Don't Vote
skepticl1
November 7, 2008 was National Pick Your Oppressor Day. You can have
your
election fantasies. The whole election circus is owned and operated by
wealthy,
powerful and sinister interests. Lots of people sense this. Elections
are not
the time when people influence the politics of the system. It is the
opposite:
it is a time when the masses of people get indoctrinated in the
policies this
system intends to adopt.
The electoral system is a horrible trap. Its parties and campaigns--
are a
terrible place to try to organize and struggle for change. Real change
comes
from mass action. The civil rights movement was not won by voting.
When people
get fooled and drawn into the electoral system their struggle gets
tamed. It is
an arena where people get trained to accept the limits and framework
of the
system. They are schooled in the political methods most useful and
(and least
challenging) to their oppressors.
Such a public statement of faith in the system legitimizes the future
government and power structures of this system.
There is a saying among political movement people: "Climbing into a
voting
booth doesn't make you powerful--any more than climbing into the back
of a
squad car makes you a cop."
You can cling to your electoral fantasies. Not me!
And Yes, of course, this is an indictment of the entire system.
Skeptic
49ERS: BOSS OF THE BAY
Next 49er/Raiders match up: 2010
Seon Ferguson
"skepticl1" <skep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4a9a23b8-76e6-4a7d...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Government Shill #2
>"skepticl1" <skep...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:4a9a23b8-76e6-4a7d...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> This is my opinion on voting.
<snip>
>I got a better idea how about national dont vote day?
That was yesterday.
Shill #2
--
A. Top Posters
Q. What's the most annoying thing on the usenet?
annieb
Seon Ferguson
"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9pi2249vpbcu1j6q8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 16:17:10 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"skepticl1" <skep...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:4a9a23b8-76e6-4a7d...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>> This is my opinion on voting.
>
> <snip>
>
>>I got a better idea how about national dont vote day?
>
> That was yesterday.
>
guess because the US is bigger. Still I don't think I'd vote if I lived in
America. I'd only vote if Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich was running.
Government Shill #2
>
>"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9pi2249vpbcu1j6q8...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 7 May 2008 16:17:10 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"skepticl1" <skep...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4a9a23b8-76e6-4a7d...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>>> This is my opinion on voting.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>I got a better idea how about national dont vote day?
>>
>> That was yesterday.
>>
>Yep but we wouldn't be able to pull that of in election day in Australia.
WOOOOOOOOSH. That, Seon, was the sounds of that joke going way over your head.
Shill #2
--
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
oldwifetale
> You can cling to your electoral fantasies. Not me!
>
> And Yes, of course, this is an indictment of the entire system.
>
> Skeptic
An interesting paper i ran across recently:
http://cedar.barnard.columbia.edu/~polisci/faculty/caraley/complica.pdf
Owt
Jim
The politically correct and apathetic!
Sydney Diego
Seon Ferguson
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 18:07:42 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:9pi2249vpbcu1j6q8...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 7 May 2008 16:17:10 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"skepticl1" <skep...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:4a9a23b8-76e6-4a7d...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> This is my opinion on voting.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>I got a better idea how about national dont vote day?
>>>
>>> That was yesterday.
>>>
>>Yep but we wouldn't be able to pull that of in election day in Australia.
>
> WOOOOOOOOSH. That, Seon, was the sounds of that joke going way over your
> head.
>
skepticl1
I don't know what statement you are trying to make 'O.' Bourgeois
democracy is an exploiter's vision. Bourgeois democacy is a piece of
shit. Thomas Jefferson raped and beat his slaves with whips. Fuck
Bourgeois democacy.
skepticl1
> "Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:9pi2249vpbcu1j6q8...@4ax.com...> On Wed, 7 May 2008 16:17:10 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"skepticl1" <skepti...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>news:4a9a23b8-76e6-4a7d...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >>> This is my opinion on voting.
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>I got a better idea how about national dont vote day?
>
> > That was yesterday.
>
> Yep but we wouldn't be able to pull that of in election day in Australia. I
> guess because the US is bigger. Still I don't think I'd vote if I lived in
> America. I'd only vote if Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich was running.
Bourgeois democacy is a con game. You are a chump if you indulge in
voting. Crawling into the back of a police cruiser doesn't make you a
cop, any more than crawling in to a voting booth makes you powerful.
There is nothing in it for regular people. Cast way your delusions
about Bourgeois democacy. I'll give you a hint. With Capitalism, the
rule of the rich, --everything goes to Bush and his exploiters class.
If you don't have a Billion dollars, if you didn't go to their
schools, if you don't sniff brandy like they do, you are on the
outside. You are a chump if you vote.
Seon Ferguson
And dont even bother running for office. Unless your willing to take bribes
from the Israel lobby and oil companies.
Dont worry if I lived in America I'd just stay home and laugh at the chump's
voting thinking they can make a difference.
skepticl1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had lunch with former Congress woman Cynthia McKinney today. You can
be in U.S. politican and not take bribes from Israelis. But if you
don't, the U.S. government beats you up with police men when you try
to enter Capitol Hill.
BDK
@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
Put down the bottle.
BDK
Seon Ferguson
Good point same with Ron Paul. Its just the attack dogs like Rush Limbaugh
get you in the end. It would be great to meet a honest politican like
Cynthia.
oldwifetale
Well, S, here in the usa, if you are a natural-born citizen, the only
things you have to hold on to are the Declaration, the Consitution and
Bill of Rights. Chinese socialist politics are not what my ancestors
died defending (and i am a daughter of the revolution, so they
actually did). Our government is likewise not abiding by the
ideologies that make up the 'identity' of their own nation. It doesn't
really matter who Thomas Jefferson was, or for that matter anyone who
wrote the articles on paper - it only matters what it meant/means to
*the people*. The writers were only humans like you, me or the next
guy. Maybe he had sex with sheep for all i know. What makes them so
holy? He wasn't *my* ancestor. It's what the people agreed to live by
that matters. Otherwise, what *is* a nation? Our government is not
representing me or most of *the people*, neither as a majority or a
minority. That's what matters.
skepticl1
>
> - Show quoted text -
It matters what the 'Founding Fathers' were like in acutality because
it reflects the system they made and up hold. Capitalism and bourgeois
democracy are an exploitive system for the benefit of the rich,
exploiters, --the slavemasters, in their mansions wearing silks, while
the rest of the people are the victims of the cruel system they
invented to hurt regular people and enrich themselves. Of course
Natives and Black people and women were not even considered HUMAN
BEINGS to these elite masters.
Permalink: http://revcom.us/a/037/avakian-montesquieu-slavery.htm
A Note from Bob Avakian: On Montesquieu, Slavery and the U.S.
Constitution
Revolution #037, March 5, 2006, posted at revcom.us
Recently, Revolution ran an excerpt from a pamphlet I wrote, which was
originally published in 1987, U.S. Constitution: An Exploiters' Vision
of Freedom. In that excerpt, there is a quote from De L'Esprit Des
Lois (or, in English, "The Spirit of the Laws") by Charles
Montesquieu, an 18th–century French philosopher, who was one of the
sources of inspiration for the U.S. Constitution, and in particular
the theory of the separation of powers that is incorporated in that
Constitution. The quote from this work of Montesquieu's, which was
published in 1748, is one in which he recites an extreme and
grotesquely racist justification for "the enslavement of the Negroes."
In relation to this, it is not infrequently argued that Montesquieu
was being ironic here, and deliberately overstating this argument, in
order to, in effect, polemicize against the enslavement of African
people, and that in general Montesquieu's writings express opposition
to slavery. But the reality is not so simple as this, nor does this
reflect what Montesquieu was essentially seeking to do in this part of
"The Spirit of the Laws." It can be said that in "The Spirit of the
Laws" Montesquieu's position is one of general opposition to slavery,
and he indicates that slavery is not appropriate in countries like
France; but, at the same time, he speaks to various circumstances in
which he believes slavery can be justified or reasonable. For example,
he argues that in the parts of the world, in particular the southern
regions, where the climate is warmer, this climate makes people lazy
(indolent), and slavery may be justified in order to get them to work
(and he argues that in a despotic country, where people's political
rights are already repressed, slavery may not be worse for people in
that condition).
This, and the general discussion of slavery that makes up this part
(book 15) of "The Spirit of the Laws," is included in a broader
discussion by Montesquieu on the nature of different societies and
governments in different countries and parts of the world (this is
found not only in book 15 but also books 14 and 16 of "The Spirit of
the Laws") in which Montesquieu argues that geography and in
particular climate plays a big part in determining the nature of
different peoples and the character of their society and governing
system. And it is important to understand that, although in this
discussion Montesquieu makes logical refutation of certain arguments,
including certain defenses of slavery, this is not a polemic for or
against slavery, or other forms of government, and its character is
not that of moral argumentation, so much as it is an attempt to
explain why various practices, and various forms of society and
government, have existed (and in some cases continue to exist) in
various places.
Another way to put this is that what Montesquieu is doing, in these
parts of "The Spirit of the Laws" (and generally in this work), is
attempting to make a kind of materialist analysis of these phenomena,
including slavery in many places where it has existed--although it
must be emphasized that this is not a thoroughly scientific,
dialectical materialism but instead a rather crude and vulgar
materialism which is marked, and marred, by a considerable amount of
determinism: it is a kind of mechanical materialism that argues for a
direct and straight-line (linear) connection between things like
geography and climate and the character of society and government. It
is a kind of materialism that does not adequately and accurately
characterize the real motive forces in the development of human
society, and in fact this kind of vulgar materialism has often been
used to justify various forms of oppression, including colonial and
imperialist domination. While we can, and should, recognize that, in
the circumstances and time in which he wrote--about 250 years ago--
there are aspects of what Montesquieu was seeking to do that were new
and represented a break with the suffocating and obfuscating feudal
outlook and conventions, it is very important to understand how
Montesquieu's outlook and method were marked, and limited, by the
social, and international, relations of which they were ultimately an
expression: relations in which one part of society, and of the world,
dominates and exploits others. And that is the basic point that was
being emphasized in relation to Montesquieu and the U.S. Constitution,
in the pamphlet U.S. Constitution: An Exploiters' Vision of Freedom.
With regard to the specific passage that was cited in U.S.
Constitution: An Exploiters' Vision of Freedom, "on the enslavement of
the Negroes," there is, in fact, some reason to accept that
Montesquieu does not actually agree with the justification for this
enslavement that he summarizes, and that he is actually subjecting
this kind of justification to some ironic and satirical treatment. A
reasonable interpretation of Montesquieu's arguments, as he goes on in
this part of "The Spirit of the Laws" (book 15), is that this kind of
argument, about the non-human character of the Negroes, is not a valid
argument, not one that actually justifies this enslavement. But then
he does go on to explore the question of what might actually be
reasonable justifications, in certain circumstances, for slavery; and,
as spoken to above, he finds such justifications in situations such as
those where there is a despotic government, or where--as he concludes,
through an application of vulgar and determinist materialism--the warm
climate makes people lazy and unwilling, on their own initiative, to
work.
Thus, in looking into and reflecting on this further, I would say
that, while it is important to understand the complexity and nuance of
what Montesquieu writes here--and it can be said that the way in which
I cited Montesquieu in writing this pamphlet on the U.S. Constitution
does not really or fully do that--it is not the case that what
Montesquieu was doing here was actually making a case against the
enslavement of the Negroes, or against slavery in general. Once again,
it is important to keep in mind the fact that, although he was opposed
to slavery on general principle, and declared that it was a good thing
that it had been eliminated in his home country, France, and more
generally in Europe, Montesquieu did not think slavery was wrong, or
without justification, in all circumstances. And it also seems that
Montesquieu did not hesitate to invest in companies involved in the
slave trade. In this, there is a parallel with John Locke, the English
philosopher and political theorist, who, as I pointed out in this same
pamphlet ( U.S. Constitution: An Exploiters' Vision of Freedom), was
also a major influence in the conception of the U.S. Constitution. As
I wrote in Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That? (p. 29):
"In sum, the society of which Locke was a theoretical exponent, as
well as a practical political partisan, was a society based on wage-
slavery and capitalist exploitation. And it is not surprising that,
while he was opposed to slavery in England itself, he not only
defended the institution of slavery, under certain circumstances, in
the Second Treatise, but turned a not insignificant profit himself in
the slave trade and helped to draw up the charter for a government
headed by a slave-owning aristocracy in one of the American colonies.
For as Marx sarcastically summarized: ‘The discovery of gold and
silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in
mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and
looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for
the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the
era of capitalist production.’"
oldwifetale
> > > I don't know what statement you are trying to make 'O.' Bourgeois
> > > democracy is an exploiter's vision. Bourgeois democacy is a piece of
> > > shit. Thomas Jefferson raped and beat his slaves with whips. Fuck
> > > Bourgeois democacy.
>
> > Well, S, here in the usa, if you are a natural-born citizen, the only
> > things you have to hold on to are the Declaration, the Consitution and
> > Bill of Rights. Chinese socialist politics are not what my ancestors
> > died defending (and i am a daughter of the revolution, so they
> > actually did). Our government is likewise not abiding by the
> > ideologies that make up the 'identity' of their own nation. It doesn't
> > really matter who Thomas Jefferson was, or for that matter anyone who
> > wrote the articles on paper - it only matters what it meant/means to
> > *the people*. The writers were only humans like you, me or the next
> > guy. Maybe he had sex with sheep for all i know. What makes them so
> > holy? He wasn't *my* ancestor. It's what the people agreed to live by
> > that matters. Otherwise, what *is* a nation? Our government is not
> > representing me or most of *the people*, neither as a majority or a
> > minority. That's what matters.
>
> It matters what the 'Founding Fathers' were like in acutality because
> it reflects the system they made and up hold.
Well, that is actually bullshit (excuse my french). To justify the
invalidation of an entire nation's foundational ideology by pointing
out that one of the "founding fathers" (gag) raped and whipped slaves
is not even a good tactic for you. Somehow the abolishment of slavery
managed to occur while the Constitution was not compromised. Further,
Thomas Jefferson wrote repeated warnings about the pitfalls of a
democratic society, and the importance of maintaining individual
rights in the face of majority 'rule'. He also warned about the
potential of oligarchies and plutocracies arising if people were not
watchful - which is exactly what has happened, but not because there
is anything wrong with the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Your
statements about bourgeois democracy are typical of most socialist
perspectives, but i am not a socialist and do not *need* to be a
socialist to care about the well-being of my fellow human beings.
Oddly enough, it was once possible to have your own 'mom and pop'
business and still contribute to the "overall good" of your community,
town, etc. in a healthy and competitive market society that prohibited
monopolies and centralization of power. Imagine that. If that can't
still happen, it has nothing to do with anything being wrong with the
Constitution, and even less to do with whether Jefferson was an ass or
not.
Owt
skepticl1
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's not just one of the 'Founding Fathers' Oldwifetale, it's all of
them were pigs. They created a system not for regular people, but to
further their own interests. The Plantation owners, the slavemasters
made the rules. The Constitution is a slavemaster's idea of how to get
over on people. The Communist Manifesto frees human beings from the
fettors of Capitalism. It is the privatization of wealth that is the
problem with the world, a world designed to be oppressive for the vast
majority. If all of the orginal writers of the Constitution were not
slave whippers, and slave rapers, then they were Indian killers or
exploitative bosses lording it over their employees and waging wars
and making rules to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
Slavery worked just fine with in the confines of the exploiter's
Constitution. Captialism is about making a profit. It works very well
for George Washington or Donald Trump. It is misery for the rest of
soceity.
Small scale Capitalism, 'Mom and Pop stores' are explotative too. We
need a society where heath care is free, where education is free,
where housing is free and people don't have to scramble to sell their
labor or starve sleeping on the streets. It shouldn't be about making
more than your neighbor and giving inheritance to your offspring, if
you do make it in the competitive society. It should be about each
according to their ability, each according to their needs. It should
about sustainablity.
oldwifetale
> them were pigs. They created a system not for regular people, but to
> further their own interests. The Plantation owners, the slavemasters
> made the rules. The Constitution is a slavemaster's idea of how to get
> over on people. The Communist Manifesto frees human beings from the
> fettors of Capitalism.
I respectfully disagree, S, and i say 'respectfully' because you are
able to argue without resorting to personal attacks. My family has
been here since the start of the nation, and i have documented proof
that trust in the government was not among any of my previous
generations, whereas a firm devotion to the 'principles' of individual
freedoms were extremely strong. All governments of all political
systems have a tendency to become corrupt and to dominate the people
via wealth and power....
It is the privatization of wealth that is the
> problem with the world, a world designed to be oppressive for the vast
> majority. If all of the orginal writers of the Constitution were not
> slave whippers, and slave rapers, then they were Indian killers or
> exploitative bosses lording it over their employees and waging wars
> and making rules to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
> Slavery worked just fine with in the confines of the exploiter's
> Constitution. Captialism is about making a profit. It works very well
> for George Washington or Donald Trump. It is misery for the rest of
> soceity.
Making a profit does not = misery for others, and referring to
unconstitutional actions of a nation that *did* and *do* need
corrected does not justify bailing out for a communistic system. For
instance, in reference to native people, upholding the Constitution is
the only legal stance we can take if treaties are to ever be honored
as promised. And if you ask around, you will discover that barter and
trade among tribes was very common before europeans came along - with
some tribes doing very well for themselves while others did not do so
well at times. The fact that paper money was not used does not mean
that commerce did not happen, and buying into an idea that indigenous
people were too 'primitive' to figure it all out is self-deceptive,
not to mention insulting to indigenous people.
Monopolies accompanied by disregard for national loyalties are what
paved the way to globalization. When a 'few' control the 'many',
that's what happens. When elected government officials are also CEO's
of major international corporations, that's what happens. Economically
there is a conflict of interest, and this is where the individual
rights of the people to actively rebel against such a government
should be enacted. In a communistic system such as you espouse, what
are *the people* to do when their government starts pocketing the
money originally designated for the general populace? In terms of
housing... what if i want to live in a yurt? In our system it is
'possible' to keep your cultural identity while still being singularly
loyal to the nation because 'creed' does not prevent upholding the
principles of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. And so long as
it is 'possible', people should strive for that ideal. In a
communistic country there is only one creed, one culture, one belief
system. Who, in your estimation, needs to change their belief systems
and who can remain who/what they are in a communist system? My
individual freedom to make my own choices and think for myself is
everything to me. What would induce me to give up such a thing aside
from giving in to doom, gloom and fear tactics?
>
> Small scale Capitalism, 'Mom and Pop stores' are explotative too. We
> need a society where heath care is free, where education is free,
> where housing is free and people don't have to scramble to sell their
> labor or starve sleeping on the streets. It shouldn't be about making
> more than your neighbor and giving inheritance to your offspring, if
> you do make it in the competitive society. It should be about each
> according to their ability, each according to their needs. It should
> about sustainablity.
It should be about sustainability, i agree, but there is no reason
that one must be communist to work toward that. For instance, i have a
business right now with my husband. We started with NO dollars,
literally, and i produced my first area magazine on an old laptop
using MS Publisher because i no longer had graphic programs to use
(thank goodness we had our skills and experience to combine). Almost
all successful print media in my region is produced by one major
corporation against whom we had to compete for advertisers. In other
words a local monopoly. We have struggled and worked ourselves to the
bone, selling only an 'idea' at first, but have finally become a
competitor to be reckoned with. The reason is because we focus on
local business and commerce, providing something that has never been
available to businesses here (we are not in the big city), and because
we have person-to-person interaction, and are known as being real
ordinary people, not suits behind desks. What we are doing goes
against everything that is happening in this globalistic world - in
that we have returned to a very old-fashioned (but longed for) way of
doing business. These days it's not easy, but it can be done. I would
love to make a profit to avoid the anxiety of paying bills each month,
and someday soon we might (although breaking even is better than being
homeless, i feel qualified to say). But i can assure you - it has
nothing to do with making more than our neighbor. Everything we do is
to help other people make more than we do, in fact. As i said, there
is no reason that you can't serve your community in some way and still
make a dream fly with your individual rights. Communism is not the
answer. But summoning up a bit of integrity is a good start toward
making things better for *all*. It's something any free individual can
choose to do.
Don Del Grande
>Bourgeois democacy is a con game. You are a chump if you indulge in
>voting. Crawling into the back of a police cruiser doesn't make you a
>cop, any more than crawling in to a voting booth makes you powerful.
>There is nothing in it for regular people. Cast way your delusions
>about Bourgeois democacy. I'll give you a hint. With Capitalism, the
>rule of the rich, --everything goes to Bush and his exploiters class.
>If you don't have a Billion dollars, if you didn't go to their
>schools, if you don't sniff brandy like they do, you are on the
>outside. You are a chump if you vote.
It beats the alternative - having "everybody" not vote, only for the
people who came up with the "don't vote" idea in the first place to
vote themselves into office.
-- Don
skepticl1
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the Soviet Union and in China when it was Socialist, there was
great emphasis promoting the rights of National minorities, everybody
did not have to be a member of the Communist Party, cultural identy
was valued. But it was a revolutionary society and there were things
which the government promoted. Sexism was fought agianst, racism was
not allowed. The Economic system was different Socialism, and those
who wanted to return to Capitalism were kept down. If the USA had a
revolution, there are plans amongst Communists to allow Blacks to have
their own homeland, if they want it, in the Mississippi delta region,
and I'm sure Native Americans could have their own homeland as well,
maybe in the Northwest.
At every step the Captialist system have murdered Native Americans,
have lied to Indians, broke every treaty, and stole as much as the
rich people can of Indigenous people's land and resources. Now the
BIA's steals the money set aside for Native Americans. It has never
been so bad in recent decades as when Bush has run things. The Lakota
are even tearing up their drivers liscenes and declaring the treaties
null because the neglect has risen to such heights. Things will never
change under Capitalism. The empire is declining. We need a complete
break with this system of exploitation.
Way Back Jack
wrote:
>In the Soviet Union and in China when it was Socialist, there was
>great emphasis promoting the rights of National minorities,
But you stayed in the West where life was good.
>. If the USA had a
>revolution, there are plans amongst Communists to allow Blacks to have
>their own homeland, if they want it, in the Mississippi delta region,
They can have a homeland in the African delta if they want it.
99% of them don't want it.
They like whitey's perks.
oldwifetale
I don't even know where to start with that paragraph, there are so
many things wrong (although somewhat revealing). Okay, first of all...
a revolution does not imply a weak opening in which a communist regime
may enter and take over the nation. You underestimate people's ability
to resist and fight when their backs are against the wall - which is
what it would take for a revolution to begin (and say goodbye to
apathy). For a communist party with 'plans' for the usa, that would be
mistake #1.
Racism doesn't disappear by not "allowing" it. That implies that
racism is only behavioral rather than a state of 'mind' (or
mindlessness, rather). Since racism is a problem that doesn't support
individual rights, one could actually go so far as to say that it's
more definitive of communism than it is of other political systems.
Therefore racism really doesn't belong in a nation of freedom-loving
citizens 'at heart', and i am not referring to so-called 'patriots'.
Insofar as "Blacks" being allowed to have their own homeland.... truly
for once i had no words for several minutes. How loaded can one
sentence be? There is that word "allowed" again. If there is someone
'allowing' me to do something, then freedom is not mine; it's being
loaned out to me by someone else who has the power to take it away
again at any time. Secondly, why should black people settle for a
homeland the size of Mississippi when they have a much bigger homeland
spanning the entire nation, and where like-minded black people are
free to form communities of their own anywhere they please? I do not
know how NYC black people would feel about being told their new
'homeland' (if they "want it") is way down south in one of the most
racist states in our nation, but it would surely be interesting to
know. "Here is your new designated territory. Good, eh?"
And native americans being 'able' to have their own homeland as
well???? In the northwest, maybe? Wow... the communists have thought
of everything!... except for the fact that this already *is* their
homeland since forever and it is not confined to any of our national
borders except by treaty agreements. How does the communist party plan
to address this fact?
>
> At every step the Captialist system have murdered Native Americans,
> have lied to Indians, broke every treaty, and stole as much as the
> rich people can of Indigenous people's land and resources. Now the
> BIA's steals the money set aside for Native Americans. It has never
> been so bad in recent decades as when Bush has run things. The Lakota
> are even tearing up their drivers liscenes and declaring the treaties
> null because the neglect has risen to such heights. Things will never
> change under Capitalism. The empire is declining. We need a complete
> break with this system of exploitation.
My sense of things is that the communist party is continually trying
to gain the support of minorities who have not been fully advised on
the ultimate communist 'plan' for them. Yours is a tactical argument
to gain a 'logical' agreement. No one can disagree that the abuses do
not occur, and have not occurred... and the up-to-now failure to
uphold treaty agreements which are supposed to be held supreme
according to Constitutional law... and therefore the "logical"
conclusion is that the Constitutional system can't work - communism is
the solution because it supports minorities (so you are claiming). Of
course i disagree.
As for the 'empires' declining... hopefully so! But confusing *the
people* (the exploited) with the emporors (the exploiters) is mistake
#2.
skep...@aol.com
Key Questions on the Liberation of Black People in the U.S.
Revolutionary Worker #1222, December 14, 2003, posted at rwor.org
PART 5. WHAT A NATION IS
Our Draft Programme upholds the right of self-determination of Black
people, who constitute an oppressed nation, to form a separate
republic (country) of their own in their historic homeland. It
emphasizes the importance of land, self-rule in the form of autonomy,
and equality of languages and cultures for other oppressed peoples,
especially Native Americans and Mexican-Americans. It also recognizes
the particular dynamics of the struggle in Hawai'i and special issues
of sovereignty and the right to self-rule in some form on the part of
indigenous Hawaiians.* It supports independence for Puerto Rico. And
it puts forth measures and policies to overcome discrimination and
inequality for all oppressed nationalities.
Now NAPO argues that the right to form a separate state applies not
just to Black people but to other oppressed peoples in the U.S. (NAPO
refers to African-Americans, Mexicanos, Native Americas, and
Hawaiians, etc.). Are all oppressed peoples and national groupings in
the U.S. nations with the right to self-determination? To be clear,
the right of self-determination of nations means not only the right of
an oppressed nation to determine its own affairs as a nation in
general but more particularly the right to form a separate state of
its own in its own homeland.
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism holds that whether a given community of people
is a nation, or something else, can only be determined by applying
objective criteria. A nation is a concrete historical phenomenon.
Whether a specific community of people constitutes a nation is not a
subjective determination. In other words, it is not that "what people
think they are...they are." People's consciousness certainly reflects
something about reality, but this is not the deciding criterion. A
nation is not a state of mind. Nor are a people a nation because they
could have developed into a nation, but particular historical factors
prevented this from happening. A nation is not a status that an
oppressed people, or its political representatives, can simply lay
claim to, if they so decide. A nation is a material fact.
A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common
territory, a common language, a common economic life, and a common
culture. The development of modern nations is linked to processes of
commodity production and the rise and spread of the capitalist mode of
production.
Nations are forged through a dynamic and complex process of
development, change, and transformation. Each experience has a certain
uniqueness. But what is important to emphasize in the discussion here
is this. The historical processes welding a people into a nation
result in an economic and social interconnectedness. These processes
result in an "internal cohesion" and degree of development that
provide the material basis to establish separate nation-states. If
there is not a material basis for a people to form an independent
state, then why argue that self-determination and independence are at
the core of their struggle?
We have to approach different national questions differently.
PART 6. ON THE COMMON FEATURES AND PARTICULARITIES OF THE NATIONAL
QUESTIONS IN THE U.S.
How do we understand the historical development that has shaped the
conditions of life and oppression of the various oppressed
nationalities the United States? On the one hand, they share common
features of oppression--violence and terror, discrimination,
segregation, and mutilation and debasement of cultures. On the other
hand, there is a distinctness to each of the "national questions" in
the U.S. Each of these peoples has a distinct history and a distinct
current situation--and careful analysis shows that for each the best
solution to their future liberation has distinct characteristics. Our
Draft Programme takes account of both the common features and the
particularities of the various national questions.
In this light, we can consider three different situations among
oppressed nationalities in the U.S.
Let's start with Black people. Through a distinct historical process,
African-Americans, were forged into a nation--"spread out over" and at
the same time "rooted in" the territory of the Black Belt (an area
that runs in an arc through 12 states of the South and is called the
Black Belt because of the color of the soil). African-Americans were
forged into an oppressed nation separate from and dominated by the
oppressor European-American nation. This process began in slave days,
but its turning point came following the Civil War. Stripped of their
rights and denied land after the reversal of Reconstruction, Black
people were transformed in their great majority into semi-feudal
sharecroppers.
Slavery was destroyed and an oppressive plantation-industrial system
developed in the South. On this new economic foundation, a process of
class differentiation gradually took place among Black people. Growing
numbers of Black people became laborers in mines, iron furnaces, and
tobacco factories. Increasing numbers of Black farmers began to
acquire their own land. In the segregated cities of the South,
professional and entrepreneurial classes slowly expanded (although
there was no Black elite of wealthy bankers and merchants, and the
vast majority of Black people in the cities were manual laborers).
What was occurring among Black people was the class differentiation
characteristic of a nation-- though it was distorted and stunted by
semi-feudal subjugation, repressive labor relations, and a structure
of enforced white supremacy.
The situation of Black people underwent further development in the
20th century. In great numbers, they were transformed from peasants
into urbanized proletarians. The 20th century saw two great waves of
migration out of the South. Today, as a people, African-Americans are
still subjected to national oppression (though it takes new forms).
And there remains a large concentration of Black people in the Black
Belt South: several million still live in the rural areas and millions
more live in the cities.
The common experience of oppression, and the fact that Black people
had been welded into a nation, with all the basic characteristics of a
nation, is why there continues to be the right of self-determination
for Black people. There exists a material-social and historic basis
for the creation of an independent Black Republic.
The Chicano people have a different path of development. We would
refer people to the discussion in our position paper, The Chicano
Struggle and Proletarian Revolution in the U.S. But to highlight
portions of that analysis relevant to this discussion:
"There is a distinct Chicano people, whose relationship to Mexico is
part of their defining characteristic. Chicanos have a culture that is
influenced and affected by Mexico, but is different from it. Their
heritage--and historic and present-day national oppression--continues
to infuse Chicanos with a common identity. But the make-up and
character of the Chicano population reflects this wide diversity of
its origins. Chicanos have different histories and roots and speak
different languages (Spanish and English and wonderful variations of
both). And, although Chicanos share a certain economic as well as
social history, this never has been on the level of a common economic
life--an economic life rooted in a common territory and "woven
together" throughout that territory--that is characteristic of
nation."
The position paper elaborates on this. When the U.S. seized the
territory of the Southwest from Mexico, the level of integration among
the Mexican settlements there and their level of economic development
were not sufficient to give rise to their own development into a
nation. The oppression of the Mexicans in the Southwest forged them
into a distinct oppressed people (a national minority) within the
U.S., but a separate Chicano nation never came into being. Today, the
majority of Chicanos have their origins not in the Southwest but in
Mexico.
There's another important factor in understanding the Southwest. The
history of the Southwest is also a complex history of the Navajo,
Hopi, Pueblo, and other Indian peoples with distinct historical
experiences.
Our Programme upholds the right of the Chicano masses to land denied
them and the right to self- government in large areas of the
Southwest. It also recognizes the land and territorial rights of the
various Native American peoples who populate the region, and makes
clear that proletarian revolution must also recognize that Mexico has
rights and claims in this region. All this must be addressed according
to revolutionary principles.
It is clear that the problem cannot be simply solved by each of these
peoples declaring independence in these territories--where there are
complex conflicting claims.
As for the Native American peoples: There are well over 500 distinct
Indian tribes; Native Americans are not a single nation. The various
Indian peoples have their own common histories, as well as common
linguistic and cultural bonds. Many of the tribal communities had long-
standing communal, agriculturally based economies at the time of the
arrival of the colonial-settlers. But that marked the start of a
protracted genocidal onslaught against the Native Americans.
Military attack and conquest, the wars and forcible campaigns for
removal and relocation, the internment and incarceration, cultural
mutilation and forced assimilation did not destroy and disintegrate
many of the peoples. But all this did have profound effects on social-
economic development.
The indigenous economies were largely shattered; land and herds were
expropriated. The federal reservation system functioned to keep the
Indian peoples in an enforced state of dependency and led to
systematic impoverishment. Internal (on-reservation) economic
development was blocked. Processes of class differentiation and
capital accumulation were severely held back. The potential basis for
the development of national markets was limited. Growing numbers of
American Indians would become wage- laborers--but this largely
occurred off the reservations, although there has been a history of
wage-labor in mining and timber industries.
Our Party recognizes the historic and ongoing land and natural
resource rights of the various Native American peoples. The Draft
Programme puts forth autonomy as a key measure that the new socialist
state will implement to address the rights to genuine self-rule and
the special needs of the Native American peoples. The Draft discusses
the measures that the socialist state must take to focus economic and
social resources in the most oppressed communities and regions of the
country, applying the principle of "raising the bottom up." These are
some of the key ways in which inequality and impoverishment affecting
American Indians and other oppressed nationalities will be overcome.
We feel this approach corresponds to the revolutionary interests of
the Native American peoples. On the other hand, our Party very much
wants to learn from analysis by Native Americans, as well as others,
about the changing economic structure on the reservations and class
transformations among Native Americans, especially over the last three
decades. These are important questions in their own right, and they
also bear on the direction and demands of the Indian peoples'
struggles.
To conclude this part of the discussion. To say that Black people form
an oppressed nation with the right to self-determination, while
Chicanos are an oppressed national minority with the right to
autonomy, and to uphold the right of self-rule for the various Indian
peoples is not to say that one people's oppression is "worse" than the
other, or that their demands are more important--there is no hierarchy
of oppression. It is not to say that one group "deserves more" than
the other. Rather, it is to make an analysis of historical development
and material-social conditions--and of what will solve the real
problems.
All oppressed people deserve liberation, and our Programme is a
concrete plan for getting there. The point is to end national
oppression. The particular policies and measures spelled out in the
Programme all flow from the same principles of ending inequality and
the same task of digging up the roots of national and all oppression.
They serve the common long-term struggle to revolutionize society and
create a global community of freely cooperating humanity.
> #2.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why Imperialism Cannot Do Away with National Oppression
The conditions faced today by the oppressed peoples in the U.S. are
truly barbaric. They meet with discrimination at every turn, solely
due
to the color of their skin or the language that they speak. As
members
of the proletariat (and in their majority the oppressed nationalities
are proletarians), they get either the lowest-paid, most dangerous,
and
most back-breaking jobs, or else no jobs at all. They get the worst
housing, the worst of bad health care, and the worst education and
other social services. To take one horrendous example, the infant
mortality rates of most of the oppressed nationalities are double
that
of whites, and in some areas triple! Their cultures and languages are
suppressed, mutilated, and ridiculed.
In recent years, the imperialists have literally filled the prisons
to
bursting with youth of the oppressed nationalities. (If the Black
population of the U.S. were a separate country, it would have the
highest incarceration rate of any in the world!) At the same time,
the
imperialists have flooded the neighborhoods and schools of the
oppressed nationalities with brutalizing, murdering racist thugs in
blue uniforms.
All this and more is daily life for the masses of the oppressed
nationalities. And it is these conditions that the proletariat in
power
must and will eliminate.
The capitalists today have thousands of laws on paper outlawing
discrimination, but still discrimination thrives and intensifies.
This
is because they have a greater law in command"the law of maximizing
profit-and under this law all of society is kept in a twisted state.
Such deformities fully conform to their interests.
The oppression of Black and other oppressed peoples in this country
is
not only a matter of racism but, even more fundamentally, of the
oppression of nations and national groups. This oppression is
essential
to the functioning of the capitalist system in the U.S. It is built
into the foundation and whole framework of capitalist society in the
U.S. and the whole structure of U.S. imperialist rule and domination
in
the world.
National oppression is profitable for the imperialists. The people of
the oppressed nationalities are in their majority members of the U.S.
proletariat, and are super-exploited due to the national oppression
they suffer-that is, the capitalists use the systematic segregation,
lack of opportunity, and discrimination against these workers to pay
them extra-low wages and thereby get extra-high profits. The
capitalists also use the existence of this superexploited section of
workers to drive down the conditions of the working masses overall.
In addition, the imperialists use the whole structure of white
supremacy and the corresponding mentality that it breeds among
whites-including even those who are poor, powerless, and exploited-as
an important part of the "social glue" that keeps the whole system
together. Many white proletarians are seduced into thinking that they
have a stake in maintaining privileges that result from white
supremacy
and thus in defending the status quo against their true class
brothers
and sisters. In this way, white supremacy sows deep divisions within
the working class itself and seriously weakens its struggle.
For all these reasons and more, the imperialists could not do away
with
national oppression and white supremacy, even if they wanted to. As
Bob
Ava�kian, Chairman of the RCP, has written, "socially as well as
politically, any at�tempt to really sever this national oppression
from
the fabric of U.S. society and reshape the society without this
oppression would completely 'unravel' and tear apart the whole social
fabric as it now exists, as it has been historically developed under
capitalist rule. Obvious�ly, while we, representing the revolutionary
proletariat, welcome this, the imperialist ruling class absolutely
does
not and cannot."
Way Back Jack
>Key Questions on the Liberation of Black People in the U.S.
If you try to liberate them from their victim plantations, pandered-to
by white liberal society, upon whom they depend, they'll kill you.
Fer shure.
oldwifetale
Aside from indigenous nations, there is only one 'nationality'
combined of various cultures when refering to the usa. If you are not
a citizen of the usa, then you must be a citizen of somewhere else or
have a dual citizenship. I am concerned that the requirements of
citizenship for immigrants includes upholding the Constitution, but
that citizens by birth do not feel they should do likewise. It seems a
double standard and a hypocrisy on your part to claim citizenship in a
nation which you are "planning" to conquer from within, so to speak.
Apparently the individual right in a nation that grants you that
freedom is an individual right you would prefer to abolish.
How does that make sense?
All i have to say as far as *i* am concerned is "No thanks." Maybe if
indigenous people are interested in such politics, that is their
perogative for their own nations. But to me communism seems every bit
as controlling, in its own way, as what we have now with the current
administration.
skepticl1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't you want something better O? We have health care that can my you
a popper. Lakota Natives are tearing up their drivers liscenes because
of the neglect and stealing by the BIA and Bush Administration. Police
who terrorize and murder, plus million other alphabet soup Federal
goon enforcers. Socialists don't want to abolish rights, like the
right to dissent. We want to promote these rights. If you will put up
with the USA you'll put up with anything. USA the worst invaders and
war makers. US the center of hate and reaction in the world today,
like Nazi Germmany was. Don't you want to be a part of a world
community, that you can feel proud of being assoicated with? If
participation in power is the definition of Freedom, then Maoist China
was the most accomplished height human society has achieved.
oldwifetale
Yes, i want something better - which (to me) involves improving what
is here, and working with what i have at hand. In your envisioning of
a communistic nation - who would be working the farms? Who would be
devotiing themselves to the arts? Who would be rewarded with the time
to be great philospophers or thinkers? Who would be driving the food
and other resources from one place to another? Who would be doctors or
scientists? Who would be hospital orderlies? Who would be sewage
workers? Who would be assigned to take care of the children? In this
division of labor involving some jobs that are more difficult or less
desirable than others, who *decides*? If the individual decides, then
what if no one wants to do manual labor? *Someone* has to grow the
food, pick the onions, drill for the oil (if you plan to keep
driving), manufacture your computer, etc. Who gets to do what... and
who is *forced* to do what?
Do you actually see everyone feeling 'equal' in such a scenario?
skepticl1
>
> - Show quoted text -
In Cuba for example, Janitors are paid higher wages than Doctors. MDs
have to go for years to school to learn their practice, but it is a
higher desired job. Janitor's do durgery work. Cuba has more Doctors
and Dancers than any other country in the world, per population. In
Socialist countries there is more time for philosophy and the arts.
Education is emphasised. In most of the world people are forced to do
the most dirty and dangerous jobs or they don't eat. Health care?
Healthcare will be for free. It won't be giant corporations hording
the land for their food for profit schemes, where they dump barges
full of perfectly ripe oranges in the oceans in scheme to blow up food
prices higher. It will be people returning to the land to grow food
for people's needs, without all the dangerous pesticides and crap
thrown in to make a profit. In the entertainment industry it won't be
about pampering high class celebrities for everyone to fawn over.
There will be plenty of room for dissent too. For people actively
striving to challenge society and change society. Political debate
will be much more robust and people will have the power to actually
change how things are done, not just bitch about things that elites
will never consider like it is in US where politicans are re-elected
at a higher precentage than any other country in history--like a new
class of noblity. There will be a higher standard of what the system
gives back to people. In Austrailia you can go through schooling, even
up through law school or medical school for free. In France you can
get a doctor to make a house call at 4:00 AM in the morning. Police
enforcers will not be gunning down youth in the streets. In the US
there are more Black and Latino people in prison than you can hardly
imagine, it's like one out of 9 Black people in Sonoma Country are in
jail. That's what Capitalism has in mind for Brown people. It will be
the have nots who are in command if only we can get the lilly white
Donald Trumps and Bush-Clinton Dynasty off our backs.
Way Back Jack
<skep...@aol.com> wrote:
> In the US
>there are more Black and Latino people in prison than you can hardly
>imagine, it's like one out of 9 Black people in Sonoma Country are in
>jail.
I know.
Despite a half century of preferential treatment, nigger crime is
worse today than during the worst of Jim Crow days. MLK promised us
their behavior would improve. He lied.
Maybe those old racists knew what they were doing.
oldwifetale
>
> In Cuba for example, Janitors are paid higher wages than Doctors. MDs
> have to go for years to school to learn their practice, but it is a
> higher desired job. Janitor's do durgery work. Cuba has more Doctors
> and Dancers than any other country in the world, per population. In
> Socialist countries there is more time for philosophy and the arts.
> Education is emphasised. In most of the world people are forced to do
> the most dirty and dangerous jobs or they don't eat. Health care?
> Healthcare will be for free. It won't be giant corporations hording
> the land for their food for profit schemes, where they dump barges
> full of perfectly ripe oranges in the oceans in scheme to blow up food
> prices higher. It will be people returning to the land to grow food
> for people's needs, without all the dangerous pesticides and crap
> thrown in to make a profit. In the entertainment industry it won't be
> about pampering high class celebrities for everyone to fawn over.
> There will be plenty of room for dissent too. For people actively
> striving to challenge society and change society. Political debate
> will be much more robust and people will have the power to actually
> change how things are done, not just bitch about things that elites
> will never consider like it is in US where politicans are re-elected
> at a higher precentage than any other country in history--like a new
> class of noblity. There will be a higher standard of what the system
> gives back to people.
They will all walk hand-in-hand into the sunset to live happily ever
after, tra la la la la.
I do have to give credit; this is very persuasive bullshitting. It's
easy to see how your depiction of communist utopia could be...
alluring to some people. But you did not actually address the
questions i asked. I asked in a previous post about 'allowing' the
native people to have their own homeland, perhaps in the northwest (as
you indicated). And here i have asked about the division of jobs and
who would be responsible for deciding such things as which individuals
were to do specific jobs? Instead, you attack the capitalist system
and paint your own communist version of 'heaven on earth'. In recorded
history, there has not been such a place as you describe.
In Austrailia you can go through schooling, even
> up through law school or medical school for free. In France you can
> get a doctor to make a house call at 4:00 AM in the morning. Police
> enforcers will not be gunning down youth in the streets. In the US
> there are more Black and Latino people in prison than you can hardly
> imagine, it's like one out of 9 Black people in Sonoma Country are in
> jail. That's what Capitalism has in mind for Brown people. It will be
> the have nots who are in command if only we can get the lilly white
> Donald Trumps and Bush-Clinton Dynasty off our backs.
You mention doctors doing housecalls at 4 am. I am not sure how old
you are, or in how many places in the country you've lived - but some
country doctors (the old fashioned 'general practitioners') were still
doing housecalls in this nation even up until the late 70's. In my
part of the ozarks, this was a 'fact'. That isn't some long ago
history that no one can prove - i was there. Not only that - my
relatives could afford to go to the doctor on their own dollar, and
many of them were considered 'poor' by most city standards. The
doctors weren't all 'specialists', they were just damn good. If that
occurred in a capitalist system, that proves it is possible.
This is not so long ago. Medication, likewise, was not causing people
to be unable to pay their power bills or buy food. Then again... not
so many people were medicated, and hardly any teenagers i knew were
being given their daily meds for depression and attention deficit
disorders - so certainly things have changed in that regard.
Nevertheless, it happened - which means it's *possible*. There is also
no reason that the medical profession could not fall under the
category of social services, provided to 'we, the people' by 'we, the
people', without compromising the Constitutional laws, so that free or
lowcost healthcare is also *possible* under a capitalist system, and
everyone could get health care. Certain social services are not
unconstitutional, just as we pay 'taxes' to supposedly keep up the
roads and infrastructures.
I also did not grow up during a time when police officers gunned
people down in the streets as a common city event, not even close. As
a teenager i worked a graveyard shift in the 'worst' part of Phoenix
where the nightlife included every 'criminal activity' you can
imagine, and never did i see anyone even so much as held at gunpoint
by a police officer. Therefore it is possible to live in a capitalist
society where people are not being gunned down in the streets. It is
also possible in a capitalist system to demand all usa citizens
operating manufacturing plants in other nations get their asses home
and run business on domestic territory or find themselves a different
citizenship. Their choice. I don't think that would compromise the
Constitution or the Bill of Rights - do *you*? And before changes in
FCC rulings and other economic laws that have been altered, *the
people* had at least some protections against monopolization. If all
these things were (and therefore are) 'possible' in a capitalist
nation that has the integrity to uphold its own Constitutional laws,
then what does communism have to offer that is *only* possible under
its own system?
My opinion is that our votes don't count for much these days, but
that's only a part of what needs to change. And also that racism is
derived from a 'failure' to uphold the Bill of Rights, and that broken
treaties with indigenous nations is a failure to uphold the
Constitution. Things can be improved upon without becoming a communist
nation under some idealistic utopian vision of assimilation. Which
brings me back to my first question regarding the indigenous people
here... don't you see that providing one designated terrority (in the
"northwest" for instance) is assimilation? Why do you believe they
would accept your communist vision of pan-indianism?
Way Back Jack
<skep...@aol.com> wrote:
>Black and Latino people
Latino people are flooding into theUS, not in search of communism but
for a piece of the good life.
And blacks salivate at the thought of a stable filled with cars,
walk-in closets with wall-to-wall fine clothes, a lavish mansion or
two ... in other words that finer things.
I'm reminded of Eldridge Cleaver, the black militant and commie
wanabee. Oh how he hated the US.
So ol' Eldridge then lived as a fugitive in Cuba, Algeria, and France
and visited the Soviet Union, China, North Vietnam, and North Korea.
Before he returned to the United States, Cleaver underwent a political
awakening and religious conversion: he became disillusioned with
socialism after actually visiting and living in communist societies.
Red Cloud
> On 10 May, 06:14, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 12:32�am, skepticl1 <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> gives back to people. In Austrailia you can go through schooling, even
> up through law school or medical school for free. In France you can
> get a doctor to make a house call at 4:00 AM in the morning. Police
> enforcers will not be gunning down youth in the streets. In the US
> there are more Black and Latino people in prison than you can hardly
> imagine, it's like one out of 9 Black people in Sonoma Country are in
> jail. That's what Capitalism has in mind for Brown people. It will be
> the have nots who are in command if only we can get the lilly white
> Donald Trumps and Bush-Clinton Dynasty off our backs.
AmeriKKKa is a racist society. I can tell you privately how the police
force treated me like a criminal. I could be end up in jail for riding
a bike in street. You could not believe the rampant racism so alived
in
this land that I did not want to believe it until I experienced myself
White AmeriKKKan racism. I could not escape White AmeriKKKan racism
until
I get out of it. I'm trying to get out of this land. I want to move
out.
My life here is through. I finish it. I expect nothing. It's time to
get
out of this white racist culture, society and nation...
Way Back Jack
<mmdi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 10, 12:14 pm, skepticl1 <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 10 May, 06:14, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 10, 12:32=EF=BF=BDam, skepticl1 <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 9 May, 15:54, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.cotem
>> gives back to people. In Austrailia you can go through schooling, even
>> up through law school or medical school for free. In France you can
>> get a doctor to make a house call at 4:00 AM in the morning. Police
>> enforcers will not be gunning down youth in the streets. In the US
>> there are more Black and Latino people in prison than you can hardly
>> imagine, it's like one out of 9 Black people in Sonoma Country are in
>> jail. That's what Capitalism has in mind for Brown people. It will be
>> the have nots who are in command if only we can get the lilly white
>> Donald Trumps and Bush-Clinton Dynasty off our backs.
>
>AmeriKKKa is a racist society.
"Reverse" racist society.
Oh say can you see all the gooks trying to get into America?
Not too many gooks trying to leave, tho.
America must not be such a bad place, eh?
> I can tell you privately how the police
>force treated me like a criminal.
The shoe must have fit.
Michelle Obama's Wimp
<mmdi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I could be end up in jail for riding
>a bike in street.
Well, if the rules for the street say "No bike riding" or "No bike
riding during certain hours," then by God your ass should go to jail
until you learn to follow the rules.
>. It's time to
>get
>out of this white racist culture, society and nation...
Have you considered Mexico?
Your time to leave is longggggg overdue.
But you won't.
You know where you have it good.
This time next year, you'll still be whining.
I'm confident of that.
oldwifetale
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 22:48:11 -0700 (PDT), Red Cloud
>
> > I could be end up in jail for riding
> >a bike in street.
>
> Well, if the rules for the street say "No bike riding" or "No bike
> riding during certain hours," then by God your ass should go to jail
> until you learn to follow the rules.
Nonsense, Jack.
Going to *jail* for breaking a bike law?
There is nothing okay with that. A ticket maybe, but jail no way.
If i got on a bike *today* and pedalled with the same kind of freedom
i had when i was young, i guess i'd be spending my whole life in
prison.
And people wonder why the jails are overcrowded.
J
<oldwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
There are reasons for laws. If bike riding on a particular street
poses hazards to the biker or others, then there should be a law
against riding bikes. If you don't like the law, pressure your
legislator, but as long as the law is on the books, then by Gawd your
disobedient ass better follow it.
BDK
@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 9 May, 15:54, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
Things are interesting in your fantasy world. Almost totally the
opposite of our Cuba, except for the free health care. It's free, but
pretty limited. If you get some types of cancer, plan your funeral, or
try for Miami, where you might have a chance..
Dissenting gets you in a heap of trouble in our Cuba.
You know that France and Australia are capitalist countries here, right?
Probably not.
BDK
BDK
Obama Rama Lama Ding Dong
<oldwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The threat of jail is the only thing that some people understand.
We have it too easy in this country and people take advantage of that
leniency.
People point out that China has less prisoners but Chinese people are
faaaarrrrr better behaved. They BETTER be! Illegal bike riding in
China is prolly punishable by torture or something. Would you prefer
that?
Just imagine someone like that communist asshole who posts to your
group ... just imagine him as a citizen of China or the old USSR
criticizing those guv'mints. He'd have a real short life span.
oldwifetale
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:14:57 -0700 (PDT), oldwifetale
>
>
>
>
>
> <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On May 11, 4:08=A0am, nos...@nospam.home (Michelle Obama's Wimp) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 22:48:11 -0700 (PDT), Red Cloud
>
> >> <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > I could be end up in jail for riding
> >> >a bike in street.
>
> >> Well, if the rules for the street say "No bike riding" or "No bike
> >> riding during certain hours," then by God your ass should go to jail
> >> until you learn to follow the rules.
>
> >Nonsense, Jack.
> >Going to *jail* for breaking a bike law?
> >There is nothing okay with that. A ticket maybe, but jail no way.
>
> >If i got on a bike *today* and pedalled with the same kind of freedom
> >i had when i was young, i guess i'd be spending my whole life in
> >prison.
>
> >And people wonder why the jails are overcrowded.
>
> There are reasons for laws.
Oh, i'm sure there are 'reasons'. :)
What about these:
http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/laws.html
In New York, it is against the law to throw a ball at someone's head
for fun.
The state of Washington has passed a law stating it is illegal, I
repeat, illegal, to paint polka dots on the American flag.
In order for a pickle to officially be considered a pickle in
Connecticut, it must bounce.
To keep any of the incarcerated beast from picking up bad habits, the
town of Manville , NJ decreed that it is illegal to feed whiskey or
offer cigarettes to animals at the local zoo.
If you sell hollow logs in Tennessee, you are breaking the law.
Compulsive gamblers stay out of Richmond, VA: it is even illegal to
flip a coin in a restaurant to see who pays for the coffee.
If bike riding on a particular street
> poses hazards to the biker or others, then there should be a law
> against riding bikes.
Why? Isn't it just common sense? A few unfortunate *mishaps*, and then
people would start to figure it out on their own. Do we need a 'law'
against putting plastic bags over our heads? Do we need a 'law'
requiring fast food restaurants to warn customers that their coffee
may be hot? Pleeeeeeeaaaase....!!!!!
> If you don't like the law, pressure your
> legislator, but as long as the law is on the books, then by Gawd your
> disobedient ass better follow it.
Okay, big daddy.
I'll be sure to do that (wink wink).
Government Shill #2
>In article <4ab87fa0-8429-4119-ab55-49a6ed1b1cd0
>@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
>> On 10 May, 06:14, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I' going to assume you meant Australia. In that case, you are wrong (or lying).
Australia has a scheme called HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme). You
*might* learn something by reading this:
http://www.drh-careers.med.usyd.edu.au/university_info/docs/hecs.htm
On the other hand, you seem to be wrong on many subjects, so I won't expect
much.
>> In France you can
>> get a doctor to make a house call at 4:00 AM in the morning. Police
>> enforcers will not be gunning down youth in the streets. In the US
>> there are more Black and Latino people in prison than you can hardly
>> imagine, it's like one out of 9 Black people in Sonoma Country are in
>> jail. That's what Capitalism has in mind for Brown people. It will be
>> the have nots who are in command if only we can get the lilly white
>> Donald Trumps and Bush-Clinton Dynasty off our backs.
>>
>
>Things are interesting in your fantasy world. Almost totally the
>opposite of our Cuba, except for the free health care. It's free, but
>pretty limited. If you get some types of cancer, plan your funeral, or
>try for Miami, where you might have a chance..
>
>Dissenting gets you in a heap of trouble in our Cuba.
>
>You know that France and Australia are capitalist countries here, right?
>
>Probably not.
He(?) can't even spell Australia, let alone know it's system of government, or
where it even is on a map.
Shill #2
--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge...others just gargle.
J
<oldwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 7:29=A0am, Windswept@Home (J) wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:14:57 -0700 (PDT), oldwifetale
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On May 11, 4:08=3DA0am, nos...@nospam.home (Michelle Obama's Wimp) wrote:=
>
>> >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 22:48:11 -0700 (PDT), Red Cloud
>>
>> >> <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > I could be end up in jail for riding
>> >> >a bike in street.
>>
>> >> Well, if the rules for the street say "No bike riding" or "No bike
>> >> riding during certain hours," then by God your ass should go to jail
>> >> until you learn to follow the rules.
>>
>> >Nonsense, Jack.
>> >Going to *jail* for breaking a bike law?
>> >There is nothing okay with that. A ticket maybe, but jail no way.
>>
>> >If i got on a bike *today* and pedalled with the same kind of freedom
>> >i had when i was young, i guess i'd be spending my whole life in
>> >prison.
>>
>> >And people wonder why the jails are overcrowded.
>>
>> There are reasons for laws. =A0
>
>Oh, i'm sure there are 'reasons'. :)
>
>What about these:
>
>http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/laws.html
>
>In New York, it is against the law to throw a ball at someone's head
>for fun.
>
>The state of Washington has passed a law stating it is illegal, I
>repeat, illegal, to paint polka dots on the American flag.
>
>In order for a pickle to officially be considered a pickle in
>Connecticut, it must bounce.
>
>To keep any of the incarcerated beast from picking up bad habits, the
>town of Manville , NJ decreed that it is illegal to feed whiskey or
>offer cigarettes to animals at the local zoo.
>
>If you sell hollow logs in Tennessee, you are breaking the law.
>
>Compulsive gamblers stay out of Richmond, VA: it is even illegal to
>flip a coin in a restaurant to see who pays for the coffee.
Those laws, much of which came from the disatnt past, aren't enforced.
Legislators are too lazy to remove them tho.
>
>
>
>
>If bike riding on a particular street
>> poses hazards to the biker or others, then there should be a law
>> against riding bikes. =A0
>
>Why? Isn't it just common sense? A few unfortunate *mishaps*, and then
>people would start to figure it out on their own. Do we need a 'law'
>against putting plastic bags over our heads? Do we need a 'law'
>requiring fast food restaurants to warn customers that their coffee
>may be hot? Pleeeeeeeaaaase....!!!!!
Why should I have to put up with a bike rider on a busy street who
damages my car?
Similarly, circa 1975, the warrior princess and I were damn near run
over by a bike rider on the sidewalk where bikes were illegal, when he
could've been on the lightly-traveled parallel street where bikes were
allowed.
He just said, "Get outta the way; bike coming thru."
oldwifetale
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:14:57 -0700 (PDT), oldwifetale
>
>
>
>
>
> <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On May 11, 4:08=A0am, nos...@nospam.home (Michelle Obama's Wimp) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 22:48:11 -0700 (PDT), Red Cloud
>
> >> <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > I could be end up in jail for riding
> >> >a bike in street.
>
> >> Well, if the rules for the street say "No bike riding" or "No bike
> >> riding during certain hours," then by God your ass should go to jail
> >> until you learn to follow the rules.
>
> >Nonsense, Jack.
> >Going to *jail* for breaking a bike law?
> >There is nothing okay with that. A ticket maybe, but jail no way.
>
> >If i got on a bike *today* and pedalled with the same kind of freedom
> >i had when i was young, i guess i'd be spending my whole life in
> >prison.
>
> >And people wonder why the jails are overcrowded.
>
> The threat of jail is the only thing that some people understand.
So laws must be created to accomodate a *few* people too ignorant to
understand basic safety precautions without reading it on a sign, and
from there on legally assuming collective idiocy? Some laws even
promote neglect of children. No need to warn a kid about the danger of
poking his finger in an outlet when you've got PLASTIC SAFETY PLUGS.
Let's just 'child-proof' the entire world so no one has to figure
anything out on their own. I remember my mother's wise words after a
nasty bike accident i once had:
"Shoulda watched where you were goin'."
>
> We have it too easy in this country and people take advantage of that
> leniency.
Too easy on some, and too hard on others.
>
> People point out that China has less prisoners but Chinese people are
> faaaarrrrr better behaved. They BETTER be! Illegal bike riding in
> China is prolly punishable by torture or something. Would you prefer
> that?
>
> Just imagine someone like that communist asshole who posts to your
> group ... just imagine him as a citizen of China or the old USSR
> criticizing those guv'mints. He'd have a real short life span.-
Well, no doubt.
oldwifetale
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:01:19 -0700 (PDT), oldwifetale
>
>
>
>
>
How rude.
And you didn't accidently throw your #2 pencil into his spokes?
Oops... nevermind, i guess that would be against the 'law'. :)
J
<oldwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 7:47=A0am, not@work (Obama Rama Lama Ding Dong) wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:14:57 -0700 (PDT), oldwifetale
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On May 11, 4:08=3DA0am, nos...@nospam.home (Michelle Obama's Wimp) wrote:=
>
>> >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 22:48:11 -0700 (PDT), Red Cloud
>>
>> >> <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > I could be end up in jail for riding
>> >> >a bike in street.
>>
>> >> Well, if the rules for the street say "No bike riding" or "No bike
>> >> riding during certain hours," then by God your ass should go to jail
>> >> until you learn to follow the rules.
>>
>> >Nonsense, Jack.
>> >Going to *jail* for breaking a bike law?
>> >There is nothing okay with that. A ticket maybe, but jail no way.
>>
>> >If i got on a bike *today* and pedalled with the same kind of freedom
>> >i had when i was young, i guess i'd be spending my whole life in
>> >prison.
>>
>> >And people wonder why the jails are overcrowded.
>>
>> The threat of jail is the only thing that some people understand.
>
>So laws must be created to accomodate a *few* people too ignorant to
>understand basic safety precautions without reading it on a sign, and
>from there on legally assuming collective idiocy? Some laws even
>promote neglect of children. No need to warn a kid about the danger of
>poking his finger in an outlet when you've got PLASTIC SAFETY PLUGS.
>Let's just 'child-proof' the entire world so no one has to figure
>anything out on their own. I remember my mother's wise words after a
>nasty bike accident i once had:
>
>"Shoulda watched where you were goin'."
Without laws and approrpriate punishments for breaking same, there
would be more than a *few* ignorami.
>>
>> We have it too easy in this country and people take advantage of that
>> leniency.
>
>Too easy on some, and too hard on others.
Too easy on everyone.
We have -- I'm reluctant to say it -- too many freedoms.
Given human nature, people take advantage.
>
>>
>> People point out that China has less prisoners but Chinese people are
>> faaaarrrrr better behaved. =A0They BETTER be! =A0Illegal bike riding in
>> China is prolly punishable by torture or something. =A0Would you prefer
>> that?
>>
>> Just imagine someone like that communist asshole who posts to your
>> group ... just imagine him as a citizen of China or the old USSR
>> criticizing those guv'mints. =A0He'd have a real short life span.-
>
>Well, no doubt.
oldwifetale
> >> >If i got on a bike *today* and pedalled with the same kind of freedom
> >> >i had when i was young, i guess i'd be spending my whole life in
> >> >prison.
>
> >> >And people wonder why the jails are overcrowded.
>
> >> The threat of jail is the only thing that some people understand.
>
> >So laws must be created to accomodate a *few* people too ignorant to
> >understand basic safety precautions without reading it on a sign, and
> >from there on legally assuming collective idiocy? Some laws even
> >promote neglect of children. No need to warn a kid about the danger of
> >poking his finger in an outlet when you've got PLASTIC SAFETY PLUGS.
> >Let's just 'child-proof' the entire world so no one has to figure
> >anything out on their own. I remember my mother's wise words after a
> >nasty bike accident i once had:
>
> >"Shoulda watched where you were goin'."
>
> Without laws and approrpriate punishments for breaking same, there
> would be more than a *few* ignorami.
>
>
>
> >> We have it too easy in this country and people take advantage of that
> >> leniency.
>
> >Too easy on some, and too hard on others.
>
> Too easy on everyone.
>
> We have -- I'm reluctant to say it -- too many freedoms.
>
> Given human nature, people take advantage.
>
Too many *freedoms*??? Now i've heard everything. What kind of
politics is *that*? Maybe there should be the new motto for the usa:
"We are proud to announce the New Constitution, having decided that
freedom for *the people* does not work. Our new motto will be: Land of
Obedience."
As for human 'nature'... how many humans know what is *human* when all
their actions are being dictated by other humans who stand to benefit
by human obedience to their arbitrary laws? I think 'human nature'
inclines you to learn by your own mistakes (there are natural
consequences outside the 'law') rather than blindly 'trusting' that
every legislated restriction is for your "own good". But that's just
me... speaking as a freedom-loving human. :)
BDK
gov....@gmail.com says...
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:42:30 -0400, BDK <B...@kookmagnet.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <4ab87fa0-8429-4119-ab55-49a6ed1b1cd0
> >@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
> >> On 10 May, 06:14, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's right next to that Germany place, right?
BDK
Government Shill #2
>In article <qp4e249kb3ri6vb1b...@4ax.com>,
>gov....@gmail.com says...
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 10:42:30 -0400, BDK <B...@kookmagnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4ab87fa0-8429-4119-ab55-49a6ed1b1cd0
>> >@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
>> >> On 10 May, 06:14, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's right. Otherwise known as Osteriech.
God
Dear Mr. #2,
the errors in your own postings should make you a
little more forgiving of other's errors. I am
always amused at the number of errors made by those
who delight in pointing out the errors of others.
GOD
Jim
"God" <G...@Heaven.net> wrote in message
news:ugpe241incrhvhlpk...@4ax.com...
Good one!
oldwifetale
> On May 10, 12:14 pm, skepticl1 <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10 May, 06:14, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 12:32�am, skepticl1 <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 9 May, 15:54, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.cotem
> > gives back to people. In Austrailia you can go through schooling, even
> > up through law school or medical school for free. In France you can
> > get a doctor to make a house call at 4:00 AM in the morning. Police
> > enforcers will not be gunning down youth in the streets. In the US
> > there are more Black and Latino people in prison than you can hardly
> > imagine, it's like one out of 9 Black people in Sonoma Country are in
> > jail. That's what Capitalism has in mind for Brown people. It will be
> > the have nots who are in command if only we can get the lilly white
> > Donald Trumps and Bush-Clinton Dynasty off our backs.
>
> AmeriKKKa is a racist society. I can tell you privately how the police
> force treated me like a criminal. I could be end up in jail for riding
> a bike in street. You could not believe the rampant racism so alived
> in
> this land that I did not want to believe it until I experienced myself
> White AmeriKKKan racism.
I think you should say right out what happened instead of stating your
conclusion while keeping the actual event 'private'. How do you even
know your interpretation of what you experienced is correct, or if
that's what it really means? Here is what crosses my mind... as only a
*possibility*... but what if what you are perceiving as race-based is
actually citizen-based? In case you haven't noticed, since 9/11 the
nation has not been operating under its *usual* Constitutional policy,
and the 'duties' of the police force have been somewhat... altered.
The *obvious* conclusions might not be so accurate anymore.
skepticl1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't believe there ever was a 'good old days' in Amerikka '0.' If
the hostipals were more affordable, or school were better in the
1950s, that was a time of overt racism and lynching and the KKK. Since
1980 things have definately gotten worse for people of color. Now it's
a race to the bottom. You shouldn't set you sites in the mud. This
system has nothing in it for regular people. The rulers are for the
elite. The enforcers are about keeping people down. Now the wheels are
coming off the economic system. A description of Fascism is: A little
more desperate Capitalism.
See how well these defining characteristics match up with the United
Snakes O.
http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/facism.htm
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
Free Inquiry http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/
Spring 2003; 5-11-03
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler
(Germany),
Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several
Latin
American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to
each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make
constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other
paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on
clothing
and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of
enemies
and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded
that
human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The
people
tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary
executions,
assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The
people are
rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a
perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious
minorities;
liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic
problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of
government
funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military
service
are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be
almost
exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender
roles
are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are
suppressed and
the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family
institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to (sic) media is directly
controlled
by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly
controlled by
government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and
executives.
Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational
tool by
the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist
nations
tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to
manipulate
public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from
government
leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically
opposed
to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business
aristocracy of
a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders
into
power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship
and
power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor
is the
only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either
eliminated
entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to
promote
and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is
not
uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even
arrested.
Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the
police
are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are
often
willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in
the
name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with
virtually
unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always
are
governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other
to
government positions and use governmental power and authority to
protect
their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist
regimes for
national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even
outright
stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are
a
complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear
campaigns
against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of
legislation
to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and
manipulation
of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to
manipulate or control elections.
Jim
"skepticl1" <skep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:44b11b37-826c-451a...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 12 May, 10:11, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 10:48 pm, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 12:14 pm, skepticl1 <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 10 May, 06:14, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
This is the best thing I have seen posted on a news group ever.
Jim
oldwifetale
>
> The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
Yes, S, i have read this before. It fits our current government like a
glove. So perfectly, in fact, one might think this monstrosity we call
a government was orchestrated to become a problem that needs 'fixing'
with a one-world socialist government (and hey, the best news is that
black people can have Mississippi and native people can have the
"northwest maybe"). Nevermind that fascist regimes can exist in
systems other than capitalist. Yep... everyone who thinks communism is
the most convenient 'solution', say aye.
I still say nay - and it has nothing to do with 'patriotism'. This
nation has a lot to be ashamed about, and a lot to make up for... but
i personally don't need my face constantly rubbed in shit by *other*
citizens who would rather switch than fight. Constitutionally, if your
loyalties are with your nation, then you demand the government do the
right things, support treaties (the original treaties restored
completely!), choose war as a last resort to a real threat rather than
a pre-emptive resort to imagined threats, trust the people to govern
themselves in their daily affairs, make US businesses obliged to
operate on US soil, etc. Constitutionally speaking, you *never* give
your trust completely to the government, you watch them like a hawk,
you hold their feet to the fire. People used to know this. When
Kennedy was in office, he abhorred the notion that his religion would
be relevant to his position, insisting on separation of religion and
politics. Now it seems important for political leaders to state their
religious positions including the supposed fact that Clinton does
pray. Sorry - but while there were never the 'good ol' days' as in
everything being perfect and all issues resolved (no one could even
suggest it with a straight face), it was not what we are seeing today.
Things have changed *drastically* within a period of almost 7 years.
In such a way that communist 'planners' now have the foothold they've
been waiting for all along.
Regardless, what does my opinion matter anyway? I'm a nobody and not
very inclined to be 'agreeable' to a one-world government without
strong national identities. You should aim your attacks against the
usa toward like-minded people, or those who think there is no way to
improve conditions. I'm not one of those people, and most importantly
(to me anyway) i'm not going to apologize for it.
skepticl1
> "skepticl1" <skepti...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
>
> - Show quoted text -
That makes my day Jim. It makes want to keep posting.
skepticl1
> Yes, S, i have read this before. It fits our current government like a
> glove. So perfectly, in fact, one might think this monstrosity we call
> a government was orchestrated to become a problem that needs 'fixing'
> with a one-world socialist government (and hey, the best news is that
> black people can have Mississippi and native people can have the
> "northwest maybe"). Nevermind that fascist regimes can exist in
> systems other than capitalist. Yep... everyone who thinks communism is
> the most convenient 'solution', say aye.
>
> I still say nay - and it has nothing to do with 'patriotism'. This
> nation has a lot to be ashamed about, and a lot to make up for... but
> i personally don't need my face constantly rubbed in shit by *other*
> citizens who would rather switch than fight. Constitutionally, if your
> loyalties are with your nation, then you demand the government do the
> right things,>>>
Skeptic Responds:
Socialism is not about Nationalism. You do things for the world
Revolution, not for the narrow interests of one clan, tribe or
country.
support treaties (the original treaties restored
> completely!), choose war as a last resort to a real threat rather than
> a pre-emptive resort to imagined threats, trust the people to govern
> themselves in their daily affairs, make US businesses obliged to
> operate on US soil, etc.>>
Skeptic Responds:
You are suffering under deligions of what the United Snakes is about.
You just said that Fascism fits what the USA is doing like a glove,
but you don't want revolution. Then you listed some delusional things
about the nature of the system. Capitalism is a hungry shark. You
can't stay on national soil, the empire needs to kill people all
around the world, steal their stuff, and make slaves out of them. Just
as the slavemasters who wrote the constitution had no intention to
honor the treaties they made with Natives, because Capitalism had the
might it enslaved people from Africa, murdered, multilated and
tortured them for generations,--worked them to death. With Indigenous
populations the Scummy US rulers committed genocide to steal their
land. All this is business as usual and it won't be any different
until there is radical change. You seem content with the status quo.
Maybe you have it too good, and you feel you have something to lose.
Constitutionally speaking, you *never* give
> your trust completely to the government, you watch them like a hawk,
> you hold their feet to the fire. People used to know this.>>
Skeptic Responds:
That's what you had with Socialism O. People were in committies and
unions, collectivist farming to change things from the bottom up in a
way that has NEVER happened in the USA. In Shanghai, you had workers
taking over an entire city and running things. And the Donald Trumps
were sent packing. "Hold their feet to the fire?!" When has this EVER
happened in bourgeois society?! In the USA elites can murder
politicans and the scummy US media will report cover stories involving
patsey's. Rulers can attack Manhattan and the Pentagon, or mail
Anthrax to Congress and the media won't make an issue of it. The
Nation can invade the other side of the planet committing genocide
against the wishes of 70% of the population and Dick Chenney says: "So
what!" If you will put up with this shit you will put up with
anything!
When
> Kennedy was in office, he abhorred the notion that his religion would
> be relevant to his position, insisting on separation of religion and
> politics. Now it seems important for political leaders to state their
> religious positions including the supposed fact that Clinton does
> pray. Sorry - but while there were never the 'good ol' days' as in
> everything being perfect and all issues resolved (no one could even
> suggest it with a straight face), it was not what we are seeing today.
> Things have changed *drastically* within a period of almost 7 years.
> In such a way that communist 'planners' now have the foothold they've
> been waiting for all along.
Skeptic Responds:
Big deal, one gangster postures that he can go light on religion for
awhile. You are digging for crumbs. We've lost the Constitution, it's
been shredded. What an utopian paradise huh? It rich people's system.
It's their money. What lilly white masters can give, they can take
away. Until regular people take away the privately held wealth of
6,000 people who run the USA, it's the master's system to rule. Only
radical change will get to the root of any of the problems brought up
in this thread.
>
> Regardless, what does my opinion matter anyway? I'm a nobody and not
> very inclined to be 'agreeable' to a one-world government without
> strong national identities. ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Jim
Mind you, folks of the common consciousness do not like whistle blowers.
I am a whistle blower my self.
Jim
"oldwifetale" <oldwi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21952e3b-de94-4e0b...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On May 12, 12:24 pm, skepticl1 <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
> On 12 May, 10:11, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 10:48 pm, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 12:14 pm, skepticl1 <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 10 May, 06:14, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
One day I looked up the meaning of fascist on dictionary.com.
Israel and Russia both qualified.
The fact that you will speak up is important. People these days just roll
over and play dead.
Red Cloud
> On May 10, 10:48 pm, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 12:14 pm, skepticl1 <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 10 May, 06:14, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > the have nots who are in command if only we can get the lilly white
> > > Donald Trumps and Bush-Clinton Dynasty off our backs.
>
> > AmeriKKKa is a racist society. I can tell you privately how the police
> > force treated me like a criminal. I could be end up in jail for riding
> > a bike in street. You could not believe the rampant racism so alived
> > in
> > this land that I did not want to believe it until I experienced myself
> > White AmeriKKKan racism.
>
> I think you should say right out what happened instead of stating your
> conclusion while keeping the actual event 'private'. How do you even
> know your interpretation of what you experienced is correct, or if
> that's what it really means? Here is what crosses my mind... as only a
> *possibility*... but what if what you are perceiving as race-based is
> actually citizen-based? In case you haven't noticed, since 9/11 the
> nation has not been operating under its *usual* Constitutional policy,
> and the 'duties' of the police force have been somewhat... altered.
> The *obvious* conclusions might not be so accurate anymore.
>
Ok whitetrash idiot! Let try on my race. You wear my color of skin and
go drive car and violate traffic and let the cop catch you. Let see
what they are gonna say to you. First question they will ask you is
your nationality. Police is asking your nationality. Why?
Because most white police force don't see you as same citizen, Ok. You
are a foreigner in their eye...Or you just came from oversea.
Citizen-based??? You stupid whiterash idiot! Your nation is a racist
society built for you, not built for me. Now do you understand why
I'm so desire to move out of this damn white racist society.
oldwifetale
Who's calling who an idiot? Your racist rants contribute to racism
toward all people with brown skin, and of Mexican descent, even those
who have been here legally for many years, and often many generations.
How do you think it must feel now to a legal Mexican immigrant who is
working a city job (say fixing streets) to have people like you
looking at him with contempt because you just *know* he must be an
illegal immigrant? How much of that bike incident was racist and how
much was *karma* biting you in the butt?
And fyi - i *have* been asked my nationality by police!
skepticl1
>
> - Show quoted text -
My brother and I went to a resort in Clear Lake California, called
Konoti Harbor (it's owned by the San Francisco pipe fitters Union:
i.e. Mafia) and the bar tender wouldn't serve my brother (his
hearitage is half caucasian and half Asian India). The bar tender
said: "You look like you're straight out of Mexico."
oldwifetale
Through most of 2005 i lived mostly in El Centro, California and in
Yuma, Arizona. Although i'm 'white', my skin gets very dark in those
climates, and with brown eyes and darkish hair (although not pretty
and shiny, but a long curly stringy mess), i got mistaken for Mexican
all the time. Especially when i didn't talk, which i rarely do anyway
(i was once painfully shy but now i hear it's a social disorder). I
could not begin to tell you some of the things i heard from certain
'white' people when they thought i didn't speak english. Just a few...
here and there. Would've been funny if it hadn't been so insulting.
But being that i was a white person too, i was able to see that they
were not my *kind* of white people. Kind as in 'kindred spirits'. One
knows these things. Even in a capitalist nation.
Red Cloud
How do you think the legally born here of my race is being racial
targeted by your race of skin? Only reason your white race go after my
kind of skin is because we are not White race (not even jew). I do not
want to discuss about white racism any more with most of white race.
All I want is to fight the white racism. That's all I have left in my
experience in this white racist society. I will fight white racism
from anyway and even against you. YOu are the
one of those sneaky ignorant liberal white race I've lately affirmed
how racist this society is. You can belittle my character
all your want but it won't let me down. I will stand firmly I will
fight your sneaky white liberal racism.
I don't need your race.
I don't need your police force.
I don't need your liberal politician.
I don't need your race Constitution.
I don't need your Founding Fathers.
I don't need your white history.
I don't need your white race flag.
I don't need your white race loyalty.
Jim
"Red Cloud" <mmdi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:541e6362-66ba-40ac...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
You are so full of crap.
Most likely people spot you for the jerk you are.
oldwifetale
Too bad, you're stuck with it.
If i'm stuck with it, so are you.
You took an oath.
You're one of *us* now.
There are only two ways out:
1. Defect
2. Hop on board the global express.
Until then, i am going to keep talking to you like the legal citizen
you are. I am going to assume that you are keeping the promises you
made in exchange for your citizenship. I'm going to assume that you
already know that these promises you made will extend into all your
future generations here because they will be bound at birth to honor
the agreements that you chose to make. Just as my ancestors did, you
promised to sever all previous national allegiances, and to defend and
uphold the Constitution.
As citizens, we have the *right* to question our government and to
hold them accountable. We do not have the *right* as a member of this
particular nation to trash the Constitution which is the ideological
basis of the nation itself. So whether you're a citizen by birth and
carrying the promises of your ancestors, or you're someone who 'chose'
to make these promises, anyone of any 'race' can rationally ask
themselves if they are a true citizen or not - all 'documentation'
aside.
Btw, the only racism i've ever shown toward you all these years is to
call you an asian critter ("grasshopper") once or thrice. I am very
sorry if that rocked your world, but i thought it was in balance with
your naming of Mexicans as cockroaches. As for you berating me
constantly with "whitetrash idiot", i do try not to take it
personally. You probably don't see any difference between hillbillies
and 'trailer trash' when everyone knows our mama's and daddies grew up
in shacks.
skepticl1
Boy O, you are an Ass Kisser to Uncle Sam!
Red Cloud
She was all born in Uncle Sam land. She can't help it!!!
oldwifetale
Are these your arguments?
Just let me know because i can certainly run with it.
Red Cloud
> On May 13, 10:23 pm, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 1:12 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't need your race.
> > I don't need your police force.
> > I don't need your liberal politician.
> > I don't need your race Constitution.
> > I don't need your Founding Fathers.
> > I don't need your white history.
> > I don't need your white race flag.
> > I don't need your white race loyalty.
>
> Too bad, you're stuck with it.
> If i'm stuck with it, so are you.
> You took an oath.
> You're one of *us* now.
>
I'm one of your white race??? A irish racist next to me said
"What the hell are you doing here? Go back to Vietnam. Or China."
I knew when I saw his face I felt coming white racism. It is
my fault I wasn't get up and got out of that way. I had to walk
away. My inner spirit said never lose your temper and don't let
these hateful white racist control your emotion.
> There are only two ways out:
> 1. Defect
> 2. Hop on board the global express.
>
I'm not part of your race. Go fuck with your race.
> Until then, i am going to keep talking to you like the legal >citizen
White racist cop and whitepenis racist are still out in street.
Full of it. What are you gonna do? Are you gonna ignore the rampant
white racism or pretend not exist?
> you are. I am going to assume that you are keeping the promises you
> made in exchange for your citizenship. I'm going to assume that you
> already know that these promises you made will extend into all your
> future generations here because they will be bound at birth to >honor
Actually. Your race is full of liar, hypocrite and racist. Go wear
my color of skin and live in white population area and see how they
treat you. You surely don't know about me.
> the agreements that you chose to make. Just as my ancestors did, you
> promised to sever all previous national allegiances, and to defend and
> uphold the Constitution.
>
Sound like you blame white racism on the victim.
> As citizens, we have the *right* to question our government and to
> hold them accountable. We do not have the *right* as a member of >this
YOu've never questioned your gov't. You are too busy hiding in
backcountry full of your race. You can't even face the minority
people.
> particular nation to trash the Constitution which is the ideological
> basis of the nation itself. So whether you're a citizen by birth and
> carrying the promises of your ancestors, or you're someone who 'chose'
> to make these promises, anyone of any 'race' can rationally ask
> themselves if they are a true citizen or not - all 'documentation'
> aside.
>
Go tell white police force I'm one of citizen too.
> Btw, the only racism i've ever shown toward you all these years is to
> call you an asian critter ("grasshopper") once or thrice. I am very
> sorry if that rocked your world, but i thought it was in balance with
> your naming of Mexicans as cockroaches. As for you berating me
> constantly with "whitetrash idiot", i do try not to take it
> personally. You probably don't see any difference between hillbillies
> and 'trailer trash' when everyone knows our mama's and daddies grew up
> in shacks.
Sorry for WHAT? I don't need your apology and neither you.
skepticl1
Defect? Love it or leave it? The USA is broke and running out of food.
Our masters have just waged war on the world using the methods of the
Nazis. The empire wants to occupy Iraq for 600 years. The US operates
torture chambers all over the world. The US government is th entity
most responsible for misery on the planet. The last two elections have
been stolen. The Republicans have set things up with corrupt surpreme
court judges to have have their Republic be a military dictatorship
for decades to come. Law enforcement are conducting gestapo raids all
over the country. The USA has more people incarerated than any other
country on the planet per capita. The governor of the California wants
to borrow the money to build 73 new prisons. This is the future. Gore
Vidal just said: "America is broke and we're running out of food."
oldwifetale
> On May 14, 8:52 am, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 10:23 pm, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 1:12 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't need your race.
> > > I don't need your police force.
> > > I don't need your liberal politician.
> > > I don't need your race Constitution.
> > > I don't need your Founding Fathers.
> > > I don't need your white history.
> > > I don't need your white race flag.
> > > I don't need your white race loyalty.
>
> > Too bad, you're stuck with it.
> > If i'm stuck with it, so are you.
> > You took an oath.
> > You're one of *us* now.
>
> I'm one of your white race???
Nope. Just one of us legal citizens. :)
> A irish racist next to me said
> "What the hell are you doing here? Go back to Vietnam. Or China."
Oh, an irish racist now!
> I knew when I saw his face I felt coming white racism.
What gave it away? The flamin' red ha'r or the bonny blue eyes?
> It is
> my fault I wasn't get up and got out of that way. I had to walk
> away. My inner spirit said never lose your temper and don't let
> these hateful white racist control your emotion.
You lose your temper every day.
Why didn't you say, "Go back to Ireland!"
Then the two of you could have had it out right there on the street.
"You go back!"
"No, you go back!"
"I was here first."
"I called dibs!"
Pitiful.
oldwifetale
> On May 14, 10:52 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 11:47 am, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 14, 11:11 am, skepticl1 <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Boy O, you are an Ass Kisser to Uncle Sam!
>
> > > She was all born in Uncle Sam land. She can't help it!!!
>
> > Are these your arguments?
>
> > Just let me know because i can certainly run with it.
>
> Defect? Love it or leave it? The USA is broke and running out of food.
Yeah, that happened before during the Great Depression.
> Our masters have just waged war on the world using the methods of the
> Nazis. The empire wants to occupy Iraq for 600 years. The US operates
> torture chambers all over the world. The US government is th entity
> most responsible for misery on the planet. The last two elections have
> been stolen. The Republicans have set things up with corrupt surpreme
> court judges to have have their Republic be a military dictatorship
> for decades to come. Law enforcement are conducting gestapo raids all
> over the country. The USA has more people incarerated than any other
> country on the planet per capita. The governor of the California wants
> to borrow the money to build 73 new prisons.
Exactly. And this is why we have a Constitution. Too bad nobody cares
enough to act on it. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights
guarantees us (as a nation) the right to speak out against a
government that is not representing the people. So what is *your*
solution? Apparently it is to trash the one thing that guarantees us
that right and substitute it with communism.
> This is the future. Gore
> Vidal just said: "America is broke and we're running out of food."
I've been broke and running out of food most of my life. Tell me
something i can't deal with.
Jim
Please, may day has passed.
Save the communist speaches for next year.
Jim
"You go back!"
"No, you go back!"
"I was here first."
"I called dibs!"
Pitiful.
They could play paper, rock, scissors.
Red Cloud
> On May 14, 10:56 pm, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 14, 8:52 am, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 10:23 pm, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 13, 1:12 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't need your race.
> > > > I don't need your police force.
> > > > I don't need your liberal politician.
> > > > I don't need your race Constitution.
> > > > I don't need your Founding Fathers.
> > > > I don't need your white history.
> > > > I don't need your white race flag.
> > > > I don't need your white race loyalty.
>
> > > Too bad, you're stuck with it.
> > > If i'm stuck with it, so are you.
> > > You took an oath.
> > > You're one of *us* now.
>
> > I'm one of your white race???
>
> Nope. Just one of us legal citizens. :)
That's what Bush is trying to in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
> > A irish racist next to me said
> > "What the hell are you doing here? Go back to Vietnam. Or China."
>
> Oh, an irish racist now!
You've never heard of wacky "Irish-American" racism????
Sure you've never experience of white racism in your life.
>
> > I knew when I saw his face I felt coming white racism.
>
> What gave it away? The flamin' red ha'r or the bonny blue eyes?
No not like angry whitetrash face like you have...It takes social
skill to pick out... Acutally it's there inside of you came down
from your ancestor while killing native people.
>
> > It is
> > my fault I wasn't get up and got out of that way. I had to walk
> > away. My inner spirit said never lose your temper and don't let
> > these hateful white racist control your emotion.
>
> You lose your temper every day.
I'm not your whitetrash race getting mad like bickering and
fighting bar. Isn't funny how your race getting fighting all the
time in bar.
My ancient teaching said "don't let other to control your
temper!" I think it was chinese teaching.
Whitetrash does not control my temper!
> Why didn't you say, "Go back to Ireland!"
> Then the two of you could have had it out right there on the street.
>
I took out my baseball bat. I swung in the air and told him
go back to europe. He was shit scare he couldn't said a word.
> "You go back!"
>
> "No, you go back!"
>
> "I was here first."
>
> "I called dibs!"
>
> Pitiful.
You go back to Europe, whitetrash!!!! You don't own this land.
oldwifetale
Hmmm... not that i recall. Is it anything like wacky "korean-american"
racism?
> Sure you've never experience of white racism in your life.
Well, of course not. That's because i'm white, dummy. How can a white
person be racist to another white person unless he hates himself? The
only way i can be the recipient of racism is if it's coming from
another 'race'. Have you ever experienced korean racism? :)
> > > I knew when I saw his face I felt coming white racism.
>
> > What gave it away? The flamin' red ha'r or the bonny blue eyes?
>
> No not like angry whitetrash face like you have...
Oh please. I have a great poker face.
> It takes social
> skill to pick out... Acutally it's there inside of you came down
> from your ancestor while killing native people.
I know my family history on all bloodlines going back to my very first
ancestors who lived here. None of them killed any native people. Some
of them were Quakers, and not only didn't 'kill' any native people,
but had pretty good personal relations. Some were protestants, but
still didn't fit into the 'system' too well (like when my
ggg...grandfather John Proctor got wrongfully accused of witchcraft in
salem and was hung). Some were lutheran and were fleeing germany. Some
were irish and indian. Nope, my ancestors might have made some
mistakes that they are counting on me to correct, but no indian blood
on their hands. One thing they *all* did was cut their ties with
europe, once and for all. There's no going 'back', Bubbaloo.
>
>
>
> > > It is
> > > my fault I wasn't get up and got out of that way. I had to walk
> > > away. My inner spirit said never lose your temper and don't let
> > > these hateful white racist control your emotion.
>
> > You lose your temper every day.
>
> I'm not your whitetrash race getting mad like bickering and
> fighting bar. Isn't funny how your race getting fighting all the
> time in bar.
>
> My ancient teaching said "don't let other to control your
> temper!" I think it was chinese teaching.
> Whitetrash does not control my temper!
Oh please, you are so short-fused, any 'whitetrash' with the slightest
ornery streak could control your temper. :)
>
> > Why didn't you say, "Go back to Ireland!"
> > Then the two of you could have had it out right there on the street.
>
> I took out my baseball bat. I swung in the air and told him
> go back to europe. He was shit scare he couldn't said a word.
So... as i 'guessed' - it was a little more than just a "bike"
incident.
>
> > "You go back!"
>
> > "No, you go back!"
>
> > "I was here first."
>
> > "I called dibs!"
>
> > Pitiful.
>
> You go back to Europe, whitetrash!!!! You don't own this land.
Never said i did. I think of it more as a lease agreement based on
treaties which were formed when my ancestors were involved. The
Constitution says that upholding the treaties is a supreme law of the
land insofar as our nation goes. As a "legal and documented" citizen,
it is your (and my) obligation to uphold those treaties as well as the
Constitution. Oh, but you don't care about the Constitution. I guess
you think native people will embrace you for your charming
personality. Or maybe you're planning a *Mongolian Takeover* from
within, haha. Who knows.
Red Cloud
Sure there is korean-American. So is Navajo-racism. Haite-racism.
Polish-racism. Jewish-racism. Tibetian racism. Mongol racism.
You named it, a racism of thousand kind. Thanks god you don't live in
any of these racism. I live in White racism. White racism is more than
a personal problem as you like to describe as the personality problem.
It's more of the systematical, cultural because your nation was born
out of the white racism culture, white racist history and white racist
identity and white racist root. These overwhelmed racist
ideology what drive whitepenis aggressive violent behavior such
as lyncing, KKK cross-burning, US militarism. They are all part of it
and all same. For you, your relationship to them is you are being
benefited by your race being overly aggresive toward Indian and black
and other non-white race. In other word, they did for YOU!!!!
Get it! They became white racist for you. Actually they fought for
you. They killed indian for you and you ancestors. They massacred
indians so they provided the land for your ancestors and your race.
Your land in Ozark were not owned by your ancestor. Did your ancestor
bought the land from Indian? Hell NO! Your race killed enough of
Indians and any Indian left were forced to relocate in reservation.
All this is FREE for your ancestor so your ancestor grabbed a free
land. It was all FREE! Is that what freedom meant for white race?
oldwifetale
> On May 15, 11:49 am, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You've never heard of wacky "Irish-American" racism????
>
> > Hmmm... not that i recall. Is it anything like wacky "korean-american"
> > racism?
>
> Sure there is korean-American. So is Navajo-racism. Haite-racism.
> Polish-racism. Jewish-racism. Tibetian racism. Mongol racism.
> You named it, a racism of thousand kind. Thanks god you don't live in
> any of these racism.
All those 'races' live in the usa. If i don't live in them, where do i
live?
> I live in White racism. White racism is more than
> a personal problem as you like to describe as the personality problem.
Only in your case. :)
> It's more of the systematical, cultural because your nation was born
> out of the white racism culture, white racist history and white racist
> identity and white racist root. These overwhelmed racist
> ideology what drive whitepenis aggressive violent behavior such
> as lyncing, KKK cross-burning, US militarism. They are all part of it
> and all same. For you, your relationship to them is you are being
> benefited by your race being overly aggresive toward Indian and black
> and other non-white race. In other word, they did for YOU!!!!
> Get it! They became white racist for you. Actually they fought for
> you. They killed indian for you and you ancestors. They massacred
> indians so they provided the land for your ancestors and your race.
>
> Your land in Ozark were not owned by your ancestor. Did your ancestor
> bought the land from Indian? Hell NO! Your race killed enough of
> Indians and any Indian left were forced to relocate in reservation.
> All this is FREE for your ancestor so your ancestor grabbed a free
> land. It was all FREE! Is that what freedom meant for white race?-
The US bought Missouri from France in the Louisianna Purchase which
cost around 25 million. Secondary purchases were made and outlined in
treaties. The land where my family is from was purchased in a treaty
with the Osage people, not just *indians*. The Constitution requires
upholding these treaties. Upholding the Constitution is my only
'blood' obligation regarding this nation. So what's *your* story?
Red Cloud
> On May 16, 12:01 pm, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 11:49 am, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > You've never heard of wacky "Irish-American" racism????
>
> > > Hmmm... not that i recall. Is it anything like wacky "korean-american"
>
> The US bought Missouri from France in the Louisianna Purchase which
> cost around 25 million. Secondary purchases were made and outlined in
> treaties. The land where my family is from was purchased in a treaty
> with the Osage people, not just *indians*. The Constitution requires
> upholding these treaties. Upholding the Constitution is my only
> 'blood' obligation regarding this nation. So what's *your* story?
How come US gov't did not return the land bought from French to Indian
if they uphold the Constitution? That's stupid question right??? US
Constitution does not deal with a legality of land ownship belonging
to native people. In fact, the Constitution does NOT recognizes
native people ownership of the land. If it does,
native people should not live in reservation and they should be
very rich people and every Indian family should be reward for the
land they've "defended" since the beginning of the time. The land
ownership is everything. Without the white race owning and controlling
all the land, there is no need for the white racism,
no need to lynch black, no need to relocate native people to
reservation. The land is everything which is why La Raza and Mexicans
activists claim the Southwest stole by their Spanish ancestor.
oldwifetale
> On May 16, 7:59 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 12:01 pm, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 11:49 am, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > You've never heard of wacky "Irish-American" racism????
>
> > > > Hmmm... not that i recall. Is it anything like wacky "korean-american"
> > > land. It was all FREE! Is that what freedom meant for white race?-
>
> > The US bought Missouri from France in the Louisianna Purchase which
> > cost around 25 million. Secondary purchases were made and outlined in
> > treaties. The land where my family is from was purchased in a treaty
> > with the Osage people, not just *indians*. The Constitution requires
> > upholding these treaties. Upholding the Constitution is my only
> > 'blood' obligation regarding this nation. So what's *your* story?
>
> How come US gov't did not return the land bought from French to Indian
> if they uphold the Constitution? That's stupid question right???
Right. It has nothing to do with the Constitution. If that was the
case, why not insist that the US buy out Israel right now for a few
trilllion and give it to the Palestinians? Is that our
'Constitutional' obligation, not to mention an economically feasible
thing to do?
> US
> Constitution does not deal with a legality of land ownship belonging
> to native people. In fact, the Constitution does NOT recognizes
> native people ownership of the land.
The Constitution recognizes every treaty with signatures by the US and
native people, and states that upholding those treaties falls under
the Supreme law of the land. Treaties have not been upheld, meaning
that our government (along with their corporate interests) fails to
represent its own people every time a treaty law is not upheld, and
that people who do not support treaty rights are equally failing to
abide by their Constitutional obligations. Don't blame the
Constitution for people's or government's failure to uphold it and
keep to their promises.
> If it does,
> native people should not live in reservation and they should be
> very rich people and every Indian family should be reward for the
> land they've "defended" since the beginning of the time. The land
> ownership is everything. Without the white race owning and controlling
> all the land, there is no need for the white racism,
> no need to lynch black, no need to relocate native people to
> reservation. The land is everything which is why La Raza and Mexicans
> activists claim the Southwest stole by their Spanish ancestor.
The white 'race' does not own the land. People of all 'races' own the
land here (as you should well know). The monies that *do* go to
indigenous people are monies most people complain about yet are monies
rightfully *owed* in an agreement that recognizes that this land is
not inhabited by the US except under contractual conditions. Imo,
although you can't change what has already happened, european
colonialists should have been content when they were allowed by native
people to live on their own 'reserves'. But you can't do anything
about anything except for what is in front of you right *now*. So you
want to trash the Constitution? If so, then you also want to trash
treaty rights. What do you have to say about that Mr. Legal Citizen?
Red Cloud
> On May 16, 10:16 pm, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 7:59 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 16, 12:01 pm, Red Cloud <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 15, 11:49 am, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > You've never heard of wacky "Irish-American" racism????
>
> > > > > Hmmm... not that i recall. Is it anything like wacky "korean-american"
> > > > land. It was all FREE! Is that what freedom meant for white race?-
>
> > > The US bought Missouri from France in the Louisianna Purchase which
> > > cost around 25 million. Secondary purchases were made and outlined in
> > > treaties. The land where my family is from was purchased in a treaty
> > > with the Osage people, not just *indians*. The Constitution requires
> > > upholding these treaties. Upholding the Constitution is my only
> > > 'blood' obligation regarding this nation. So what's *your* story?
>
> > How come US gov't did not return the land bought from French to Indian
> > if they uphold the Constitution? That's stupid question right???
>
> Right. It has nothing to do with the Constitution. If that was the
> case, why not insist that the US buy out Israel right now for a few
> trilllion and give it to the Palestinians? Is that our
> 'Constitutional' obligation, not to mention an economically feasible
> thing to do?
>
Why US Constitution care for foreign people and foreign land?
Your argument is a typical whitetrash redneck argument!
You can't help it when you were born in the land of redneck
whitetrash. Of course, I recognize the violation of human right of
Indian people by your race since I was not born here and I saw
and I'm the witness of the European invasion and I'm seeing the
mindset of the European colonialism from you. You can't help it!
Just like most white people, you can't help being colonial white
whether you are a damn poor hillbilly or rich white people. They all
share same mindset which I called "Pure American racist mindset"
which make you as white "American" as White racist.
> > US
> > Constitution does not deal with a legality of land ownship belonging
> > to native people. In fact, the Constitution does NOT recognizes
> > native people ownership of the land.
>
> The Constitution recognizes every treaty with signatures by the US and
> native people, and states that upholding those treaties falls under
> the Supreme law of the land. Treaties have not been upheld, meaning
> that our government (along with their corporate interests) fails to
> represent its own people every time a treaty law is not upheld, and
> that people who do not support treaty rights are equally failing to
> abide by their Constitutional obligations. Don't blame the
> Constitution for people's or government's failure to uphold it and
> keep to their promises.
>
PWHAHAHAHAHA...YOU STUPID WHITETRASH REDNECK!!! What is to recognize
Indian land after your whites and your gov't took over all the land
and relocated most native people into reservation? Are you so
stupid or so racist that you can't possibly recognize "Indian lost all
the land"? They lost most land they've cared and defended for since
the beginning of the time. And your race stole all the land
for YOU! It's done deal. What's Constitution has to do with anything?
NOT A DAMN THING.
> > If it does,
> > native people should not live in reservation and they should be
> > very rich people and every Indian family should be reward for the
> > land they've "defended" since the beginning of the time. The land
> > ownership is everything. Without the white race owning and controlling
> > all the land, there is no need for the white racism,
> > no need to lynch black, no need to relocate native people to
> > reservation. The land is everything which is why La Raza and Mexicans
> > activists claim the Southwest stole by their Spanish ancestor.
>
> The white 'race' does not own the land. People of all 'races' own the
> land here (as you should well know). The monies that *do* go to
> indigenous people are monies most people complain about yet are monies
> rightfully *owed* in an agreement that recognizes that this land is
> not inhabited by the US except under contractual conditions. Imo,
> although you can't change what has already happened, european
> colonialists should have been content when they were allowed by native
> people to live on their own 'reserves'. But you can't do anything
> about anything except for what is in front of you right *now*. So you
> want to trash the Constitution? If so, then you also want to trash
> treaty rights. What do you have to say about that Mr. Legal Citizen?
Stupid whitetrash goon! After genocided most Indians and drove
them into reservation, all land from East to West became the property
of the white race and white gov't which is how your forefather in
Ozark grabbed the land. We know your forefather did not pay a dime
to Indian people. They stole it using guns. This is how the land
became the property ownership at the hand of white race and white
gov't. Therefore, if you wanna buy a land, you have to pay
to white race and white gov't not to Indian people. They can sell it
at any price and any profit. Just look at the National Parks. Who owns
the National Park? It's the property of White gov't called as "Public
land". Actually National Parks are owned by elites in white gov't.
They can sell it and profit for themselve, not a dime of profit share
with Indian people. It's all at white race hand. It's all white race
game. It's all white race Constitution crap! They lie
they lie, they lie and you lie!
oldwifetale
Yep. Everything i say is a lie, and that's the honest truth.
But you still don't answer the question as to your oath, by choice, to
be a citizen of the usa. I wonder if you were lying when you said
you'd defend and uphold the Constitution? Is it possible that
everything you keep accusing me and my white 'race' of doing is what
you are doing yourself? I am not being racist toward you. But you are
being racist toward me. You come here under false pretenses, swear an
oath you don't mean, and offend native people by claiming an
indigenous right to the land due to the theory of ancient asian
migration (not to mention the matter of your screen name), show no
interest in the nation's laws that were created to protect our rights
as well as treaty rights, and then when you see any 'white' person
wanting to honor those commitments, you would do everything in your
power to make it not so. Really now... where do you fit in with all
your 'truth-telling'?
Red Cloud
What treaty right? What's "our right"? What Constitutional right?
Lie! Lie! Lie! Pack of Lies! You can't help yourself being born here.
Now you sound like your race were real owner of this land. Now
you forgotten the brutal history and all the Indian-Removal act.
Of course, you refuse to admit the internment of the native people
in reservation in present moment. Who setup the reservation? Of
course, it was your race and your gov't for YOU. Now you tell me I
should follow white's man's law and history, and moreover I should
make an oath to white man's. In other word, I should be the kisser of
white man ass. I think I'm tired of talking to redneck white man who
does not understand his race stole all the land and claimed as the
masters. I can't dealing with Constitution or any commitment white
man promise which are not met most of time. History of lie and
hypocrisy have been validated in this land of blood and brutality
so much forgotten in the name of Constitutional right, human right.
It's all lies. All hypocrisy! But the history of lie and hypocrisy
continue through your mouth... But one simple example: White gov't has
violated the indian land treaty all the time. So there is no land
treaty just took over the land with gun and blood. I remind it again
the great German philsohy Nietzche said "the real human history is a
hegemonic power relying on pure physical force..."
oldwifetale
> What treaty right?
You can start here:
http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/Treaties.html
> What's "our right"? What Constitutional right?
> Lie! Lie! Lie! Pack of Lies! You can't help yourself being born here.
There is no other place i'd rather have been born. :)
> Now you sound like your race were real owner of this land. Now
> you forgotten the brutal history and all the Indian-Removal act.
Why do you think i've 'forgotten' anything? Because i think 'citizens'
should uphold their own Constitution which makes it our personal
obligation to uphold treaty rights?
> Of course, you refuse to admit the internment of the native people
> in reservation in present moment. Who setup the reservation? Of
> course, it was your race and your gov't for YOU. Now you tell me I
> should follow white's man's law and history, and moreover I should
> make an oath to white man's.
If you are a 'legal immigrant', you already have made that oath. It's
not a 'racial' oath. It's a 'national' oath. And yes, if you're a
citizen, i expect you to follow the laws of the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights just like you would follow any other nation's laws if
you were a citizen thereof. Just because you're *new* here, doesn't
make you any less responsible on an individual level than i am. You
'signed on' by choice. If you don't like what you've gotten yourself
into, you are free to leave at any time - or at least until all your
Constitutional rights have been abolished by our current
administration. Best move fast.
> In other word, I should be the kisser of
> white man ass.
It sounds to me as if you are suddenly attempting to kiss someone's
ass, but it's not the 'white man's'. However, if you think supporting
treaty rights is kissing white man's ass, then yes. Pucker up.
> I think I'm tired of talking to redneck white man who
> does not understand his race stole all the land and claimed as the
> masters. I can't dealing with Constitution or any commitment white
> man promise which are not met most of time. History of lie and
> hypocrisy have been validated in this land of blood and brutality
> so much forgotten in the name of Constitutional right, human right.
> It's all lies. All hypocrisy! But the history of lie and hypocrisy
> continue through your mouth... But one simple example: White gov't has
> violated the indian land treaty all the time.
And now it is your individual responsibility as a 'legal citizen' to
support and restore those treaty rights, and to correct all violations
that can still be corrected, insomuch as it's in your personal power
to do. If it's all lies... and it *is*... then it's your obligation as
one of 'the people' to stand up personally for doing the right things.
What's a government without a people? Nothing!
> So there is no land
> treaty just took over the land with gun and blood. I remind it again
> the great German philsohy Nietzche said "the real human history is a
> hegemonic power relying on pure physical force..."-
No, there are land agreements in treaties (i gave you a link, read the
treaties) among other things - signed by both US officials and Chiefs
and Warriors of each individual tribe. Treaty rights are what the
Makah people are fighting for right *now* in their struggle to restore
their whaling rights. It is the basis of their case, and they have the
right to hold our government's feet to the fire concerning such things
as Constitutional Law and the people's obligation to keep their
promises. It is one thing to mutually renegotiate a treaty. It is
another to blatantly violate a treaty time after time, as our
government has done, and expect no repercussions - even from its own
citizens who have been brainwashed for so long into believing
everything was all for "our own good".
Do you think you are doing native people a 'favor' by not respecting
the Constitution?
Red Cloud
> > What treaty right?
>
> You can start here:
>
> http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/Treaties.html
>
> > What's "our right"? What Constitutional right?
> > Lie! Lie! Lie! Pack of Lies! You can't help yourself being born here.
>
> There is no other place i'd rather have been born. :)
>
It's not your talking. It's your one side of bipolar suffering
talking in your mentally disordered brain, and other side is waiting
to reveal the reality of your experience of this land. I told you you
can't be happy here in stolen land and the land of blood
and suffering. And see how you people treat each other. The gov't
treated you like a slave as they done to Indian people. Chicken
has came home to roost. Don't pretend you are happy one! Your
experience is miserable experience. This is why I'm trying to get
out of this land. Your close friend is actually Whitepenis Jackass!
> > Now you sound like your race were real owner of this land. Now
> > you forgotten the brutal history and all the Indian-Removal act.
>
> Why do you think i've 'forgotten' anything? Because i think 'citizens'
> should uphold their own Constitution which makes it our personal
> obligation to uphold treaty rights?
>
Go uphold Constitutional right. Nobody is stopping you. Go talk to
your own race, and tell Whitepenis Jackass to join with you and
see what happened.
> > Of course, you refuse to admit the internment of the native people
> > in reservation in present moment. Who setup the reservation? Of
> > course, it was your race and your gov't for YOU. Now you tell me I
> > should follow white's man's law and history, and moreover I should
> > make an oath to white man's.
>
> If you are a 'legal immigrant', you already have made that oath. It's
> not a 'racial' oath. It's a 'national' oath. And yes, if you're a
> citizen, i expect you to follow the laws of the Constitution and the
> Bill of Rights just like you would follow any other nation's laws if
> you were a citizen thereof. Just because you're *new* here, doesn't
> make you any less responsible on an individual level than i am. You
> 'signed on' by choice. If you don't like what you've gotten yourself
> into, you are free to leave at any time - or at least until all your
> Constitutional rights have been abolished by our current
> administration. Best move fast.
>
Who really care of legal immigrant these days? You've cared more of
"illegal" one. Talk to Mexican invader they have the Constitutional
right, human right, Bill of Right. Go ahead you dumb
stupid mentally disorder bipolar whitetrash redneck oxymoron!!!!
Mexican invaders will join with you. Go protest with them!
> > In other word, I should be the kisser of
> > white man ass.
>
> It sounds to me as if you are suddenly attempting to kiss someone's
> ass, but it's not the 'white man's'. However, if you think supporting
> treaty rights is kissing white man's ass, then yes. Pucker up.
>
Your best allies is Mexican invaders! They love to join with you
fighting for their right in this land.
> > I think I'm tired of talking to redneck white man who
> > does not understand his race stole all the land and claimed as the
> > masters. I can't dealing with Constitution or any commitment white
> > man promise which are not met most of time. History of lie and
> > hypocrisy have been validated in this land of blood and brutality
> > so much forgotten in the name of Constitutional right, human right.
> > It's all lies. All hypocrisy! But the history of lie and hypocrisy
> > continue through your mouth... But one simple example: White gov't has
> > violated the indian land treaty all the time.
>
> And now it is your individual responsibility as a 'legal citizen' to
> support and restore those treaty rights, and to correct all violations
> that can still be corrected, insomuch as it's in your personal power
> to do. If it's all lies... and it *is*... then it's your obligation as
> one of 'the people' to stand up personally for doing the right things.
> What's a government without a people? Nothing!
>
Don't tell me about Treaty right or Constitutional right. You are
suffering with bipolar illness and mentally disordered. You can't
distinguish from legal immigrant to illegal immigrant. If I'm wrong,
you should fight Mexican invaders.
oldwifetale
> On May 19, 5:03 pm, oldwifetale <oldwifet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What treaty right?
>
> > You can start here:
>
> >http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Treaties/Treaties.html
>
> > > What's "our right"? What Constitutional right?
> > > Lie! Lie! Lie! Pack of Lies! You can't help yourself being born here.
>
> > There is no other place i'd rather have been born. :)
>
> It's not your talking. It's your one side of bipolar suffering
> talking in your mentally disordered brain, and other side is waiting
> to reveal the reality of your experience of this land.
My brain hemispheres are currently experiencing no conflict, having
reached a peaceful compromise at the onset of physiological changes
(producing month-long periods hot flashes) which required both sides
working cooperatively toward the same goal; staying cool around hot-
heads and/or butt-heads.
> I told you you
> can't be happy here in stolen land and the land of blood
> and suffering. And see how you people treat each other.
Well, i see how you treat me - that's for sure. Kinda hard to miss.
> The gov't
> treated you like a slave as they done to Indian people.
The government can treat me any way it will - it doesn't define me
unless i allow it to. It's sorta like how you try to instill shame in
me just for being 'white' and born in America, or how you want me to
hate my own ancestors when *i* know my ancestors (who love me and
understand things much better now) can see from my eyes what you are
saying. I can't control what the government is doing, or how you are
acting either. I have to be responsible for my *own* actions in the
here and now.
> Chicken
> has came home to roost. Don't pretend you are happy one! Your
> experience is miserable experience. This is why I'm trying to get
> out of this land. Your close friend is actually Whitepenis Jackass!
I have a *friend* here, but it ain't necessarily Jack. :)
(snip the same ol' racist ranting)
Why do you never... ever.. answer the pertinent questions?