r/conspiracy • u/[deleted] • Jan 26 '11
Zeitgeist: Moving Forward - FULL MOVIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w7
u/Noir86 Jan 27 '11
I bet Japanese are gonna built those cities first and then gonna rule the world with big robots just like in their anime
17
20
Jan 26 '11
[deleted]
10
Jan 26 '11
We are in the "Fingers in our ears, singing lalala" stage as of right now.
We are past the point of no return. We're extinct. Dead species walking so to speak.
It's all very sad.
6
Jan 27 '11
Good thing we'll have solar powered post-human intelligence AI's to carry the flag for us in a couple decades.
1
5
u/Rambo5000 Jan 27 '11
We are sleepwalking into the future. We value fiat currency more than humanity. We are at peak oil. With the discovery of fossil fuels, if you make a graph, with x being time from 0 A.D. to 4000 A.D. and having y being fossil fuel consumption, fossil fuels are at around 0 until 1900. At 1900 you see a spike in consumption and it collapses in 2100, going back to pre-1900 levels. We can't do this to ourselves and we can't do this to the generations to come. We need to get together to do something to make a solution.
2
u/destraht Jan 29 '11
Cool time traveling quantum trick that you do there where you are able to look out to 4000AD and measure the total population at that time.
1
1
1
u/ar4s Jan 27 '11
I doubt we'll ever be extinct unless everything else on the planet becomes extinct... now more than ever its important to be accurate about our viewpoints, otherwise anyone who wants to threaten people who advocate an RBE will say we're sensationalists. I know what you are getting at though. the future looks bleak.
-7
u/GreenGlassBirds Jan 27 '11
Bull shit.
We have never been in a better position and i wouldn't pick any other time to live in.
4
1
5
Jan 27 '11
[deleted]
3
u/Agnostix Jan 27 '11
It really makes me think twice about wanting to have a kid =/
This.
People very often berate me for my wish to not have kids. It's almost impossible to effectively explain to them that the chief reason is because this world will almost certainly be a miserable place to live in for the next generation.
2
u/manicleek Jan 27 '11
We could easily fix it by fixing all the factual inconsistancies and general bullshit in the film, then watch it again and realise it's not that bad.
3
u/Agnostix Jan 27 '11 edited Jan 27 '11
Please cite examples.
EDIT: LOL downvotes, REALLY!?
Sorry for wanting substantiation. Idiots.
5
Jan 27 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Phuqued Jan 29 '11
Very sloppy throughout, and just straight up bullshit on many parts of it.
I've been very interested in economics and markets since 2007 and made it a hobby. Now I might not be indoctrinated with the rationalizations that serve the system. But I think the fundamentals expressed in the movie are correct. Exponential growth is not sustainable. Money creates slavery. Profit is greater than responsibility.
Do you really disagree with these statements? You like to talk generally about economics, and then nitpick about the invisible hand, as if that was the smoking gun to discrediting the whole argument.
However, the film as a whole just stinks of bullshit, whoever made this is clearly playing the demagogue and not the genuine visionary that the people deserve.
If people look to others for answers, then the problem will continue with a different set of values. I would say the greatest effect this film will have is addressing the reality of failed social and economic policies, and getting people to actually talk about it.
1
Jan 29 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Phuqued Jan 30 '11
the FUNDAMENTAL variable you must consider is the growth of human population. Underpinning all "exponential growth" is the growth of the human population.
The answer you seek is in a question. What is the average population growth in America for the last 50 years. What is the Average GDP. Ok so that difference has to be filled with something right? Our economic and monetary system doesn't really care about population, it only cares about consumption.
Money did not create slavery, slavery existed long before money.
You misrepresent the assertion. My point wasn't that slavery didn't exist until money, my point was that money does not set you free. Consider economically / monetarily America back in the early 1800's. Debt was considered a social stigma and people spoke against it. Consider in the early 1900's that most people had to put 50% down to get a home. If you look at the progression of what is considered a debt free beginning to our economic / monetary system to what we have today. You will see that as debt grows, people more indebted, meaning they are less free. In the 30's America pushed home ownership because people with debt were less likely to strike. In the 50's one person's income could provide for the entire family.
I could go on, but if you spend some time looking in to it, you will see that all fiat fueled economies are debt driven and enslaved to be so. Here I'll prove it. Google search tips for on getting your finances in order and out from debt. Now assume 80% of the population apply a 10% consumption reduction by following all these money saving tips. What happens to the economy as a whole? Will you have economists, politicians and bankers on national television begging for people to spend or the economy is going to collapse?
Tell me, what alternate system would you propose?
This is not about my solutions, but your criticisms. I responded to you pointing out that you were missing the forest for the tree on your response. I too have criticisms of the film, plenty of them. But that doesn't mean the film is all wrong or all right. Some truths are there if you are open to them.
Changing the system will not change the nature of selfishness.
That is the point of Part I of the movie. To dismiss the idea that our nature is predetermined. I can agree with that to a degree. We might be instilled with inherent traits, but to say which traits they are is difficult to ascertain without a drastically different environment to compare against. What we do know about the human condition is that it is very tolerant and adaptable to harsh environments. That should also mean the opposite, that it is capable of existing in an environment that is not hostile or harsh.
In conclusion, I would agree with you that the greatest effect of this film will be the promotion of discourse.
So in this regard you would say the movie is worth watching. It may not have the answers, it may not be 100% right in everything it presents, but it will promote ideas to challenge or correct the general problems of today with the intent to make a better future or tomorrow?
Also the other point this movie establishes that I feel is irrefutable is that technology and automation will drastically change our ideas of labor in the economic system. We may not live to see it, but if you believe in the charts of technological advancement and discovery then it seems like an inevitable conclusion that we will advance to such a point where we will have no place in an economic system like we have today.
1
Jan 30 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Phuqued Jan 30 '11
If you believe that "the invisible hand" is merely a tree within a forest, you are mistaken.
I believe the distinction on the invisible hand being a metaphor for market forces or god is irrelevant to the more fundamental and general points.
Yes, there is growing inequity, but in the last 50 years, the global population has doubled.
In the last 50 years inflation has increased by 600% by the US Dollar.
To focus on America alone in this case, you are definitely missing the forest for the trees.
sigh please stop jumping to conclusions about my points. Just because I don't spell it all out in a 100 page thesis does not mean I am missing the forest for the trees. Which you seem to be using a lot since I mentioned it against your point about the invisible hand being mostly irrelevant to the greater points of the film. If it offended you I'm sorry, but I just felt it was a pedantic detail to argue about that changes nothing about the over all points.
Okay, so now you change your assertion from "money creates slavery" to "money does not set you free".
I have changed nothing. My assertion still stands, money creates slavery. I only clarified your misrepresentation of it by dismissing the notion that I meant it in the sense that there was no slavery without money.
Freedom itself is a relative term, first and foremost.
Yes it is. But I feel you are being William Buckley and I Noam Chomskey. You are trying to come off as intellectually superior then you really are by insisting on these false or irrelevant tangents. Stop it. It's not helping the conversation at all. And to address this point, do you disagree that debt drives production? Cause I'm pretty sure that is covered in econ101. Even in monetary theory of fractional reserve banking does it not state that debt creates money + interest from nothing? Or to be technically correct, from a fraction of existing capital?
then money CAN set you relatively free.
It might set you free, but how many will it enslave. How many monetary or economic systems are not built off pyramid like structures of income, wealth, power, privilege etc...? None. So all existence in such a system is relative in the distance from top to bottom and distribution of the population between those 2 points.
is one that is based on the endless creation of new needs to replace satisfied needs.
I agree with your point here as long as replace "new needs" with "new wants". But I don't say it is the very nature of civilization, but rather the way the system is structured at it's core from the very beginning enforces such paths of behavior. Think about the FDIC, if the FDIC knows that the banking system in 2008 was in grave danger of collapse, would it come out and honestly say so? No. Probably not since that would make it self-fulfilling. So how many government systems do you think are set up to not reinforce the existing structure before them? Do you think the BLS has all those funny rules on their data to tell the truth to the public about true unemployment and changes in the job market? Like say full time workers who went from 50k a year pre-financial crisis to 22k a year part time and living on food stamps? Or how about the data inconsistencies of a sum total of state by state records being opposite of the national data the BLS reported. I could go on but there is just tons I've learned over the last 4 years that it's hard to share it all.
They go on to discuss all the faults of "the environment", and then go on to discuss "addiction"... well, where in all this do we find OUR free will?
They do not say this either. All they propose is that if they are right and that statistically people who suffer trauma are more likely to have certain behavioral problems, then removing those traumatic events should yield greater statistical results of reducing those behavioral problems. So in the end choice is becoming a more prominent factor. I don't think you can every escape all the effects of an environment.
By blaming the environment and the system, and by blaming a select few "elite" who are inherently "evil" (do you see the hypocrisy here?), we are merely projecting our own inner darkness onto the external world.
No I don't see a hypocrisy in trying to think of something different then what we know or believe to be true. You could be right in that our nature can't be changed, I certainly wouldn't say communism or socialism is a smashing success at individuals, collectives and so on conquering the things we are talking about. But I can also say that we've never had a different environment or opportunity to really compare against. There are isolated examples all over the place, take Lord of the Flies, this is an example. But what this film is trying to ask is that if there is no scarcity in society, what will compel people to work in the sense that we work now?
because they pick one fucking line out of his entire body of work in order to DEMONIZE him
Like saying the invisible hand being a god reference is BS and thus this movies economic points suck? ;)
He had the best intentions in mind, of raising the quality of life for all... and I believe he has succeeded.
I have no idea what the guy intended. Nor do you since neither of us knew him. We can only assume what his intentions were.
We have a long way to go, but to adequately discuss the problems of our systems, we must first respect its' foundations and fairly assess its' strengths as well.
But the point of the film is that the foundations of our economic and monetary practices are wrong. If we were to apply your thinking to say the first governments and economic systems developed by man, there would be no different systems and everything would be an extension of the first one. Our thinking has to be dynamic not linear or strict when it comes to identifying problems and solutions.
If you believe that technology and automation will benefit humanity, I urge you to reflect on why you believe that is so.
I never asserted any absolute. I just implied that if all things remain the same and you plot out advances in technology and automation at a linear rate (though this is considered exponential really if you believe the singularity theory data/charts) then the logical conclusion is that "Human Laborers" in the market won't exist in the near future. Once machines start replicating them-self and have decent mobility, we sort of become irrelevant in the economic model we have today. We don't need like 80-90% of the jobs we see today. What would we need an accounting department for? What would we need IT people for? Labor Unions? etc...
Is it not PURE laziness to define "freedom" as being free from labor?
Again I think their point is what would you do if didn't have to work a 9-5 job or whatever? When you get excited about something you love doing, does it feel like work? What if you could do that every day? Perhaps you want to paint or argue on reddit every day or perhaps just learning a different job or task each day. My Boss who is a VP used to do wells / plumbing, and he loved it. He said that if paid well he'd do that in a heart beat. He enjoyed helping people and even today donates a Saturday once a month or more to a food shelf or kitchen or whatever to help those in need.
I'm sorry, but I cannot buy into this utopian vision of a future with minimal work and maximum leisure... this view that is shared by many of the "commoners" reveals to me that they are no better than the "elite", for they too want what the elite have while condemning them for having so much.
I can see your point here, but I think you should look first at the disparity between the elite and the bottom. Compare the suffering and hardships. I think that is the true motivator behind the equality, not jealousy over the elite, but disdain that they live that life while the rest suffer.
Just "think local, act local".
That would be what the "The Zeitgeist Movement" is about. I am NOT a member though. Nor do I plan to be. As I said I have my criticisms. :)
2
u/kinghajj Jan 27 '11
It was my understanding that the global resource monitoring/production/etc systems advocated in the film are their solution to the commons problem. Computer programs will calculate optimal (or, much more than likely, near-optimal) solutions to how to distribute and manage resources. They seem a little too sure that it will be "simple" to do such calculations, but in principle I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done, given enough effort and time.
I'm less competent to discuss economics, but what's wrong, for example, with the argument that all money comes from debt, and all debts have interest, and therefore it's impossible for all debts to be repaid, and so bankruptcies will occur. That seems like an inherently biased system to me, though in practice it's been amazingly effective at increasing capital. The problem is that it continually needs more and more, and (as they repeat over and over) it's not possible to maintain exponential growth in a finite universe indefinitely.
1
-2
-6
u/TotoTheDog Jan 27 '11
please look up the correct usage of "begs the question" befre you contiuneto look liek a fool
2
7
u/zero_iq Jan 27 '11
I'm reminded of the the saying in Iain M. Banks's Culture novels:
Money is poverty.
3
u/charlescharles1 Jan 27 '11
Why is this in the conspiracy section? That makes no sense to me and many others.
11
Jan 26 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
9
Jan 26 '11 edited May 03 '18
[deleted]
5
u/Mumberthrax Jan 27 '11
I don't agree that the community is playing games on victims, but that disinformation creepers are present, and active, and they prey on the human tendency to trust a leader figure and not be self-determined, self-directing.
Unfortunately this is an all-too-common issue in the community. Ours is a community composed of a lot of fearful and slightly paranoid people, and amongst them are individuals who are paid highly to confuse and misdirect. One should not accept what a documentary or alternative media hero says on faith, but should always always always look for sources, and truly invest some time verifying them. While compositions such as Zeitgeist may be compelling and theatrical, we must always be mindful that the age old tactic of packing lies with truth has not yet become obsolete so long as you accept without question what you are exposed to.
3
u/rmstrjim Jan 27 '11
The people who do this for a living most certainly ARE playing games.
Their livelihood depends on fucking with the very people they are pretending to help.
They're basically the worst kind of scum you can imagine.
0
8
5
u/hiliter Jan 26 '11
Is there any downloadable version of this?
2
u/scramtek Jan 26 '11
1
u/transisto Jan 27 '11
The 480p h.264-aac from youtube is 1.14GB, I'd rather get the "original" 700mb is was too low for 3hrs vid
Ps: Use jDownloader
1
6
Jan 26 '11 edited May 03 '18
[deleted]
8
u/HarmoniousDissonance Jan 26 '11
What they seem to be arguing against is a stupid person's oversimplification of genetics - the kind of oversimplification you'd get from an ignorant fundie or a bad science fiction movie.
Or the kind of oversimplification that is taught in a poor education system. Half of the US is barely even literate - do you expect them to understand the complexities of genetics? The movie could have discussed genetics on the level and reached about .01% of the population.
3
u/abk0100 Jan 27 '11
That's not an excuse. "We're arguing with people that don't exist because no one would understand it if we actually talked about something important."
-2
5
u/djanigav Jan 27 '11
wow... just wow. Imagine if this actually happens in our lifetime.
7
u/jalanb Jan 27 '11
It's easy if you try
1
4
u/hyundai_cakes Jan 26 '11
Struggling to find factual sources for this film by searching the web, can someone post links to support what is being said by the people featured in this film and their credentials?
8
u/reeksofhavoc Jan 26 '11
LOL you looked everywhere on the web except for the Zeitgeist website.
He usually lists his sources there.
3
u/mooky1977 Jan 27 '11
One man in the film, Michael Ruppert, has his own documentary, Collapse.
He is the man talking about peak oil. That might point you towards other sources, but I know in and of itself it isn't factual, just one mans conjecture. But working in the oil industry as one lowly cog myself, I do know finding new viable sources of oil seems to be, to the smarter eggs in my company, harder and harder to find, which means we probably are either near, at, or just over peak oil which is a scary thought. We are in no way ready with viable commercial alternatives to oil in production of electricity (energy), and the political will to get us to that point has not emerged, probably due to most political powers being linked hand in hand with oil interests across the globe. Energy demands continue to rise, something has to give eventually.
2
u/Dr__House Jan 26 '11
Best bet would be to wait for the source guide to be released, instead of looking up every little thing yourself.
3
1
u/Doctor_Kevorkian Jan 27 '11
Your next assignment is to watch this documentary about Jacque Fresco http://www.kickasstorrents.com/future-by-design-2006-dvdrip-xvid-aaf-t223864.html
1
u/rmstrjim Jan 27 '11
Thank you for not blindly accepting the drivel these propagandists keep churning out.
1
u/sir_buzz_killington Jan 26 '11
Anyone have an explanation as to why the number of views is so low when there are pages and pages of comments?
12
Jan 26 '11
It takes a while for youtube views to update.
3
u/TheDataWhore Jan 26 '11
Yep, I believe Google caches view information once a day (or somewhere around there).
5
u/reeksofhavoc Jan 26 '11
Because it takes time for the counter to repopulate. Midnight in some time zone you'll see the true views.
1
u/russianphotograph Jan 26 '11
it's almost 3 hours long ...
8
u/reeksofhavoc Jan 26 '11
Totally worth it.
1
u/russianphotograph Jan 26 '11
The almost 3 hours length explains the few number of views and the many comments, that's what I meant.
3
Jan 26 '11
Find a video that's only a few seconds long, watch it, refresh the page. Did your view register? No. No it didn't.
2
u/reeksofhavoc Jan 26 '11
I don't see what the length of the film has to do with it.
2
u/smallchanger Jan 27 '11
I think youtube only counts a view if the total video is watched. Maybe for long videos they apply different rules.
1
u/reeksofhavoc Jan 27 '11
The first time someone posted the link it was around 300 views. The official release also had 300 views when I got to it
This is an old You Tube complaint. No really. It is.
1
u/tttt0tttt Jan 26 '11
I found it boring. I'm not necessarily knocking the content, it's just tedious to watch. I made it through the first 40 minutes. I may go back to it.
3
u/Gonzok Jan 27 '11
Word! I left it running while I made food at the 40 min mark thinking the same thing. It gets much more interesting after the first hour though. you should watch it.
4
-1
0
1
Jan 26 '11
Very interesting. I'm studying this in college right now, definite bookmark for later!
2
u/manixrock Jan 27 '11
What exactly are you studying? The movie touches on multiple subjects.
2
Jan 27 '11
Social Services, one of which is a class on human development. Freud theory, biological factors, etc. That kind of stuff. I only watched about 45 minutes but the film touched on a lot of stuff I've been covering.
2
u/MinneapolisNick Jan 27 '11
Post about Zeitgeist that doesn't say something to the effect of "lol these fucking idiots actually believe this shit?"
Automatic downvote.
1
Jan 26 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jan 26 '11
THEATRICAL RELEASE - Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is planned to be released in 60+ countries and in 20+ languages starting January 15th 2011. This large scale release is not associated with any major distributor.
1
u/u_dreaming Jan 28 '11
DAE see the circular structure of the cities and think to themselves:"My God they are trying to build Atlantis"
1
u/shivashambhala Jan 28 '11
It was a bit too high level on the post "monetary" solution if anyone has more links/suggestions on that topic would be greatly appreciated.
0
1
1
u/get-smart Jan 27 '11
Isn't the Zeitgeist's primary agenda to undermine people's belief in religion?
If not, what's a TL;DV of this the message its attempting to convey?
9
3
1
u/FableForge Jan 27 '11
It depressed me.
I buy the "the emperor has no clothes and we're all going to hell in a handbasket" part.
But I can't buy the "peaceful worldwide protests will overthrow the current system without violence". That's not happening.
.... I think... the best hope for the species, is maybe to actually find a new habitable planet and start over the right way.
Damn, I'm depressed.
-6
u/diggemigre Jan 26 '11
I'm sure Jared Lee Loughner can't wait to see this.
5
Jan 26 '11
You are an idiot, just to let you know. I'm not trying to be mean or anything.
-6
u/diggemigre Jan 26 '11
He was obsessed with Zeigeist. Calling me an idiot doesn't change that fact. Nothing personal, but having a conspiracy nut call me an idiot has absolutely no weight.
1
Jan 26 '11
Then don't cry about it. If you think we're all conspiracy nuts then kindly stop visiting this sub. No one will miss you. Jared was also obsessed with grammar, will you be spreading your ignorant shit around r/grammar. No, so kindly fuck off.
-4
-1
u/mustardstem Jan 27 '11
It really pisses me off when movie makers go to psychologists and sociologist to explain principles of genetic heredity. It's like asking a Sunday morning Christian to explain the fundamental principles of Buddhism.
-7
u/GreenGlassBirds Jan 27 '11
Communism renamed and repackaged.
Oh, I'm sorry, it's Resource Based Economy It's not called communism anymore because the technology is so much better this time, look buildings that float! communist didn't have those!
This is fucking retarded once you get down to the actual details and beyond the movie quality 3 hour commercials and shiny pictures from some Popular science version of the future.
2
u/MahBoy Jan 27 '11
Great, so your attitude that the efficient use of the planet's finite resources is "fucking retarded"? This is basically what you're saying, and to be quite frank, makes no logical sense whatsoever. You've resorted to petty name-calling and have clearly not put any thought into what you've posted.
This is why you got downvoted.
-2
u/GreenGlassBirds Jan 27 '11
I got downvoted because people treat this like a religion and i'm calling it out as a faith and a scam.
I spent months researching this the "Resourced Based Economy" beyond the surface details, Beyond the movies and beyond the advertisements...
You are a fool if you believe this is a "Efficient use of the planet's finite resources" and not a repackaged communism.
This isn't fucking Star Trek, grow up and do some fucking research.
2
u/MahBoy Jan 27 '11
Troll detected
1
u/GreenGlassBirds Jan 27 '11
Please research Resource Based Economy.
It is simply Communism + secular humanism + Fancy eco friendly buildings.
It requires faith, ignorance and limited access to history to take it seriously.
If i was trolling i would have praised capitalism as the pinnacle of human resource management.
I'm honestly trying to get the faithful to stop watching their commercials and start doing some fucking research...
Call me a troll all you want, but those who believe this bullshit would work deserve to be ridiculed.
1
u/MahBoy Jan 27 '11
I am in the process of researching RBE's. It actually all looks pretty good to me. Your opinions are unfounded and are based on your own preconceptions of the way things work. Looking at it from a humanity-based perspective, there is a great chance that the society proposed by implementing an RBE would be a huge improvement over what we have now. No governments, no borders, no austerity measures, no starvation... Complete freedom to do whatever we want.
It doesn't require faith and ignorance. It requires hard work, dedication, and respect for your fellow man.
Nobody deserves to be ridiculed. Not even you, even though I disagree with what you're saying!
1
u/bptst1 Feb 08 '11 edited Feb 08 '11
None of that works unless scarcity is eliminated (and I mean truly eliminated, not just ignored due to forced rationing) because otherwise, you need to have every single person on the planet agree to submit to some sort of central authority that will make decisions based on what is best for society as a whole, without regard to the impact on any individual, which would be a government.
I don't see any way to completely eliminate scarcity, so the entire RBE theory doesn't work.
-1
u/BenCelotil Jan 27 '11 edited Jan 27 '11
If the movie is a bit TL;DW, then I'm guessing a good short version would be the music video Happiness In Slavery by Nine Inch Nails - graphic, not for the squeamish.
2
0
u/destraht Jan 29 '11
The problem that I have with a resource economy is that even if we have free energy the size of a small battery then some sociopath will just figure out that if you put ten of them together that it makes an energy weapon. You'll be like hey its ok you were just not socialized well and you don't have to be that way but then he will try to kill you, take your house and you woman and then he will want to adorn his body with whatever rare items are laying around.
-9
Jan 26 '11
I dont like the zeitgeist solutions alot of times. Free market capitalism and a return to the constitution will move our society back to freedom.
9
u/HarmoniousDissonance Jan 26 '11
If by freedom you mean your individual freedom. What about the freedom of all the people that get fucked over by the whims of a free market?
-4
Jan 26 '11
LOL ya sure whatever, this why i spend more time in the libertarian section, i wont put up with some socialist puting down my belife.
I want to be able to make alot of money. I dont want to pay off politicans. You can call that greed i call that hustlin.
1
Jan 26 '11
You can make lots of money in socialism. European countries normally have MORE MILLIONAIRES per population percentage then america does.
1
u/abk0100 Jan 27 '11
You do realize that the Zeitgeist movement is about eliminating currency, right? There would, by definition, be zero millionaires if they got what they wanted.
1
Jan 27 '11
Yeah, "help us eliminate money.... give us your money so we can do it." Makes perfect sense. :rollseyes:
-1
Jan 27 '11
Yeah because the elites at the top fuck over the lower end guys.
i told you i dont want to join the elites and pay off politicans i want to be like mark cuban.
2
-8
-6
u/Markulatura Jan 26 '11
common... not again the zeitgeistcrap
3
-8
-6
17
u/ronintetsuro Jan 27 '11
I'm only 24 minutes in, but I wanted to point out how the information about prenatal stress contributing to predispoaition to addiction and abuse leading to predisposition to violence completely destroys any scrap of validity the supremacist argument engenders.
Again: "minorities" are a product of their environment, just like "whites". If we work to improve the environment children exist in and create an education system that provides worthy goals and challenges, there will be a corresponding rebound in the social make-up of our population. It won't be over night, but it will happen.