politics
Applause!
Voted!
I am not even a fan of Barack, but I have to vote for this entry since I am seeing some idiocy going around MindSay lately lol
really, people, get a grip on yourselves!
really, people, get a grip on yourselves!
I know... it has gotten bit crazy around here. I don't see it settling down soon either...
Clever, handsome and rational!
Some will no doubt contest one or two of those things. haha
This is just a hypothetical, of course...
What IF I attended a church with an anti-semite and white-supremacist pastor. Not only did I sit under said guy for two decades, but I brought my kids up under him. Would it be appropriate for voters of all races to consider that? Further, would it make minorities paranoid and "stupid" to be concerned?
What IF I attended a church with an anti-semite and white-supremacist pastor. Not only did I sit under said guy for two decades, but I brought my kids up under him. Would it be appropriate for voters of all races to consider that? Further, would it make minorities paranoid and "stupid" to be concerned?
I can't see the relevancy to this post exactly. Black theology is a far cry from "Black Supremacy".
Hmmm. Let's clarify the point of confusion, then. If I say, "The blacks and Jews are keeping the white man down," am I subscribing to white "theology" or white "supremacy?"
Well, the difference is that blacks that are Reverend Wright's age were "kept down" for most of their lives. If there is any oppression of the white race, it's nothing compared to what the black race went through in this country. It's really hard to take a white guy seriously when he talks about being a victim of racism when the government, the media, and most businesses are run by white people. It's the same thing with Christians complaining they're being "persecuted" because their religious beliefs aren't being segued into the science classroom.
Black men and women endured systematic, legislated oppression, and I don't think anyone who didn't have to go through what they did is in any position to comment about it.
My .02
Black men and women endured systematic, legislated oppression, and I don't think anyone who didn't have to go through what they did is in any position to comment about it.
My .02
It's moments like this I wish I could renounce my whiteness and become a White-Guilt Obama supporter.
Are you seriously telling me that Rev. Wright is justified in the hate speech he spewed? Sorry, guy, I'm not buying that. I don't accept it from whites, so why do blacks get a lower standard? Seriously, this is no different from a white supremacist.
Rev. Wright may have had tough times, but he is far from alone in his experiences. If he gets a special dispensation, so does every other racist SOB out there.
Are you seriously telling me that Rev. Wright is justified in the hate speech he spewed? Sorry, guy, I'm not buying that. I don't accept it from whites, so why do blacks get a lower standard? Seriously, this is no different from a white supremacist.
Rev. Wright may have had tough times, but he is far from alone in his experiences. If he gets a special dispensation, so does every other racist SOB out there.
No, I'm not excusing Wright for his comments, and neither is Obama. No one is excusing Wright.
I couldn't choose either of those options. The fact is that neither of those describe the attitude that sentence expresses, but I have seen it expressed by White Supremacists almost in that exact manner. The "Jewish conspiracy" and all that.
White Supremacy is racism at it's most obvious state. It isn't just the belief that certain races are inferior, but that one race is superior and should basically rule them.
Black (liberation) theology is teaching not necessarily teaching that White people are bad (though believe me, that is pretty much where it began at in 1958), but it is teaching freedom FROM oppression. The motivation isn't the oppression of others, or a belief that they are entitled to more than everyone else, but to point out the wrong-doings of society, past and present through and teach it as wrong. In this way, it is a social gospel as well.
In the end, I feel that the 9,000+ other people in the pews at Rev. Wrights church are as able I am of discerning good from bad, and the ability to learn from that good and avoid that bad.
White Supremacy is racism at it's most obvious state. It isn't just the belief that certain races are inferior, but that one race is superior and should basically rule them.
Black (liberation) theology is teaching not necessarily teaching that White people are bad (though believe me, that is pretty much where it began at in 1958), but it is teaching freedom FROM oppression. The motivation isn't the oppression of others, or a belief that they are entitled to more than everyone else, but to point out the wrong-doings of society, past and present through and teach it as wrong. In this way, it is a social gospel as well.
In the end, I feel that the 9,000+ other people in the pews at Rev. Wrights church are as able I am of discerning good from bad, and the ability to learn from that good and avoid that bad.
All the flavors of "liberation" theology draw heavily on Marxism and only uses theology for window dressing. In fact, they draw more heavily on Marx than on Jesus. Nazi Socialism did, too, and, like this Rev. Wright character, it had unique racist tendencies thrown in that played a major part in the history of the world. "Liberation" is like "progressive," a misnomer, although you bring up a point that is well worth considering in more detail.
"Liberation" is an attempt to exploit the better part of people for political ends, so I cut it no slack, just as I cut televangelists and Pat Robertson no slack. This is especially true when such marxists start into racist, anti-semitic tirades. There's no excuse for that, especially when Wright and Obama adhere to a political system (socialism/Marxism) that was known widely in the last century for exterminations and oppression.
Maybe the 9000 in the pews can see past that, but the question is why they are clapping for such a hatemonger if they disagree? This isn't just normal, it's applauding a man of hate.
"Liberation" is an attempt to exploit the better part of people for political ends, so I cut it no slack, just as I cut televangelists and Pat Robertson no slack. This is especially true when such marxists start into racist, anti-semitic tirades. There's no excuse for that, especially when Wright and Obama adhere to a political system (socialism/Marxism) that was known widely in the last century for exterminations and oppression.
Maybe the 9000 in the pews can see past that, but the question is why they are clapping for such a hatemonger if they disagree? This isn't just normal, it's applauding a man of hate.
"Nazi Socialism did, too"
You lost me there. To say that the Nazis were communist is wholly ignorant. Nazi's DESPISED the communists and Marxist philosophy.
You lost me there. To say that the Nazis were communist is wholly ignorant. Nazi's DESPISED the communists and Marxist philosophy.
Yes, Nazi's hated communists, but they were largely in agreement on policy. It was more of a regime difference than anything. Socialism and communism stem from the same intellectual stock, so the effective differences in end results are negligible politically.
Where the main difference comes is in the individual regimes' genocides. For instance Hitler hated minorities and Jews, so 6 million people died. Stalin hated Ukrainians, so 30 million died. We embraced Stalin and destroyed Hitler. Go figure.
Where the main difference comes is in the individual regimes' genocides. For instance Hitler hated minorities and Jews, so 6 million people died. Stalin hated Ukrainians, so 30 million died. We embraced Stalin and destroyed Hitler. Go figure.
They do draw on Marxism, though I don't think more so on Marx than Jesus.
However the Nazi's did not draw on marxism.
Hitler was the main driving force for what eventually became what we think of as Nazism. They did advocate the control of the economy which is no surprise, considering that they were in a great depression at the time as a result of WWI. It also just happens that they wanted control of everything else as well, which has nothing to do with Marxism or socialism in a sense larger than the economic one. I'm not entirely convinced you understand what you think you do about Marxism and Socialism, especially in relation to totalitarianism.
However the Nazi's did not draw on marxism.
Hitler was the main driving force for what eventually became what we think of as Nazism. They did advocate the control of the economy which is no surprise, considering that they were in a great depression at the time as a result of WWI. It also just happens that they wanted control of everything else as well, which has nothing to do with Marxism or socialism in a sense larger than the economic one. I'm not entirely convinced you understand what you think you do about Marxism and Socialism, especially in relation to totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism is an umbrella term, a means of obfuscating the relation between socialism, fascism, and communism. The three are inextricably linked. Now, you assert this:
Admittedly, Hitler was a fascist dictator, but he was such presiding over a socialist state that he built. In the end, it is worth noting that Stalin was very much in the same situation, although the Russian Revolution took place years before Hitler's rise to power. They both ruled, essentially, as absolute dictators over socialist/communist states. The USSR claimed to be "socialist," so the distinction was obviously more PR than anything at that point.
They did advocate the control of the economy which is no surprise, considering that they were in a great depression at the time as a result of WWI. It also just happens that they wanted control of everything else as well, which has nothing to do with Marxism or socialism in a sense larger than the economic one.Such an assertion is speculative at best. Fascism, by definition, is the belief that an individual must have no rights, with all rights and power being reserved to the state. I fail to see the differentiation of that from communism and socialism in the end.
Admittedly, Hitler was a fascist dictator, but he was such presiding over a socialist state that he built. In the end, it is worth noting that Stalin was very much in the same situation, although the Russian Revolution took place years before Hitler's rise to power. They both ruled, essentially, as absolute dictators over socialist/communist states. The USSR claimed to be "socialist," so the distinction was obviously more PR than anything at that point.
I'm not too familiar with Noam Chomsky, but here he is with some relevant words that I pretty much agree with...
"Failure to understand the intense hostility to socialism on the part of the Leninist intelligentsia (with roots in Marx, no doubt), and corresponding misunderstanding of the Leninist model, has had a devastating impact on the struggle for a more decent society and a livable world in the West, and not only there. It is necessary to find a way to save the socialist ideal from its enemies in both of the world's major centres of power, from those who will always seek to be the State priests and social managers, destroying freedom in the name of liberation."
And then...
"Twenty years ago, the Reagan administration came into office proclaiming that a "war on terror" would be the core of US foreign policy, and we need not review how they fought that war. "Terrorism" plays a role similar to "Communism," "crime," "drugs," and other devices to frighten the public into supporting policies undertaken to serve the interests of the state and domestic power centers; when one pretext loses its efficacy (like "Communism"), others take its place at once, with scarcely a murmur from the educated classes."
"...As for the world's second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the 'socialist' dungeon.
The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period."
"Failure to understand the intense hostility to socialism on the part of the Leninist intelligentsia (with roots in Marx, no doubt), and corresponding misunderstanding of the Leninist model, has had a devastating impact on the struggle for a more decent society and a livable world in the West, and not only there. It is necessary to find a way to save the socialist ideal from its enemies in both of the world's major centres of power, from those who will always seek to be the State priests and social managers, destroying freedom in the name of liberation."
And then...
"Twenty years ago, the Reagan administration came into office proclaiming that a "war on terror" would be the core of US foreign policy, and we need not review how they fought that war. "Terrorism" plays a role similar to "Communism," "crime," "drugs," and other devices to frighten the public into supporting policies undertaken to serve the interests of the state and domestic power centers; when one pretext loses its efficacy (like "Communism"), others take its place at once, with scarcely a murmur from the educated classes."
"CHOMSKY: ...
Systems like capitalism and socialism and communism have never been tried. What we've had since the Industrial Revolution was one or another form of state capitalism. It's been overwhelmed, certainly in the last century, by big conglomerations of capital corporate structures that are all interlinked with one another and form strategic alliances and administer markets and so on. And are tied up with a very powerful state. So it's some other kind of system -- call it whatever you want. Corporate-administered markets in a powerful state system.
Actually, the Soviet Union was something like that. They didn't have General Electric, they had more concentration of the state system, but apart from that it worked rather like a state-capitalist system. And do these systems work? Yeah, they kind of work. For example, the Soviet Union was a monstrosity, but it had a pretty fast growth rate -- a growth rate unknown in the Western economies. In the 1960s the economy started to stagnate and decline, but for a long period they had a growth rate that was very alarming to Western leaders."
Well, as much as I disagree with some of his work, he's damn right about state-capitalism...except that that isn't capitalism...that's a form of socialism. It sort of works, yes, and only for those in control. This is always the case in command economies.
Socialism has been tried many times, much more so than communism, which has also been tried. The theories were proven impossible. They sound good, but their administration is always monstrous and inefficient. Capitalism, on the other hand, hasn't been allowed to be attempted in an age outside of ridiculously wealthy tax havens where the truth took root in nooks between boulders of socialism.
Socialism has been tried many times, much more so than communism, which has also been tried. The theories were proven impossible. They sound good, but their administration is always monstrous and inefficient. Capitalism, on the other hand, hasn't been allowed to be attempted in an age outside of ridiculously wealthy tax havens where the truth took root in nooks between boulders of socialism.
Sorry I must of been out to lunch or something Dammit, I was counting on the rev. to be his running mate controversy in the system be the change! think of all the free publicity.
Anyway guilty by association, isn't that the way most people judge, the first impressions are important, but really never let you know who is the man behind the mask.
Sound clips manipulations definitely are not new, editing what one wishes to portray of another "isn't it a pity that were more popular than Jesus Christ " for example could with the magic of editing becomes the infamous " were more popular than Jesus Christ " and would get some religious fanatics in all kinds of an uproar.
And whats this about ..the Everybody hates Jesse fan club...(Were do I sign up?) I say "Fuck-em if they cant take a joke" everyone is entitled to there own stupid opinions or they can listen to mine.
Anyway guilty by association, isn't that the way most people judge, the first impressions are important, but really never let you know who is the man behind the mask.
Sound clips manipulations definitely are not new, editing what one wishes to portray of another "isn't it a pity that were more popular than Jesus Christ " for example could with the magic of editing becomes the infamous " were more popular than Jesus Christ " and would get some religious fanatics in all kinds of an uproar.
And whats this about ..the Everybody hates Jesse fan club...(Were do I sign up?) I say "Fuck-em if they cant take a joke" everyone is entitled to there own stupid opinions or they can listen to mine.
I think guilt by association is what people fear when they see their children hanging out with a "bad kid". haha. I may have hung out with a few such kids myself. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.
It bothers me that we can think that we are capable of associating with others and maintaining our integrity, but others can't. I say we because I've probably been guilty of this line of thinking in my own life at some point... hopefully not since High School, though that is probably wishful thinking. haha
Still, I don't see Rev. Wright as one of those "bad kids". I think it is a stretch to characterize him as such.
And what concerns me is that we all know that these clips are not necessarily representative of the whole, but we still fall for it. It isn't new at all. I guess "tried and true" is accurate, though.
I don't know that anyone specific hates me. haha... but you know... I write my opinions and some people don't agree. For some, this is a reason not to associate with a person, and even to not like them. Some of my favorite people on mindsay are people that I don't always agree with. And yes, sometimes I joke around, and some people don't think it is so funny, or just don't think it is a joke.
Hopefully, though, I don't alienate too many people... one of these days I might say something worth hearing!
It bothers me that we can think that we are capable of associating with others and maintaining our integrity, but others can't. I say we because I've probably been guilty of this line of thinking in my own life at some point... hopefully not since High School, though that is probably wishful thinking. haha
Still, I don't see Rev. Wright as one of those "bad kids". I think it is a stretch to characterize him as such.
And what concerns me is that we all know that these clips are not necessarily representative of the whole, but we still fall for it. It isn't new at all. I guess "tried and true" is accurate, though.
I don't know that anyone specific hates me. haha... but you know... I write my opinions and some people don't agree. For some, this is a reason not to associate with a person, and even to not like them. Some of my favorite people on mindsay are people that I don't always agree with. And yes, sometimes I joke around, and some people don't think it is so funny, or just don't think it is a joke.
Hopefully, though, I don't alienate too many people... one of these days I might say something worth hearing!
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: testing 1 2 3: - I could try that, and I used to write songs and sing as a hobby in the early 1980's, but...
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy