Some Thoughts on Rachel Dolezal

Everything I've read points me back again to what I see as the root problem that underlies any act of deception for financial gain or prestige. One might ask why we support a system where anyone needs either of those things when we live in a world of such abundance and technological efficiency that we could quash out all inequality. Could dispel the need for inequality. While I understand how people are very angry at this, within this system. It occurs to me that if every human being had their basic human needs met, this would be a non issue. And we have technological capability to do that.

I do not condone what Rachel Dolezal did, but in this system, in which we are all constantly forced to prove ourselves, to struggle to get ahead, I can certainly understand the temptation. I myself have had to ask myself do I really need whatever assistance comes along with checking hispanic. I am hispanic. But I am also white. And I certainly grew up with a hell of a lot more privilege than some other hispanic people I know. So by checking that box and taking whatever extra assistance it gives me- am I not also robbing someone else who might be more deserving- of that?

The whole system seems fucked up to me, when we live in a society technologically capable of making all of this moot. It would then just be an interesting quirk or a cute fantasy like my niece, who when she was 9 and living in Oakland, CA, with mainly black children for playmates and a very close grandmother type black woman friend, in her life and so she would assert vehemently that she was black. Of course she wasn't gaining any privileges for it so it was just smiled and chuckled at. So it's not the same as what Rachel has or has not (I guess up to now it seems hearsay that she's actually done anything illegal) done. But again, it would all be moot, if we lived in a system where no one had any privileges over any other. And that is not a fantasy, that we could live in such a system. It's a very real possibility that many are talking about.

ONE WOMAN WANTED TO KNOW WHERE HER WHITE PRIVILEGES WERE " I hate arguing race and Jim Crowe laws and all that. If you go back far enough we are all black because all human ancestry began in Africa. AA students often get a leg up due to race and socioeconomic status, but there aren't any scholarships for white people from the same situations, trust me, there aren't. I think anyone who wants to go to college should be able to go and it should be free like how they do in other countries. To much importance is placed on money, race, socioeconomic status, geography, religion, many other things that just should not matter."

In one manner, your "white privilege" lie in the fact that you as a homeless white person could take a shower, put on some clean clothes -not saying you weren't clean, just that if need be you could do those things and go out in the world and and look for a job and do the things you needed to do without anyone having to know you were homeless. I'm assuming if you were clean and presentable you could also walk through a Walmart without being followed by security. I'm also assuming you could walk through a rich all white neighborhood and not have everyone assume you were up to no good so long as you were reasonably clean and well kept. I myself have been homeless, and as much as it sucked I've always known I still had more privilege than people of darker color than I. However, homeless or clean, I have to wonder if in certain situations, my name kept me from getting fair treatment. In any case, people of color cannot wash that off.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/16/if-rachel-dolezal-says-she-s-black-she-s-black-sort-of.html

David S. says:

June 16, 2015 at 6:35 pm

“Dressing up” like another race, not wanting to be who you really are, usually stems from early trauma that causes one to dissociate from themselves. Aside from that, this is yet another distraction from the real issues the world faces. from Variety.com

Former basketball player, Kareem Abdul-Jabar wrote an article for Time Magazine Monday saying, "You can't deny Dolezal has proven herself a fierce and unrelenting champion for African Americans, politically and culturally. He also said, "The black community is better off because of her efforts." From http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/spokane-county/2015/06/16/many-still-celebrating-dolezals-successes/28845771/

On Art and Artists...

"Artists and philosophers, who expose the mercurial undercurrents of the subconscious, allow us to face an unvarnished truth. Works of art and philosophy informed by the intuitive, unarticulated meanderings of the human psyche transcend those constructed by the plodding conscious mind. The freeing potency of visceral memories does not arrive through the intellect. These memories are impervious to rational control. And they alone lead to wisdom." - Chris Hedges 
America's Mania for Positive Thinking and Denial of Reality Will Be Our Downfall The ridiculous positivism, the belief that we are headed toward some glorious future, defies reality - Alternet.com

Conversations with Great Minds P2 - The Economics of Revolution

some interesting points made on thisnthat

My thoughts on the following meme: 

Unlike · Reply · 2 · 22 hrs · Edited

Pia Alicia-Pilar Mogollon And so your post has fulfilled it's intention. The question is do you post only to make others think, do you allow for the process to affect your own thinking or do you stay stuck in your original thinking and assertions? In any case, this post has indeed given me food for thought.

comeback to poor grammar/punctuation ad hominem attack:

Anyone who starts complaining about another's use of grammar and punctuation usually has no other valid points, and just want to be included. Not saying that's what you're doing , but it's like why even call people out on that stuff? You can't make them any smarter, and the ignorance just grows from that point. 

Also, if we still understand their points on the topic it doesn't really matter how they present it. Sometimes a valid point backed with facts TRUMPS a flawless paragraph.  -  Anthony Rappo  - found on Facebook comment thread.   <3 this

------------------ ~ ------------------

"So, the question is this.... Do these people kill seals because they enjoy it and are "bad" people? Or is it because we have a global economic system which forces profit over life? 

The truth is that we now have the technical ability for abundance for all. There is no ACTUAL need for rain forests to be cut down, wars for oil, this bloody poaching, or any of the rest of it... There is no actual physical need for these things, yet the monetary system demands these things." - Neil Adam Collins, facebook comment thread. 

some thoughts on muslims versus christianity

On Muslims vs. Christianity:
 Like which is the worse crime against humanity...a Muslim who beheads 4 journalists (Terrible gruesome crimes, true). Or Americans shelling in IRAQ with depleted Uranium (20,000 yr. life span) that will cause 1000's of terrible birth defects for generations to come. The same is true in Vietnam Where agent orange was widely spared. In both cases the most innocent of innocents, the yet unborn were heartlessly punished for that of which they knew nothing. I'm just saying be better get our acts clean before we go about judging. We have done some of the worst acts imaginable wining the hearts & minds of the victims of our madness!

A dialogue on Christianity

" And then there is the almost equivalent 'christian' jihad on america, a vile and backwards country in reality. 'This is a christian nation' they belligerently but falsely proclaim. The bottom line for unbelievers is 'hell' for eternity with these sociopathic, us vs. them mental midgets.

Forcing citizens who do not believe in the biblical nonsense to comply with biblical nonsense in the form of republican/teabag legislation via local, state and federal govt levels.

Stirring the hate pot against all who do not agree with them, including suggestions to legislate imprisonment and even the death penalty for Gays, unbelievers, blasphemers, socialists, etc. and failure of those to bow the knee to their human-made 'god'. Not much difference if any vs. the muslim jihadists, another insane belief system."-A

"Spot on, A, the insanity visited upon us by the religious right is becoming more intrusive in our government everytime a teabilly or religious nut gets elected.
They starve the poor because they love them, they want to execute gays because they love them, they want women who cannot afford babies to have their insides ripped out with coat hangers because they love them. It all amounts to fucking insanity and ignorance that the right wing politicians are quick to capitalize on." B

"So true, B, And every time I hear or read someone who is not a christian saying something to the effect that he is not a 'good' christian...I cringe. There is nothing good about christianity historically or currently. It is a man-made fantasy that takes the believers down to where there is no real thought and no reason, just dedication and obedience to unreasonable insanity. And they demand automatic respect because they think they are doing 'gods work' and there are no questions.

And then they take the rest of us down with them if they delve into politics like they have the last couple of decades, ever increasing and on steroids. They are very much into the Trojan Horse version of politics and have proudly developed a 'stealth' method of getting elected...from school boards on up to the top. And over the years have inserted their creed by getting 'in god we trust' etc on our money, in the pledge, and posted in our courtrooms, while using the 'bible' to swear to tell the truth on. Bullshit. This all needs to be removed. When anyone works to have these references removed, they go ballistic and proclaim gods 'wrath' on the nation if anything along those lines is considered.

I speak of this issue often as fair warning to most. They are true idiots and extremely dangerous to personal freedoms and democracy. They will not just sit back and enjoy their faith. It is their 'mission' and purpose to get everyone 'saved by the blood of heysus' at any cost....it is the most important task in their confused and willfully deranged minds.

'They are conniving liars and twisters of the truth, and will continue to wreck this country. They are used by and using the 1% for mutual convenience to clobber the rest of us with an iron fist of fascism and feudalism.

I have been there many years ago (tried it but it wouldnt stick) and married to one, a speaking in tongues kind. A lovely person as actually many of them are, but ruined by this dangerous mind-bending nonsense. Complete fools because they have been fooled by the purveyors of bullshit for untaxed profit from behind their pulpits of insanity." -A

"A, if America is a vile and backwards nation, why do you stay here? Surely there are better places to be. The plain fact is that America is a Christian nation. It always has been. Part of our greatness is that we have no state sanctioned religion (see 1st Amendment) and among all the nations that have ever been, America exercises the greatest tolerance for people of all other faiths or of no faith. Simple fact." C

"C, if you wish, re-read what I wrote and all of my answers to your question are in there. I speak of christianity because of two things....I know much about it and it is a force in this country like the jihad muslims are in the middle east.

I have no problem with anyone believing anything as long as it does not affect my life or anyone that does not want it in theirs. But christianity does, it seeks to influence and control others who want nothing to do with it. Why? Because this is what their 'god' commanded and they will follow through with utmost obedience and dedication, ruining the country in the process. Like I said, if they could just sit back, believe their bullshit and leave others alone...that is fine. But the christian belief system is not kind like so many non-believers and they themselves think...the kindness has an ulterior motive and is conditional. The bottom line is HELL for eternity for anyone who does not believe. And they will go to any extremes to see that their gods will will be done. I say bullshit." A

"You make a good point C. with an exception, nobody chooses to be an atheist, we just don't believe in some magical power making our decisions for us, logic overrides fantasy.
The argument you made that I did agree with is that all religions should be treated with the same respect , but we both know that will never happen as long as they are all willing to murder other humans in the name of their God." -B

"And C, some other religions are just as bad. Some are non-threatening and although may be delusional, do care about people and the environment and do not shame people or try to force their beliefs on others, or claim it is a 'Buddhist' nation etc.

And how is my anti-christianity 'dogma'. I am pointing out facts and truth here. Not my version of christianity. Having experienced it myself and married to one for eight years, I know what I am talking about. What I have pointed out is happening. The only parts I condemn are the violence of their beliefs and that they are trying to force it on others. What is wrong with that?

When someone of the christian faith talks to me and looks at me like I am a heathen and will be going to hell for eternity if I do not believe in their bullshit, I do not have automatic respect. And that is how all evangelical and dominionist believers function. They look down their noses like the rich do to the working class and the poor." -A

"We are not a 'Christian' nation C, that is just another right-wing lie designed to divide this country so we will be too busy fighting each other than addressing the real problems that are destroying this country." -B

"You are bending my mind with that one C. I know from sitting in many churches over the years listening to preachers and reading their material and the schizophrenic bible what they are up to. I am not cherry picking facts, just summing them up so people can understand what it all means without having to read a complete book on the subject which I could write.

If a religion promotes any sort of violence (or 'force') to further their cause, or force their beliefs on people via the political machine, I will speak out and speak hard. This needs to be fought.

Again I say, anyone can believe anything, that is a right here in the good ol USA supposedly, but the christians are bent on eliminating all heathen religions and inserting their creed as the national religion. So if you speak to a born again evangelical, they would not agree to freedom of 'any' religions...just theirs.

If you read up on the dominionists....a driving force in evangelical chriatianity....you will see that they want to take over the govt and all business and offer punishment and death to unbelievers of various kinds. I am very familiar with their mentality and what their purpose is, C, and just warning people before a complete takeover which could happen and I would suspect even you, with what you have said here, would not be a happy camper if their biblical wet dreams came true." -A

"Oh, this is a thrilling way to wake up---to a friendly discussion of perceptions and points of view. You may wish to check out your American history because many of the founders were not Christians. They were Deists! Check it out. It is a fascinating viewpoint at that time--- in this land of aboriginal natives, who respected all of life, did not make a decision until they considered how it would affect the next 7 generations.
They actually called the white women "cows" because the would "breed" so many children. (generalization) Am not sure but they would only have a child every 7 years or so. They seemed to know that this is a finite planet and could not feed a swollen population. So, many practiced birth control, keeping the land fertile. We got much of our constitution from the 7 nations of the Iriquois, which is another interesting avenue to pursue. As far as being a "Christian Nation" I feel that is an over-generalization, big time. My feeling is that this planet and surrounding universes are so Vast and Incomprehensible to the most astute and brilliant minds, that religion could not encompass any of that great mystery of nothingness, being, non-being. Why a simple rock just might know more than our small egos seem to get caught up in. It is unwise to to play with us vs. them. We are them." -D

"C, Two points:
1. If I choose to not believe in the Tooth Fairy, is that a choice or just common sense?
2. If this really was a Christian nation, there would be no homeless people and no hungry children. If we were to go by objective observation, (let's say an alien from another galaxy lands here and does a brief assessment of cultures around the world) that alien would notice we're the only industrialized nation that does not offer universal healthcare, and he'd notice our social safety net is severely underfunded, resulting in much unnecessary human suffering compared to other countries. This begs the question, if we really are Christian nation, does the pathetic condition of our country reflect poorly on Christianity, or just on the moral character of those who vote against ending human suffering?" -E

"I'm late in this conversation and didn't make it all the way thru but in regards to the idea that this is or isn't a christian nation. Regardless of whether or not there is a majority of proclaimed christians, you cannot call it a christian nation and maintain that there is freedom of religion.

Based on the following facts- "White Americans are the racial majority, with a 77.7% share of the U.S. population, according to the 2013 U.S. Census. Hispanic and Latino Americans amount to 17.1% of the population, making up the largest minority. African Americans are the largest racial minority, amounting to 13.2% of the population." - Would you ever claim this is a White Nation? I would hope not." - Me

Some Thoughts in Support of a Resource Based Economy

Every revolutionary idea seems to evoke three stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the phrases: (1) It’s completely impossible. (2) It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing. (3) I said it was a good idea all along.

Resource based economy

Money has lost its intrinsic value and it serves only now to stratify society and create massive inequality. If peoples contribution to society was the measure of prosperity rather than a monetary valuation then the worlds problems would quickly disappear. Those who currently contribute the least to humanity gain the most while those struggling and working hard for social progression are often ostracized and persecuted. A resource based economy would go a long way to redress the problem we face and help to move humanity to a not only sustainable but abundant future.

The crazy people are running the asylum

Yes. I believe it would be beneficial to switch to a resource-based economy...

Thinking about this just in terms of money is also just looking at one facet of a multifaceted problem. The current system facilitates wage slavery, poverty, social health issues, gross inequality, a grossly uneven playing field, a severe diminishment of humanity's fuller potential, letting the inmates run the asylum, further degradation of social institutions, including but certainly not limited to the sham that masquerades as the *justice* institutions certainly in the west and more than likely elsewhere.

Posted by: SStrohm

Technological unemployment, divisive hierarchal structures, scarcity driven economic systems, debt based money systems result in poverty, territorial disputes and ultimately war.

A Resource Based Economic model proposes an end to the Monetary System and of course we don't need money. If we needed money to get things done we'd have become extinct long before the first civilisation. The monetary system corrupts our behaviour and generates a fatal value system disorder. It is out-dated and can only function if there is scarcity, which is the reason we pay farmers not to grow food when children are starving around the world. Abundance is the key, If we can produce in abundance, which we can easily, then money would no longer required. We need to evolve.

Argument:  While a resource-based economy would have its benefits, it would also create many problems that could harm the overall economy. In today's complex economy, it is sometimes necessary for governments to "create money" by printing more of it, especially in times of emergency. A resource economy would remove this ability and, thus, could create enormous difficulties. posted by EminentBennett93

Response: 

 If you look past the conceptual ideas and delve into the mechanics of such a system (i.E. Print on demand production, home 3-d printing, automated production/distribution of products with complete their complete sustainability considered before creation, vertical farms, access centers, strategic design, etc.) you will see that it solves FAR more problems than it creates. Money is not evil, it is simply the training wheels that we used for thousands of years in a long epoch of scarcity. With that very important variable being overcome, the actual need for money, servitude, and trade becomes obsolete. 

Try to remember the fact that money is an intangible invention - a symbolic representation of value in an environment of scarcity, not a resource (you cannot eat it, build with it, and it has no place in an ecosystem). If there were some emergency in a fully realized RBE, we wouldn't be lobbying our congressmen, printing more money from central banks, and raising the debt ceiling -- we would utilize the best tools we have in a scientific manner (using the scientific method) to determine how to solve these problems. Everyone who has something to offer in terms of ideas would have a voice, and a method of contribution. 

This is a holistic systems approach, reflecting a modern understanding of how our actions affect our environment, and vice versa. Taking our cues from nature is the first step in understanding how to maintain balance between humans and the ecology of the planet. In short, to understand the totality of the RBE idea, try to remember that everything you have learned about economics, money, government, and human behavior are all based on an environment of real or perpetuated scarcity. Removing that variable, even over a long period of time, will have immeasurably positive effects on our species. 

I would recommend viewing "Our Technical Reality" on youtube to get an idea of how efficient we can make our energy infrastructure, for a start. There are also numerous videos and lectures about the effect of meeting human needs in a strategic manner, and how that affects our behavior and worldview

Argument: Our country works well with the economy we have.  The economy we have now is consumer based. We can and will make this work once we get out of the pointless wars that we are in. The reason our country is in the mess that it is in right now is because our government got us into wars that we can not afford.

Posted by: 5c0tJung

Responses: 

 The country (assuming you mean America) doesn't work well at all...50 million people don't even have organized health care, and 99% of the population is a wage slave of some kind. Furthermore, you can't just excerpt one nation from the world and base decisions on that - our current approach to society building leaves almost 1 billion humans going hungry, in spite of us having ample food and resources to feed them with. A money-based society is nothing but a pure, unadulterated failure.

3.1 billion without access to clean water when there is plenty enough clean water and resources to give these people access to it. 
- Millions homeless when we can build houses with industrial sized 3D printers for low resource cost.
- Money breeds corruption in politics and business, it cannot be escaped no matter how many laws you institute. 
- There is no reason to continue an impractical means of distributing resources when it causes so much pin and suffering in the world.

Argument: Our country works well with the economy we have. The economy we have now is consumer based. We can and will make this work once we get out of the pointless wars that we are in. The reason our country is in the mess that it is in right now is because our government got us into wars that we can not afford...

Posted by: UncoveredGaylord73

Responses: 

 A resource-based economy is not simply abolishing money. "Without money, people couldn't afford"... "afford" itself is an argument about money, not resources. A resource based economy takes an inventory of all the resources on the Earth (not money) and allocates those resources based on real-world priorities. It's not the abolishment of all technology, rather the opposite, it's embracing technology to the fullest to give all humans what they need and much of what they want. 

 In a resource based society there is no money, so switching to a more effiecent way of doing things would be easier because we were not have to worry about finding the funds to do it. This type of proposes we have technology do all things for us. So every thing will be build by self automated machines and fixed by them too. Things will be build to last and if it happens to malfuntion then all things are replaced for free, because there is no money.

That is of course assuming that people would stop doing the things that they are already doing, like building, innovating, and producing more technology. Money does not create these things, people do. Money is just a piece of paper. It is not a resource.

Argument: Get rid of money and the psychopaths that use it to bully. If we are to rely on a resource based economy it will be ruled by the powerful psychopaths that know how to take more for their selves. It will be no better than if we had money. We need to get rid of money and the people that like to make reckless choices that endanger and deprive others of resources they don't know how to control. Might does not make right.

Posted by: David_Harvey

Responses: 

A RBE is not possible with 'powerful psychopaths' in existence -- meaning we need to change our education (and thus value systems for future generations) so that sustainability and alignment with nature is the prime focus, rather than acquisition of material wealth and advantage over others in a competitive manner. To those who have not thoroughly examined the tenets and systems of a RBE, these claims seem exaggerated and unlikely, however the trends are clear in terms of our failing education system, and our even worse failing economy. As long as a social system rewards disadvantaging others, pitting people against each other for the basic needs of life (either in literal physical confrontation, or competition for jobs), then powerful psychopaths is what we will get. This transition will be a long and arduous process, but the more we embrace sustainability and stop worrying about how this affects a puppet economy (which does not represent or even consider the life ground of humans and other species in its foundational assumptions) , the better off we will be in every measurable sense. 
By viewing human behavior and indoctrination as a spectrum, it becomes quite obvious that we are products of our environment. Thus, the more we improve our physical and psychological environment (removing incentives to disadvantage others, encouraging cooperation) the better off we will all be, and the less 'powerful psychopaths' there will be - because no reward will then come from that behavior.

Argument: Flawed idea is flawed. 

The idea behind resourse based economics is built on flawed logic about the apparent evils of money without stopping to consider why monetary systems are so widespread, and were even in nominally communist countries.

One cannot simply just remove money from the equation - it serves so many useful purposes in our society that even without a central currency existing, people would still operate in a way that we can recognise today as being monetary in nature.

Responses: 

keenondebate:

Actually, the case is the opposite. You need to ask why money is there to begin with, and if it serves its purpose. Monetary systems are wide spread, because they are a function of scarcity. They are necessary in some form in a scarce environment. For instance, why is it, that no one is selling air? Could it be because it is abundant? (The way things are going, the last day of free air may unfortunately be on the horizon, though).

If you create an environment that effectively eliminates scarcity, then you don't need money. Money is a means of exchange. If you eliminate scarcity, there is no need for exchange. I am not saying that it's an easy task. But I am saying, that it is absolutely possible, given our current state of technology and scientific understandings. Every bit of tech needed to achieve just that is available today. I'll be happy to point you to it, if you like.

Life.sent1nel:

Money creates a system of "Haves" and "Have-nots" as there is a controlled amount of the stuff in circulation. It is a flawed and failing system that needs to be revised. RBEs present a very valid option for removing it from our lives.

Argument:   Would just lead to more wars & competition over resources What do you think wars are fought over? Human rights? Good will? Hell no, it's about resources & power. Focuses on resources purely would just support more aggressive actions, not only towards other countries but towards the environment. I don't know how any sane person wants that. I don't think it would lead to peace or true stability as others have mentioned but instead very aggressive and overt competition.

Responses: Rowan_is_warm: 

Quite the opposite you assume the a RBE is about the trading of goods and resources instead of bartering with money. Quite the contrary. In this economy we would reach a state of production that eliminates scarcity, and the resources will be intelligently managed by advanced systems that will continually assess the capacity of the populace to minimize waste and maximize efficient. This means that nothing has value which eliminates the behavioral issues associated and influenced by he existence of money. The need of ALL will be met without the need for money and a job to acquire resources. That way of thinking will be decimated. The new system will bring an incentive and value system that puts the well being of humans FIRST, instead of a system serving the needs of the top 1% you will have EVERYTHING YOU NEED for free (money will never come into this it will be gone). The new incentive will be advancing and seeing the world become better and better. This way there will be virtually no crimes, wars, and the input of a relevant educational systems will bring everyone to their highest possible level of mental and social concessions that will reflect the world and everyone and everything in our society. I could go on for pages and pages...If you have any further questions, you need only ask or simply watch more of the videos about the Venus Project, watch this video for more information http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w, or buy the book "The best money can't buy" cheers :)

Argument: A system which goes against human nature. 

For a resource based economy to work we would have to dissolve national boundaries. The world would have to become one nation. This would be an impossible task that could only be achieved through force as their would always be at least one country that would not want to dissolve it's borders. 

In a highly technically advanced world without money people would still need to do some jobs to design new machines, manage repairs, plan farms. However, they would be expected to do this for no personal gain monetary or status reward, this would invariably result in slow or non existent repairs, work boredom/dissatisfaction and so planning leading to a dysfunctional system.