Anathstryx: Christian Foundations and Abolition of Slavery

[pbrinton]

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

[Thad]

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.

[Thad]

A brief recreational diversion for the non-god mods

[Speak2Truth]

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.

[Speak2Truth]

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?

[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.

[hales]

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

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.

[hales]

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

A brief recreational diversion for the non-god mods

[anathstryx]

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!

[Dixon]

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.

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!

[Speak2Truth]

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?

[Thad]

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.

[rossmen]

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!

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?

[Speak2Truth]

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.

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]

[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.

["Mad" Miles]

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.

[pbrinton]

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

["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!

[rossmen]

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.

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!

[Speak2Truth]

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);

[Speak2Truth]

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.

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.

["Mad" Miles]

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.

[Speak2Truth]

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

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!

"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.

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?

[zenekar]

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)

[Speak2Truth]

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?

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)

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.

[zenekar]

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!

[rossmen]

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

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.

[podfish]

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, ...

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.

["Mad" Miles]

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.

[jbox]

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?