We view them as products having come off the assembly line for our use or pleasure. If they do not meet factory standards (as set by ourselves-every man is right is his own eyes), then that human resource is "defective". They must either be sent away to be "fixed" or destroyed.

They must work so that we may continue to acquire and consume. They must have the moments of their life sacrificed for "the greater good" because they are not their own. As a human resource, they belong to all consumers.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Whitewave,

Thanks for this Thread and as the OP you have opened up a big can of worms to those who can see hear and understand beyond the next sound bite in our lives.

I suspect that will be a pretty short list so the can of worms will wriggle out of sight quickly enough to not cause any distress.

As near as I can tell White Wave...one of the names for this kind of selling, trading and bartering of ones soul and even the souls of others... is... "diversity."

Maybe we're working off of different definitions but I wouldn't define it as diversity so much as political correctness. Diversity is not a dirty word but it's undeniable that birds of a feather tend to flock together and ill tolerate that which is different. The differences don't have to be bad or wrong, just not preferred. In the name of "tolerance" we are denied our human right to preference. I have a Chinese restaurant that I frequent, always ordering the lemon fish. It's quite good and because of my restrictive diet, it's one of the only allowable items on the menu for me. The proprietor always asks me if I'll try something that is no doubt equally delicious THIS time and I always tell her the reason for my choice. She shakes her head and "teases" me that I am too narrow and restrictive, afraid to branch out and try new things." Having a preference in anything at all, even Chinese food, it seems, is considered not politically correct. I must sample everything on the menu of life or I am narrow and rigid. It can't be something as simple as shrimp drops my blood sugar, no, it has to be that I'm shrimpaphobic. Maybe I'm a "shrimpist" (unreasonably intolerant of crustaceans). Having a choice in selection means having a choice to say "NO" to all but the one you prefer. Diversity allows us a choice but political correctness denies us the opportunity to exercise a preference; insisting that we sample all whether we want it, like it, or have adverse reactions to it.

I began to sense this years ago ..but never quite let it gel down to what it is...the lowest common denominator in civil conduct while defining ourselves by every cheap transient thing to be merchandised next. All this while claiming the lowest common denominator is a mark of excellence and to be promoted as greatness and honorable.
To me this tack cannot be accidental but deliberate, planned, carefully structured and cultivated. If it is of economics it must be political as well.

I agree that such programming has been intentional but until recently the effects were mainly limited to certain groups like politicians. Now, it seems that everyone has jumped on the bandwagon and is competing with one another to see who can degrade themselves the lowest (who is most marketable), who is able to obtain the highest bidder (Ever watched an episode of 'Girls Gone Wild'?) The more outrageous the behavior, the more valued the outrageous one becomes. I heard some young women (20's) verbally patting each other on the back for having chastised a nemesis. By their rude, disrespectful and vulgar outpourings, they placed themselves on a pedestal they called "courage". Loutish behavior has become the new standard of excellence. If you can belittle, humiliate or insult someone in a spectacularly abrasive manner, you have shown your skills (all skills are marketable) and thereby proven your worth (increased your market value). Those refusing to participate in such behavior are "marked down" in value.

That missing thing or concept never recognized by those who demand the ability to consume...is who will be taking or making the "RISK" for others to consume...or be persons who define themselves by what they consume.
And I know lots of peoples like this.

What is particularly insidious with this concept of risk is that the stakes have become much higher than any of us could have imagined. We are risking our very humanity; our "divinity", if you will. The crowning of creation is being reduced to the rank of mere animal. There was a time when we held human beings to a higher standard than animals but no more. Now animals have the same rights as human beings. I'm all in favor of being a good steward of the planet and it's bountiful blessings and count cruelty to animals as a decidedly "nonhuman" thing to do but we are so much more than animals. If we begin to identify on a personal level with animals then we start to view ourselves and each other as "food on the hoof" or "beasts of burden". There may be a few naturally endowed or gifted ones who will wind up as someone's "pampered pet" but how is that celebrating our humanity?

It is to me a sign of this very rot you are want to describe. It has moved into our leadership...just like Ancient Rome.

We know how Rome fell and America bears a close resemblance to that ancient empire. We were founded on Greek philosophy, Hebrew religion and Roman politics. We are repeating history.

There is a type of very sick circular reasoning in this ability to consume....and ostracize if one cannot consume. It causes something to be missing ..something we are supposed to have as Americans. And that is freedom and liberty to say no...to reject this dogma...this religion if you like.

This is a type of seduction and coercion and it is not of Liberty and Freedom. That is what is missing. It is of feudalism and a royal class.

All the "isms" we argue over are arbitrary divisors. Right wing, left wing. The eagle has flown the coup so it doesn't matter which wing we're on! Fat, skinny, rich, poor, middle class, upper class, youngster, elderly.....we're PEOPLE. First and foremost we are all of the family of man. We're all on the same sinking boat and arguing about who has the better seat or who will be the best dressed corpse makes no sense to me. The very concept that one human being is innately better than another by right of birth is THE GREAT LIE we've all bought into to one degree or another.

I owe no one anything but the humanity I "choose" to share with them. My choice not theirs. Not by guilt politics or default settings to play through on the RISKS of others.

This is the lesson I feel we must all learn or perish. When I hear people scream "Wake Up!", I wonder if this is what they mean because until we wake up to this most basic fact of our humanity; the very defining of humanity, none of us will every truly be "awake". Any progress or forward development must first stem from this basic premise.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by whitewave]

Originally posted by whitewave

In my grandmother's time it was unheard of to EXPECT help from any source. There were crippled and disabled persons back then, elderly that were taken care of by their families and communities (churches) and resorting to begging was the absolute lowest a person could sink. If you saw someone in need you discreetly gave to them or provided an opportunity for them to earn their upkeep so as to not insult their human dignity. If some charitable person gave a less fortunate neighbor help with the intention of showing how "good" they were, it was a horrible embarrassment to the one receiving the help. People were reduced to tears to think they would be treated so "charitably". Many were actually insulted to consider that their kind hearted neighbor had been reduced to becoming a human resource on their behalf.

My! How things have changed! Now, we expect not only the goods and labors of our neighbors but their very souls. We are all endowed with a certain amount of inner fortitude in which we draw strength to face our days and even this is being extracted. We require people to "tell all", show all, expose their every emotion for our scrutiny and often our criticism. If we keep to ourselves, mind our own business then we're viewed as "secretive", "loners", "probably a terrorist or up to no good". My business, my thoughts, my reasons for doing things are not for public consumption.

Where is the "oneness"; the mutuality; the respect; the building up together? It's been eradicated because there is no "group" profit in it, only profit to the involved individuals as human beings. Such behavior benefits and exalts their individual human status. Strong family units do indirectly benefit the community but the community has a blood lust for instant gratification.