A social injustice is going on in politically correct America. Read about it straight from a southern crackers mouth. Mark Twain and EdgarAllen Poe came from the same group of people as this writer, and he has the same fire, wit, and gloom as they did.

Go to: "The Revenge of the Mutt People." Then read his other essays.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/essays/index.html

Through the eyes of WaltsWorld, albeit half drunken eyes at that; the Scots/Irish conquered the American west with men like Davy Crocket and Daniel Boone, and since then they've enlisted en mass for every war that America has ever waged. The military is second nature to them, and the list of history making Generals is very impressive. Patton and Grant are two good examples. The example of Grant shows that they fought on both sides of America's Civil War, but it all depended where they were at the time. Most Scots/Irish at the time of the Civil war lived in the South. As such the Southern Army mostly consisted of Scots/Irish volunteers.


The Scots/Irish didn't fight to maintain slavery. They were mostly at the bottom of the financial ladder. They marched with bare feet and fought with bare fury. Their situation in life resembled that of slavery, but they weren't even fighting against that! They just answered the call to arms. It was their inbuilt clannish reaction - simply a matter responding to the call to arms.

If the South had won the civil war, slavery would still have been abolished. It was common knowledge at the time that slavery was a dying institution. Britain was already opposed to slavery, and yet she was leaning toward helping the South. Ah but, then old - straight talking never tell a lie - Abe Lincoln played a master stroke when he made the civil war into a war about freedom. The war became all about freeing the slaves; the North grabbed the moral high ground, and Britains aid to the Southern act of freedom was stopped.

If the war was about freedom then it was the South that had the upper hand in morality. If America had the right to tell Britain to go to hell, then it follows that the South had the same right to tell the North to go to hell. In the law, precedence rules, but we are not talking about the law of justice here, we are talking about the screwed up manipulating brain washing and arm up yer back kind of law.

To the winner went the spoils, and History, as always, was written by the winner.

The South lost. It was then financially raped. Slaves were set free, but they didn't get their promised ten acres and a mule. The freed black slaves became homeless and destitute. The shoeless poor bastards rose to the same lofty social level as the Scots/Irish.

Free, free, free at last! And the labour market was filled to overflowing with cheap and willing workers.

The Scots/Irish were on the losing side in the civil war, but the way they'd fought was well noted by the North, and they needed to be watched. If the South had won, the slaves would have still been set free, they might have even got a mule and a few acres, and the Scots/Irish might nowadays be considered to be human beings instead of being called hillbillies, southern crackers, or white trailer park trash.

Joe Bageant doesn't give a damn what you call him just as long as you call him when it's time for dinner. I call him a modern day Mark Twain, but even that doesn't do him justice. He's no an imitation of anyone. He's his own man. Keep it up Joe! I can can't wait to read your book.

Here's tee yer mate.

Walter
.........................................................

In regard to email being spied on; there's a way to tell if they are watching what you type. Just close your eyes, repeat these words: Munga monga minga three times then go to this link. I swear, trust me; you'll know if they are watching your every click.
http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/


What is reality?

Is reality all in the mind? Some people say it is. But if reality is all in the mind; are we talking about yesterdays mind, tomorrows mind, or the mind that we have right now? Our minds change. Did we once have reality then lose it? Is reality like looking for ones car key while muttering "I know it's around here some place". Is reality only in the searching? Some people say it is. After all, or so they say; it's real that you are searching, but in all reality there's nothing there to find.

One things for sure, every one is entitled to their opinion about reality, and as such here's mine.

Everything changes. If there was such a thing as camera that could take a photo of the whole world as it is, the whole world, including you, will have changed by the time the shutter comes back up. Everything is in a constant state of change. And as I write, the Seattle Seahawks have just won the NFC Championship game. Seattle are going to the Super Bowl. Oh how things change!!!! I love it.

Reality is one thing and illusion is another. The reality is that coach Mike Holmgreen has dedicated his life for God knows how many years to getting Seattle to the Super Bowl. He's sweated blood, and I've never seen him smile like he did just now.

Yer, I know, that's not reality. Seattle might lose in the Super Bowl, and next year they might go back to being the Seattle that breaks peoples hearts in the Pacific North West; but for a few moments, at least, it all felt magic. The fact that Seattle have actually reached the Super Bowl is reality, but does it really have a real part to play in my life? Is my version of reality really going to change if Seattle actually show me that miracles are possible after all and actually win the Super Bowl?

Nah. First of all it wouldn't be a miracle. Miracles go against what we totally believe to be true. If Seattle win the Super Bowl it will be the result of very hard work along with lots of money so as to pay for the many hours of labor needed to overcome many trials and turbulations. And yet; if Seattle win the Super bowl I could very well get a feeling of pure reality. I might get a feeling of sheer bliss. I might even get a momentary glimpse of what the Buddhists call Nirvana.

The fundemantal nature of reality is devoid of inherant existance." Dalai Lama.

It is all in the mind, but the mind keeps on changing; and things aren't what they appear to be, but then again, they are what we think they are. The things we think are real are as real as we think them to be. As such we all have our own version of reality, every one of us sees things in a different light. We all look at the world from a different angle and think what we see is real.

I think, as such, I am - is not reality. What about not thinking?

It's not real. It might have seemed real to Descartes, but he'd probably had a few to many of the black stuff at the time of saying it. As such he stopped short and should have continued to say: I think, therefore I am totally deluded.

If one stops and thinks about it, by the time one figures it all out; its all changed.

Descartes, and his like, were overly egotistic. Sure enough he got a few things correct, and he was on a roll, but to actually think that he knew all things, and that he had solved the mystery of existence by saying what he said was merely paying homage to the God of illusion, and if you believe him you are totally deluded.

In one respect: saying 'I am' is the truth. On the other hand, saying 'I am not' has even more truth. So which truth is the real truth? Am I, or am I not?

You are not.

If you were you would be blissfully happy.

Are you blissfully happy?