Maybe fascists and capitalists need a little oppression.

Advanced enough dialectics is indistinguishable from a curse and a blessing.

telling them any Democrat that runs is going to be the same

No, not the same. Any Democrat will make things even worse than they are now. The speed of worsening will just be slower than under Trump. Vote for them if you want, sure, but don't lie to people. False hope in the Democrats is what really kills any hope for the revolutionary change that is so badly needed and that is the only thing that can save us (I mean the whole world, not just the US).

I feel like only having a choice between dementia, Alzheimer's and brain worms in the next election is not enough. The US needs more plurality in the democratic process. People should be free to cast their vote for any number of degenerative neurological diseases. What if voters want to stand up for Parkinson's or multiple sclerosis? More and more people look at US society and feel like terminal brain tumors are clearly best suited to represent it in office.

I'd join. Ads do nothing but damage to society. How much? Well they manipulate people to make suboptimal choices and waste at least as much as the advertisers budget (on average), or they would stop doing it. So it's at least 775 billion dollars per year. Rising annually. Enough to end world hunger and homelessness.

At that time the Anglo Saxons where foreigners among the Celtic Britons and their Romano British Culture. So he would probably be surprised, that no one is speaking Brittonic or Latin anymore. He might have gone to great length learning those native languages when he arrived in Britain and now people only speak a weird, very simplified baby version of his own West Germanic language with half the grammar and consonants taken out and the vowels all shifted around like a parody of his language.

I can play devil's advocate too:

1 The Bible is not first and foremost a "historical documentary" in the modern sense. The very idea of a historical account striving for objective unbiased reality is fairly recent historically, and the Bible is meant to be a religious text that's trying to teach you something.

Yes people absolutely did write and read it as an historical account. You need to distinguish between multiple authors who did not sit in a writing room together and editors who collected the works. The reason why multiple reports were collected was to get at the truth. Long lists of names and events were included to establish historical credibility.

#2 The Biblical authors are aware there are contradictions.

Just no. Some of the authors wouldn't even have been aware of all the other authors.

#3 The Bible contradicts itself intentionally. It's an ancient Jewish way of teaching to have two rabbis take different stances, and argue publicly. Often, the truth of something is in the tension between two perspectives.

Yes, but using contradictions intentionally as a teaching device applies to the talmud(interpretation of the law), not to the tanach(biblical law). Contradictions in the tanach were seen as something that needs to be explained. And yes, some of them were explained, after the fact, as purposeful by theologians. But if we went to take a historically sound approach, we have to acknowledge, that they are a collection from many verbal sources separated by time and place. So it's far more likely that these unconnected sources contradict each other precisely because no written account has existed until then.

If contradictions in teaching had been a core part of Jewish theology beforehand, they would continue in writing. There would be many Toras. But the opposite happens: With the advent of the written word, correct word-for-word transmission of the written law immediately becomes absolutely central to the religion. So the conclusion is inevitable, that contradictions came first and ideology to explain them had to follow after the fact.

Verbal traditions can be contradictory, because contradictions are harder to notice. Once the verbal tradition is frozen as words on paper, the contradictions become obvious and ideology forms around them like a pearl froms around a speck of sand in an oyster, to protect the body of the teaching from the damage.

Smith goes into great detail in "The wealth of Nations" about how landlords are parasites. He explains why theoretically and empirically and gives specific examples. He lacked an understanding of historical materialism, so he wrongly thought capitalism would naturally get rid of them.

No, I think that's just you.

Yeah, it's a reaction to the British navy's practice of kidnapping people and forcing them them to serve on dangerous boats under horrible conditions with like two or three years life expectancy all to defend slavery and colonialism. Many pirates during the golden age were freed slaves or navy mutineers. Many crews were egalitarian and democratic. Disney doesn't quite capture that aspect.