Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search

Average Rating

(0 votes)

You must login to vote

How many generations will we sit by and let the worlds wealthiest beat us down. How many generations does it take to create another revolution, industrial, spiritual, or social? What is this generation's great accomplishment going to be? Can we stand on the laurels of the democracy created generations ago, or the race conciousness brought to reality by our fathers and grandfathers? How much longer will we watch our families get jobs they do not want, only to pay bills they do not need to pay, because of a system of wealth creation and accumulation set in place by a generation's worst examples, hundreds of years ago? When is our time to rise up, and grasp that unreachable goal, to take hold of the reigns of history? When we rise, others will follow. When we speak out against the evils of this paradigm our people have been stuck in for generations, a paradigm almost all people have been stuck in for generations, those who have ears to hear will listen. When we rise, they too will rise. How much longer do we have to be silenced by the fear of oppression programmed into our minds by a class society's greed and desire to suppress love, joy, and creativity; when it is unable to be commidified?

"If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." ~Thomas Jefforson

Related Items


The following comments are for "How Long"
by Roach

Your rant is well-written. Especially since watching the movie "Zeitgeist," I have come to share your viewpoint that most of us are economic slaves. Certainly, we could all "rise up" and overthrow the present system, but what is the alternative? Anarchy and the like is useless unless you are attracted to destruction, mayhem, and uncertainty.

( Posted by: brickhouse [Member] On: July 13, 2009 )

it's just a rant. i don't think rising up would do us any good, but there are some alternatives out there, and it'll be nice when the mass media is employed to talk about them.

( Posted by: roach [Member] On: July 17, 2009 )

A good and ancient rant. The system isn't hundreds of years old ,it is thousands of years old. It has alway been three tiered (Or more) labor/producers - wholesaler - consumer. This is tyrue of nations as well. (Third world just means no value economically) The consumer, of course has levels form the poor to the rich. The rich swing back the capital to those that profit from labor/producers and to those that profit as middle men (Wholesellers) Profit is made by everyone along the line. This concept of the oppressed rising up against the wealthy is fallacious. It isn't easy to see who the rich are. Obama sees the rich as the enenmy, increrasing taxes to people that make 250,000 a year will make people poorer.(Guess what - Communism failed, give it up Mr. Professor President!)) The small business man or woman whose business grosses 250,000 will be taxed as an individual. What if they clear 50,000 a year for his or herself and has five employees? Someone will lose a job.
It was an evil to have royalty make an income based on birth and no effort. Now, having written this I believe this world system has failed. Tax laws and court bias to the very rich is real and an evil. Trickle down theory is an apology to the rich and could not work. Humans are inherently greedy - all of us. We all want our financial bar raised and we will take the position that I have a right to keep what I have biult. It doesn't matter whether we make 30,00 a year or a two million, we all think we are entitled to keep what we have earned. How do you legislate that!!!
The reality of wellfare is to keep the dangerous poor opiated with freebees. Keeping the poor calm so they won't rise against the rich - both parties want the poor calm. This healthcare deal is to calm a rising anger because the middle class cannnot afford health care. Lord save us - if the middle class should join with the poor and rise. This diversion away from the financial collapse, we all face, should be the real issue. This is a failed system. Now what? Can we survive a major change? Who would you trust to have the answer, when it just a theory in the head of some brainy economist? The common folk always suffer the changes.
Who does the media work for, and what is their agenda? We can't confuse entertainment with truth.
Thanks for the rant and the opportunity to react.

( Posted by: jonpenny [Member] On: July 17, 2009 )

First off this is not a terribly well written rant. In fact the writing is painfully weak, here are some examples:

1)"stand on the laurels of the democracy created generations ago"

You don't stand on your laurels you rest (or sit) on them - meaning that having attained glory you cease to produce and rely on former accomplishments to maintain your status.* To stand on your laurels would mean to trod upon (demean) them. A laurel crown was given to the best poets and athletes of ancient Greece to reward their prowess - laurel being a plant whose leaves were fashionned into the crown.

2)"the race conciousness brought to reality by our fathers and grandfathers?"

( Posted by: CyanideEyes [Member] On: July 17, 2009 )

Sorry, my above comment only showed up in half the rest was disappeared by the ether.

You wouldn't have liked it much anyway.

I gave four examples of why this was cancerously bad as writing but it was curtailed the the e-gremlins. I will expand on what is here if you like - just ask me.

The comment ended with;

"I agree wholeheartedly with your politics! But the writing sucks."

You should check out what a paragraph is though because you have one when you should have at least four.

( Posted by: CyanideEyes [Member] On: July 18, 2009 )

I was in a truly foul mood last night and commented on this more harshly that was warranted.

While I do feel that the writing is weak and there are some glaring problems; for me to say "the writing sucks" was needless. I was a dick.

I'm sorry.

( Posted by: CyanideEyes [Member] On: July 18, 2009 )

@ cyanideeyes
It's taking me awhile to get myself organized again after two weeks of vacation and a week bouncing between Brooklyn and Philly, but, I'm pulling myself back together!

Your criticisms were harsh; however, there's no need to apologize. You didn't attack the writer. You attacked and pulled apart the writing. While it made my head spin at first, I quickly got over it!

This is a "bootcamp" for writers. Bootcamp isn't always fun. I think if the writer of this piece takes your criticisms for what they were -- harsh, cold, analytical critiques, he can and will have a stronger piece.

Don't apologize. Just keep using the critical eye to help the writers become stronger. In the end, I saw the value of what you wrote.

Anyone else have any thoughts on cyanideEyes's critiques?


Off to do housework, and later, I'll be reading the things I've missed!

( Posted by: OchaniLele [Member] On: July 18, 2009 )

rave on
I said the rant was well written already, and was surprised at the critique of it. Of course, that is because I expect that a rant is something that flies from the fingertips to the published article. It isn't meant to be something that is fully polished; or am I wrong about that? In response to Ochani, I imagine the harshest criticism here pales in comparison to what the literary critics can dish out to some very successful writers. It calls for some very thick skin, doesn't it?

( Posted by: brickhouse [Member] On: July 19, 2009 )

You are absolutely right, "how long will we rest on the laurels of a democracy fashioned by our forefathers" is a a more better written line, and your the second person this month to explain the "paragraph" to me.

Totally try not to rip people apart, but in writing, critical analysis is what I need. Thanks, and kudos for your honesty.

( Posted by: roach [Member] On: July 19, 2009 )

Brickhouse: A rant is something off of the top of your head - you're right. But this is a writing forum and as such editting is expected (I would think.) To call something well written when it clearly isn't does a disservice to the writer. If people never get called on their failings they never learn to overcome them.

Roach: My initial comment was cut to a third it's length; and I'm kind of glad it was because I was asshole about about critiquing your piece.

Regardless what Ochani said I am sorry. Criticism needn't be delivered with a punch.

Reread the piece and I'm sure that you will find a fair number of weaknessess.

Recognition of a problem is the first step to solving it.

( Posted by: CyanideEyes [Member] On: July 19, 2009 )

Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.