Go figure

[Trump]

You mean the FBI the CIA and the NSA? Sorry but they did not say that about the NYT. They did find that Russia was helping Trump in the election and Trump knew about it and lied to voters that he didn't.

exactly ....

 

[Nickyjo]

planted by Russian Operatives to sow discourse.....seems to be working:shrug:

Discourse is good. It prevents discord.

 

[iguanaman]

Discourse is good. It prevents discord.

LOL Yes it seems that Trump supporters lose IQ points simply by following his lead.

 

[haymarket]

LOL Yes it seems that Trump supporters lose IQ points simply by following his lead.

They should better take care of their already diminished resources.

 

[Nickyjo]

Wanna get back to the main point I raised and some responses, esp my amazement at the the notion that commemorating 1619 is somehow promoting discord. Do we promote discord:

Against the Brits on July 4
Against Germans on D-Day
Etc.

Will commemorating the Battle of Hastings in 2066 promote discord between Normans and Saxons?

1619 brought untold misery for hundreds of years, 600k dead in the Civil war, thousands more thru lynching, segregation, Jazz, rock and roll, Sam Cooke and Jackie Robinson. It was significant.

 

[bluesmoke]

I have provided a ton of links if the thread go read.

"I have provided a ton of links if the thread go read."

Your statement is false. You provided one link, not linkS, that has nothing to do with any of the claims you made in your post. Why did you make such a weak lie? Let me help you:

“the founder of planned parent hood…was a huge racist.”

What is your evidence? Just your saying so doesn’t count.

“most planned parent hood places in black communities… they were put there for a reason.”

What is that reason and your proof for such? What evidence do you have for those places being mostly in black communities for the reason you give?

“Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was active with the Klu Klux Klan and the eugenics movement in the beginning of the twentieth century.”

What is your evidence for the first three of your claims?

“yes democrats hated Lincoln. republicans loved him.”

Yes, southern conservatives hated Lincoln. Northerners loved him, they’re fellow liberal.

“Lincoln is probably one of our greatest presidents”

Yes.

 

[ludin]

"I have provided a ton of links if the thread go read."

Your statement is false. You provided one link, not linkS, that has nothing to do with any of the claims you made in your post. Why did you make such a weak lie? Let me help you:

“the founder of planned parent hood…was a huge racist.”

What is your evidence? Just your saying so doesn’t count.

“most planned parent hood places in black communities… they were put there for a reason.”

What is that reason and your proof for such? What evidence do you have for those places being mostly in black communities for the reason you give?

“Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was active with the Klu Klux Klan and the eugenics movement in the beginning of the twentieth century.”

What is your evidence for the first three of your claims?

“yes democrats hated Lincoln. republicans loved him.”

Yes, southern conservatives hated Lincoln. Northerners loved him, they’re fellow liberal.

“Lincoln is probably one of our greatest presidents”

Yes.

typical leftist denial have a nice day.

 

[Somerville]

typical leftist denial have a nice day.

Yep, providing facts and data in support of statements - "typical leftist denial"

 

[ludin]

Yep, providing facts and data in support of statements - "typical leftist denial"

let me know when you get some. i already provided mine.

 

[Somerville]

slave
/slāv/
noun
1.
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

synonyms: bondsman, bondswoman, bondservant, bondslave, serf, vassal, thrall;

now you can call illegals whatever you want to call them....but SLAVES sure in the hell doesnt fit

they sure in the hell arent owned, and arent property

You should talk to ludin because he seems to have a very different definition of slavery - post #95

Slavery is nothing more then the suppression of a people and control over a group of people. If you are depending on me to give you food and shelter and
basic needs then i have the power over you and you will do what i say or you will suffer the consequences. that by definition is slavery.

 

[Somerville]

let me know when you get some. i already provided mine.

NOT ONCE have you provided facts and data to support your bizarre claims about subjects on which you show your ignorance in your comments.

 

[ludin]

NOT ONCE have you provided facts and data to support your bizarre claims about subjects on which you show your ignorance in your comments.

i just did in this thread. your denial fallacies don't work here.

 

[dairyair]

it depends on how they framed it and if they actually told the truth.
The main party for slavery are democrats that started with Jackson.
Democrats fought every civil rights act that there was and the starting on the KKK were all democrats.

they continue their slavery programs today just in a different form trying to get everyone dependent on government.
for some reason though i doubt the NY time mentioned this.

The founder of planned parenthood is a devout democrat and racist.
it is funny that she put most of the planned parenthood in black communities.
which also corresponds to the plummet in black births.

One thing common about the slave supporters. They are all conservative. They were conservative D's. Conservative = not wanting to change.
Liberals = all about change.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

1900s begin, Democrats don't support equal rights. 2/3rds of the way through the century, the Northern Democrats help pass a Civil Rights act & suddenly everyone in the south's ditching the Democrats to vote for a third party former Democrat, and next thing you know, the south is a Republican stronghold in a single decade. The parties didn't switch on hardly anything; the Democrats just dumped their rotten bastards off on the Republicans' doorstep, and they were nuts enough to take 'em in.

It's amazing reading some twenty-something's (Crossfire?) version of a history I lived through in real time.

 

[D_NATURED]

@RealityNow: My point in #181 wasn't to blame the US Civil Rights movement for the fiscal mismanagement of the past three decades. It was to emphasize that the financial dismantling of our society (beginning with Nixon abandoning the gold standard, as you point out) occurred in an era when whites, blacks, men of all races in America, were equal beneficiaries of the benefits purchased with borrowed money, and are equally culpable today for the financial mess we're in.

In #177 you appear to be blaming "white society" and white nationalism for America's modern financial woes. Globalism, the loss of jobs to China, and the decline of unions are not the products of white nationalism, and they aren't unique to "white society". Nixon's folly with Vietnam and leaving the gold standard wasn't exclusively supported by white Americans, nor did all white Americans (or anything close to it) support these policies. Gerrymandering, deep cuts to social programs, and opposition to minimum wage hikes aren't exclusively or universally supported by whites either.

You're injecting race into an issue that has nothing directly to do with race. At best you might argue that different classes (upper versus middle versus lower) hold different degrees of culpability, and that the racial makeup of the classes is different, but this is stereotyping of the broadest kind.

More generally, you're conflating issues that have nothing do with each other. Colonial slavery has nothing to do with America going down the crapper in the past 30 years. The surest proof of this is that dozens of other Western countries that had little or no colonial slavery are going down the crapper in exactly the same way. Likewise, white nationalism has nothing to do with America going down the financial crapper. The surest proof is that dozens of countries with little to no white nationalism are following America right down the tubes. As wonderfully simple as it would make things, we can't gather together everything wrong with the world today and blame it on one race, one country, one party, one man.

Be careful when throwing stones and pointing fingers is what I'm saying.

While some of Realitynow's words come off as bigotry, his point applies pretty well to the class divide, which is NOT a function of white nationalism but, more accurately, white money. Central banking, trade agreements, union busting and other policies, whether they are overtly classist in their language, are conceived of as expressions of monetary supremacy. These are policies that, largely, rich, white people have burdened poor Americans with. The commodifying of humans wasn't a white invention but hiding this rebranded slavery behind a phony, immoral fidelity to "the bottom line" is something that too many white people consider acceptable.

The reason so many believe there is a white conspiracy to enslave the world is that the very homogeneous GOP, as a matter of policy, consider wealth to be the highest priority. Contrary to your statement all Americans have NOT benefitted equally from and do not have their futures equally threatened by the debt and elitist policies that created it. A small percentage have gained extravagantly from the debt that looms over poor America.

We can say that we are up against a philosophical virus that seems to reduce fulfilling human need to a mere fiscal liability rather than our greatest common good. I resent it too when, as is common in modern America, whiteness is treated like an incurable disease of apathy to the exploitation of the poor. Many white people are not just poor but aware of why it's so hard for anyone, of any color, to change that.

 

[COTO]

While some of Realitynow's words come off as bigotry, his point applies pretty well to the class divide, which is NOT a function of white nationalism but, more accurately, white money. Central banking, trade agreements, union busting and other policies, whether they are overtly classist in their language, are conceived of as expressions of monetary supremacy. These are policies that, largely, rich, white people have burdened poor Americans with. The commodifying of humans wasn't a white invention but hiding this rebranded slavery behind a phony, immoral fidelity to "the bottom line" is something that too many white people consider acceptable.

The reason so many believe there is a white conspiracy to enslave the world is that the very homogeneous GOP, as a matter of policy, consider wealth to be the highest priority. Contrary to your statement all Americans have NOT benefitted equally from and do not have their futures equally threatened by the debt and elitist policies that created it. A small percentage have gained extravagantly from the debt that looms over poor America.

We can say that we are up against a philosophical virus that seems to reduce fulfilling human need to a mere fiscal liability rather than our greatest common good. I resent it too when, as is common in modern America, whiteness is treated like an incurable disease of apathy to the exploitation of the poor. Many white people are not just poor but aware of why it's so hard for anyone, of any color, to change that.

I've read numerous arguments very similar to these that substitute "Jewish" for "white".

As generalities, they may be true. (At least, I can't disprove them.)

Many people leverage such generalities into justification for resenting Jews (or whites) personally, wanting nothing to do with them, persecuting them, or hating them. They see this hostility as self-preservation, as due vengeance, as combating parasitism, and as effecting justice. In a sense, their views are understandable. If I could convince you that Jews, whites or whoever, as a bloc, were responsible for much of the subjugation and rape of the peoples of the world--via political machinations, hoarding of wealth, etc.--and persisted in this role until today, you might well resent them for it. At the very least, you'd probably want them stopped and stripped of their ill-gotten gains.

The problem is that these generalities are just that--generalities. When one actually looks at concentration of wealth and power in detail, the first thing that jumps out is that 'concentrated' is really, really concentrated. One observes mere thousands, sometimes only hundreds of family dynasties holding 90% or more of the wealth and power among tens of millions of families. Hence it becomes all too apparent that "Jews" (numbering in the tens of millions) or "whites" (numbering in the billions) are extraordinarily imprecise generalizations. Imprecise to the degree that saying "the Jews did this" or "whites did that" vis a vis some great political or financial sin, as though the 99.99% of blameless individuals within the demographic don't count because they wielded no real power, is more lie than truth.

This is why I object to accusations of "whites" doing thus and such, "whites" perpetrating fraud, "whites" destroying economies, just as I object to similar criticisms of "Jews". I understand the writer is typically trying to say "the perpetrators fall mainly inside this bloc" and not "everyone within this bloc is a perpetrator", but many people don't make these distinctions, especially when tempers are running high. As I say, people get it in their heads that taking action against an ethnic or religious bloc is doing the world a favour, righting an injustice, with all members of the bloc being equally culpable. Being white myself, I don't want to have more barriers placed between people of other races and myself. As it stands, only 3 of the world's 8 billion people resent me on the basis of my race, nationality, religion, sex, wealth, or political views. I'd like to keep that number at or below 3 billion if at all possible.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

It's amazing reading some twenty-something's (Crossfire?) version of a history I lived through in real time.

I take it my assessment is right on the money? That's a relief - dad thinks I've been brainwashed by college.

 

[D_NATURED]

I've read numerous arguments very similar to these that substitute "Jewish" for "white".

As generalities, they may be true. (At least, I can't disprove them.)

Many people leverage such generalities into justification for resenting Jews (or whites) personally, wanting nothing to do with them, persecuting them, or hating them. They see this hostility as self-preservation, as due vengeance, as combating parasitism, and as effecting justice. In a sense, their views are understandable. If I could convince you that Jews, whites or whoever, as a bloc, were responsible for much of the subjugation and rape of the peoples of the world--via political machinations, hoarding of wealth, etc.--and persisted in this role until today, you might well resent them for it. At the very least, you'd probably want them stopped and stripped of their ill-gotten gains.

My point was about amoral, white, fiscal infrastructure. There have been many leaders of many colors who were fabulously wealthy and oppressive to the poor. What white people have created, in terms of a morally sterile system of banking and monetary policy, though, transcends basic despotism and greed to make money itself the default god. So much human suffering is tolerated in its name.

The problem is that these generalities are just that--generalities. When one actually looks at concentration of wealth and power in detail, the first thing that jumps out is that 'concentrated' is really, really concentrated. One observes mere thousands, sometimes only hundreds of family dynasties holding 90% or more of the wealth and power among tens of millions of families. Hence it becomes all too apparent that "Jews" (numbering in the tens of millions) or "whites" (numbering in the billions) are extraordinarily imprecise generalizations.

Not when you consider how white people, including Jews, control a vastly disproportionate amount of the total wealth, which exists within an economy THEY created with their rules.

Imprecise to the degree that saying "the Jews did this" or "whites did that" vis a vis some great political or financial sin, as though the 99.99% of blameless individuals within the demographic don't count because they wielded no real power, is more lie than truth.

Fine, it's a lie that appears true. I'm just saying what I see, if you think it's bigotry to notice that a lot more white and Jewish people are rich, then so be it. I've noticed and others have too. The bigotry is when people start saying that all white people are complicit in perpetuating the imbalance. Clearly, we're not or so many of us wouldn't be poor.

This is why I object to accusations of "whites" doing thus and such, "whites" perpetrating fraud, "whites" destroying economies, just as I object to similar criticisms of "Jews". I understand the writer is typically trying to say "the perpetrators fall mainly inside this bloc" and not "everyone within this bloc is a perpetrator", but many people don't make these distinctions, especially when tempers are running high. As I say, people get it in their heads that taking action against an ethnic or religious bloc is doing the world a favour, righting an injustice, with all members of the bloc being equally culpable. Being white myself, I don't want to have more barriers placed between people of other races and myself. As it stands, only 3 of the world's 8 billion people resent me on the basis of my race, nationality, religion, sex, wealth, or political views. I'd like to keep that number at or below 3 billion if at all possible.

For better or for worse, it's become fashionable for some black people to call for general violence against white people. I've heard it many times, to my dismay, from people who should have more sense than that. Victimhood, when it becomes a badge of membership to a club of bigots, however, cheapens what has really been endured by real victims in the struggle for equality between the races and makes their sacrifice just propaganda in the race war.

The biggest enemy of the average man is himself. It's so easy to allow our differences to define us. Whatever future humans earn will have to be a more inclusive one. I have my doubts that a system that allows fabulous over consumption to exist next door to dire need will survive without great violence being mandatory by both sides.

 

[Parrish]

Really? Did slavery actually start 400 years ago "this month"?

Yes, it did. The "20 and odd" as described by John Rolfe, who arrived in Hampton, VA at Point Comfort was the beginning of slavery in VA. Thanks, Gov. Yeardley.

 

[Individual]

Yes, it did. The "20 and odd" as described by John Rolfe, who arrived in Hampton, VA at Point Comfort was the beginning of slavery in VA. Thanks, Gov. Yeardley.

I've been unable to confirm that native Americans had never been involved in slavery prior to 1619, or that slavery did not occur elsewhere in the world prior to 1619. But I do agree that there is documented evidence that the first enslaved Africans in England’s colonies in America were brought in 1619, although I have read that in 1565, the Spanish had brought enslaved Africans to what is now St. Augustine, Florida. So, it would appear that slavery began in what would later become known as the U.S.A. at least 454 years ago.

Can we then presume that the colonization of North America resulted in the initiation of slavery around the world? Slavery would never have occurred had it not been initiated by white Europeans?!

 

[COTO]

My point was about amoral, white, fiscal infrastructure. There have been many leaders of many colors who were fabulously wealthy and oppressive to the poor. What white people have created, in terms of a morally sterile system of banking and monetary policy, though, transcends basic despotism and greed to make money itself the default god. So much human suffering is tolerated in its name.

I agree completely that our world worships mammon. I object to calling it "what white people have created" on the basis that not all white people were complicit in creating it, nor were whites alone in creating it. Even if there's a kernel of truth to the characterization, I don't see anything positive coming from it.

Not when you consider how white people, including Jews, control a vastly disproportionate amount of the total wealth, which exists within an economy THEY created with their rules.

As I alluded to before, if we're going to nail people for wealth disparity, we're going to have to narrow our focus far more tightly than whites or Jews. Whence we see the genesis of terms like "the 1%", "the .1%", and "the .01%". And if we want to talk about true wealth and political power, even these tiny percentages are too broad in some respects.

Fine, it's a lie that appears true. I'm just saying what I see, if you think it's bigotry to notice that a lot more white and Jewish people are rich, then so be it.

I don't think it's bigotry or racism. I just don't think there's anything positive to be gained by advertising it. It's too imprecise to be useful as a basis for policy.

Don't misunderstand me, though: I understand (academically, if not emotionally) how frustrating it must be for visible minorities to witness significant differences in wealth between "the average" white man and "the average" member of their own race, and to be repeatedly told "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wealth." Hence I have all the more respect for non-whites who bear patiently with their white neighbours. It's hard not to resent the beneficiaries of a disparity that shouldn't exist.

The biggest enemy of the average man is himself. It's so easy to allow our differences to define us. Whatever future humans earn will have to be a more inclusive one. I have my doubts that a system that allows fabulous over consumption to exist next door to dire need will survive without great violence being mandatory by both sides.

I personally don't think we'll make it another 50 years, seeing the trajectory we're on. Take your pick: wealth disparity, worldwide economic collapse, Islam vs. nationalism in Europe, WWIII, climate, pandemics, earthquakes, species die-off, demographic collapse, race wars, "water wars", terrorists with biological weapons or dirty bombs, secessionism, ... . The only real question is which existential threat will get us first.

 

[bluesmoke]

typical leftist denial have a nice day.

"typical leftist denial..."


True. It is a typical leftist' statement that a typical conservative's declaration is untrue for failing to provide any supporting evidence of fact, whatsoever, to back up the speaker's own words. Yes, that's a denial. Your words are, therefore, worthless as the burden of proof is upon you for having made the claim. But you can't debate based on facts. You can only make stuff up with empty words of no substance.

 

[D_NATURED]

I agree completely that our world worships mammon. I object to calling it "what white people have created" on the basis that not all white people were complicit in creating it, nor were whites alone in creating it. Even if there's a kernel of truth to the characterization, I don't see anything positive coming from it.


As I alluded to before, if we're going to nail people for wealth disparity, we're going to have to narrow our focus far more tightly than whites or Jews. Whence we see the genesis of terms like "the 1%", "the .1%", and "the .01%". And if we want to talk about true wealth and political power, even these tiny percentages are too broad in some respects.


I don't think it's bigotry or racism. I just don't think there's anything positive to be gained by advertising it. It's too imprecise to be useful as a basis for policy.

Don't misunderstand me, though: I understand (academically, if not emotionally) how frustrating it must be for visible minorities to witness significant differences in wealth between "the average" white man and "the average" member of their own race, and to be repeatedly told "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wealth." Hence I have all the more respect for non-whites who bear patiently with their white neighbours. It's hard not to resent the beneficiaries of a disparity that shouldn't exist.


I personally don't think we'll make it another 50 years, seeing the trajectory we're on. Take your pick: wealth disparity, worldwide economic collapse, Islam vs. nationalism in Europe, WWIII, climate, pandemics, earthquakes, species die-off, demographic collapse, race wars, "water wars", terrorists with biological weapons or dirty bombs, secessionism, ... . The only real question is which existential threat will get us first.

Why not several calamities simultaneously. Don't we deserve the best apocalypse money can buy?