Music Composers Unite!
Yes Peter, OO continually tries to grab the ball and pull it into his court.
All the while pretending to have a discussion and debate, his overall
methodology is not always guided by the idea of reasonable and fair. RS
- please tell me if I'm wrong, but his strategy seems to be;
1- dissect and analyze
2- interpret and twist intent and meaning
3- put others on the defensive
Roger, I have asked what you thought the "most beautiful symphony in recent history" is. And people here have offered you symphonies by Benda, Shostakovich, Vermeulen, Prokofiev, Wellesz, and Allan Pettersson. You haven't commented on any of them. Why not?
I stated: [the critique] means nothing if Corporations are not restrained without at least SOME ADDITIONAL government which can........... help the people to control the excesses of the super-rich."
"That is rich, you have got to be joking."
Not at all. I think we are beginning to see where our main political difference really lies. But let's get things crystal clear on this issue, if on no other issue. So you have a critique of banks. You have talked about a super-rich elite class that governs. Tell me. Do you think Wall Street, the Big Banks, the Corporations, the Big Real Estate Firms, the Military Industrial Complex need to be LESS regulated than they are now?
(If you say no, then I might say, YOU have got to be kidding. But let's see what your answer is).
"This also suggests that lobbying is a waste of time and money."
What suggests lobbying is a waste of time? Didn't the large corporations, big banks, etc. get the de-regulation we have now THROUGH lobbying? Under a Republican government, won't they be able to lobby even more, and reduce restraining legislation even FURTHER?
"I may be wrong but I thought the Nazi's were defeated. Who and what is this antisemitism you keep referring to?"
It was in the "Explaining the Rothschild's in 15 minutes" video. Did you forget about that already? It was pointed out by at least four people, including a moderator.
"Is there some legitimate group agenda secretly at work. I've stated already that I don't subscribe to any such thing. It's the hierarchy of the banks and their control that is the problem, and 'They' are manipulating the world into an eternal debt paradigm."
So, given that reality how can you be AGAINST more government regulation of the banks? How can you remain mute or neutral on the issue of the people's democratic control of the banks and credit? Or not? I still don't understand your position. Either you want the people to be able to control the banks, or you don't. You keep making light of books and knowledge, but I suggest reading Tolstoy and/or Henry George could do you a world of good. Or do you think the land should belong mostly to banks, corporations and large financial institutions?
So that raises the question, as you asked, who are 'They'? Lets start with the premise that 'They' could be any one and of any of a number of cultures.
"Read all the books you want, but I doubt that Plato can help us out here."
Who do you think can? (It's only the twelfth time I have asked you. Still no answer). Plato might help you understand that you cannot hold two contradictory positions simultaneously. You said, "research and study." I suggest Plato as simply one of the great authors in human history to be studied. Do you have any suggestions, aside from Youtube videos?
Here is a very important YOUTUBE video. I admit some of them are good.
Read all the newspapers you want, but I doubt that you will find a list of names there either.
No one is looking for a list of names. I think we are beyond that stage. I am asking you what kind of research you think should be done, other than listening to ten or fifteen minute youtube videos.
"If these folks like to operate behind the scenes 'in secret' which apparently 'They' do,
hiding behind parent corporations to mask their plans, then you're going to have to
do the research where the information is to uncover it."
Now in addition to using words like "them" or "they" you are using the phrase "these folks." You say "do the research." But you aren't doing basic research in history, sociology, economics or philosophy, so you can dig beneath the assumptions that you are being fed by God-knows-who. How do you know that your sources are not "the same folks" trying to DECEIVE YOU and throw you off the track. You won't even say who your sources are. I hope you don't an outstanding source if USAWatchdog.com. That looks like a right wing group to me, that endorses US militarism.
"There are people who have done this resesarch and compiled lists."
Which people? What kind of research? You don't care to tell us who they are, what their sources are, or anything about them.
'A lot of the names, we are somewhat familiar with, but it has never been, in my mind, an issue of Nationality.'
You just said their names are not readily available, now you say they are. That's just a blatant contradiction. "No one knows who they are, but I DO," you are saying.
Who knows, 'They' may turn out to be part of an 'Ancient Alien' race. If the facts end up pointing to that, will you then accuse me of being anti-alien?
Who knows? you ask. You claim you know. You claim no one else can know, it seems, except for one small group that feeds you info. The answer to that last question, "What if the facts point to an Alien Race?" can easily be the subject of a fuller and highly speculative discussion. If you are really following the "Disclosure Issue," then you'll know Disclosure spokespersons would say, "If you believe 'facts' point to an evil alien race trying to control the destiny of Earth, then you are prejudiced against aliens." If you think the opposite, a member of the government might say, "Yes, you found out—so now let's really weaponize everything, put the US and Russia under a dictatorship, and get ready for the war in space!"
Which side would you take in that kind of debate, supposing either side really had a plethora of facts to present? You seem to have already hinted at the answer to that question. Perhaps that's why you don't appear so keen to cut the military budget, so we can engage in more civilized pursuits than war making. You tell me.
ps- you also asked , 'why isn't French included in the G-guidestones?' ... "my guess is that the plan is to eliminate them first- so then there would be no need to address them. do you have a better theory?"
Yes, I do. I looked at another more detailed diagram. Apparently, if you look at the whole set of stones, the message is in a great many more languages than those mentioned previously. (English, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Hindi and Swahili). I saw it's also written in Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Babylonian cuneiform, Sanskrit and classical Greek. It may very well be there in French, too. If not, perhaps the authors thought French and Spanish are similar enough, so they will eventually merge. They can both be thought of as "dialects of Latin." If you can read and understand one, you can read and understand the other, after some study, without too much trouble.
"Plato could never address the kinds of economic, political, social or cultural issues that are a reality for us today. This, I believe might be what Roger intimated. Roger, please correct me if I'm wrong here.."
You'd be surprised at what you can learn reading Plato's dialogues. I don't say you should ONLY read Plato. I just mentioned him as one great thinker who should not be neglected. It's the dialectical method that's important, not only the content. If you or anyone says "Plato is outdated," and has no value for solving contemporary problems, I would have to ask whether you have really read Plato and studied his works, or someone simply just told you that.
You may as well say Bach is outdated, and there is no good to be had for a composer or musician to listen to or understand his music.
Of course, one should "research and study" other thinkers aside from Plato, but I am still waiting to hear who Roger thinks we should research and study.
The Federalist Papers?
Hamilton, James Madison, Washington, Thomas Paine, Franklin?
How about moderns? Douglas' Social Credit?
Naomi Klein? Who?
Let's have a few names and book titles please. Or is it just going to be Youtube videos and nothing else but that?
Even if someone believes the Earth is being put under the control of Alien Creatures from other planets, there are books that talk about that, too, and I would like to know which ones are recommended. [ The book "Above Top Secret" is a good one about UFOs, government deception in that area and so on. I was reading that recently. There are a lot more ].
Mr. Rainb O, once again you fail to see and interpret the original post and then twist it
into something YOU think or want it to mean.
I have explained that it is NOT about the energy drink or the musical accompanyment.
It was also not presented as something seriously political.
I think a discussion of 'the most beautiful symphony in recent history' would be an
interesting topic to start a new thread if you like. It's a nuance kind of thing; the silent sound
of the ideas and a greater consciousness playing. I think I'll call it 'Tesla Redeemed'. RS
That's right Dave, Tho' in truth I have never proposed a 'Theory'
of my own with regards to what I have offered here as food for thought.
I'll ask you again, What do you call a conspiracy theory that in time turns
out to be true? And what do you call a whistleblower that ends up dead? a coincidence?
Common sense tells me to stay away from all artifical sweeteners.
It's a bio-chemical nerve system and brain function thing.
I try to stay with more of natures products- you know, like a Big Mac lol
When I was 19 I was hitch-hiking cross country here in the states and
when going thru Dallas Texas, ran into a guy standing on a corner, foam in the
corners of his mouth and waving a bible,
declaring that it was time to repent - cause the end was near.(most
likely only his end...drugs?) I went on to Arizona and California and saw and learned a lot.
That 'trip' hasn't stopped for me. And the saying, The more I learn, the less I seem to know,
rings true today, even tho' back then I thought it was only a conspiracy theory. RS
ps- "If you don't learn to think outside the box,
you will become the square you limit yourself to"........ Tso Tsume
Dave Dexter: "I called you a conspiracy theorist, which is accurate, and you're now citing chemtrails which puts you a bit beyond the pale."
I don't see why questions about what the US government is doing in the atmosphere put someone "beyond the pale." I frankly admit I know nothing about so-called "chemtrails," which the video calls something else. I do know that people label others who talk about it "conspiracy theorists." I suppose people who said, Smoking causes cancer, and the tobacco industry is hiding something, could also have been called conspiracy theorists at one time. People who said, Nixon knew about the Watergate Break-In, and was bribing and being bribed, were also called conspiracy theorists. People who said, there was a conspiracy in post-Restoration England to control the government by five people laughed at the theory of the "cabal," until it turned out to be correct. And probably people thought the conspiracy to kill Julius Caesar was a "spontaneous uprising." Conspiracies behind the scene don't happen? Iran-Contra was not an illegal conspiracy? I hope you don't think Kennedy and Martin Luther King were merely killed by lone gunmen.
I never call Roger or anyone a conspiracy theorist. The term is degrading and meaningless, and used by the mainstream media simply as a way of dismissing what might be valid claims that need investigation and attention.
"Personally I would regard it as greater arrogance to state that you have uncovered deeper truths about which the majority of people are ignorant, especially if your reaction when questioned is to label criticism as childish, arrogant etc."
I am not satisfied with all answers, but some of the examples you give of so-called conspiracies are questioned.
Someone I worked with believed in a modern-day trifecta;
Perhaps you could explain that.
"that the moon landings were faked ..."
In my book, that would be a ridiculous claim. But there may be much more that happened during the moon landings than the public is aware. People who work for NASA and the Air Force have told me personally as much. If you read about the subject, you might believe there are some concealed truths in that area.
"Obama was Osama"
I don't think I've heard that one, unless it was simply a slip of the tongue.
"and 9/11 was an inside job."
There is reasonable evidence to suggest that 9-11 was either an inside job or that it was allowed to happen with government involvement in a cover-up of what really did happen. Surveys show that at least 35% of the American people believe that, and some indicate far more. (I haven't seen any survey that indicated LESS). If you have studied some of the questions and evidence on the issue, you have every reason to be skeptical of the government's account and every reason, at the very least, to be asking hard questions that have not been answered.
When people grilled Hillary Clinton the other day, they said they were amazed given the fact four Americans died in Benghazi, and not a single government official was held accountable or fired for slipping. Now ask yourself, how amazed should we be that when 3,000 people died on 9-11-2001, no serious investigation has been done to date, and no one in the NSA, CIA, military intelligence, NORAD, Air Force, President's Office, Air Traffic Control, etc., etc. was found to be at fault for a single slip up? In any case, we can't outline the whole case here.
Is there anything similar we should know about that you hold true?
Aspertame theories, perhaps? A very peculiar bassist told me about that one.
"That one?" What research have you done about nutrasweet?
It's been proven that aspartame (nutrasweet) is toxic and has serious toxic effects.
Read some of this material if the question interests you. A scientist (not a bass-player) told me about this site. If you don't know about the revolving door, between the FDA and Nutrasweet, and the toxicity reports concerning aspartame, you may want to learn more. I have had a number of students who suffered the effects of aspartame toxicity only to have them go away when they ceased consumption.
So Dave, is it your view that Industries never "conspire." Should those who say VW officials are guilty of "conspiracy," be called "conspiracy theorists?"
Would you say that G.W. Bush and Tony Blair and others did NOT conspire to bring about the last Iraq War?
Thanks rainb-O-w - for steppin' up to the plate. I was really shaking in my boots.(not)
Chem-trails is the colloquial term for what some are calling geo-engineering.
They are different from the old con-trails ( water vapor trails that disappear
in a short time, behind a plane)
I live north of Wash. DC and the chem-trails here are so prevalent and thick that
they litterally yes litter-ally fill and take over a beautiful blue sky.
Like fake clouds, they hang in the sky and spread out without us knowing
the reason and what they are made of. I am curious to know why this is
happening and who is funding it. The US government is already in debt
up to its space station. Is there a simple rational explanation?
If so, I'd like to see/read about it. After all.... this is the air we breathe.
The fact that anyone has died trying to expose this phenomenon
makes me wonder. and yes, there are documented cases of
untimely and mysterious deaths around this 'conspiracy theory'.
But hey, if you are happy in your 9 to 5 bubble, I don't want to
throw stones and pop it. Carry on, and have a nice day. RS
fred, could you elaborate just a bit?
I don't have the means to fly up a grab a sample; that is what I
have heard them referred to as being.
The point is that these newer versions of trails behind the jets
are not the same as they used to be. Don't tell me you have
not seen them. They may just be as innocent as a baby,- or
just your normal hydrocarbons on steroids.
One fact is that they are not commercial airline airplanes.
Watch the patterns and compare.
So I think we can assume that someone is hiring pilots to fly
planes through the skies to spread whatever they are spreading.
Is it Al Gore on his crusade to save the world from his questionable
global climate change inititive? We still don't know. Do you? RS
Fred, work with me here. I don't claim to be an expert on anything.
I'm just trying to figure out what these things are all about.
and thanks, I was hoping this forum would get some version of spellcheck.
I hope you are well rewarded.
To me Al Gore is a con artist. So I don't buy into his global warming spiel.
Tho' no matter who's selling the idea, I suspect it to be a scam. $$$$$$$$$
It then follows, if Al and company say that the 'cloud'trails behind these
non commercial planes is an act of humanity, to save us from climate change,
then that makes me suspect that there is something else going on.
It is odd to see all the criss-cross white lines in the sky, day after day,
and not be able to get a straight answer as to why they are happening.
Have you ever questioned them or wondered what they are all about?
"All you need to know about law is that the litigant with the most money wins."
I thought the line about "all you need to know" was:
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou sayst,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn
Keats seems to be saying that is all you need to know about everything, including law. It suggests that the task of the artist is fairly important. Can the notion that the 'the litigant with the most money wins,' actually be known at all, or proven? It seems to amount to an article of faith for some people. I think the situation probably varies from case to case, though perhaps there is a rough correlation between victory in court and the amount of financial resources possessed by the different parties. What would be more interesting (than the blanket statement) would be actual data on the question.
Permit me to engage several more of Fredrick's ideas about the "ten statements", which seem to me to be based on fairly obvious and easily understood moral principles. Fredrick zinos said:
Not at all.
"Who is it that decides who lives and who dies to "maintain. 500,MM humans."
The question is based on a misconception and outright false premise which no one is advocating. There is no decision about "who lives and who dies." (This sounds like right wing Republican talk during the health care debate, regarding "death panels.") People are already deciding of their own free will to limit the sizes of their families, as levels of education and income increase around the world. Demographic studies show that family sizes have shrunk from 7 or more children per couple to one or two in economically advanced societies. One has to look at the longer trends. With proper economic development of the world economy, and a few tax incentives, the size of planet can easily be reduced gradually over a long period of time to the point where the world population is sustainable at 500 million. They are the nay-sayers, right wingers, and fear mongers who oppose any idea about controlling population even in a moderate fashion.
"Guide reproduction. I presume this is a euphemism for selective breeding."
Yes, you do 'presume' that. And without justification. People can "guide," without using force or overt compulsion, and it's up to others what to say, and how to react to guidance. Large numbers already engage in family planning, and they are often guided by their doctors, family and friends (and through education) not to bring to term a fetus that has fatal Taysach's disease. Many decide not to give birth to children who have other similar maladies and serious defects that can ruin the life of any newborn child and a family. What about teenage pregnancies? Should children be guided to give birth to children, or not to do so? Parents, relatives, educators, the medical doctors, and sociologists can guide. Nothing in any kind of scientific "guidance" automatically implies "selective breeding," in the 20th century sense, or science fiction horror sense. On the other hand, what is the alterative to "guiding reproduction?" Should multitudes of people be having large numbers of children simply by accident, when even they would prefer not to do so? Should there be so much unwanted teenage pregnancy, even the disallowing of condoms and pregnancy prevention pills in schools—is that the way forward? Or do you think cutting the numbers of unwanted teenage pregnancies by a factor of 10, as they already have done in Scandinavia is a bad idea?
"Didn't the Nazis try that?"
If you think Scandinavian birth control methods, and the guidance and support of organizations like Planned Parenthood, are Nazi methods then you are truly paranoid. And you get all this—fear of an imminent Nazism—simply from the injunction to reproduce more carefully than we do?
"New Language, means the 500MM living in this utopia will have to give up their cultural heritage which is frequently encased in linguistics. I wonder how they'll feel about that."
Again. False assumption. False inferences. No one is talking about forcing people to give up their maternal tongues. Are you familiar with how language acquisition and language development has occurred in history? Many, many people are bilingual now, and there is no reason people will not continue to be bilingual, or even multilingual. They can keep their own maternal languages and learn a "World Language" with no loss of culture. Countless millions willingly do that now with English, French Spanish and Chinese, while retaining their own indigenous languages, in India, Latin America, Africa and most of the world. (In China, most people do not speak standard Chinese, or Mandarin. They have their own languages—Wu, Hakka, Fujian, Cantonese—which are not mere dialects, but actually distinct tongues in the same language family.) We have seen nations develop over hundreds of years where a few languages come to the fore, and then one becomes the "lingua franca" for larger numbers. That doesn't equate to the necessary elimination of any single language. It hasn't in India, China, the Philippines or Indonesia. "New Language" does not automatically imply what you say it does, and if you have any basis for your inferences, I would ask, what are they? Languages evolve, and the "New Language" will evolve and develop out of current languages. Eventually, educational institutions will help facilitate the adoption of a standard world language. There is nothing sinister or evil about that.
Rule passion faith tradition. Oh really? How do you rule passion? With reason? That never works.
Of course it works. Millions of times a day. Whenever one is confronted with a choice between giving in to hatred or exercising reason, one decides what to do. "It works" when people choose to do the moral thing (which means not acting according to their basest instincts). It happens every day, when people choose to act justly rather than unjustly; when people choose to treat others as social equals rather than as social inferiors; when people speak truthfully rather than lying; when people honor ethical principles and reject anger and greed.
Our glands are bigger and more in control of us than are our brains. And who decides which passions faiths traditions are valid?
There is no evidence that is true. It's only pessimism and despair which focuses on human weaknesses only. Who decides? You do. The people do. When Martin Luther King decided that his faith meant he should act on behalf of the downtrodden, he was relying on his traditions, and also deciding what within them was valid. Others may or may not do as well he did. But this is an injunction to try.
Fair laws and just courts. Never going to happen. The function of the law is to preserve the law, not the people.
That's pessimism speaking once again, though it may go by the name of "jaded realism" that sees only injustice, while justice has prevailed innumerable times. To say "never," is to ignore both reality and history. It is to elevate a negation to the status of an article of faith. Things always change. New things continually happen. This is an admonition, to say we should work TO HAVE FAIR LAWS AND JUST COURTS. The alternative is simply to sit back in despairing resignation and accept the evils that exist. This seems to be what Fredrick is preaching: don't believe anything, don't act to improve the world, don't hope that humans can progress and improve over time. Just give up.
"a world court presided over by whom? The emperor Ming?"
Don't be silly. We already have a World Court. It has functioned properly, and nations have often abided by its verdicts. It is presided over by judges from around the World. Admittedly, it doesn't always work properly. When the US illegally attacked Nicaragua, mined its harbors, paid mercenaries to invade, and killed over 20,000 (during the 1980's) the World Court ruled the US had to pay reparations. Reagan said, we don't accept the jurisdiction of the Court. This says more about Reagan than it does about the idea of a World Court. Eventually, there will be a more effective and better functioning Court, when the people decide they honestly believe in fairness and just courts. Congress should have told Reagan "obey the verdict." But people were too ignorant, too nationalistic and too disconnected from World Affairs. This will obviously change over time. We also have an International Criminal Court which a few nations are refusing to join at present. The number refusing is small (though the US is one of them).
"Petty laws and useless officials. These are not useless at all in fact they are a necessity."
The "petty laws" and the "useless" officials are by definition NOT a necessity. How can they be considered necessary? The law that says, you are not allowed to have an erection in the city of Dallas? Is that necessary?
Check out all the crazy laws, still on the books, that are still good for a laugh:
I hear that most states still have a law against smoking marijuana. In Canada it's already decriminalized, for practical purposes. The official who prevents you from growing a few tomatoes in your own garden on your own private property? Is that official necessary?
What else are you going to do with the people 250MM (out of 500MM) who are functionally illiterate and constitutionally lazy?
You assume that this number (250 Million, which you grab out of thin air) is some kind of universal constant. Are you completely discounting the possibility of social and moral evolution?
"Prize truth. truth as defined by whom?"
Your alternative is what? Don't prize the truth? Your admonitions appear to run as follows: Believe there is not such thing as truth. Become a relativist. Believe all statements have equal value, or become a nihilist and believe in nothing at all. The truth in our recent history was, Bush lied about reasons for going to war in Iraq, and he was proven to have lied, and to have had a hand in causing the deaths of hundreds of hundreds of thousands. The truth was the truth. He lied. He deceived the people and tried to deceive the world. Prize truth, value truth. Just don't shrug your shoulders and say, "The truth as defined by who?" You know in innumerable cases what's true and what's not true.
At least we agree on this last point, if I understand what you are saying:
Leave room for nature. Nature will triumph I am sure. As the saying goes "Nature Bats Last" And will preserve the most beautiful symphony in recent times.
Ondib, I think you have made some good and valid points here,
and agree that they, the 10 ideals/statements, could be beneficently employed;
As long as free will and the freedom of choice is preserved for
every individual, regardless of wealth, race, color or musical preference. RS
Your admonition appears to be a reasonable one.
I will admit that this may understate the case: "perhaps there is a rough correlation between victory in court and the amount of financial resources possessed by the different parties."
But the statement Fredrick put forward is patently false on several counts. Examine it carefully.
"all you need to know about law is that the litigant with the most money wins."
1. This is clearly not "all you need to know" about law, that is, if you want to have any kind of meaningful of idea of law. Should I list all the other things one would "need to know" about the law, in order to grasp it fully, or even partially? I think you get the idea, but I can elaborate if you really think that's "all you need to know" about it.
2. "the litigant with the most money wins" This cannot be accepted as a universally true statement. Certainly not without proof, and specific evidence. I partly accept your correction of the statement to read:
'There is a correlation between victory in court and the amount of financial resources possessed by the different parties'
I think this is meant to apply to all jurisdictions in the US, or perhaps even all courts on this planet. Yet I can't (nor can you or Fredrick) even say whether this is true as a general statement for all jurisdictions in the US; nor whether there are some areas where judges and juries may have ruled more often in the interest of justice than in the interests of the person possessed of more financial resources. I think if you really want to be convincing on this issue, you might want to produce a study that shows how often the person possessed of more financial resources wins, and how often he loses. It would be interesting to know. And this would simply be in the US, of course. In other countries, the reality might be slightly different, or even significantly different. Which brings us to the third point.
3) The statement that Fredrick puts forward cannot be proven to be true throughout the universe based on current knowledge.
Examine it carefully again:
"all you need to know about law is that the litigant with the most money wins."
I think we have reason to believe there are many advanced civilizations existing in this galaxy, and in the wider universe. Law is probably a concept known throughout many worlds. (Remember, Roger brought up the existence of other civilizations and other worlds just recently, though he and I may differ on some of the particulars).
In civilizations that are more advanced than ours, I would seriously doubt that the statement holds true. It's reasonable to posit a large number of civilizations that are more advanced than ours. Even if one does not entertain such an assumption, then we cannot know whether "all we need to know about the law" is what Fredrick says we need to know. This is because we cannot rule out this possibility: in most other civilizations, it is the litigant who has the best case that wins (rather than the one which has the most money). Nor can we rule out that in these other civilizations justice prevails far more often than not.
You may think this line of reasoning is needlessly speculative or excessively philosophical, but I would argue that our concepts of law and of justice are greatly enhanced when we contemplate the notion of more advanced civilizations and/or utopias, as Jonathan Swift did (when he described the culture of the Houyhnhnms), or as Thomas More himself did, when he authored Utopia. Fictional and theoretical accounts such as these are useful. Perhaps more useful is the near certainty today that there are other planets with life, and with sentient beings, and almost certainly worlds inhabited by beings far more advanced than ourselves.
But if you don't care for that line of reasoning, I have one more:
4) The statement under analysis is flawed from the point of view of pure logic, and reveals a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "law," and the very purpose of "law."
"all you need to know about law is that the litigant with the most money wins,"
is to neglect knowledge of the fact that law itself is based on the notion that the person with the "best case" wins. Law is based on the assumption that the person "who is in the right" wins, and if one doesn't know that (even if you don't believe it happens as often as it should), then clearly you don't know "all you need to know" about the law.
Fredrick's statement resembles that of Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic. Thrasymachus essentially argues that what is lawful, or what is just, is whatever is in the interests of the stronger. (Money, in Fredrick's case, being the measure of strength in society). In the dialogue, Socrates counters this, and shows how it leads to a blatant contradiction. People can go read the dialogue themselves to understand why this is a blatant contradiction. I won't summarize or quote Socrates here.
But the point I want to stress is simply this: if one assumes that one "needs to know" anything about the law, it is absurd to think that just this one thing that Fredrick puts forward is the "only thing" one needs to know. It's a false statement to begin with, since there are numerous cases where the litigant with less money has won. And given that latter truth, another thing one might "need to know" would be how, and in what circumstances, a person with less money HAS WON in the past, and how one CAN WIN in the present, even with less money.
I think you'll agree after careful consideration of the statement, that there may be (and probably are) MANY things one might "need to know" about the law, and not just the one thing that Fredrick suggests.
As for my view being the fruit of "political correctness," I don't see how that holds water. I think the term "political correctness" is so vague that it means nothing other than what one other person might object to. Often it means something like, "I can't say bad things about this or that demographic (as women, blacks or Jews) or make jokes about them—and if someone calls me on it, I can just say, 'that's being too politically correct."
My point about law is both a philosophical and practical one. Of course, I acknowledge that the powerful and the rich are quite capable of manipulating the courts and legislatures to their advantage, and that they do so successfully on daily, even an hourly basis. But sometimes they fail.
The view that "all you need to know about law is that the litigant with the most money wins" is overly cynical, and excludes such notions as: the possibility of change, progress, people's power, the triumph of democracy over time, the ethical basis of the law, and many other important philosophical and historical concepts. As such, it needs to be rejected.