Facebook politics

We all know that there is a tremendous impact on our culture from emerging social networks...yet older generations are largely absent from this sphere.

One application I use when discussing this impact is in the realm of workers' unions...my argument is, simply, that Facebook makes a continuous union entirely irrelevant. With real-time group updates, any employee can communicate en mass with all other employees; if there is a perceived abuse (lets say a contract violating staff meeting OMGrsh!!), the employee that feels strongly about it could contact all others and organize resistance against said staff meeting very quickly...and for *free.* This bypasses all need of and all use for union personnel which have classically been committed to doing said organizing for a living. Further, this decentralizes 'the union' to the point where it not only gets back to caring about the workers, it is composed entirely of small, voluntary efforts directly from professionally equal workers. The most recognizable flaw in that framework is human laziness and the will to $pay$ a bit to have someone else make your career decisions. Regardless, this is a small-scale example of the greater decentralization of American culture.

Our nation began as one focused as much as possible on decentralization of power and culture. As we "progressed," we happened upon a little guy named FDR and the trend was reversed until, as technology has progressed, we return to the upward course toward a generally decentralized culture (not government....in a democracy, political changes always follow cultural changes). We can use television as an illustration: in the 50's, you have 5 shows to watch at any given time; today you have (in my household) over 900. The difference isn't just the amount of channels, of course, its what is on: today's shows/songs/entertainment are much more tailored to specific demographics and lives where people will be most comfortable with them...this is at direct opposition to the beginning days of TV where, if you were to watch television, you had to accept culture you weren't used to...this socialized a more monolithic cultural unity.

Today, I don't have to watch MTV or other liberal stations. I can watch a Fraiser re-run every night, be entirely content and fully secure in my cultural identity. This disassociates me with Monica Conyers, Hank Williams Jr., Pierre from Montreal, Adolf from Germany, Abib from Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. With our type of selective data accessibility, we don't have to see outside our adopted norms nor do we have to even speak with people from our colleges.

My Blackberry Pearl allows me to just speak with Katelyn and a handful of pre-existing friends; if I choose, I don't ever have to 'make' friends again and it's not even necessary that I speak to my Laker peers. I can block all but an isolated group of peers from my Facebook StalkerFeed (a list of news on what your 'Friends' are doing). Effectively, we can cut ourselves off from any and all socialization beyond that which has already occurred...and we do.

As stated above, this is nothing new: geographically-based social isolation is in our American blood! The post-war rise of the 'sub-division,' small towns ('nuff said), pop-culture-famous neighborhoods in New York City, lifestyle based isolation (Saugatuck/Douglas), immigrant communites (Holland, Chinatown): these all have existed for hundreds of years and all are based around the cultural pluralism that existed at the Founding. Now, the current trend is nothing bad...you cant stop it, I cant stop it, and the government surely cant stop it.

The latter point destroys hope for a D.C. central government with anything above basic power: decentralization of culture MUST be followed by a return to the wells of democracy at the local and state levels. If you don't, you end up with the USSR's premiership in the Oval Office...someone (like Obama is now) who presses ideas based on the President's perceptions (which are vastly different than, say, mine) leading to totalitarian domination of segments of the population (i.e. what is typicalized as the the "white middle class" but is actually made up of all races, nationalities, religions, etc. It is the achievement class, a group centered around personal drive and capitalism, that is being targeted by this administration in favor of those Obama thinks inherently 'deserve' to be bettered.)

The threat is not that Obama is doing things "wrong" (we simply see them differently...the money is going away from us to those "deserving," but for Democrats, the money always comes from benevolent and kind government officials) but that he's being powerful, period. It's not right to force your norms and mores upon anybody, a decentralized system prevents this type of oppression. With Facebook generating 'artificial towns' and the economy being more and more online, we are shuffling to be with those we're comfortable with in settings of our liking. Socialism doesnt work because it overrides fundamental differences and dismantles productivity (See: France). The only sustainable answer is returning to localities/states, where government stays with people already on my Contact list, that think along the same lines as 'me,' and are right down the street/highway.

Barack Hussein Obama is a Racist

On his website, there is a section where Hussein Obama's handlers respond to "Smears" with "Truths." What they dont really understand is that the truths are just as bad as the smears.

The following quote is offered as a "truth:"

"Yes, I'd seen weakness in other men--Gramps and his disappointments, Lolo and his compromise. But these men had become object lessons for me, men I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela. And if later I saw that the black men I knew--Frank or Ray or Will or Rafiq--fell short of such lofty standards; if I had learned to respect these men for the struggles they went through, recognizing them as my own--my father's voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people's struggle. Wake up, black man!"

Alrighty then...you make your decision on it now...

Here's mine:

Martin Robison Delany, the first advocate of a "black nation." Malcolm X, 'black supremist' and founder of the 'Black Muslims'. W.E.B. DuBois, the self-described 'black socialist;' he advocated that the 'blacks' ought to overthrow the 'whites' by force. Nelson Mandela, respected by myself and the world for acting against apartheid in South Africa...though his actions were of terrorism and against the 'white ruling class;' (I'm actually quite sad that 'black separatist' Barack Obama is attempting to put himself on the same par as Mandela). It's all actually quite sad.

While McCain and the 'evil right-wing bloggers and pundits' hold men like George Washington, TJeff, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., and Ronald Reagan in high esteem; Hussein Obama holds these crazis, advocates of racial war, black supremacists, SOCIALISTS, Black Muslims, and Anti-American revolutionaries as his role models.

If you read my commentary on race, you'll find that Barack Hussein Obama's positions and causes are inherently racist and violently so when one considers that he disregards Martin Luther King Jr. and Booker T. Washington in his list of 'black heroes.'

I mourn the day the politically uneducated and misled masses elect this openly prejudiced, Anti-American hypocrite to the office fit for a bigger man.

The Affirmative Action Bake Sale

Earlier I googled "Grand Valley State Republicans" and found a news article dated April 21, 2005 and detailing the exploits of one Kyle Rausch, organizer of the GVSU GOP. The event, titled the "Affirmative Action Bake Sale," got coverage from the Grand Rapids press (granted it was coverage of the negative aspects, buuutttt.....) and is, in my opinion, a shining example of what GOP groups and prominent individuals ought to be doing.

The genius behind it is the visibility of the bake sale. Affirmative Action is a very abstract term and its discrimination isn't referenced when they give breaks to fill their quotas. Now, 'official' Affirmative Action was ended with the last ballot initiative (way to go!) but it, naturally, remains.

Do you think democracy is going to rule when we retain the same liberal supporters of the program? They enforced it with a passion and actually believed in its absent benefits:do you think their elitist mindset will care what We the People have determined to be illegal? The answer is a dead no.

The new challenge before us is one of dual subordinating clauses. The primary is to bring awareness to the lingering Affirmative Action supporters in government and in university administration while using this awareness to educate the misled populace so we can finally oust [Carl Levin] these people. Rousch's program did its part for the fight in '05, our fight is in '08 is to simplify the battleground.

Bob Genetski's idea on reorganizing our system of regents will help with this. If we cut the number of people we have to identify and combat, it'll become easier to get rid of those that cling to the old, racist ways.

You can find an explanation of his idea here.

Concerning Race

Nearing the end of the school year, I was asked to by a first year teacher to attend a class discussion on politics. The class, Modern World History, was your typical rabble of politically indoctrinated public school attendees (the topic of the day was "Is religious involvement in government Fascist?" My response was "No, it is Fascist when what you believe becomes political.") that enjoyed another with an opinion differing from their teacher's. So, the discussion gradually came to race.
Many of the people reading will already understand my take on race. Many will have a partial take or no take at all; for all of them, I'll detail why I'm right :) . I am not a racist. Why? Because I do not recognize race itself. The fact stands that creating racial differences for whatever reason is racism, oppressive, prejudiced, and non-Christian.
The question I asked the Modern World History class was this: "Name for me the differences between what society considers a 'black man' and what society considers a 'white man.'" One sheepish student raised his hand and said something to the effect of "their previous condition of servitude" (obviously citing the Constitution). To this I responded, "find me one living former slave" and proceeded to pose the question again. A few moments' silence brought me to announce, "It's okay to say it, our politicians and bureaucrats recognize it. The difference is skin color." I continued, "And that is inherently racist, is it not?" (Some nods at this point) "Sure there are stats out there that tell us that 'blacks' commit more crimes and are more likely to be poor and drop out of high school. My answer is simple: so? Do all 'blacks' drop out and break the law? No. Do all 'whites' stay in school and within bounds of the law? No. So why not aim your programs at addressing groups as to their exploits and not their race?"
The reason is that the Democratic Party will not give up these divisions. Who's establishment has made a huge fuss about Obama's father being from Kenya? The liberal one. They've done this because they benefit from it. By making one candidate "this" and the other "this", you have all of "these" people voting for the one that you say is like them, and all of "these" people voting for the one you say is like them. It's a form of 'class' warfare. Typical tactics from those who have been infected by a socialist base. This division is seen in a short exchange I had with the teacher of this class...
"This is the kicker," I said to the class and paused for a moment, "Nigger." Immediately the teacher attempted to deter me from continuing. In response I asked, "Why is this word considered offensive?" No hands. "C'mon, why?" Still none, "It's because you've been told it's to be considered offensive. Is this offensive: you are all hermeneutics?" I pointed at one kid, "Is it?" His response was that he had no clue what the word meant. "Of course, so how can it be offensive? Would you find the word 'Nigger' offensive if the media, your teachers, and society as a whole didn't tell you it was to be? The answer's obviously no."
At this point the teacher interjected, "Regardless, it is still offensive and if you screamed it on my doorstep, I'd hide behind the nearest couch." It was perfect. The racism brought on by liberal divisiveness right there against my presentation.
I retorted, "That's the kind of racism I'm talking about. By saying that, it reveals that you think that what you consider the 'black community' is violent and destructive. Barbaric, even. Lesser than you?" Granted, this was putting words in his mouth, but hey, it's what you do in a political discussion.
Continuing where I left off, "The message I really just want to get across that race is a fabricated separation. The Bible tells us that all people on all shores are of one blood, and that is the blood of Christ." Acts 17:26 and Romans 12:5, if you're interested. "Outside the medical field, race doesn't exist. Government shouldn't involve race in anything. In our lives we shouldn't bind others in the chains of racial classification. Regardless from where our parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents came from, we are all Americans and should be seen by each other as that and only that. Any questions?"
This is all from memory about an event about a month ago. Needless to say, he didn't invite me back. Also, please leave comments on what you think of this entry. I know at least some people read it and it is time we started some discussion.
Any questions?