US History Part 1

Some radical ideas follow. Remember, they are just that... ideas. Some may see them as blasphemous or traitorus. Understand that I love the USA and am grateful for the priviledged life it enables me to live. I bear no malice towards any in the population or government. That being said...

Question: What is The significance of the year 1863?

Answer: Modern slavery was introduced to the USA.

There was no emancipation. It is no coincidence that the signing of the emancipation proclamation and the introduction of our current paper money system occurred the same year.

The native American population were not very competent slaves. They tended to die when captured and even if they survived, they weren't very energetic, nor responsive to physical coercion. As such, the Europeans were forced to import their slaves from Africa.

The boat ride over was no party... the life they lead was not much fun either. The conditions were so harsh that only those with exceptional endurance and strength survived. The resulting population grew strong. The owners realized that by breeding for strength they could achieve greater efficiency from their slave population as well. So on top of the natural selection, purposeful selection further enhanced the slaves' abilities.

I didn't take long for the slaves to notice that they could kick their owners asses at will. Those non-compliant slaves quickly learned the difference between a beating and a shooting. Guns. Guns were the only reason slavery was sustainable at all. Well, guns and the fact that the slaves didn't have any. Still the sheer numbers of slaves made for a management problem. Well, the owners figured, "If we can breed for strength, we can breed for docility and/or intelligence too." Nigger can read - dead. Nigger says, "Duh." a lot - He's making babies.
So life went on with the numbers of dark skinned workers constantly growing, the population growing ever more physically gifted, a little more compliant, and a bit duller around the edges. There were a few other, unexpected characteristics being promulgated in the slave population as well. ...No, I'm not talking about big dicks... though it does count in this section...

A the ability to maintain 2 cultures with a single population. The the public culture, which interacted with the white people and could be seen in the public at large. Then there was the private culture. This is where intelligence and creativity were kept alive in spite of the owners breeding efforts. Sets of skills and concepts became verbal legacies past down through generations. Some examples:
Determining what a person's dreams and desires are and then how to feed those dreams and desires back to them and manipulate them to get what you want.

The wealth generated by free labor was (is) fantastic. So much so, that the Americans imported as many slaves as possible. The slave population grew rapidly and large.

Perhaps the printing of The Origin of Species highlighted the weakness in their slavery system... A very large and powerful population of people, full of justifiable hatred, was living in the backyards of the ruling class. Any more growth in their numbers and they would become unmanageable, in fact, signs that they were already unmanageable were quite common. It was only a matter of time before a grand revolt was successful. Regardless, more workers were needed to sustain growth. A change was necessary...

The Answer to, "Why is everyone broke?"

Alright, I'm gonna try this one last time. Hopefully this will be clear, short, and illuminating...
The reason everyone is broke is because there is no money to have. i.e. There physically aren't enough dollar bills in the system for it to function properly. Seems kinda peculiar, doesn't it? O.K. so next we ask, "Why?"

Because the system has a fundamental flaw in it's design. Well a flaw if you're on our side of the equation. A tool of control if you're on the other side. You cannot create a sustainable system if you collect interest on the funds introduced to create the system in the first place.

I create a new economy by printing Eric Money and giving you $5000 of it. But it's a loan and you have to pay 1% annually. Seems fair. Well, lets consider... Lets say you intend to pay back the loan within 6 years, by paying $1000 per year, and then whatever interest has accrued. A noble plan for sure... year 1 - you trade with people, etc, etc. and at the end of the year, you've set aside $1k and give it to me. Year 2 - same result - another $1k for me. Year 3 - you have to use violence against children, but you get the $1k - You're half way there!!!!

But you'll never get there. At this point you've paid me back $3,000. That means that there's only $2000 left circulating in our little economy. Even IF you busted some heads and did some magic and pulled together the $1000 each of the coming 2 years, that would be it. There would be ZERO dollars left in the economy. Now how are you going to make this final payment? How are you going to pay the interest? You're not. Cause there's no money to pay it with.

That is fundamental reason the economy is failing and destined to fail (along with the world economy - same principal applies regardless of scale). Although, in reality, it doesn't get to the final stage like the example. In reality, the whole thing freezes up before that third payment was made. See you in hell mo-fo's!!!

About the Nature of Opposites and "negatives"

It is often said that (in theory) for every positive there must be a negative, in order to maintain "the balance of the universe. I posit that this is not the case.

Notice that in order to be a 'negative' the object (for lack of a more general term) must be the 'negative' OF something. Therefore, the existence of an opposite/'negative' is necessarily dependent on the preexistence of a positive.

On the other hand, a positive is an independent assertion. A positive is not a positive OF something, it simply is.

There are further conceptual issues with this idea of balance. Take a number line for example. Let's assign the value of 6 to our object in question. We mark 6 on the number line. To achieve "balance", our mark must move 6 units left (for simplicity) to return to 0 i.e. our point of balance. The problem here lies in the fact that though our object is loosing value with each progressive unit/step back towards 0, it's value is nonetheless still positive - not negative at all. so where is this 'negative'?

It is being canceled by each unit removed in our steps to zero. As such, why are we now counting from 6? as opposed to zero?