Nov 25, 2005

Living Simply, Simply Living: The Relevance Of Thoreau’s Walden In A Hyper-Capitalist World

Share

On this, the most holy of days in the religion of consumerism, I am reprinting an essay I wrote for the journal Swans. I hope that you are able to keep in perspective that which is most important this holiday season.

The landscape of the present-day United States bears but little resemblance to the land described by Henry David Thoreau in Walden; the nation today is crisscrossed with multilane interstates, pocked with shopping malls and big box retailers, and the American wilderness has largely carved into zones for suburban and exurban housing.

It might be tempting for modern students to conclude that Thoreau has nothing to offer contemporary readers, since the land that he portrayed has changed so dramatically during the years since the publication of his literary magnum opus. Such a superficial dismissal of Walden is indicative of more than the usual undergraduate complaints about irrelevant classics; it suggests a national mindset that Thoreau’s ideas are incompatible with the modern American consumerist ideology. With this backdrop, a strong case can be made for the argument that Walden’s messages have even more relevance today than when Thoreau wrote the book; his advice of living simply – and simply living – takes on greater urgency in this era of fanatical consumption.

Thoreau believed that human beings did not require massive, palatial dwellings in order to live a healthy and joyful life; he decried the tendency to construct “for this world a family mansion, and for the next a family tomb.” His experimental home near Walden Pond reflected this philosophy, as it was largely constructed from second-hand materials. Thoreau built the house with an eye toward utility; there was virtually no wasted space, and every accoutrement had a useful function. At one point in the narrative, Thoreau considered the value of several rocks that once occupied a place on his desk:

I had three pieces of limestone on my desk, but I was terrified to find that they required to be dusted daily, when the furniture of my mind was all undusted still, and threw them out the window in disgust. How, then, could I have a furnished house? I would rather sit in the open air, for no dust gathers on the grass, unless where man has broken ground.

Thoreau perhaps foresaw the present American obsession with expensive suburban homes, recognizing a growing demand for domiciles that did not simply provide protection from the elements. The typical modern three-bedroom urban bungalow – which dwarfs most of the dwellings from Thoreau’s era – is no longer seen as the ideal home that it once was in the post-World War II building frenzy. Consumers seek, and builders construct, extravagant structures on large lots, and this high-end focus is fed by a consumerist obsession with grandiosity and newness. In America the dominant belief is that excellent living can only be accomplished through ownership of a newly-built palace with acres of perfectly-manicured lawns.

Left: Walden Pond today

This lifestyle, of course, cannot be maintained without a hefty income, and Americans are thus forced into the position of requiring high-wage employment to support their suburban estate. The manor cannot be preserved if its inhabitants do not work over half of their waking hours in slavish devotion to obtaining money; Thoreau presciently noted that “we may regard one third of that toil as the cost of their houses.” Thoreau suggested that this dilemma was evidence that “men have become tools of their tools.” The suburban house, then, rules over its residents, who must scurry about like so many worker ants to sustain it.

The culture of conspicuous and redundant consumption that has evolved in the United States pressures individuals to acquire luxurious possessions and to replace perfectly functional goods with those that are purportedly newer and improved. Thoreau noticed this phenomenon during his lifetime, declaring that the “childish and savage taste of men and women for new patterns keeps how many shaking and squinting through kaleidoscopes that they may discover the particular figure which this generation requires today. The manufacturers have learned that this taste is merely whimsical.”

This neurotic consumerism further increases the pressure on people to work more, leaving less time for more enjoyable pursuits. The typical American worker annually toils away for two weeks’ worth of vacation time, the earning of which leaves him too exhausted to enjoy his respite; he hopes to live long enough to pass his twilight years sitting in a tattered chaise lounge watching shuffleboard on the activity deck of a Sunbelt retirement center. Thus, one toils countless hours during the prime of life to be rewarded with a few short moments when the physical ability to take pleasure in living is in rapid decline. Thoreau noted the absurdity of this philosophy, and extolled the virtues of simplicity:

In short, I am convinced, both by faith and experience, that to maintain one's self on this earth is not a hardship but a pastime, if we will live simply and wisely; as the pursuits of the simpler nations are still the sports of the more artificial.
Left: View across Walden Pond submitted by a regular reader of this blog; I love the way the sun's rays streak down in this photo

Life, in a society that worships possessions and acquisitiveness, could more accurately be described as drudgery. For a person trapped in the continuous cycle of consumption, there is precious little living; one cannot suddenly decide to spend time enjoying the natural world when there are financial obligations that loom, Leviathan-like, overhead. Thoreau argued that he had obtained a wealth – simple living- that had far greater significance than monetary gain:
Many a forenoon have I stolen away, preferring to spend thus the most valued part of the day;for I was rich, if not in money, in sunny hours and summer days, and spent them lavishly; nor do I regret that I did not waste more of them in the workshop or the teacher's desk.

In an era that had just recently lost the sobriquet of “frontier,” Thoreau recognized that the natural wilderness of the country was integral to the health and well-being of its human inhabitants. He argued that there is a certain restorative quality provided by nature, which he called the “tonic of wilderness.” Man, according to Thoreau, was inextricably linked to the world in which he lived, and that any attempt to divorce oneself from nature was an exercise in foolishness. This advice goes largely unheeded in an American society fixated on attempting to remove or control every last vestige of nature.

Corporations promote poisons to eliminate insects and rodents from our immediate surroundings, while convincing consumers that they are inadequate homeowners if any plant other than hybrid Kentucky bluegrass dares to push through their neatly-trimmed and herbicide-laden lawns. Human hair, which developed on the body over many millennia as a form of protection against the ultraviolet rays of summer and the chill of winter, is portrayed today as an undesirable trait – except on the top of the head – and thousands of products are marketed to eliminate this vital bodily component from our legs, backs, nostrils and ears. Finally, our desire to conquer nature has engendered in Americans a collective lack of concern for the environment; the very air that we breathe and the water that we drink have become fouled, and the possibility exists that we may so pollute and degrade the planet that human life may no longer continue.

As a journalist I once covered a municipal council meeting on the application filed by a corporation to amend the zoning laws in order to allow the company to build a controversial coking plant. Advocates for the facility argued that it would bring jobs and tax revenues to the city of Toledo, while opponents argued that the plant would produce toxins that could wreak havoc in an already-polluted regional watershed. I was most struck by a corporate supporter, who claimed that the environmentally-minded activists wanted everyone to “live like hermits in a shack, like Thoreau.”

Left: Chipmunk in a tree near Walden Pond submitted by a regular reader of this blog

Of course, Thoreau specifically warned readers that he was not advocating his extreme experiment in asceticism, admonishing that “I would not have any one adopt my mode of living on any account.” He was demonstrating that it was possible to live in such a manner as did not require endless, senseless toil. The advocate for the coking plant constructed her argument with the false dilemma that we have only two choices: industrial development or a Neanderthalian subsistence. Unfortunately, many Americans subscribe to this corporate ideology, and fail to recognize that it is possible to find a middle ground that encourages responsible stewardship of the planet’s resources and a lifestyle of voluntary simplicity.

The act of living simply, unfortunately, requires a leap of faith on the part of the individual; members of the cult of consumerism are barraged with media messages exhorting them to worship the god of consumption. To preach against this religion is akin to cultural heresy; people who advocate a simpler lifestyle are viewed as lunatics or, even worse, Marxists.

Left: Thoreau's restored cabin today

Merely mentioning the idea that one might, say, trade in a car for a bicycle is enough to raise eyebrows (assuming that the person still has hair above their eyes, and that they have not been waxed or shaven in an attempt to meet the fashion ideal of a hairless human). Thoreau recognized that this belief is a precursor to change, and that a man who “has not faith, he will continue to live like the rest of the world, whatever company he is joined to.”

Perhaps we should not be too concerned with converting the mass of humanity to a simpler life, and should just live the ideal. Internal resistance in people cannot be overcome with an external force, and people must want to alter their behavior before change can occur. The example we set by living a simple life might be the best medicine for the consumptive disease that has infected the American body politic.

Living simply produces hidden benefits to followers, and not the least of these is one’s physical health. The stress of struggling to meet the financial burdens of a lifestyle of excessive consumption takes its toll on the human body; what for example, is the physical cost of a daily one-hour, one-way commute? In one calendar year, such work travel – which is not unusual in bigger cities – adds up to over 500 hours of time spent cramped in a shiny metal box breathing air laced with automobile exhaust. Simply living is perhaps the best advice that Thoreau offered; as a slave in the service of the consumer economy of the modern United States, a person has precious little time to enjoy living. Voluntary simplicity offers people an opportunity to reduce the amount of time spent in mindless acquisitiveness, and frees them for more rewarding pursuits.

24 comments:

elric1488 said...

Niggers could be living more simply if they went back to Africa.

December 10!!

historymike said...

I suspect that elric1488 enjoys shocking people, but this technique quickly backfires on the poster.

Eventually people come to the conclusion that you are just an idiot, elric1488.

ajax saith said...

to historymike:

i am fully aware how the multi culti crowd loves history revision because it is one of the most powerful weapons that they have in their history re-write (their attempt to remove the white race nation people from the history books as much as they can)

when you engage in history revision you remake the historical heritage standing of a people when this is done the presnt perception of a people is either enhanced or reduced which affects the psyche-ego of the individual and their sense of position, one of the things that the progeny of a race receives is their sense and orientation in life how they see themselves and how their rank is perceived, one of these rankings is race (in this modern age as all of the world's people have discovered one another) if one race has achieved above and beyond and is far and away in position and ranking than most if not all other races the perception of that people and their outlook in life can often have a dramatic affect in their level of confidence and of taking risks, consequently if a person born of one race realizes his racial standing is quite inferior in the race ranking this may result in inferior feelings and inferior sense of self esteem which will often lead to self destructive tendencies and retardation in personal development and his risk taking will be minimal and confidence low

in order to help out the inferior races (blacks as the chief among them) to help them with their self esteem the multi culti cult masters scour the history books and either pooh pooh white achievment (making it 'open sourced' and its origination invisible) or try to denigrate or degrade the true origins, they do this with ridiculous unfounded speculation (beethoven was black) or overemphasize one race's contribution applying the entire field to themselves (blacks invented rock and roll music so somehow all of white rock and roll owes its allegience to blacks, that would be like saying the inventor of the electric guitar (a whiteman) should be honored by blacks (i won't hold my breath) because all of rock and roll music features the electric guitar)

the most pathetic attempts at history revisionism are the colossal history revision projects like the 'egyptians were black' project, this major history project undertaking has become so important to the black race because ancient egypt was such a magnificent nation-civilization, the comedic hysteria that blacks have displayed as they have involved themselves in this shows how desperate they are to raise their obvious self perception of low self esteem as they see how low their ranking is in the history book, their fixation with egypt is so great that they have made claims that the greeks and romans stole the egyptian culture which explains the greek and roman civilization.

it will never be fully known what race the ancient egyptians were, nubia (a black raced nation) was south of egypt and did have a clear influence in egypt but going by images we see tanned raced people and only a few black raced people in the egyptian record

but the point is this is of supreme importance to blacks not to whites, because whites are secure in themselves and know their place in history

it is true that the truth of history is an ongoing process and is revised in segments from time to time as more and more truth is uncovered

i will be the first to aknowledge great civilizations beyond that of the white race nations, i have always had a tremendous fascination with all of the mesopotamian civilizations who in the greatness of their day (from the beginning of writing aprox. 3,000 bc up until the conquest of ancient persia 320 bc) stood head and shoulders above any other civilization (egypt being an eception) not withsatnding pre alexandrian greece, ancient china was also great and fascinating throughout its history, and the indian civilizations inhabiting the mexican. central and south american regions were great and interesting

but many chapters of history are fixed as are the most lasting markings (the architectural ruins)

one of the most insane examples of history revision is the origin of the united states: from the unbelievable myth that the continental united states was 'stolen' from the native american people (a whole series of fabrications must be constructed such as the native american indians constituting a 'nation' and having some form of 'government' to steal from) to denying that the united states was founded entirely by the white race nation people of western europe without any contribution from any non white raced people of any kind

this last example of history revision is extremely important to the argument that history revsion does in fact take place and is an active ongoing proces because it is the clearest example

the extreme left and multi culti cult will only with extreme reluctance resign themselves to agreeing that the united states at its inception was populated with people who were from the white race nation heritage homes and it was that race from the colonial period up to the writing of the constitution that single handedly brought the united states into existence

but try to openly declare this in any classroom or any other open venue and watch the reaction as the racism choir are brought out to chant: 'racism!', 'racism!'. 'racism!' that any white person would dare to remind the non whites of this spectacular feat and honor the white race nation people through this

the history revisionists have a particular fixation on the united states, if they are unable to deny its founding then they busy themselves by bad mouthing the people who founded it (slave holders, witch burners, homophobes, sexists, intolerants etc etc)

the united staes remains the single most important nation that the white race nation people have founded, if the extreme left and multi culti cult can bad mouth and taint its history then they are well on their way to make the white race nation and its culture disappear

this bad mouthing of the united states and its history under such coded agendas as 'critical thinking' is so all pervasive and so deeply embedded and interwoven within the educational institutions it is difficult to get a grasp of its influence because it has so deeply tainted the atmosphere

the history process is one of documentation, interpretation, accredidation, the past is of great importance in understanding the present and can be an insight into present trends and possible future outcomes

Lisa Renee said...

In response to the original article, which I enjoyed the last time I read it, thank you for re-posting this today Mike.

I share your belief that less is more...and wish more of us did.

:-)

historymike said...

Thanks, Lisa. Your thoughtful words warmed my heart. I reposted this for three reasons:

1. I was feeling really lazy after a trytophan-laden Thursday;
2. I had to give my newer neo-Nazi and white power friends an opportunity to see that most of my interests extend beyond their world; and
3. I don't want this blog to become a one-note Nazi-watch project.

ajax saith said...

to lisa renne:
===================================
"I share your belief that less is more...and wish more of us did."
===================================
a very stupid sentiment straight out of the mouth of lenin, an idiotic ideal that only leads to collective poverty, and also an extremely hypocritical approach considering the left has always been whining for rich uncle sam to provide more and more government social services for the poor and the protected cherished minority groups

it makes me wonder if what you are really saying is:
___________________________________
"I share your belief that less is more for the white race...and wish more of us who belong to the white race did."
___________________________________

historymike said...

This essay's - and that of Lisa's post is that you do not need very much in the way of material goods to be peaceful and happy.


ajax wrote:
"...straight out of the mouth of lenin..."

More like straight out of the mouths of people like Christ and Gandhi, actually, ajax.

I am writing about those things that we pursue thinking they will bring us happiness, but which end up making us more unhappy. This is beyond petty political squabbles; I am trying to envision a world in which our attention is not riveted on the material, but rather on the spiritual and intellectual.

ajax also wrote:
"...an idiotic ideal that only leads to collective poverty..."

Much like his obsession with seeing people in black/white (or "white/other") terms, ajax cannot envision a world in which the pursuit of material needs is balanced with other pursuits. In his mind, anyone who advocates a simpler lifestyle must be a communist.

Finally, you can apply any label to me (or any other poster) that you see fit, ajax, but that does not necessarily make your statement accurate. Your last post is almost McCarthy-esque in its efforts to paint anyone who has a different view as a radical leftist.

Voluntary simplicity is perfectly compatible with modern American capitalism, and those who advocate a simpler, less manic lifestyle are not, by definition, communists.

Nor are they anti-white; I find it odd that both you and elric1488 purposely looked for a way to turn a philosophical essay about consumerism into some launching pad for racist blatherings.

Hooda Thunkit said...

Apologizing yet again for staying on topic...

I too try not to chase the newest of anything that I deem of value to have in my life. I also try to avoid all fads, although I distinctly remember buying a couple of Frisbees when I was in college ;-)

Before deciding to buy I carefully weigh each purchase with an eye towards needed features and durability.

I also tend to buy after the initial surge has passed and the "real" sustainable price has been reached.

Some would call it frugal living. I would call it living well for less.

I have begun planning for a retirement home which I fully intend to build that will be geezer friendly, because so few geezer aware homes exist. The main difference between my geezer home and a regular one is the built in provisions for accessibility options, when called for. That and low maintenance...

I call it an adaptable design, with an eye towards quality and durability.

Would Thoreau approve? Hopefully, it will NOT be a "keeping up with the Jones's type of dwelling, and not ostentatious by any means.

Much thought with little glitz or glamour, but it will have a hot tub (but, no pool).

Realistic, practical, adaptable, and forward looking, but with simplicity and cost in mind ;-)

ajax saith said...

to historymike:

yes i fully agree with your observation with balancing spiritual fulfillment and material needs, but i wish you would try to explain this point with your fellow brethren liberals who have a hard time restraining themselves from their ever increasing desire to reach ever deeper into rich (rich because of you and me) uncle sam's back pocket to pay for an ever expanding list of social welfare programs

the truth is we as a nation have become materialistically secular in spirit and we have replaced the 'in God we trust'motto with 'in money we trust'

and we have lost our spiritual heritage: the christain religion

as far as the post not being 'anti-white'...haha once again i am not fooled i understand fully the nature of the race-culture war against the white race that is being waged today

you can hide behind your supposed itellectual objectivity and honesty but deep down inside you have been infected with the white guilt virus you are just not aware of it

you dismiss all white nationalists as 'racist' but cheer all minority nationalists as having a healthy race consciousness

you are not as much of an activist as nikki is so you are not a soldier on war footing as nikki is

let me ask you historymike of your opinion: is there something inherently racist for a white person to take pride in their being white, to identify with their race, to prefer or feel more comfortable around those who are white like himself?

if you do think it is racist then let me change the race from 'white' to 'black' and answer the same question

Lisa Renee said...

ajax, you don't know me, so given that I will share with you my theory which has nothing to do with race. It has to do with good parenting. Too many parents decide the pursuit of money seeking is more important than their children.

I don't. I have five children, some of them are old enough to be on their own now but it's never been my goal to "beat the joneses" frankly I'd rather see the Joneses spend more time with their children.

My father whom I loved very much told me something once which I can say if there was one phrase that sums my feelings up....

"Lisa, the kids will never remember what they had for dinner, they won't remember what kind of a car you had but they will remember that you were there for them".

So, Mike's piece? Strikes an emotional cord with me because I understand what Thoreau was trying to tell us. That advice can apply to all races.

historymike said...

ajax:

1. I don't have any "fellow brethren liberals" because I don't politically self-identify that way. I am certainly no fan of expanding ad infinitum government spending programs. My personal politics, however, defy simple labels like "liberal" or "conservative." "Maverick" might best fit me, but I am just as likely to vote for a consensus position in order to achieve political harmony.

2. As far as "white guilt virus," the only virus I have been infected with is that of equality. I get hung up on phrases like "all men are created equal."

3. You are correct that I am not an activist. I write about that which I am interested in at the time. Prior to Bill White's announcement of his trip to Toledo, I have never published much on the white power movement. However, with the likes of NewsGuy, Elmer Frazier, and elric1488 slamming me on the various boards (as well as the occasional anonymous death threat), my opinion has shifted into at least "vigilant" mode.

4. Pro-white politics by themselves, without delving into the usual mantra about "savage Negro beasts" and other racist stupidity, do not cause me much chagrin. However, I rarely see one without the other. Turning the issue backwards, I would also prefer that black power advocates (like Farrakhan) invest their energies into activities that bring ethnic groups closer together. If pro-white types want to segregate themselves into a couple of Montana counties, go for it! At least then I wouldn't have to be concerned about groups like the NSM coming to my city and exacerbating problems.

ajax saith said...

to lisa renne:

part of what makes this such a magnificent nation is that we are freer than any other nation (as nikki made mention of in her thanksgiving post) to pursue whatever it is that we have concluded we think is the ideal way in which to live, and i can tell you the most precious of all gifts that a parent can bestow upon their children is true love and a nurturing guiding, counseling hand and direction to prepare the parents' progeny that they may be fully prepared and equipped for their personal life's journey, and in return the highest respect and honor and love that a child can show to their parents is to lovingly care for them as they begin to fail (and not to discard them into a nursing home if at all possible) and to gently welcome them to their final sleep, as the parents welcome the beginning of the child and say goodmorning to them, the child sees the ending of the parent and says goodnight to them

===================================
to historymike:

well you seem to me to be a very fair minded chap, i have to admit i sometimes like getting into posting rows regarding political issues (this is much easier and the stimulus is more intense in nikki's blog due to her single minded political activism)

i am sorry to hear you have received death threats, when the blog posting reaches to that level what it means is that those doing the threatening are indicating they have lost the argument and want to cheat (sort of like someone in a poker game who is sore over a lost hand and reaches for his gun to indicate he refuses to admit his lost hand)

extremists from all directions and all persuasions learn sooner or later how powerful words are, the word (especially when it is spoken) is the ammunition, missle, bomb delivered from the launcher ( writer, orator, weblog poster)

words can incite and can excite, they are used to debase and degrade and insult the targeted enemy, they are also used to compel, energize, and mobolize the ally

as has been referenced so many many times the famous quote from shakespeare: "pen mightier than the sword" so many have born witness to that: marx, lenin, hitler, king,

Lisa Renee said...

Ajax, that I would not disagree with. The multigenerational home has basically disappeared in most cases with elderly shuffled off to nursing homes not because they require medical care but because their families focused on other priorites. What is also destroyed by this is the lack of history/heritage that children learn from older family members. The lessons I learned from my grandparents life experiences I would have never received from my parents alone. The mass consumerism that so many feel they must accomplish is one of the largest reasons for the reduction in multigenerational homes.

To me making a death threat because of a written article is like Godwin's law, once you invoke it? You've admitted you've lost the discussion/debate and have nothing to add.

Mrs. Phoenix said...

Returning BACK to the subject matter of historymike's musing...when I re-read it, I thought back to a show that Michael Baisden did (if you don't know, he is the "Bad Boy of Radio" and can be heard locally on "The Mix" WMIX Gibsonburg, 95.7FM between 3p and 6p Monday-Friday) on old school versus new school. He asked for any female under 30 years old who owned a cast iron skillet to call in. Now, back in the day, my mother and grandmother HEAVILY RELIED upon the reverent cast iron skillet in all areas of cooking, and it was one of few items that would be passed on as wedding gifts. One of its many benefits included pumping up the iron in the cooked food. My generation considers that 'old folks stuff' and rely on 'dinner-in-a-box' and microwaved food. And if ANY cooking is involved, it includes using non-stick, Teflon coated, aluminum cookware...which is GREAT if you want Alzheimer's!

Just my 100 cents (inflation is a bitch, ain't it?)

Mrs. Phoenix said...

historymike, I enjoy reading your articles on bill white, the nsm and other like-minded hate groups. In past articles, you have lumped Minister Louis Farrakhan in that same pot. That man is not a racist, not a bigot, and certainly not some runaway from the state mental hospital. I invite you to listen FULLY to his comments at Rosa Parks' Memorial in Detroit at this website: http://www.finalcall.com/webcast/mlf_11-02-2005/

Lady Phoenix

historymike said...

Farrakhan, in my opinion, is a divisive figure who does not bring people together. I don't consider him the equivalent of groups like NSM, but he is far from being a force for social harmony.

He has made inflammatory comments regarding Jews, Asians, whites, and Arabs in the past, and has spouted off such lunacy as being abducted by a UFO and the New Orleans levee breaks being intentionally caused to attack blacks.

That being said, he has important messages about black self-sufficiency that more people need to hear. I listened to him speak in Detroit in the mid-1980s, and he was a fiery orator (I was working at Joe Louis Arena at the time).

Anonymous said...

I am a conservative. Label me if you like. I am what I am. I think Ronald Reagan was the best president of the 20th century, I think that George W. Bush is doing a fine job, and I support the war in Iraq.

I am white. I am proud to be white. I take pride in the accomplishments of my race.

And Elric, I think you are scum!

Mrs. Phoenix said...

historymike, may I ask: will you watch and listen to the webcast link I listed in my previous post?

historymike said...

Yes, Mrs. Phoenix. I haven't listened to him in almost 20 years, so I am overdue.

I will report back what I hear.

historymike said...

Anonymous:

Elric1488 is a buffoon. He posts only to flame.

As far as human accomplishments, I really do not pay much attention to race unless someone points it out. I have known good people and idiots in all races.

No race or ethnicity has a monopoly on greatness or stupidity.

Reagan had some great moments, and I voted for him in 1984 (the last time my vote coincided with the eventual presidential winner, by the way).

"The greatest president?" Hmmm....I would vote for Lincoln or FDR before Reagan. Reagan did not face the kind of adversity as those two presidents.

He did get Americans feeling good about the country again, though.

Mrs. Phoenix said...

Thank you, historymike. Listen...that is all I ask.

ajax saith said...

to mrs phoenix:

===================================
"
That man is not a racist, not a bigot, and certainly not some runaway from the state mental hospital"
===================================

well we all know where you stand now with louis (black pharaoh) Farrakhan, a raging looney black militant clown who would probably make money in theatres playing himself as the lead in the comedy: 'black moses from planet imanass'

mrs phoenix you no doubt think the malcolm (malcontent) x was some kind of a great man, the only thing great about that wild militant was to see him become a corpse

truly truly amazing to see this nation of islam receive anykind of recognition, just color in those black faces with some typing white correction fluid and watch the world wide hate white choir come out of the woodwork screaming their 'racism' 'racism' 'racism' chant in a never ending loop

i would love to see nikki have a weblog hysterical nervous breakdown if a 'nation of aryan' appeared on the scene

Anonymous said...

I think that elric1488 is a horrible waste of oxygen and it is a pity that his mother didn't save us all a lot of hassle by putting this pitiful specimen out of his misery very early on. Racists are human scum, filth of the highest order, Nazis make me utterly sick! No offence, of course. As for the barely coherent ramblings of ajax, masquerading as deep wells of significant intellectual truths, let me first just write that perhaps if you employed grammar and a sensitivity to correct spelling to communicate your points they would be a tad more palatable. I say only 'a tad' because looking at the world through a prism of facile white supremacy is to so thoroughly limit the bounds of your historical inquiry that almost all of what you say can be discarded. You state that it was the white Europeans who founded the United States, which is one of your few accurate statements, but at what cost? I'll tell you the cost, approximately 25 million native American lives, but I suppose that concerns you very little as it does most fascist neo-Nazi lunatics. The United States, as founded by thpse elites Washington and Jeffersen, who wrote many persuasive things now brazenly ignored in the United States of Arrogance, was a nation consisting of 13 colonies on the East Coast. The reason why the United States consists of 50 states is because of genocide, plunder and outright thieving. If you fail to acknowledge this point, your inane vaunting of Social Darwinism aside, then I am afraid there is little hope for your sense of humanity. Here's Thomas Paine, one of the greatest American revolutionaries - "the world is my country, my religion is to do good". If only all Americans subscribed to this belief the world would be a better place. Instead there are arrogant know-nothing-know-it-alls such as yourself who somehow think that a nation that is responsible for a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions and which is the largest terrorist state on the planet is "the single most important nation that the white race nation people have founded". You also claim that "whites are secure in themselves and know their place in history", but if this is so why don't you know that this place has been founded on genocide, war, disease and the destruction of the environment on a catastrophic scale. It is because of this "secure place" that the US has forcibly exported its capitalist model to the whole world and in so doing bringing us all to the brink of extinction. What ignorant people such as yourself don't seem to grasp is that the only reason Europeans were able to colonize the entire globe is because of an overwhelming superiority in their arms, not in their level of morality or culture. The same is true of the McCulture that today pretends to be the protector of freedom and democracy. If you doubt any of this read books by one of the greatest Americans who has ever lived, and is thankfully still alive, Noam Chomsky. While you're at it read Michael Parenti, Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Jared Diamond, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, Jeffersen, Lincoln, Thomas Pakenham, Al Franken, Naomi Klein, Lewis Lapham, John Pilger, Tariq Ali, Asad Boeg Ail, Edward Said, Ishtiyaq Shukri, David Corn, Jonathan Franzen. To name but a few.

Anonymous said...

So Reagan had "some great moments", did he, historymike, would those be when he supported Israel in their murderous war in Lebanon (déja vu, anyone?), or when he trained and armed the Contras so that they could terrorise the population of Nicarargua. Or how about repeatedly refusing Gorbachev's attempts at brokering a peace deal because he believed, like the fanatical Christian fundamentalist that he was, that the world was preordained to end in the city north of Israel called Armageddon? Or perhaps those "great moments" included refusing, along with lovely fascist Mrs Thatcher, to sanction South Africa as they were not only perpetuating apartheid but also killing a million and a half civilians in Angola and Mozambique? Maybe you have in mind the Reagonomics that saw a trillion dollar deficit by the end of his two terms in office? Oh, wait, I know what you're talking about, the time he said that homosexuals who contract AIDS were being punished by God for their sinful ways. Did he perhaps make the 30 million people who sunk into 'deep hunger' during the eighties feel better about themselves? Or by "Americans feeling good about the country" do you mean exclusively the 20 percent of the population who became substantially wealthier while the rest hardly altered their lifestyle and the bottom 20 percent actually saw a decline in living standards? For a history buff you have a very short memory, one that includes neither your countryman nor those who live in such far flung places as Haiti, El Salvador, Guatamala (where about 150 000 people were killed during the Reagan era alone, again with his Administration's assitance) or Iran. The world is certainly not your country, as it seems only the wealthier section of your own nation figure as representatives of the general populace...