor for them.

If you believe this is incorrect, that it weeds out those whose ancestors were actually slaves or suffered directly from those whose were not, please show me. I may have missed something.

My question is, how long will this preferential treatment be given considering today all Americans can rise as high as they strive to despite their skin color? Now that a half-black man is President, that we had a black Secretary of State, isn't it time to acknowledge that people can stand on their own two feet regardless of their skin color?

Heck yeah, try getting a job at Taco Bell as a white guy. You'll see some racism. I got the horror story of a white manager who was driven out by employees who refused to work because he was white. Once he was gone, the place turned to crap and I never went back to eat there.

I've heard all kinds of horror stories about racism being committed by people and groups OF ALL COLORS. It would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

However, Government-inflicted and Institutional racism is right there in front of our noses. One need not go looking for anecdotal stories (while ignoring racism against whites). It is institutionalized and enforced by bureaucrats.

---

Here I go again replying to you against my better judgement. I was referring to all African descendent's who were discriminated against (and lynched) in the US -- whether their ancestors were slaves or not. The KKK didn't ask questions before hanging black folks. Your sidebar of "horror stories" are supposed to convince us that whites are victims of racism? Give it a break!

how about being clear about the words we are using. s2t i asked you if you defined institutional racism very closely to how you define it here. i appreciate you finally confirming how you are using the term. other people, including me, mean something quite different.

arguments about the definition of words make me incredibly bored and irritated. define your words anyway you want, i just want to know what you mean.

another example is the different way racism is being used. s2t do you think racism and prejudice are the same thing?
the grandly inquisitive mrs ross

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

That's simply not true. It provides preferential treatment based on skin color, not on research into a particular person's background and victimization status. It rewards people whose ancestors were free blacks in the non-slave states and who participated as fully in the American Dream as their white brethren. It rewards people whose ancestors were free blacks in the slave states and who held their fellow black brethren as slaves to labor for them.

If you believe this is incorrect, that it weeds out those whose ancestors were actually slaves or suffered directly from those whose were not, please show me. I may have missed something.

My question is, how long will this preferential treatment be given considering today all Americans can rise as high as they strive to despite their skin color? Now that a half-black man is President, that we had a black Secretary of State, isn't it time to acknowledge that people can stand on their own two feet regardless of their skin color?

Heck yeah, try getting a job at Taco Bell as a white guy. You'll see some racism. I got the horror story of a white manager who was driven out by employees who refused to work because he was white. Once he was gone, the place turned to crap and I never went back to eat there.

I've heard all kinds of horror stories about racism being committed by people and groups OF ALL COLORS. It would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

However, Government-inflicted and Institutional racism is right there in front of our noses. One need not go looking for anecdotal stories (while ignoring racism against whites). It is institutionalized and enforced by bureaucrats.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by zenekar:

But, Affirmative Action is an attempt to create opportunity for those who were deliberately left out of the so-called "American Dream." Can you comprehend that?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

That's simply not true. It provides preferential treatment based on skin color, ...

---

stop there, s2t, change gears a bit and stop focusing on what you want to say. Take a look at your quote, and his. "That's simply not true". What on earth are you thinking? or, rather, why aren't you thinking? His claim is a simple one. Deal with it directly. You can dispute whether Affirmative Action is effective, you can dispute whether it's abused, but this is a clear example of why you get such resistance - you're not showing any respect for the words of the other poster. Instead, you race off on a tangent argument.

S2T,

If you don't read, I'm not going to do your research for you. I'd have to dig through the mound of text that your biased and mendacious assertions have prompted here in Waccovia. This in regard to the asking about specifics about communists tip.

Also you betray your blinkered reading here, or you would know I've said I don't think you're an astroturf program or the other thing. Others have called you those, I have said I do not agree with them. So, laugh away rolling boy. I hope your floor is clean and soft!

I've called you an ideologue, a proselytizer, a propagandist, a Racist, a liar (whether intentionally or inadvertently passing on the lies of others that you believe to be true), and a few other things that I doubt you're happy about.

But I've defended you against accusations of being a program or insane (that was the other thing!).

And I haven't called you many things I also believe to be true, because of the boundaries of politesse here on waccobb.net, and I really don't know you. We've never met in Meat World.

I don't decide what I truly think of anyone, until I actually meet them, or at least have seen them on TV or film. And sometimes not even then (insufficient experience). The fog of text on the internet, leaves out too much important information, and encourages some to be anti-social.

Except me! I'm actually more measured and less assertive here, than if we were to have a face to face argument about these political matters. And I would not spend nearly as much time on the discussion as I have here. Comfort of my home, etc. Don't take this as an invitation to have a private or public discussion in Meat World. It isn't. I'm fine with holding my judgement in suspense, as to the color of your character.

I look for the good in everyone. After all, I taught in a prison for three years. Couldn't have done that without attempting to find a little bit of good in each of my students, attempting to encourage that part of them.

I've primarily attacked the fallacious, hurtful and disrespectful ideas you affirm. Those ideas are indicative of some aspects of your character, but not sufficient to give me reason to hate you personally. I only hate the vile garbage you espouse.

I've been very clear as to which views I consider wrong, both morally and factually, and have given reasons why. You ignore all that for the most part. But that's a demagogue and a troll's modus operandi.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Good points Patrick,

Although some people write about S2T as if he's a newbie Wacoon. And Barry referred to him as a guest. He's been subscribed to this board for over two years. And I marked his, uh, regressive politics early on. His recent onslaught of replying to almost every political topic and a whole lot more, and what I have termed spamming, is a new behavior pattern.

I'm highly skeptical of the astroturfing theory. Sockpuppet has been a possibility. Or maybe he's going through a period where he just has a lot of time on his hands? I've been there and done that. Here on this board in years past. Not quite as intensely, but I'm sure in a matter too intense for others. In fact, they told me as much.

I want to thank him, you S2T, for listing your "First political post of [insert date here]". It makes it easy, I wasn't counting the exact number, just sensing an impressionistic ballpark figure. Really, no sarcasm intended, thanks for making it easy!

---

Hey Miles, Maybe S2T is really n4krny come back to life with a whole new philosophy. Actually I find him an occasional breath of fresh air compared to some of the "progressive" folks round these parts. Red Dwarf, ya hear me?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

stop there, s2t, change gears a bit and stop focusing on what you want to say. Take a look at your quote, and his. "That's simply not true". What on earth are you thinking? or, rather, why aren't you thinking? His claim is a simple one. Deal with it directly.

---

I thought I did deal with it directly.

True or False: Affirmative Action bestows favors upon people who were never wronged because of the color of their skin.

True or False: Affirmative Action denies such favors to a certain group of people because of the color of their skin, even though a great many of them also were unable to "live the American Dream".

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

another example is the different way racism is being used. s2t do you think racism and prejudice are the same thing?
the grandly inquisitive mrs ross

---

Wow, that's a tough one...

Prejudice means to "pre-judge", as in to believe something about somebody, good or bad, prior to getting to know the truth. Racial Prejudice indicates pre-judgement of someone based on their skin color. It's what Martin Luther King railed against, saying we must judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Racism is fairly simple. It is belief and behavior towards a race of people, based on their race. It is Prejudice but implies action.

I'll take it a step further: Institutional Racism is societally or government enforced institutions that bestow favors upon some races while denying such favors to others. Like drinking at the "whites only" water fountain. Or getting "blacks only" scholarships or job preference.

Individual racism is to be separated from Institutional racism because, as in the USA, it is dis-encouraged and fought against by our society. That's why I point out the hypocrisy of decrying individual racism while societally upholding Institutional Racism.

If we're trying to get racism out of our society, it does not help to enforce it by Government and other institutions.

My take on affirmative action is that two wrongs dont make a right. You can't fight fire with more fire. Its wrong for people to discriminate against minorities for things like jobs, education, etc, and its also wrong to have policies that discriminate against non-minorities, regardless of any good intentions that might be behind those policies. Discrimination is wrong, period. If you dont believe in that, what kind of a person are you??

ok, so for you the difference between racism and prejudice is that while both start with a belief about a group, racism includes action?

the reason i ask is because for me, while prejudice includes action (for example i might be prejudiced about lawyers, believing that they will adjust their views according to who is paying them so i try to avoid using the legal system), racism includes both prejudicial belief, and any action i take is supported by societal structure (for example i can hire hardworking latin americans for cheap and they will do anything i want without causing trouble because they are illegal).

hey i'm white and my work has been building. my race has helped me because i have seen the people beside me given less opportunity. in this world we deal with racism every day.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Wow, that's a tough one...

Prejudice means to "pre-judge", as in to believe something about somebody, good or bad, prior to getting to know the truth. Racial Prejudice indicates pre-judgement of someone based on their skin color. It's what Martin Luther King railed against, saying we must judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Racism is fairly simple. It is belief and behavior towards a race of people, based on their race. It is Prejudice but implies action.

I'll take it a step further: Institutional Racism is societally or government enforced institutions that bestow favors upon some races while denying such favors to others. Like drinking at the "whites only" water fountain. Or getting "blacks only" scholarships or job preference.

Individual racism is to be separated from Institutional racism because, as in the USA, it is dis-encouraged and fought against by our society. That's why I point out the hypocrisy of decrying individual racism while societally upholding Institutional Racism.

If we're trying to get racism out of our society, it does not help to enforce it by Government and other institutions.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

racism includes both prejudicial belief, and any action i take is supported by societal structure (for example i can hire hardworking latin americans for cheap and they will do anything i want without causing trouble because they are illegal).

---

I think we're in agreement on the definitions. I would have said prejudice is possible without action but one can choose to act on it.

I believe racism need not be supported by societal structure (as Affirmative Action is) to be racism. Some folks just hate folks of the [whatever] race, think of them as inferior or resent them for other reasons, without this viewpoint being supported by society around them. Here, we get into the definition of societal structure. I don't think I'm mentally prepared to tackle that. Long day of programming. Brain-dead. :-D

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

Heck yeah, try getting a job at Taco Bell as a white guy. You'll see some racism. I got the horror story of a white manager who was driven out by employees who refused to work because he was white. Once he was gone, the place turned to crap and I never went back to eat there.

---

Guess I don't have to try getting a job as a white guy at Taco Bell to see some racism. It's pretty evident right there in that paragraph. After the WHITE manager left, the place turned to crap (although Taco Bell food pretty much starts out as crap and ends up as crap no matter who is managing...in the real world). Of course, since you never went back there, how would you know that the place turned to crap when the white manager left? :hmmm:

Anathstryx

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

My take on affirmative action is that two wrongs dont make a right. You can't fight fire with more fire. Its wrong for people to discriminate against minorities for things like jobs, education, etc, and its also wrong to have policies that discriminate against non-minorities, regardless of any good intentions that might be behind those policies. Discrimination is wrong, period. If you dont believe in that, what kind of a person are you??

---

That's a very simplistic view of a complex societal issue regarding race. You must understand the history of the European invasion of this continent, the slaughter of indigenous peoples, racism against non-Europeans, assumed white privilege. . . In your view, this society should go back to the good-old-boy white privilege approach prevalent before the Civil Rights movement? Do you understand the reason why Affirmative Action was enacted? What I read between the lines of some of the posts here is a defense of white privilege.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by zenekar:

That's a very simplistic view of a complex societal issue regarding race. You must understand the history of the European invasion of this continent, the slaughter of indigenous peoples, racism against non-Europeans, assumed white privilege. . . In your view, this society should go back to the good-old-boy white privilege approach prevalent before the Civil Rights movement? Do you understand the reason why Affirmative Action was enacted? What I read between the lines of some of the posts here is a defense of white privilege.

---

No its not complex. Very simple indeed. Of course I understand the history you explained. And just for laughs, I'll answer your insane question with a no. It should have been obvious from my previous post that I do not stand for racism, prejudice, racial privilege of any sort, as you do. You shouldn't read between the lines Zenekar. Rather you should only read what is is exactly on the lines as you run a high risk of being completely wrong, as you are right now. I couldn't be more clear on where I stand and where I stand is on the side of complete non racial prejudice. You, and others here sadly, are not.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

'where I stand is on the side of complete non racial prejudice.'

---

Could you expand that?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Thad:

Could you expand that?

---

Yes. It's very simple. I treat everyone, regardless of skin color exactly the same way, and I expect our government and others to do that as well. No special favors, breaks, incentives for anyone of any skin color. No oppression or intolerance of anyone of any skin color.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Yes. It's very simple. I treat everyone, regardless of skin color exactly the same way, and I expect our government and others to do that as well. No special favors, breaks, incentives for anyone of any skin color. No oppression or intolerance of anyone of any skin color.

---

I think that is well put. At the risk of opening up a hornet's nest, how do you feel about Native Americans receiving rights and privileges and special treatment and status not afforded to any other American? How is this different from Affirmative Action?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Yes. It's very simple. I treat everyone, regardless of skin color exactly the same way, and I expect our government and others to do that as well. No special favors, breaks, incentives for anyone of any skin color. No oppression or intolerance of anyone of any skin color.

---

I don't discount your good will or your intention - but I don't buy your claim. Even though OTINOKYAD, ("on the internet, no one knows you're a dog") applies, I bet you're human. As such, (and for that matter, this is just as true of dogs) you're not all that much in control of your prejudices. Check this out, for example.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

My take on affirmative action is that two wrongs dont make a right. You can't fight fire with more fire. Its wrong for people to discriminate against minorities for things like jobs, education, etc, and its also wrong to have policies that discriminate against non-minorities, regardless of any good intentions that might be behind those policies. Discrimination is wrong, period. If you dont believe in that, what kind of a person are you??

---

to be pedantic: the word itself (grammatical form ignored) just means being selective. So "what kind of person"?? A thinking one...

You're talking about a specific social practice, and doing it in too broad a form. So the two cliches leading your argument may be true but aren't relevant. In your first real observation, there's an important qualification: "discrimination AGAINST". That's a far more narrow term. I agree with you there. But when a selection must be made, a lot of criteria can be used. Someone who's not selected may feel like it's "against" him; but dude, it's not always about you. It might instead be about the guy who -is- selected, and it's "for" him.

i am not so sure, what you might define as racism, for example some of rev wrights rhetoric, i think of as racial prejudice. without society backing you up, prejudice mostly harms the believer. my distrust of lawyers just limits the options i have in settling disputes. working with undocumented workers is a benefit for employers because of societies structure.

yeah it is really complicated, this is deep stuff. that's why it helps to know how others define their words. i think racial prejudice and racism get in the way of us seeing each other, and i like to draw the distinction between the two terms because of the different impact they have on people. it also helps me understand what to do.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

I think we're in agreement on the definitions. I would have said prejudice is possible without action but one can choose to act on it.

I believe racism need not be supported by societal structure (as Affirmative Action is) to be racism. Some folks just hate folks of the [whatever] race, think of them as inferior or resent them for other reasons, without this viewpoint being supported by society around them. Here, we get into the definition of societal structure. I don't think I'm mentally prepared to tackle that. Long day of programming. Brain-dead. :-D

---

simplicity can be reassuring. reads like racism, racial prejudice, racial privilege, affirmative action, tribal rights, all have the same meaning for you and it is not good? race should not be a factor in human relations with each other?

the question is what to do when it is. then it can be useful to have different meanings for these terms. so we can communicate with mutual understanding about the nuances of race and human relations.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

No its not complex. Very simple indeed. Of course I understand the history you explained. And just for laughs, I'll answer your insane question with a no. It should have been obvious from my previous post that I do not stand for racism, prejudice, racial privilege of any sort, as you do. You shouldn't read between the lines Zenekar. Rather you should only read what is is exactly on the lines as you run a high risk of being completely wrong, as you are right now. I couldn't be more clear on where I stand and where I stand is on the side of complete non racial prejudice. You, and others here sadly, are not.

---

Color Blind is the Best Policy

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Speak2Truth wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
Individual racism is to be separated from Institutional racism because, as in the USA, it is dis-encouraged and fought against by our society. That's why I point out the hypocrisy of decrying individual racism while societally upholding Institutional Racism.

If we're trying to get racism out of our society, it does not help to enforce it by Government and other institutions.

---

I have to say that here, amongst a fair amount of drivel you've put forth, is one valid point, Speak2Truth, that does resonate with my own experience as a young man from Berkeley. The fact is, as a young man from the ages of seventeen to twenty-five, I often went to the Employment Development Department at the University Avenue office in Berkeley, but they never once did land me a job. Not once; though I was often over-qualified for many of the jobs that came up on the Bulletin Board - and there were many jobs over the years, that I really wanted, and tried to apply for, often. Alas, there was always a stipulation that, although I had applied for the job first, some person of color, or a female would have the first crack at the job. Those were just house rules. It was called "Affirmative Action."

In Denver Colorado, in '68, it was just the opposite. There was no affirmative action - it was always "first come/ first served." Every day I would show up at six a.m. at the employment office in downtown Denver, and get sent out on some job. It was wonderful, compared with what I always experienced in my hometown, Berkeley, where I was actually discriminated against just because I was a male from the dominant strain. Was it my fault that Cruel, unjust, unfeeling, greedy, avaricious white slave traders had stolen black bodies & souls and shipped them off to the West Indies and Charleston and Mobile, centuries ago? No.

But I, as a kid, had to suffer unemployment, and it was institutionally mandated, and it was the law. - And so did all of the other poor dumb white kids, who grew up in Berkeley; some of whom never got a job at all, on account of this institutional discrimination.

Many of the Berkeley-born Boomers never "succeeded" in Life on account of this institutional bias - and many of them turned to dealing drugs on account of this disadvantage. Most of the "white" males who were my peers at Berkeley High School are now {prematurely} dead. It was enough to turn some of the survivors into avid Michael Savage afficionados.

In Berkeley, I can honestly say, that for indigenous white males, the fruits of "Affirmative Action" in the Employment Development Department was very destructive. It was an example of bad social engineering - with very predictable consequences and the inevitable, predictable, backlash.

Now, I am only suggesting that there should be no racial profiling and no discrimination, at all, in the Employment Development Department. In other words, Color Blind is the best policy and first come/first served is also the best policy, and the most equitable. It rewards the early bird with the worm, which is Nature's Way.

Mark Walter Evans

lolchan - I wish I could give more than one "gratitude" to your post. That is EXACTLY what we mean by "institutionalized racism" and it is heinous. I've experienced it as well.

It just turns my stomach to see racists take control of government and private institutions and get a free pass because, heck, they're just keeping the white man down. That's become acceptable, even good, to the Left in this country. They seem to think that white people today should be punished for a wrong they never did, for the gain of someone who was never wronged. All on the basis of skin color. Prejudiced, bigoted racists.

Despicable.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I don't discount your good will or your intention - but I don't buy your claim. Even though OTINOKYAD, ("on the internet, no one knows you're a dog") applies, I bet you're human. As such, (and for that matter, this is just as true of dogs) you're not all that much in control of your prejudices. Check this out, for example.

---

Your link to the Harvard test is absurd at best. Take a guess at which racial group I supposedly dislike the most according to this fraudulent exam?

i guess white, am i right?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Your link to the Harvard test is absurd at best. Take a guess at which racial group I supposedly dislike the most according to this fraudulent exam?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

i guess white, am i right?

---

Congrats! And which racial group do I prefer most? 1000 points if you get this one Rossmen.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

... "institutionalized racism" .. is heinous. I've experienced it as well. ... It just turns my stomach to see racists take control ...Despicable.

---

You know, anytime you find that you've adopted a perspective where you're the victim, where somehow you're not getting what you rightfully should, and other less-deserving folks are either getting things they haven't earned, or not being punished for their misbehavior, or otherwise just aren't suffering enough -- those are times you should wonder why such self-serving beliefs seem so dog-gone obviously true.
There's the cliche "just follow the money" that's intended to cut through the bullshit and illuminate what's really happening. "Just follow the beneficiary" is less mellifluous a cliche, but may help illuminate why these are such "stomach-turning" issues. If the primary beneficiary is oneself, that might indicate that there's less than pure reason going on. That's why the issues chosen by the left have more resonance to me, and those chosen by the right seem so unappealing - the right's almost always about selfishness; they typically self-identify with those they want to help.

your definition of institutional racism is the same as affirmative action?

if that is true you have no idea what other people mean by this term. i have been turned away because of affirmative action, and benefited even more from institutional racism. maybe i can see this because i am so curious about how the world works, keep my eyes and ears open, ask challenging questions, really try to understand what people are saying beyond my own judgements, and know that whatever i learn is less than the whole truth.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

lolchan - I wish I could give more than one "gratitude" to your post. That is EXACTLY what we mean by "institutionalized racism" and it is heinous. I've experienced it as well.

It just turns my stomach to see racists take control of government and private institutions and get a free pass because, heck, they're just keeping the white man down. That's become acceptable, even good, to the Left in this country. They seem to think that white people today should be punished for a wrong they never did, for the gain of someone who was never wronged. All on the basis of skin color. Prejudiced, bigoted racists.

Despicable.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Your link to the Harvard test is absurd at best. Take a guess at which racial group I supposedly dislike the most according to this fraudulent exam?

---

Those morons at Harvard. A bunch o' elitists, I betcha

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

Those morons at Harvard. A bunch o' elitists, I betcha

---

You tell me.

asian?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Congrats! And which racial group do I prefer most? 1000 points if you get this one Rossmen.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

asian?

---

Sorry, its african -americans.

Good Point & a Valid Distinction, rossmen

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png rossmen wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
your definition of institutional racism is the same as affirmative action?

if that is true you have no idea what other people mean by this term. i have been turned away because of affirmative action, and benefited even more from institutional racism. maybe i can see this because i am so curious about how the world works, keep my eyes and ears open, ask challenging questions, really try to understand what people are saying beyond my own judgements, and know that whatever i learn is less than the whole truth.

---

You write: " i have been turned away because of affirmative action, and benefited even more from institutional racism. " Yes, this is so true. Bravo - good distinction.When it comes to racial profiling as practiced by Police Officers, Sheriffs, District Attorneys, and Judges, those who were born "white" { i hate the term} still do have the cards stacked in their favor.

Affirmative Action, and mandatory busing, were either poorly-conceived policies, or else the social engineers who implemented those policies were hedging on & investing in the futures market of the fallout & the backlash that those policies would inevitably generate: the so-called "Savage Nation" of today - with all of the attendant alienation, fragmentation, & law-of-the-jungle ethic that the term implies.

Why Not a Level Playing Field?

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png podfish wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
You know, anytime you find that you've adopted a perspective where you're the victim, where somehow you're not getting what you rightfully should, and other less-deserving folks are either getting things they haven't earned, or not being punished for their misbehavior, or otherwise just aren't suffering enough -- those are times you should wonder why such self-serving beliefs seem so dog-gone obviously true.

There's the cliche "just follow the money" that's intended to cut through the bullshit and illuminate what's really happening. "Just follow the beneficiary" is less mellifluous a cliche, but may help illuminate why these are such "stomach-turning" issues. If the primary beneficiary is oneself, that might indicate that there's less than pure reason going on. That's why the issues chosen by the left have more resonance to me, and those chosen by the right seem so unappealing - the right's almost always about selfishness; they typically self-identify with those they want to help.

---

Podfish, why must we, as folks who were accidentally born into the so-called "dominant ethnicity," just stuff the injustice that was produced by Affirmative Action? I think it is fair and just to say that it was a bad program. As I wrote:

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png
...I, as a kid, had to suffer unemployment, and it was institutionally mandated, and it was the law. - And so did all of the other poor dumb white kids, who grew up in Berkeley; some of whom never got a job at all, on account of this institutional discrimination.

Many of the Berkeley-born Boomers never "succeeded" in Life on account of this institutional bias - and many of them turned to dealing drugs on account of this disadvantage. Most of the "white" males who were my peers at Berkeley High School are now {prematurely} dead. It was enough to turn some of the survivors into avid Michael Savage afficionados.

In Berkeley, I can honestly say, that for indigenous white males, the fruits of "Affirmative Action" in the Employment Development Department was very destructive. It was an example of bad social engineering - with very predictable consequences and the inevitable, predictable, backlash.

---

You will note, that this one {me-uns} is not coming out against the failure of the policy of "Affirmative Action" just for myself, and how it affected me, personally - but also because the policy was hurtful and destructive to the lives of many, many of my poor, white, male, lumpanized peers, who are now dead; and whose economic interests were not served by the state employment offices... You say "follow the beneficiary" but I submit that my peers - at least the so-called "Caucasian" ones - were certainly not benefited by the policy; they were hurt.

To stuff such feelings, I feel, is to engage in "internalizing one's own oppression" as defined by the Algerian psychiatrist and revolutionary, Frantz Fanon. I will go further. The program of Affirmative Action was part and parcel of the rest of the abominable policies of the Johnson Administration - along with the wrecking ball of H.U.D. {see the book Cities Destroyed For Cash} and the deliberate, genocidal policy of destroying a whole Generation physically, morally and every other which way, through the instrument of sending it through the meat-grinder of Viet Nam.

And furthermore, I affirm that the policy of Affirmative Action was socially engineered and designed to create further division amongst the People; and to foment further racial strife and tensions, down the line. Thus, ultimately, it was a subtle instrument of Class Warfare.

Sincerely,
Mark Walter Evans

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:

.. Why Not a Level Playing Field?

---

it -would- be nice were it so.

Quote:

---

Podfish, why must we, as folks who were accidentally born into the so-called "dominant ethnicity," just stuff the injustice that was produced by Affirmative Action?

---

you don't need to "just stuff it". But you were indeed born into the dominant ethnicity, you benefit from it frequently, so excessive whining about the times when it's not an advantage is unbecoming.
to be fair, of course not all objections to affirmative action programs can be dismissed as whining. However, we rarely see measured and well reasoned discussion of how best to overcome historical legacy without imposing excessive burden on individuals who usually weren't personally responsible for creating such a legacy. We see instead impassioned rants about how some blameless individual is suffering, with often specious claims that the real goal here is simple fairness for all. How many people who are enraged at affirmative action policies are equally concerned about other fairness issues?
It also seems that there are people drawn to this issue because it is indeed a clear example where rules intended to benefit all society can sometimes negatively impact individuals. I get that for many that's a concept that they hate. It still strikes me as a foolish issue to get so invested in because it reeks of the powerful resenting the weak.

The "powerful" are those who enforce affirmative action and other racist institutions. The "weak" are those harmed by it who can do nothing about it but suffer the injustice.

We surely would not be saying that "powerful" and "weak" are indicated by skin color, right? That would be a horrible insult, merely repeating the prejudiced claims of a long-gone era, undoing the progress we have made in recognizing the true equality of all people.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Speak2Truth:

The "powerful" are those who enforce affirmative action and other racist institutions. The "weak" are those harmed by it who can do nothing about it but suffer the injustice.

---

man, if feeling weak helps you get by, who am I to argue? sure seems like a lot of energy expended in maintaining that perspective.
somehow I doubt that the level of disadvantage suffered by those impacted by affirmative action ranks all that highly when compared to those it's attempting to redress.

Towards A Level Playing Field

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png podfish wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png

Quote:

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Iolchan wrote: https://waccobb.net/forums/images/bu...post-right.png

.. Why Not a Level Playing Field?

---

it -would- be nice were it so.

Quote:

---

Podfish, why must we, as folks who were accidentally born into the so-called "dominant ethnicity," just stuff the injustice that was produced by Affirmative Action?

---

you don't need to "just stuff it". But you were indeed born into the dominant ethnicity, you benefit from it frequently, so excessive whining about the times when it's not an advantage is unbecoming.

to be fair, of course not all objections to affirmative action programs can be dismissed as whining. However, we rarely see measured and well reasoned discussion of how best to overcome historical legacy without imposing excessive burden on individuals who usually weren't personally responsible for creating such a legacy. We see instead impassioned rants about how some blameless individual is suffering, with often specious claims that the real goal here is simple fairness for all. How many people who are enraged at affirmative action policies are equally concerned about other fairness issues?

It also seems that there are people drawn to this issue because it is indeed a clear example where rules intended to benefit all society can sometimes negatively impact individuals. I get that for many that's a concept that they hate. It still strikes me as a foolish issue to get so invested in because it reeks of the powerful resenting the weak.

---

In the first place, we agree that there isn't a level playing field. That is basic, right? But we can talk about the Ideal World, here, as philosophers discussing the Realm of Ideas, and that is really a beautiful thing, I think. It's like Robert Kennedy's slogan about dreaming the world that never was, and asking, "Why not?"

I don't think that what I have written here about Affirmative Action here should be dismissed as either "excessive whining" or as a foolish issue in which to invest my time. This is the first and only time I have ever made a public statement on the matter. It's not my issue - Monetary Reform was my issue - and since we have once again witnessed another round of the old "Debt-ceiling" game, I have thought fit to comment on that score, elsewhere on this site.

All issues are related, however - and the thread that binds this issue with the Money Issue, is the Reality of Class War. Although I may have been born with the same pigmented skin as the White, Anglo-Norman Masters of the Global Plantation, I can assure you that I am not one of them. As a Scots-Irish, Welsh, French-Huguenot, Austrian-Bohemian-&-Swedish- Jew, as well as a Cherokee, I am a member of, and descend from, a Collection of persecuted minorities.

All of the suffering entailed in the history of the collective sufferings of those various people's is encoded in my own DNA. Furthermore, I have had a hard enough life to say that I would not relish having to live it over again.

As a male, who just co-incidentally happened to come into this world with a pale, freckled complexion, I have also been the beneficiary of a number of advantages - but I would say that the cultural advantages of my family outweighed the social advantages of my caste, to say the least.

My own tendency, as a lad of fourteen, by the way, was to work in the "No on Proposition Fourteen" Campaign at Twentieth and Telegraph in downtown Oakland, in the Summer of '64. Had I been just a little older, I would have gone on down to Mississippi with the Freedom Riders, for Freedom Summer. That is what I wanted to do, and where I wanted to be; but Mom wouldn't let me; I was too young.

Proposition 14 was a reactionary measure, conceived by Racists and Realtors - which would have given property-owners the right to refuse to sell their houses to a family, or person of color. All of my friends were against it. It was the first political campaign - besides the Ban the Bomb marches - we ever worked on; and we poured our hearts and souls into it.

Affirmative Action, on the other hand, as practiced just a few years later, in the Berkeley, California office of the E.D.D. - did not help any of the job-hungry, male, pale-skin, "white" kids who were my peers in Berkeley, when it mattered most. They became victims of Class War and malevolent social engineering disguised as "Social Progress" and "Civil Rights." That this was true, is still a deep and downright tragedy. Children - Adolescents - failed on account of it. Many turned to drugs; as I have written - and most of the male members of the Class of '67, the ones who did not escape out of the orbit of Berkeley, are now dead. These are Facts.

Sincerely,

Mark Walter Evans
www.paleoprogressives.org