African-Americans and Africa

Identity politics has been a dominant feature of western democracy in modern times. No group have been exploited more by identity politics than the African-American community. The African-American community are the centrepiece of identity/minority politics and their argued collective disadvantage has been used to justify endless 'affirmative action' in the name of social equality.

The African-American community are only 13% of the US population and not all of them are poor with the US black poverty rate being around 30%. Even though only 30% of African-American live in poverty the thinking still exists among liberals that they need special treatment so they have an equal chance in society. The overall poverty rate in the US is up above 15% and rising yet so many of the political elite give the illusion that poverty is primarily a black problem.

The United States has a black president and the only legal discrimination that African-Americans face in US society is the reverse discrimination of affirmative action that devalues their accomplishment and fosters a slave mentality culture of victimhood within the community yet liberal thinking is that they deserve and need special treatment. It is an insult and potential mental virus to the all members of the African-American community and also to Africans and non-African blacks such as the Australian Aboriginals. African-Americans are born in an advanced superpower nation that offers great opportunity compared to the nations of Africa.

No African-American alive today was a slave and no person alive today is responsible. US society is one of the least racist nations on earth. Is it really acceptable that African Americans complain and are encouraged to complain about themselves when entire nations throughout the global community, including Africa face true extreme poverty. How many African-Americans would risk their lives to travel by leaky boat to another nation for refuge from America? Is America really as bad for African-Americans as liberal politics would have us believe?

I fully agree with IMF chief Christine Legarde that we should have more sympathy for children from Niger than we do for the Europeans that complain about austerity. In 2012 Legarde said - "I think more of the little kids from a school in a little village in Niger who get teaching two hours a day, sharing one chair for three of them, and who are very keen to get an education," "I have them in my mind all the time. Because I think they need even more help than the people in Athens." - Christine Legarde. We should care more about children in Niger than giving African Americans special treatment when they are lucky enough to be born in what many describe as the greatest nation on earth.

We need to ignore to the tired race baiters like Spike Lee that opportunistically exploit African-Americans with negative identity politics at any and every opportunity. Spike Lee perpetuates a false narrative and fosters negative African-American nationalism and black stereotype. Spike needs to do the right thing and promote a more positive African American culture because his type of nonsense is tired and dated. It is idiotic that Spike Lee sits courtside at Madison Square Garden for Knicks games and he seems to think America is a place that should make African-Americans feel angry. I think Spike Lee needs to think more about children in Niger schools than the children living in Harlem.

Would you agree that it will be conducive to global equity if African-Americans cared more about the disadvantages of Africans than their own? Has western minority politics become an obstacle to a fair and just global community?

[video=youtube;OQlByoPdG6c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQlByoPdG6c[/video]

 

I don't know tbh. I mean "African-Americans" barely have a connection to Africa. AA slave descendants have been in America for hundreds of years and a lot of those connections to Africa have been severed since.

 

I think you are overlooking a data issue in your analysis and you hit on it with your opening. You mention identity politics. I think identity politics is too broad. When you speak of Black people, you are speaking of many different people that practice all sorts of religions, live in all sorts of different areas, and as a result experience life quite differently.

When you only look at the whole group, you lose important information about subgroups. While I agree racism is no longer practiced, it is still felt...and deeply by certain groups of African Americans. To know which African Americans, I think you merely pull out a map and look at the inner city.

I draw your attention to two policies one outright racist and one some contend is racist:

1. Real Estate redlining - this practice prevented Blacks from participating equally in real estate markets. It allowed White people to systematically prevent integration of their neighborhoods. The logical conclusion is that it also effectively limited educational integration as well as public schools are dictated by geography for students going and revenue from taxes. The next affect is that it quarantined Blacks to the inner city. Ultimately, redlining allowed White people to practice Jim Crow separation.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ng-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/

2. Welfare - 40% of welfare recipients in this country are Black. Because welfare has no statute of limitations, it offers no practical way to ween people off. This form of welfare destroys industry, saps motivation, and leads to idleness. It is quite a popular fable on this very site that Lyndon B Johnson deployed welfare in order to wed Black people to the state. Racism is about intent, Johnson supposedly said something like he would have N-words voting democrat for the next 200 years. No other group of people votes as strongly democratic.

The heirs of these policies that live in the inner city live in a culture of dysfunction. The symptoms are outrageous: 70% single parent home, incarceration rates up to 40 times worse than Whites, pitiful school systems, no role models, no positive competition, admiration for gang life, and no perceived way out. This reality is exclusively felt in the inner city...not coincidentally, this is where our strife occurs.

You can't just walk up to a gangbanger and tell him, hey man, it's America...why dont you just get off our ass and do something? It's America. We set him up for failure.

I conclude by saying this conversation is more about ZIP CODE than race. And it would be interesting to see success rates of non-Blacks in the worst zip codes in America and that would give us a zip code affect to more fairly compare the affect of racism...if it is real or if it just the structural affects I described above.

 

Sub groups hey? "Compounding moral debt"? What a joke.

1 - This is a 60 year old policy. And the FHA "FHA explicitly refused to back loans to black people or even other people who lived near black people." And this is racist is it? Hmm. What about these people that lived "near black people"? They were not black were they? They were poor or 'low grade' or lowsocioeconomic whites that were living in slums with poor black people. And you want banks to give these people loans do you? I agree that they would have been a bad bet. There is nothing racist about this 60 year old policy. Both of my Grandparents lived in housing commission houses in Sydney and neither owned a home. And you want me to cry because US banks would not give loans to people living in extreme poverty or invest in slums? I dont think so. I dont own a house right now - like a lot of Australians because houses cost a fortune these days - but unlike back in the days of the British and Australian Government providing suitable state housing for the poor - which was a great thing - there is almost no public housing available these days and nowhere for people that cannot afford a million dollar home to live in especially Sydney but all other Australians cities. And who pushed for Britain to offer adequate public housing and things like the NHS to the working class? It was the British working class. And you want me to be angry for USA for trying to use welfare to imrpove the lives of Americans that were living in poverty? You are being ludicrous and you are clearly a raging 'free market' 'capitalist' that hates welfare and the poor that need it.

( Republicans usually go with this stuff about welfare destroying the black family by encouraging blacks to be single mothers... The Australian Government has encouraged whites/blacks whatever to be single mothers by making the single mother pension attractive. Is this racist? Or classist? Or was the government just trying to make sure single mothers and their children did not struggle? Plus there is no reason why a child from a single parent family cant succeed or be a good citizen and all this Republican bull crap about the 'destruction of the family unit' being an excuse for poor blacks is complete and utter nonsense.

So I am an 'heir' of the welfare policies of Britain/Australia. Does the state owe me "Compounding moral debt"? Again - what a joke. havent you ever met a poor white person before?

2 - What percentage of welfare recipients are poor? 100% ? And the root cause of all of this bull crap you mention - "70% single parent home, incarceration rates up to 40 times worse than Whites, pitiful school systems, no role models, no positive competition, admiration for gang life, and no perceived way out." is affirmative action and identity politics that encourages blacks to have their own nationalism that is hostile to the nation they live in and were born in. And again - whites live in these 'black areas' and poor whites have these same problems.

And welfare in USA is totally crap so this encourages blacks to join gangs and turn to crime for income to support themselves. The stigma that you put on the poor that need welfare doesnt help either. There is more pride in being a gang banger criminal than a person on welfare in USA or working one of your min wage or no min wage jobs. It is how utterly crap your welfare system and how hostile to the poor your society is that is the problem. When Ben Stein is having conniption over the myth that poor welfare Americans can afford "good food" is he complaining about blacks? Does Ben Stein want lazy black welfare people to eat fish heads? Or does Ben Stein want all poor Americans to have to live on fish heads? Ben Stein is furious about the myth that poor Americans can afford a healthy diet. Most poor Americans are not black. Blacks are only about 14% of the US population. Yet you capitalists continue to pretend that poverty is a black issue.

And capitalists need to fix the freaking economy and create some jobs - and not just utterly crap jobs like this so-called 'gig economy' bull crap that has not reduced unemployment at all - or these utterly crap min wage jobs - USA needs to create decent jobs and then maybe it will be more attractive for poor blacks to take a job rather than work as criminals. There is more pride in being a criminal than an uber driver can tell you. If your society would stop spitting on the poor and 'white trash' it might help with that. maybe get Ben Stein to shut the hell up.

"Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. No: a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented, and rebellious, is probably a real personality, and has much in him." - Oscar Wilde/Soul of a Man Under Socialism

You want the poor to live like badly fed animals do you? "Get off your ass and do something"? Yeah I think society can do better than that.

And yes - this is certainly more about zip code than race. There is no official modern racism as you said - and yes poverty is in no way a black problem.

You are one of these Charter School conservatives arent you? Waiting for Superman are you? Want to privatize the public school system so Bill Gates and friends can turn a profit on poor American school children do you? Yeah.

[video=youtube;QXBEepEoLWw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXBEepEoLWw[/video]

[video=youtube;iXzXL1YT1_k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXzXL1YT1_k[/video]

 

Going to innumerate your statements and respond in chronological order:

1. Yes, redlining is racist. I'm not sure what could be more racist than denying someone a service based on skin color. Now, if you are claiming that the underwriting of mortgages was based on 'residential security' as the official policy states, you must tell me how security impacts the bank! The bank only cares of being paid back its loan right? Even if a neighborhood is wildly dangerous, that has nothing to do with the homeowner's ability to pay. The only thing the bank should care about is the person's earning history and ability to manage credit. Because that is all that matters.

Now, if redlining were about health insurance...and they zoned insurance rates according to dangerousness of the neighborhood, you would have a great point. However, even today, with all the data we produce, we don't do that. And our neighborhoods are fare more diverse than they were back in the day...yet we still don't do it.

So yes, redlining was racist. However, I am open to you disproving this. It would take some significant proof.

2. I don't think you made a direct argument against what I said here. What exactly are you refuting?

3. Most poor Americans may not be Black...but most Blacks are poor.

4. Agreed

 

1 - As you say, official policy not racist. Not just blacks that were 'redlined'.

2 - Poverty is not a black problem. Poor is poor. Welfare must be colour-blind.

3 - Poor is poor. And yeah, not all blacks are poor.

 

This is all social banter.
The 'Black' disadvantage is mostly Genetic, and ergo not curable any time soon, and No amount of remediation has helped, nor will it.
(Nor has it with Aboriginals in Australia)

'Blacks'/African-Americans are not really a 'Race' but a recent admixture of sub-Saharans and Euro/'white': app 20% of the latter.
American Blacks, would be living like African Blacks, as would the whole planet, were it not for other Races developing from that source population during the last 100,000 years.
They would still be the primitive hunter-gatherers they were throughout history, (no written language, no wheel) and subject to plagues liker AIDS or Ebola that would have wiped out 50% of the sub-continent (even at this late date) were it not for Western Medicine.

The admixture (Colloquially called 'race') American Blacks have, on Average, 85 IQs, midway between the sub-Saharan 70, and Euro/'white' 100.
Just what one would expect if the cause was genetic.
And that is supported by life outcomes both domestically and continentally/worldwide.
American Black IQs were Not hurt by slavery or discrimination, they were raised by Intermarriage.
Which is NOT to say there isn't Discrimination, just that isn't the main problem.

What about Asians?
(this myopic view of just American 'Black'/White' clouds the larger Race issue)

Many Asians were brought here as indentured Railway labor just as 'Blacks' were being freed from Slavery.
They were discriminated against Mightily - the Japanese interned as late as WWII, and had their country leveled.
But look at ResourceLess Japan (or 1950-leveled Korea, or China) compared to Resource-Rich sub-Saharan Africa!
Look at the test scores of NE Asian Children, and their stunning Over-representation in our schools/Best schools.
Asians, both here and at home, have 106 IQs even though the tests were designed by Euro civilization.
Their scores consistent With discrimination and without.
And this shows worldwide in life outcomes as well.
This isn't about discrimination/'slavery' any more than who is in the NBA, prison, or wins the Sprints or Marathons.
It's about many genetic differences born of separate evolution for Tens of thousands of Years.

Many mock creationists for not believing in evolution, but Liberals are just as bad.
The latter believe in 'Liberal Creationism' (Slate mag), that evo stopped 200,000 years ago with the appearance of H sapien.
James Watson (with Crick) Nobel winner for discovering DNA:

"..there is No firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically Separated in their Evolution should prove to have evolved Identically. Our wanting to reserve Equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will Not be enough to make it so."
- Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science, 2007​

For now.
+

 

1. I bet there were some white people that used colored bathrooms at some point in time. Does that mean the separation of blacks and whites was not racist? Your opinion might be informed more by these racist real estate practices that also hurt Black people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbusting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_steering

2. That sounds good. But fails to recognize the far greater percentage of Blacks living in poverty than Whites.

 

Blacks aren't poor. About 30% of luxury cars are bought by Blacks. Black just have different priorities. When you die after owning ten Cadilacs, this is not reflected in your net worth. Bubba bought a house and sent his kids to college.

 

1 - I do not support segregation but the official 'redlining' policy was not officially racist as you yourself said. And so-called 'blockbusting' was not racist because it hurt both blacks and whites ( racist whites - and %$%$ em ). Plus it only became possible because of the dismantling of legally protected racially segregated real estate practices. The thing that you liberals do not seem to understand is that you cant expect to snap your liberal fingers and expect everything to change to perfection overnight. Great change cant happen instantly - there must be transition to great change. But since you want to talk about 'segregation' - isnt it true that many blacks are all for segregation and against assimilation? Here in Australia we used to have an official policy of assimilation for black Aboriginals. The Aboriginals did not live in 'ghettos' they lived in Missions, more like the reservations that many Native Americans live on - and the conditions were uncivilized and horrid. Our government wanted these fringe dwellers to be one with the rest of Australia and wanted to get them off the missions and living with the rest of us in civilized Australian society. We wanted to breed with them and for them to become one with us. We wanted the Aboriginals to have a civilized life like the rest of us Australians. But some Aboriginal jerk called William Barak decided that he did not want assimilation for Aboriginals and he preferred segregation. So this jerk was the main guy that forced the Australian Government to move away from assimilation policies and that is why we still have Aboriginal Missions today. Even though we still do have Aboriginal Missions most Aboriginals disagree with William Barak and also have never heard of him. Most modern Aboriginals do live in civilized society now but most seem to live together in ;Aboriginal communities' but that is actually what they want. All of these communities are poor/lowsocioeconomic for the most part but the thing is that most Aboriginals have a very different ego to civilized 'whites' and they have little interest in so-called 'upward mobility' and they are not aspiring to be white. The very concept of upward mobility is an insult to the parents of typical Aboriginal persons. Aboriginals are less likely than whites to want to step over the low class trash that they were born into - and over their low class trash parents to be like middle class whites. And this is why we have a so-called 'inter-generational poverty' problem with Aboriginals. And because of Aboriginal culture Aboriginals typically do not want to work for 40 hours per week. These are simple people that can be happy with a simple existence - and that is and what always has defined the Aboriginal people. The same thing is true for typical African-Americans in many respects because look how they cling to their own identity and do not seem to want to assimilate into American society so that they are just American and not 'black. Being 'black' defines the African-American. African-Americans see themselves as being black first and American second. African-Americans do not care what is good for America - they care what is good for African-Americans and that is why they allow themselves to be exploited by the liberal Democrats that play on the inherent racism of the African-American to win their votes. Democrats know how racist the typical African-American is and how they see themselves as being black first and American second and how they prefer segregation over assimilation. African-Americans segregate themselves even today. but this is true of many minorities. look at how every city has a China-town and how Chinese people all live together. look how Lebanese people group together in Sydney - look how Cabramatta in Sydney is full of Vietnamese. This is normal and it is normal that many 'whites' wanted to maintain 'white communities' - but apparently it is only racist when whites want to live together.

2 - Poor is poor and the biggest indicator is class not race. If you are born to parents that are wealthy or university educated then you are more likely to avoid poverty - but if you are born to low socio-economic family then you are more likely to stay lowsocioeconomic. It is not racist that less blacks are university educated or wealthy - it is the same with Australians. Australia until recently was a very working class society and it is the same for blacks so it takes time for things to change - again great change does not happen overnight. great change does not happen overnight and that is why pretty much every rebellion/revolt fails. You cannot expect to change society instantly.


--- Upward Mobility is telling the poor that they should be ashamed of their parents and that they cannot be happy if they end up like their parents. Upward Mobility is an insult to any person that was not born an 'elite'. Upward Mobility teaches that the 'working class' must 'aspire' to become an 'elite'. But the fact is that working class people can indeed be happy and even though many may have the ability to raise themselves to the next class many do not want to because they are happier being working class. Most working class people have no interest in being Daddy Warbucks - they just want simple happy secure lives. Elites know this so they have to create a society where the term 'working class' is an insult. They cant have proud 'working class' people - the working class must be insecure and 'aspirational' and the working class cannot be given secure lives with decent secure jobs - they must be terrorized and stomped into the ground so that their daughter will end up being Sugar Babies for elites. How many Sugar babies are around when things are good for the working class and the working class is happy? Not many. How many Sugar Babies are there right now when the working class is being stomped on? Great disparity gives the elite no advantage if the working class is secure. Do you see? You cant get a person to be desperate enough to drive an uber car if the working class is secure strong and proud. That is why society is the way it is.

But the thinking of Garmsci needs a rethink and this could lead to a happy stable and secure society. It is stupid to teach the working class to 'aspire' and to never be happy. All of this 'aspirational' nonsense is just creating class conflict and leading to class war. So-called 'upward mobility' and the American Dream is no way to end history is it now?

Gramsci is correct that the working class should have their own identity and culture but wrong about his idea of permanent revolution. The Organic Intellectual Princes of the working class should be the new new men and these men should act as mediators between the two classes and they should help promote class harmony rather than class conflict and class war. That is the way to end history.

The Cinderella story will always appeal to poor girls. There is no need to stomp on the working class and to keep them in insecurity. Especially when basic needs security for the working class is easy with the great modern surplus. It is by giving the working class security that you justify the great disparity and advantage that is now possible and it is by giving the working class security that we end history.

 

1
Not racist...if you could only buy a house in a small section of the city you lived and had to pay well above the market price, and this was true because of the color of your skin...what would you call that? Add another detail in, this occurred with everyone else with the same skin color as well.

2
Reread my first passage wrote on this thread. I stated racism may no longer be practiced, but the affects of racism are still being felt.

Do you honestly think that 27% of Black people would live below the poverty line today had they been treated fairly in real estate and the job market for the last century?

People overcomplicate this, but it is very simple:

if you had two groups of people, one was enslaved for 200 years then discriminated against for the next 100 years - and you found out that one of those groups lived very heavily below the poverty line, which group would you think it was?

3.
Not sure of your point about 'working class.' You dont hear of classes very often in the US. Nearly everyone has to work for a living. What you hear about in the US is something called a 'Blue Collar' family. Blue collar is never shamed here. It is white collar workers that are looked upon with suspicion. Further, 'elites' are truly vilified in the US. People despise the so called 1%.

Let me ask a simple follow up question, are you saying that a history of enslavement and discrimination has had no affect on Black people today? Or are you saying Black people just shouldn't make a big deal about it? Or something else totally different.

 

How do you explain the Asians? Blacks all over the world have the same problems. This should be a clue.

 

Explain the Asians what?

Blacks have the same problems all over the world...like the affects of colonialism? Slavery was an offshoot of colonialism. It would follow that those affects would be consistent...no?

 

Very funny..

"Add another detail in, this occurred with everyone else with the same skin color as well." Yeah, real estate agents were lying to both black and white people to make a profit. 'Redlining' was not racist officially or in any other way.

Classism is still practices and the affects are still being felt today. Look how poor British people were being treated 200 years ago, and being sent to Australia to live in a penal colony on some hell island at the end of the earth. Read about how the convicts were treated - it is a lot worse than any Aboriginal or slave. Most of them stole a loaf of bread or something because their families were starving. In fact - look at how the Iriah have been treated pretty much everywhere throughout history - even USA, or especially in USA actually. The USA treated Irish terribly until recently. And if you look into there is a very high percentage of Irish that are still working class and do not have a university education - but where is the affirmative action for the Irish? Where are the Irish only scholarships? It is simple - affirmative action is racist. Welfare must be colour-blind for society to be one of equality opportunity.

Google 'working class' and you will see the page full of news item from US media with headlines using the term 'working class'. USA uses the term "middle class" all the time and these are university educated workers that have pretty crappy jobs. US ministry of truth type propagandists may like definitions that tell the working masses that middle class is workers earning $25,000 - $100,000 but do you really think that someone earning $25,000 a year considers themselves to be 'middle class'? If you dont make $100,000 a year you are working class. A plumber can make $100,000 a year. Bus drivers can make $100,000 a year. And who the hell works for $25,000 a year? Are these McDonalds workers are they? McDonalds workers are middle class are they? Ha! America. Yeah , you have these 'blue collar' workers pretty bamboozled dont you? They have nobody to represent them - the Democrats are elitist that pander to minorities and are supported by them and university educated liberals that hate the working class - and then you have the Republicans - the party of 'trickle down economics' that is supposed to represent the so-called 'white working class' or 'blue collar' workers - and you have got 'Irish' Bill O'Reilly and Irish-Catholic' (HA!) Sean Hannity.... HA! And you wonder why the US public is so furious and the Republican party is just as hated as the Democrat party. This is why you had to use Donald Trump instead of one of the Republicans you have spent millions on building up for this election. What happened to Christie? What happened to Rubio? What happened to Jeb Bush? Romney is done. The Republican party is hated. And what have Democrats got? The VP is some Mexican speaking chump that nobody has ever heard of? Of course he is. Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. Like I said - you are creating what Gramsci called 'permanent revolution' and black people or Mexicans are not going to save you.

Australian politics used to run on autopilot before you started Americanizing it. Now they cant get anything done because instead of being dodo-like the public watches everything they do like hawks because most feel unrepresented - like they do in USA. The Labor party has been turned into the Democrat party and the liberal party has been turned into the Republican party - and the duopoly is falling apart - which is really unthinkable until US political influence began - and they cant seem to pass a thing - and even the supporters of these parties hate them to death. It is the US influence in European politics that has caused their political duopolies to crumble. You Americans have had it so easy because of the reserve currency status that until recently you didnt have to actually do much at all as far as politics is concerned - and this is why your political class comes up with ideas like paying the US national debt with a trillion dollar coin. Platinum are they? HA! WTF? The US elite are not just creating a domestic class war - they are creating a class war in every western nation - the entire empire. Black people and Mexicans wont save you. You know this.

 

Good points. I guess it depends on what you mean by classicism. In the US, people move up and down and socialize with various classes so frequently that it is an afterthought. The media may use a term like working class...I have never heard it come up in social situations. If someone wants to date someone with money here, they may do it but you will never hear someone say they want to date an 'upper class' person.

You want to see classicism, yes, go to old Europe. Better yet, go to India and see the caste system.

Believe whatever you want about redlining. If you don't think that was racist, that's your opinion. You will have many folks disagree with you especially those that lived through it.

 

Yes it does depend on what I mean and not on your ministry of truth definition of classism.

And people move up and down do they? Socially you mean? Because yeah this upward mobility stuff is a bit of a myth isnt it. And if you are not economically independent then you are a wage slave. There is a line which is about $80,000 in US that represents a comfortable happy lifestyle - but even these people earning - you really need $100,00 per year, this $80,000 figure is ministry of truth propaganda - even people earning between $100,000 and $200,000 per year are wage slaves at the end of the day and they have to go to work like every other wage slave. But then there is the economically independent - that have escaped the rat race - or were born above it. The ministry of truth likes to gloss over these people dont they. Better to focus on sports stars and the lottery and Warren Buffet and Steve Jobs and whatever capitalist billionaire Ronald McDonald clown you want to choose. But there is an entire class there. A butterfly class that lives above us. Dem lawyers making $200,000 per year is rich hey! Some girls expect you to own a jet. The masses dont seem to comprehend this really do they? These types are job creators though because they invest in the stock market right? And they are 1% are they? Are these the 'upper class'? What is 'upper class'? Most Australians earning $200,000 per year do not consider themselves to be 'upper class' and they are not unless they were born upper class. 'Professionals' are wage slaves like the rest of the working masses at the end of the day. But the people that do not have to work are a lot more than 1% arent they? There is an entire investor class, outer party members of sorts. But yeah, I have never heard anyone say that they want to date an 'upper class' person either. They would sound like a retard.

Classism is what US society is based on. The poor are poor because they are stupid and lazy. That is what capitalism is all about. Unless they are black of course. Then it is because of slavery of because England took their land..

Oh ok.

[video=youtube;NwzaxUF0k18]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwzaxUF0k18[/video]