I don't think that answers my question. I think you might have hinted at it with this line:
So you cannot separate Christ from the redemption from damnation and actually Jesus Christ is so much more profound to behold than merely not going to Hell.
I don't really care about hell for the purposes of this question. I think you're trying to tell me that the Christ as a gift, and path to redemption as a gift are being considered the same thing?
I see them still as different, but it pedantic.
Basically just running banks and selling goods that helped suppressed the appalachian people from actually seeing any wealth from anything they mined or logged.
That's not how the Coal Wars worked. The poverty in West Virginia existed prior to, and since, coal mines and coal towns. And while we can have a long discussion about why Appalachia remained poor, it would be more reasonable to blame the US government and Coal Companies (via the use of mining towns) to keep coal cheap and competitive internationally to support the US's efforts at mass industrialization. Most of everything I mentioned was run by "yankees".
Thing is, almost the entirety of your narrative could be lifted out of A Progressive History of The United States by Howard Zinn, except you just replaced "Capitalist" with "Jew". There's no real difference, you're just a Leftist and I want you to stop pretending.
You're retarded quote about the "Second American Revolution" is damning from that statement alone in it's incompetence. Most of the Plantation elite of the South really didn't go anywhere, and didn't lose much of their land holdings. Many of your most influential politicians in the south are still descendants of those plantation aristocrats from the antebellum period. They also hated the Appalachian peoples in the first place. The "Mountain Folk" v. "Coastal Elite" divide has existed since prior to the American Revolution, and is one of the reasons why West Virginia seceded from Virginia.
So basically, they run the banks with extreme interest rates, they run the stores at extreme markups so that appalachians and black people couldnt escape poverty.
This is, of course, never true; but is the most common refrain you hear from Communists. No, it is not the Kulak shopkeeper that oppresses people. Appalachians wouldn't have hardly encountered almost any jews, or jewish stores. The abolishment of the old Company Town system meant that men who worked int the mines built merchant businesses around the mines, but mines only have a limited time span, and an economy needs to be diverse in income sources to succeed. Blacks and Appalachians both had the same problem in having low literacy, low mathematical aptitude, which prevented them from developing complex economies. But the thing that really killed their success off was the introduction of Socialism via Unions and Racialism into their societies that drew their attention from personal and civic development, into rampant oppression Olympics and resentment mongering. You know, the thing you're doing with regards to jews?
Real question though, did I just commit a anti semitism for pointing out their role in americas history?
No, you're just a Race Communist jew hater from everything I can see.
"Living wage" means nothing. You should be paying attention to the inflation rate which destroys wages one way or another.
The pension system is literally the justification of why the entire economy must be directly oriented against the prosperity of the people.
I'd rather just save my own money, rather than hoping I get 10% of my purchasing power back so long as Social Security doesn't die (which it will).
Africa is literally all of the above of terrible things. I think it's something like 75% of Nigerians think that they have intransigent "enemies" in their lives that they will have to permanently fight or destroy, just as a part of life.
He's dead wrong about this. We over-produce STEM grads and it's been this way for 20 years. The Department of Labor does this on purpose because they have two stated objectives:
ONE: This reduces the price of math & science competency in all of the other fields that STEM grads will go into, particularly non-STEM fields like Finance. Finance is where most physics graduates actually work, and normally for a lot of money. This is because there is a huge discrepancy between the amount of math and analytical skill that some fields need, and the actual math & analytical skill of the people who work in that field natively. Most Americans are literally afraid of fractions, and hardly any can do basic algebra or trigonometry. STEM grads can quickly get pulled into these industries and drive down the ballooning costs of these skills in these industries.
TWO: The government believes that the over-production of STEM grads is necessary in the event of a national emergency which may require a major industrial-scale research effort (like the Manhattan Project). If, for some reason, the US needed to suddenly come up with, I don't know, Silk Steel or whatever, they would rather recruit thousands of STEM grads who are working in non-STEM fields to do the research, rather than try and take nearly a decade to train up high school grads to the level that's actually needed. Retraining previous STEM grads is faster than starting from scratch.
The US has never had a shortage of STEM grads. It doesn't even now. It just doesn't have them at the price point that most corporations want them at.
Now here's the truly bad issue. Thanks to DIE initiatives, low quality training, and the political radicalism of universities; most of the people who could be excellent pure STEM workers are realizing that no one at the university wants them to succeed. A white boy with good grades doesn't mean shit. I remember my Computer Science instructor telling women who were in the program that they had nine academic organizations dedicated to their success alone; and this doesn't include grant money. As with the military and police, the good recruits are disincentivized from even applying because you're shitting everything up so bad. They're actually deciding to go back into blue collar work because people actually care more about their productivity than their politics, race, or sex.
As for STEM grads from foreign countries, they're absolute shit. They have no critical thinking skills, and off-shore companies have to be tightly managed for quality control issues. As bad as American universities are, they were so accidentally unhelpful that the only coping mechanism students had was to actually develop critical thinking, analytics, and research skills on their own with no guidance. In foreign countries like India and China, they don't have any of those skills. It's rote memorization and process. They can't solve problems. Those countries create high degree holders, but low IQ individuals.
Species isn't a social construct, though. It's purely a biological one built off of the ability for members of a genetic population to reproduce fertile offspring. There's no debate in any of that.
The biological race concept does work, but it's never used appropriately in any cultural settings. We know that there are a specific number of phenotypes within human populations, but most people don't even know what their phenotypes are, and the breadth of variance among things like intelligence and physicality among phenotype groups is so wide it's not actually useful knowledge from a cultural perspective. Hence, "race" is simply not treated as a biological concept, but as a political one. I agree with that sentiment because that ends up being how it gets used. No one ends up actually caring what their genetic profile is, they just want to know what they can assert random people to be based off of a single look with no knowledge. Moreover, it is a useful political tool to manipulate people into clientele groups for ease of control through a party boss system.
My only caveat is that in your position there lies the implication that if we just "fixed" the environmental/cultural issue they would become much more identical to the rest of us, sans some adaptation pains.
I believe this is absolutely true, and I believe that the history of the US has shown that in localized environments these groups will tend to integrate well over time. This process takes somewhere around 5 generations, though. The constant rolling flood of immigration with no time to assimilate, integrate, nor interbreed prevents social cohesion from forming.
I think the easiest way for me to explain this is to say: I believe that "American" can be (possibly is) an ethnic group through ethnogenesis. The problem is that we have to allow for ethnogenesis to take place. This does not happen in an instant, and takes a long time for populations to intermix and settle. You kind need net zero or net negative migration for five to seven generation for such a thing to take place. What we've seen in history is that typically if political balkanization is not present these groups do naturally integrate into a shared nation over time and make progress doing so. But what's been happening is that all the gains made in 2-3 generations are suddenly reversed in 1 or 2. There is no reason that American blacks who've lived in the north for 300 years should be acting like "America isn't my country" or "This country isn't my people". They may not even have ever been slaves (those that were are almost universally genetically related to their masters as well). That's all Communist racial subversion. They are effectively foundational American stock, taught to hate their fellow Americans by Communists attempting to revolutionize the country into Racial Socialism.
I was a bit surprised by the huge swathe of Russians that showed up at the turn of the 20th century. I don't feel like I see much ethnic Rus presence in the US, so I wonder if they were listed as Russian because some of those countries only just began to exist (or re-emerge). It would make sense that Polish immigration would be zero while Poland wasn't a country, only for it to become one, and then Russian and Polish immigration swap.
You're an idiot. The US was already a country with the largest number of jews on Earth prior to WW2.
Not to mention, German was already the largest non-British ethnic group in the US prior to WW2, so the vast and sweeping majority of those immigrants were probably Germans coming to see their families in America.
Okay, legit question for the Christians because this doesn't feel like it makes sense.
Okay, the Holy Trinity is God, the Holy Spirit, and the Christ. And, for our purposes let's just assert that God giving Earth the Christ makes sense and we're just going to ignore any logical questions about God giving something like a piece of himself whatever that means. We're just going to table that. Now, shouldn't God's actual greatest gift be a path to redemption from damnation that the Christ provided? The Christ is effectively God, so redemption from damnation provided by the Christ should be the greatest gift, shouldn't it?
I'd be willing to accept it if you could figure out how to be respectful to the lore and world building. 007 is not James Bond. The new 007 is someone else. Some Tier 1 badass who might go back to James for advice until he becomes his own hero. It's about the legacy of 007, more than James Bond.
The problem is that there is not one single soul in corporate entertainment who is capable of telling this story.
That's a good point, I didn't think about that. There would have been a flood of refugees from mass starvation as well.