27

Malcolm X and Ali Warning About Liberals and Multiculturalism

7 comments, 522 views, posted 6:06 am 17/07/2017 in Politics by LordViscera
LordViscera has 16590 posts, 2194 threads, 696 points, location: 1123 6536 5321
Jarl of Glencoe

Malcom X had this pegged spot on

Extra Points Given by:

REALITY (10), Quaektem (10), Flee (5)

Comments

3
5:16 am 18/07/2017

LordViscera

I think he was more saying (Malcolm that is) the whole machine is nothing but a way for white men in power to keep another race in a powerless situation. The liberals claim to be the "friends" of the African-American, the conservatives don't. In the end, if we took the labels off the philosophies, and said what the actual ideology was, I think you would be hard pressed to side with liberalism in the context that he is speaking to it. The idea of sympathizing with a group because they have been mistreated in the past is just silly. The fact that none of the people in today's society have been slaves, should tell everyone that some (maybe not enough but at least some) progress has been made.

Using that train of thought, should i hate and be suspicious of and demand reparations from every British citizen because of the way my Irish ancestors were treated? I haven't suffered at the hands of a Brit yet. But my dad was incredulous when I had the British flag in my bedroom because I liked Def Leppard in the 80's and Joe Elliott wore it in a video, or I liked the Who and Queen. I believe that anyone, motivated enough and given a fair opportunity can make of themselves whatever they want, defining their own idea of success. That isn't a modern liberal thought.

2
4:52 pm 18/07/2017

LordViscera

Quote by marksyzm:
That's supposed to be a modern liberal intention, but they've become so stuck with the authoritarian nature of "telling people what to do" but then there is a backlash of telling people of what they can't do in the same respect and thus Plato's definition of democracy as being doomed to failure is predicted. You can't let the people govern the people. You can't have total anarchy because nothing (and everything) would happen. You can't have total communism because nobody is quite like the other. You can't have total socialism because people want their own businesses. You can't have total capitalism because of the lack of caring in some people to let things just go too far beyond human/earth limitations (and the emergence of the underclass). You can't have total libertarianism as... see anarchy. You can't have "the world order" because no fucker is going to like that.

that is the best comment you have made on a post we have dscussed with each other in the whole time I've been here. I agree with you that any philosophy won't work in it's extreme or ideal because people aren't that defined. If I could give more points for that I would because I agree so much with that

2
10:51 pm 18/07/2017

Flee

That was a lot of words for "damned if you do. Damned if you dont", mark

1
11:19 pm 18/07/2017

LordViscera

Quote by LordViscera:
Plato's definition of democracy as being doomed to failure is predicted.


and Ben Franklin stated that "When the populous realize they can legisalte pay raises for themselves, the republic is lost." We are lost, as entitlements have now robbed people of their common sense and willingness to work for what they want in life, instead they decide to try and shame the wealthy to "give their fair share" all due to laziness or ineptitude.

Add Comment

via teoti, or register to add a comment!