The collective is more important than the individual. Individuals can be sacrificed for the collective.

When government forces a man to give up a portion of his earnings, so the government can give it to another, that is slavery. So either by the moment, by the month, or several months, America is more and more becoming a nation of slaves. Don't tell me collectivism is moral, that it is good to make sure everyone is ok. You are going to make ME responsible for others? Then I get a say into their behavior. Limits on children they produce, limits on what they eat, limits how they spend their time. Only it won't be me saying it, it will be the government.

Health care is not a right, housing is not a right. If they were, then we had better make sure there are plenty of smart people to force to become doctors,and force to take care of us, and plenty of people to force to build houses, because what if no one wanted to build houses? Then we would have to force them. What if no one wanted to be a doctor, then we would have to force them.

Make people dependant on the government, you create a nation of the weak, when people are responsible for themselves, they find their own genius. Collectivism is slavery, and slavery was never for the greater good.

Charity on the other hand is my right, and I will choose when and how I wil exercise it. I believe most people are good and want to help others up. That is where a lot of this collectivim nonsense comes from.

You don't help others up by pulling me down. I plan on making scads of money, scads of it, and I have plans for it. And it doesn't involve buying me a big house, fancy cars, and nice clothes. I have my own dream as to how THE MONEY THAT I EARN CAN HELP OTHER PEOPLE BECOME STRONG LIKE ME. I am not going to finance someone elses dream. Especially when the mechanisms they create to push forward that dream is full of unbelievable waste and corruption. You want to waste my life? Because making this money is taking up my life. You want my blood financing corruption?

If the government forces me to, it just make others who cannot produce as well, because they aren't required to from neccessity, reliant on me. You make others reliant on me, I am a slave. And you effectually destroy the person who now (because of government) needs me, because there is no reason to branch out and grow.

You make these things a "RIGHT" and then there is no gratitude for those who do the work. Why should anyone be grateful for that which supposedly belongs to them, because of their "RIGHTS". Why would I keep working for someone who isn't grateful for my efforts? You make these things a "RIGHT" and you give license to people to rise up and steal what does not belong to them.

This is never going to fly in America, because we know what slavery looks like. My children, between I and my husband, have four ancestors from the original Mayflower, including Bradford and Brewster. I will fight you collectivists (and so will millions of others) on the battlefront of ideas, and will win. My babies are not going to be slaves.

You suggest we owe this to people because of past degradations perpetrated by our ancestors on their ancestors, fine, then we should also jail every child of individuals who commit crimes and take all their money, and put them in work camps and the government reap all the benfits. All the way down their tainted family line. And if you feel so guilty about what your ancestors did, I suggest you get on a plane and fly to Europe, then you can be free from colonial sins and be in lands free from aggression, conquest, degradation, etc. Ha ha.

What collectivism is about is power. See, an individual person, just one person, is INCREDIBLY POWERFUL. Anyone who tells them otherwise is evil. Collectivism has the people on top who dole out the goods. They hold the power. When a person who does not realize how powerful they are, give their power to those people who make these collectivist promises, they themselves become slaves to the master who gives them their daily bread. They have to keep on voting them in, in order to, what they believe, survive. They will likely never find their own strength.

I grew up in poverty, I was spit on as a child just because of what I was, I nearly starved when I began taking care of myself. It was hard. I kept moving forward. It was my journey, it made me strong. There were people on the way that helped me. No one forced them to do it. I worked it out.
If you think that people are too stupid to find ways to care for themselves, that reeks of arrogance. You take away their journey, you certainly destroy them.

Those of the likes of David Matthews, et al contradict themselves when they say (paraphrased): "collectivism saved capitalism." They admit we have a "mixed economy," and somehow it is capitalism's fault? Perhaps we should make the distinction between "free-market capitalism" and "capitalism according to David Matthew's, et al."

"Free-market capitalism" is an economic-political system in which: 1) The means of production are privately controlled by individuals or groups of individuals. 2) Precisely defined property and property rights. 3) Zero barriers of entry into markets, i.e. zero regulations on markets 4) Individuals and groups of individuals are free to associate with, contract with, and exchange their existing or produced property with whom ever they wish. 5) Property and property rights are strictly enforced. 6) Acts of agression against individuals or groups of individuals (infringement of others property and property rights) not tolerated.

According to David Matthews, et al, capitalism is an economic-political system in which 1) Many are plundered to enrich the few. 2) Consumption is more than its production and thus needs external loans to finance more consumption. 3) Losses are socialized while profit is privatized.

As we can see there are stark differences between the two interpretations of "capitalism." You see, under a system of "free-market capitalism" none of the things David Matthews, et al would come about for one reason: No individuals, groups of individials, or government can plunder somebody else (unless they are permitted by the others) as it would be an act of agression under "free-market capitalism."

You see David Matthews, et al, are describing our current situation correctly (many are plundered to enrich the few, acts of aggression are being committed) the problem is that he/they use the incorrect terminology for what they are describing. David Matthews, et al, are describing a system of "corporatism," "cronyism," or "economic-fascism" - NOT Free-market capitalism. Our current system lacks many if not all of the things under the first definition of "free-market capitalism" above, therefore, our system is NOT free-market capitalism. Thus, it is erroneous to attribute "capitalism" to current and previous economic failures.

A new view of Thanksgiving for me:

“Imagine my surprise when I discovered that according to recorded history, I had an ancestor who came to America in the Mayflower. What’s more, he would have been present at the very first Thanksgiving.”

http://familyforest.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/thanksgiving-and-the-mayflower/

http://www.familyforest.com/Mayflowerebooks.html

http://www.familyforest.com/Mayflower_Descendants.html

Wingnut actually makes some good points (that doesn't stop him from being a wingnut, though). Why must we identify ourselves with one economic ideology or another (as in, "I'm a Capitalist, too."). For myself, I'm a human being, rather than the representative of an ideology. Capitalism is appropriate for some things, while a more collective approach is appropriate for other things. That's why we have a *mixed* economy! It has always served us well, so long as no particular ideology (say, Capital-ism) has been allowed to run rampant (there are good reasons for the fact that a purely capitalist economy does not exist on earth). If we want to be successful we should keep a cool head and be pragmatic about economics--instead of going completely wingnuts over some idea that has only a tenuous connection to reality (like science-resistant economists do--and that's most of them--they're, as wingnut implies, religious priests and prophets in a belief system--just like he is). And kudos to Historian for pointing out the absurdity of this article.

The great capitalism support system loves words like collective, triumph, magnanimous, and other sweeping generalizations. It's funny that these assumptions that otherwise suck the life out of the holiday (thank you, Captain Bummer) is supported by tiny, specific trinkets from an arcane guv'nors memoirs. How far will you go to say you like capitalism? A T-shirt or bumpersticker? That's cool. but writing drivel like this is the equivelent of putting on a big chicken suit and holding a sign down by the interstate in front of a local TV crew needing something to keep donors watching. If you like it, support it, believe it, whatever, go for it. But don't pass stupidity off for actual fact. The internet makes geniuses of us all! Too bad it doesn't make writers out of capitalists. But in fairness to my brother capitalists, as I sat down with my family around the Thanksgiving turkey, I said "family who I love, remember that although we've not seen each other often this year, and we've travelled far to get here to insure that we have this meaningful time as family, please do remember that this moment signifies the great triumph of capitalism over not just one form, but ALL forms of collectivism." What a dummy!!!!!

First official document proclaiming
"THANKSGIVING"
As we know it today
Came after the event below

The year was 1637.....700 men, women and children of the Pequot Tribe, gathered for their "Annual Green Corn Dance" in the area that is now known as Groton, Conn.

While they were gathered in this place of meeting, they were surrounded and attacked by mercenaries of the English and Dutch. The Indians were ordered from the building and as they came forth, they were shot down. The rest were burned alive in the building.

The next day, the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony declared : "A day of Thanksgiving, thanking God that they had eliminated over 700 men, women and children. For the next 100 years, every "Thanksgiving Day" ordained by a Governor or President was to honor that victory, thanking God that the battle had been won.

Source: Documents of Holland, 13 Volume Colonial Documentary History, letters and reports form colonial officials to their superiors and the King in England and the private papers of Sir William Johnson, British Indian agent for the New York colony for 30 years. Researched by William B. Newell (Penobscot Tribe) Former Chairman of the University of Connecticut Anthropology Department.

"Thanksgiving" a National Day of Mourning
An editorial by Publisher/Editor - Terri J Andrews

Never before in the history of America has a subset of this country's population been so misrepresented, lied about, and viciously condemned and criticized than the Native American Indians. Our own history books present a censored and false past that glorifies the "proud, pure and righteous" settlers, while stereotyping the original inhabitants as wild savages in war bonnets, running through the forest looking for food and scalping innocent children and women.

Take a look through a child's history book and you will often note an image of the pilgrims, colonists and pioneers that include log cabins, the pursuit of religious freedom and a strong sense of community. Now look for references to the Native peoples - words such as "primitive", "massacre", "Earth Gods" and "religious rituals" fill those same pages. Often times, paintings of the Native Indians hiding behind trees with tomahawks, watching the unsuspecting Europeans, are wrongly depicted to children.

This is a common thread woven through the fabric of American history - a lie that ties together a past built on stolen tradition and absent information retold in books authored by non-Native Americans.

The Thanksgiving holiday is a perfect example of censorship and the rewriting of truth. A portrait painted of the friendly Indians and the openhearted pilgrims coming together to feast after a long, sorry winter is accepted and tolerated by the American community. But this portrait is not correct. The story is much deeper than that; so much deeper that the Native American Indian community calls this day - The National Day of Mourning - and stages rallies to protest the holiday. Their reasons are valid. The true story of Thanksgiving is not something a country should be proud of.

Pilgrims and the Pure Truth

The Pilgrims of New England, who came to this country in 1620, were not simple refugees from England fighting against oppression and religious discrimination. They were political revolutionaries and part of the Puritan movement, which was considered objectionable and unorthodox by the King of the Church of England. They were outcasts in their own country, plotting to take over the government, causing some of the settlers to become fugitives in their own country.

These Puritan Pilgrims saw themselves as the "chosen elect", from the Bibles’ Book of Revelations and traveled to America to build "The Kingdom of God", also from Revelations. Strict with the scripture, they considered an enemy of anyone who did not follow suit. These beliefs were eventually transmitted to the other colonists, and the Puritan belief system quickly spread across the New England area.

Plymouth Rock of 1620 - Myth or Fact?

This is from an account of the Pilgrims landing -from the book The American Tradition. Is it myth or factual?

" After some exploring, the Pilgrims chose the land around Plymouth Harbor for their settlement. Unfortunately, they arrived in December and were not prepared for the New England weather. However, they were aided by friendly Indians, who gave them food and showed them how to grow corn. When warm weather came, the colonists planted, fished, hunted and prepared themselves for the next winter. After harvesting their first crop, they and their Indian friends celebrated the first Thanksgiving."

Answer - BOTH! The American Tradition account is a mix of myth and fact. Here’s why:

Fact:

1. Yes, the "Pilgrims" did come to America in 1620.

2. Yes they were inapt to care for themselves due to the harshness of the winter and their lack of stored food and supplies.

3. Yes, they did have a "feast".

Myth:

1. They were NOT met by "friendly" Indians who waved them in from the banks or welcomed their arrival. The Native people did not trust the whites, having encountered such foreigners before and suffering severe consequences. The Natives took pity on the settlers and only a (very) few Native Americans were actually "friendly" to the newcomers.

2. The Native community did not help the colonists because of a deep friendship, rather it was a custom of their culture and religion to help those who were in need.

3. The two groups did NOT come together to celebrate the harvest, as friends, and rejoice in the "first" Thanksgiving. They were meeting to discuss land rights.

4. Lastly, it was NOT the first Thanksgiving. An Autumnal harvest and banquet were a tradition of the Native people - a celebration that was a part of their culture for centuries.

The REAL story of the "first" Thanksgiving

In December of 1620 a splinter group of England's Puritan movement set anchor on American soil, a land already inhabited by the Wampanoag Indians. Having been unprepared for the bitter cold weather, and arriving too late to grow an adequate food supply, nearly half of the 100 settlers did not survive the winter.

On March 16th, 1621, a Native Indian named Samoset met the Englishmen for the first time. Samoset spoke excellent English, as did Squanto, another bilingual Patuxet who would serve as interpreter between the colonist and the Wampanoag Indians, who, lead by Chief Massasoit, were dressed as fierce warriors and outnumbered the settlers.

The Wampanoag already had a long history with the white man. For 100 years prior to the Pilgrim landing, they had encounters with European fishermen, as well as those who worked for slave traders. They had witnessed their communities being raided and their people stolen to be sold into slavery. They did not trust the newcomers.

But Squanto was an exception. He had lived with the British, after being captured by an earlier sailing vessel. He had a deep fondness for the Europeans - particularly that for a British Explorer named John Weymouth, who treated Squanto like a son.

Chief Massasoit and Samoset arrived at the colony with over 60 men, plus Squanto, who acted as a mediator between the two parties. Squanto was successful at making a peaceful agreement, though it is most likely that there was a great deal of friction between the Native community and the colonists.

The Englishmen felt that the Native peoples were instruments of the devil because of their spiritual beliefs and trusted only the Christian-baptized Squanto. The Native people were already non-trusting of the white man, except for Squanto, who looked at the Europeans as being of "Johns People."

It was Squanto who then moved to the English colony and taught them to hunt, trap, fish and to cultivate their own crops. He educated them on natural medicine and living off the land. A beloved friend of the Pilgrims, for if it wasn’t for him, they would not if survived. The Puritan Pilgrims thought of him as an Instrument of God.

Several months later the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims decided to meet again to negotiate a land treaty needed by the settlers. They hoped to secure land to build the Plymouth Plantation for the Pilgrims. The Native people agreed to meet for a 3-day negotiation "conference". As part of the Wampanoag custom - or perhaps out of a sense of charity towards the host - the Native community agreed to bring most of the food for the event.

The peace and land negotiations were successful and the Pilgrims acquired the rights of land for their people.

In 1622 propaganda started to circulate about this "First Thanksgiving". Mourts Relation, a book written to publicize the so-called "wonderfulness" of Plymouth, told of the meeting as a friendly feast with the Natives. The situation was glamorized by the Pilgrims, possibly in an effort to encourage more Puritans to settle in their area. By stating that the Native community was warm and open-armed, the newcomers would be more likely to feel secure in their journey to New England.

The sad, sad truth (what happened next)

What started as a hope for peace between the settlers and the Wampanoag, ended in the most sad and tragic way. The Pilgrims, once few in number, had now grown to well over 40,000 and the Native American strength had weakened to less than 3,000. By 1675, one generation later, tension had grown between the Europeans and the Native Indians. The Wampanoag called in reinforcements from other surrounding tribes.

Metacomet, her and son of Chief Massasoit, became Chief of the Wampanoag Nation. The English, who referred to Metacomet as King Phillip, started a war between the two parties when they unjustly tried and convicted three innocent Wampanoags of murdering an Englishman, John Sassamon, even though it was well know and accepted that Sassamon’s death was truthfully caused by an accidental fall in a frozen pond.

Metacomet, furious and in despair, sought revenge for the deaths of his tribesmen by declaring war. The settlers killed another Native man, hence settling off the beginning of what is now known as "King Phillips War." Many Native communities throughout Massachusetts and Connecticut rallied with the Wampanoags, but the power of the English was overpowering. Metacomet moved many of his people to New York. Sadly, his wife and 9-year-old son were captured and sold into slavery. Brokenhearted, he returned to his homeland - and soon killed.

His death ends the Kings Phillips War and the remaining Wampanoags, and their allies, were either killed or deported as slaves for thirty shillings each. This slave trade was so successful that several Puritan ship owners began a slave-trading business by raiding the coast for Native American Indians and trading them for black slaves of Africa. The black slaves were then sold to colonists in the south. Hence, the Pilgrims were one of the founders of the American-based slave trading industry.

Thanksgiving Today

For many Native American Indians of present day, the traditional "Thanksgiving" holiday is not recognized as the Pilgrim/Indian day popularized in children’s history books; rather it is a day of sorrow and shame. Sorrow for the fallen lives of those who were lost so long ago, and shame for living in a country who honors people who used religion and self-righteousness to condone murder, treachery and slavery.

For the many in the Native community, "Thanksgiving" is a day to reflect on what has happened (past and present); to pray to the Creator that more people will know of the truth and show respect towards the fallen culture; to fast the body; to protest the commercialization of Thanksgiving; to share their time with the less fortunate in soup kitchens or shelters; and some take part in a family meal, honoring the spirit of Chief Massasoit and his initial charity and intentions of the Wampanoag Indians — who first came to initiate a peace agreement between them and the newcomers.

Celebrating the spirit of the holiday - without the propaganda that is attached, is a respectful way to share the day with the Native American people. Understanding the true historical significance of their contributions to the day, as well as what the consequences of their efforts led to be, is even more important. Without the assistance of Squanto, and the agreement for peace made between the two cultures, I find it unlikely that the settlers would have lived so well or even lived at all.

The Native people died so that the colony could flourish. They need to be remembered, respected and mourned. With them - the Native forefathers - is a much better place to lay your fondness and your thanks.

It is with their spirit of generosity and charity that you should place your foundation for a true and honest "Thanksgiving."


Live as though today is all you have, give thanks everyday for what you have and never go to sleep at night ashamed of your deeds.

The above information came from:http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/bureau/bwa_2.html

Hi again. Inquisitor, if nobody cares, as you say, how come YOU care enough to get your hind-end in a bunch? You sure get bent out of shape over something that nobody cares about. What's the story? Are you full of crap? Apparently. YOU take it somewhere else, I-lady. This will be the last time I address your aimlessness.

Wingnut, if any "controllism" is exhibited towards you it is the same "controllism" exhibited towards psychotic kooks by groups of normal people. You are an insane psychopath that trolls various blogs at length with your inane, clueless, ignorant rants. No one cares. No one even reads half the crap of your eye-glaze inducing nonsense. Now run along and go spout this nonsense to cults that believe it, like Marxoids.

Hey Poor Clyde... don't you worry about a thing. You're moving in the right direction... in being able to see-thru the con called capitalism. Eventually you will see the servitude and extortion... and so will the pummelers... as soon as they drop the denial and own-up. I've debated this thing to a bloody stump at various blogs over the past 15 years... and I usually, eventually, get threatened with controlism... as happened yet again here...

http://www.chancelitton.com/?p=131

Its a decent read if you have an open mind. Most of the commentors here, don't, but... I suspect you do, Poor Clyde. Welcome to the land of clarity. Unfortunately, pyramid schemes like capitalism can't be reformed, only collapsed and outlawed. Servitude has to become illegal before anything can happen with the DOJ. Meantime, we can only watch it get too top-heavy from so many rat-racers trying to climb to set-4-life land. It will collapse on its own, soon. It appears to have already started.

I'd tell these personal-attacking commentors to do a google IMAGE SEARCH for 'pyramid of capitalist' so they could see the full color diagram... proving it was discovered to be a sham way back in the early 1900's, but they'd just argue for the sake of arguing. The "Yay America" factor is very strong, and deluded. Poor Clyde, keep up the fine work in investigating the con/belief called capitalism. It really doesn't matter what other over-inflated commodity is attempting to back the greenstamp (money) over-inflation. What matters is that people get addicted-to and rat-race-towards... enjoyments... and also that the 18 year olds are forced to join the competer's church, or die of starvation and exposure. If you want to go deep, notice the line between "out there" and "in here". Its the line the parents throw their kids across at 18... when they do the policy reversal from share, to fight. Notice how many general populous comments contain "go out there and" in them, especially from parents. Study that, and step outside the pyramid and notice the children all arguing and blaming within the pyramid. The members/climbers (servants to the imperialism/empire) say "that's life", "its the world", and "get real" about it. Its not life, world, or real, its a man-made pyramid scheme whose Free Mason/Illuminati inventors are long-ago dead of old age. That's why I am against the SYSTEM called capitalism, and not against the uneducated or forced-in people filling roles within it. Once you see capitalism as a children's toybox tug-o-war, and once you look at those children in a loving farm-mom way, you won't hate the children. They're just uneducated in seeing pyramids of servitude. Nobody needs to be lynched over getting conned into capitalism. The lemonade standing game they are playing needs to die... and will, though. "Standing" any supply... means "standing guard" and is a type of rationing based upon monetary discrimination.

There. Between the url reference, and the info here... this should bootstrap you a bit further down the trail of seeing thru the con, Clyde. I'm impressed by what I've seen so far from you. The "gang" here is just angry because we took away their abilities to blame something other than themselves. They've got a disease I call BBaRD (BARD)... blaming, bashing, and resenting disease. Its normal for folks who do tug-o-warring in a competer's church pyramid scheme. They should stick with the cooperator's church instead... called Christianity and socialism. I don't promote the type of socialism they fear, though. I promote Christian, Quaker, Amish, barn-raisings and potlucks, and the story of Stone Soup. Just take a look at Quaker tools, for example. Quaker tools last many generations and are used nearly constantly by the entire commune. Capitalism-built tools last a week, even though they are mostly unused and sitting hoarded-up in a God-owned garage... that some capitalist is claiming ownership-of. Ownership is illegal by our very "owned" ownership laws, as the original owners (Earth creators) were never consulted about selling or ownership-entitling Earth materials... and thus things made there-from. Best regards! Wingnut

poor_clyde: You seem to be blaming capitalism for the evils of fiat money. These are not one and the same. Capitalism is independent of the currency used. It is the currency having no value that is the problem and creates the negative situation you describe. If the currency were backed by something of intrinsic value, as when the US Dollar was backed by the Gold Standard none of what you wrote would apply. The Fed chairman discussing the confidence of the dollar...why would he say that? Becuase the US dollar has no backing of gold or anything else to provide it with real value.

Ignore "wingnut". It is a hysterical troll, not worthy of addressing.

In a society where liberty prevails, I view capitalism as the conditiion whereupon man is left to capitalize on his own abilities to produce. As the pilgrims soon learned, every human is a consumer but view will produce absent short term incentives. Capitalism in the modern day sense is simply the creation of wealth out of thin air without production, the printing of currency, fractional reserve banking, etc; in other words a sophisticated "con game" to harness slaves without them being able to detect it. I'm working on a white paper titled "Exonomics," the study of exchange between producer and consumer. If you'll excuse my taking up an inordinate amount of space, I've included my concept of money as it is understood to be in the study of exonomics.

MONEY

Money is the medium of exchange that establishes a zero balance transaction. For example, if a farmer trades another person's labor for food, normally called a barter transaction, the farmer views the laborer's labor as money in payment for the food. The laborer then used his productivity, labor, as money to purchase the food. Conversely, the laborer views the farmer's food as money in payment for his labor. The farmer then uses his productivity, food, as money to purchase the labor of the laborer. Both the food and the labor have intrinsic value and each establishes a zero balance transaction because of their intrinsic value.
There are two kinds of money; the one is comprised of some¬thing that has intrinsic value, like the food and the labor above, while the other is comprised of something that has little or no intrinsic value. The money with the little or no intrinsic value fails to establish a zero balance transaction. Consequently, it is not money as defined. therefore, in order for the receiver of the money with little or no intrinsic value, he must be con¬fident that he can find someone with something of value who will take his worthless money for something that does in fact have intrinsic value. It is not till he is able to pass off his “money” with little or no intrinsic value for something with intrinsic value is he able to complete the zero balance transaction.
The first money with intrinsic value is called value based money while the money with the little or no intrinsic value can be called "confidence based" money. That is money that the recipient mus have confidence that he can find someone who he will be aple to pawn it off on. Since the word confidence is the word from which the word "con" is derived, we can call money with little or no intrinsic value "con-money." Since con-money relies upon confidence to retain the façade of value, such confidence is exposed to the whims of the relative confidence of the people engaged in its use. Also, since it has no intrinsic value, it is impossible to use as a real store of value. Capitalism, if you will, is based entirely on con-money.
While we can see on the surface that it requires more than one transaction to arrive at a zero balance transaction when using con-money, in many cases it may take several transactions before the algebraic sum of all the transactions finally arrives at a zero balance.
While the "comfortable user" of con-money sees nothing wrong with such a valueless money system, he should take notice that he will always give up something of value to receive it and he will always give up something of value to pay interest on it.
What's the first thing the Chairman of the Federal Reserve says to Congress while giving his annual report? Before getting into the substance of his report he tells Congress that "con¬fidence in the dollar (valueless money system) is still good." Now why do you suppose he finds it necessary to say something like that?

Spoken like a true hysterical underachiever.