Hello, there.

Haven't read you for a while, not after reading one of the stories. I have to admit you can be in good company, with dialogue on the level of Tom Clancy's in "Patriot Games", which I couldn't finish. Anyway, I got curious about this one. Explains a lot.

I try to cover too much ground. Your post was amazing in it’s arrogance and, towards the end, cruelty. Here are some exerpts, some out of context, true, but I can't tell what the context means in parts.

"Communism has 3 definitions, only one of which is an economic theory. The other two are the political movement which accompanies the efforts to implement such a system and the third being a reference to communalism in general."

And which one do you think the proposed instructor is? Or do you jump to a conclusion?

"The forced political economic philosophy of Marx is nothing but suppression of individual liberties by political means."

The IMF is - - - - -? And it operates under? You would have to guess, capitalism, where it can.

"Molesting their minds, teaching them to be selfish and believe in "equality" for all, and that the state must enforce this "unequal equality"."

One nation under God, with freedom and justice for ALL.

"Yes, it exposes the real heart of Marx to say that communism is selfish.

First you say it promotes equality, then you say it's selfish. Now, if one were to start with a blank slate and try to design a selfish economic system, where do you think one would wind up? Capitalism. I don't know how an honest mind can deny that, and I think you try to later in that post. In fact, the proponents of capitalism say their big problem with other economic systems is that they aren't selfish enough.

"They try to point at capitalism and say it is the "evil selfish system" - when it is exactly the opposite."

Yep, there it is. Now, no economic system is "evil". Unrestrained they are all bad. Capitalism is fine, but tilted toward capital, so there have to be provisions to protect people. Communism and socialism are fine, but there have to be provisions to protect capital.

Capitalism will "work" best where there is a well-educated democracy with a relatively honest police force which doesn't confiscate the burgeoning wealth of the lower and middle classes. The other systems will work best where there is a poorly educated population with a less honest bureaucracy.

What most Republicans and Democrats agree has turned out to be the most successful program ever introduced into the American society is Social Security, which is socialistic.

"Jesus was the son of King Herod who had been told by a sooth-sayer that his son will claim the throne and rule his kingdom. So Herod tried to kill him off as a baby. His mother had him secreted away to Joseph with instructions to enroll him with the Essenes. So as a young man he hid with the Essenic order or white brotherhood (no not the KKK) He was taught the folly of Jehovah and the barbaric nature of this old Babylonian remnant. When he was around thirty he left and made his appearance, teaching and public speaking - and generally pi--ing of the San Hedrim by undermining all their Jehovah gobbledy-gook."

This is beyond me. While not a Christian in any conventional sense, I believe Jesus had the Answer. He was IT. And, I've read a lot about His life, haven't seen anything about His parentage other than He was the son of Joseph from the line of David, that he was the Son of God, and that his mother was Mary.

You seem to have elements of Moses life there, and elements which don't seem to fit anywhere in my frame of reference. By every account of His life I've read, and that would be probably 7 or 8 books, your description is "absolutely psychotic rambling" or"delusional".

"Jesus was not a communist. He disliked the excessive greed of the money-lenders and has the classic 'episode' where he goes berserk."

I hadn't thought of it before, but weren't those money-lenders "capitalists". I said that Jesus, and the early Christians for that matter, lived a communal life-style.

"Anyone running around naked like an animal, not intelligent enough to have even invented protective clothing, and having a society which consisted of thatched huts and which had absolutely no technocracy, whose only sport was killing neighboring tribes - would naturally be considered something less evolved than the rest of humanity."

Chauvanistic beyond imagination. The indigenous people of Africa are marvelously adapted to their environment. They don't wear a lot of clothes, because they didn't need to. Living in a warm environment near the Equator with all the food one needs growing outside the door sort of lends one to lay back and enjoy life, not scheme on how to screw your buddy out of something. The other guy, maybe, but not your buddy. The various tribes do steal from each other, honestly. (Figure it out - one can steal relatively honestly. For dishonest stealing, see "IMF".)

Those tribes of whom I've inquired had rather sophisticated religious, or spiritual, beliefs, and they lived with each other, or away from each other, reasonably well. They did fight, and take prisoners which they treated harshly.

Have you ever considered the Romans, the Vikings, the wars between England and France? The Crusades, the Inquisition, the treatment of the Irish, the treatment of Native Americans, WWI, WWII, fire-bombing, and on and on and on? Can you still put Caucasians on a higher plane than any other race when it comes to genocide and cruelty?

You probably can.

"So all these "evil europeans" saw very little "evil" in taking these folks out of the jungles and into a "civilized" world where they would be clothed, fed and protected from the elements, and live twenty or thirty years longer than their villagers back home in Africa."

The longer I stay with this the madder I get. We already covered "clothed". Western style clothing wasn't necessary in Africa. They were fed in Africa, they were as protected from the elements as they needed to be. I've been in a "working" Maasai hut in Africa, they are small and just fine. (Couldn't see well, so I moved my camera around taking pictures at about 75 degree intervals. The flash would show what was in front of it. The last picture showed a snaggle-toothed woman not 18 inches in front of me. I had no idea she was there. When the flash went off it blinded her, scared me, and the visit was over.)

The Africans I saw, and I was off the tourist track a bit of the time, were as human as I am, a bit above you, to be honest. They were kind, thoughtful, empathetic, and, as I said, marvelously adapted to their environment.

I don't know about you "capitalists", but what makes life worth living for me is my family and my friends. The other stuff is there to help enjoy the people.

You seem to truly believe you're doing someone a favor by dragging them away from their family and friends, putting a chain around their neck(sometimes only figuratively), clothing them in a colder climate, forcing them to work 10, 12, 14, hours a day, and then pointing out that a favor has been done here, they may be living longer. And calling that “civilized”. The temerity!!! (Now that I think about it, Trent Lott would do that, too.)

What kind of person would regard that as anything but "evil", no, I mean "EVIL". But show me the person who doesn't regard that as "EVIL" from afar, because I don't want to be close. What we would do to each other given the chance might not be pretty. Given the chance they would have me in chains, and I'd try to resist. They'd point out that I now had clothing, meals (free) and guaranteed employment and should feel grateful. Wretch that I am, I might not think that's a great deal.

Frankly, I just won't believe you believe what you posted. That would take a truly despicable human being, and it's beyond my comprehension that anyone on this board is that blind, stupid, unfeeling and cruel. Any two or three of those, but not all of them. To enslave people, drag them away from their families, friends, heritage, way of life, and then try to say that because they lived longer (with no evidence of that, even) it was a favor to them. And it was “civilized”.

"It was ascertained and generally accepted up until around 1940 that some races were not as evolved as others. Thousands of texts declared this as fact. All the children of these times were brought up with this as a commonly accepted fact of life."

I said that most of the time history was taught with a subtle racial prejudice. I didn't say that was malicious in intent, just a fact. You confirm you know that, but for some reason have to repeat what I said, claiming it contradicts me.

I could go on about your post. I won't. You won't see the point, and if anyone else is going to they will have by now. It isn't any fun any more to confront such blatant ignorance and unfeeling arrogance.

I do have to say that I would have expected more, far more, from the folks who agree with you.

Arf