Backlash from Michael Thomas, among others, forces Drew Brees to clarify comments

blackangold · 06-04-2020, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by rezburna

Poverty and violent criminality go hand in hand. There’s study after study detailing that. Most importantly, that should have no bearing on police brutality. Maybe if Black people were killing police at an alarming rate I could see the connection. And snitches get stitches is universal law in all street environments. Does the Yakuza allow snitches? Italians? Mexicans? Nobody does.

Your ideas for legislation are great though for those who see legislation as the end goal.

What do you think some solutions are (end goal)?

rezburna · 06-04-2020, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by blackangold

What do you think some solutions are (end goal)?

I have to preface the statement by reiterating that I'm not a reformist in ideology. However, most of my community are proponents of reform. When Malcolm X said "By Any Means Necessary" what that really meant was use whatever works. If non-violent protest works, do it. If voting works, do it. If looting and rioting works, do it. If all out warfare works, do it. So I must meet my people where they are.

Therefore, we need legislation that helps put more control of the land, resources, and the means of production in our hands. There was a Homestead Act in 1862 that gave Americans up to 160 acres of federal land in the West. You had the Boomer-Sooner rush of Oklahoma. We need something like that to shrink this large wealth gap.

Again, this is a capitalistic society. How can we fix our faces to say things are equal when one race controls well over 70% (likely and understatement) of the wealth? So if reform is the route, we need any and all legislation that will spread the balance of power more evenly; even if that only means that the amount of wealth, land, and resources is equivalent to our overall population. That would be a VAST improvement.

STEM is the way of the future. Within our own communities we could emphasize focusing on that. You can take those skills anywhere. It doesn't even have to be here in America. I'm pro-gun. So I'm sure we all have a lot in common there.

We need emphasis on self-empowerment and an establishment of the cultural identity we had to give up because of the power structure. It's a lot we can do on our own, and legislation is only as good as the people enforcing it, but a genuine effort goes a long way.

blackangold · 06-04-2020, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by rezburna

I have to preface the statement by reiterating that I'm not a reformist in ideology. However, most of my community are proponents of reform. When Malcolm X said "By Any Means Necessary" what that really meant was use whatever works. If non-violent protest works, do it. If voting works, do it. If looting and rioting works, do it. If all out warfare works, do it. So I must meet my people where they are.

Therefore, we need legislation that helps put more control of the land, resources, and the means of production in our hands. There was a Homestead Act in 1862 that gave Americans up to 160 acres of federal land in the West. You had the Boomer-Sooner rush of Oklahoma. We need something like that to shrink this large wealth gap.

Again, this is a capitalistic society. How can we fix our faces to say things are equal when one race controls well over 70% (likely and understatement) of the wealth? So if reform is the route, we need any and all legislation that will spread the balance of power more evenly; even if that only means that the amount of wealth, land, and resources is equivalent to our overall population. That would be a VAST improvement.

STEM is the way of the future. Within our own communities we could emphasize focusing on that. You can take those skills anywhere. It doesn't even have to be here in America. I'm pro-gun. So I'm sure we all have a lot in common there.

We need emphasis on self-empowerment and an establishment of the cultural identity we had to give up because of the power structure. It's a lot we can do on our own, and legislation is only as good as the people enforcing it, but a genuine effort goes a long way.

Interesting points. I can't say I agree with "any means necessary", but I do understand the thought behind it. Violence only leads to escalation of violence. I thought MLK was much more effective than Malcolm for that reason, he brought all people together in the face of violence and it made his argument much more clear. Throwing violence into the equation and the message no longer becomes the focus.

For example, everyone was outraged by Floyd's death and the country as a whole saw the abuse taking place. If a MLK figure were around to channel that into massive marches and sit-ins EVERYONE would be aligned. Instead, we see the media constantly talking about the riots, constantly looking for the next thing to be outraged at (Drew). It's diluting the message...

I agree that the wealth gap in this country has grown to a extreme, and it's not acceptable. Unfortunately, the elite in this country do not care about the working or middle class regardless of race. Upward mobility has slowed down since the 90's, and the reason for it? Globalism. In 1998 this country's 'elite' sold the future to China. We lost millions of middle class jobs and the most impacted were minority communities. 30 Years ago you could come out of high school, go to work and land a job to support a family and house...

I wish I knew the answer to the wealth disparity, but the problem is those that really control the wealth are no longer American's, they are Global citizens. If you impose laws on them to take some of that wealth, they'll move their assets to another country.

Who are the top lobbying groups?
Who are the people controlling the media?
What do they have in common (aside from race)?
Why do they hold meetings every year (Bilderberg meetings)?
All questions that Americans should want answers to.

I love your last few paragraphs Rez, think we have a lot in common on those fronts.

rezburna · 06-04-2020, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by blackangold

Interesting points. I can't say I agree with "any means necessary", but I do understand the thought behind it. Violence only leads to escalation of violence. I thought MLK was much more effective than Malcolm for that reason, he brought all people together in the face of violence and it made his argument much more clear. Throwing violence into the equation and the message no longer becomes the focus.

For example, everyone was outraged by Floyd's death and the country as a whole saw the abuse taking place. If a MLK figure were around to channel that into massive marches and sit-ins EVERYONE would be aligned. Instead, we see the media constantly talking about the riots, constantly looking for the next thing to be outraged at (Drew). It's diluting the message...

I agree that the wealth gap in this country has grown to a extreme, and it's not acceptable. Unfortunately, the elite in this country do not care about the working or middle class regardless of race. Upward mobility has slowed down since the 90's, and the reason for it? Globalism. In 1998 this country's 'elite' sold the future to China. We lost millions of middle class jobs and the most impacted were minority communities. 30 Years ago you could come out of high school, go to work and land a job to support a family and house...

I wish I knew the answer to the wealth disparity, but the problem is those that really control the wealth are no longer American's, they are Global citizens. If you impose laws on them to take some of that wealth, they'll move their assets to another country.

Who are the top lobbying groups?
Who are the people controlling the media?
What do they have in common (aside from race)?
Why do they hold meetings every year (Bilderberg meetings)?
All questions that Americans should want answers to.

I love your last few paragraphs Rez, think we have a lot in common on those fronts.

I agree with everything except MLK being more effective than Malcolm. I found it be a misnomer. To say violence is ineffective is to say that war in general is in effective. The military uses intimidation and violence all the time to get their point across if middle ground can’t be found through other means (or at least they say they try to find middle ground first).

We didn’t see the Civil Rights Act of 1968 until King was murdered and riots broke out all across the country. Not only the riots, but the act of violence against King sparked change. If violence only begets violence, I would contend that the police need to stop using violence then. I’d also contend that that’s an irrational request to a certain extent, so again, whatever yields the optimal results is something I’ll support.

Other than that, it’s safe to say I agree with you on the elites and their globalist agenda. I’ll even go as far as to say that from a militaristic standpoint I’d rather deal with the Right and their nationalism than the Left and their globalism. Not to say that those ideologies are exclusive to either party, but Trump is no globalist, and Biden is a self proclaimed Zionist. I’m probably rambling at this point. My bad.

rezburna · 06-04-2020, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by blackangold

What do you think some solutions are (end goal)?

Also, I appreciate the question.

06-04-2020, 10:06 AM	#1
blackangold 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,422	Re: Backlash from Michael Thomas, among others, forces Drew Brees to clarify comments Originally Posted by rezburna Poverty and violent criminality go hand in hand. There’s study after study detailing that. Most importantly, that should have no bearing on police brutality. Maybe if Black people were killing police at an alarming rate I could see the connection. And snitches get stitches is universal law in all street environments. Does the Yakuza allow snitches? Italians? Mexicans? Nobody does. Your ideas for legislation are great though for those who see legislation as the end goal. What do you think some solutions are (end goal)? OldMaid and rezburna like this.

06-04-2020, 10:17 AM	#2
rezburna 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Kenner, LA Posts: 8,094	Re: Backlash from Michael Thomas, among others, forces Drew Brees to clarify comments Originally Posted by blackangold What do you think some solutions are (end goal)? I have to preface the statement by reiterating that I'm not a reformist in ideology. However, most of my community are proponents of reform. When Malcolm X said "By Any Means Necessary" what that really meant was use whatever works. If non-violent protest works, do it. If voting works, do it. If looting and rioting works, do it. If all out warfare works, do it. So I must meet my people where they are. Therefore, we need legislation that helps put more control of the land, resources, and the means of production in our hands. There was a Homestead Act in 1862 that gave Americans up to 160 acres of federal land in the West. You had the Boomer-Sooner rush of Oklahoma. We need something like that to shrink this large wealth gap. Again, this is a capitalistic society. How can we fix our faces to say things are equal when one race controls well over 70% (likely and understatement) of the wealth? So if reform is the route, we need any and all legislation that will spread the balance of power more evenly; even if that only means that the amount of wealth, land, and resources is equivalent to our overall population. That would be a VAST improvement. STEM is the way of the future. Within our own communities we could emphasize focusing on that. You can take those skills anywhere. It doesn't even have to be here in America. I'm pro-gun. So I'm sure we all have a lot in common there. We need emphasis on self-empowerment and an establishment of the cultural identity we had to give up because of the power structure. It's a lot we can do on our own, and legislation is only as good as the people enforcing it, but a genuine effort goes a long way. cmike likes this.
	"The first need of a free people is to define their own terms.” - Stokely Carmichael

06-04-2020, 11:50 AM	#3
blackangold 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,422	Re: Backlash from Michael Thomas, among others, forces Drew Brees to clarify comments Originally Posted by rezburna I have to preface the statement by reiterating that I'm not a reformist in ideology. However, most of my community are proponents of reform. When Malcolm X said "By Any Means Necessary" what that really meant was use whatever works. If non-violent protest works, do it. If voting works, do it. If looting and rioting works, do it. If all out warfare works, do it. So I must meet my people where they are. Therefore, we need legislation that helps put more control of the land, resources, and the means of production in our hands. There was a Homestead Act in 1862 that gave Americans up to 160 acres of federal land in the West. You had the Boomer-Sooner rush of Oklahoma. We need something like that to shrink this large wealth gap. Again, this is a capitalistic society. How can we fix our faces to say things are equal when one race controls well over 70% (likely and understatement) of the wealth? So if reform is the route, we need any and all legislation that will spread the balance of power more evenly; even if that only means that the amount of wealth, land, and resources is equivalent to our overall population. That would be a VAST improvement. STEM is the way of the future. Within our own communities we could emphasize focusing on that. You can take those skills anywhere. It doesn't even have to be here in America. I'm pro-gun. So I'm sure we all have a lot in common there. We need emphasis on self-empowerment and an establishment of the cultural identity we had to give up because of the power structure. It's a lot we can do on our own, and legislation is only as good as the people enforcing it, but a genuine effort goes a long way. Interesting points. I can't say I agree with "any means necessary", but I do understand the thought behind it. Violence only leads to escalation of violence. I thought MLK was much more effective than Malcolm for that reason, he brought all people together in the face of violence and it made his argument much more clear. Throwing violence into the equation and the message no longer becomes the focus. For example, everyone was outraged by Floyd's death and the country as a whole saw the abuse taking place. If a MLK figure were around to channel that into massive marches and sit-ins EVERYONE would be aligned. Instead, we see the media constantly talking about the riots, constantly looking for the next thing to be outraged at (Drew). It's diluting the message... I agree that the wealth gap in this country has grown to a extreme, and it's not acceptable. Unfortunately, the elite in this country do not care about the working or middle class regardless of race. Upward mobility has slowed down since the 90's, and the reason for it? Globalism. In 1998 this country's 'elite' sold the future to China. We lost millions of middle class jobs and the most impacted were minority communities. 30 Years ago you could come out of high school, go to work and land a job to support a family and house... I wish I knew the answer to the wealth disparity, but the problem is those that really control the wealth are no longer American's, they are Global citizens. If you impose laws on them to take some of that wealth, they'll move their assets to another country. Who are the top lobbying groups? Who are the people controlling the media? What do they have in common (aside from race)? Why do they hold meetings every year (Bilderberg meetings)? All questions that Americans should want answers to. I love your last few paragraphs Rez, think we have a lot in common on those fronts. AsylumGuido, OldMaid and rezburna like this.
	The Saints are 0-42 when running the ball less than 15 times in a game.

06-04-2020, 12:09 PM	#4
rezburna 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Kenner, LA Posts: 8,094	Re: Backlash from Michael Thomas, among others, forces Drew Brees to clarify comments Originally Posted by blackangold Interesting points. I can't say I agree with "any means necessary", but I do understand the thought behind it. Violence only leads to escalation of violence. I thought MLK was much more effective than Malcolm for that reason, he brought all people together in the face of violence and it made his argument much more clear. Throwing violence into the equation and the message no longer becomes the focus. For example, everyone was outraged by Floyd's death and the country as a whole saw the abuse taking place. If a MLK figure were around to channel that into massive marches and sit-ins EVERYONE would be aligned. Instead, we see the media constantly talking about the riots, constantly looking for the next thing to be outraged at (Drew). It's diluting the message... I agree that the wealth gap in this country has grown to a extreme, and it's not acceptable. Unfortunately, the elite in this country do not care about the working or middle class regardless of race. Upward mobility has slowed down since the 90's, and the reason for it? Globalism. In 1998 this country's 'elite' sold the future to China. We lost millions of middle class jobs and the most impacted were minority communities. 30 Years ago you could come out of high school, go to work and land a job to support a family and house... I wish I knew the answer to the wealth disparity, but the problem is those that really control the wealth are no longer American's, they are Global citizens. If you impose laws on them to take some of that wealth, they'll move their assets to another country. Who are the top lobbying groups? Who are the people controlling the media? What do they have in common (aside from race)? Why do they hold meetings every year (Bilderberg meetings)? All questions that Americans should want answers to. I love your last few paragraphs Rez, think we have a lot in common on those fronts. I agree with everything except MLK being more effective than Malcolm. I found it be a misnomer. To say violence is ineffective is to say that war in general is in effective. The military uses intimidation and violence all the time to get their point across if middle ground can’t be found through other means (or at least they say they try to find middle ground first). We didn’t see the Civil Rights Act of 1968 until King was murdered and riots broke out all across the country. Not only the riots, but the act of violence against King sparked change. If violence only begets violence, I would contend that the police need to stop using violence then. I’d also contend that that’s an irrational request to a certain extent, so again, whatever yields the optimal results is something I’ll support. Other than that, it’s safe to say I agree with you on the elites and their globalist agenda. I’ll even go as far as to say that from a militaristic standpoint I’d rather deal with the Right and their nationalism than the Left and their globalism. Not to say that those ideologies are exclusive to either party, but Trump is no globalist, and Biden is a self proclaimed Zionist. I’m probably rambling at this point. My bad. blackangold likes this.
	"The first need of a free people is to define their own terms.” - Stokely Carmichael

06-04-2020, 10:23 AM	#5
rezburna 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Kenner, LA Posts: 8,094	Re: Backlash from Michael Thomas, among others, forces Drew Brees to clarify comments Originally Posted by blackangold What do you think some solutions are (end goal)? Also, I appreciate the question. OldMaid, cmike, blackangold and 1 others like this.