Rethinking America

["Mad" Miles]

Pish Tosh!

P.S. Re: Black faces, it was an analogy, referring to your argument that I'm an anti-semite because of the way I interpreted the two Zombie video images. Not referring to the Zombie video images themselves. You don't really read carefully do you? And apparently your friends don't know shit either. Just look up "Anti-Semitic Coded Images / Phrases." I have no interest in disseminating them.

Finally, I never called you a racist, for the third time, I said the content of the video you forwarded had racist / anti-semitic imagery. I surmised that you weren't aware of the significance. I keep trying to give you an out. You won't take it.

Welcome to the dumbing down of America (U.S.)

Keep digging that hole you're in...

[Hotspring 44]

I hope I will not be putting my foot in my mouth later, but I will say this anyway.

Hello "Mad" Miles and someguy. I've been watching (lurking) your back and forth's with each other on this thread and decided to look some stuff up for myself.
After about an hour I started getting a little burned out on it but here is what I have found to be most pertinent so far.
I suggest (ask) both of you take a look at it and maybe it will help shed light on why "Mad" Miles is saying what he is saying.
Although this is really meant more for the information that someguy would be more enlightened by but I also think that "Mad" Miles should take a look at it too so; as to verify one way or the other and tell me/us if this kind of thing is some of what he was referring to regarding "anti-Semitic coded images / Phrases".

"Mad" Miles has some interesting points.
someguy has some valid statements, and I trust that he has not had the same experience educationally as "Mad" Miles or as I have had in personal experience with prejudice (which by the way [prejudice] was not necessarily directed at me, but was directed towards others in my presence when I was young).

I have had personal experience with individuals from both the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers, for example.
My politically involved mother also had very good close friendships with Jewish politicians (and of course others). There are many more examples of opposites so to speak who were very close friends of mine, but I won't get into all that, because it would obfuscate the points I'm trying to make here.


Needless to say I have seen the gamut of prejudice from many different directions in my life since I was very young. My mother was very political. So I understand certain things that I would not expect most other people to know unless they were or are deeply into political science or some sort of deep social studies or college level studies in sociology.

Of course I realize that I am not the only one with such experience but I still believe that my experience is somewhat unique, and shed the light on things in front of me that allot of other people just never have had the opportunity to see up close and somewhat personal.

Some people have had the opportunity that I know of personally but (generally speaking) many of them were either too squeamish or too sidetracked to notice when the opportunities arose, if they (those unique opportunities) did, which they definitely did not; very often.

Anyway what I'm getting at is (that) I think there is a personality-based misunderstanding between you two on this thread (but of course, not limited to this thread) that took the form of attitudes (?) coming from both sides.

I also think I understand and have empathy of, to some extent, (although certainly not totally); both sides.

I can totally understand how you guys feel that you're pushing each other's buttons, so to speak, a little bit.

There most certainly are things in life and of course on this website that comes up that everybody will not agree upon 100%, that’s just natural, normal, human relations.

"Mad" Miles, I understand what you're getting at, but I think you're clobbering someguy with your education more than what makes for a cohesive understanding between the two of you of which I believe you're trying to achieve. Just a thought I'm not trying to over- judge, but that's the thought that comes to my mind right now.

someguy, I do believe that you are not a racist or an anti-Semite. I recommend that you take a look at the link I put on here. Maybe then you will understand a little more, where "Mad" Miles is coming from, because he does have some education in certain areas that goes far beyond either what I believe is your or (what I know mine is) (my) education, or my experience could compete with on the particular level from which he is coming at you with, specifically here on this thread.

"Mad" Miles said that he was 54 years old. I am not very much younger than that.
I do not know how old you (someguy) are/is, but I sense you’re not too much younger than I am.

Those of us that were born in the 1950’s, raised in the 1960’s and came of age in the 1970’s do have some unique experiences that previous living generations as well as those not too long after those times just simply could not have experienced in anywhere near the same way.
Just five years one way or the other makes a huge difference that most other people could not understand easily if at all. I'm not saying it absolutely can't happen. I'm saying that it usually doesn't and is not likely to happen.

Some of the older people that are in their 80s or 90s my have an idea, because they experienced certain things in the late 1930’s, where they could relate but other people just would not understand unless they are educated in a very special way.
Please don't get me wrong I'm not trying to be an elitist I am just trying to relate certain realities of the times and certain experiences that people have while they/we were growing up, which totally influences how they/we perceive things and the uniqueness of going (in the cultural sense), all the way from Ozzie and Harriet to Ozzy Osbourne (crude example) and such that is better suited for another thread.

Anyway here are a couple more links that are actually within the above aforementioned link that have some images and historical facts along with them regarding the specifics of the "anti-Semitic coded images / Phrases" issue that came up:
April 15, Sound Money
June 21, Denver New Road
August 6, Sound Money
August 20, Sound Money
October 15, Sound Money
October 22, Sound Money
November 5, Sound Money

[someguy]

[/FONT]"Mad" Miles said that he was 54 years old. I am not very much younger than that.
I do not know how old you (someguy) are/is, but I sense you’re not too much younger than I am.

Thanks for the thoughtful and reasonable approach in an effort to keep the peace.... But I just wanted to let you know, that I am 24 years old, not in my fifties. Mad Miles knows that too. I'll be checking out your links right now!

After reading your article and looking at all of the images of anti-semitic political cartoons, I would ask you to please go the the American Zombie thread and watch that little piece and tell me if you think what Mad Miles mentioned was anti-semitic propaganda or if he was making that claim up out of thin air. Not one single thing that you posted had anything to do with that Zombie video in my opinion. And Id really like to know if you agree with me or not. Thanks.

[Fagbemijo]

Wow, this discussion turned into something it was definitely not intended to be by the person who started it, but what can ya do?
I feel partially responsible, because it was I that originally called someguy a racist, but I take it back entirely. Although some of what he was saying in the original post was semi-prejudiced in thought, I genuinely believe he (or she) is a good person and did not intend to prejudge those around him. Nor did he mean, in my opinion, to show a complete lack of empathy for the innocent party that is the "pawn" in the game of globalizing the world economy. The fact that he did not intentionally harbor or verbalize these beliefs is exactly the reason I started this thread!
The fact of the matter is, as a society, as a culture, we have conditioned ourselves (or more likely been conditioned by the "powers that be") to harbor these destructive, non-humanitarian views. Actually, these non-values have been shoved down our throats by the very wise (pardon my sarcasm) institutions of media and politics; and they have been shoving since we were born, so many of us are not even aware of the shitty way of thinking that fills our heads.
I fully excuse someguy for his (past) ignorance so long as he stops denying, and starts embracing the fact that there is more to the picture than pointing fingers at those who are actually suffering the most in this situation -- the poor immigrant (legal or otherwise). To say "they are illegal, and because they are here illegally and breaking the law they should suffer" is preposterous! Nobody deserves to be mistreated, period. Also to justify mistreating people with the law is absurd because at any time, the laws could be changed and anyone of us could become the new beating horse for society.
That is what happened in Europe (and almost the entire world) in the 1940's -- NAZI's changed the laws to make it legal and acceptable to torture and kill people. If we do not keep a strong moral prinicpality and if we fail to continue judging the laws and power of the state and federal governments against the backdrop of our ethically-correct moral fabric, we will fall right into the same trap as Europe did to the NAZI's. Fascism is when the government conveniently thinks and makes decisions for its people based on the government's needs and objectives. Quite the opposite of democracy, which is governed by the people and based on the needs and beliefs of the people themselves. However they are similar and to the naked eye, it is possible to hide a fascist regime under the guise of a democratic or semi-socialist regime -- that is exactly how Hitler came to power.
So we all need to rethink our way of thinking and take a long, deep look at our countries polices.
Finally, we cannot blame age for our ignorance. I am about the same age as you, someguy, maybe just a few months older than you, but I do not look at my age as a barrier to my understanding the world around me. I know that neither do you. We have to keep a "beginner's mind" as we look at the world around us, so our view doesn't get clouded by the lens that is social conditioning. We have to keep our infantile points of view so we can look innocently (not naively) at the world, and see it for what it is. With pure minds and pure hearts, before all the negative influence, I believe that all humans are good people and with this pure, innocent state of mind, we will make the best decisions about how to love and care for each other, not ostracize and hurt each other.

[someguy]

To say "they are illegal, and because they are here illegally and breaking the law they should suffer" is preposterous! Nobody deserves to be mistreated, period.

I never said that if they are illegal, and because they are here illegally they deserve to suffer.... Never. Not once. That is not what I believe at all. Okay? You have put many words in my mouth so far, and they are not appreciated. Speak for yourself and yourself only. Got it?

If nobody deserves to be mistreated, then what do you say to those who live here legally and are being mistreated by the illegals who choose to circumvent the rule of law and take jobs of the legal residents who deserve them according to our law? Are they not being mistreated? You seem to only express sympathy for those who you think deserve it, but I'm sorry to inform you that other people in this country, (law abiding people) deserve sympathy too. Moreover, they deserve a fair playing field, or in this case, a fair job market. Sound reasonable to you admo?

["Mad" Miles]

Hotspring44, Admo,

Great posts. Thanks for doing the research on the anti-semitic racism of American (U.S.) Populists (aka associated with The Progressives by the way.) Good reminder. And Admo, excellent point about how misguided it is to crap on the poor, desperate and powerless, rather than focusing on the architects and interests of those who benefit from undocumented labor, and don't give a rats anus for the problems of "documented" labor.

As someone who has been an anti-racist activist since my sophomore year in college (at least, my views were formed in late childhood, early adolescence) I am sensitive to racist subtexts in media, peoples writing etc. I stand by my claim that the two images, seen late in the zombie americans video, are coded anti-semitism. It's also why I don't take someguys projection of unconscious anti-semitism on to me seriously.

We're all conditioned by institutional racism, but some have strived to become aware of that, and make changes to combat it. In our own lives and in our communities. I've been more active than most, not as active as some others, but I've got the track record, the credentials if I may, to laugh uproariously at such an accusation. It didn't trouble me in the least.

I looked at the video again last night, but I can't do screen captures, or at least don't know how, so I couldn't post those images here alongside the many anti-semitic cartoons and propaganda hate illustrations available on the web, from Germany in the '30's to the American (U.S.) cartoons that Hotspring44 took the trouble to provide here. Pretty ugly stuff, right?

By the way, the Brit speaking in the zombie/sheeple vid is David Ickes, I remembered that later, not "Dennis" somebody, my bad. Anybody reading my stuff here knows I cop to terrible factual detail memory (names, dates, statistics, i.e. discrete facts) on a regular basis.

Have I been hard on someguy? Yes! And I've explained why in the process of doing it.

In a nutshell, his assertions of absurd social theories, as fact, his thin-skinned defensiveness, while projecting his own doubts and insecurities onto his critics (i.e. me, and Edward/VO occasionally) while evading any responsibility for mistakes on his part, makes him an easy target. (Saying what one said isn't what one said, and then tailoring your response to encompass the criticism being made and claiming that's what you meant all along, is not admitting error. It's denying it.)

There are plenty of "easy targets" posting on waccobb. I only shoot at the ones regurgitating ideological nonsense. And only if they have an unrelenting habit of doing so.

What makes this little pissing match a mite painful, is that on some large questions someguy and I agree. Corporate power ruining the future of humanity being the big one. But we analyse it differently. We assign culpability to different actors, or social forces in my case.

I was twenty-four once. I vividly remember the raw intensity of my rage against social injustice, my contempt for the misguided fools who either acquiesced to it (most people) or were either unconscious or conscious agents of it. I'd organized quite a few rallies and demonstrations by then, participated in many more, read a lot of history, political philosophy, sociology, anthropology, political fiction and more. I didn't think I knew it all, but I thought I knew quite a lot.

That period was the foundation of my life up to this point. I haven't changed my mind on the basics, I haven't lost my outrage. But I've read and experienced even more, the major change being that I have a perspective now that I didn't completely have then.

I'm less inclined to take personal offence when someone disagrees with me. I'm less inclined to attribute internal psychological motives to those I'm arguing with. And I'm even better at disparaging, slyly or directly, an opponent in an argument. And I was pretty good at it back then.

As Hotspring44 so ably described, I also have more direct experience of history, having lived as a curious and avid observor/participant in the politics and culture of the past forty years. I've been interested in history since childhood. One of my favorite forms of literature was/is the historical novel. I majored in History and Philosophy, I read histories and watch them on TV.

Like any social subject, it's "subject" to debate, interpretation and ideological bias. So whether we can achieve a "true" knowledge of history is a question oft debated and unlikely to be resolved. But there are respected schools of thought, and marginal, debunked schools. Paranoid, racist, conspiritorial claims generally fall into the latter category.

I'm not calling someguy a racist, just naive in propagating a video with racist content. I'll leave it up to Admo to argue the racism of someguy's dismissal and condemnation of undocumented workers.

For anyone interested in the issue of whether or not the two images in the zombie video are coded anti-semitism. Look at the video again. Freeze the image of the puppeteer hands on top of a large institutional building labeled "International Banking", then peruse a few of the websites, both racist and anti-racist, that come up from doing a search for "Jews and International Banking". It's painful information, but important for anyone not already hip to this odious shit.

Next freeze the image of the head and torso that comes up soon after in the video, the image with a name tag that says "Mind Control" (or is it "thought control"? It's the guy with the computer parts imbedded in his right temple, he's sort of sneering, with one eyebrow raised in contempt), then google images of "Menachem Begin", and stereotypical images of "The International Jew" from Nazi, or American (U.S.) KKK and Neo-Nazi sources, preferably sources debunking those racist sources, and compare the images.

Also note the way the two images in the zombie video are used, where they are placed in the narrative, what the commentary is focusing on when they are used, and the way they are faded in and out of focus, and only flashed for a second or two. Yet many other images are given longer shots and don't use the fade in, fade out, focus / unfocus method. Then read a treatise on propaganda techniques, subliminal seduction and how film and sound can be used to tap into the subconscious. Then decide if I have a point or not and get back to me/us.

Again, I did not accuse someguy of being anti-semitic. I originally wrote, in my criticism of the claims in the zombie video, that the images were an indicator that the video came from the political fringe of alarmist, conspiracist, extreme right and left wings of our political culture, and that made those claims suspect. I also explained, in detail, my contention that calling most people sheep, asleep, dupes, brain-washed, zombies, etc. was not a useful means to change our society for the better.

In watching the american zombie video last night, I also watched one labeled "illuminati images in the modern world" (or some such name, I'm paraphrasing) that came up in the Utube queue. It makes a case that satanists are behind most powerful corporations and political actors in recent history. Highly amusing, not news to me having researched political esoterica for several decades. But if you're curious, watch it and tell me if it's just paranoid propaganda, or a convincing argument that this world is ruled by the same, "thirteen families" for millenia and Satan is behind their power!

There's debate and discussion, and there's extremist, rumor-mongering couched as political criticism. There's a difference. I took someguy to task for confusing that difference. I'd do it again, with anyone who I thought was doing the same. Especially if they made a habit of doing it over and over and over in the same virtual community where I spend a good bit of my time.

Byee!

[Fagbemijo]

I never said that if they are illegal, and because they are here illegally they deserve to suffer.... Never. Not once. That is not what I believe at all. Okay? You have put many words in my mouth so far, and they are not appreciated. Speak for yourself and yourself only. Got it?

If nobody deserves to be mistreated, then what do you say to those who live here legally and are being mistreated by the illegals who choose to circumvent the rule of law and take jobs of the legal residents who deserve them according to our law? Are they not being mistreated? You seem to only express sympathy for those who you think deserve it, but I'm sorry to inform you that other people in this country, (law abiding people) deserve sympathy too. Moreover, they deserve a fair playing field, or in this case, a fair job market. Sound reasonable to you admo?

Firstly, please calm down. I was trying to defend you (by saying that through your ignorance you were led to believe the wrong things), but you have twisted around and tried to bite me for trying to protect you. Your true colors have come out.
Next, I am not putting words in your mouth. I am reiterating your blather about your feelings of anger toward "these immigrants" for taking away American jobs.
Actually, you are putting words in my mouth -- I am ALL for sympathy for the American people, that is why I started this thread, out of sympathy. I do NOT however have any sympathy for those who bathe in ignorance and are proud of it, nor do I sympathize with those who justify their anger and hatred towards the wrong parties. You have been deceived if you really believe that the immigrants are "taking" away your jobs. As I have said before it is quite the contrary in that American employers are giving immigrants jobs, and they are the ones you should point your finger at. That is if you are mad about that sort of thing. The way I see it is there is more than enough to go around and the borders of the nations of the world are evil constructs used by the dominating powers to oppress people, to divide and conquer the resources of the globe, and to keep in order a system of oppression whereby these said powers can gain maximum benefit from the world. They rely on third world countries to provide cheap (or free) labor and natural resources to keep their system of dominance and power going. They need to have sweatshops in the East to keep the profit margins good in the West. And to keep their bank accounts, and their children's bank accounts, full to the brim.
You keep on blaming the poor immigrant (good Bob Dylan song) for the choices and conscious decisions of American businesses and corporations. I do NOT sympathize with that point of view in the least and moreover I believe that those who do are seriously misguided and misinformed.
I believe in open doors for all humanity, not just for those that can afford it or were born in the right nation. I think that all humanity is one people and we need to live and love as one. When we start saying our neighbors are not us and they don't deserve to eat from our blackberry bushes, we are living in hatred and that is a shame to me.
There are more than enough jobs out there, even despite the economy. If you cannot find a job you need to get off of the couch and get some ambition. Also, if you accepted lower wages and worse working conditions, you would have a job in no time. Sorry for the bad sarcasm, but many people of color, immigrants or not, have to settle for worse pay and worse working conditions that their caucasian American brothers. Sad isn't it. I know because I see it first hand.

I find that you are not bringing anything constructive to this thread and would like it if you stopped posting defensive replies to everyone else's posts on here -- this is supposed to be an open forum and it feels like you are trying to hijack my thread and be the only voice on it.
Please do not feel like I am asking you to leave, that is not the case at all. Just please loosen up and allow others to come in and discuss, not argue, about ideas and concepts and actions and dreams and hopes and fears, etc... :)
Thanks and hope you understand.

[Hotspring 44]

As it is the Fourth of July and I have a lot on my mind regarding the policies of our lovely federal government I thought I would start this thread as a positive space for people to voice their opinions...

I will start by saying that as a native born American, our country has terrible policies regarding immigration. We mistreat our neighbors and tear families apart over this issue.

I agree with that in the sense that our country has immigration policies that at times inadvertently tear families apart. Scapegoatism (unfortunately) is a condition that plagues our humanity (world wide) with a quasi-survivalist inertia that is based on prejudice, militant, adversarial, conditioning that frequently dehumanizes others whom are assumed to be “the antagonist”, sometimes leading into despair and sometimes even war where either of those consequences would otherwise be entirely uncalled for.

I have many close friends who have relatives or immediate family who cannot enter our borders due to immigration laws and the fact that so many of my American-born friends seem to think that "immigrants are stealing away jobs for Americans" is preposterous to me!

Most immigrants that come here for work do not come with the intention of “stealing” “our” jobs.

Scapegoatism towards the immigrants for our own Country’s political system of self-centered, intentional, greed, supporting built-in laws which have just about always throughout history favored the large Property holding, robber barons of the day which is one of the main keys to the success of the continuance of the hierarchical structuring of which all systems of governance depend on to one extent or another.
Scapegoatism is one facet that maintains control of the populace within the conformity to the hierarchical governance for the purpose of maintaining and bolstering status quo.

If American companies so wanted, they could pick up all operations within the USA and move them abroad to outsource and save money on labor.

Many have already done so, however; certain operations like farming, for example, have also done so, but they have limited geographical areas outside of the continental United States to fit within the perimeter of acceptable logistics to survive within their business model/s at this point in time.
But what you did say is essentially correct particularly, within the realm of global economics and to be more specific; geopolitics; (Geopolitics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Note also: (Anti-globalization movement)

Furthermore, many of my "friends" who say such things are too lazy to keep the jobs they "lost to immigrants".
What a racist way of looking at the world...

I suppose that could be interpreted as a “racist” way of looking at the world but (I ask) which race is it that is being subjected to (the) criticism of being too lazy?
It seems to be common belief that it is white Anglo-Saxon European race whom are the ones that are usually referred to in this country as the ones being "too lazy" to take certain jobs that the stereotypical view (of) that immigrants will do the more unpleasant laborious jobs like seasonal farm work and room service maintenance jobs in motels and meatpacking plant processing etc.. Could that be considered a racist-based presumption? (about the ones who are "too lazy"; I'm referring to.).
I think that in some cases it could be interpreted as such. But of course it does not necessarily mean that it is actually racist, depending upon the actual context in which it is referred to and meant by the entities making that kind of statement because it could mean any American citizen in general terms are "too lazy". Then at that point it could be interpreted as nationalistic in a prejudicial sense couldn't it? but the pragmatist may not necessarily be nationalistic or racist. No, instead they may be viewing things from a limited amount of historical, educational, experience, and intellectual resources. "Too lazy" may also be a mis-judgment, and it really is a factor that looks sort of like; too lazy = < a "living wage".

[Fagbemijo]

It seems to be common belief that it is white Anglo-Saxon European race whom are the ones that are usually referred to in this country as the ones being "too lazy" to take certain jobs that the stereotypical view (of) that immigrants will do the more unpleasant laborious jobs like seasonal farm work and room service maintenance jobs in motels and meatpacking plant processing etc.. Could that be considered a racist-based presumption? (about the ones who are "too lazy"; I'm referring to.).
I think that in some cases it could be interpreted as such. But of course it does not necessarily mean that it is actually racist, depending upon the actual context in which it is referred to and meant by the entities making that kind of statement because it could mean any American citizen in general terms are "too lazy". Then at that point it could be interpreted as nationalistic in a prejudicial sense couldn't it? but the pragmatist may not necessarily be nationalistic or racist. No, instead they may be viewing things from a limited amount of historical, educational, experience, and intellectual resources. "Too lazy" may also be a mis-judgment, and it really is a factor that looks sort of like; too lazy = < a "living wage".

I do not mean to sound rude, but many of my American-born friends -- be them of any color, culture, or race -- are much more "lazy" than my friends who have immigrated from overseas. I think that the competition to get to the USA is so high that my international friends would all be considered "overachievers" by our society's standards just to have the opportunity to come work or study here.
The question arises why does our culture have such a word and ideology of "overachiever". Is it possible to achieve too much? Certainly not by the standards of many of my international friends who beat themselves up over "A's" when they could have gotten an "A+".

[someguy]

Next, I am not putting words in your mouth. I am reiterating your blather about your feelings of anger toward "these immigrants" for taking away American jobs.

The way I see it is there is more than enough to go around


There are more than enough jobs out there, even despite the economy. If you cannot find a job you need to get off of the couch and get some ambition. Also, if you accepted lower wages and worse working conditions, you would have a job in no time. Sorry for the bad sarcasm, but many people of color, immigrants or not, have to settle for worse pay and worse working conditions that their caucasian American brothers. Sad isn't it. I know because I see it first hand.

Excuse me for becoming defensive as you put words in quotations and attributed them to my name even though they weren't my words... You have yet to admit your wrong-doing. And believe me I am waiting for your apology.......

I'm sorry to tell you that the facts don't match your world view. With this country in the midst of massive unemployment and a economic depression sadly, there is not enough to go around. At least when were speaking of jobs that is.


I do have a job for your information, so no need to lecture me about how you think its should be so damn easy for me to find work.... BTW Its not easy for anyone to find work nowadays. And until you realize that major factor in this discussion you mind as well be living in a fantasy world, spouting a fantasy opinion.

[Fagbemijo]

Excuse me for becoming defensive as you put words in quotations and attributed them to my name even though they weren't my words... You have yet to admit your wrong-doing. And believe me I am waiting for your apology.......

Sorry you must not know me very well. Don't hold your breath waiting for an apology from me.

I'm sorry to tell you that the facts don't match your world view. With this country in the midst of massive unemployment and a economic depression sadly, there is not enough to go around. At least when were speaking of jobs that is. I do have a job for your information, so no need to lecture me about how you think its so damn easy to find work.... BTW Its not easy. And until you realize that major factor in this discussion you mind as well be living in a fantasy world.

Once again you have been deceived my friend. There IS more than enough to go around in this country and the world at large -- it is a matter of using what we NEED, not what we WANT as well as allocating properly so there aren't those who are filthy rich and those who are starving to death.

[someguy]

Once again you have been deceived my friend. There IS more than enough to go around in this country and the world at large -- it is a matter of using what we NEED, not what we WANT as well as allocating properly so there aren't those who are filthy rich and those who are starving to death.

Thats so easy for you to say, but try saying that to the hundreds of thousands of people that were booted out of their homes because of this economic crisis, or to the ones who have lost their income and are still searching for another source of it. Your fantasy view of the world is not reflective of the world we live in.

You are right about one thing, there is enough resources on this planet to sustain us all. Unfortunately, for us in the US, and the real world at large, its not so simple. You can claim there are enough jobs to go around all you like, but that doesn't make it true. I guess what your saying is that 9.3% of our population just is too lazy to find work...... How empathetic of you. The jobs are just waiting there to be filled by those couple million lazy ass Americans. If only they'd pick there rear end up off the couch and be more like your international friends, we wouldn't be in this economic mess, right admo?

[someguy]

Sorry you must not know me very well. Don't hold your breath waiting for an apology from me.

I guess it was silly of me to think that you'd admit to and apologize for lying without even knowing you. I guess I just tend to give strangers the benefit of the doubt......

[someguy]

There are more than enough jobs out there, even despite the economy. If you cannot find a job you need to get off of the couch and get some ambition.

YouTube - We Need To Put An End To The Policies That Got Us Here! Pres Obama pt.1

If your interested, this is a speech Obama just gave today, a few minutes ago actually, and in that speech he said that for every job opening in America, we have 5 unemployed people to match it. Hmm... Does it take a rocket scientist to evaluate those numbers admo? Does that really fit into your world view?

[Fagbemijo]

Thats so easy for you to say, but try saying that to....the ones who have lost their income and are still searching for another source of it.

I am one of those people. :(
This is why we need to rethink the way we think about things and maybe even redesign our global society.

I know you are mad, but please stop pointing the finger at me. Also, you are hiding from the truth. The truth is, even with the "bad" economy, many people are filthy rich to the point of having multi-billions of dollars in our state alone.
Less than 10% of the population of our world controls over 90% of the wealth.
There is MORE than enough to go around, the question is who will get some? And why? Because they were born into old wealth?
I do not have a world view, per se. But i do know that the way we as humanity are going about the problem of overpopulation is not right.

[someguy]

I know you are mad, but please stop pointing the finger at me. Also, you are hiding from the truth. The truth is, even with the "bad" economy, many people are filthy rich to the point of having multi-billions of dollars in our state alone.
Less than 10% of the population of our world controls over 90% of the wealth.
There is MORE than enough to go around, the question is who will get some? And why? Because they were born into old wealth?
I do not have a world view, per se. But i do know that the way we as humanity are going about the problem of overpopulation is not right.

I'd be very interested in hearing what you know about overpopulation. A subject that I spend a lot of time researching.

[Hotspring 44]

I do not mean to sound rude, but many of my American-born friends -- be them of any color, culture, or race -- are much more "lazy" than my friends who have immigrated from overseas.

I do not construe what you just said as being rude. I actually concur to some extent with your observation of American-born people being too [fat and] (my interjection) lazy so to speak.

There is a litany of factors involved with “legal immigration” that requires a certain amount of education or prearranged job of/for the immigrant to meet the requirements.

In comparison our school system here in America is failing so many American citizens.

Just to compare; 1-. I'm assuming that the immigrants that you know personally are probably not the so-called illegal aliens that you have referred to as “stealing our jobs”. Is that correct?
2- Comparatively, were they come from; coming to America is probably a privilege for them, is it not?
3- Many other countries in which people are allowed to immigrate to America from have a greater amount of vocational experience than what is normally allowed or available in American public schools.

So comparatively, many of our fellow citizens do not have a high school diploma and also they do not have adequate training or experience in vocational skills , and usually do not have the resources to up their education to a college level either.

Another point I would like to make is that you live in Sonoma County California, which has a very high cost of living compared to most of the rest of the United States. Minimum wage in Sonoma County is not a living wage.

Then there are the cultural differences. Most youngsters in the United States either depend upon their parents for the first few years after they become 18 or they go out on their own.
When they go out on their own without the help of their parents they still have to pay rent, utilities, food, taxes, transportation to and from work, etc. etc., state minimum wage in this area is simply not enough to make ends meet.

Would you take a job that cost you more to do than what you get out of it? Of course not!

I am saying that a single person that has to use minimum wage in Sonoma, Marin, Napa, Lake, Mendocino, Sacramento Counties, etc. etc. is not going to financially make it by themselves without some kind of help/assistance.

The fact that certain employers throughout the history of the state of California and the history of the United States as well, have been taking advantage of immigrant laborers by paying them as little as they could and still get the work done for them.

Also, many immigrants have resources that come from outside to help them survive during the first few months of their residency here. Or they actually have a prearranged job that they go directly to (hence the green card) and also a prearranged place to reside. Just try to get that for a high school dropout American citizen of any race and for that same person to have enough money left out of each paycheck to send some of it back to a family somewhere like so many immigrants seem to be able to do.

There most definitely is a gap between the needs of a single person on their own and available wages for those low-paying jobs that immigrants are theoretically commonly taking.
Then there is the immigrants “taking” skilled labor (jobs) factor, which I believe was mentioned here on waccobb somewhere at some point in the recent past.

There are lots of socioeconomic circumstances that I think are easy to overlook whereas some (but definitely not all) of those people that are referred to as being too lazy are still aware of their circumstance enough to know that they would be unable to maintain a livelihood on their own with wages that immigrant families are able to sustain themselves with because of the strength in numbers factor many immigrants have been able to take advantage of.

I have seen people from international areas other than Mexico having jobs here in the United States that are not farm related labor and actually some of those jobs require some skills with some amount of training and minimally high school diploma (some are graduate college educated). Those combined with a reasonable amount of motivation and some form of savings or support to start with is likely more common than not.

I think that there is a lack of support for American people that work whom only receive minimum wage with no benefits because it is common now for it to be a temporary job and the market is flooded with workers.

That's where the robber baron comes in.

One of the tactics that the robber barons have used is to introduce somebody, usually from a distant place that is able to easily outpace everybody else in the field or wherever they're working as a threat to the workers whom are already working there that they better hurry up,shut up, put out, and put up!... ...(with substandard working conditions)... Or else!

Some people may appear to be “lazy”, but even if it's subconscious, many are very aware of that ( robber Baron circumstance) to the point where it is actually instinctual.

I remember one time when I was young; there were more people coming from Cambodia that were eligible for business loans, then there were Americans eligible/applying (successfully) for similar business loans, because of some sort of an international treaty.
Meanwhile, there were homeless veterans! What's up with that? I can only give you short answer at this point in time that answer is that it has to do with socioeconomics. There is/was a mentality that was/is deeply ingrained in people that were born in the 1940s and early 1950s that they would rather starve or die than get any of what they perceived to be as “handouts” from “the government”.

I think that the competition to get to the USA is so high that my international friends would all be considered "overachievers" by our society's standards just to have the opportunity to come work or study here.

Overachievers have a grotesque competition, instinct that I personally cannot stand!
I don't dislike those people, but if all employers expect every employee to be like that it ends up making the work environment and everything dependent upon it too stressful and there becomes too many tensions at work and in people's homes thus it makes virtually everybody absolutely miserable! Except maybe the boss, if the boss is taking a gain in profit from the competitiveness.
But the hyper-competitiveness also has drawbacks, which usually result in high turnover and injury rates. Note the high volume, meat processing plants in the Midwest as an example.

The question arises why does our culture have such a word and ideology of "overachiever". Is it possible to achieve too much? Certainly not by the standards of many of my international friends who beat themselves up over "A's" when they could have gotten an "A+".

Give me a break! They actually beat themselves up over not getting A+! Don't you get it?
“Overachiever” may not be the best explanation for me to be expressing my divergence to.

I think a better way to explain what I'm trying to get at would be called something like hyper-competitiveness.
There are limits to tolerable levels of everything in both directions high and low. Too much competition is equally as unhealthy as not enough motivation.
It (hyper-competitiveness) turns into a game of win and lose only instead of peaceful and successful symbiotic cooperative society.
Winner takes all is a horrible, inhumane, destructive, dehumanizing way to run a society!

In other words, hyper-competitive people have a mentality to win at all costs, which is highly destructive to society when it's not on a leash.
Remember the recent banking crisis? Bailouts? Goldman Sachs and the sort?
The people running those things could be considered "overachievers" or "hyper-competitive". Don't you think so? Without the leash,they ended up gambling our economy into a deep ditch, largely contributed to the recession if not downright depression (were not out of it yet). That's essentially what I think about when I hear the terms "overachiever" and competitive (in the context of being a good thing) being bandied about.

[Hotspring 44]

Are you referring to (from rich to poor) wealth redistribution?

There IS more than enough to go around in this country and the world at large -- it is a matter of using what we NEED, not what we WANT as well as allocating properly so there aren't those who are filthy rich and those who are starving to death.

[podfish]

Are you referring to (from rich to poor) wealth redistribution?

.. that's only happening after the poor-to-rich redistribution has taken place, and it doesn't balance it out - the rich are keeping more than enough. I don't understand how some people seem to feel that those who siphon off nearly all the production of the workers in this country somehow are fully deserving of it. As admo said, clearly there's "more than enough to go around in this country and the world at large" at least in abstract terms. It's the distribution system that prevents that. Again, I don't see how that's debatable - all you could say is that those who don't share in it don't deserve to, whether because of their own personal failings (laziness, for example) or by their own bad fortunes. The system we live under, as most posters to this thread acknowledge, isn't inevitable. The discussions have centered around who's to blame for it. But take it one step farther - what are the values underlying it?
For some reason, one thing that clarified my thinking on this point was Bush's push to make everyone share in the "ownership society". This was touted as a good thing, and a sign that he was more than just a creature of his own monied class; he wanted everyone to benefit from the same system that his family does. To me it just highlights how strongly those principles are engrained in us - respect for acquisition of private property and the rights of people to hold on to, not just the objects, but the systems, that they've created. His vision is that we all 'own' things that bring us income, presumably more income than we'd get by our own work alone. That's a pyramid scheme. It's based on the idea that the initial contributions (setting up a business, occupying and improving land, or just having the foresight to grab something first) are so valuable that others will forever kick back a share of its earnings back to its owner. So the employees are in effect paying a tax to the one who owns the business, and no-one has the opportunity to produce anything from, or use land that's owned by someone else.
As a practical setup, it's probably the only way to go. It's easy to see the nice synergy between this system and most people's psychology. But to take this another step forward by making it an ideology and tying it into your definition of virtue is a mistake. For example, that's where the demonization of immigrants comes from. It defines the problem as competition between them and the 'legitimate' workers in this country, while only occasionally challenging the role of the businesses that are sitting on top of the flow of wealth either group produces. The hyper-competitiveness mentioned in this thread isn't good for anyone, but arises because of the way this system is designed (like evolution, it doesn't imply an "intelligent designer". The system is simpler if there are winners and losers, and simpler systems evolve more easily. So to circle back to the questions posed at the start of this thread: I agree it's preposterous to focus on the immigrants. I also don't think that laziness is all that evil. To me the problem is that we want to separate people into deserving/not-deserving and we're perfectly happy if the deserving ones come out ok and the non-deserving see the errors of their ways and are coerced to become more like us and the other deserving ones...

[pbrinton]

Excellent post. I have often thought that we should be rethinking the fundamental idea of property rights, but these are so embedded in the culture that questioning them is seen as a form of treason. Property rights are enshrined in the Constitution. I do not agree, however, that even as a practical matter we should accept the system we have. If we can reshape it into something more just and equitable then we should certainly at the very least discuss how that might be done.

I agree with you absolutely about the position of the so-called "ownership" interest in businesses. These people, who have done everything useful they are ever going to do, not only are given a share of the loot in perpetuity; that would be bad enough. Worse than that, they get to call all the shots. The whole enterprise is run for their benefit. By law the directors and managers of a corporation are bound by what is call fiscal duty to the shareholders to do everything in their power to increase shareholder value. No other consideration must be allowed to outweigh that one. If it makes the shareholders more money to break the law (and pay the resultant fines and penalties) than to obey the law, then the law must be broken. I do not believe they are required to personally break the law, but many crimes are corporate in nature and do not expose the directors or managers ot oersonal legal sanctions.

One might think that the workers and customers of the company should have their interests considered in the decision making process, and of course since shareholder value is to some extent enhanced by happy workers and customers this does sometimes happen, but when the chips are down, it is the shareholders that rule.

Patrick Brinton

.. that's only happening after the poor-to-rich redistribution has taken place, and it doesn't balance it out - the rich are keeping more than enough. I don't understand how some people seem to feel that those who siphon off nearly all the production of the workers in this country somehow are fully deserving of it. As admo said, clearly there's "more than enough to go around in this country and the world at large" at least in abstract terms. It's the distribution system that prevents that. Again, I don't see how that's debatable - all you could say is that those who don't share in it don't deserve to, whether because of their own personal failings (laziness, for example) or by their own bad fortunes. The system we live under, as most posters to this thread acknowledge, isn't inevitable. The discussions have centered around who's to blame for it. But take it one step farther - what are the values underlying it?
For some reason, one thing that clarified my thinking on this point was Bush's push to make everyone share in the "ownership society". This was touted as a good thing, and a sign that he was more than just a creature of his own monied class; he wanted everyone to benefit from the same system that his family does. To me it just highlights how strongly those principles are engrained in us - respect for acquisition of private property and the rights of people to hold on to, not just the objects, but the systems, that they've created. His vision is that we all 'own' things that bring us income, presumably more income than we'd get by our own work alone. That's a pyramid scheme. It's based on the idea that the initial contributions (setting up a business, occupying and improving land, or just having the foresight to grab something first) are so valuable that others will forever kick back a share of its earnings back to its owner. So the employees are in effect paying a tax to the one who owns the business, and no-one has the opportunity to produce anything from, or use land that's owned by someone else.
As a practical setup, it's probably the only way to go. It's easy to see the nice synergy between this system and most people's psychology. But to take this another step forward by making it an ideology and tying it into your definition of virtue is a mistake. For example, that's where the demonization of immigrants comes from. It defines the problem as competition between them and the 'legitimate' workers in this country, while only occasionally challenging the role of the businesses that are sitting on top of the flow of wealth either group produces. The hyper-competitiveness mentioned in this thread isn't good for anyone, but arises because of the way this system is designed (like evolution, it doesn't imply an "intelligent designer". The system is simpler if there are winners and losers, and simpler systems evolve more easily. So to circle back to the questions posed at the start of this thread: I agree it's preposterous to focus on the immigrants. I also don't think that laziness is all that evil. To me the problem is that we want to separate people into deserving/not-deserving and we're perfectly happy if the deserving ones come out ok and the non-deserving see the errors of their ways and are coerced to become more like us and the other deserving ones...

[Speak2Truth]

By law the directors and managers of a corporation are bound by what is call fiscal duty to the shareholders to do everything in their power to increase shareholder value. No other consideration must be allowed to outweigh that one.

Strangely enough, many corporations give generous amounts of money and other benefits to society at a cost to their shareholders. Bill Gates, the epitome of the Capitalist, has taken a huge amount of money from his corporation and used it to the great betterment of mankind both in America and abroad. Yes, he makes sure his shareholders also profit, as is his duty to them.

The beauty of the "ownership of property" system is that anyone can rise from owning nothing to fabulous wealth by their own efforts. They deserve it because they directly took action to make it happen. Nobody is GIVING it to them. They earn it, usually by bringing a lot of other people into great wealth along with them. Those people also earn it.

Who deserves to receive wealth stolen from a man who has earned it?

The Founders of this system insisted that Christian morality such as charity be taught in all the schools so that the truly needy would be cared for, voluntarily, without anyone having a gun put to their heads. They also stated that they made the redistribution of wealth by government absolutely illegal in every way they could, for it leads to great mischief when a politician is empowered to reach into one man's pocket to seize assets then hand those assets to his supporters.

If we stick to the original American system, there are most assuredly going to be those who have more than others, just as there are in every system ever tried. Fidel Castro does not stand in soup lines with his "comrades".

The difference is, in the American system, the deserving are those who make the effort to produce and to earn. Let them be the role model for all others.

Those who do not choose to follow the example of the successful are clearly not the deserving.

[podfish]

there's nothing strange about it; most people do have an intention to do "good". I take issue with your characterization of Bill Gate's charity, though - he deserves personal credit because his foundations are his, not Microsoft's.
The problem isn't that people are rewarded for their efforts and initiative, it's that the rewards are exorbitant. The problem is that many costs of their enterprises are borne by society as a whole, or their workers are exploited because of their inability to compete successfully as entrepreneurs themselves. Of course the workers aren't slaves - they usually could just walk out if they feel unfairly compensated. But the system as it stands devalues the contributions of those workers who don't have the skills to set up their own rival companies, and boosts the rewards for those who can. Again, I have no problem with giving respect and rewards to those who do indeed offer value to their society by creating jobs for others; in a world with this many people, the ability to organize, coordinate and plan is essential. The capitalist system discounts the value of those who don't have similar unique skills, or who don't have the personality traits that allow them to thrive in such a system. In what is claimed to be a Christian society, few Christian values are actually respected; you'd think we'd have spent the last two thousand years learning to better help the poor, encourage the meek, and assist the rich in fitting their camels through the eyes of needles.

Strangely enough, many corporations give generous amounts of money and other benefits to society at a cost to their shareholders. Bill Gates, the epitome of the Capitalist, has taken a huge amount of money from his corporation and used it to the great betterment of mankind both in America and abroad. ....
The beauty of the "ownership of property" system is that anyone can rise from owning nothing to fabulous wealth by their own efforts. They deserve it because they directly took action to make it happen....

[Speak2Truth]

My major resistance to the language you use is when you say that "the system" does such and such. In a free capitalist system, it does not "do" anything to anyone. The system leaves people alone to achieve or fail on their own.

Socialism is a system that "does" things to people, to create results by forceful manipulation. Free-market capitalism is not.

So, I'll try to get around the phrasing to ponder the points...

I take issue with your characterization of Bill Gate's charity, though - he deserves personal credit because his foundations are his, not Microsoft's.

I worked at Microsoft for a bit. Bill Gates, the CEO, caused Microsoft to be benificent, to its employees and to humanity in general. Whether it was Gates' personal money, taken from MS the form of a salary, or the money was distributed directly by MS (to combat AIDS or to wire the entire nation for internet), it was still a direct result of Bill Gates, the poster child for benevolent capitalism, directing things.

The problem isn't that people are rewarded for their efforts and initiative, it's that the rewards are exorbitant.

If the rewards are honestly earned, from income generated fairly by the company, I have no problem with that. It is why the Founders insisted Christian morality be taught in the schools, so more men like Bill Gates would be running those corporations and we would all benefit from it. It is "the rich" who employ others, who give money to help others, who build infrastructure and do other good deeds to raise up the people in general. "The mediocre" do not do these things. Therefore, it makes sense to me to have as many people as possible do their best to follow the example of "the rich".

I agree with you that not everyone will achieve, even if they strive. But to seize assets earned by one man, forcefully, to help someone else get a leg up is immoral. I suggest those wealthy people insisting on such a policy instead give of themselves. Obama and Gore can certainly afford to as can many Hollywood celebrities. I'd like to give Angelina Jolie a huge hug. In part because of her generosity.

The problem is that many costs of their enterprises are borne by society as a whole

Only if corrupt government steps in. Then it's no longer free capitalism.

For example, when corrupt CEOs ran their companies into the ground, Obama seized assets from honest companies to stuff their pockets, making society as a whole bear the burden of their mistakes. That is defined as FASCISM.

If a corrupt company simply collapses because it is poorly managed and we are not robbed to pay off the crooks, that's fine by me. Sure, the emplolyees will be out of work, but that is not a cost burden to be borne by people working to make other companies and their own lives successful.

If those out of work people are in desperate need of charity, that's where Christian morality comes in. Bill Gates may be right there for 'em.

But the system as it stands devalues the contributions of those workers who don't have the skills to set up their own rival companies, and boosts the rewards for those who can.

Again, I insist, the "system" isn't doing anything to anybody. It is hands-off. Socialism devalues the contributions of those who achieve by direct intervention, so it would be fair to say that the Socialist system "does something" to people. At gunpoint, if they insist on being left alone.

The capitalist system discounts the value of those who don't have similar unique skills, or who don't have the personality traits that allow them to thrive in such a system.

The system does nothing to those people. What you are really saying is that people who don't have the particular ambition or skills do not achieve. That's natural. It is just the way they are.

A guy who is afraid of heights should not be paid like an airline pilot just because he can't become one, due to his particular makeup. We should not be forced to bear the burden of "equalizing" him with others by punishing those who really can achieve. I believe that is just wrong.

In what is claimed to be a Christian society, few Christian values are actually respected

I agree that is the situation today. Christian values are long-oppressed in this society and we have the Communist-founded ACLU fighting to crush them once and for all. However, back when this nation was founded and for quite a long time after, our laws and our national leaders did their best to uphold Christian values and this nation, with a small percentage of the world's population, became one of the most prosperous and free on the planet.

It seems clear to me that we should strive to return to the formula for proven success rather than allow further encroachment of the ideology that would destroy it here as it has destroyed success in so many other nations.

you'd think we'd have spent the last two thousand years learning to better help the poor, encourage the meek, and assist the rich in fitting their camels through the eyes of needles.

Now you're talking like Jesus! .... except he never insisted we "assist" the rich by putting a gun to their heads and taking their stuff.

Once politicians have the power to seize assets and redistribute, they ALWAYS redistribute to those who will give them more and more power. Great mischief ensues. We are watching the consequences of it today in our own country, in the riots in Greece and France, in the collapse of the Socialist Republics (USSR), in the murderous regimes of other Socialist nations like North Korea and China...

Let's not go down the proven path to destruction. Let's get back to the principles that worked before. That makes sense to me.

[seanpfister]

If we stick to the original American system, there are most assuredly going to be those who have more than others, just as there are in every system ever tried....The difference is, in the American system, the deserving are those who make the effort to produce and to earn.

They (the founders) had a lot right but they also had a lot wrong. The Constitution explicitly allowed slavery, which wasn't made illegal until 1865. And thereafter we had apartheid until 1965. Likewise, half the population was denied the vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

I wouldn't want to live under the original Constitution.

[Speak2Truth]

Yet it was those founders who condemned slavery, tried to incorporate it into the Declaration of Independence and whose principles were ultimately responsible for undoing the African system of slavery that had been imported to the British Colonies.

I would agree with you - in the country's early days, not all their principles could be put into practice. The Founders and those who followed in their footsteps had to rearrange the new nation without punishing its Citizens too harshly for being inheritors of many evils.

Eventually, though, conservatives loyal to the founding principles went to war again to advance them, including the elimination of slavery.

I am happy to embrace the founding principles and the reasons they were established. All the progress this nation has made - and that spilled over to so many other nations - is a result of those principles.

As for the Constitution - may it never be amended in contradiction to those principles. That would be a dark day.

For a more clear understanding of what those principles were, try a book called "The 5000 Year Leap". I'm just going through it now and it uses the words of the founders and their contemporaries to explain terms that I formerly did not understand clearly, such as "Natural Rights". Good stuff!

[Sylph]

So, S2T, you are a Glenn Beck fan?
Stolen from an Amazon book review of the book endorsed above:

Cleon Skousen, in a pathetically desperate attempt to connect American democracy to Biblical authority, makes the astonishing claim that the ancient Israelites invented representative democracy while wandering in the desert as described in the Book of Exodus. Two problems: the Exodus never occurred--at least not as described in the Old Testament, which states that 600,000 men of fighting age left Egypt. Adding in wives, children, parents, etc., we find that a mob approximating two million people somehow got away unnoticed. (Despite copious written records from ancient Egypt, there is no record of the sudden departure of two million slaves from the city of Rameses.) Not only that, archaeologists following the Biblical route have found no artifacts from this mass migration, so apparently two million people wandered in the desert for forty years and didn't lose anything, not a knife, a trinket, a bowl, pot, or worn out sandal. Second, Skousen's claim is not supported by his source. He claims that the Isrealites elected representatives for each ten families, each 100 families, each 1,000 families, etc. What Exodus actually says is that Moses was appointed the ruler of the people by God, but discovered that judging every petty disagreement that arose was simply too time consuming, so at the suggestion of his father-in-law, Jethro, he appointed not "representatives" but judges to arbitrate minor disputes. None were elected, not Moses, not his brother Aaron, not the judges, and not Joshua, who commanded the army. No elections, no voting, no democracy.
Cleon Skousen:
Cleon Skousen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

["Mad" Miles]

Yet it was those founders who condemned slavery, ...and whose principles were ultimately responsible for undoing the African system of slavery that had been imported to the British Colonies....

Are you saying that the form of slavery practiced in the "New World" by various European colonial powers, was the same as the slavery practiced in Africa by black Africans?

Or are you saying that the system in the colonies was an "African system" because most of the slaves were black Africans kidnapped, sold into slavery and shipped (at a horrible "spoilage", death rate of between twenty to one hundred percent mortality per voyage, Capitalism ain't pretty sometimes, specially when those goddamn Socialists muck up the works with their sneaky lieing ways) to the Americas to work on the plantations run by the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French or English?

If you meant the first interpretation, you're even more woefully ignorant of World History than you've already shown here today.

If you meant the latter, then you're just guilty of poor, confusing syntax. Which, while not as great an intellectual lacunae, is still an indicator of confusion and poorly developed logic skills.

Don't worry, since the Mayan / Aztec Socialist Macheteros, commanded by that racist President Obama are looking for you. It doesn't really matter where your confusion lies. Time is short! The end is nigh!!

Goddamn Socialist Machetero Aztec Mayan elitist murderers sucking the life blood from this great nation....What's a patriot to do?

[Speak2Truth]

So, S2T, you are a Glenn Beck fan?

I'm becoming one. I've seen a lot of things "on the street" and I am glad he is talking about them on the air. Nobody else seems to have the balls to do so. I give credit to Beck for making a real effort to dig up facts and portray them accurately and honestly - as much as is possible with the limited time between shows.

Don't get me started on O'Reilly though - the man is a boor.

As for the book "5000 Year Leap" - I haven't seen anything in it about the Israelites except for the apparently true assertion that the original seal of the United States was to depict the pillar of fire that protected them from Pharaoh's troops. But then, I haven't finished the book.

I recommend reading the book for yourself. That's what we free thinkers do. We don't let other people tell us what not to read. Other people tend to have their own agendas. I'm recommending the book to you and suggesting you take it as an intellectual exercise.

As for artifacts of the Exodus, a group called Wyatt Research claims to have found quite a few. I got some of their video tapes a few years back. If what they portray is accurate, they're definitely onto something, including the crossing point at the Red Sea (name of it translates to "dry at low tide" - the oceans were lower back then), also an encampment that was established near a lake with wells dug to get water and some other things. I don't know if it's all TRUE, but the tapes are interesting.

Let's talk about the Israelites in another thread. That whole story about Moses and the Ark and Aaron and... well, it's very complicated. Cool stuff.

[Speak2Truth]

Are you saying that the form of slavery practiced in the "New World" by various European colonial powers, was the same as the slavery practiced in Africa by black Africans?

I'm saying that in Jamestown, the practice of Indentured Servitude allowed a person to work off their passage and become free, full members of society. Then a black African, a former indentured servant, bought some fellow Africans from a Portugese trading ship. He pretty much said, "screw this indentured servitude bit, I'm gonna make these people my property as is done in Africa". So, he started the system of making people permanent property.

It's hardly Pocahontas: new exhibits portray Jamestown colonists as killers and rapists
First black slaves were owned by a black former indentured servant
It's hardly Pocahontas: new exhibits portray Jamestown colonists as killers and rapists - Telegraph

Anthony Johnson, African indentured servant in Virginia, established African-style slavery in American Colonies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(American_Colonial)

Notably, the system of slavery was not race-based. Many blacks owned slaves and ran companies that competed strongly against white-owned companies. One document I read indicated that in 1850, about 30% of slave owners in New Orleans were black.

Here's more info:

Dixie's Censored Subject - Black Slaveowners
https://americancivilwar.com/authors...laveowners.htm

As for the rest of your rant - I enjoy watching the meltdown. Keep it up.

["Mad" Miles]

I'm saying that in Jamestown, the practice of Indentured Servitude allowed a person to work off their passage and become free, full members of society. Then a black African, a former indentured servant, bought some fellow Africans from a Portugese trading ship. He pretty much said, "screw this indentured servitude bit, I'm gonna make these people my property as is done in Africa". So, he started the system of making people permanent property.

So if I read you correctly, you're claiming that chattel slavery was invented by a black man in the early sixteen hundreds at the Jamestown colony.

Portugeuse? Romans? Egyptians? Jews? Mesopotamians? Just to name a few "civilizations" with slave economies that predated British colonialism in the Americas.

I really think you need to re-check your sources. I am beginning to fear that you're one of the willing dupes of The Cabal (see several of my previous posts for a full list of elements involved) and you are unwittingly (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt!) carrying out a "black propaganda" mission here on waccobb.net at the behest of Obama and the rest.

Watch out, those goddamn Socialists are tricky and have myriad ways to enveigle even the strongest willed and hyper vigilent into unwittingly furthering their plots and schemes! No one is exempt from their evil whiles!!