Who We Are: Racism in America with Jeffrey Robinson - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15104613
I found this a great piece to discuss. Many people in here use the same lame excuses as what Robinson points out to deny any kind of responsibility for history.



Again, if you are in denial of what is never discussed, studied and known about? How can you change it for the better? You can't!
#15104619
Tainari88 wrote:I found this a great piece to discuss. Many people in here use the same lame excuses as what Robinson points out to deny any kind of responsibility for history.



Again, if you are in denial of what is never discussed, studied and known about? How can you change it for the better? You can't!


Excuses, lame ones actually....look at his face he doesn't even want to entertain the idea of what the other guy was telling him. That is not an honest conversation, that is judgemental. So many obstacles to the black people.... even though Jamaicans and Nigerians are the fastest rising immigrant groups in the US, making higher wages then average white people.. so spare me your weak minded chip on your shoulder bull shit.
#15104676
No, Oxymoron you are another person with zero sense of history always siding with some racist fucked up right wing bullshit. Why? You are a Jewish man from a working class family. The Jewish community has the hardest Leftists on the planet. Karl Marx, Albert Einstein and the list is endless of the super Lefties from the Jewish community. They are the Super COMMIES your ethnic group.

Why don't you realize that it is about political perspectives and not about what you think it is? Here is a Netflix movie discussing the 13th amendment and why the system shifted to private prisons. If you disagree with this documentary you better present some evidence of the reason it is false? If you can't? ANd come up with the Nigerians and the Jamaicans? You are so blind! Jamaica and Nigeria are INDEPENDENT nations run by Black people for Black people in their own countries. They are vetted and most of them came with educations because if they did not have educations? They don't get visas. Educated Africans from independent nations that never had white people controlling their societies from their own ability to educate themselves and enough money to make a bid for the USA? Are going to do well Oxymoron.

People like African Americans are not vetted. They are homegrown Americans who when they made money and were more successful than the white counterparts had their prosperous communities BURNED to the ground, they got BOMBED and had massacres of hundreds of Black people with MONEY by white people furious about Black people owning fucking grand pianos and fancy cars when they were supposed to be POOR and ignorant people who can't make it in society. I am going to put four videos. Chalenge the history or STFU!




Tulsa Massacre. 1921. Black Wall Street burned and bombed because the White people can not abide successful Black communities. It infuriated them. You think that was the only massacre? No. Rosewood, in Florida, another in Tennessee all upper class African American neighborhoods. You want more? The US government never arrested or jailed a single white murderer in the entire massacres. But if Black people would have killed and bombed hundreds of white people and their successful businesses would the DC government respond? Answer that fucking question Oxymoron. Or are you gonna remain silent because you refuse to acknowledge a history you probably had no fucking idea ever existed? Learn some history!! Start with the vast amount of hard Left geniuses in the Leftist Jewish column. You got reds in a big way in the Jewish community and it is not just a couple of them here or there. Lol. :D











It is not someone or two things in history. It is a serial issue.
#15104704


Maya Angelou's life. One of the greatest American poets. Her life.

Then you got fools thinking the law was fair with African Americans all this time.
#15104801
Tainari88 wrote:No, Oxymoron you are another person with zero sense of history always siding with some racist fucked up right wing bullshit. Why?

Most of the racism in the US exists in places where the Democrats run the show uncontested. It's not right wing at all. It's welfare state politics. It's buying the votes of the people and keeping them under their boots. That's what the Democrat party's game is. It's not right wing at all.

Tainari88 wrote:Here is a Netflix movie discussing the 13th amendment and why the system shifted to private prisons.

The 13th Amendment did away with debtors prisons. So clearly it wasn't intending to expand imprisonment. Netflix opens with Barack Obama's typically high handed rhetoric about 25% of the world's incarcerated are in the United States, yet ignores the fact that the 1994 crime bill was authored by none other than his own vice president, Joe Biden. This is why I say the Democrat party's rhetoric on race has become intolerable. They always blame their own bad behavior on others or generalize it so that they never get blamed for their own behavior. It's like these absurd people protesting George Floyd, who have no intention whatsoever of changing who they vote for, protesting the very people they put into office and in many cases blaming things on Republicans who have virtually no political power at the local or state level where they live.

Tainari88 wrote:If you disagree with this documentary you better present some evidence of the reason it is false?

It starts with a false narrative on race. The system we have is a choice "white people" made, and "black people" didn't make. It was the entire point of the Obamas getting involved with Netflix to push false propaganda. And Van Jones... :roll: The United States isn't a little country. It's the fourth largest country on Earth. I'm not even 2 minutes into this thing. So let's get in to the first two minutes of this absurdly long rant purporting to be a documentary. The narrator notes that in 1972 the prison population was only a few hundred thousand, and today it is 2M+. Obviously, this didn't start with a "loophole" in the 13th Amendment, so they are already contradicting themselves in the first two minutes. It's just Obama's nasty and dishonest hand in making propaganda films at Netflix, and Obama is smart enough to know better.

Tainari88 wrote:They are homegrown Americans who when they made money and were more successful than the white counterparts had their prosperous communities BURNED to the ground, they got BOMBED and had massacres of hundreds of Black people with MONEY by white people furious about Black people owning fucking grand pianos and fancy cars when they were supposed to be POOR and ignorant people who can't make it in society.

They were also defended by white people called Republicans. The white people attacking them were called Democrats. Let's be honest about the history instead of trying to omit the material facts and try to create some myth with material facts omitted when we all know what happened, including you. It was Democrats who did this, because the Democrat party is profoundly racist.

Tainari88 wrote:Black Wall Street burned and bombed because the White people can not abide successful Black communities. It infuriated them.

First, that whole thing started with another Democrat party lynch mob, and the white Republican Sheriff would not turn over the black boy accused of accosting a white girl to the Democrat Party lynch mob, so the Democrats burned the black neighborhood to the ground. You make it sound like all white people were on the same side when you already know for a fact that they weren't, and yet like Obama you persist in pushing a narrative that you know to be false. The Democrats did this to black people, not the Republicans, not "white people."

Tainari88 wrote:You think that was the only massacre? No. Rosewood, in Florida,

Again, who did it? "White people"? The entire white race decided to get a few people to burn down Rosewood, Florida? Or, was it Democrats with their terrorist arm the Ku Klux Klan? Rosewood was another example of the lily white woman accosted by the black man. They ginned up a crowd just like they do today.

Tainari88 wrote:The US government never arrested or jailed a single white murderer in the entire massacres.

We did not have the Republican Party's Civil Rights Act of 1964 at that time to curb the evil doing of the Democrats.

Tainari88 wrote:But if Black people would have killed and bombed hundreds of white people and their successful businesses would the DC government respond?

The state government would have handled it. Although, when Wilson was president, he may have tried to quash them as he did with the communists. Wilson was a Democrat.

Tainari88 wrote:Or are you gonna remain silent because you refuse to acknowledge a history you probably had no fucking idea ever existed? Learn some history!!

People don't know the history, because the Democrats whitewash their own history, and they have a lot of help from people like you. That's why these things happened because of "white people." Uh, we can be much more specific. Notice that you are not saying, "some humans did this to other humans," because it doesn't generate any emotion. It doesn't appeal to the limbic system that way. Yet, "white people" allows you to avoid criticizing the Democrat party when you know perfectly well that they were the ones who did this.

Tainari88 wrote:It is not someone or two things in history. It is a serial issue.

By the Democratic party. Not just "white people" generally. Why malign an entire race when you know the history of the Democrat party and their terror arm the Ku Klux Klan? It's because you are part of these leftists trying to promote race wars, while ignoring the crimes of the Democrats. It's because you favor the welfare state policies promoted very much by the Jews and Wall Street, and you know this perfectly well too as this is your come on to Oxymoron?

Why the prison state? This evolved because a bunch of nihilists decided that there is no God, there is no need to adhere to any religious doctrine, and we can all live on a "pleasure principle." Happiness is just a chemical state in the brain. We can be happy by simply ingesting exogenous ligands like alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin; or, we can stimulate endogenous ligands with recreational sex. STDs? No problem. We have antibiotics. This was their thinking before AIDS and herpes made it clear that these "scientists" were really political activists getting people to accept their mindless barbarianism as "scientific."

So what happened? People got addicted to drugs. As they did, they committed huge numbers of property crimes and crimes against the person. To forestall these crimes, these people of infinite wisdom decided to criminalize recreational drug use and to control the sale of pharmaceuticals for those using benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and methamphetamine over the counter. Don't you remember the Rolling Stones song "Mother's Little Helper" or the Beatles "Doctor Robert"?

Yet another change was the collapse in confidence in mental health systems, and the closure of insane asylums. It used to be that you could make a drug addict a ward of the state and get them some treatment. Not anymore. Now, it is simply punished as a crime. Who introduced this? The Democrats. They got Ronald Reagan to go along with it in California, and now they blame this de-institutionalization across the entire United States on Reagan, who only had a hand in signing Democrat party legislation in California. Starting to see a pattern here? The Democrats are complete freaking psychos, and for whatever reason, think they are somehow superior to everyone else.

This sort of narrative is also why the Republicans are just utterly fucking useless heaps of protoplasm purporting to be sentient humans. This stuff is very easy to counter, because it's all a whitewash of the Democrat party.
#15104808
David Starkey https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53279273 wrote:Slavery was not genocide otherwise there wouldn't be so many damn blacks in Africa or Britain would there? An awful lot of them survived.

:lol: I have to say I do find this a little insensitive. What people refuse to see, and to my mind its blindingly obvious, is that the Nazis determination to exterminate the Jews was actually a kind of compliment. It was actually a kind of respect. Do you think that Washington and Jefferson and the like would really have been so keen to keep immigrating Blacks in vast numbers into America if they had feared them the way the Nazis feared the Jews?

Both Hitler and Stalin at different times launched racist hate campaigns against the Jews. Both Hitler and Stalin sent Jews to concentration camps. In fact both Hitler and Stalin loved putting White people in concentration camps. And both Hitler and Stalin at different points allied with Zionists while they were launching racist hate campaigns against Jews in their own countries.

Both Hitler and Stalin supported the Zionists for the same reason, they had no respect for the Arabs. Although Hitler, while he was still alive renounced his previous racist contempt for the Arabs, recognised that using the term "anti-Semitism" to refer just to Jews was nasty and racist and emblematic of racist contempt for Arabs and stopped using the term. It is a tribute to the manipulative success of Jewish supremacists that "anti-Semitism" is still the dominant term for hatred of Jews (or alleged hatred of Jews). The Soviets had to wait till after Stalin's death before allying with the Arabs and recongising the inherent racism fo the Zionist project.
#15104911
blackjack21 wrote:Most of the racism in the US exists in places where the Democrats run the show uncontested. It's not right wing at all. It's welfare state politics. It's buying the votes of the people and keeping them under their boots. That's what the Democrat party's game is. It's not right wing at all.

BJ, I am going to be very honest with you? I already went over the Dixiecrat thing with you. Many nations and not just the USA have political parties that morph and change. The present Democratic party has a bunch of black members because it is the one that traditionally has courted in its recent history the Black voter and the Latino voter. Two out of three Latino voters voted for Obama not McCain or Romney BJ. Why? I will tell you what I feel about the Republican party--I was in Denver during both elections of 2008 where the DNC held its annual meeting and in 2012. The feeling for the Latino voters is that the Republican party are a bunch of racist fucks with money who don't give a fuck about Latinos at all. The Blacks are almost identical in that assessment. For me the Republican party are the worst fucking white supremacist rich arrogant sellout fucks the world has ever known. I hate that party.

Now for the Democrats? Liberals who are white or like Clinton? Are kind of conservative hidden fucking racists who lie and promise equality and are racist fucks of the worst sort too.

My solution is to not put your faith in either party and go for Democratic Socialism. It started as a small party of 6,000 members and now is in 60,000 plus range. A growth of 10 times. Why? Because the two racist fuck parties are not getting anything accomplished. And many of the socialists are young BJ. Not old men like Biden and Trump. Young people. And if you are successful in eliminating social security, and the entire welfare state of the USA and no SNAP and no anything of the welfare state? Get ready for millions of socialists and a third party sweep. It might take 25 years BJ but if you eliminate all welfare, keep wages abysmally low and a tiny elite living well and huge groups of poverty people who can't even study to get ahead and are living from hand to mouth? The result will be hard Left takeover in the future. It is inevitable. Especially with the working class of the USA. Many Bernie voters just wanted an anti-establishment person. Trump is a rich fuck with no ethics. For us Latin Americans it is sheer craziness to elect people who are wealthy spoiled asses to represent working class people. For them that is sheer stupidity. And they are right.

The USA is the least intelligent electorate in terms of understanding class based votes. They are used to the two corrupt party system. Once another four election cycles happen and you got zero food stamps, mass unemployment and homelessness? And serious breakdown of the social fabric? A police state, no privacy, tapped phones and puters of everyone in the fifty states. no freedom, etc. Watch that socialist party grow to 40 million in 25-30 years.



The 13th Amendment did away with debtors prisons. So clearly it wasn't intending to expand imprisonment. Netflix opens with Barack Obama's typically high handed rhetoric about 25% of the world's incarcerated are in the United States, yet ignores the fact that the 1994 crime bill was authored by none other than his own vice president, Joe Biden. This is why I say the Democrat party's rhetoric on race has become intolerable. They always blame their own bad behavior on others or generalize it so that they never get blamed for their own behavior. It's like these absurd people protesting George Floyd, who have no intention whatsoever of changing who they vote for, protesting the very people they put into office and in many cases blaming things on Republicans who have virtually no political power at the local or state level where they live.

American voters have historical amnesia BJ. They don't know shit about what these lying slime balls in either party are up to. I think neoliberalism is at the heart of corruption in both parties. They sold the entire USA economy down the river long ago. I know that. At the same time you focus only on the Democrat because frankly BJ your nationalism has a spot in the Republican platform. And you want to break the back o these slimeball liberals and centrist rightists corporatists so your sort of nationalism has a shot. The Republicans are going to be so smashed in the next 30 years that you won't have a foothold for ethical nationalism. It will all play out. For me, the US is going to devolve into a police state and a racist as hell one and it will lose power in many myriad ways. But it deserves it. The issue of the corrupt rot in both parties? It was left without a remedy for far too long. You throw in some pandemics and some crashed economies and tensions and no one knows the differences between the history of the Democratic Party and the Republican one? People with zero education on international political categories? Recipe for some authoritarian state. Snowden wasn't wrong. I left. That is my vote I am Puerto Rican. I want Puerto Rico out of that fucked up limbo colonial status. The USA chose an awful path. I am not optimistic if people don't wake up to what the corruption means if there is no way to right the problems peacefully. It could be like Dr. Cornel West stated a failed social experiment.

It starts with a false narrative on race. The system we have is a choice "white people" made, and "black people" didn't make. It was the entire point of the Obamas getting involved with Netflix to push false propaganda. And Van Jones... :roll: The United States isn't a little country. It's the fourth largest country on Earth. I'm not even 2 minutes into this thing. So let's get in to the first two minutes of this absurdly long rant purporting to be a documentary. The narrator notes that in 1972 the prison population was only a few hundred thousand, and today it is 2M+. Obviously, this didn't start with a "loophole" in the 13th Amendment, so they are already contradicting themselves in the first two minutes. It's just Obama's nasty and dishonest hand in making propaganda films at Netflix, and Obama is smart enough to know better.

Geo and the other private prison documentary is citing the millions. Now, I think the powers that be do support making money off of imprisoning people. Unlike you? I don't think Trump is the friend of the Black community. He is racist of the worst sort. I read his rants and his book on a lot of topics regarding race. He is an old racist fuck BJ. No way in this world you will convince me otherwise. But that Obama is into propaganda? No argument there from me. ALL OF THEM ARE. That Lincoln Project are neoliberals and neoconservatives. And they are good at twisting the truth. That is what is the dirty truth of propaganda BJ.

No, BJ, for me white liberals and white conservative assholes are all together in one big boat of racist denial and keeping power in whatever fashion they do it. They have tokens and sellouts. Throwing out black sellouts to show a veneer of inclusivity. You follow the money and it is all manufactured.

You will keep blaming the Democrats are the racists. Yes, they are. But so are the Republicans. The answer is to punish BOTH parties with some truly hard-Left pressure to the point where they choke on their own hypocritical white Supremacist VOMIT. That is my solution? What is yours?

Did you read some insular cases? It is there. Racist shit. Keeping the vote from my people. So I have no tolerance for your bullshit BJ about what the intentions are from either party. It is to rule over the land that doesn't belong to them and to hell with giving rights to people who they deem inferior. People with that mentality in history I have zero respect for. Zero.

I need to cook. Be back later.



They were also defended by white people called Republicans. The white people attacking them were called Democrats. Let's be honest about the history instead of trying to omit the material facts and try to create some myth with material facts omitted when we all know what happened, including you. It was Democrats who did this, because the Democrat party is profoundly racist.


First, that whole thing started with another Democrat party lynch mob, and the white Republican Sheriff would not turn over the black boy accused of accosting a white girl to the Democrat Party lynch mob, so the Democrats burned the black neighborhood to the ground. You make it sound like all white people were on the same side when you already know for a fact that they weren't, and yet like Obama you persist in pushing a narrative that you know to be false. The Democrats did this to black people, not the Republicans, not "white people."


Again, who did it? "White people"? The entire white race decided to get a few people to burn down Rosewood, Florida? Or, was it Democrats with their terrorist arm the Ku Klux Klan? Rosewood was another example of the lily white woman accosted by the black man. They ginned up a crowd just like they do today.


We did not have the Republican Party's Civil Rights Act of 1964 at that time to curb the evil doing of the Democrats.


The state government would have handled it. Although, when Wilson was president, he may have tried to quash them as he did with the communists. Wilson was a Democrat.


People don't know the history, because the Democrats whitewash their own history, and they have a lot of help from people like you. That's why these things happened because of "white people." Uh, we can be much more specific. Notice that you are not saying, "some humans did this to other humans," because it doesn't generate any emotion. It doesn't appeal to the limbic system that way. Yet, "white people" allows you to avoid criticizing the Democrat party when you know perfectly well that they were the ones who did this.


By the Democratic party. Not just "white people" generally. Why malign an entire race when you know the history of the Democrat party and their terror arm the Ku Klux Klan? It's because you are part of these leftists trying to promote race wars, while ignoring the crimes of the Democrats. It's because you favor the welfare state policies promoted very much by the Jews and Wall Street, and you know this perfectly well too as this is your come on to Oxymoron?

Why the prison state? This evolved because a bunch of nihilists decided that there is no God, there is no need to adhere to any religious doctrine, and we can all live on a "pleasure principle." Happiness is just a chemical state in the brain. We can be happy by simply ingesting exogenous ligands like alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin; or, we can stimulate endogenous ligands with recreational sex. STDs? No problem. We have antibiotics. This was their thinking before AIDS and herpes made it clear that these "scientists" were really political activists getting people to accept their mindless barbarianism as "scientific."

So what happened? People got addicted to drugs. As they did, they committed huge numbers of property crimes and crimes against the person. To forestall these crimes, these people of infinite wisdom decided to criminalize recreational drug use and to control the sale of pharmaceuticals for those using benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and methamphetamine over the counter. Don't you remember the Rolling Stones song "Mother's Little Helper" or the Beatles "Doctor Robert"?

Yet another change was the collapse in confidence in mental health systems, and the closure of insane asylums. It used to be that you could make a drug addict a ward of the state and get them some treatment. Not anymore. Now, it is simply punished as a crime. Who introduced this? The Democrats. They got Ronald Reagan to go along with it in California, and now they blame this de-institutionalization across the entire United States on Reagan, who only had a hand in signing Democrat party legislation in California. Starting to see a pattern here? The Democrats are complete freaking psychos, and for whatever reason, think they are somehow superior to everyone else.

This sort of narrative is also why the Republicans are just utterly fucking useless heaps of protoplasm purporting to be sentient humans. This stuff is very easy to counter, because it's all a whitewash of the Democrat party.
#15104974
Tainari88 wrote:I already went over the Dixiecrat thing with you.

Minnesota is not in the deep South. Neither is the South side of Chicago. Neither is Baltimore. Neither is Detroit. Neither is LA.

Yet, in all of these places controlled politically by Democrats, we have complaints of racism, police brutality, biased sentencing that hurts blacks. Where does all this take place? Overwhelmingly in places controlled by Democrats.

Tainari88 wrote:Many nations and not just the USA have political parties that morph and change.

The Nixon Southern Strategy does not explain any of this stuff. In Minneapolis you have a very left wing SJW Jewish mayor, a black Democrat Chief of Police and you still got two white police officers, one black and one Asian on scene at the death of George Floyd. The idea that all the racists left the Democratic party and became Republicans fails to explain why all the complaints of racism at the hands of government are happening in places controlled almost exclusively by Democrats and for a very, very long time.

Tainari88 wrote:The present Democratic party has a bunch of black members because it is the one that traditionally has courted in its recent history the Black voter and the Latino voter.

The Democratic party nominee for president is Joe Biden. He wrote the 1994 crime bill that saw the mass increase in incarceration of minorities. Trump just reversed this. It's not that Biden is appealing to black voters. They are not informed that he was the one who put in place the law that saw so many black people put in jail for long sentences. Is the media going to highlight that fact? No. Why? It's not because they like black people. It's because they are all about being in power and being of service to those in power.

Tainari88 wrote:The feeling for the Latino voters is that the Republican party are a bunch of racist fucks with money who don't give a fuck about Latinos at all.

Yes, and they probably got that idea from a relentless barrage of propaganda from the mainstream media, and not from interacting with a lot of Republicans.

Tainari88 wrote:The Blacks are almost identical in that assessment.

For the same reason. You cannot point to a long list of race crimes by Republicans against black people, because they don't exist. What you can point to is a history of being opposed to a welfare state. That is it. When it comes to police crackdowns on blacks, it's mostly in Democrat controlled venues and jurisdictions.

Tainari88 wrote:For me the Republican party are the worst fucking white supremacist rich arrogant sellout fucks the world has ever known.

Most civil rights legislation to help blacks was from the Republican party and fought tooth and nail by the Democrats. The Republicans were never about white supremacy. They were opposed to a welfare state.

Tainari88 wrote:Liberals who are white or like Clinton? Are kind of conservative hidden fucking racists who lie and promise equality and are racist fucks of the worst sort too.

Neither Clintons really hide their racism that much. Welfare state politics is pay-to-play. Blacks go along with this just as white people do.

Tainari88 wrote:And if you are successful in eliminating social security, and the entire welfare state of the USA and no SNAP and no anything of the welfare state?

You don't need much of a welfare state if you don't open the US market to every nation on Earth.

Tainari88 wrote:It might take 25 years BJ but if you eliminate all welfare, keep wages abysmally low and a tiny elite living well and huge groups of poverty people who can't even study to get ahead and are living from hand to mouth?

Where have you ever heard me call for keeping wages abysmally low? I've made it perfectly clear that I wouldn't allow labor arbitrageurs to profit.

Tainari88 wrote:The result will be hard Left takeover in the future. It is inevitable.

Well, it's certainly happening in the Democratic party. Will it happen in the US? It depends upon whether or not Bezos, Page, Brin, Zuckerberg, Cook, et. al. are allowed to continue on as they have.

Tainari88 wrote:Many Bernie voters just wanted an anti-establishment person.

So did I. That's why I was pulling for Bernie over Biden.

Tainari88 wrote:Trump is a rich fuck with no ethics.

He would not have pushed the First Step Act if he had no ethics. You cannot stand his persona, but you mistake his actions for his persona. They are, admittedly strangely, two different things.

Tainari88 wrote:I think neoliberalism is at the heart of corruption in both parties. They sold the entire USA economy down the river long ago. I know that.

Well you are right about this.

Tainari88 wrote:At the same time you focus only on the Democrat because frankly BJ your nationalism has a spot in the Republican platform.

I think much of the Republican party is useless as tits on a bull. However, I think the Democratic party is basically evil incarnate. So I simply will not have the "white people" business anymore. The idea that my grandmother came to America because she had "white privilege" is something she would hold as an abomination--a complete erasing of the history of "No Irish need apply." This is the party that thought it triumphant to have elected John F. Kennedy, and now talks about "white privilege"?

Tainari88 wrote:The Republicans are going to be so smashed in the next 30 years that you won't have a foothold for ethical nationalism. It will all play out.

One reason the Democrats want so many immigrants is that Democrats have a low birth rate. They are more likely facing serious electoral troubles. Did you notice that AOC won her primary again and the neighboring congressional district bounced Eliot Engel for a black man? I noticed. I think it's a good thing.

Tainari88 wrote:You throw in some pandemics and some crashed economies and tensions and no one knows the differences between the history of the Democratic Party and the Republican one?

That is because people are lied to on a regular basis. Hell, these protesters wanted to tear down a statue of Abraham Lincoln that was purchased by former slaves. They are blindingly ignorant, and the Democrats are mostly to blame for this too since the control both the school systems and the media. So they get to tell the lies.

Tainari88 wrote:Now, I think the powers that be do support making money off of imprisoning people. Unlike you?

Guess who controls the prison guard labor unions?

Tainari88 wrote:Throwing out black sellouts to show a veneer of inclusivity. You follow the money and it is all manufactured.

Minneapolis in a nutshell...
#15105144
@blackjack21 wrote:

They were also defended by white people called Republicans. The white people attacking them were called Democrats. Let's be honest about the history instead of trying to omit the material facts and try to create some myth with material facts omitted when we all know what happened, including you. It was Democrats who did this, because the Democrat party is profoundly racist.


Blackjack21, that is your deal. Not mine. I don't rewrite history to say some conservatives were interested in the Civil Rights Movement. Because they weren't. The evidence is so overwhelming that your interpretation is sheer lies and bullshit that I won't waste time with that at all. Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, and many others were all racist people. That was just a fact. J. Edgar Hoover was a closet gay man and a virulent anti Communist living with his shameful secret for years as he ruthlessly prosecuted gay people, Black activists like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and others. Were they 'democrats'? No. If you were honest with me Senor, you would acknowledge that the Left in the USA both white, black and others were all part of the movement to change history and restore voting rights to historically excluded groups such as Native Americans who were not allowed to vote till the 1950s, Black people till there were the Civil Rights campaigns. No, Blackjack, your inability to acknowledge that conservatives in the USA are tainted with racist laws, racist actions and racist beliefs for centuries and that the Democratic party and the Republican party are political parties that have changed its members and policies for a long time. I will put in the Khan Academy videos. You are thinking it is unique to American political history? It is not Relampaguito. If you study international politics as much as I have? Lol. I got straight A's in that BJ. In fact the head of the department wanted me to switch my major because of how well I did my research paper comparing different histories of political parties from different nations from all over the world. The USA is not unique. But it seems you have to distort to write the blame only on the Democratic party and their stinky liberals who never get justice for people because they have shit for principles. Here are the videos delineating how they changed and why they changed.







Why would most Black Americans vote for a party that was founded by Thomas Jefferson a slaveholder? Because the Democratic party emphasized voting rights in the sixties (a couple of centuries later it was not the same party of Jefferson Blackjack Relampago) Why? Historical changes to both parties. It is about modern American political categories BJ. If you continue with this lying narrative? Thinking I never studied or know about this shit? I will think you are into false propaganda outright in order to win. I do think you are quite capable of doing. My party is unlikely to win a damn thing in many years and therefore I am not married to pushing a lie in order to win in my own mind. Jackson is unabashedly racist. Do you need to be dragged into this racist shit history by nine thousand videos and links I can put in here for months? I don't think it will favor you at all BJ.

First, that whole thing started with another Democrat party lynch mob, and the white Republican Sheriff would not turn over the black boy accused of accosting a white girl to the Democrat Party lynch mob, so the Democrats burned the black neighborhood to the ground. You make it sound like all white people were on the same side when you already know for a fact that they weren't, and yet like Obama you persist in pushing a narrative that you know to be false. The Democrats did this to black people, not the Republicans, not "white people."


Again, historical context. You are deliberately misleading by not placing that Democratic party within its historical period. At that moment in history BJ? The Democratic Party was not a lefty party with mulatto presidents. It was about KKK hooded Grand Wizards and Cyclops whatever who in the 1920s would openly be marching around with KKK insignia. Do you want me to get some footage of the political convention of those times so you can see them? Birth of A Nation happened. WTF? Not 'white people'? Who were the people burning and killing and looting black people? Mexicans? No, it was angry white mobs from both parties. In the end, the federal government legally was responsible for bringing justice to this problem. Did they? Yes or no? The Sheriff was part of the white power structure that did not arrest or try to prevent that lynch mob. What excuse are you going to do about that BJ? Remember one has to take responsibility for the injustices and be able to look a very dark history in the face and deal with it. Otherwise, there is no progress.



Again, who did it? "White people"? The entire white race decided to get a few people to burn down Rosewood, Florida? Or, was it Democrats with their terrorist arm the Ku Klux Klan? Rosewood was another example of the lily white woman accosted by the black man. They
ginned up a crowd just like they do today.


The KKK is with your pig president number 45 now. Do you want the footage? Do you want me to show that to your face? How is it the KKK ain't confused about the Republican party is the one they have an affinity for now in 2020 and not the Democratic Party from the 1920s BJ? Explain how they are confused and don't join the racist Democratic party? They are ignorant and confused? They are shunning white liberals who are racists too but not as openly racist as they are in the Republican party? Do you want me to do a show of how not valid your argument sounds BJ? I expect more from you BJ. But I am realizing that you resort to propaganda stuff as well. I think it is part of your philosophy of everyone shills for their 'narrative'. That is how you lose your nation BJ. With a lack of being honest with your own history and your own nation's history. No matter how dark it is...being honest about what went wrong and right it by acknowledging it? Is the mark of integrity BJ. It always will be.


We did not have the Republican Party's Civil Rights Act of 1964 at that time to curb the evil doing of the Democrats.


Johnson was the president at the time. And he was mostly hated by the Kennedys. He was the one who signed into law the Civil Rights Act. He had to battle a lot of very racist Republicans and Democrats from the South BJ. You better give up on the argument that the Democratic Party from the 1920-1950s was the same as the one now. Because it is not. Again, do you need other nations who had a political party that started out as very Left and even Revolutionary and over time became conservative and Rightist? We can do that? You should study the international political party history more. They morph and change. The USA's Democratic Party is one of those BJ. Again one has to dig into history. The Civil Rights Act was pushed by many organizations. One was the NAACP one of its founders was a flaming far-left Communist intellectual Black man called W.E.B DuBois. Mr. Brilliant. He came up with strategies for dealing with these issues. There was another riot burning down the neighborhood mob in Tennessee BJ. It is interesting but Black veterans from WWI and WWII both defended their rights and if you see the video from Emory University you will see that Thurgood Marshall almost got lynched by some white Sheriff's in those Tennessee riots BJ. Do you want me to pull out who those people were? We can be here for years in this thread BJ. You never studied this stuff, did you? I did. So you either concede you don't know it and want to know more? Or you deny it and deny and deny. If you deny? I will consider that proof that you don't care about justice darling. Just pushing your agenda. And that is the end of that.


The state government would have handled it. Although, when Wilson was president, he may have tried to quash them as he did with the communists. Wilson was a Democrat.


Again, BJ, both parties were rife with racists. For a very very long time. This is not in dispute with historians of the time. No, none of those African Americans in Greenwood, Rosewood, Tennessee, and other places would have had a friend in the White House of either the Republicans or the Democratic party. It is obvious. Why is this something you can't accept? The Republicans are a racist fuck group of people in 2020. There are some tokens and sellouts. Shills like Candace, Paris, Sowell, and others. They are people who do well with conservative elements but could you imagine those tokens being seen in the Dixiecrat party in 1922? Sitting next to those hood wearing KKK members in DC at the convention representing the Blacks on the conservative side? What the Civil Rights Movement accomplished was forcing a liberal narrative on all race relations in the USA. All things die out in history. Overt racism was one of the things that had to die in the post Civil Rights era. Do you believe in a Back to Africa Movement for American Blacks? Would you join it? Why or why not? If you can answer that question you will realize the pressure that post-1965 had in US history.

People don't know the history, because the Democrats whitewash their own history, and they have a lot of help from people like you. That's why these things happened because of "white people." Uh, we can be much more specific. Notice that you are not saying, "some humans did this to other humans," because it doesn't generate any emotion. It doesn't appeal to the limbic system that way. Yet, "white people" allows you to avoid criticizing the Democrat party when you know perfectly well that they were the ones who did this.


I am a socialist BJ. I am assuming you know what that means right? It means I am about dealing with race relations through a class lens as well as a historical lens. The Americas were colonized from 1492-1898 and beyond by European powers BJ. The Netherlands, England, France, Spain, Portugal, etc. in order to profit from those colonies. The USA, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic and many other nations were all part of that colonial history. Slavery existed way before all the colonization of the Americas. It became based on racial segregationist policies in codes from the 17th century 13 original colonies in North America BJ. It was made because if you sat through the video the Attorney Jeffrey Robinson gives you the reason behind it. They had a certain small amount of slaves at the beginning. Most were indentured servants with a date for expiration for free labor. In order for the growth of the economy to keep going in 1790 they had to import 700,000 slaves. The Bacon's Rebellion scared the living daylights out of the landed gentry at the time who owned slaves because the poor small farmers who were indentured servants and without many protections started uniting with Black Slaves and indentured servants from the Caribbean islands. They formed coalitions that threatened the power of the slaveowning and indentured servant papers owning class. The landed gentry who were mostly loyal to the English crown BJ. Eventually they had conflicts with the native merchants who wanted rights to trade with the Indians who had treatees with the British crown and so they rebelled. Organizing all the low class American colonials both free, indentured and enslaved. They had common interests. The codes created segregation based on COLOR or race. That before did not exist. In order to secure a section of society that was completely disenfranchised legally by the legal systems. Now put two and two together BJ on why that was a divide and conquer tactic? As a socialist, it makes perfect sense. To keep making MONEY and PROFIT. From cotton, indigo, tobacco, and everything else grown for export in Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and so on. It is based on color due to who held power in the USA. That is a fact. We are not talking about anthropology that is about races being a lie in terms of scientific realities. Like black woman raped by white slaveowner impregnates her and she has a child that grows up to also be fertile and keep going that proves that both the male and the female are the same biological species and not so different as to not be able to produce fertile offspring. Science is that way. Are these two the same species? The answer is YES. So science doesn't go into who is the property and who is a human being according to laws created to feed an economic system. The one who you claim doesn't have a political arm in history? Like capitalism. Yeah, right. That is a lie BJ.

BJ, I can continue and continue. Do you want evidence for it all? I have everything or do you want to just state that you know Black people and White people are both human but they are in different power positions based on economic interests that become codified through laws that favor one party over the other? If you can admit that to me? We can move on. If you are unable to admit that? It is the end of this discussion. You will be seen by me as unable to admit simple truths.
#15105167
@Tainari88 ;

I thought I'd put my two cents in this thread. I am a ''Socialist'' of sorts too, still, and I too see a ''divide and conquer'' strategy being used by persons on the upper tier of society. I suspect that it has always been the case, although modern Capitalism has probably intensified the problem.

Fascists of whatever ''race'' are easy to use by the powers that be behind the scenes. Various hustlers and agent provocateurs, fake ideologues and false front organizations, third party cutouts and a compliant and compromised media can all work together to put up a smokescreen in front of people's eyes, to blind them as to the reality of what's really going on.

All that being said, peace is still the highest of earthly social goods, and I suspect that the only real change that is lasting and good is on the level of the personal and the individual, gradual more or less.
#15105177
[quote="blackjack21"]Minnesota is not in the deep South. Neither is the South side of Chicago. Neither is Baltimore. Neither is Detroit. Neither is LA.

Yet, in all of these places controlled politically by Democrats, we have complaints of racism, police brutality, biased sentencing that hurts blacks. Where does all this take place? Overwhelmingly in places controlled by Democrats.

Unlike you I am not stuck on a two-party system to explain away (it is the liberals fault) systemic racism. i see that capitalism controls both parties. That the corporations donate to both parties. That both parties have nearly identical value systems. Bernie can't take over the Democratic party because he is not sold out enough for the banks and the corporations. You can argue over many things but the core of both parties are lobbyists, special interests and corporations and market driven neoliberal agendas and that is why both parties are horrible. Why are you upset BJ with the Republicans? You wanted them to be loyal to the USA first. Not to be shipping good working class jobs to China, that makes China able to manipulate internally USA trade policies. Why do these people do this thing of being not good nationalists? Globalists are multinational internationalist capitalists who don't owe loyalty to preserving the integrity of nationalistic interests. They don't have that loyalty. At all. So the ones corrupting both parties who are running in and out of each other's rotten little value system club is based on expanding globalist capitalist short term goals of making a fast buck over what is best for national interests of the USA's social fabric over time. This is obvious. Let me bring in a good example to show you?

Here is the beginning of the complexity:



This is the racist fuck president and where he falls in the GOP or Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln




It is explained by the fact that both parties live within the capitalist framework of the superstructure. What is the superstructure? Institutions are built around the premise of upholding the economic structure of a society. This economic structure dictates all other structures. That means laws, government institutions like mayors, judges, lawyers, and laws, law enforcement, public schools, private businesses. This is why you have organizations that must abide by a for-profit principle and if you are nonprofit you must abide by a separate set of regulations. The institutions are set up to obey capitalism and neoliberal forms of government. You should know this already BJ since you hinted at the crossing over of those corrupt people from both sides of the aisle. Both take money from private corporations. The Clinton Foundation is a fine example of how this works. The liberals are not socialists BJ. They are pro capitalism and even Elizabeth Warren says this. And she is a liberal in the classical sense. The only ones challenging a pro capitalist stance are the socialists and farther left than that.

Here is a video to demonstrate how parties may change their agendas and political issue leanings as history marches on in a nation. Here BJ:




So what else is new BJ? I am not surprised by how uninformed American voters are. They are total ignorants on history in general. Most people pay cursory attention to any detail like who wrote a crime bill in 1994 that started mass incarceration. No, the media is a neobliberalistic sellout privately owned group. You got the conservative element like Fox News, and the more liberalistic but still pro capitalistic like MSNBC and CNN. Do you think I believe Joe Biden and other liberals making money through private lobbyists are into 'liking black people'? No. Their thing is? We are the party that is more about civil rights than the Republican party. A bunch of liberal two-faced liars but what else is new BJ? Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a total elitist liberal who loves her highly paid position in the Democratic party shilling for pro-capitalism corporations. She is black. Condi Rice is the conservative version of Wasserman Shultz but has to get more rejection from the Black community who sees her as a wanna-be white in values. In the end, both are not challenging the system and are there to benefit themselves not to truly challenge a capitalist system. If they were challenging the system they would get the heat from the system like an MLK, Jr, or a Malcolm X did or any of the Jim Crow strategists did in the sixties and late fifties BJ.




I don't trust the mainstream media at all and a lot of the supposed 'leftist' media I don't like either. As for interacting with Republicans? I have in my state. A substantial portion of them for at least two years. I found them uneducated, ambitious, greedy, liars, and racists. All of that and more. I would not be a friend of those people if they paid me a million dollars. They are also spineless cowards and empty bubbleheads with shit for brains. There might be one or two who are decent and they are few and often abandoned the party due to frustration with the corruption. Or they are like you...nationalists who are concerned with the USA retaining its hegemony on the world and don't understand why the elites are pissing it all away when white people with money and power should be smart enough to retain power by not being so commercial and disloyal to their own history. In the end? Their rotten value system is the problem BJ.




No, the Republicans hold on to the red states that are mostly in the South now. Why are Southern states so red? That is the part of the nation where the Blacks and the Whites have interacted negatively in reigns of terror for a long time. Why did the Red states of the Republican party choose that party if the Democrats are the most systemically racist according to you? Here is the explanation:





I don't buy that bullshit BJ. The welfare state was proposed by FDR and it was either that or some Commies and socialists creating trouble for the JP Morgans and Carnegies and Duponts and Vanderbilts and Rothchilds Blackjack21. It was an intervention to prevent social upheaval from happening. In the 1950s the USSR and the USA started their cold war. Because during WWII they were allies. And socialists were everywhere in the USA. The eight-hour workday, 40 hour work week, paid sick leave, widow's pension and etc were pressured in BJ. The conservative element never liked it because it gave more leverage to Unions. Though Unions were systemically destroyed over time since the 1930s. Raw capitalism without any welfare state safety net would have eventually led to worker tensions and violent clashes between unionized workers and management and capitalist investment bankers and owners of these companies BJ. To think the Right was about civil rights is a failed and historically inaccurate argument. No BJ whites in positions of wealth and elitist positions were always about white supremacy. Why do they still use white supremacist codes in the insular cases that are old and racist to uphold denying Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Solomon islands, US Virgin Islands and Guamanians the vote? Here is the code they use:
Downes vs Bidwell:

They use codes that are about denial of constitutional rights. It is based on economics and also political machinations BJ. As well as racist arguments.



[quote]Blacks historically have not had equal rights BJ. From the 1600s up until the end of the Civil War African Americans were denied even to be considered human beings. They were property according to the law of the land. Then from 1865-1965, they had to cope with Jim Crow laws and outright racist practices in hiring, education, and many other things impeding progress. Including burning down the communities with the most middle class and above black communities in them. They never arrested or tried anyone for the crimes. Ever. Why? Because they had no equality under the law. It was a joke. Now you got less 55 years of civil rights that were built up and also torn down by those conservative people like Reagan and Bush I and II and other beacons of equality from the Republican party and the fake liberal two-faced liberal types like Superpredator throw them in jail Clintons. No real justice BJ. It is gonna explode unless they cope with this ugly history and the weak way they have dealt with disenfranchised people all this time. When I lived in Puerto Rico I could vote locally in Puerto Rican elections, but the President of the USA held ultimate power on what happens in Puerto Rico in all ways. But I have no way of checking that as a voter. It is a one-way street. That is unconstitutional. But it is not changed. Why? Because the USA is not about constitutionality BJ it is about EMPIRE, CAPITALISM, control from afar like the European rotten Imperialists who sucked the wealth out of the Americas for centuries. Committing the same sins. They will go down the same path. Losing power to someone else. Having to pay homage to some other nation. They don't learn from old histories. They only pay attention to human defective thought processes of greed and selfish short term control and gains. Sellouts. Internal rot. Period.




You don't understand modern capitalism BJ. It HAS TO DO SO. It is compelled to do so by how profit is seen in a global sy
stem. Immigration founded the USA. It is in every aspect of society there. Jamestown was about immigrants not Natives BJ. Trade with England and Europe was its reason for existing. It is based on capitalism. The Civil War cemented that direction. You can't go back in time to isolationist trade policy. Because the reality is that the USA is only 5% of the world. 95% is not the USA. Guess where the most profit is going to be located? Not with a smaller percentage. Eventually, you will have a collapse. Hell, most restaurants in LA, San Fran, etc can't operate without Latino immigrants. The entire industry would collapse. You either make them citizens or send them back. If you send them back? You won't be sending the unemployed on draconian forced labor acceptance camps. They will refuse and you will have some push back. The reason they can't stop that tide is that the economy is based on that kind of exploitation. They have to interfere or they will lose their grip on power, wealth, and profit. That you don't understand that still? Is interesting to me. But I guessed your nationalism is so important to you that these lower class people from outside the USA you dismiss as unimportant. They never were. In sheer numbers, they are the backbone of the wealth of the USA. They always have been.



They will be violent and kill you fast. They do that to all the ones advocating wage justice internationally in pressured and organized manners. You have no idea how that works. Both my husband and my mother coped with the capitalists who want to keep wages low all over the world. They are murderers and worse than mafiosos. You would be a dead duck if you actually did something about that. But that is you. Thinking that wage justice is an easy thing to accomplish. It never is. Try labor studies and going to Vineland, New Jersey to pressure better wages for Puerto Rican tomato pickers in Jersey. The thing got UGLY. Life-threatening and bad. That is the USA. Imagine Mexico with the corruption of the federal police and the PRI party...a party that started out as radical and leftist land reform and became the party of Oligarchs and elites. Study political party changes within a historical framework all over the world Blackjack21.




Capitalism and liberalism is on their side. The power brokers. Get with the program BJ! :D



Socially makes banks shit in their pants. They were going to tax Wall street trading to the tune of billions or trillions of bucks. They would do any dirty trick in the book including putting in Bloomberg to be decapitated politically by Warren who did some kind of backroom deal with the elite in that stinkbomb party. Bernie should have fought it out till the bitter end. But? Biden is the one they had to have. He is just a puppet.






He would not have pushed the First Step Act if he had no ethics. You cannot stand his persona, but you mistake his actions for his persona. They are, admittedly strangely, two different things.


Trump is an erratic mess of a person. I don't give a single credit to his ethics. He is an unethical lying piece of a shit human being. Is he any better than many Republicans in the past? No. But he is not a classic neoliberal with smooth rhetoric. Bush jr. Bushito as he is called. Lol. Had a hard time putting a sentence together too. But Trump is a failed businessman with horrific administration skills and a lack of responsibility with ideas of total authority. He is a failure BJ. But he is a threat to the status quo by sheer inconsistency and incompetence. I don't know if he is capable of engaging in wars and sacrificing American soldiers for profit for himself. He is so low life he might do it. I don't trust that fuck racist man. You do. I don't. Biden is a total loser candidate but people in the USA are so predictable as voters. I have faith in decent people. The people who can't be bothered to learn history or educate themselves about politics are the ones who will have to pay the price of ignorance. Thems the breaks. With the people who refuse to read and want to be right.

Well you are right about this.

Right about what?

I think much of the Republican party is useless as tits on a bull. However, I think the Democratic party is basically evil incarnate. So I simply will not have the "white people" business anymore. The idea that my grandmother came to America because she had "white privilege" is something she would hold as an abomination--a complete erasing of the history of "No Irish need apply." This is the party that thought it triumphant to have elected John F. Kennedy, and now talks about "white privilege"?

BJ, Irish immigrants did not get dragged over in chains in smelly ships were a percentage of them committed suicide via throwing themselves overboard and working for free for centuries and Irish women being raped systemically and forced to have their babies and children sold off like calves in front of their eyes, to be from 1600s up until the end of Jim Crow being lynched by the thousands and terrorized by an organization like the KKK and being portrayed as subhumans and property in many ways. Again. The Irish came here to avoid the potato famine in the 1840s and many became slave owners in the South along with the Scottish who invented Southern Fried Chicken. Thus the reason so many African Americans have Scottish and Irish last names and bloodlines. My son's DNA was tested he has Scottish blood from Mississippi. Some long-ago ancestors raped a slave woman and he got it from them. They are not an innocent group. She was not a slave owner but she came as a later immigrant. Looking to make money and living in a society that had people working for free for centuries that benefitted an economy for centuries that they never got any money from. I see historical context BJ. The Irish are in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Spain and South America, Central America, they are everywhere. Why? Poverty and escaping the English Empire wanting to take Ireland and get their territories. It is an old failed story BJ. Empire and cruelty and greed doesn't spell good things for people in the lower classes in any nation in any part of the world. Period.


One reason the Democrats want so many immigrants is that Democrats have a low birth rate. They are more likely facing serious electoral troubles. Did you notice that AOC won her primary again and the neighboring congressional district bounced Eliot Engel for a black man? I noticed. I think it's a good thing.

No they want immigrants because the neoliberals make money off of immigrants. Reagan passed that 1986 Amnesty thing because the California farmers and winegrowers who put money in his campaign needed the stable workforce to profit. Not because Regan liked Latinos in California. Capitalism talks with both Democrats and Republicans. That is the nature of USA history.



That is because people are lied to on a regular basis. Hell, these protesters wanted to tear down a statue of Abraham Lincoln that was purchased by former slaves. They are blindingly ignorant, and the Democrats are mostly to blame for this too since the control both the school systems and the media. So they get to tell the lies.

So, Blackjack Relampaguito? I find most of what is taught in public schools in the USA a pack of lies and lack of analysis. I remember when I was 15 years old and went to take a USA history class with a teacher and the discussion wat the USS Lusitania and so on...all a bunch of bullshit. The Spanish American war was one paragraph and the greatness of a bunch of rich white men was studied for months. A balanced history of all the forces at work in the USA? No. History is about clashes of people fighting for power and territory and control over many things. One of them is land, the other is wealth and resources, the other is power to dictate what the values are about in that society. Others are about softer things like aesthetics, art, who is considered virtuous, languages spoken and so on...a lot of things. One should study it all with a critical eye. And not believe in manipulations. But that is the human condition in many nations BJ. Lies fed to the public.

Guess who controls the prison guard labor unions?

Who loves capitalism? Republicans don't? No, Blackjack it is both of them together worshipping money over principle. And it is not about the color of their skin. It is about the values they have chosen. They stink.


Minneapolis in a nutshell...

Police brutality is systemic Blackjack21. It is part of the fabric of American law enforcement. It always has been. The threat is the poor, the war on drugs, the war on crime that is not about rooting out the root causes for the crime. It is all smokescreens and they are now having to explain what used to be just swept under the rug. It is a time of reckoning.
Last edited by Tainari88 on 05 Jul 2020 02:38, edited 1 time in total.
#15105198
annatar1914 wrote:@Tainari88 ;

I thought I'd put my two cents in this thread. I am a ''Socialist'' of sorts too, still, and I too see a ''divide and conquer'' strategy being used by persons on the upper tier of society. I suspect that it has always been the case, although modern Capitalism has probably intensified the problem.

Fascists of whatever ''race'' are easy to use by the powers that be behind the scenes. Various hustlers and agent provocateurs, fake ideologues and false front organizations, third party cutouts and a compliant and compromised media can all work together to put up a smokescreen in front of people's eyes, to blind them as to the reality of what's really going on.

All that being said, peace is still the highest of earthly social goods, and I suspect that the only real change that is lasting and good is on the level of the personal and the individual, gradual more or less.


That is why one must do as Gandhi discussed. You are the change you want to see in the world. Don't wait for external change. I think materialism rules the external political forces. And with time and adaptation, there is change. But in the end, we control ourselves best. If you want true change? Control your own defects and work on them. Commit to that change. Also, be moral and ethical and don't be a sellout.

I like how you think Annatar.
#15105242
Tainari88 wrote:That is why one must do as Gandhi discussed. You are the change you want to see in the world. Don't wait for external change. I think materialism rules the external political forces. And with time and adaptation, there is change. But in the end, we control ourselves best. If you want true change? Control your own defects and work on them. Commit to that change. Also, be moral and ethical and don't be a sellout.

I like how you think Annatar.


Thanks Tainari, I appreciate that. And you're right; starting on ourselves first is best.
#15105332
annatar1914 wrote:Thanks Tainari, I appreciate that. And you're right; starting on ourselves first is best.


Sometimes, I sit here and think to myself? Have I changed enough bad habits I used to have? Am I doing what I set as goals for myself? Can I do more? Is it feasible?

the answers usually can be 'yes'.

My views on racism and racist people Annatar1914? They are unable to stand tall on their own. They have to look down on others who are on their knees by force and not by their own individual wills, and as such? There is something fundamentally wrong with their internal states. Dehumanizing other people and making them less than human is a disorder. Our natural states are empathy and union and connection. On all levels. That is where we feel happiest and more fulfilled. Keeping ourselves separate and ignorant about other people and feeling superior to them and their humanity is what led to the original fall of Lucifer from being the most light-filled being in all of Heaven in Christian religious literature, to being cast out of a perfect state of Grace to the bowels of suffering, death and sin. It is a symbolic thing like religious literature that is Christian often is. What caused the rupture with Lucifer the most light filled of all Angels? His ego. His sense of superiority of being better than God. Of not looking internally for his flawed first thought. For as soon as he thought himself better than his Lord and Master the Infinite Creator of all there is? He had separated himself from what made him Divine. He had negated the union. Only by knowing that you are nothing and humble and only by submitting your will and thoughts to internal humility and scrutiny and accepting complete responsibility for all that you do and think and commit that is selfish and thoughtless in nature and in life and society? that is how you gain union and freedom and harmony.

Racists fail to make that most important of all acts. Connecting to others and seeing themselves in the faces of all of the other people who are just raindrops from the same cloud and who are destined to meld together and form the same sea.

Racism is living in denial of what it means to be truly human. We can't be born, grow and live and die without having a connection. It is impossible. But if we think others are not us and they are not part of us in some fundamental way--we choose the fall. Always. Don't choose the fall. Choose Grace and the union.

No crees Annatar1914 mi amigo? ;)
Last edited by Tainari88 on 05 Jul 2020 14:29, edited 1 time in total.
#15105333
I think your summary of racist might illustrate the distinction between self esteem and self compassion.
The person who bases their sense of value on self esteem have to compare themselves to others, better or worse. It makes a seasaw effect where one is relative to those looked down or up upon.
Compared to self compassion or kindness which is about acceptance of self even though imperfect. Worthy of love and respect as an inherent human dignity and not to be denigrated for imperfections.

Im sure there is more psychological explanations to racism as with the sense if an other who threatens ones own identity which is facile and asserts itself in opposition because its held to dogmatically and would hurt one too much to acknowledge their own identity is quite superficial and not invulnerable nor stable.
This I take to be more threatening to those whose sense of self is dogmatic and pretty much unreflective to the discomfort of asking who am I really?
An identity that is often tied to the abstract notions of ones nation or group. Where if i define myself as an American who loves freedom and liberty but don’t contend with the clear contradiction of how America was also the unfreedom for many others and still so, how easy is it for me to change that sense of self or simply deny and dismiss challenges to my sense of self.

Even black Americans can find it hard to think of their identity as black outside of a relation to whiteness. Have to go to Africa for notions of strong sense of self not necessarily defined in relation to whiteness as much. Despite colonization.
#15105385
Tainari88 wrote:Unlike you I am not stuck on a two-party system to explain away (it is the liberals fault) systemic racism.

I'm not stuck on a two party system. I'm registered independent. My point is that the welfare state party is primarily the Democrats, and secondarily the Republicans.

Tainari88 wrote:i see that capitalism controls both parties. That the corporations donate to both parties. That both parties have nearly identical value systems.

From a Marxist perspective, perhaps. Yet, we don't see nearly the degree of political correctness, speech and thought police, etc. from the Republican party, whereas it appears to be a cornerstone of the Democrats.

Tainari88 wrote:Bernie can't take over the Democratic party because he is not sold out enough for the banks and the corporations.

Well, the other plausible theory for Sanders is that he doesn't win because he is sold out to the banks and corporations--i.e., his political role is to fail.

Tainari88 wrote:You can argue over many things but the core of both parties are lobbyists, special interests and corporations and market driven neoliberal agendas and that is why both parties are horrible. Why are you upset BJ with the Republicans? You wanted them to be loyal to the USA first. Not to be shipping good working class jobs to China, that makes China able to manipulate internally USA trade policies. Why do these people do this thing of being not good nationalists? Globalists are multinational internationalist capitalists who don't owe loyalty to preserving the integrity of nationalistic interests. They don't have that loyalty. At all. So the ones corrupting both parties who are running in and out of each other's rotten little value system club is based on expanding globalist capitalist short term goals of making a fast buck over what is best for national interests of the USA's social fabric over time. This is obvious. Let me bring in a good example to show you?

You don't need to, because you just made my case for me. That's why I'm a civic nationalist. It's absurd that a country like the United States does not make antibiotics. It's frankly bewildering, and it took the Wuhan Coronavirus to illustrate that point to the public at large. The media barely touches that sort of thing, because they are funded by the globalists too.

Tainari88 wrote:The institutions are set up to obey capitalism and neoliberal forms of government.

Well, I would start to disagree that classical liberals and neoliberals are the same thing. Neoliberals purport to be cosmopolitan, and eschew nationalism. That's a big problem with post-modernism--the world we live in depends on modernism. Corporations are chartered by states, not the other way around.

Tainari88 wrote:The liberals are not socialists BJ. They are pro capitalism and even Elizabeth Warren says this.

However, they do oppose fundamental rights like freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religions, the right to keep and bear arms and so forth. So they are neoliberal, not classical liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

Tainari88 wrote:The liberals are not socialists BJ. They are pro capitalism and even Elizabeth Warren says this.

That's a goal of the neoliberals. It's hard to brainwash well-informed people. Yet, there are plenty of people easily fooled by ridiculous theories like Russiagate now, because people are conditioned what to think and not how to think.

Tainari88 wrote:Most people pay cursory attention to any detail like who wrote a crime bill in 1994 that started mass incarceration.

Right, and that's why people literally vote for the people they are protesting.

Tainari88 wrote:We are the party that is more about civil rights than the Republican party.

Yet, they aren't. Barry Goldwater notwithstanding, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Republican legislation, Everett Dirksen to put a finer point on it.

Tainari88 wrote:Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a total elitist liberal who loves her highly paid position in the Democratic party shilling for pro-capitalism corporations. She is black.

She is a Jew.

Tainari88 wrote:Condi Rice is the conservative version of Wasserman Shultz but has to get more rejection from the Black community who sees her as a wanna-be white in values.

She is the neoconservative version.

Tainari88 wrote:The welfare state was proposed by FDR and it was either that or some Commies and socialists creating trouble for the JP Morgans and Carnegies and Duponts and Vanderbilts and Rothchilds Blackjack21.

Indeed. They redistributed middle class wealth to the underclass to stimulate aggregate demand, and got wealthier by purporting to help the poor. Now they get wealthier by exploiting illegal aliens and pushing free trade policies and accusing anyone who disagrees with them as "racist."

Tainari88 wrote:Why do they still use white supremacist codes in the insular cases

Explain what you mean here. Polemics and legal analysis don't always mix well.

Tainari88 wrote:From the 1600s up until the end of the Civil War African Americans were denied even to be considered human beings.

Oh boy. You're not another victim of the 3/5ths Compromise meme that says whites considered blacks to be only 3/5ths human are you?

Tainari88 wrote:They were property according to the law of the land.

Yes. So were women and children.

Tainari88 wrote:Including burning down the communities with the most middle class and above black communities in them. They never arrested or tried anyone for the crimes. Ever. Why?

Because the people in power were the ones doing it: Democrats. Why are there so few arrests with the current rioters? It's because the Democrats ginned up the riots themselves.

Tainari88 wrote:Now you got less 55 years of civil rights that were built up and also torn down by those conservative people like Reagan and Bush I and II and other beacons of equality from the Republican party and the fake liberal two-faced liberal types like Superpredator throw them in jail Clintons.

What civil rights do you think Reagan or the Bushes opposed? I think George H.W. Bush was also opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when he was a congressman because he thought it was unconstitutional.

Tainari88 wrote:When I lived in Puerto Rico I could vote locally in Puerto Rican elections, but the President of the USA held ultimate power on what happens in Puerto Rico in all ways. But I have no way of checking that as a voter. It is a one-way street. That is unconstitutional.

Well, that's what the Insular Decisions were all about--the debate over whether the US could hold territory as sovereign. It's not unconstitutional as such, but it is contradictory to the founding principles of the United States. I will give you that.

Tainari88 wrote:Jamestown was about immigrants not Natives BJ. Trade with England and Europe was its reason for existing. It is based on capitalism.

Well, a sort of proto-capitalism, mercantilism.

Tainari88 wrote:You can't go back in time to isolationist trade policy.

Sure you can. In many respects, the Wuhan Coronavirus shows you can go back in time in terms of global travel for example. You can literally shut it off for 98% of the people, and life goes on.

Tainari88 wrote:Hell, most restaurants in LA, San Fran, etc can't operate without Latino immigrants.

That's because illegal aliens can't get welfare, and legal aliens don't want to remain underclass. Welfare is a trap. It makes people dependent on the state. Why? So they won't overthrow it. They won't bite the hand that feeds them.

Tainari88 wrote:The reason they can't stop that tide is that the economy is based on that kind of exploitation. They have to interfere or they will lose their grip on power, wealth, and profit.

They can stop it. They choose not to. The US didn't always have this issue. The establishment just figured out a new game. It is deeply cynical. If you oppose exploitation, they call YOU "racist."

Tainari88 wrote:But I guessed your nationalism is so important to you that these lower class people from outside the USA you dismiss as unimportant. They never were. In sheer numbers, they are the backbone of the wealth of the USA. They always have been.

From around 1920 to around 1965, the US did not allow much immigration at all. Why? Too many socialists were coming to the US, and Wilson feared revolution. They should be getting fearful of that now.

Tainari88 wrote:They were going to tax Wall street trading to the tune of billions or trillions of bucks.

That's a European proposal, because Europeans cheat on their taxes too. That's why they have VAT as well. The problem with VAT is that it favors vertical integration, which can be inefficient.

Tainari88 wrote:Trump is an erratic mess of a person. I don't give a single credit to his ethics.

I think Trump is a pussycat that just talks tough. He didn't fire Sally Yates until she was insubordinate. I would have fired her on day one.

Tainari88 wrote:But he is not a classic neoliberal with smooth rhetoric.

That's a big part of why people like him.

Tainari88 wrote:But Trump is a failed businessman with horrific administration skills and a lack of responsibility with ideas of total authority. He is a failure BJ.

Is that what you think? Or is that what you want me to think? Trump has made quite a bit of money in real estate and in the entertainment business. His TV show, The Apprentice, was making him $50M a year. You may consider that a failure, but when you make more in a year than most people will make in their entire lives, it's reasonable to accede to their success. Almost every entrepreneur has tasted business failure. I certainly have. It sucks. However, I don't consider myself a failure in general because I failed a few times.

Tainari88 wrote:But he is a threat to the status quo by sheer inconsistency and incompetence.

Which I think is a good thing.

Tainari88 wrote:I don't know if he is capable of engaging in wars and sacrificing American soldiers for profit for himself.

Why does this worry you about Trump when Obama and Bush demonstrated far, far worse behavior? I mean, it's not even close.

Tainari88 wrote:He is so low life he might do it. I don't trust that fuck racist man.

Well, in general, you should not put your trust in politicians of any stripe--especially the ones you agree with. You should try to understand what motivates them. I think at a gut level, Trump personally feels disgust with violence. He's far more circumspect about the use of military force than Obama or Bush. Think about Trump's nixed retaliation for Iran shooting down a drone. He decided it was not a proportionate response. When is the last time you heard a president of the US cancelling a retaliation, because he thought it wasn't proportionate? It's frankly unheard of. Yet, that's what Trump did. That suggests that he does have more ethics than you give him credit for. Again, I'm not saying you should like Trump, but you should try to be a bit more fair in your assessment.

Tainari88 wrote:BJ, Irish immigrants did not get dragged over in chains in smelly ships were a percentage of them committed suicide via throwing themselves overboard and working for free for centuries and Irish women being raped systemically and forced to have their babies and children sold off like calves in front of their eyes, to be from 1600s up until the end of Jim Crow being lynched by the thousands and terrorized by an organization like the KKK and being portrayed as subhumans and property in many ways.

Most people wouldn't consider the early experience of the Irish in the US "white privilege." Do you know that some Irish revolted against the US in the Mexican-American War? Saint Patrick's Battalion. They fought with Catholics against Protestants.

However, the Irish were enslaved--not in the US--in the West Indies.

Tainari88 wrote:The Irish came here to avoid the potato famine in the 1840s

My grandmother came in 1919.

Tainari88 wrote:and many became slave owners in the South along with the Scottish who invented Southern Fried Chicken.

Many meaning more than one. However, most Southerners were not slave owners. Very few people could afford to own slaves.

Tainari88 wrote:Thus the reason so many African Americans have Scottish and Irish last names and bloodlines. My son's DNA was tested he has Scottish blood from Mississippi. Some long-ago ancestors raped a slave woman and he got it from them.

Many of them are Welsh surnames. A good number of blacks have my surname, which is English but more specifically Cambro-Norman or considered Welsh also.

Tainari88 wrote:The Irish are in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Spain and South America, Central America, they are everywhere. Why? Poverty and escaping the English Empire wanting to take Ireland and get their territories. It is an old failed story BJ. Empire and cruelty and greed doesn't spell good things for people in the lower classes in any nation in any part of the world. Period.

Precisely, which is why so many people are offended by the notion of "white privilege."
#15105599
blackjack21 wrote:
We can be happy by simply ingesting exogenous ligands like alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin;



We *can*? (No one tells me this stuff.)


= D


blackjack21 wrote:
This sort of narrative is also why the Republicans are just utterly fucking useless heaps of protoplasm purporting to be sentient humans.



They seem so lifelike.
#15105638
Tainari88 wrote:No, Oxymoron you are another person with zero sense of history always siding with some racist fucked up right wing bullshit. Why? You are a Jewish man from a working class family. The Jewish community has the hardest Leftists on the planet. Karl Marx, Albert Einstein and the list is endless of the super Lefties from the Jewish community. They are the Super COMMIES your ethnic group.

Why don't you realize that it is about political perspectives and not about what you think it is? Here is a Netflix movie discussing the 13th amendment and why the system shifted to private prisons. If you disagree with this documentary you better present some evidence of the reason it is false? If you can't? ANd come up with the Nigerians and the Jamaicans? You are so blind! Jamaica and Nigeria are INDEPENDENT nations run by Black people for Black people in their own countries. They are vetted and most of them came with educations because if they did not have educations? They don't get visas. Educated Africans from independent nations that never had white people controlling their societies from their own ability to educate themselves and enough money to make a bid for the USA? Are going to do well Oxymoron.

People like African Americans are not vetted. They are homegrown Americans who when they made money and were more successful than the white counterparts had their prosperous communities BURNED to the ground, they got BOMBED and had massacres of hundreds of Black people with MONEY by white people furious about Black people owning fucking grand pianos and fancy cars when they were supposed to be POOR and ignorant people who can't make it in society. I am going to put four videos. Chalenge the history or STFU!




Tulsa Massacre. 1921. Black Wall Street burned and bombed because the White people can not abide successful Black communities. It infuriated them. You think that was the only massacre? No. Rosewood, in Florida, another in Tennessee all upper class African American neighborhoods. You want more? The US government never arrested or jailed a single white murderer in the entire massacres. But if Black people would have killed and bombed hundreds of white people and their successful businesses would the DC government respond? Answer that fucking question Oxymoron. Or are you gonna remain silent because you refuse to acknowledge a history you probably had no fucking idea ever existed? Learn some history!! Start with the vast amount of hard Left geniuses in the Leftist Jewish column. You got reds in a big way in the Jewish community and it is not just a couple of them here or there. Lol. :D











It is not someone or two things in history. It is a serial issue.



Yes there are many dumb Jews like Marx.... unfortunately even the Jewish people have dummies.
As far as working class, well yes (Kind of) and that is why I am staunchly anti Communism... because I know what the Lefties have done
to the working class around the world, and it is brutal. I rather be a Working class man in Capitalist west then Communist East... my life would be safer,
my water cleaner(and running), and my freedom in my own hands. To move as I did out of the working class.

For you point about Nigerians and Jamaicans point well taken.... perhaps I will agree with you it is the Liberal policies that have kept the American black population in chains, its men sent to prisons and their women paid to stay home.... Not to mention the annihilation of black babies in racist abortions. Tell me what has the left ever done for the American Black population?

You want to end racism, then support capitalism

Why would the term "alien" be used here[…]

Do they say anything useful? Only if you think t[…]

Blast in Beirut, Lebanon

Welding and fireworks *face palm* It defies belie[…]

Election 2020

There was a time in the 19th century when low IQ […]