RSS

Bamboozled

16 Dec

Bamboozled

Bamboozled (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Spike Lee is probably America’s best-known “African-American” film-maker.

I don’t know if it’s proper to call Mr. Lee an “African-American,” “black,” “Black,” “Negro,” or even “nigger” film-maker.  I doubt that it’s politically correct for me (a White man; “white man”?) to call Mr. Lee a “nigger film-maker,” but I’m pretty sure it would be “cool” for some “brothers in d’ hood” to do so.  I don’t know the nom du jour for African-American-nigger-Black-black-Negroes.  I don’t even know the handshake.

And I never could dance worth a damn unless I was drunk (I still wasn’t a good dancer, but I thought I was).  I did attend a black church in the south side of Dallas for three months.  I liked it, but it wasn’t for me.  The church had a great, charismatic preacher.  The blacks and whites at that church tried very hard to get along with each other.  But all that “trying” struck me as evidence that differences remained that couldn’t even be easily erased in church.  We were determined to “get along” without ever confronting or talking about our fundamental differences.  So long as we couldn’t talk about those differences, I didn’t see how those differences would ever disappear.  So I “disappeared”.  I left that church.

I don’t really know a thing about the “black experience” other than what I read in the news, see on TV or hear from politicians.  When it comes to blacks, I be dumb.

However, I do know that everyone seems to agree that “growing up black” in America is way different from “growing up white”.  I also know that, while we generally (if secretly) agree that there is a difference between the races, the reason for that difference is not only debatable but politically incendiary.  Some people argue blacks tend to live in the lower classes of society because they are genetically “different” and generally “inferior”.  Others argue that blacks are genetically equal to whites (except in terms of athletics where they are superior) but nevertheless tend to live in the lower classes because they’ve been unjustly suppressed by “whitey” therefore culturally deprived.

I also know that nobody wants to talk about these “explanations” for the black/white differences because doing so in the wrong neighborhood can get your ass kicked or even killed.

And I know that Spike Lee produced a film called “Bamboozled” in A.D. 2000.  I recently saw his film on the internet at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhnsaMLtQM8&feature=related.  The film is brilliant.  It’s a kind of racial propaganda that will generate sympathy for the plight of today’s blacks.  Its slant is not necessarily true, but it Mr. Lee’s mastery of the film-maker’s craft is undeniable.

Mr. Lee played me like a fish.  He showed me so much of what I secretly wanted to see for the first half of the film (that blacks are ignorant and largely responsible for their own plight) that I thought Lee had finally come to the realization that blacks really were, on average, a bunch of buffoons.  But then he turned on the heat in the second half to show the incredible pathos of being black in America.  I was so hooked by the first half of the film I couldn’t turn away from the second.  I don’t think you can watch this film without feeling sympathy for those who’ve endured the “black experience”.

If you’re white, this film will make you squirm.  If you’re black, this film will make you squirm.  If Lee’s sympathies are with the blacks, he still spends much of the film showing blacks’ own complicity in their predicament.

• Lee gets to so much truth that’s critical of both “sides” in Bamboozled, that I can’t imagine anyone watching the film without being offended.   It may be a great film, but grossly “politically incorrect” and it’s not the “feel-good” movie of A.D. 2000.

In fact, as I watched the film, I doubted that it was a box office success.  Though I deem it to be brilliant, I’d never even heard of the film, so it figured to be a financial flop.

According to the Wikipedia article on Bamboozled, I was right:

Bamboozled is a 2000 satirical film written and directed by Spike Lee about a modern televised minstrel show featuring black actors donning blackface makeup and the violent fall-out from the show’s success. The film was given a limited release by New Line Cinema during the fall of 2000, and was released on DVD the following year. . . .  Bamboozled received mixed reviews; it currently holds a 48% ‘rotten’ rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with the consensus “Bamboozled is too heavy-handed in its satire and comes across as more messy and overwrought than biting.”   The movie was not a box office success, earning only $2,463,650 on a $10 million budget.”

Lee lost $7.5 million making Bamboozled.  But I’ll bet that if you asked him about that loss, he might say “It was worth it.”

Even though I doubt that any of you will like this film, I feel “compelled” to post Bamboozled on this blog because some of you might nevertheless admire it.

movie

02:15:50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhnsaMLtQM8&feature=related

 
79 Comments

Posted by on December 16, 2012 in Race, Video

 

Tags: ,

79 responses to “Bamboozled

  1. 1st trustee

    December 16, 2012 at 5:45 PM

    Whoa! You used the “N” word. In the context in which you are referring, it would “not be cool” for anyone of any ethnicity to call Spike Lee by that term. And there is no hand shake that is generally used by “Blacks (I’ll use this term for the sake of brevity).”

    Also, Spike Lee is probably not trying to get sympathy for blacks in any way, but continue to try to stimulate conversation amongst ourselves. Black people are not as much concerned with what “white” people think or feel as most have their mind made up. The concern is more an internal one with each other and the different “classes” and prejudices (light skin vs dark skin; lower income vs middle class, etc. The list is extensive!) within the Black community. Thus, watching this film doesn’t make us “squirm” but spark discussion. Watching a film about how one lives and what we see and experience everyday is like watching a reality show of one’s own life. Nothing to squirm at. Also, only a certain “class” of Blacks may become offended by such a film (which is cause for discussion).

    For many, being Black is deemed politically incorrect so that is also a non-issue as it doesn’t feel good to be Black in America (or many places on the planet) in many aspects. However, many would never change who they are despite the oppression and hardships. It’s not being ashamed of who we are but how we’re treated and viewed. The issues of the Black community are well beyond the scope of this reply and topic. Adask, you can only respond from your level of your understanding (which you admitted was “dumb”) so it is what it is. In general most Blacks would agree that “white” people simply don’t “get it” evidenced by your second paragraph. But as I said, it is what it is.

    First let’s understand the movie while available for everyone to watch, is not intended for everyone. In the first ten minutes, Spike Lee rattled of about 25 issue in the Black community but juxtaposing different classes within the Black community interacting with each other, then juxtaposing that with issues Black interacting with “whites.” He even goes as far as to mention his own name when they talk about the use of the “N” word by comparing his opinion vs another famous director’s opinion [Quentin Tarantino] of the use of the word. So it’s very apropos that you bring up political incorrectness in this post with such a situation placed in the movie. The lack of awareness of cultural sensitive like that happens everyday, yet many people then turn around and say they are offended by [insert offensive action here]. But the world is full of hypocrites, that’s nothing new. Spike Lee has always been outspoken about how Blacks are seen in cinema and T.V.:

    Spike Lee questioned Tarantino’s use of racial epithets in his films, particularly the racially offensive epithet “nigger”. In a Variety interview discussing Jackie Brown, Lee said: “I’m not against the word… and I use it, but Quentin is infatuated with the word. What does he want? To be made an honorary black man?” Tarantino responded on Charlie Rose by stating:

    As a writer, I demand the right to write any character in the world that I want to write. I demand the right to be them, I demand the right to think them and I demand the right to tell the truth as I see they are, all right? And to say that I can’t do that because I’m white, but the Hughes brothers can do that because they’re black, that is racist. That is the heart of racism, all right. And I do not accept that … That is how a segment of the black community that lives in Compton, lives in Inglewood, where Jackie Brown takes place, that lives in Carson, that is how they talk. I’m telling the truth. It would not be questioned if I was black, and I resent the question because I’m white. I have the right to tell the truth. I do not have the right to lie.

    In addition, Tarantino retaliated on The Howard Stern Show by stating Lee would have to “stand on a chair to kiss my ass.” Samuel L. Jackson, who has appeared in both directors’ films, defended Tarantino’s use of the word. At the Berlin Film Festival, where Jackie Brown was being screened, Jackson responded to Lee’s criticism by saying:

    I don’t think the word is offensive in the context of this film … Black artists think they are the only ones allowed to use the word. Well, that’s bull. Jackie Brown is a wonderful homage to black exploitation films. This is a good film, and Spike hasn’t made one of those in a few years.

    Tarantino has defended his use of the word, arguing that black audiences have an appreciation of his blaxploitation-influenced films that eludes some of his critics, and, indeed, that Jackie Brown, another oft-cited example, was primarily made for “black audiences”.
    Source: Wikipedia

    While what Tarantino says is true and Jackson is also correct that the word was not used offensively. However, that is the whole point of the movie Bamboozled! Blacks are always portrayed in a certain light and rarely a positive ones [listed in movie in the beginning also]. Spike Lee just wants people to care about their own community and how it’s portrayed. At what point do “we” stop selling out image for another buck? The issue are so common, that no body cares to see the move and he lost 7.3 million. The Black community is the most splintered group of people on the planet. But I digress.

    My post is an example of how these movies can spark conversations which is the point of the movie. Black are very aware of the stark contrast we experience everyday as we code switch from group to group and continue to fight our Black cold civil war. Even with the “sovereign” movement, Blacks face another level of resistance that “white” would never have to worry about as it’s a non-issue: prejudice and racism (of that type). If you’ve ever heard of Moors, it’s almost (I’d be doing it an injustice to say it was) like “Black sovereignty.” But again I digress.

    While I in no way represent the Black community as a whole, I’ve been involve in such topics and debates for may years with lots or research into many different aspects/issues of “our” ongoing discussion. What a response I have left Adask :D

     
    • Doug

      December 17, 2012 at 7:37 PM

      Thanks for your unbiased and well spoken informational response. As serendipity would have it, just yesterday I got an email from a close male white friend who he just found out that his sister was to marry a black pastor this month. He was asking me what ‘the Word of God’ had to say about it. I personally don’t consider the value of one of our mankind race which includes all colors from a point of view of his or her color of skin. I make my evaluations first from actions demonstrated and then more importantly as to the intention,which is usually a crap shoot. (It’s not easy to discover that).Most people hide their reasoning and any justification of what they do if it could be deemed bad even if it really isn’t. if I can determine that from undeniable facts , that someones action is evil/wrong then I can speak to it and if needed take action. (sometimes people show their true ‘colors’. (pun intended) I’m convinced that people act the way they do because they have been brought up to think and act that way from their birth. Of course at some point they will be confronted by The Creator if their actions are evil and then they will have to make a choice as to which way they will go. Many even after they have some thought that something is wrong will choose the go along to get along road within their peer structure. Anyway your post sparked my response and I thank you for that. Doug

       
      • Doug

        December 17, 2012 at 7:57 PM

        ps I just scanned down below and realize that I jumped into some controversy. Although I didn’t read all the postings below as I scanned them I realized that some didn’t agree with your expose of some very prominent ‘black’ hollywood actors who are parties to this issue owns comments. As someone once said, you can help ignorance but you can’t help stupid! I wish it were a laughable situation but it’s not. Also along the same line of thinking, you can lead a man to water but you can’t make him drink. You can give a man the answers but you can’t make him think. ie. have the reasoning info faculties etc. to figure out the truth/facts/evidence of what is evident. Doug

         
      • Flatwood

        December 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM

        One way to eliminate the race problem is to INTEGRATE. We won’t have any “ethnic purity” but there will be no race problem. Who cares what the Creator of different races thinks about it? Motivate to integrate.

         
  2. Christian

    December 16, 2012 at 6:31 PM

    The truth about race issues is they are pure and simple “Divide and Conquer” tactics. White, Black, Yellow, Orange it makes no difference in a free country. We all need to be on the same side if we are going to win together.

     
    • Flatwood a.k.a goodjelly

      December 18, 2012 at 8:42 PM

      @ “Divide and Conquer” tactics
      A Race/Nation divided cannot stand so why conquer?

       
  3. Timmy

    December 16, 2012 at 9:32 PM

    Can you imagine someone from any other of the put upon American minorities (Jews, Asians for example) writing or even thinking such an absurdly self-absorbed, pseudo-intellectualized heap of crap like 1st Trustees post? I feel truly sorry for such. There is no black leadership that I can see. And now that Hispanics have over taken them numerically, things will only get much worse for most black Americans. On the whole (not every individual obviously) they bought the lie and put their faith in the Federal Government and it’s “solutions”. The results are evident…

     
    • 1st trustee

      December 16, 2012 at 10:25 PM

      Your critiques are a mere generalities. Nothing was addressed and nothing was said of any importance. What is absurdly self-absorbed about it? Where is the psedo-interllectualized items you are referring to? Without trying to poison the well, I must ask if you’re Black; have grown up (not interacted with) in the Black community or have study the Black existence extensively?

      Your fallacious (ad hominem) arguments about me have no merit on the subject at hand. And your straw man argument abouts “Federal Government and it’s ‘solutions'” then something about “The results are evident…” are not relevant to anything mentioned. Furthermore, you go on the mention something about “Black leadership.” These are all nonsensical! Without any true historical understanding (Adask even has an article about the Willie Lynch letter!) you have no standing in an objective interchange about the Black community with your subjective viewpoints. I only stated what the movie was about and the intentions of the director, not my personal views on them. When your are able to intelligently put together a thought stream, minus your xenophobic tone, that another human being can understand and draw an unclouded conclusion from, then maybe we can have a meaningful interaction.

       
      • Flatwood

        December 16, 2012 at 10:52 PM

        Re: Your critiques are a mere generalities,& Your fallacious (ad hominem) arguments…subjective viewpoints.(Re:Timmy)

        You are absolutely right,1st trustee. I am of the white race & just wanted to let you know that I stand for honesty regardless of race.

         
      • 1st trustee

        December 16, 2012 at 10:58 PM

        Ignoratio elenchi.

         
      • Timmy

        December 17, 2012 at 10:37 AM

        I wasn’t attempting a point by point analysis of your post. I certainly could, but that doesn’t interest me. I posed a question, which no one has answered or even addressed. I didn’t intend an ad hominem attack on you; I wasn’t trying to make any argument. I just expressed my honest opinion in reaction to your (wildly overwrought) post. I was and am being entirely subjective. I didn’t mean that your content in itself is pseudo intellectual; I was thinking more of its essence, viewpoint and existence overall. Which brings me to my original point: Can you imagine a Korean american writing something even remotely similar? I don’t think so. Because they don’t think this way, as far as I can tell. You’re pretty skilled at ad hominem yourself… “xenophobia”??

         
  4. Anon4fun

    December 16, 2012 at 11:21 PM

    1st trustee:

    Funny how Timmy’s critique shows little sign that he read your comments. It’s not a content-based response. Rather, it looks like so much boilerplate provocation thrown together to set a tone of discord and put a damper on potentially constructive discussion. I wonder if anything in his post could help us profile who did this.

     
  5. Flatwood

    December 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM

    Re: Ignoratio elenchi.

    I hope you understand that I say, you,1st trustee, are right per your response to Timmy. So, I don’t know if Ignoratio elenchi applies to me or Timmy. I know this. I do not have the education that you have. I was agreeing & still do agree with you on your response to Timmy.

     
    • 1st trustee

      December 16, 2012 at 11:30 PM

      My bad, my trigger finger was loose :D
      That was not meant for you. You got to be careful stepping into cross-fire :P

       
      • Flatwood

        December 17, 2012 at 8:33 AM

        Per >>You got to be careful stepping into cross-fire :P
        Thank you.Didn.t mean to be nosy.

         
      • Flatwood

        December 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM

        P.S. The “photo” in the beginning of this article,i.e., (Bamboozled (Photo credit: Wikipedia) is degrading, insulting, etc. Even IF Spike Lee, approved it. I fail to see how he could approve it. No response is expected.

         
      • 1st trustee

        December 17, 2012 at 9:07 AM

        First, you were not nosy, I was just in attack-mode and didn’t read the name of who was replying, thus could differentiate the friend….from foe Muhahahahahahahahahahaha ha!

        Secondly, I’m sure it was approved by Spike Lee. People have struggled with this topic for so long, it’s only the natural course of things. ‘Desperate times call for desperate measures. (Welcome to a microcosm of the Black experience!)’ The image is very extreme to get people’s attention. Many other ways have been tried so the in-your-face approach is always waiting for when everything else fails. At one time this is how we were viewed. Blacks have accepted that but for such an image to be used today will catch anyone’s attention! Masterfully executed by Spike Lee.

        Unfortunately, many are so tired of talking about the subject. When a conversation is had, it’s usually preaching to the choir which does little to improve the situation for most. People are tired of talking. We want action!…but what action? The “community” is splintered. Can’t get people to move together, acting together, on the same page at all. A never ending battle that seems to go nowhere that people have grown callus to the whole thing. ::sigh::

        I digress. The topic is simply beyond the scope of this blog (or any blog to a high degree) and I don’t want to sound like I’m complaining in any way. It is literally a daily conversation in the Black community. I was just informing those who don’t know as it’s apropos. 8-)

         
  6. Timmy

    December 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM

    1st Trustee writes:

    “The “community” is splintered. Can’t get people to move together, acting together, on the same page at all. A never ending battle that seems to go nowhere that people have grown callus to the whole thing. ::sigh::” (I’m sure he meant to write ‘calloused’ since he’s obviously educated. Or maybe Latin is his first language and English his second. *just kidding; relax people…)

    But when I said “there is no Black leadership…” he calls me an ignorant xenophobe. At least I can rely on him to make my case for me anyway.

    “Wisdom justifies all her children.”

     
    • 1st trustee

      December 17, 2012 at 11:39 AM

      This will be my final reply to you as it’s clear you have difficulties with comprehension and your intention is not to have any intelligent interchange. As stated in my original reply to you, my post was not about the issues in the Black community, but only to point out how the movie portrays them. So you bringing up any of the points you did are not relevant. And I did not call you ignorant nor a xenophobe (maybe I made you realize you may be though?). I’ll let you practice and reread my comment carefully instead of strip you of a chance to improve your linguistic and interpretive (or lack there of) skills. Seeing how you have not answered any of the questions asked and only bring another fallacious ad hominem argument.

      Lastly, while I misfired on Flatwood, the statement still applies in your actual response with your closing quote: Ignoratio elenchi.

       
      • Timmy

        December 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM

        Fine. *LOL. I addressed several of your points sincerely. I answered some of your questions. (Yes, I ignored the absurd ones.) You have still ignored mine, especially my central thesis, which I restated for clarity. So from my point of view, the lack of intelligent interchange seems to be falling more on your side. Oh well. No offense intended my friend. I freely admit I’m just not much of a fan of “class theory” (Karl Marx and friends), race baiting (“did you grow up Black?”, the usual tactic– I have no right to an opinion because I’m white? That concept doesn’t seem to keep blacks from critiquing white society and its ills…)

        Re your philosophies and attitudes, I will close with the traditional pragmatists argument: “How’s that workin’ out for ya?”

        Peace. No reply necessary.

         
  7. Flatwood

    December 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM

    To: 1st trustee,
    @ > Can’t get people to move together, acting together, on the same page at all.

    I know. You’re a good man. I try & look on the heart of everyone. I wish I had your intelligence. Trying to make this brief. Thanks for responding. I wish you the BEST of everything.

     
    • 1st trustee

      December 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM

      Intelligence you have. Maybe your afraid to fully express yourself due to fear of looking stupid in some manner. Intelligence is like a martial arts. You got to get your ass whooped to grow stronger. That means loosing fights [arguments] and growing from them (admitting when you’re wrong). So say what you have to say and don’t project your judgement of yourself onto other. People online tend to become who they really are inside because they feel nobody can touch them or find them, i.e. know who they really are. That’s for one is wrong. Finding people is easy online. It’s just another skill like everything else. I even had a friend once send a Google map image of this asshole’s house just to let him know, we can find you if we want. You can’t hide behind a screen name. But this is not my point.

      I’ve been chewed up and spit out by people more intelligent than me. However, it was not in a malicious way like people like to do online. I learned from it and grew. Keep your ego in check and continue to state your points. Back them up with facts and learn to think critically to avoid fallacious arguments yourself and you’ll be fine. Consequently, the more you learn, the more you realize your level ignorance in any given subject.

      Look at Adask’s demographics. While not everyone fits these stats (http://southparkismyvirtue.tumblr.com/post/7626080674), being around more intelligent people can only make you more intelligent and smarter. You’re definitely in the right place. Actually, when people start attacking you, you know you’re going the right directions as people just tend feel intimidated by others who they feel are smarter. Their ego counters this and they lash out in asinine ways. You’ll start to see a very recognizable pattern after a while. When you do…stay the course. :D

       
  8. Valerio

    December 17, 2012 at 2:20 PM

    Lets talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to explain (Political Correctness complex working here) but know very well is there. First watch this short video by an American black who tell it like it is from an honest point blank

    All the stale B.S about ‘blacks’ (who are essentially misplaced Africans of various areas of the dark continent) can be endless if the spin masters had it their own way. If you look at the origin of this race, Africa, you will understand quickly just how their problems arose and persist. If you bother to buy something that is manufactured anywhere on the continent of Africa where all these ‘American’ Negros originate other than Diamonds, Uranium, precious metals etc.
    When left on their own go see for yourself first hand YouTube on the country of Liberia, and the capital, Monrovia run by gangs and warlords. A great part of the city is a ghetto where the residents including visiting dignitaries routinely use a once pristine beach as a open toilet. Most of the women bare their children as a result of rape or prostitution. Much like Detroit or Camden, NJ today. Nothing to do with Whitey holding them back, it is in their genes to live in social chaos. Abe Lincoln dearly wanted to ship all of them back if you check his speeches in totality and not pieces taken out of context. The American black has an innate rage that they brought with them from Africa and no amount of generosity from Whitey will ever extinguish it. The one and only reason the American Black has somewhat advanced is because they were allowed to breed with more advanced races and now have mixed genes in them which gives some of the current generation some bit of advantage. Period. This unfortunate race is led to believe, to their own destruction, that they are deserving of reparations and the more artistic and clever ones like Spike perpetrate the guilt manipulation of the of the current generation of gullible white race into believing that they should cough up money for useless social programs, like the phoney holohoax BS rampant in our once great nation and stupid white Europe/Canada/Australia today.. .. Whitey is a sucker no matter which continent they live on and the current Negro/slaves who are well taught by their liberal masters/Congress/Oval Office are playing whitey for all they can get while the getting is good, that is, before white civilization collapses completely. The colored imposter occupying the Oval Office is placed there to make sure that the colored races, not just black can pick the carcass of the once great White Civilization that created the greatest and freest nation the world has ever experienced in all its history. Period.

     
    • 1st trustee

      December 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM

      This has gone completely outta hand (and is still off topic from the original point made). The historical content in this reply (and the others of this nature on this topic) are incomplete and paints a certain picture when all the facts are not presented. I’m not going to go down this again with more fallacious arguments (but they don’t teach critical thinking to people so what else would one expect?). Been there, done that. This is crazy. Its not worth talking about when it will change nothing here, nor do the people with the critiques on the topic have enough reliable objective information to draw a proper conclusion due to prejudices and sheer ignorance.

      The things mentioned are completely raciest but whatever. Again, ignorance is bliss. There is too much scientific fact and history to dispute everything just stated supra. The madness of it all. 8-)

      I just can’t believe he used YouTube as source. HA! I can list a lot of books to reference but telling illiterate people to read is ironic. 800lb gorilla my ass. Then referencing one’s opinion to reflect upon an entire ETH-NIC-ITY! There only one race. I mean how long- oh yea, I did mention the illiterate part already :P

       
    • Flatwood

      December 17, 2012 at 3:07 PM

      @ > “The one and only reason the American Black has somewhat advanced is because they were allowed to breed with more advanced races and now have mixed genes ……”

      Are you saying people like Alan Keyes is intelligent for the reason as you say above? What about Booker T. Washington? I could mention many more but if your answer is yes to these two it would be yes for all the rest.

       
      • Valerio

        December 18, 2012 at 1:04 PM

        Yes

         
    • Flatwood

      December 18, 2012 at 3:23 PM

      Can’t get the video to play ?!?

       
  9. Valerio

    December 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM

    Black Man’s honest comment and analysis of his race look up
    5723michael — video name, ‘NO HOPE NO CHANGE’

     
  10. Anon4fun

    December 17, 2012 at 3:40 PM

    For me, a red flag with all these racial supremacy theories is that they seem to implicitly rely on Darwin’s monkey theory of evolution, which beats even global warming as the NWO’s favorite pseudo-science. On the other hand, there is nothing to support the inherent supremacy of any race in scripture. All men are created in the image of God, according to my reading. So it appears the racial supremacy propagandists have chosen who they will serve: God or man.

     
  11. Mr. Lee

    December 18, 2012 at 12:33 AM

    Ok Adask, for the second time… “Nigga” is the black dude with the gold rope. “Nigger” is the black dude hanging from a rope. Using either one of them will get you beat up in the hood, however, saying “nigger” as a White man has a sinister sting that can cause a riot or worse, instantly.

    So, ghetto politics rule #1, never, eva, eva,eva, say “nigger,” use the word “Nigga,” for example….
    ( Mr. Lee is one bad film-makin Nigga! ) and say it with style and confidence like you mean it, then ball your hand up in a fist and give the man a fist bump.

    no that that’s cleared up, I’m writing a book called “You ain’t Black and thou art not White” explaining how God never sees people as race, but nationality. We have to be careful about how we label ourselves and how we let others label us because at the end of the day we’re all Men and Women made in God’s image!

     
    • Flatwood

      December 19, 2012 at 3:10 AM

      Hey Mr. Lee,
      How you IS? I has a fealin you ree-lee likes the word,”Nigga.” Is I right,aw is I wrong? Huh? Which it is? You can jus say, Flatwood, you is right,aw Flatwood you is wrong. Dat waze I no fo sho what choo tawkin baut. Unnuhstan whatumm sayin? Huh? No whutuhh means?

       
  12. Valerio

    December 18, 2012 at 1:21 PM

    Whatever issue pertains to American Blacks you need to be aware of these fundamental facts,,,You all have the same affliction, through no fault of your own and that is you don’t know your friends from your enemies…
    and you had better understand that….. As Malcolm X said,
    Don’t take from the Government because you will have to pay your ‘Masters’ back when they call the debt in… You all should have listened to Malcolm in his wisdom true the love of his black race.
    Now if you examine Michael King, AKA Martin Luther King was, according to Malcolm X, was/is a Government paid Lackey.,,not my words by Malcolm X’s so you all better separate yourselves from the fraudulent MLk Phoney, Commie philosophy. On the brighter side: If you are possibly able to wake up to the fact that…. You Blacks here and world-wide have inherently have possession of the richest continent on the planet earth, which is Africa and you all better learn how to start cashing in on your inheritance..Like Right Now! So wake up and quit the name calling..pay attention to what is in front of your nose…. :o)
    Thank You

     
  13. Valerio

    December 18, 2012 at 2:29 PM

    As a Merry Christmas to ALL, Please read the THREE AUTHENTIC DESCRIPTION OF JESUS ….MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL:
    recorded in the Congressional LibraryWhat did YAHWEH in the Flesh look like?
    Below are the
    three only known eyewitness records.

    What did YAHWEH in the Flesh Look Like???
    AS a Christmas gift to you all I am sharing the official Physical Descriptions of Jesus Christ – Yahshua Messiah

    The first
    eyewitness record:
    The following is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius
    Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus.
    Copies are in the Congressional Library in
    Washington , D.C.

    TO
    TIBERIUS CAESAR: A young man appeared in Galilee
    preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had
    sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the
    people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of
    Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I
    observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning
    against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus.
    This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him
    and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave
    to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of
    age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a
    contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny
    complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk
    but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my
    secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the
    philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus. He told me
    that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious, so we extended to Him our
    protection. He was at liberty to act, to speak, to assemble and to address
    the people. This unlimited freedom provoked the Jews — not the poor but
    the rich and powerful. Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with
    Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was
    having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an
    iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a guilty
    culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring this
    extraordinary Man.
    There was nothing in Him that was repelling, nor in His character, yet I
    felt awed in His presence. I told Him that there was a magnetic simplicity
    about Him and His personality that elevated Him far above the philosophers
    and teachers of His day. Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts
    concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in
    detail concerning these matters. I say that such a man who could convert
    water into win, change death into life, disease into health; calm the
    stormy seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said,
    we must agree — truly this is the Son of God! Your most obedient servant,
    Pontius Pilate.

    The second
    eyewitness record:
    The
    following description of Jesus Christ was written by Publius Lentrelus, a
    resident of Judea in the reign of Tiberius
    Caesar. It first appeared in the writings of Saint Anselm of
    Canterbury , 11th
    century:
    There
    lives at this time in Judea a man of
    singular virtue whose name is Jesus Christ, whom the barbarians esteem as a
    prophet, but his followers love and adore him as the offspring of the
    immortal God. He calls back the dead from the graves and heals all sorts of
    diseases with a word or touch. He is a tall man, well-shaped, and of an
    amiable and reverend aspect; his hair of a color that can hardly be
    matched, falling into graceful curls, waving about and very agreeable
    crouching upon his shoulders, parted on the crown of the head, running as a
    stream to the front after fashion of the Nazarites. His forehead high,
    large and imposing; his cheeks without spot or wrinkle, beautiful with a
    lovely red; his nose and mouth formed with exquisite symmetry; his beard,
    and of a color suitable to his hair, reaching below his chin and parted in
    the middle like a fork; his eyes bright blue, clear and serene. Look
    innocent, dignified, manly and mature. In proportion of body most perfect,
    and captivating; his arms and hands delectable to behold. He rebukes with
    majesty, councils with mildness, His whole address whether in word or deed,
    being eloquent and grave. No man has seen him laugh, yet his manners are
    exceedingly pleasant, but he has wept frequently in the presence of men. He
    is temperate, modest and wise. A man for his extraordinary beauty and
    perfection, surpassing the children of men in every sense.
    The
    previous two letters appear in E. Raymond Capt’s book, ‘The Resurrection
    Tomb’, available from Artisan Sales.
    Artisan
    Home Page
    The Resurrection Tomb (Info)

    The third
    eyewitness record:
    A
    description of Jesus Himself is found in “The Archko Volume”
    which contains official court documents from the days of the Messiah. This
    information substantiates that He came from racial lines which had blue
    eyes and golden hair. In a chapter entitled “Gamaliel’s
    Interview” it states concerning Jesus (Yahshua):
    “I
    asked him to describe this person to me, so that I might know him if I
    should meet him. He said: ‘If you ever meet him [Yahshua] you will know
    him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that
    distinguishes him from every other man. He is the picture of his mother,
    only he has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden
    than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else. He is tall,
    and his shoulders are a little drooped; his visage is thin and of a swarthy
    complexion, though this is from exposure. His eyes are large and a soft
    blue, and rather dull and heavy….’ This Jew [Judahite] is convinced that
    he is the Messiah of the world. …this was the same person that was born
    of the virgin in Bethlehem
    some twenty-six years before…”
    The
    Archko Volume, translated by Drs. McIntosh and Twyman of the Antiquarian
    Lodge, Genoa, Italy, from manuscripts in Constantinople and the records of
    the Senatorial Docket taken from the Vatican of Rome (1896) 92-93.

    HAVE a lovely holiday to you and yours,
    Thank you

    ..

     
    • Anon4fun

      December 18, 2012 at 3:41 PM

      ‘The Archko Volume or Archko Library is a 19th century volume containing what purports to be a series of reports from Jewish and pagan sources contemporary with Christ that relate to the life and death of Jesus. The work went through a number of versions and has remained in print ever since. The texts are otherwise unknown, and the author was convicted by an ecclesiastical court of falsehood and plagiarism….This work was subsequently shown to have been copied almost verbatim from “Ponce Pilate à Vienne,” a short story by Joseph Méry published in Revue de Paris in 1837.’

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Archko_Volume

       
    • Flatwood

      December 18, 2012 at 3:48 PM

      You don’t know much about the “truth of/in the Holy Scriptures,” otherwise you would know that what you posted is false. There are many examples to prove this,your false posts, but I’ll just use a few. First, the scripture says that it is a shame for a “man” to have long hair but long hair is a woman’s crowning glory. Kind of odd,isn’t it, that here is a man with long hair telling the people that it is a shame for a man to have long hair.No, he was not under a nazarite vow, because he drank wine, & the the nazarite vow, prohibited this. Second, why do you think Judas was paid to “point him out” IF he was so easily recognized? He looked so much like every other “Israelite” that it would take someone with “inside” knowledge/awareness,etc, to point him out so the soldiers could arrest the “right one.”

       
    • Flatwood

      December 18, 2012 at 4:05 PM

      Christmas?? How about Saturnalia? A “Pope” changed the name, that’s all. Then put “Christ in in to “clean it up.” The “mass of Christ to Christ’s mass to Christmas. No where in the Holy Scriptures is anyone told to remember his birthday. I’m sure if it would have, it would not be remembered. We are told to remember his death, however, by observing “Passover.” How many do that? Sure, the Jews observe Passover, but Yahshua/Yeshua is not a part of “their Passover.”

       
  14. TheSleeperHasAwakened

    December 18, 2012 at 4:33 PM

    Racial issues are most certainly a DIVIDE AND CONQUOR tactic. Growing up I never saw someone’s “Race”, nor did I even know what “Race” was.

    I only saw people for the content of their character: Nice/Sweet, Mean Spirited, Agressive, Smart/Intelligent, Funny, etc.

    Analyzing anything on purely racial lines is just a waste of time and will only force people to pick sides, just like the False Left vs. Right paradigm.

     
  15. brimp

    December 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM

    Al, your analysis of Bamboozled is a bit off.

    The Democrat party was the party of the plantation. When they owned the slaves, they prevented them from learning to read and bread their slaves for traits that the Democrats could use. They went to war to maintain the plantation. When they lost, the former slaves were seen as a problem. The Democrats tried to get them to go back to Africa. They created the KKK which was part of the Democrat party. The Democrats created Jim Crow laws. They created the doctrine of “separate but equal”. They created “family courts” that sterilized black women. They passed laws that prevented black people from owning guns. When Republicans like Martin Luther King Jr. embarrassed the democrats they went along with the Republican civil rights and voting rights acts. It was Republican general Eisenhower that integrated the armed services in WWII. Republican President Eisenhower guarded black children from Democrats when they wanted to go to integrated schools. It was Republican Nixon who integrated the schools via “bussing”. When the Democrats could no longer sterilize the black population they put an abortion clinic in every black area so that the black population can kill their own children. The “public schools” that were controlled by Democrats did not remove the trouble makers from the general population making it difficult for any black child from getting an education. The Democrats add IQ reducing Fluoride to the water supply in the black areas where the “white” people in the suburbs don’t have exposure to this poison. By agreeing with NAFTA and the WTO, Democrats have put the American workers in direct competition with the slaves in Asia and the third world. By agreeing to the criminalization of “drugs” it creates a lucrative black market that young black men without jobs participate in until they get sent to the Democrat controlled prisons. By promoting black people who will go along with the disenfranchisement of the black population, the Democrats have captured the “minority community”.

    It is interesting that there is a “black community” but not a “white community”. This is also a trick of the Democrats where white people are individuals and black people are members of the black community. The community has values, and interests. Members don’t think for themselves. Any member that doesn’t go along with the program will be accused of “acting white”.

    Every action that an individual makes is done so to maximize what they perceive to be pleasure and minimize what they perceive to be pain. The event horizon that each person has will influence the weights of conflicting choices. If one can actualize themselves 10 years into the future then they will make decisions to make their conditions better for future decades. If one can only actualize themselves a few days or weeks in the future then they will make very different decisions. The “poor” are poor because they make short term decisions. The “assistance” that the government gives the “poor” actually causes the “poor” to not prepare for the distant future and encourages them to make short term decisions. Thus the “help” does not help them get out of poverty. Democrats know this and use this knowledge to re-populate their plantations.

    Lee does a good job at pointing out the Democrat’s techniques of brain washing but he does a poor job identifying the guilty party.

    This is not to say that the Republicans have been some great protector of unalienable rights but that most of the problems with black culture are caused by Democrats.

     
  16. Anon4fun

    December 19, 2012 at 3:53 PM

    brimp:

    I was sort of with you until you said this:

    “Every action that an individual makes is done so to maximize what they perceive to be pleasure and minimize what they perceive to be pain.”

    This is part of the standard “me first” social disintegration philosophy designed to break down society’s institutional resistance to the cannibalistic designs of the NWO.

     
    • brimp

      December 19, 2012 at 6:05 PM

      At every moment you have decisions to make. The actions that you take, or not, depends on how you value the effort and outcome of the possibilities considered. If you decide to give money to help build an orphanage or to a prostitute for services rendered, you used some reasoning to reach your conclusion. You could be visiting another website but you have determined that this site gives you the most pleasure at this time. Are you a “me first” kind of person? If you decide to help somebody else you have derived pleasure from knowing that you helped. The question is “how do different people reach the conclusions that they do?”

       
  17. 1st trustee

    December 19, 2012 at 4:01 PM

    “What type of buffoonery is this?” as Spike Lee would say. Ironic. The commenting is rapidly devolving with so many unsubstantiated opinions creating inaccurate conclusions of emotional nonsense. If they are stated as opinions, than as you were, however, many seem to be presented as facts. They are inferences created from other inferences. The only way to write that is starting to make more sense is like you’re on Wikipedia. Cite where you are getting your information. Outside of that, one can only construe the information as an opinion. It’s one’s belief vs another. Thus, the conversation (if we can even call it that) goes nowhere because everyone is talking at each other. This is a text book case of devolving in action. Madness! (Madness? This…is…THE INTERNET! ::kick random people down the random bottomless pit in my backyard::)

     
    • Flatwood

      December 19, 2012 at 5:52 PM

      @everyone is talking at each other.
      That’s the way I see it too !!

       
    • brimp

      December 19, 2012 at 6:14 PM

      I have made a number of assertions here. These seem to conflict with your programming.
      So, you suggest that all of these assertions are buffonnery, opinions, and madness. Pick one assertion and provide evidence against it. Then we can have a discussion.

      Note the “every action …” paragraph is philosophical position and is not a certified fact. I look forward to challenges to it. Perhaps you can change my mind.

       
      • 1st trustee

        December 19, 2012 at 6:33 PM

        I was not talking to you directly (indicated by the lack of indent of my post), thus there is no need to answer your challenge. I was referring to the commenting as a whole. Plus, if you make the claim, it is you that must cite your sources, not I. The burden does not fall on someone else to disprove an item as that would be overly burdensome and is a tactic used by people to defend themselves when they can not back up with they say.

        I clearly stated,”If they are stated as opinions, than as you were.” One’s philosophy is an opinion so I am clearly not talking about your comments. However, if you are presenting your opinions as fact, then I was talking about your comments (in the mass of comments overall. Not pinpointing yours per se). I could challenge and destroy many things here, but for what? It’s an opinion, not a factual debate. Nor will it be of any valuable use of my time.

        However, here is a challenge since you think you’re up for it. What “programming” of mine are you referring to? Can you point out which comments are buffoonery and what do I mean by “madness” (your not going to meet this challenge)? When one challenges others intellectually, it’s usually a sign of an ego trip of how smart on feels they are. If you are or not is not being challenged. Nor is the size of the ego. However, it serves no purpose. Some people do have big egos and others don’t. So be it. Doesn’t affect me in any way. Still the challenge is on the table if you choice to accept (please, no fallacies, just answer the questions). Your move.

         
      • Flatwood

        December 19, 2012 at 9:12 PM

        brimp
        December 19, 2012 at 6:14 PM

        NICE !!!

         
  18. brimp

    December 19, 2012 at 7:18 PM

    1st, I’m glad that your comments were not directed at me. In regards to your other questions: each of us is born with a blank slate – that is the conceptual structures in your mind were created based on your experiences. Your experiences can be direct or indirect. If someone tells you not to touch the fire then that is an indirect experience. This conceptual structure is used as a filter to evaluate all future experiences. The sum of your indirect experiences is a kind of programming; by your parents, merchants, teachers, and politicians. Many want to get you to do what they want. They will posit ideas that they know are not true. Most Americans know that they are being lied to but they have been programmed to believe that they are too stupid to intelligently challenge those who the media proclaim to be experts. So, they live with the lies. America is the land of the free and home of the brave where you can’t fight city hall. That is the government is your servant and your master. Clearly there is something wrong here.

    As to your general challenge, are you suggesting that The South did not vote in Democrats? Or that the South did not have slavery? Or that the Republicans, when they won the war, did not free the slaves? Or that the KKK was not created by 5 Democrats? Or that the KKK was not part of the Democrats party? Or they did not pay Marcus Garvey to get as many former slaves to go to Africa? Or that the Jim Crow laws were not passed by Democrats? Or that the separate but equal doctrine was not posited by Democrats? Or that Martin Luther King Jr. (and Sr.) was not Republican? The list goes on. Each of these assertions is not crazy. They are only “assertions” because they are indirect facts (that is I did not experience these events personally). I place these assertions on the table. Each assertion that is not challenged will stand as fact. This is the process that is used in American courts.

     
    • 1st trustee

      December 19, 2012 at 7:27 PM

      That was not my general challenge. Mine was just answering my questions posed and you answered one of three. :P

      I try not to speak on things I don’t know about so I can’t answer those questions (that’s why I didn’t challenge them on that level). However, you did say that they are assertions and not fact (but indirect. What does that even mean? It’s a fact or its not. So it’s an inference from a fact or another inference.), so no one has to challenge them as you admitted they are not facts. If they go unchallenged they will only remain assertions. :)

       
      • brimp

        December 19, 2012 at 7:56 PM

        In civil pre-trial court proceedings, both sides make assertions. If an assertion is not directly challenged, the court will conclude that, for that trial, it is a fact. Only the facts that are in dispute are to be determined by the court. Everything else stands as fact and will not be considered at trial. Criminal trials are somewhat different.

        If you have been told that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492 then you may hold it to be a fact when it may not be. Many of the “facts” that make up your, and my, reality are assertions that have gone unchallenged. As many people who are reading this website, I have determined that many of the “facts” that we have been told are actually false. I invite others to challenge every assertion that I make.

         
  19. 1st trustee

    December 19, 2012 at 9:01 PM

    What you are saying is incorrect. Just because something is unchallenged does not make it a fact. The word of the hour seems to be “assertion.”
    -Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof
    -declare: To state emphatically or authoritatively; affirm

    The statement is not logical. Unchallenged statements are beliefs, not facts. And court is just a process to resolve a matter, it is not scientific, thus those may the facts in court, but that does not mean they are facts.

    -Fact: Law. an actual event, happening, etc., as distinguished from its legal consequences. Questions of fact are decided by the jury, questions of law by the court or judge
    this contrasted with:
    -proof: Law. the whole body of evidence upon which the verdict of a court is based
    -evidence: Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

    The issue is the linguistic usage you are choosing to employ. We’re not in court. If we mix scientific terms with legal terms we start to have pragmatic issues. It doesn’t work like that.

    If you believe them to be facts, they do not raise to the level of fact. The lack of evidence, does not make anything a fact too. It merely becomes unverifiable thus unfalsifiable. Things in that realm are empirically meaningless.

    -Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment

    Facts are based on empirical evidence. Without that, they are only theories. We be able to say something is true but as to why. Then we’re back into a scientific method to prove the theory. But theories are not facts.

    Until we become better linguistically, conversations just go in circles based on egos and opinions. A factual debate can be solved with facts. If it cannot then it is more likely the debate is a verbal one where the parties are debating a definition or definitions without knowing it. For example, the pro-life vs pro-choice is at it core a verbal debate on what’s considered “human” and when.

    For us to get to the root of things we must stay on topic which means resolves each point first and move on to the next.

    Definition source: source: thefreedictionary.com

     
    • brimp

      December 19, 2012 at 10:30 PM

      You make a number of interesting points. Years ago I would have agreed with you on some of them. If you will read the points that Al makes over the years you will determine that the structured argument process that determines what is legally right and wrong, does not depend upon what is true or false. If an assertion is not challenged, it stands as a true fact — even if it is false. If we were having this discussion in a websites for nitwits then there would be nothing to discuss. In the current environment (ruled by legalistic technocratic elites) the colloquial language and assumptions don’t help overcome the tyranny.

       
  20. Anon4fun

    December 19, 2012 at 9:01 PM

    brimp:

    >>You could be visiting another website but you have determined that this site gives you the most pleasure at this time.

    Don’t quit your day job for that mind-reading gig just yet.

    >>If you decide to help somebody else you have derived pleasure from knowing that you helped.

    So? Pleasure being a result does not mean it was the main objective to begin with. People often accept what they expect will be a net loss of pleasure in order to help others, because it’s the right thing to do. The claim that they, unknown even to themselves, do this to feel an even greater pleasure is neither self-evident nor proven.

    The “feel good” theory of motivation, in which personal interactions and relationships are defined with a socially destabilizing egocentric emphasis, has been a recurrent fellow traveler with the NWO’s various revolutions in culture, politics, psychology, etc., including their latest number: “one dollar, one vote” anarcho-capitalism.

     
    • brimp

      December 19, 2012 at 10:05 PM

      I assume you are sane. If you are not sane then you may be making decisions that you don’t care how the outcome will affect you. I’m not certain how, or if, insane people reason. You have a complex conceptual structure of ideas in your mind. You use that structure to determine your actions. The pleasure and pain of “doing the right thing” is weighed against the pleasure and pain of not doing the right thing to determine your actions. If you decide to give a dollar to a charity you have determined that that donation will give you more pleasure than if you spent that dollar in some other way.

      Governments are instituted to secure my unalienable rights. When governments try to “help” individuals they end up hurting more people than they help. It changes the rolls of everyone involved: The person who receives help from charity will recognize that they messed up and some people who have not messed up are willing to help when they don’t have to. They say “thank you” and wonder how they can change their life so that they don’t need to ask for assistance in the future. When they accept help from government they say “where’s my God damned money?” and “These rich A-holes are oppressing me”. The person who voluntarily helps gets the satisfaction that they have built a safety net that they, or their family, may need in the future. When the government takes over these functions, the individual says that it’s the government’s job to help those in need and my job is to pay as little tax as possible. The government employees do not want to fix the problem because they want to keep their job. The NWO crowd wants governments to take over everything because it dis-empowers the individuals, builds a captive market for their products, and eliminates future competition. In all cases each participant, at every moment, is trying to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. The decision to be self governing is self evident only if you can actualize your self beyond the short term.

       
    • Flatwood

      December 27, 2012 at 7:27 PM

      @ >The “feel good” theory of motivation.

      There is a “new church” about 2 miles south of me, called, “Church on THE MOVE.” I kinda think your statement of, the “feel good” theory of motivation, would be in that church. I’ll spare you examples of what “on THE MOVE means.”

      Keep up the “excellent thought out & thought provoking comments.”

       
  21. Flatwood

    December 19, 2012 at 9:18 PM

    brimp > Only the facts that are in dispute…

    How can it be a fact & be in dispute? IF it’s a FACT there is nothing to dispute.OR, maybe, today, a fact means something other than it originally did.

     
    • brimp

      December 19, 2012 at 10:15 PM

      A person may bring a contract into court and assert that
      1) A contract says that party A will pay party B a certain sum for some action that party B does.
      2) Party B has performed the specified action.
      3) Therefore party A needs to pay.

      If the opposing side (party A) does not respond, the court will accept the unchallenged assertions as facts and will determine that A needs to pay.

      If party A challenges assertion 2 but does not challenge assertion 1 then the court will accept assertion 1 as a fact and the court will determine if assertion 2 is true.

       
  22. Anon4fun

    December 19, 2012 at 11:28 PM

    brimp:

    >>If you decide to give a dollar to a charity you have determined that that donation will give you more pleasure than if you spent that dollar in some other way.

    Which am I going to believe, you or my first-hand experience of my own thought process? Quite an overreach, actually. Rule of thumb: Whenever confirming a theory requires you to read everyone’s mind for every decision they make, it’s a defective theory.

    >>The NWO crowd wants governments to take over everything because it dis-empowers the individuals, builds a captive market for their products, and eliminates future competition.

    This is correct as far as it goes. What you don’t understand is that the NWO’s use of government is part of a larger strategy, not their final objective. The reason big government is being so widely discredited of late is that the NWO is now shedding its skin and moving forward in its plan.

    First they create the problem: big government over which they have undue control. Then, when that arraignment reaches its planned obsolescence and becomes untenable, they offer the solution: a stateless society over which they have nearly complete control.

    This process was clearly demonstrated in 20th century Russia. First collectivization, then privatization. Each phase targets a different aspect of the viability of the enterprising, productive, and culture-preserving middle class, which is the NWO’s principle enemy. The collectivization phase in the United States began in the 1930s with the New Deal. In this country especially, co-opting the government apparatus can only get the NWO so far, then they reach a point of diminishing returns as the built-in checks and balances established by the People start kicking back on them. We are now into the privatization phase, which is to be greatly accelerated in the approaching austerity.

     
    • brimp

      December 21, 2012 at 4:23 PM

      The thought processes in your head are the same as any other human. I propose the same processes occur in the mind of every animal and could be extended to the brains of robots. The difference between your decisions and others are due to your experiences and how you organized them in your mind. You may be tempted to cheat on your spouse — On the positive side you may gain confidence in knowing that you can attract a mate, you may learn something from the experience, and you may feel pleasure in the affair. On the negative side you may get caught and your spouse will lose trust in you, this may lead to a divorce which may cause distress to your children, you could catch a sexually transmitted disease (perhaps fatal) and infect your spouse. Each of these things is evaluated. If you think only in the short term you may make different decisions than if you had a longer event horizon. Your moral system resides in your mind and it uses the similar processes as your other thought processes.

      As to your theory about what the NWO is planning, I haven’t seen the information that you have that would cause you to believe this. You may be right but I’m not even sure who the NWO players are. It looks like an onion; once I identify a layer I find that there is another layer that is closer to the center.

       
  23. 1st trustee

    December 19, 2012 at 11:35 PM

    First of all brimp…high five. We have turned this conversation back into something constructive. Now on to my point.

    The last interchange between you and Flatwood is a prime example of the tyranny of words. You are switching to court language but using a philosophical argument. The two don’t mix unless you let everyone know when you are code switching.

    In your last response to me, you prove my point. One can not be objective when you start bringing in judgement words, i.e. right and wrong. Those are YOUR morals. Thus you cannot bring them into a factual argument. True and false vs fact and opinion. These are two different things. Its like the square rectangle postulate: A rectangle [fact] can be a square [true] but a square isn’t always a rectangle.

    So you call it a structured argument, but what I’m talking about is not about a structured argument, it’s about linguistics and critical thinking. For example you use a fallacy [Appeal to false authority. Your premise] to back up your point [conclusion] about the use of a structure argument. Without the ability to spot and counter these fallacies in an argument, people will get away with passing things as “truth” and/or fact when it is not.

    Fortunately, the vital few who’s back the rest of the world is carried, work from facts (scientist, technicians, engineers, etc). Most of our problems in the world are technical in nature which mean we need empirical solutions. Philosophies (opinions) are not empirical. They may change the way in which we go about using a thing or things and/or how we go about doing something. Thing being the something in the physical world (which includes people).

    Another fact is you are trying to make an argument with opinion which is fine, as long as it is acknowledged as an opinion (or inference from a fact). This way, we are just sharing our opinions with each other. Outside of that facts are facts and truth can be a fact as truth can be relative (because it’s not a fact). A fact is a fact unless the parties are arguing the meaning of something which is why the fact (in a non-court manner) is in dispute.

    If we can’t agree on the use of our words, the things in which we communicate, then we are wasting our time. If one starts to observe the average discussion, they will notice that most are verbal argument (e.g. politics), not factual.

     
    • Flatwood

      December 20, 2012 at 12:03 AM

      And that’s a fact Jack. Just the facts mamn, just the facts. Sometimes the facts are confusing,e.g. when our minds are already made up we become confused with the facts. Goodnight.

       
    • brimp

      December 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM

      My original post had two pieces: the first was connecting a number of historical facts that have been white washed from the pages of history by those who wish to direct civilization to their benefit. The connected facts would invalidate the idea that problems that Lee is documenting are caused not by “white people” but by Democrats. This thesis may be incorrect but the facts are historical.

      The second part of the post introduced a theory of why the “help” that the decedents of the slaves receive from government does not help them.

      Later in the thread the nature of the argument process was discussed. The structured argument process needs to be understood because it is the means that permits our servants to act as masters. This is not to say that the processes of critical thinking should be discarded. We need be clear in determining truth but then we need to be able to win the structured argument also. So far we have been loosing the argument.

       
      • 1st trustee

        December 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM

        Can you please explain what you mean by ” The structured argument process needs to be understood because it is the means that permits our servants to act as masters.” That doesn’t make sense. Also, what does this have to do with critical thinking? As I stated in my last comment, when one pays close attention, this is a verbal argument, not a factual. You keep using the term “structured argument”, when I’m talking about linguistics. You keep proceeding like they are the same thing when they’re not. Thus the current conflict is what you mean when you use the terms. We can not move forward until we understand you.

        Also, you speak of determining “truth.” Again, this is relative and in itself meaningless without more information. “Truth” about what and to who?

        Lastly, you talk about winning the structured argument. This shows me you have your own definition of what a “structured argument” is all about versus what it’s actual function is. So can you please elaborate on the points mentioned?

         
  24. mvg-avg

    December 20, 2012 at 3:51 PM

    Numbers 25

     
    • Flatwood

      December 21, 2012 at 11:46 PM

      Re: Numbers 25,
      THANKS for answering my question. This is an “avg” response.

       
  25. Flatwood

    December 20, 2012 at 5:06 PM

    mvg-avg

    What does perverted practices/customs,etc., e.g. gay rights, as Numbers 25 is about, have to do with anything that has been said on this thread ? OR, is there another Numbers 25, you are referring to? Thank you in advance.

     
  26. brimp

    December 21, 2012 at 4:52 PM

    1st, I have been endowed by my Creator with unalienable rights and governments are instituted to secure my rights. That makes the government my servant. They have used doctrines of law to change this arrangement. They say that if you do not assert your rights then the rights are deemed to be waved. Then they make the laws, and legal proceedings, so complicated that you don’t know how to assert your rights. Once you don’t assert your rights at the right time and in the right manner, they assume that you are an incompetent person like an orphan or crazy person who they need to act as the parent. Once they assume the role of parent then all of your reasoned arguments and protestations can be disregarded by the parent because they appear to a temper tantrum from a child who doesn’t know their place. The structured argument process is the legal process. If you don’t know how to argue in this manner you will lose. If you hire an attorney, the court will take that as an admission that you not competent to think for yourself. Attorneys are officers of the court who will be disbarred if they bring up arguments that the court does not want to hear. Al does a very good job at explaining the game.

     
    • 1st trustee

      December 21, 2012 at 5:32 PM

      Thanks for clearing that up. From your answer, you are still mixing different topics and there in lies the confusion and conflict. You are using the term incorrectly or inaccurately. You keep talking about court and creators. This has nothing to do with the structured argument. One must look at the modifying word (adjective) “legal” and we’ll get to the bottom of this. You are referring to a “legal argument” which HAS a structure or is a type of structured argument. We’re back to the rectangle/square postulate. This makes sense why you use the word term “win” because that applies in the legal arena, but not in all. Therefore, we have not been talking about the same thing. Without critical thinking and basic linguistic understanding, we would continue to go in circles.

      Maybe the legal argument is the only argument structure you know of, thus you quagmire with it. Also, the legal argument is ONE way to assert your rights. Your ignorance in the matter of rights may be the issue, not necessarily the legal system. You use a metaphor of parent and child, but you also assume you are the parent. In life, we constantly switch positions of being and not the authority. Without the understanding of this and knowing what position you are in each situations is the issue with most people.

      Also your parent/child metaphor is flawed and tyrannical in nature. One’s position has no bearing on whether they are right or wrong, only that they are in a certain position. This is what everyone is what most people are up in arms about. Due to this, you would be a hypocrite to talk about being oppressed then turn around and oppress another with that thought process.

      They say ignorance is bliss, but cui bono? The phrase “ignorance of the law (contract) is no excuse” is echoed through the legal system because your ignorance of your positions and obligations has no bearing on your duties. So you can talk about rights and creators all day, that does not excuse your obligations/burdens from the benefits you have received or the contract (law). Thus before pointing the finger at the gov in anyway, check yourself first. You’re likely to find the problem there.

      I’m not saying the people behind the legal system are not corrupt, but they are merely taking advantage of your ignorance and your beliefs. Whether that be right or wrong is based on your perspective, but nonetheless, it is your duty to educate yourself so you are not taken advantage of.

       
      • 1st trustee

        December 21, 2012 at 5:47 PM

        And to make sure I’m not misunderstood in anyway, my comment is not an attack in anyway. People tend to not know the definition of words and misconstrue what I’m saying. For example the use of the word ignorant vs stupid, dumb or asinine. While I tend not to put negative connotations onto words, others do. In an intellectual arena, an attack on another is only evidence of one’s inferiority complex. I may challenge the idea or notion but not the person, unless it is needed (which is rare because it’s a waste of time to argue with stupid-dumb-asinine people :)

         
      • brimp

        December 21, 2012 at 7:52 PM

        Jefferson’s preamble to the Declaration of Independence is so elegant that defines America. Before it was accepted as self evident, the Europeans on the east coast saw themselves as colonists, after, they saw themselves as Americans. The Creator that I referred to was from the preamble.

        The terms seem confusing because one of the tactics that has been used to emasculate the Declaration of Independence is verbicide. As I mentioned, the legal system has been made so complex that it is incomprehensible to the vast majority of Americans. One of the ways that they did this was to invent “terms of art” where words that have common meanings also have legal meanings. When you hear the term “resident” you think of someone who lives in an area. But, they have defined it to be somebody who has moved into an area, temporarily, to do business. When trying to prevail against the enemies of America (as defined above) one must use the terms as the enemy uses them even if it doesn’t make sense colloquially. The only thing that matters is winning. Until one masters the linguistic tricks of the enemy the critical thinking skills are moot.

        The parent/child doctrine is not mine. It is called Parens patriae and is used by default in every “criminal” court in America. You are correct that is tyrannical. That is why we need to defeat it. Receiving benefits is another trick that they use to assume the parent role. Benefits like using Zipcodes, having a SSN assigned to you, living in a national area (CA, PA, NY) instead of a sovereign state (Cal., Pa., N.Y.), and using Federal Reserve Notes to discharge your debts instead of paying them are a few of the hundreds of ways they assume you have contracted with them even though you have never seen the contract. If you don’t ask to see the contract you accept that the contract exists and that you entered into the contract voluntarily.

        The so-called “public schools” do a fantastic job of dumbing Americans down so that the rulers go unchallenged. It is the duty of each American to learn what is going on and to take steps to rectify the situation.

         
    • Flatwood

      December 21, 2012 at 9:57 PM

      Hi brimp,
      Re: they need to act as the parent.
      a.k.a. parens patriae. This is from the “git-go.”

      Re: Then they make the laws, and legal proceedings, so complicated that you don’t know how to assert your rights.

      & then if we still do know how to “assert rights” ANYTHING we san CAN & WILL be used against us.

       
    • Flatwood

      December 21, 2012 at 10:29 PM

      brimp,
      Sorry, I jumped the gun, re : parens patriae. I had not gotten to your later post. It is difficult for me to communicate via internet. I was not knowingly trying to “educate you.” If we only knew what others knew, a lot of time,energy, etc. would not be wasted. Still, anything we say can & will be used against us. This seems to me it also includes “asserting rights.” Then again, I guess my understanding of “anything” I/we say is not understood, by me.

       
    • Flatwood

      December 21, 2012 at 10:54 PM

      brimp: Re: and using Federal Reserve Notes to discharge your debts…..

      How do you “get by/exist/live,etc. & not use them? Also, re: “hundreds of ways” “they entrap” us, if we understood every way but one(1) they still have us by the “short hairs.”

      P.S. Everything I say, is based on my understanding or lack thereof, at the present time.”It seems” however, that you know what is wrong & what to do to get it right. I wish I could say that. I do the best I can but sometimes our/my best ain’t quite good enough. I am aware of the “entrapment ways” you speak of, but I am not aware of the “hundreds more.” AND “they have probably added even a few more to the already existing hundreds more they already have.

       
  27. Flatwood

    December 21, 2012 at 10:13 PM

    To: 1st Trustee,
    Re: Your comment, > Also, you speak of determining “truth.” Again, this is relative and in itself meaningless without more information. “Truth” about what and to who?

    Pontius Pilate asked Yeshua: What is truth? And, the answer was standing in front of him?

     
    • 1st trustee

      December 22, 2012 at 12:45 AM

      That has no bearing on anything unless that is your belief. The issue is that people seem to be confused about the law. Everyone has a victim mentality it seems. I understand it because most of us have been there. However, the conclusions many have come to are not accurate about things. The key term that needs to be understood is “Jurisdiction” and the many ways they can get it. As diabolical as it is, it’s beautiful executed. It is everyone’s own assumptions and fear that keep keep them in a victim mentality. I know more than most from being “Black” (ha, just brought the conversation full circle).

      So Flatwood, that may be yours and others “truth,” but it does not apply to everyone and it is an opinion again. The fact is that the gov can’t act without jurisdiction. Do they at times, yes. But for good reasons when one analyzes the circumstances that surround each situation. Anyone can make a declaration about being a certain status, but you got to prove it. If you can’t prove it, then that’s probably because you’re not that which you claim.

      Furthermore, everyone always has something to counter with yet, many aren’t doing anything about what is happening. The bottom line is how are you going to deal with things? What is your plan? Going to talk about how you’re “sovereign” or how “your rights are endowed by your creator?” Good luck. I’m not denouncing anyone’s creator just that it has no bearing on other people, even when they share the same belief. The judicial system is based off the bible (or use to be) but how do you assert your rights in today’s modern society? It’s still your belief vs theirs and they have guys with guns…lots of guy and lots of guns (the easier to coerce you with).

      We can debate things back and forth all day, but until people understand where and how they stand, you’ll continue getting your teeth kicked in (metaphorically and sometimes literally). If you live in this society, it is your responsibility to understand how it works and that is a fact. So who cares how complicated the legal system seems. My question is how many have tried to study it? And where is the majority of your information coming from (please don’t say YouTube)? What about understanding the contracts (law) and how they tie one into other obligations (ignorance is no excuse…)? If you’re in a contract with man and not your creator, what is all the complaining about? You made that decision. Everything is your decision. Man up and take responsibility. Maybe some of you should come down to my [neighbor] hood and I’ll show you how it’s done. It’s easy to complain and have the luxury of your opinions when you’re not getting harassed or having your face kicked in everyday.

      While oppression is oppression (well not really), I don’t believe many people know what a constant external oppression feels like. Not, a “the gov is [insert issue here]” kind of oppression which is manifested more based on one’s ignorance rather than actual oppression. And even when it may be on a more direct instant, its a rare occurrence: a traffic ticket, a mortgage or something. It’s not really a big deal (from the constantly oppressed). Either way it is a luxury to have that perspective, but I digress.

      Still, the legal system can be too complicated because criminals seem to get off fine. What an ironic situation :)

      (this comment was all over the place. Kept getting interpreted while writing over the last 2 hours)

       
      • Flatwood

        December 22, 2012 at 3:28 PM

        To: 1st trustee,
        Re: come down to my [neighbor] hood and I’ll show you how it’s done.

        I wish you really meant this. If you do, where is your (neighbor) hood? Also, if you are not “allowed” in a law library because you are not a “licensed attorney,” I say ignorance of the “law” IS an excuse. Also, IF freedom means,nothing left to lose, then I am truly free. But,I don’t want or like this kind/sort, etc., of FREEDOM.

         
  28. 1st trustee

    December 23, 2012 at 12:17 AM

    What makes you believe that I don’t mean it? I live in Chicago. If you’re in town, look me up.

    And what law library denied you access? That is not normal. In most places, anyone can go into a law library. Even if they did deny, you still don’t have an excuse because this for one is the information age. The simple fact that you have access to this blog means you have all you need to educate yourself…if you really want to.

    Lastly, “freedom” has definition. There is no magical meaning. The question is do you actually want freedom? This may sound like a strange question, but I feel people like the idea of freedom more than freedom itself. Not many people know what “freedom” feels like. At most, people have a quasi-freedom. But I digress.

     
    • Flatwood

      December 24, 2012 at 2:17 PM

      To: 1st trustee,
      You say in essence you hope I’m not getting educated via You Tube then say you have an educational essay,etc., on you tube with Bill Lowrey. I have asked you to provide a link or info to bring this essay up so I can see it. I have typed in everything I know to do but nothing comes up with Bill Lowrey & 1st trustee. Something did come up about a “ghetto” in Detroit. Is that it? Now, don’t nitpik for my use of the word, essay because,an essay has been defined in a variety of ways.

       
      • 1st trustee

        December 24, 2012 at 2:58 PM

        Let’s first be clear on what I said, not what you feel I’m saying in essence. Framing it in the way you did makes me look like a hypocrite:

        “And where is the majority of your information coming from (please don’t say YouTube)?”

        I’m not saying Youtube is bad, but that if you are getting THE MAJORITY of your information there, then you’re not really trying hard to educate yourself. Or maybe you forget what education is from being out of school for so long. Bottom line is that you’ll have to hit the books to really get a good education.

        On the the video. First you’re searching the wrong thing. “Ben” Lowrey. I don’t think this is the post where I mentioned it because I can’t find it here. Just go to: http://www.youtube.com/user/executivetrustees and you’ll see all the videos. There is a lot of info on executivetrusteetraining.com > Meeting Minutes > Board Meetings. Those are the [now] bi-monthly calls.

        Hope that helps.

        1st trustee

        P.S. I’ll get the files and put them on the site. I think Ben may have taken down the first ones. And in one of the recent calls I updated everyone after a caller asked what was the status on the project, but I don’t recall which one it was.

         
  29. Flatwood

    December 24, 2012 at 11:16 PM

    Thanks for the link,1st trustee,
    I asked for this (info or link) several days ago, & I suppose I should not have become upset in that I could not get anything to come up except the “ghetto in Detroit.” Frustrated/exasperated are better words to explain my anger,not at you,but the “non results” I was getting. As far as my education goes, I get most of that from Frankenstate savages,aka gov-co. I think Frankenstate is a better description. Once again, thanks for the link, & no need to respond.

     
  30. 1st trustee

    January 23, 2013 at 11:52 AM

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s