[Global Politics] Confusion

Post Reply New Topic

In America, it's obvious that if you aren't a billionaire, you are irrelevant to the political process.

So why do we insist on calling you "people"?

In the third world, it's obvious that if you aren't sponsored by First World billionaires, your lives are worthless except as a source of cheap labor.

So why do we insist on calling you "people"?

In the animal kingdom, two creatures can share compatible genetics, and still be considered distinct 'subspecies' if they are geographically or behaviorally isolated.

Wouldn't it be far more honest to acknowledge that there are two subspecies of humanity - one of which are "people", who have the power to do what they want, and the other of which are "untermenschen", which exist to be exploited?

A global political system in which the "rights" of only a few hundred actors are relevant, and everyone else is a concern only as labor, soldiers, breeding wombs, organ donation and chattel would make much more sense, and would be a much more honest appraisal of our culture.

So why the charades?

"The ninety and nine are with dreams, content but the hope of the world made new, is the hundredth man who is grimly bent on making those dreams come true."





in all seriousness i hope the OP is asking either rhetorically or with a purpose beyond the message stated.

Sounds like some OWS stuff.