Democracy Denied: A Civilization Becomes Great By Its Care Of Its Weakest Denizens

Inequity Out Of Balance...

The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom
The Global Political Awakening and the New World Order The Technological Revolution and the Future of Freedom
Congress has a choice: Will it cut a program that feeds poor children in order to protect tax subsidies for CEO pay? The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known as Food Stamps, helps provide food for millions struggling poor people
Congress has a choice: Will it cut a program that feeds poor children in order to protect tax subsidies for CEO pay? The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known as Food Stamps, helps provide food for millions struggling poor people
Obama and Martin Luter represented and spoke for the Poor, and this Image, is one way of showing the common struggles and issues they are both dealing with and the success they are seeing or achieved, is appropriate for this article
Obama and Martin Luter represented and spoke for the Poor, and this Image, is one way of showing the common struggles and issues they are both dealing with and the success they are seeing or achieved, is appropriate for this article | Source
The Obama Family is a very joyous and re-elected moment; the girls have grown up significantly from the past four years on the same victory stage with their father, and mother...
The Obama Family is a very joyous and re-elected moment; the girls have grown up significantly from the past four years on the same victory stage with their father, and mother...
The Best couple in politics if ever there was any- Obama and Mitchell in a true embrace- with all the meanings attached to it... In 2012, Obama was re-elected for the second term in office...
The Best couple in politics if ever there was any- Obama and Mitchell in a true embrace- with all the meanings attached to it... In 2012, Obama was re-elected for the second term in office...
How Sweet it is! .. Now Moving Forward... Congratulations "POTUS", Obama!
How Sweet it is! .. Now Moving Forward... Congratulations "POTUS", Obama!
Four more years for Obama and Biden of the Democratic Party
Four more years for Obama and Biden of the Democratic Party
The euphoria when Obama was re-elceted in 2012...
The euphoria when Obama was re-elceted in 2012...
Students and people from all walks of life and different ethnicities celebrate openly with the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012...
Students and people from all walks of life and different ethnicities celebrate openly with the re-election of Barack Obama in 2012...
The Obama Family headed back to the White house for their second term stay there...
The Obama Family headed back to the White house for their second term stay there...
Long lines, which were unecessarily caused by Republicans trying to block and discourage voters, but this did not catch, and th poor and all types of Americans came out and voted in full force- reinstating Obama for the second time in the Presidentia
Long lines, which were unecessarily caused by Republicans trying to block and discourage voters, but this did not catch, and th poor and all types of Americans came out and voted in full force- reinstating Obama for the second time in the Presidentia
Celebrations of Obama's victory in Kenya were off-the-hinge...
Celebrations of Obama's victory in Kenya were off-the-hinge...
Obama talking about change and the projecting change in the United States
Obama talking about change and the projecting change in the United States
There are people who feel that they have lost the Democracy. How one loses their democratic right to have a democracy in America, remains a perplexing issue.
There are people who feel that they have lost the Democracy. How one loses their democratic right to have a democracy in America, remains a perplexing issue.
The United State is a nation in an intense dialogue with itself and the world
The United State is a nation in an intense dialogue with itself and the world
Recession has hit every very hard in the United states and the world. This has an effect of heightening social antagonisms
Recession has hit every very hard in the United states and the world. This has an effect of heightening social antagonisms
Our economy is the eye of the storm that characterizes us a a civilization in flux
Our economy is the eye of the storm that characterizes us a a civilization in flux
Obama talks and shakes hands of the Health Care workers
Obama talks and shakes hands of the Health Care workers
Obama has has passed the health Care Reform and made it into Law
Obama has has passed the health Care Reform and made it into Law
Barack Obama's green team will focus on job creation, environmental protection and climate change, and his cabinet includes Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu
Barack Obama's green team will focus on job creation, environmental protection and climate change, and his cabinet includes Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu
A placard, among the many, hoisted by the Wall Street Occupiers
A placard, among the many, hoisted by the Wall Street Occupiers
The Wall Street Occupiers and the Democrats
The Wall Street Occupiers and the Democrats
The Goals of Occupy Wall Street
The Goals of Occupy Wall Street
Occupiers demonstrating for Jobs, higher income for Workers and the Poor
Occupiers demonstrating for Jobs, higher income for Workers and the Poor
Protesters placard expresses their anger and dissatisfaction
Protesters placard expresses their anger and dissatisfaction
Some of the creative signs made and carried by the Wall Street Occupiers
Some of the creative signs made and carried by the Wall Street Occupiers

How Change Changes

After the vote for the President of the United States, things began to look different. He signed some Bills through and pushed hard for the Stimulus Package, which got a raucous Start. Only three Republicans voted for the Stim, and the rest offered 'Nays'. The Democratic process through the voting citizenry gave Obama the nod, and the Electoral College Approved. Obama, the Commander in Chief assumed his duties with the majority of the people, in the voting booth acquiescing to his call for Change.

The Republican Party set the tone by opposing the Stim, the denial, the rest has been nothing but denial, opposition, criticism, labeling, threatening, and wishing that Obama fails, his health care is going to kill the elderly, fear mongering, disrupting some democratic Senators Town Hall meetings, denying other participants their right to ask about the Health Care Bill, interrupting Senators whenever they tried to answer question, Booing down any answers given to the 'angry' Town Hall participants in agitated melee.

The economy was tanking and the Infrastructure on the roads was crumbling and falling into serious disrepair; the schools were crumbling and failing; Wall Street Stocks were plunging; Banks and other Financial institutions were going bankrupt and shutting down; millions of mortgages were in default and people were losing their houses, their jobs; some losing their Healthcare and others facing rising Health care expenses; the automobile industry in serious bankruptcy.

Food prices are rising(people nowadays resorting to eating 'poor' food); food lines increasing all over the country; millions of people homeless; some are facing the prospect of coming to the end of receipt of their unemployment checks; production and job creation were zero-except for the existing companies; the age of plenty was nigh and ending, and now we have to pick up the crumbs to rebuild the United States. It is in carrying out this prospect of re-building that we are seeing some varied responses and behaviors. Trying to reinstate the old order controlled by the status quo is proving to be formidable.

The Way of Civilization

Civilizations are measured by the way they handle their most vulnerable denizens. History teaches us how those civilization came, the heights they peaked to and the causes of their demise. Each has its own pitfalls, and all end up in chaos. These civilizations become our hindsight in attempting to reset our wobbling society.

Denying that things have changed and we need to change them for the better is repeating the errors and those mistakes we have learned from the historical past. If we have learned anything, we now know that their denizens living conditions plummeted; the army of these civilization weakened and were crushed by their rivals; the leadership was corrupt, decadent and self-serving.

Assassinations, backstabbing, lawlessness and governmental dysfunction the rule and law.

Maybe our civilization will not be attacked by the hordes from somewhere, but we seem to be imploding. The core of our civilization, the economy, production, employment, banks, Wall Street, housing, education, savings, health, infrastructure, crime, racism, drugs, war, has all collapsed and affected the rest, leaving us weak, and disorientated.

We are out of wack because we have never seen such collapse since the 1930s, its been told. The inner-belly of the civilization has been eroded and decimated. Something new has to be invented, a new society has to raise form the ambers of yesteryear debacle.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are some of the issues that need to be wrapped-up. They are a no win situation. The Bazillions that go into the Military Industrial Complex are unconscionable. War is not the only way to save the United states economy. General Eisenhower said:

"This conjunction of an immense Military Establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal Government. We recognize the imperative need for this development, yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.

Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisitions of unwarranted influence whether sought or unsought by the Military Industrial Complex. We need to at least have a better and much more fuller understanding of the machinations of war and our present state of the economy.

Vitriolic and Divided Speech

There's a deeply felt apprehension about the resurgence of racial violence and the rise in the incidence of verbal and symbolic assault and harassment to which blacks and other traditionally subjugated and excluded groups are subjected. In these times, the problem is that liberty of free speech is in conflict with the elimination of racism. This has placed the bigots on the moral high ground and has fanned the rising flames of racism.

The real victims have been shown little understanding of their injuries, and we have abandoned those whose race, gender and sexual preference continues to make them second-class citizens. By understanding that it is necessary to eliminate the system of signs and symbols signaling the inferiority of blacks, the we must stop proclaiming that all racist speech stopping short of racist violence must be defended. Racist speech is an assault and serves as a preemptive strike.

The invective is experienced as a blow, not as a proffered idea, and once the blow is struck. Racist posters. Flyers and graffiti injure the victim who realize that even if they fight, they are bound to lose. There's no meaningful dialogue on how to reconcile our commitment to equality and free speech until there's an acknowledgement that real harm is inflicted and this harm is far from trivial.

Whenever we tolerate racist speech, for the importance of maintaining social tolerance, we are asking the subordinated minorities to bear the burden for the good of all. Disapproving of a particular form of communication is not enough to justify prohibiting it. We are faced with conflict between our commitment to free speech and our desire to foster a community founded on mutual respect.

Racism is the Achilles heel of this budding democracy. The economy of the United states was founded on the labor of African slave. This led to the dehumanization of Africans from Africa. They were regarded as man, and had no right to anything-chattel slavery. The Dred Scot decision is part of the racism that has permeated the core of American society and its enslaving codes.

As a democracy I repeat, a civilization like ours, as all others have been, is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. These were not only made slaves, but were segregated against based on their skin, national origin and the whole bit. Other nationalities have suffered to some form of segregation, but the slaves have endured the brunt of being former slaves, africans and deserving of no respect from their enslavers and are constantly reminded of it in many other undisguised way in latter-day America.

This kind of treatment of the poor and the down-trodden has never bidden well for any civilization in the history of mankind. Most times the racist attitudes blame immigrants by stating that America is being 'overrun by immigrants,' 'Immigrants take jobs from US citizens; 'Immigrants are draining on society's resources'; 'Aliens refuse to assimilate, and are depriving us of our cultural and political unity'; and that, 'Noncitizen immigrants are not entitled to Constitutional Rights.

The objects of prejudice are of course no longer Irish Catholics and Germans; 140 years later, "They" have become "us." The new "they" — because it seems "we" must always have a "they" — are Latin Americans, most recently Mexicans, Haitians, Cubans and Arab Americans, among others. This is the weaknesses that causes a civilization to slide down the slippery slope and a civilization in state of constant flux and change.

The Change We Hope For

It is interesting to note that the protests against Obama are losing their traction and we are now only left with threats of what is going to happen in the vote for 2010. What is amazing is a few overlooked facts. What the presidential elections of 2008 has shown is that a majority of all non-whites voted for Obama. This means that a combination of all the people who are non-Europeans voted in a block to elect Obama. They really showed that they are the majority and installed Obama as President.

One other thing is that, you rarely see these voter, people of a darker hue, demonstrating against a president they chose. It is also a fact that the Browning of America is afoot. Politics as usual is no more the case. It might be true that when the 2010 elections come around, we are going to see the Republicans take power of the house and prepare for 2012 to topple Obama.

That may be true, but it still has be seen to work. In the past, what is being predicted would come through, but today, as the election of Obama showed, the people who are not of Europeans descent, in greater numbers, chose Obama because they had strength in numbers, and they still might have something to say about it.

Looking at the voting map, one can see that that the numbers of the whites only voting and controlling power has lost its voting power, and is now more situated into the South. Hispanics are now becoming the majority in terms of white in the United States. Congress has even decided to name them "the emerging majority" in terms of population growth in the US.

The change in population demographics will decide the direction the vote will take, given the virulent racist tactics that have been shown by the fear-mongers, tea party baggers and people, birthers, deathers and gun totting militias.

America may have a majority of whites as a population, but not the majority of whites are racists. The election of Obama has started a maelstrom of gun-totting militia, rabidly racist signs and cartoon, everything he does, Obama, challenged, criticized, damned, jeered at, up to the point where they call him a Hitler, Socialist, African Witch-doctor with bones protruding through his nose, and feathers on his knees and so forth; that he is an Arab and is taking America down into the gutter, criticized for getting and receiving a Noble Peace Price; accused of putting America in Danger, mostly by Dick Cheyney and his daughter.

They still show him as a bad and weak president, and it is very strange that that they lump their followers as "The American People," who are mostly white, and as observed above, not many people of other races. So, it makes one wonder is America inhabited by White people only? Does that mean if other races are not demonstrating against Obama, they do not exist?

If my memory served me well, there has never been anyone who could muster or had attracted a multicultural crowd as had Obama when he ran for President. It is my opinion that the multi-colored audience is still there and will be seen again when it matters during the second round of voting in 2012.

The throngs that flocked to Obama's rallies in 2008 were Americans, although he is being vilified, that does not dampen the spirits of those who voted him into power. I know that when time comes for voting for president, the same, if not more than those of 2008, will show-up and re-install Obama as president. So far as they are concerned, he is doing well and they will be willing to give him the second term, which is what the Republicans are fighting against.

The Presidency of Barack Obama is unique because he is the first African American President to sit in the White house of a civilization in peril. He is not having it easy. He goes overseas to refurbish America's tarnished Imperial and fledgeling image and stance.

We here in the United States are only too eager to show and tell the world that are Commander in Chief is Hitler, a Socialist, a racist, an alien, not born in the USA, that we do not like him, trust him, neither respect him, to the extent that we carry loaded guns to his Town Hall, and carry placards written , in small letters, 'death to Obama'.

These are the people of a once proud, strong, confident and industrious people making a civilization that was the envy of the world, who appear belligerent, and some racist, showing aggression and mean spirit. We live on Earth with other earthlings, respect of others and acting like we are part of the human will only increase our leadership and status of a civilized people world-wide.

Part Of Black Perspectives

In the preface to his nonfiction work "Brothers and Keepers" writes:

"The value of Black life in America is judged, as life generally in this country is judged, by external, material signs of success. Urban ghettoes are dangerous,broken-down, economically marginal pockets of real estate infected with drugs, poverty, violence,crime, and since black life is seen as rooted in the ghetto, black people are identified with the ugliness, danger, and deterioration surrounding them.

"This logic is simpleminded and devastating, its hold on the American imagination as old as slavery; in fact, it recycles the classic justification for slavery, blaming the cause and consequence of oppression on the oppressed. Instead of launching a preemptive strike at the flawed assumptions that perpetuate racist thinking, Blacks and Whites are doomed to battle endlessly with the symptoms of racism."

Paulo Freire adds an interesting perspective to this discourse: "The truth is, however, that the oppressed are not 'marginals,' are not men living 'outside' society. They have always been "inside" — inside the structure which made them "beings for others." The solution is not to "integrate" them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can become "beings for themselves".

Such transformation, of course, would undermine the oppressors' purpose. Every great society is successful if in its development it gives solid support to all those that are unfortunate and depressed. The weakest linkage for any society or civilization is its inability to incorporate the lower ranks of its citizens and the destitute to a more better higher material and moral level, because these in turn always come back and cripple any civilization: the weak, the poor, sick, hungry and cold suffering masses.

PASS! IDENTITY!The Coming Apartheid Draconian Laws in the US

Nowadays, the real-politick in the US is that against the Mexicans and other minorities as witnessed in the New Arizona newly passed. This is the same laws that have been utilized and applied during South Africa's Apartheid Era. But, this is not new, these are the Black Codes in action. America had the Black Codes in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,Mississippi. North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia just to name a few states.

The Black Codes in the United State were any numerous laws enacted in the States of the Former Confederacy After the American Civil War, in 1865 and 1866; the laws were designed to replace the social controls of slavery that had been removed by emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and were thus intended to assure continuance of White Supremacy.

All the slave Black Codes, however, had certain provisions in common, and had their roots in slave codes. In all of them the color line was firmly drawn, and any amount of Negro blood established the race of a person, whether slave or free, as Negro. The status of the offspring followed that of the mother, so that the child or a free father and a slave mother was a slave.

Slaves had few legal rights: in court their testimony was inadmissible in any litigation involving whites; they could make no contract, nor could they own property; even if attacked, they could not strike a white person. There were numerous restrictions to enforce social control; slaves could not be away from their owner's premises without permission(PASS!) They could not strike a white person.

There were numerous restrictions to enforce social control. There were vagrancy laws that declared that blacks were vagrant if unemployed and without permanent residence; a person so defined could be arrested, fined, and bound out for a term of labor if unable to pay the fine. Some states limited property that could be owned by blacks. Former slaves were forbidden to carry firearms or to testify in court, except in cases concerning other blacks. Blacks could intermarry, but were prohibited and were not permitted to marry interracially.

The point in discussing the black Codes leading up to Jim Crow is to show that the present laws being passed in Arizona on Immigration, Limiting or erasing Ethnic Studies, and what next is a cause for concern.

From the Tea Baggers/Partiers to legislatures in attacking Paulo Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," shows an inclination on the part of many Americans to legitimize their destruction of African Studies and other ethnic studies, thus revisiting the fights of the 1970 for African studies and other ethnic groupings studies which succeeded, and a greater need to reverse all that is in the offing.

We are really seeing the return to the Black Codes. We are seeing today's America suppressing it's weakest citizens to appease a few white supremacists. This is not a civilizing effort on the part of the Us, but a return to oppression, slavery and unjust laws. This is further from Civilization by any stretch of the imagination...

Since Obama took over the presidency of the United States, empathy and the spirit of growth has the notion of a brave nation has seen the death of empathy and reason. With the economy not rising up from its death throes, we see the rise of specter of racism coupled up with vitriolic attacks on the president and the poor people of color.

Intolerance has become the norm, and attacks are piling up, that as we are heading towards mid-term elections, some are stressing that there needs to be reversal of the gains promulgated by Obama, and a restoration of archaic social relations which characterized pre-1930s America. Immigration has become an issue, and some states have or are in the process of passing anti-immigrant laws, and they are also beginning to fill the prisons which are empty.

The prison industrial complex is rubbing its money making palms with glee at the prospect of filling their pockets and jails with the anticipated flow of arrested immigrants.

On HubPages, I posted a question: "Why is President Obama so much criticized and yet he won in a landslide?", and I received a lot of revealing answers. One of the respondents, @mulberry1 responded as follows: "I think part of the answer is that he is middle of the road on many issues [although those who ardently support or oppose a given issue would disagree vehemently]!.

When you go down the middle, you don't really please anyone. It seems if you are a liberal, you please that crowd. If you are ultra-conservative, you please that crowd. If you aren't to extreme either way, no one is pleased. No one really believes in compromise.In giving up one thing to get another thing, it's our way or no way! The population seems very polarized and very ready to see an "us" vs "them" in every situation. Hatred and extreme emotions seem to be rampant. It's not uncommon to be told you should leave the country if you don't agree with a particular point of view. (I truly hope these individuals don't conduct their personal relationships this way!).

This whole behavior to me is reminiscent of some of the extremism we supposedly oppose. As one commenter suggested, 'it would not be surprising to see someone try to take Obama's life. Sorry, that not a political group I care to belong to ... and I don't appreciate their dramatization which stirs this.'

There are real issues, and concerns, but this dramatization is clearly irresponsible in my eyes. It makes me doubt the oppositions ability to read or to even make rational decisions. Some see Obama as a socialist, yet the socialist party totally rejects him. Very telling. There aren't many moderate who are vocal.

I am one of them I believe. I don't feel he has cause this, it has been there and growing. Personally, although, I certainly don't agree with everything the current administration has done ... I am relatively pleased.

CNN and BET Cable television station were covering Katrina, five years later and has happened to the inhabitants who were deluged with Hurricane storm waters. Relieving the Katrina catastrophe through the Cable networks, brought back the pictures of the poor and Black people who survived the ordeal.

There was a reminder of the poor of the American nation, who had to go through the harrowing experiences of not being helped immediately, some who lost their homes forever, others trekked to the neighboring states in search of help, others were to never ever come back, and those who received government help were, in most cases cheated out of their monies, and there is an appalling lack of health care.

Some psychiatric patients have had to go to prisons for treatment; others have not received their medicines since the deluge; others have lost their government benefits; others are suffering and living in those dilapidated, storm destroyed homes with no hope coming to them after five years. There are independent clinics which have been caring for the destitute, and they too, the clinics, are running out of funding and are wondering which source to tap for funds.

There are also many people who have been arrested for begging and other minor charges which landed them in jail; there is also an army of the homeless, inasmuch as there are those who have received some paltry help, but the power and the picture that have re-appeared in the media, are still a remainder of the way people have suffered and are still suffering from lack of help, empathy, and joblessness which has been exacerbated by the current recession that has hit the American landscape.

Recently the citizens of New Orleans have been focused on the BP oil spill which has threatened their environment and their livelihood. To date, BP has claimed to have taken care of the ooze and have proclaimed the fact that the oil has stopped and disappeared. Some scientist and locals are disputing this claim because they think that oil might have sunk because of the spraying, but is in depths where it is killing marine life and environment.

The handling of the oil-spill by BP and its treatment of the concerns of the locals on the different states in the Gulf areas, has left little to be desired. There is a very insensitive treatment of the poor who have no big power-house lawyers to represent their interest. The treatment of the weak in the country that is number one in the world has got many people around the world how can people in such a rich country, like in the case of New Orleans, be subjected to such abject poverty and careless treatment by their government and its organs.

An Article by StrategyOne titled: Opinion Survey: Corporate America gets "C" Grade from Public 2010: 6 in 10 Corporate America Didn't Meet Expectations in 2010; 7 in 10 have Higher Expectations for 2011. It will be very instructive to cull as much as possible from this article in wherein is written:

Looking back on 2010, most Americans were strongly disappointed by how the nation's businesses conducted themselves, with 61% saying corporate America failed to meet their expectations, and only 5% saying that businesses exceeded their expectations. When asked to grade how well corporate America did in 2010 assigned a grade of 'C' or lower and 40% assigned a grade of 'D' or 'F'. Just 17% gave corporate America an 'A' or a 'B' for their 2010 performance.

And while Americans are optimistic about how Corporate America will do in 2011, their expectations for businesses next year are even higher.

Close to 7 in 10 have higher expectations for Corporate America in 2011. That said, 6 in 10 believe that those expectations will be met. [Thus far, that hope seems to be waning and we are now in mid-2011]. And as the nation struggles with economic challenges, 88% of consumers found that corporations had recovered from the recession better than American families, and 85% thought corporations had better prospects for the coming year than American families did.

"With consumers highly dissatisfied with US business, the 2011 strategy for Corporate America needs to be back to basics," said Bradley Honan senior vice president of StrategyOne.

"Explaining not only 'what they do for the country, but 'how' and 'why' they do it needs to be the game plan for how to rebuild corporate reputation" (StrategyOne)

So, what is Corporate America to do? The survey findings, form a recent poll of 1,081 Americans, conducted by StatgeOne, a Daniel J. Eldelman research firm, are instructive for who corporations can leverage public opinion to their advantage. Asked what Corporate America's highest priorities should be in 2011,consumers emphasized helping improve the economy and reducing unemployment, promoting ethical Corporate behavior, paying back any bailout money, making high quality products and services that require fewer recalls, and overall making fewer mistakes.

When asked to grade the job Corporate America has done in these areas in 2010, few Americans gave out either 'A's' or 'B's'. "Let us be clear, Americans are not dreaming up some far out vision of utopia," said Honan. Instead they are being realistic that Corporate America should — and indeed must — engage in important issues of the day where they can make a demonstrably positive difference.

That means, the economy and jobs for starters, but also ensuring their products are safe and not harmful to use, and that they simply conduct their day-to-day business activities in an honest, ethical, and transparent way. Maybe, the forlorn and destitute , hungry and huddled masses will stand a chance to exist and survive

Stats To Mull-upon

  • 88% of consumers said it was extremely or very important that companies help get the economy back on track in 2011, but only 17% said companies deserved an 'A' or 'B' for their efforts on this in 2010, 84% said the companies deserved a 'C' or below.
  • 88% said it was extremely or very important to conduct business in an ethical manner in 20011, and 87% said it was a top priority to do business in an honest and moral way. But just 17% of Americans thought companies deserved an 'A' or 'B' for honest and moral conduct in 2010, and just 18% awarded companies an 'A' or 'B' for their ethics in 2010, and just 18% awarded companies an 'A' or 'B' for their ethics in 2010.
  • 85% of consumers thought it was extremely or very important for companies in 2011 to deliver high quality products and services, although only 31% said companies deserved an 'A' or 'B' for this in 2010.
  • 84% of Americans thought companies needed to demonstrate good governance in 2011, while only 16% felt corporation had earned an 'A' or 'B' grade on this issue in 2010.
  • 83% said it was of high importance for corporations to pay back any bailout money loaned then as quickly as possible in 2011, but 78% of consumers said companies deserved a 'C' or below for this issue in 2010
  • 82% said it was a top priority for companies to make fewer mistakes and errors in 2011, while just 19% gave companies an 'A' or 'B' for this issue

The American people are forgiving, but seem to say as a nation that the rich should help improve the presently deteriorating conditions in the United States. Fro any civilization to etch its success into the record-book of history, it is incumbent upon those who have ways-and-means to help the down-and-out to get an opportunity to pull themselves up with their own bootstraps.

It is evident that the leaders choose to ignore the opinions of their ruled and instead grab the loot and the back and head-off into luxuries and opulence. These callous action of the nouveau rich begets the dehumanization of the have-nots.Whilst we are digesting the stats above, what they show is complete power play that shows the power of the richer owners of multi-corporations and what the ordinary people have to say about them, it is also fait accompli that things will remain the same, with those who are strictly interested in capital profits and are prepared to ignore human rights and mans' humanity to man

Stunted Humanity of the of the World's Citizens

Paulo Freire writes; While the problem of humanization has always, from an axiological point of view, been human kind's central problem, it now takes on the character of an inescapable concern. Concern for humanization leads at once to the recognition of dehumanization, not only as an ontological possibility but as a historical reality. And as an individual perceives the extent of dehumanization, he or she may ask if humanization is a viable possibility.

Within history, in concrete, objective contests, both humanization and dehumanization are possibilities for a person as an uncompleted being conscious of their incompletion. But while both humanization and dehumanization are real alternatives, only the first is the people's vocation.This vocation is constantly negated, yet it is affirmed by that very negation. It is thwarted by injustice, exploitation, oppression, and the violence of the oppressors;it is affirmed by the yearning of the oppressed fro freedom and justice, and by their struggle to recover their lost humanity.

Stronger civilizations in the history of the world work very hard to take care of its citizens. This is one aspect of the history of civilization we have not touched on much in this hub. Concerning this aspect of how those in power stunt the growth and development of their lowly placed citizens, we read further what Paolo Freire has to say about that:

"Dehumanization, which marks not only those whose humanity has been stolen, but also [though in a different way] those who have stolen it, is a distortion of the vocation of becoming more fully human. This distortion occurs within history; but it is not a historical vocation. Indeed, to admit of dehumanization as a historical vocation would lead either to cynicism or total despair.

"The struggle for humanization,for the emancipation of labor, for the overcoming of alienation, for the affirmation of men and women as persons would be meaningless.This struggle is possibly only because dehumanization, although a concrete historical fact,is not a given destiny but the result of an unjust order the engenders violence in the oppressors, which in turn dehumanizes the oppressed."

Because it is a distortion of being more fully human, sooner or later being less human leads the oppressed to struggle against those who made them so. In order for this struggle to have meaning, the oppressed must not, in seeking to regain their humanity (which is a way to create it), become in turn oppressors of the oppressors, but rather restorers of the humanity of both.

This, then, is the great humanistic, historical [civilized] task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors, who oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of the their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves. Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both[thus, maybe, bring about civilization and civilized societies].

Any attempt to "soften" the power of the oppressor in deference to the weakness of the oppressed almost always manifests itself in the form of false generosity; indeed, the attempt never goes beyond this. In order to have the continued opportunity to express their "generosity," indeed, the attempt never goes beyond this. In order to have the continued opportunity to express their "generosity," the oppressors must perpetuate injustice as well.

An unjust social order is the permanent fount of this "generosity," which is nourished by death, despair, and poverty. That is why the dispensers of false generosity become desperate as the slightest threat to its source. Denying the masses of their human right and have their basic needs met, in a modern and "ultra" civil civilization like those of the rich countries, that too holds back the development of that country or civilization.

The poorest and the weakest majorities of suffering poor folks are the ones bearing the brunt of the upkeep of the rich. If we are to look at the issues that are now broiling throughout America, the "Raising the Debt Ceiling" so's to be able to avoid America defaulting on its bills-because the interest will rise and affecting an all products of this, recall the Koch's brothers and their investments which are now threatened: big oil and chemical companies,

For while the unemployed, homeless, and oppressed without and facing health crisis,failing education, crumbling infrastructure, raised and charged mean belligerent and harsh separatist and racist rhetoric-that, to the chagrin of the helplessly poor and powerless they stare agog, bewildered and watch helplessly as the rich investors and their millionaire clique and takes everything, which in the end, the rich figure, they will walk away hobbling.

But with something; and the "poor hordes" and their "menacing demeanor" and "violent rants", as the rich would characterize the behavior of the poor, is that the poor and down and out will get nothing and maybe perish; meanwhile, as the oppressed try very hard to get the monkey off their backs through talks, strikes, protestations, in the US calling up ones congressman or senators, and participating in marches, in the mix, along with the aforementioned strategies, the poor nowadays, through Twitters, Facebook, YouTube, Chat Rooms, the Internet and other emerging and converging Media and Mediums.

They organize, agitate and try to fight back within the legal means afforded them. Still, it seems that what the Oppressed will doing their reaction to their oppressed condition and reality, it will be because nothing they have already done, as stated above, bore any results; therefore,

It is therefore important to understand something about those who oppress other. Paulo Freire writes about this as follows: The oppressors do not perceive their monopoly on having more as a privilege which dehumanizes others and themselves. They cannot see that, in the egoistic pursuit of having as a 'possessing class', they suffocate in their own possessions and no longer are, they merely have.

For them, having more is an inalienable right, a right they have acquired through their own "effort," with their courage to take risks. If others do not have more,it is because they are incompetent and lazy, and worst of all is their unjustifiable ingratitude towards the "generous gestures" of the Dominant class(who in contemporary parlance they should not be taxed because they create the jobs in the country-talk about the Koch Brothers and their links to the Tea Baggers). Precisely because they are seen as "ungrateful" and "envious," the oppressed are regarded as potential enemies who must be watched.

Today this has turned out to be a situation when the poor started to rise up and demand their just dues. As of September 2011, there has begun to arise a movement of the "People" which has camped outside Wall Street and they are called the "Occupiers"(Occupied W;" street demanding that "Big Money" be taken out of politics and Wall Street pay back the money borrowed to them by the American Taxpayer,

This movement has been condemned by the Republicans and their Presidential candidates. The media is befuddled by the determination and longevity of the Wall Street Occupiers… A month after they started sleeping and occupying the Park, the Mayor of New York threatened to evacuate them for the purposes of cleaning up the Park.

This was met with all kinds of opposition and finally the Mayor Bloomberg relented. A week ago, the Occupiers marched-off to Times Square to demonstrate against Chase Bank and millionaires along the strip of their march to voice out their dissatisfaction. There was a scuffle and 12 people were arrested.

This strike spread to numerous cities in the United States and people of all walks and backgrounds have picked up the cry against the refusal of the Republicans to tax people making over a million dollars a year to pay half a percent of one parent of their first million, which Vice President pointed that this meant that they will have to pay $500.00 for every million they made.

The recalcitrant Republicans have blocked this measure being introduced into a Job Law Obama is trying to sell to the American people that they are now at odds with the protesters. The protesters have made it known that they are no an organization but a movement which was poised to protect and advance the causes of all poor American people. In a recent vote, the Republicans defeated of filibustered Obama and the Democrat's effort to bring the measure of a pass a Jobs Plan to a vote.

The interest of the Republicans strategy was to deny any proposal that Obama made and to make sure that he does not become a president for the second. In so doing,they are denying every effort to make the lives of the poor manageable or better.The rise of the movement of the Wall Street occupiers has now gone world-wide. Many countries' poor are rising up as was seen with the Spring uprisings of the North African and Middle Eastern huddled poor and destitute people.

As has been observed in Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Bahrain and Libya, the poor, unarmed or armed have tended to overthrow or are in the process of over-throwing their tin-pot dictators. One case in point is the recent deposing and killing of Moamar Ghadaffi by the revolutionaries against his 40+ year rule. As this Hub has been pointing out that a civilization is made to look good by its fair treatment of the its poor denizens.

But what we are witnessing in the case of the opposing Republican Party in the United States to all what Obama proposes, is that they have consistently and in an unreasonable and obstinate way have blocked everything or watered-down anything Obama has tried to implement[in aid of the poor] in the past three years. To date, they are still refusing to work with Obama to ease the misfortunes of unemployment and of poverty the masses of Americans are suffering and experiencing in contemporary America.

The Rearview Mirror Mindset

If one were to casually watch the evening new on cable and local tv networks, listen to the "Talking Heads" and digest their spin and commentary, one would not be lost too come to the conclusion that we are living in the Jim Crow era of a narcissistic racial enclaves bent on putting the Black man or aliens, the poor and desolate. These near-cabal-like groups, led by the Republican Party, spew racial and divisive venom in order to assuage their economic impotence, by blaming the poor and people of color.

All the social woes, malaise and calamity s dumped on the shoulders of the poor and powerless. The Republican Part is advocating cutting social services and benefits of the poor and cutting taxes for the super rich. Modern "Robbing Hoods"- taking from the poor and giving to the billionaires. As of now, December 201, they arrayed and set up to curtail the vote of the poor under the guise that they are avoiding 'voter fraud,' which, according to informed sources, is negligible and insignificant to warrant the draconian measure contemplated for voting in the 2012 elections. The crux of the matter is that todays' Commander-in-chief is an African of mixed birth: Barack Obama.

From the time Barack took over the Presidency of the United States, the republican Party, along with the Tea Baggers, vowed to terminate Obama's rule, wanted to impeach him and promised that he will not rule for the second term. The shouted for all to hear that they are going to work for nothing else but to bring Barack down.

They thwarted every and any effort he made to restart the failing economy; the watered-down any effort he made at passing legislation to better the poor and poor denizens; they painted him as a socialist and born in Kenya-short of saying that they do not like him because he is African; and as Barack Ruled, they hollered that they wanted their country back and that it was because a Black(African) man who was in power in the White House - One wonders.

In November 2010 they elected many freshmen to congress who were from the Tea Party, and who are the driving engine for the traditional conservative Republican Party, went about the business of stalling, rejecting, denying, and preventing social programs or legislation Barack proposed. All these shenanigans were target and are till being targeted towards the poor, jobless, homeless, old, sick, young and students of the United states.

As I have stated as the topic of this Hub, anytime a civilization discards and oppresses its downtrodden, that is the beginning and of the end and sun going down on that civilization. The colloquy I have been embedded within above, has spawn some unforeseen results. We are now witnessing in New York the 99% movement simply known as occupy Wall Street emerge. This has now spread nation-wide every major cities throughout the nation.

The police departments of these cities are overworked and the cities are paying millions of dollars in police overtime. There have been occasional clashes with police and occasional pepper-spraying of the protesters and sjamboking/baton-clubbing of the protesters in these occupied places; the police confiscated their tents and other belongings and threw them out of the park; yet, the movement has now resolved to occupy different place they announced in November 19, 2011-and they united to have the biggest demonstration yet.

The movement is alive and well in York and the World-over. This can also be seen in Durban South Africa during the COP17, we saw some semblance of 'Occupy' motifs and people embracing the 99%; we have also witnessed the "Arab Spring" and its outcomes, some still undecided. All these revolutions, strikes, protest and "Occupy" movements are an indication that what was advocated as civilization, is no more meeting the people's basic needs, but fatten the billionaires indefinitely.

The zeitgeist has shifted and the scabs of racist projections are now a common feature of the American society. This has been exacerbated by the recession and depression that American people feel. The tendency of forever looking backwards, which is not the American credo, is what is destroying the American civilization. Rearview mind psyche is what is becoming a black-eye into the spirit of freedom of the person and speech which is what Americans are mostly well-known for, is in peril today

We need to begin to offer some solution to his mayhem. Things are beginning to look up. The market is rising, houses are being bought, some few jobs are being created and saved. The situation does not look like it did at the end of the Bush Government and the beginning of the Obama Presidency. A working nation is a vibrant nation. A healthy nation can develop and heal it's fissures. A more tolerant nation becomes a civilization worth emulating replicated throughout the globe, without need for war, coercion and corruption.

Racism has not come to a close in the US, and we should all realize that we are a nation of immigrants, we can do better if we develop our social skills in cobbling and hammering this diverse of civilizations of the nations and people of the Earth. Yet, if we do not raise the Debt Ceiling, we are inviting catastrophe as a nation, losing our AAA credit status, and sending the international trade and economies into a tail-spins, maybe right into the abyss...

The American Minority Are Now The Majority Voters

The Voting Poor Polity's Mandate

If the poor were disregarded as a nuisance in American realpolitik, they have just recently asserted their power and status as a powerful coalition and voting block that now determines the American politics. If the monied class had privilege going on for them, as epitomized by Romney, the poor of the land gave a mandate to Obama to rule for the next four more years as of 7 November 2012.

In these times, the poor are not only the minorities: African Americans, Hispanics and Asiatics along with a potpourri of various ethnic groups who are either (American Red men and others). The lessons that have emerged from the 2012 Presidential campaign is that the Browning of America is now in full swing. The future of America now lies with the immigrants who were the attacked from all angles by the Romney team and their advisers.

It is instructive at this point to cite an article by Dr. Leonard Greenhalgh who writes that: "... Census data leave no doubt that minorities are rapidly increasing as a proportion of the total United States population. This is the result of immigration and minorities' higher birthrates compared to the Caucasians. Minorities will become the majority of the national population around the year 2050, but many communities have made that transition already.

"This country is not preparing for this momentous demographic shift that will create a "new majority." The most pressing problem is that today's minorities are getting neither the help they need for fully participate in the entrepreneurial economy, nor the education they need to staff the workforce in the service/knowledge economy. Although overt, the intentional discrimination has become unacceptable in US society, the situation facing minorities destines all but a few of them to remain an economic underclass.

"When an economic underclass becomes the majority, The American dream becomes no more than a fairy tale for most people, the class division between the embarrassingly wealthy and the unacceptable poor takes on epic proportions, and alienation, resentment, and social unrest becomes increasingly prominent in the American ethos.

"The issue is not just a matter of fairness among the haves and have-nots. Even those who subscribe to the view that "life isn't fair" need to pay attention to their long-term self interest; the impact of minority underachievement will extend beyond the minority community to constrain gross domestic product, and harm "the haves" ability to remain affluent. Instead of contributing robustly to the national economy, minorities will remain on the sidelines of their value chains, generating little wealth, few jobs, low tax revenues, and fiscal burdens."

The side effects of having a racist and segregated society is that those poor minorities become excess burden thus dragging down the whole nation that is prone to being racist and mistreating the minorities. A democracy or civilization like the one that is n America, will not grow or become greater than it is now,because the very oppressed minorities are the ones now becoming an unexpected majority because it has coalesced around common issues, common abuse, segregation, racism and lack of social amenities, jobs, education and so forth.

Greenhalgh informs us as to what it is that is causing this social dysfunction thus:

"Exclusion from the lucrative parts of value chains arises because minorities are not achieving the level of literacy-much less advanced education-necessary to participate fully in the service/knowledge economy. In most of this country's minority-dominated communities-inner cities, barrios and Indian Reservations-no more than half of today's ninth-graders will graduate from high school. Many of those who graduate will not be able to read, write, do basic math, and use a computer-the most basic skills required for employment beyond the realm of unskilled labor. The social and economic costs of this intergenerational fate are rising as minorities grow in proportion to the national population…

"Nobody doubts the population trends evident in the Census data, but few people are not taking steps to prepare the country, their businesses, or their communities for the changes these demographic shifts portend. Band-aid measures that are being applied to these demographic changes, which too are as a result of the deeply ingrained racism and segregative mind-set still present in the US, won't make much of a difference anyway. Because the problem is too big, too complex, and too ingrained in the US social system.

"For example, imposing achievement testing on secondary schools and providing scholarship assistance has little to no effect on impoverished youngsters who start kindergarten with all the disadvantages of poverty: limited vocabulary, undereducated parents, a local culture that disrespects education, few positive role models, fetal alcohol syndrome, poor nutrition, unaddressed health problems, and so on. School is just too challenging for such people, and in the absence of supports systems, they drop out early. Tragically, the well-meaning scholarships are wasted(Or are they-maybe there's not enough access of giving them out to the poor?).

"So that, despite these growing needs, minorities(who are now the majority), as a group are not getting the education the country needs them to have, nor are their enterprises getting the help they need to survive, prosper, grow to scale, and take their place in the economic system(this is happening globally where the Imperialists have vested and invested interests-cheap slave-labor and mega profits to whit) It is sad if jobs are going overseas because our burgeoning minority/majority if jobs are going overseas because the growing minority, quickly becoming the majority population in the U..S. lacks the basic literacy to do the jobs allotted to them.

"The US cannot sustain its wealthy life-style in the coming decades. This means not only will minorities and women continue to be denied a fair share of the wealth and opportunity, but all Americans will also face a bleaker future.(This is not a formula for progress or a burgeoning civilization). Whites entering their careers will have decreased opportunity as the competitive advantage of US corporations erodes in the global economy and the spending power of US workers shrinks; mid-career whites will continue to experience a plateaued or eroding standard of living; and w\Whites approaching the end of their careers will be disappointed in the yields of their equity-based pension plans which depend heavily on the success of large U/S. corporations with a global reach.

The problem with band-Aid solutions is that they don't break the cycles that keep the minorities from progressing toward economic self-reliance. Negate cycles are causal loops that reinforce a predicament. Let us consider a few examples of what we need to deal with:

  • Poverty and poor education: Low-income communities have low tax revenue, therefore they have little money to spend on well-equipped schools and good teachers. Under-educated people remain low-income (because higher-paying jobs require adequate education) and therefore can't afford to move to communities with good school systems; the next generation is predestined to repeat the cycle.
  • Access to capital: Entrepreneurs need to pledge collateral for loans to finance their fledgling businesses. But few minority entrepreneurs own their homes. If they had a thriving business, they could generate enough revenue to buy a home. But because they don't start out owning a home, they can't get capital they need for the business to thrive.
  • Bonding: A lot of large-scale construction business has been made available to minorities-provided they can obtain bonding. But they can't get the bonding until they become bigger, and they can't get bigger unless they have bonding levels that will allow them to take on bigger projects.
  • Access to contracts: High value-added contracts offer high profit margins, but these tend to be given to firms with experience. Minority firms don't get these contracts because they lack experience. Minority firms don't get these contracts because they lack experience in doing such work. Because they don't get the contracts, they never get experience.

"High impact intervention is crucial because the U.S.A is at a crossroads in its economic history. Its place in the world economy is approaching a tipping point. US national competitive advantage is stable-which, in a fast-moving marketplace, means stagnant. Meanwhile, rival nations such as China and India are occupying an ever-strengthening position in the global economy. Future national competitive advantage will depend on the quality of the US workforce and the vitality of its entrepreneurial economy, both of which will be dominated by minorities. The success of minority participation in US business is therefore a national priority, and needs to be treated as such.

"To continue to ignore the gravity of the problems that loom as demographic shifts take their full effect is to put the national competitive advantage to the U.S.-and with it, the economic well-being of its populace-in jeopardy. And this situation is not unique to the United States, other countries with significant minority populations, as in the case of France."

Although the Republicans are now talking of changing the structure and message of their Party in order to accommodate these burgeoning Minority-Majorities, they are still off message for they still feel and think that the poor are not so important, and we are at present further away from the 2016 elections. As for now, their efforts become laughable and transparent as to their intention: to keep of favoring and working hard for the top one percent of super-rich Americans.

The Majority-Minority is able to see through this tired effort and are at present enjoying and rejoicing in the win of their choice, and this has empowered them, along with women, youth and many other white people as the pictures in the gallery show. Presently, the Euphoria has hardly died down nor abated as we are now heading for Obamas inauguration in January, and the rest of the next coming four year hold some promise for the poor of the United States and the world, as shown in the picture of the people celebrating in Kenya, it is as if it is them who have won and decided the election. So much affects and effect of Obama's win will reverberate throughout the world.

As it did on post US 2012 election, that America's status will be a bit better appreciated and accepted the world over in the next four year of Obama's rule-And Obama cares for the weakest and poor denizens of the United States of America and the World. The US need to effectively take care of its poor and weak denizens for this country to keep on evolving and developing as a model for the world to see and imitate-as has been the case thus far.

A Clarion Call To The Americans To Publicly Support His Policies:

Talking To The Rich and the Poor as Americans-Period!

If I had written this Hub prior to the 2012 Inaugural Presidential address, this Hub would be affected and influenced and affected by the speech below. But I wrote it out of the political trends that were affecting the American 'credo' adversely, as noted by Obama.

It is also important to take note of the fact that the Inaugural Speech of Obama was addressing issues like Immigration, Gun Control Laws, Global Warming, the poor and job creation, and taking care of the weak, old/young and helpless. He made a point of raising awareness as to what his proposed changes will do for the World at large and the Citizens of the United States. I will make some notable notations in regard to the speech at its end, below.

This is what Obama had to say in his Inaugural Speech, January 21, 2012:

"Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

"Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional — what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

"Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

"For more than two hundred years, we have.

"Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

"Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.

"Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

"Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

"Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

"But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias.

No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

"This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it — so long as we seize it together.

"For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship.

We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.

"We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

"We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.

For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm.

The commitments we make to each other — through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

"We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries — we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

"We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

"We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully — not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation.

We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice — not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

"We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

"It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.

"That is our generation’s task — to make these words, these rights, these values — of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time — but it does require us to act in our time.

"For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today’s victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years, and forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

"My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction — and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.

"They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope.

"You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course.

"You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time — not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.

"Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

"Thank you, God Bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America." President Barack Obama)

A Civilization Greatness Depends On How It Treats Its Weak and Poor Citizens

This was a clear and progressive speech by Obama and he gave a progressive philosophy which was articulating a liberal ideology. But not only that, it was more directed towards the Americans, let us say, more Americana. There are many elements of the Speech, if taken apart, it really states the words "citizens" and We the People numerous times. More than his four year agenda, Obama was saying that this is where this generation should go, to transforms the course of the country to take.

He talked about legacy, the country's direction, and less about race.Obama calls and catches the attention of his listeners by referring to and talks to them as "You and I, as Citizens..., as "My Fellow Americans, exhorting them with words like "For now the decision s are upon us, and we cannot afford delay...". and reminding them that "That is our generation's task…",

"We The people, declare today that the most evident truths — that all of us are created equal", assuring them that "We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law…", and had four paragraphs wherein he says to the people over and over again, "For We, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it…"

And affirms the American values by stating "We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity"..and clarified the meaning of America by stating "We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves , but to all posterity", and talked about peace in tis manner, "We, the people, still believe in enduing security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war", that in the end i end up citing Obama with statements which he mentioned at the beginning of his inaugural speech as follows:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

"Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

"For more than two hundred years, we have."

As he said, Obama, this is for God and country and not for party, which, in not so many words, he perfectly aligned himself with the poor, and that as a government, they needed to pursue specific and progressive agendas, which,I might add, for the benefit of all the American people, not a motley crew of greedy millionaires and their lackeys. He buttressed this by stating that Americans have come to the realization that they could not be a nation Half Slave and Half Free. Because of the 2012 vote, Obama feels free now to talk about these pertinent issues that will help the poor and the working middle class.

Obama knows that empowering the poor and weak denizens of the United States of America, he understand and has a view and vision that this would empower and move America along the path of development and respect of Human rights without having to try and obfuscate all these, to the detriment of the nation and the progress within America. The poor, to Obama, are the people that are in the majority, 99% to be sure. Only the one percenters are having it good. He, Obama, seeks to change that in his second terms, and the poor can at least hang on to his promises for the next four years.

At this juncture, I would like to cite a full article by Playthell Benjamin which he dubbed:

"Riding the Big Dog Through the Dirty south: Rolling with the wretched of the Earth"

As the Grand Obstructionist Party threatens to throw the US treasury into default, and bring on a new Great Depression that professional economists tell us could be worse than the calamity of the 1930s, the future looks increasingly bleak for the nation at large, but hopeless for the working class and the poor. If you want to gain a first hand understanding of how the struggling masses already live, what their hopes and dreams are, and their increasingly hazardous fight to acquire the basic necessities of life: take a ride around the country on a Grey Hound bus.

"I discovered this sociological and journalistic treasure trove by accident. After missing a plane to Atlanta couple of years ago, and was unable to get another plane or train reservation that would get me to Atlanta for a meeting the next morning, I finally decided to take a bus. The trip was a revelation and since then I have taken several bus trips through the South employing a favored method of the cultural anthropologist, the “participant observer.” I am writing a series of essays about my experiences under the title “Journeys in the New South"; which will include the present essay. These texts will be compiled into a book. Several of them can now be read on this blog.

While the Republicans in Congress assures us that, “The people” are with them, I don’t believe it. That’s not what I hear from the hordes of desperate Dead Enders riding the Grey Hound on any given day; people who are barely holding on in the vain hope that things will soon get better. Like… maybe they will finally find a job that will permit them to lead a normal life. Although the Republicans insist that they don’t want “fake government jobs” but “real jobs” in the private sector; from what working people are telling me in conversations riding the bus up and down the eastern seaboard of the United States: The Republicans are full of sh*t! These people would give their right eye for a good government job with benefits.

"Alas, if you listen to them carefully, you will soon discover they haven’t a clue about the socio/political forces that conspire to push them out of the work force; perhaps permanently, except for the most menial, repetitive and soul deadening labor when they are fortunate enough to find it. Thus they do not know how to organize and fight systematically for their interests. Yet they know they are trapped; that they are facing homelessness and starvation playing by the rules; and they know if they try to make ends meet by resorting to illegal means they will be beaten down and imprisoned by the police forces of the state.

They may not know that a credit default swap or derivative is; but they know that only the Robber Barons on Wall Street can get away with economic crimes. And they know the rich are getting richer and they are poorer. They are the equivalent of social dynamite building up at the base of The American society.

Listening to their hopes and dreams, for better days ahead, I am reminded of Langston Hughes' powerful poem "A Dream Deferred: What happens to a Dram Deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun? Or fester like a sore-And then run? Does it stink like rotten meat? Or crust and sugar offer-like syrupy sweet? Maybe it just sags like a heavy load?Or doe it explode?"

After all, these are the same class of people Dr. Franz Fanon described as “the wretched of the earth” in his seminal text on the process by which the downtrodden and docile masses rise up and destroy their oppressors. Although Fanon was looking at oppressed people in the colonial world, the disinherited in America today are almost as desperate.

The disparity in wealth between the rich and poor in America is the worst in the history of the world! Yet, due to the power of right wing media — which employs highly paid fools, fops, frauds and charlatans posing as serious commentators on the news — much of the working and middle class who are being victimized by “Tea Party” politics are so confused by disinformation they voted to put these fanatics in office.

Now these working class suckers are running round the rust belt like chickens with their heads freshly cut off trying like hell to recall them from power. From what I am seeing and hearing as I roll with the wretched of the earth, a financial crash just now would unleash the dogs of chaos and seriously destabilize American society – I can envision food riots.

Already there is a war going on in the streets of impoverished communities, large and small, all over this country. You hear about it riding the bus; reports from the front lines of the battle zone abound. For instance, a thirty something white woman from a small impoverished town in upstate New York, told blood curdling tales about close friends and family who had been mugged or murdered. She said that if she had her druthers she would get a little house out in the woods where she rarely saw anybody.

It should be said as a point of clarity however, not everybody riding the bus is tottering on the brink of disaster…just yet. Middle class folks also travel on the big dog but they are few and far between. Usually they are traveling short distances; like New York to Washington and Baltimore, or Richmond Virginia to Charlotte North Carolina.

Yet as their economic circumstances decline due to spreading unemployment that reduces their standard of living, middle-class travelers are showing up more and more on the bus. Right now however, virtually all of the long distance travelers are poor folks. And they have some bizarre tales to tell as penurious strugglers in the richest society the world has ever seen.

Many seem to be just blundering through life, with no real plan for the present and no vision for the future. Watching a young white couple in their twenties traveling with two children — one a toddler the other an infant of three weeks – I wondered what their story was.

My curiosity was sparked when I saw signs that they were loving parents on the one hand and reckless caretakers on the other. I noticed them at a rest stop outside Baltimore. It is the first opportunity to stretch your legs and take food and other refreshments after leaving New York on a trip south.

Naturally the smokers, desperate to satisfy their “nicotine Jones,” scurry to the smoking areas and fire up. I once won an award for “honesty and accuracy in drug reporting” when I was a columnist with the New York Daily News, and the medical experts I interviewed told me nicotine addiction is worse than cocaine and harder to get off than heroin.

That’s what came to mind when I saw the young mother holding her infant child on a large pillow spread over her lap as she puffed away on a cigarette; while the father blew a cloud of smoke over the infant and toddler from his stance just above their heads. These kids had barely come into the world but their parents — upon whom they are totally dependent — were cavalierly assaulting their lungs and brains with toxic fumes.

I wanted to take a picture of them because it would make a great illustration for an ad against subjecting young children to second hand smoke; but I felt it would be intruding on their privacy. I reflected on the biblical adage:

“Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do,” but not being religious I yearned to smack them upside the head and warn them that the destructive nature of second hand smoke, even on adults, is well established by medical science. I wanted to tell them they are abusing their children in a particularly horrible way. If ever a picture was worth a thousand words this was it. But I couldn’t muster the chutzpah to snap it.

When we resumed our trip the hapless parents ended up sitting on the same row as me; I took the seat next to the window so that the toddler could sit by the widow on her mother’s side, and the mother and father could occupy the aisle seats. One of the pleasures of traveling by bus — along with viewing scenes from a vanishing America and hearing “round unvarnished tales” from fellow travelers — is having long blocks of time to read.

I had begun to read a book of scholarly essays by black academics titled “Black Power In the Belly of the Beast” and the father of the clan became curious about my text. I am fairly certain it was the title that intrigued him. I saw him staring at the book’s cover out of the corner of my eye, and then he began to question me. In a halting fashion that exposed his insecurity in the role of inquisitor he asked if I really enjoyed reading, where I was from and where I was going. He seemed like he was itching to ask me what the book was about but couldn’t muster up the nerve.

When I told him I lived in New York, he said that he was from New York too…Albany New York; the capitol of the state, which seems as far away as Canada when I drove up there on business. I told him I was from the city. That seemed to really stoke his curiosity. He wanted to know if I lived in the Bronx, Queens or Brooklyn.

When I told him I lived in Manhattan he sat up in his seat with a sort of wild eyed stare and asked me how much apartments were going for in Manhattan these days. When I began to quote some of the rents I have seen posted in real estate listings lately, he seemed incredulous…as if I were describing another world far beyond his reach.

A good old boy on his way back home to Alabama, wearing a cap with the logo of a tractor company emblazoned on its crown, turned around abruptly in his seat and asked: “You mean to tell me there’s thousands of people who can pay them kinda rents?” Other questions about theManhattan life style followed.

The patriarch of the clan could not long resist asking what I did, what kind of job I had. I told him I was a writer. From the look on his face I might as well have said that I made special shoes for men on Mars.

I was somewhat wary of him in the beginning because he looked like a skin head. I know from having studied fascistic elements of the lunatic white supremacists that lurk on the ultra-right spectrum of American politics, their recruits often come from the white lumpen-proletariat. Guys just like this dude sitting next to me.

However as he began to tell me his story I concluded that his head hair cut — which we use to call a “baldy scaldy” back in the day — was really determined more by his dire economic circumstances than his political ideology; which, as near as I could tell, was non-existent. He just was trying to get the most bang for his buck, obviously a trip to the barber was no picayune affair for him. This dude put the D in desperate!

He told me that he was going to live with his mother in Palatka Florida because there was no work in Albany New York. I knew right off that he was in serious trouble if he was going to Palatka looking for work. I have family in Palatka, well to-do black folks, and the last time I visited them it seemed like scenes from the 1930s, with men in this depressed farm community standing around in the scorching Florida sun wearing overalls, in search of a day’s work.

And this was under Bill Clinton when the economy was booming — things have gone dramatically downhill since then! As he spoke of the devastation of housing stock in the capitol of the Empire State, and the dire straits of his working class family and friends, I was reminded of the writer William Kennedy, who wrote the Pulitzer Prize winning novel Ironweed, a grim tale about the very class represented by my fellow traveler.

When I asked him if he had ever heard of William Kennedy, he thought I was talking about a member of the famous political clan that produced a President and two Senators. When I told him there was no relation he stared at me blankly. I thought of the great struggle William Kennedy had getting his novel published.

He was rejected as much as thirty times I think, and I remembered his explanation as to why he persisted in trying to get the novel published; as he basked in the literary limelight after the book won the Pulitzer Prize and was made into a major motion picture starring Jack Nicholson and Merle Streep.

Kennedy said he continued his struggle to get the novel published because he didn’t feel that the reason given for its rejection was a valid literary criticism: “Nobody wants to read about down and out white drunks inAlbanyNew York.” However if they were relying on the subjects of the novel to read it they were right. I’m sure the peely head patriarch had no interests in reading it after I told him of the text’s existence.

First of all he was too busy trying to survive to even consider reading a novel…especially one that told a tale he knew all to well and would only depress him further. Talking to him I could see fear for the future of his family etched on his face. It was reflected in the quiet panic in his eyes, as he looked languidly off at the passing country side out the window on my side of the bus. He confessed that he had no idea what he would do if he didn’t find work in Palatka.

As we talked he explained how he hadn’t done well in school so he dropped out and decided to go into the military, but his girlfriend got pregnant and he did the right thing and got married. If sex is the poor man’s grand opera these two seemed to really enjoy the show. Which is all well and good; the problem was that they seem to never have heard of birth control.

If you asked them about it I’d bet they would echo a comment I’ve heard many times before: “It just don’t feel as good using protection,” or “she forgot to take her pills.” The hapless husband went on to explain that he had gone to a technical school to train as a diesel mechanic, but had to drop out when their daughter was born. He says that he wants to return but can’t gain the economic stability that is a perquisite to continuing his training. Knowing what I knew about the economic conditions in Palatka Florida, it was hard for me to conjure encouraging words.

As we barreled down the highway deeper into the South I reflected on the thesis of Dr. William J. Wilson – my old colleague at the University of Massachusetts, who is now Professor of Social Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School – in his book “The Declining significance of Race.” Although Professor Wilson suffered a great deal of abuse when he reported that race was no longer the all powerful determinant of one’s life chances in American society that it once was, these people supplied irrefutable evidence for his claim.

It was obvious that the education and reproductive decisions of these young white people had far more to do with their station and chances in life than their race. As I write a new study has revealed that per capita white family wealth is 20 times that of blacks; it recently doubled. Since the economic collapse.

The deck is still stacked in their favor alas, yet there are millions of Afro-Americans doing better than the white lumpen just now. Back in the era of industrial prosperity before the Civil rights movement, this would not have been true. For the system of segregation undergirded by an ideology of white supremacy often favored borderline white retards over black college graduates.

Educational attainment and reproductive decisions were also critical factors in the present predicament and future life chances of Guadalupe, a young Mexican American woman who described herself as “A bitch on a mission.” I was taken aback at her self-description, because she was quite pretty, stylishly dressed and looked like a college girl on Holiday. She was barely twenty years old but she had a hard tale to tell.

It was, to say the least, a tangle of pathology. She was coming from Buffalo New York, where her parents had immigrated when she was a little girl, and was by now 100% American. I thought of the struggle her parents must have endured to make it possible for her to grow up in the Promised Land. For as she talked it was clear that she had squandered the opportunities her parents had tried to provide.

Guadalupe was on her way to surprise her “baby daddy” in Jacksonville Florida, where he was shacked up with another woman that he had impregnated. It seems that she had learned his whereabouts from talking with his mother, with whom she was on good terms. She also revealed that her guy had three other kids by three other women, and they had warrants out on him for child support.

She was undecided as to whether she would drop a dime on him to the authorities as to his whereabouts; that would depend on whether he chose her or the woman he was shacked up with inFlorida. Here we see how the inability of people to make the right choices impact upon their chances in life. It is also clear that abortion should remain a safe, legal and convenient choice for women.

As “Lupe” was raised Catholic, abortion was out of the question; which is a powerful statement about the dangers of blind adherence to religious dogma. Whatever the virtues of Catholicism, the Catholic Church is a mess when it comes to handling sexual matters. After all, this is a church whose priest are prevented from marrying and having normal sexual relations with consenting adults, and thus routinely rape the children in their charge.

While she insisted that she had no plans to fight with the other woman, whom she wisely viewed as a fellow victim of the duplicity and treachery of their Babies daddy, her plan to recruit the woman to her side as an ally against him sounded risky at best and delusional at worst.

Yet the question that perplexed me was: “Why are you even considering getting back together with this guy?” Here was a case where the mother and child would be far better off if the father was not in the house. When I put this question to her point blank she said that because he was the father of her unborn child she should at least give him another chance to straighten up and fly right. By which she meant marry her, take care of the rest of his children, and don’t “knock up anymore females.”

What was most frightening about these young people is that they are not unique. Their stories of pathos and pathology are repeated ad infinitum among the lumpen proletariat — or the expanding American “under class” in the jargon of contemporary sociologist. Yet in a society where the job market is so tight college grads who have made all the right choices are having a hard time finding a descent job with security and benefits: what is to become of these people with little useful education to equip them for a job and have made all the wrong decisions?

We know from the employment statistics following the recent recession, which the economist tell us by their indices has been over for two years, that it was a “jobless” recovery. Literally millions of people who were employed when the economy tanked are still unemployed!

This is because of the changing nature of the US economy, in which technological advances and globalization are rendering large segments of the American working class obsolete. Hence the sustained unemployment that we are now witnessing is “structural” not “cyclical.” This is to say that it is not caused by the forces that have resulted in periods of mass unemployment in the past, where the “boom and bust” intervals of the American capitalist business cycle were the culprit.

In the present grim scenario the fundamental causes of unemployment are due to changes in the structure of the American economy. Thus the present unemployment rate will be permanent unless a new economy emerges. In order for this to occur the government must become the employer of last resort; hiring the unemployed to rebuild the American infrastructure to support a new economy.

The only person among those presently seeking the presidency who understands this is Barack Obama; yet even if he wins the coming election he will be helpless to implement his vision unless the democrats control both houses of Congress. This is the grim reality facing American society.

The Republicans have opted out of trying to find solutions to these monumental problems that threaten to make the US a second rate nation. They are contemptuous of the role of government, as the present fiasco in Congress around raising the debt ceiling that threatens to plunge the economy into a deep depress demonstrates. Having abandoned the public interests they seek to privatize everything from medical care for the elderly to the post office.

Increasingly they live in gated communities with armed private security; send their children to private schools; use private mail delivery services; employ private doctors, etc. This model of social organization increasingly resembles the trends in Third World societies like Pakistan-where wealthy people ride around with armed guards.

Since Republicans represent the interests of the investor class — in spite of the poor white dupes that make up much of their “base” — they care not where their money is invested so long as it returns the highest interests i.e., rent for the use of their money. Thus they have no interest in solving the employment crisis of the working class.

The class incidentally, who fight the nation’s endless wars started by politicians whose corporate cronies make billions servicing the war machine — the dreaded “military/industrial complex” President Eisenhower warned about in his final address to the nation. The tawdry and perhaps criminal relationship between 'Dirty Dick’ Cheney, the architect of Iraq war policy, and Halliburton Industries, is a classic case in point.

There are two groups of passengers one is likely to meet when traveling interstate on the bus: newly released convicts and soldiers going to, or coming from, a war zone. Both are, more often than not, victims of the ongoing crisis in the American economy. If you go through Fayetteville North Carolina you are certain to encounter Para-troopers from Fort Bragg, all of whom hail from the impoverished post industrial cities whose economies have gone from good paying manufacturing jobs to low wage service jobs for blue collar workers.

Or the economically devastated rural areas, where small farmers struggle to survive in a market dominated by giant agri-business corporations. That’s why the only hope I can see for solving the monumental problems facing an increasingly obsolete American working class is the Democratic Party under the leadership of a humane visionary like President Obama.

There is absolutely no reason to be believe, based on the observable facts, that the Grand Obstructionist Party has either the will or the way to provide workable solutions to this crisis. All they do is recite the same old bogus gospel of tax cuts for the rich as the solution for everything; they persist in this dangerous foolishness in spite of the fact that we are ten years into the massive Bush tax cuts to the rich that squandered the eight trillion dollar surplus bequeathed to them by the Clinton Administration and wrecked the economy.

Yet an abysmally ignorant electorate placed the Republicans back in Charge of the House of Representatives, which control all revenue bills, two years into the Obama Administration. This blunder at the polls brought his sweeping measures to restore the nation’s economic health to a screeching halt. It is eloquent testimony to the truth of Thomas Jeffersons warning: “An ignorant electorate will elect and return the worst people to power!”

It was clear that the dead end kids on the bus were almost totally oblivious to these realities — thus they are incapable of fighting for their interests. As near as I could tell, from the questions I casually but systematically put to them about politics during rest stops and bus changes when we were watching the flat screen televisions posted on the walls around the waiting rooms and permanently tuned to CNN, they were clueless and couldn't care less.

The one person I talked to that was surprisingly aware of the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans was a twenty something black B-Boy whom I nicknamed “Hip Hop.” He was, by far, the most interesting character I encountered on this ride. I met more interesting people at my destinations, but not on the bus. Hip hop sat next to me on the way back to the Big Apple. He got on the bus in the small Georgiatown of Hinesvilleand was decked out in classic B-Boy gear that looked recently purchased.

He was vague about where he was coming from and didn’t appear to be that certain where he was going. As I expected him to be empty headed I kept the conversation very light, blowing his mind with my analysis of the growth of Rap music and discussing the difference in lyrics, beat and flow between East and West coast rappers. However when I pulled out a special edition of the journal “Socialism and Democracy” he was all eyes. Billed as “The Journal of the Research Group on Socialism and Democracy,” this edition was devoted to the topic:

What is African American Studies, Its Focus, and Future.

Edited by John H. McClendon and Yusef Nuruddin, the volume is a collection of scholarly papers which are inter-disciplinary in focus and authored by Afro-American scholars with a Marxist bent. As I began to engage Sociologist Tony Montero’s text, The Epistemic Crisis of Afro-American Studies: A Duboisian Resolution- A dense academic essay that I approached in much the same manner that one takes cod liver oil – Hip Hop began to ask questions about it. I cavalierly brushed him off with grunts and mumbles, making no attempt to engage him; certain that it would all be way over his head.

I suppose Hip Hop must have peeped my game because he told me that he loved to read and announced that he had recently finished reading “The Prince,” by Machiavelli – a canonical political treatise in the western intellectual tradition. Needless to say, I was taken aback by his claim and began to quiz him about the text. His analysis was thoughtful and left no doubt that he had indeed read it even if he didn’t fully understand it.

Then he spoke of other weighty texts, among them Marx’s Das Kapital. Naturally, I began to wonder where he got the inclination and leisure to do such heavy reading outside of an academic setting; especially since he had told me he didn’t go to college. There were curious gaps in his story and the vibe I picked up from him was pure gangsta, a gorilla to his heart; the kind of guy you wanted to have your back in a knife fight. I wanted to question him systematically and find out what he was really about. But we both fell asleep.

When we awoke we were at Raleigh North Carolina, it was after mid-night. Raleigh is evidently a dangerous town — the guards in the station always warn passengers not to wander away from the station during layovers when we go outside for smoking breaks, and tell tales about Para-troopers stationed at Fort Bragg who have survived tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan only to be murdered by street thugs in Raleigh.

So it was not altogether surprising when Hip Hop was pulled aside by the cops and searched as we stood outside. He was cool as an Arctic night, like he was used to the routine. But when they left he was pissed off. And all he wanted to talk about was the abuse of police power on our trip toRichmond Virginia. I asked him if he understood that he fit the police profile for a young male criminal? He wasn’t trying to hear the science I was dropping and I soon fell off to sleep.

When we reached Richmond he made a phone call, announced that he was splitting the scene, slapped me fives and disappeared into the night. As I continued my journey to New York I could overhear the conversation of another young man decked out in hip hop gear. He was arguing with his baby mama, instructing her to have his seven year old daughter’s things clean and packed or he would put the police on her because the Family Court inNewark New Jersey-a gun toting town that seems more dangerous than Baghdad-had given him full custody because of her trifling ways! He told her that they would be leaving immediately for Miami Florida.

The mere idea of taking the trip to Florida back to back was exhausting. But such is life among the lumpen. As we pulled out of Newark heading for “The Fruit,” as hip black Philadelphians of my generation called New York City, I remained more firmly convinced than ever of two things: Marx was right, the Lumpen can’t be organized into an effective progressive force — no matter what the black Panthers say.

And the most pressing problem confronting Black Americans is to honor the ancestral imperative to stop the values of the lumpen class from obliterating the values of the “Talented Tenth"; who guided the black community through our golden age of struggle and progress and produced the tallest trees yet seen in our forest!

It is not only African Americans who are the poor, as Playthell points out, but there are armies of poor whites in America who are not really spoken about. As the title of the article above suggests, the US is not taking care of it s poor citizen, and Playthell just gave us a glimpse of the truism of the topic of this Hub above.

War On the Poor Of The US

Whilst on the subject of the poor, it is important to note that the Government of the US has been shut since October 1, 2013. This is bad for poor people in the State who depend upon government grants and handouts to buy food and feed their children and the rest of their families. The weakest citizens have been assailed by hardline spokespeople on behalf of the motley crew of billionaires.

They have passed laws trying to abandon Food stamps and other government subsidized programs for the poor. One other thing to note here is that this comes on the heels of Obama Health care kicked started and open registration for its intended 50 million people(the number varies and fluctuates depending on who's saying it-some say 20 million).

But just because that was going to happen, and as of writing of this Hub, the government website has had up to upwards of 8 million people trying to find out and register for the new health care which has been passed into law, but is being blocked by these 40 senators in the House, saying that Obamacare got to be repealed, and the poor must loose all benefits-and the country is at a standstill right now.

We learn about the present US government shut down from Democracy Now, the interview will be conducted by Amy Goodman interviewing Rim Murphy:

The US government has begun a partial shutdown for the first time in 17 years after Congress failed to break a partisan deadlock by a midnight deadline. Some 800,000 federal workers are to be furloughed, and more than a million others will be asked to work without pay. The shutdown was spearheaded by tea party Republicans who backed a House bill tying continued government funding to a one-year delay of the Affordable Care Act and the repeal of a tax to pay for it.

In addition to the furloughs, the shutdown will halt dozens of services provided by government agencies. We discuss the impact with Mother Jones reporter Tim Murphy, whose latest article is "48 Ways a Government Shutdown Will Screw You Over."

AMY GOODMAN: We’re on the road in Louisiana, broadcasting from New Orleans public television, WLAE. I’m Amy Goodman.

The US government has begun a partial shutdown for the first time in 17 years after Congress failed to break a partisan deadlock by a midnight deadline. The Office of Management and Budget issued orders shortly before the midnight deadline saying that, quote, "Agencies should now execute plans for an orderly shutdown due to the absence of appropriations." Some 800,000 federal workers are to be furloughed; more than a million others will be asked to work without pay.

The shutdown was spearheaded by tea party conservatives who backed a House bill tying continued government funding to a one-year delay of the Affordable Care Act and the repeal of a tax to pay for it. The Democratic-controlled Senate insisted on funding the government through November 15 without special conditions. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke just after midnight.

SEN. HARRY REID: Madam President, it is embarrassing that these people who are elected to represent the country are representing the tea party, the anarchists of the country, and a majority of the Republicans in the House are following every step of the way. This is an unnecessary blow to America, to the economy, middle class, everyone.

AMY GOODMAN: House Speaker John Boehner addressed reporters soon after the government shutdown began.

SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: The American people are worried about their job. They’re worried about their incomes rising, because they’re all under pressure. The economy is not growing. Why isn’t it growing? One of the issues that’s standing in the way is Obamacare, the fact that nobody knows what the rules are, employers scared to death to hire new employees, cutting the hours of many of their current employees, and— for what reason? This law is not ready for prime time.

AMY GOODMAN: The government shutdown comes as Republicans and Democrats face a nearing deadline to increase the nation’s borrowing limit or risk a default on US debts. Republicans had previously threatened to tie their bid for an Obamacare repeal to the debt ceiling vote. Despite the government shutdown, a key initiative of Obamacare begins today. Individuals seeking health insurance under the new program can now enroll online through marketplaces.

Well, to talk more about the government shutdown, we go to Washington, DC, where we’re joined by Tim Murphy, a reporter at Mother Jones.

Tim, welcome to Democracy Now! Please explain what’s happened since 12:00 midnight Eastern time. What exactly is being shut down?

TIM MURPHY: Well, the short answer is about 20 percent of the federal government, 800,000 federal workers, will show up to work today and be sent home, and that includes 400,000 civilian workers from the Department of the Defense. That’s the department that probably gets the most cuts from this.

The longer answer is, you know, pretty much various things that you use in your everyday life will no longer be open to you. People applying for mortgages will have trouble getting that from the federal government. People trying to fill out their taxes will no longer be able to call the IRS to ask basic questions. The Coast Guard is cutting back some of its navigation assistance. Auto—new automobile inspections will be curtailed. The EPA is closing 94 percent of its responsibilities for the foreseeable future. You know, there’s kind of this perception that the shutdown mostly just affects Washington, DC, and it really does affect Washington, DC, but it goes much broader than that.

AMY GOODMAN: Some Republicans are demanding their colleagues ditch the shutdown strategy. Republican Congressman Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania said, quote, "It’s time to govern. I don’t intend to support a fool’s errand at this point." Republican Congressman Michael Grimm of New York said, "The circus created the past few days isn’t reflective of mainstream Republicans—it projects an image of not being reasonable."

The vast majority of Republicans are pretty level-headed and are here to govern," he said. And Republican Congressmember Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, right, the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2012, said, quote, "We have to stay on the right side of public opinion ... Shutting down the government puts us on the wrong side," he said. Tim, can you talk about the division among the Republicans?

TIM MURPHY: Yeah. Over the last couple of days, there’s been this emergence of a bloc of mostly Northeastern or Upper Midwestern Republicans who have pushed for—you know, to become kind of a moderating influence within the party. But what we saw last night is that they really are still in the minority, and they’re a very small minority. Congressman Peter King of New York, a Republican, you know, attempted to lead a small rebellion of his colleagues against John Boehner’s proposal to delay the implementation of the Affordable Care Act by a year, and he got about 20 votes, and that died.

So, you know, for the foreseeable future, they really are in the minority of the Republican Party, and what they consider to be mainstream is really anything but. It’s those conservative—most conservative members of the House, the people that Harry Reid called anarchists last night, who are driving public policy in the House of Representatives.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Tim, explain exactly who gets affected by—in this first phase of the shutdown and when the voting will, you know, reopen government.

TIM MURPHY: Sure. And the deal with the shutdown is it essentially gets worse the longer it goes on. And in 1995 and 1996 it went on for 28 days and ended up costing the US, I think, about $2 billion in economic losses, just because people don’t have money and they’re not spending it. So you have the 800,000 workers who will be furloughed, and they’ll be furloughed without pay. And when the shutdown eventually ends, they’ll get that pay. But in the meantime, you know, they’re trying to make ends meet.

The government did pass an emergency measure to continue paying members of the armed services last night, so they’ll still work and they’ll still get their pay. But families whose, you know, loved ones die in Afghanistan will not get death benefits in that period.

You know, civilian contractors will not, by and large, be showing up to work. The EPA will shut down almost all of its services. The National Zoo will close. Even the panda cam that lets you watch, you know, the pandas on a live stream 24 hours a day will shut down. NASA, I think, is furloughing about 97 percent of its staff.

You know, people who depend on the federal government for funding for WIC food assistance will not get that. It’s up to their state whether they’ll get that going forward. Some states have obligations to do that; some states could probably care less. Heating assistance as the weather gets colder is something that is now up in the air. You know, there’s just kind of this wide range of government programs.

Head Start, which is a program that has already been kind of really hammered by the sequestration cuts over the last seven months, is going to get further cuts over the next couple of weeks if the shutdown persists, as grants are now put on hold. So, you know, whether you have kids, whether you’re a college student relying on federal student loans or Pell Grants, whether you’re a senior citizen, whether you’re living in a cold region without heat, this shutdown will affect you.

AMY GOODMAN: During MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday, Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin suggested Democrats jammed through the Affordable Care Act on a partisan basis.

SEN. RON JOHNSON: And the reason we’re at this point today is because the Democrats jammed through, on a 100 percent partisan basis, a huge reform. They didn’t do the work of trying to get a bipartisan consensus on how to do healthcare reform. Then, of course, Harry Reid hasn’t—

DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL: Excuse me, Senator. That’s not true.

SEN. RON JOHNSON: But listen, listen. Come on, Dr. Emanuel, please.

DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL: We worked hard with Republicans.

SEN. RON JOHNSON: And then, of course, Harry Reid—Harry Reid hasn’t passed an appropriation bill in more than—in over two years, and so now he’s reading the polls, and rather than keeping this in session, they’re going to swat this thing away. Let’s face it: They’re going to swat it away. We should have swatted this bill away. Harry Reid should have taken a vote. As soon as the House passed this, we actually gave ourselves time so we could avert a shutdown. I don’t want a shutdown.

DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL: Senator—

SEN. RON JOHNSON: I’ve been working with the White House trying to work on this, these enormous financial challenges we have in this nation. But, you know, let’s face it: It’s the root cause of problem is that this is an incredibly partisan, very divisive bill, and we’re dealing with that right now, and it’s a real shame.

AMY GOODMAN: Tim Murphy, if you could respond?

TIM MURPHY: Sure. Well, you know, the very brief part is that Democrats have been running on making healthcare affordable and available to everyone for most of the last four decades. They won elections, and then they passed it on a party-line vote. The longer answer is that this really did reflect the bipartisan consensus at the time.

The Affordable Care Act gets its idea for the individual mandate originally from the Conservative Heritage Institute. And prior to the Affordable Care Act, the only place where this has actually been implemented was under Republican Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. You know, this was not really the solution that, you know, real liberals wanted. Y

You know, they wanted a single-payer system or something like that. And instead, they spent about a year deliberating in the Senate with a bipartisan group of senators before they finally came up with what we have now as Obamacare. It is essentially a bipartisan creation that passed on a party-line vote. But since then, you know, Republicans have made this kind of the staple of their platform, and they view it as the key to electoral success.

AMY GOODMAN: Tim, you have a long list of what’s going to go down today, what are some of the government services that won’t be provided. Just share some of those with us.

TIM MURPHY: Sure, and I’ve touched on a few, but, you know, for instance, the National Park Service is closing 401 of its sites, so that obviously applies to things like, you know, sightseeing and hiking. It also applies to the—you know, the retirees and folks like that who essentially live at National Park Service, National Forest Service campsites.

They have 48 hours now to relocate. You know, the US Geological Survey is canceling all of its long-term scientific research. The same goes for agencies like NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency, which will no longer be able to regulate things like pesticides, which I think is something a lot of people care about. You know, we’ve touched on the 400,000 Department of Defense civilian employees.

And there are even—you know, there are even things that folks on the left side of the spectrum might be OK with and conservatives would be really upset with. So, for instance, the Bureau of Land Management is no longer going to be giving out permits for oil and gas leases or new oil and gas exploration.

The ARPA-E, which is this Department of Energy Advanced Research Project program, they do things like squirtable batteries and deriving energy from algae and stuff like that. They’re shutting down entirely. And as are—you know, and the Bureau of Land Management is not going to be giving out permits for renewable energy, either.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission runs out of its funding stream in one week, so they can continue functioning as normal this week, but then they lay off, I think, all but about 20 people in their agency next week, and that could mean a reduction in inspections. We’re going to see a reduction in inspections of automobiles, a reduction of inspections in beef and grain.

So a lot of the stuff we eat is no longer going to have that second look from federal inspectors. The FDA is going to slow down its research on drugs. And then this one, I think, especially as flu season gets going, the Center for Disease Control says it’s no longer going to be able to properly monitor outbreaks, both at home and overseas, and it’s not going to be properly—able to properly implement its flu season vaccination program.

AMY GOODMAN: And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency would furlough more than 92 percent of its employees next week, with much of the remaining staff handling negotiations—well, furlough them now.

TIM MURPHY: Yeah, yeah. And, you know, the Department of Energy has kind of made a priority on, you know, kind of urgent nuclear cleanup at, you know, places like the Hanford site in Washington or something like that, but the broad scope of its activities are going to be drastically curtailed.

AMY GOODMAN: Gun permits won’t be given out?

TIM MURPHY: And, you know, for the Environmental Protection Agency, their—I’m sorry?

AMY GOODMAN: Gun permits won’t be given out?

TIM MURPHY: And gun permits won’t be given out. So, finally, yeah, a very backwards way of getting gun control, but in a situation that I don’t think anybody really wants.

AMY GOODMAN: Tim Murphy, what happens with the debt ceiling debate next?

TIM MURPHY: Yeah, and that’s the thing. As bad as the shutdown is—and it’s pretty bad, and it’s affecting all of these people—a debt ceiling would be far more—a debt ceiling—a failure to raise the debt ceiling would be far more catastrophic. And that comes on October 15.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said, at that point we will no longer be able to meet our nation’s obligations, and unless Congress can raise the debt ceiling, which has been a fairly routine thing over the last few decades, then we run the risk of default. And if we get into a default, then the US dollar runs the risk of no longer being the global currency, and, you know, we run the risk of plunging into a second recession and triggering kind of a whole new global economic crisis.

AMY GOODMAN: Tim Murphy, I want to thank you for being with us. Tim Murphy is with Mother Jones magazine, and we’ll link to your piece at democracyNow.

With the Shutdown now in place, Tim Murphy had written the article to be posted below as to what is going to be affected, along with the poor by such closure. I will take the liberty of posting his article below in order to keep up with the situation of the shutting down of the government as it unfurls.

The midnight deadline came and went without a deal from House Republicans and Senate Democrats (except for one small bill, on military pay Welcome to the Shutdown).

The government will shut down at midnight unless President Obama and Congress can agree on a temporary resolution to continue funding federal agencies. (Spoiler: They probably won't.)

Here's a quick guide to who and what will be most affected:

Anyone who might get sick: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would lack funding to support its annual flu vaccination program.

Military personnel: Barring last-minute congressional action, members of the armed forces would have their paychecks put on hold while they continue to work.

People who use boats: The Coast Guard will cut back on routine patrols and navigation assistance.

Civilian defense employees: 400,000 Department of Defense employees will be given unpaid vacations.

Family Members of fallen soldiers: Death benefits for military families will be delayed.

Gun owners: During the 1990s shutdown, applications for gun permits were delayed due to furloughs at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Trees: Hundreds of US Forest Service workers face furloughs in California during peak forest fire season.

Visa Applicants: Furloughs at the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs mean tens of thousands of visa applications are put on hold.

People traveling abroad A shutdown would cause delays in the processing of passport applications.

Sick people: The National Institutes of Health will not admit new patients unless ordered by the director.

Factory workers: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration will halt regular inspections.

Hikers: All 401 National Park Service sites will be closed.

People who make money off tourists: Shuttered national parks are bad news for the hotels, restaurants, and other attractions that feed off them.

Small business loan applicants: The Small Business Administration will furlough 62 percent of its workforce.

Employers: The Department of Homeland Security's e-Verify program will be offline for the duration of the shutdown.

Fountains: 45 of them will lose water.

People applying for mortgages: The Federal Housing Administration and the USDA won't guarantee new loans.

Oil and gas exploration: The Bureau of Land Management will stop processing permits for oil and gas drilling on federal lands.

Chemical site facility security: Funding for Department of Homeland Security regulatory program ends October 4.

FOIA requests: The Social Security Administration says it won't respond to Freedom of Information Act Requests during the shutdown.

Docents: All Smithsonian Institution museums in Washington, DC, will be closed.

@CuriosityRover: 98 percent of NASA's staff will be furloughed, and the agency's website and live-streams will go dark.

Renewable energy permits: The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will stop all new offshore renewable-energy projects.

Campers: People living (or vacationing) in national parks and forests will have 48 hours to relocate.

Animal voyeurs: Watch the National Zoo's Panda-cam while you still can.

Native Americans: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement will suspend oversight of active and abandoned coal mines "primarily in Tennessee and on Indian lands."

Pesticide regulators: The Environmental Protection Agency will all but shut down at midnight.

Veterans pensions: The Department of Veterans Affairs says it will run out of funding for regular payment checks after a few weeks.

US GeologicalSurvey researchers: The agency would stop most new scientific research and water analysis.

Disability payments: Although the VA will continue to provide medical care, disability payments may also be disrupted after a few weeks.

Winery Permits: Couldn't they take the wine coolers instead?

Ponies: The Bureau of Land Management's wild horse and burro adoption programs would cease.

Infectious disease surveillance The CDC will be unable to track outbreaks and monitor infectious diseases at a local level.

People on food assistance The USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) will stop making payments on October 1.

Food inspections: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration warned of "inability to investigate alleged violations" due to a lack of funding; food imports will also go unexpected.

Automobile recall inspectors: "Routine defects and recall information from manufacturers and consumers would not be reviewed," according to the Department of Transportation.

Food and Drug safety research: The Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA, will furlough 52 percent of its staff.

ARPA-E: The Department of Energy's cutting-edge research arm—and one of the crowning legacies of the stimulus—will shut down, putting projects such as "squirtable batteries" on hold.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission The agency could furlough more than 92 percent of its employees next week, with much of the remaining staff handling inspections.

People without heat: If the shutdown persists, it could affect the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which funds heating assistance programs.

Consumers: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission will furlough 652 of its 680 employees and maintain only a "bare minimum level of oversight and surveillance" to stop fraudulent practices.

People trying to pay taxes: The Internal Revenue Service will shutter its tax hotline, and stop processing tax payments.

College students: Cutbacks at the Department of Education could slow Pell grant and student-loan payments.

Economists: The Bureau of Economic Analysis will cut back on its data collection.

Welfare recipients: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families—welfare—runs out of funding on October 1, although individual states may pick up the tab.

Head Start: The child development program, already hammered by the effects of sequestration, will stop doling out new grants on October 1.

Air monitoring: A 94 percent reduction in staff won't leave the EPA much room to enforce its new carbon regulations.

Golf: Courses at National Park Service sites will close for the shutdown. So at least we have that going for us.David Corn is one of my favorite reporters writing on Mother Jones and is one of the talking-heads on MSNBC television. I would like to add his piece towards making the point that the present government shutdown, is done by people who do not want Obama and want him impeached, even if he has done nothing wrong.

The GOP is attacking the poor and serving the few billionaires in their pocket. The want to make the poor more poor and turn them into 1600s slaves. I think reading the article of David Corn will make a few things much more clearer.

"The GOP's Obamacare Suicide"

"Is the Republican Party committing suicide this week? The final results of the shutdown blame game won't be in until the government is un-shut. Yet at the same time that the party is allowing itself to be branded as an ideologically rigid outfit controlled by political hostage takers, it has been endangering its future by waging a high-profile but Alamo-like stand against Obamacare, just as a main component of the health care program is kicking in—and appears to be popular.

"If anything has defined the GOP in its must-destroy-Obama phase, it's the party's virulent opposition to the Affordable Care Act. And with Obama reelected, the economy slowly improving, and deficits slowly decreasing, Republicans have bet almost all the chips they have left on the decimation of Obamacare.

With Sen. Ted Cruz wagging the party, the GOPers pushing for the government shutdown—aided and abetted by Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, and other influentials of the far right—have focused exclusively on Obamacare. This confrontation over government spending has nothing to do with, well, government spending. The shutdown was merely a way for Cruz-controlled Republicans to vent about Obamacare. So if the Republican party stands for anything today, it is obstructing Obamacare. But here's the rub: What if Obamacare works?

The initial response to yesterday's opening of the state and federal exchanges that are providing affordable insurance plans to Americans who previously could not obtain coverage has Obamacare proponents dancing. Millions of Americans were not scared away by Koch-financed ads. Sure, there were glitches and websites crashed.

But that's natural, given the overwhelming demand. And the exchanges have weeks to work out the kinks before the December 15 deadline to finish enrolling people for the coming year.

So while the Republicans have succeeded in forcing a shutdown of the government—according to the latest polls, not a popular endeavor—their crusade against Obamacare has harmed their long-term prospects in several ways:

"

  • The Republicans have helped expand the power of the federal government.Because of conservative opposition to the ACA, many states controlled by Republicans declined to set up their own exchanges. This meant that Washington had to do so instead. Consequently, the federal government has increased its reach into the lives of Americans. In dozens of states, Americans seeking insurance will now credit Washington, not their local governor, when they obtain coverage. Assuming the program works in providing insurance to these people, conservatives will suffer a tremendous setback regarding their foundational argument (and raison d'être): Government is the problem, not the solution. Oops. No wonder Cruz yearned to stop Obamacare before it could become proof of a different narrative.
  • The Republicans have put their credibility on the line. Death panels. Killing granny. Crashing the economy. For years, conservatives have hurled the most dire predictions. Just as when Ronald Reagan once said that Medicare would wreck the United States: "One of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free." What happens if Obamacare does provide the deliverables—as the policy wonks say—that millions of Americans want? GOPers will be tagged as liars—or, at least, fear mongering, truth-defying spinners—who cannot be trusted.
  • The Republicans are reviving ACORN-like groups. Because many GOP-run states have opted out of Obamacare, community groups, including the remnants of ACORN, an anti-poverty organizing outfit that collapsed a few years ago in the wake of a controversy triggered by a misleading right-wing-made undercover video, are filling the void. They are working in the field to find and sign-up low-income Americans who qualify for coverage under Obamacare. Conservatives cheered the death of ACORN. But they have helped set the stage for its return (a possibility that has some right-wingers pulling out their hair).
  • The Republicans have lost California—and maybe Florida, too. The opening reviews for the Obamacare exchanges were perhaps best in California, where the response was awesome. The state prepared well for the start of enrollment, and officials there were heartened by the first day of operation. As Republicans well know, they have long had a California problem. It began in 1994, when Pete Wilson, then the governor, led the GOP off the cliff by adopting a strong anti-immigrant stance. And Latinos are the demographic group with the highest rates for the uninsured. If Obamacare becomes an important benefit for Latinos—and other Californians—the GOP California dilemma will intensify, as will its overall challenge wooing Latino voters nationwide (see Florida and elsewhere).
  • And Virginia, as well. The GOP could take a more immediate electoral hit due to the party's fixation with the ACA. Because of the shutdown caused by the GOP's Obamacare obsession, Ken Cuccinelli, the tea-party-fancied Republican candidate for governor in Virginia, will probably have a tougher time catching Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic candidate who currently leads in that race. (The election is next month.) Plenty of federal workers live in Virginia, and the shutdown is not going to endear tea partyish Republicans to many of them.

The conservative/Republican war against Obamacare has led the GOP to a dark place. Many right-wing pundits and Republican leaders have been rooting for Obamacare to fail. That is, they have been cheering against a program that will provide millions of Americans with the sense of security that comes with health insurance. They have issued apocalyptic Ayn Randian predictions about Obamacare ruining the health care system, the economy, and the soul of the United States.

They have staked much on this campaign (including a presidential campaign that failed). If the exchanges do work in providing the uninsured coverage—and Obamacare has already helped millions of people by ending for many the preexisting condition dodge, providing more financial assistance to seniors for prescription medicines, and allowing young adults to remain on their parents' plans longer—the conservatives are screwed.

Cruz was right: Conservatives had to stop Obamacare before it had the chance to succeed—though he put it in slightly different terms, noting he feared that Americans would become addicted to Obamacare "sugar." Prior to this point, Republicans could say whatever they wanted, for extreme rhetoric about what might happen could not be disproved—and such demagoguery played on existing and justified concerns about the unknown.

Yet once there are facts—is Obamacare working or not?—The debate will shift. Well, maybe not for the Republicans, but it will for millions of Americans who will evaluate the new reality and decide for themselves whether this is the end of America or the start of a better nation.

The problem for America is that not only African Americans and Hispanics are poor, there is a whole swath of poor whites, who though they hate Obama, are now in the same boats like all the poor peoples of this country. The GOP has no interest in bettering the weak and poor citizens of America, they want to enrich the billionaires more and make the poor into unpaid slaves.

A country is much more people if it takes of and helps its poor and downtrodden to overcome their problems and poverty, Looking at the Shutdown, many poor people are going to suffer, as they are been suffering, anyway, even when the government was not shut down. Now, what kind of effect will this shut down do? Well, the jury is still out on this issue of the poor being made even more poorer than they already are.

Cutting Food Stamps On The Poor In Order To Enrich The Billionaires

Cutting Back on Food Stamps: After Congress cut monthly benefits for food stamp recipients, families in the Bronx must make hard choices with reduced food budgets.
Cutting Back on Food Stamps: After Congress cut monthly benefits for food stamp recipients, families in the Bronx must make hard choices with reduced food budgets. | Source

The GOP Wants To Repeal Affordable Care Act: They Have Cut Down On $50 Billion Worth Of Foodstamps

The government shutdown that was imposed onto the people of the United states has brought along with it a myriad of disturbing anomalies which affect the majority of the unemployed and poor Americans. Since one can see the needless exercise and farce this has been, it fid not quietly die off. Instead, the Republicans have hit the poor where it matters most: jobs and foodstamps.

They were against ACA)(Affordable Health Care) and since they did not get that, they went for the jugular-Foodstamps-cut off 50 billion dollars and when they come back from their recess, want to cut some more 40 billion in Foodstamps. They had already drawn concession for the Sequester, and now, they still insists, despite their poor showing in recent elections, on eliminating what the call Obamacare (Affordable Care) which is the law of the land now.

In article written by Kim Severson and Winnie Hu, the both inform us that:

"For many, a $10 or $20 cut in the monthly food budget would be absorbed with little notice.

But for millions of poor Americans who rely on food stamps, reductions that began this month present awful choices. One gallon of milk for the kids instead of two. No fresh broccoli for dinner or snacks to take to school. Weeks of grits and margarine for breakfast.

And for many, it will mean turning to a food pantry or a soup kitchen by the middle of the month.

“I don’t need a whole lot to eat,” said Leon Simmons, 63, who spends more than half of his monthly $832 Social Security income to rent a room in an East Charleston house. “But this month I know I’m not going to buy any meats.”

Mr. Simmons’s allotment from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly called food stamps, has dropped $9. He has already spent the $33 he received for November.

The reduction in benefits has affected more than 47 million people like Mr. Simmons. It is the largest wholesale cut in the program since Congress passed the first Food Stamps Act in 1964 and touches about one in every seven Americans.

From the country kitchens of the South to the bodegas of New York, the pain is already being felt.

Christopher Bean, the executive director of a Bronx food pantry that is operated by a nonprofit organization called Part of the Solution, said that about 60 new families had visited the pantry in the past week because their food stamps had been cut.

They know they will be out of food well before the month is over. “People can do math,” he said.

In 2009, people started getting as much as 13.6 percent more in food stamps as part of the federal economic stimulus package, but that increase has expired. The reduction will save the government about $5 billion next year.

Over all, the nation’s food stamps program cost a record $78.4 billion in the 2012 fiscal year, according to the Agriculture Department. Although the amount given to each household — a figure that can vary widely depending on a complex formula of income and the number of mouths to feed — has been dropping by small amounts for the past few years, the roster of people seeking assistance grew steadily through the recession.

In the 2010 fiscal year, 40.3 million people were enrolled. Two years later, that number jumped by 16 percent. Just over 45 percent of those getting food stamps are children, according to the Agriculture Department.

Food stamps are likely to be cut more in the coming years if Congress can agree on a new farm bill, which House and Senate negotiators began tackling this week. The Republican-controlled House has approved cutting as much as $40 billion from the program over 10 years by making it harder to qualify. The Democratic-controlled Senate is suggesting a $4 billion cut by making administrative changes.

To poor families trying to stretch a couple hundred dollars into a month’s worth of groceries, all the talk about stimulus packages, farm subsidies and congressional politics means little. It is all about daily survival at the grocery store.

“We’ll be on our last $3 at the end of the month,” said Rafaela Rivera, 34, a home health aide who earns $10 an hour.

Ms. Rivera’s family of four saw their food stamps reduced by $36, to $420 a month. They pay rent and other expenses using her income and her husband’s disability check, and they supplement food stamps with bags of fresh vegetables, chicken and other groceries from a food pantry.

“It’s going to be hard,” she said. “Our last week is going to be tight.”

Graphic showing How Food Stamps are Cut from the Poor

The graph is an indicator as to what those receiving Foodstamps are seeing as their monthly allotment is cut bythe GOP
The graph is an indicator as to what those receiving Foodstamps are seeing as their monthly allotment is cut bythe GOP | Source

Ingrid Mock, 46, a former supermarket cashier who is disabled, was at the Bronx food pantry on Monday stocking up on canned green beans, pasta, ground beef and apples.

Ms. Mock, who has received food benefits for a decade and uses them to help feed her 12-year-old daughter, said her allotment had steadily decreased from as much as $309 about six years ago to a low of $250 this month, which reflected a new cut of $25.

These effects have already taken place, and people are seeing a reduced payment on their foodstamps, and in these times of joblessness and poverty, this has worsened the present state of hunger and lack of adequate food… Severson and Hu continue to inform us further that:

The Poor Face Hard Choices As Food Stamps are Cut: The Head to to the Food Pantries

In this Sept. 11, 2010 file photo, Temeka Williams, right, of Detroit, uses her EBT/Bridge Card tokens for a purchase from Elizabeth and Gary Lauber from Sweet Delights at the Farmer’s Market in Detroit. The temporary increase in food stamps also kno
In this Sept. 11, 2010 file photo, Temeka Williams, right, of Detroit, uses her EBT/Bridge Card tokens for a purchase from Elizabeth and Gary Lauber from Sweet Delights at the Farmer’s Market in Detroit. The temporary increase in food stamps also kno | Source

Experiencing Foodstamps Cuts, The Poor Head to Food Pantries, Soup Kitchens

We then pick up where Severson and Hu left Of and continued to add:

"Meanwhile, the price of staples like rice and corn oil have increased. So this month Ms. Mock will make choices. One dozen eggs instead of three, and only $1 worth of plantains. And no coffee or sugar for herself.

“I try to get most of the things my daughter eats because I can hold the hunger — I’m an adult — but she cannot,” she said. “They don’t understand when there’s no food in the fridge.”

The cuts are also hurting stores in poor neighborhoods. The average food stamps household receives $272 a month, which then passes into the local economy.

At a Food Lion in Charleston whereas many as 75 percent of the shoppers use food stamps, managers were bracing for lower receipts as the month wore on.

At a Met Foodmarket in the Bronx, where 80 percent of the 7,000 weekly customers use food stamps, overall food sales have already dropped by as much as 10 percent.

“I wasn’t expecting it to be that fast,” said Abraham Gomez, the manager. Losing that much revenue could mean cutting back hours for employees, he said.

Although several pilot programs around the country are designed to help people with food stamps eat better, including one by a Connecticut organization called Wholesome Wave that doubles the value of food stamps used at farmers’ markets, Mr. Gomez and others worry that less money for food means resorting to more dried noodles and canned tuna and fewer fresh vegetables and healthier cuts of meat.

Elliot Porter, 46, whose food stamps benefit dropped to $189 a month from $200, is a former property manager who is technically homeless but living with a friend while he goes to college.

At the Met Foodmarket this week, Mr. Porter had to perform a calculation with everything he reached for on the shelves, weighing his personal taste against cost and health.

A nutritionist who is helping him lose weight to avoid diabetes told him to buy a natural brand of peanut butter without sugar. But it cost $4.39. He decided he could afford only the store brand with sugar, which cost $3.79.

His situation may be better than many. During lunch at the Neighborhood House soup kitchen in Charleston this week, discussions about how to cope with cuts to food stamps were not hard to find.

People said they felt desperate. Many stuffed extra bread or cake into their pockets for later in the day, and traded advice on which agencies might be handing out free groceries later in the month.

“People at this level of need are already going hungry,” said Sister Noreen Buttimer, a nun who works at the soup kitchen, a Catholic charity. “It’s frightening how we think about the poor.”

The most people that are hard hit too are the majority of White people who are the major recipients of Foodstamps. While most of them were busy supporting the Tea Baggers and their insidious and odious plans to defund Obamacare and cut Foodstamps, they were blind-sided by their dislike for Obama, and they gave free reign to the zealots of the Tea Bagger Party to carte balance affect their Foodstamps and health.

This is the paradox of politics for the poor, especially poor Whites, who are rejecting all things/programs that Obama is giving them, and at the same time, wake up to total poverty imposed on them by their elected and recalcitrant Tea Baggers.

We learn from Tom Ashbrook that:

"Food Stamps, the SNAP program, is the largest US anti-hunger program. It’s designed to help the poor buy food. It’s hardly luxurious. The average household receiving SNAP benefits had an annual income of $8,800 in 2010. SNAP benefits have covered $1.80 per meal. Now, after cuts on Friday, that’s headed down to less than $1.40 a meal. SNAP is controversial because it has grown. Enrollment has doubled since 2004. The cost has tripled. Of course, we had an epic recession. But the heat is on."

There is definitely a total war against the poor, and irrespective of one's skin color or racial privilege, the Tea Baggers leave no one safe or secured. This is what the elimination will bring as a harsh reality to the backers of these Tea Baggers, and the supporters of this group are the poorest in the scheme of things and the pecking order of the Tea baggers.

I had read somewhere that some more cuts on the Foodstamps are in the works, and the poorer denizens of America will be made even much more poorer-meanwhile, some blindly hate and distrust Obama, who, by the way, is battling to make them comfortable and fed-yet, they are supporting his detractors, even if they are affected by the policies and actions of this motley crew of destroyers of the American civilization by executing an all out war against the poor.

$40 Billion Food Stamp Cut GOP Getting Ready To Starve Poor Americans

Affordable Care Act Rocks!

Obama also remarked that critics of the health insurance expansion that he championed are spreading “misinformation.” Veterans benefits won’t be affected by the Affordable Care Act, he said. “Don’t let them fool you: no one’s taking away your benefit
Obama also remarked that critics of the health insurance expansion that he championed are spreading “misinformation.” Veterans benefits won’t be affected by the Affordable Care Act, he said. “Don’t let them fool you: no one’s taking away your benefit | Source

President Clinton Defends the Health Care Law (The Affordable Care

Obama's Remarks On Affordable Care Act

It's The Law...

At this Juncture, it will be much more instructive to post in its entirety Obamas view on the Affordable Care Act(ACA) dubbed Obamacare. so much has been said about it by his GOP and Tea Bagger detractors that it is appropriate that we hear it from the horses mouth, so to speak. So much mush has bee hollered about Defunding Obama's Health Act, to the point that the rallying "Defund Obamacare" has become the official mantra of the GOP, who failed more than 40 times to repeal it.

So far, in it initial implementation stages on October 1, 2013, the GOP shutdown the government, and this came to a head when the computer program to be used for people to register for ACA, crashed or froze on its users. Today, we hear the same GOP Tea baggers blaming Obama for making false promises to the people that they can leave their coverages and go for Obama care. There are false and trumped up rumors that the Insurance companies are throwing people off their coverage, and that Obamacare is not working nor viable and too expensive.

Well, these lies have been debunked, but the Tea Baggers in the GOP keep on trying to make this an issue. Yet, no one is talking at how many times they failed to repeal ACA, and how they have been trying to sabotage it, more than 40 times, right up to the latest and past elections. Well, the web site is being fixed, and people are registering, and the GOP is wasting more time "Cutting Food stamps" as a way of punishing the poor, having failed to repeal and shut down the government and having lost devastatingly in the most recent elections.

I am making all these observations as a preface to the speech that Obama gave or remarked on the Affordable Care Act below:

Remarks by the President(Obama) on the Affordable Care Act

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Maryland! (Applause.) Hello, PGCC! (Applause.) It’s good to be back in PG County. (Applause.)

Give it up for one of the hardest-working, most effective governors in the country, Governor Martin O’Malley. (Applause.)

Well, it is great to be with all of you here today --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you!

THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. It’s wonderful being here. (Applause.)

We also have a few folks who work so hard on behalf of the people of Maryland every single day: Senator Ben Cardin is here. (Applause.) Congressman Steny Hoyer is here. (Applause.) And Congresswoman Donna Edwards is here. (Applause.)

And all of you are here. (Applause.) Sometimes you just need to escape Beltway politics for a little bit -- even if you're just a mile or two outside the Beltway.

Now, I know that a lot of you have seen some of the antics going on in Congress right now. (Laughter.) So I wanted to take a little bit of time today to speak with you -- the people who send us to serve -- about something that is critical to our families, critical to our businesses, critical to our economy. And that is the reforms that we are making to our health care system.

There’s been a lot of things said, a lot of misinformation, a lot of confusion. But there are few things more fundamental to the economic security of the middle class and everybody who’s trying to get into the middle class than health care.

For a long time, America was the only advanced economy in the world where health care was not a right, but a privilege. We spent more, we got less. We left tens of millions of Americans without the security of health insurance. By the time the financial crisis hit, most folks’ premiums had more than doubled in about a decade. About one in 10 Americans who got their health care through their employer lost that coverage. So the health care system was not working. And the rising costs of health care burdened businesses and became the biggest driver of our long-term deficits.

But this has always been about more than just statistics. Everywhere I went as I ran for President back in 2007, 2008, everyplace I've gone as President, I would hear stories from folks just like you of insurers that denied a child coverage because he had a preexisting condition like asthma; of cancer survivors that had to choose between their home or their health care; of small businesses who wanted to do the right thing by their employees but had seen their insurance premiums go up so high that they just couldn't do it anymore.

And these stories were personal for me, because I remember my mother worrying about how she was going to deal with her finances when she got very sick. I remember the fear Michelle and I felt when Sasha was a few months old and she got meningitis. And we raced to the hospital and they had to give her a spinal tap. And we didn’t know what was wrong and we were terrified, never felt so scared or helpless in all of my life. But we were fortunate enough to have good health insurance.

And I remember looking around that emergency room and thinking -- what about the parents who aren’t that lucky? What about the parents who get hit with a bill of $20,000 or $30,000 and they’ve got no idea how to pay for it? What about those parents whose kids have a chronic illness like asthma and have to keep on going back to the emergency room because they don't have a regular doctor, and the bills never stop coming? Who is going to stand up for them?

In the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one should go broke just because they get sick. (Applause.)

In the United States of America, health care is not a privilege for the fortunate few -- it is a right. And I knew that if we didn’t do something about our unfair and inefficient health care system, it would keep driving up our deficits, it would keep burdening our businesses, it would keep hurting our families, and it would keep holding back economic growth.

That's why we took on a broken health care system. That's why, with the help of folks like Steny and Ben and Donna, we got it through Congress. That’s why we’ve been implementing it. That’s why we are going to see it through. The Affordable Care Act is here. (Applause.)

I don’t have to tell you it was a challenge to get it done. (Laughter.) A lot of special interests who liked the system just the way it was fought us tooth and nail. Then Republicans decided it was good politics to fight it, even though the plan we proposed drew on a lot of Republican ideas.

But despite all the obstacles, the Affordable Care Act passed both houses of Congress. I signed it into law. (Applause.) The Supreme Court ruled it constitutional. (Applause.) Republicans in Congress have now voted more than 40 times to undermine or repeal it. Their candidate for president ran on a platform to repeal it. And at every step, they’ve been unsuccessful. (Applause.)

Now, five days from now -- five days from now -- on October 1, millions of Americans who don’t have health insurance because they’ve been priced out of the market or because they’ve been denied access because of a preexisting condition, they will finally be able to buy quality, affordable health insurance. (Applause.) In five days. (Applause.)

Preexisting conditions, whether it’s back pain or allergies that were sticking you with sky-high premiums, those no longer will prevent you from getting affordable coverage that you need. That’s going to happen in five days.

Now, of course, the closer we’ve gotten to this date, the more irresponsible folks who are opposed to this law have become. Some of the same Republicans who warned three years ago that this law would be “Armageddon” -- that’s what they said -- “Armageddon” -- now they’re threatening steps that actually would badly hurt our entire economy -- not because of the Affordable Care Act but because of what they’re threatening to do.

Some have threatened a government shutdown if they can’t shut down this law. Others have actually threatened an economic shutdown by refusing to pay America’s bills if they can’t delay the law.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: That’s not going to happen as long as I’m President. (Applause.) The Affordable Care Act is here to stay. (Applause.)

And so today, I want to speak plainly, clearly, honestly, about what it means for you and for the people you care about.
Now, let’s start with the fact that even before the Affordable Care Act fully takes effect, about 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance -– either through their job, or through Medicare, or through the individual market. So if you’re one of these folks, it’s reasonable that you might worry whether health care reform is going to create changes that are a problem for you -- especially when you’re bombarded with all sorts of fear-mongering.

So the first thing you need to know is this: If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything. In fact, for the past few years, since I signed the Affordable Care Act, a lot of you have been enjoying new benefits and protections that you didn’t before even if you didn’t know they were coming from Obamacare. (Applause.)

Let me just give you a few examples. Because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 100 million Americans have gotten free preventive care like mammograms and contraceptive care with no copays. (Applause.)

Because of the Affordable Care Act, 3 million young adults under age 26 have gained coverage by staying on their parents’ plan. (Applause.)

Because of the Affordable Care Act, millions of seniors on Medicare have saved hundreds of dollars on their prescription medicine. They’ve been getting their prescription drugs cheaper. (Applause.)

Because of the Affordable Care Act, just this year, 8.5 million families actually got an average of $100 back from their insurance companies because the insurance companies spent too much on things like overhead, and not enough on actual Medicare -- medical care. (Applause.)

Because of the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies can no longer put lifetime limits on the care your family needs, or discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. And starting on January 1, they won’t be able to charge women more for their insurance just because they're women. (Applause.) That's a good thing.

So tens of millions of Americans are already better off because of the benefits and protections provided by the Affordable Care Act. Like I said, they may not know why that rebate check came in the mail. (Laughter.) They may not notice that they're not having to copay for some preventive care that they received. But they're getting those benefits. That's already happening. That's already in place today. It’s been going on for several years.

Those are the benefits of Obamacare -- the law that Republicans want to repeal. Although it’s interesting -- when you ask Republicans whether they’d repeal the benefits I just mentioned, when you say to them, well, do you think it’s the right thing to do to let young people stay on their parents’ plans so they can keep insurance, or do you want to prevent seniors from getting more discounts on their prescription drugs, then they’ll say, no, no, no, we like those. Those things are okay. (Laughter.) So they don't like Obamacare in theory, but some of the component parts, at least those that poll well, they don't mind.

But that's already in place. Now, here’s the second thing you need to know. If you’re one of over 40 million Americans who don’t have health insurance –- including hundreds of thousands of folks right here in Maryland –- starting on Tuesday, five days from now, you’ll finally have the same chance to buy quality, affordable health care as everybody else.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thanks, Mr. President! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: And I want to break this down for you. I want you to know exactly how it works. The major reason why people don’t have health insurance is either they don’t have a job, or they do have a job but their employer doesn’t offer health insurance, or they’re self-employed. If you’ve ever tried to buy health insurance on your own, you know it is really, really expensive.

AUDIENCE: Yes!

THE PRESIDENT: It’s even worse if you have a preexisting condition –- and up to half of all Americans have a preexisting condition. See, the reason it's really expensive if you're buying it on your own is because you're not part of a big group, you're not part of a group plan. And what groups do is they spread risk between sick and healthy people, between older and younger people. And groups -- because insurance companies want the business of groups -- that’s a lot of customers -- they'll negotiate a better deal with a group than they will with an individual.

So if you're on your own, you're out there trying to negotiate with an insurance company, they're looking and they're saying, well, you take it or leave it, I'm going to charge you a whole lot of money. And if you've got a preexisting condition, they'll say, we don’t even want to insure you because we think you might get sick later on and we don’t really want to pay, we just want to take in premiums.

So if you're not part of a group, you're either uninsurable, or you need to spend a small fortune on insurance that oftentimes is not very good. That’s what's happening right now. The Affordable Care Act was designed to solve that problem. And here’s how we do it.

Starting on Tuesday, every American can visit HealthCare.gov to find out what’s called the insurance marketplace for your state. Here in Maryland, I actually think it's called MarylandHealthConnection.gov. (Applause.) MarylandHealthConnection.gov. But if you go to HealthCare.gov, you can look and they'll tell you where to go. They'll link to your state.

Now, this is real simple. It’s a website where you can compare and purchase affordable health insurance plans, side-by-side, the same way you shop for a plane ticket on Kayak -- (laughter) -- same way you shop for a TV on Amazon. You just go on and you start looking, and here are all the options.

It’s buying insurance on the private market, but because now you’re part of a big group plan -- everybody in Maryland is all logging in and taking a look at the prices -- you’ve got new choices. Now you've got new competition, because insurers want your business. And that means you will have cheaper prices. (Applause.)

So you enter in some basic information about yourself, what level of coverage you’re looking for. After that, you’ll be presented with a list of quality, affordable plans that are available in your area. It will say clearly what each plan covers, what each plan costs. The price will be right there. It will be fully transparent.

Before this law, only a handful of states required insurance companies to offer you instant price quotes, but because of this law, insurers in all 50 states will have to offer you instant price quotes. And so if you’ve ever tried to buy insurance on your own, I promise you this is a lot easier. It's like booking a hotel or a plane ticket.

And here's another thing about these new plans. If you’re one of those folks who has a preexisting condition, these plans have to offer you coverage. They can't use your medical history to charge you more than anybody else. If you couldn’t afford coverage for your child because he had asthma, he's covered. If you couldn’t afford coverage because you were told heartburn was a preexisting condition, you're covered. (Laughter.) If you’re one of the 45 million Americans with a mental illness, you are covered.

If you’re a young adult or entrepreneur striking out on your own, you’re covered. (Applause.) If you’re a young couple who previously had insurance that didn’t include maternity benefits and now suddenly you need some maternity benefits, you’re covered. (Applause.) If you lose your job and your health care with it, you’re covered. (Applause.)

So all those things that would deny you coverage in the past, that were the cruelties of a broken health care system, on January 1, when these plans take effect --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: October 1st.

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, no -- hold on. (Laughter.) Hold on. I know what I'm talking about. You sign up starting on Tuesday. (Laughter.) The plan will take effect on January 1. And when these plans take effect, all those things change forever.

Now, what about choice and cost? In states where the federal government helps run these marketplaces, the average American will have more than 50 different plans to choose from, with different levels of coverage. And because insurance companies are competing against one another for your business, a lot of Americans will pay significantly less for their insurance than they do now. Premiums are going to be different in different parts of the country, depending on how much coverage you buy. But 95 percent of uninsured Americans will see their premiums cost less than was expected. And many families, including more than two-thirds of all young adults who buy health care through these online marketplaces, are also going to be eligible for tax credits that bring down the cost down even further. (Applause.)

So let me be specific. Right here in Maryland, average 25-year-old -- have we got any 25-year-olds here? (Applause.) All right, so we've got a few. Some of you raised your hand -- I'm not sure you're -- (laughter).

Here in Maryland, average 25-year-old making $25,000 a year could end up getting covered for as little as $80 a month -- $80 a month. (Applause.) Here in Maryland, a family of four making $60,000 a year could get covered for as little as $164 a month.

It’s the same story across the country. In Texas, average 27-year-old making $25,000 could get covered for as little as $83 a month. In Florida, a family of four making $50,000 could get covered for as little as $104 a month.

And keep in mind the government didn’t set these prices. The insurance companies -- they proposed these prices because they want to get in with these big groups, with all these new customers. The insurance companies are saying these marketplaces, this law, will work. They're putting money on the line because they think it will work. Competition, choice, transparency -- all these things are keeping costs down.

Knowing you can offer your family the security of health care -- that’s priceless. Now you can do it for the cost of your cable bill. Probably less than your cellphone bill. (Laughter and applause.) Think about that. Good health insurance for the price of your cellphone bill, or less.

And let’s say you’re a young woman, you just turned -- I’m interested in this, because I got two daughters, right? Let’s say you just turned 26. Let’s say you can’t stay on your parents’ plan anymore. If you buy health care through the marketplace, your plan has to cover free checkups, flu shots, contraceptive care. So you might end up getting more health care each month than you’re paying for the premiums.

All told, nearly 6 in 10 Americans without health insurance today will be able to get covered for $100 or less. It would actually be 8 in 10 if every governor were working as hard as Governor O’Malley to make the Affordable Care Act work for their citizens. (Applause.)

Unfortunately, we’ve still got a few Republican governors who are so opposed to the very idea of the law -- or at least they’re doing it for politics -- that they haven’t lifted a finger to help cover more people. Some of them have actually tried to harm the law before it takes effect.

But a lot of Republican governors are putting politics aside and doing the right thing. (Applause.) And they deserve congratulations for that. It wasn’t easy for them. But you’ve got conservative governors in Ohio, in Michigan, in Pennsylvania and Arizona -- about eight Republican governors in all, they’ve decided to expand Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act to cover more people in their states. And millions of Americans without insurance will get coverage through these programs.

So that’s what the Affordable Care Act is. That’s what all the fuss is about. We’re giving more benefits and protections for folks who already have health insurance, and we created a new market -- basically a big group plan -- for folks without health insurance so that they get a better deal, and then we’re providing tax credits to help folks afford it.

You would think that would not be so controversial. (Laughter.) You would think people would say, okay, let’s go ahead and let’s do this so everybody has health insurance coverage. The result is more choice, more competition, real health care security.

And one question people ask: How is it possible to do all this and keep costs down? Well, part of what we did was build into the law all sorts of measures to assure that the growth of health care costs would start slowing down. And it has. See, under the old system, doctors and hospitals, they were rewarded not for the quality of care, but for the quantity of care. They’d get paid for the number of procedures they did instead of whether they were working or not. Now, there are penalties for hospitals with high readmission rates. And last year, surprisingly enough, for the first time ever, hospital readmission rates for Medicare patients actually fell. (Applause.) Right? That means fewer taxpayer dollars go to providers that don’t serve their patients well.

Over the past five years, we’ve more than doubled the adoption of electronic health records for physicians. So that means they can track what’s going on better and make fewer mistakes. New technology startup companies are coming up with new inventions to monitor patient health, prevent infections. There’s innovation going on all across the country. As a consequence, today, Medicare costs per enrollee are rising at the slowest rate in years. Employer-based health care costs are growing at about one-third the rate of a decade ago.

All told, since I signed the Affordable Care Act into law, we have seen the slowest growth in health care costs on record. (Applause.)

So let’s think about this. If you got health insurance, you’re getting better protections, better benefits. If you don't have health insurance, you're now getting to be part of a group plan. And health care costs overall are rising much more slowly than they did before we signed the law. So far, so good. So what’s all the fuss about? What is it that everybody -- what is that these Republicans are just so mad about?

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, no, look, I want to be honest. There are parts of the bill that some folks don’t like. To help pay for the program, the wealthiest Americans –- families who make more than $250,000 a year -– will have to pay a little bit more. Extremely costly health insurance plans will no longer qualify for unlimited tax breaks. And most people who can afford health insurance now have to take responsibility to buy health insurance, or pay a penalty. (Applause.)

Right? Now, the reason we do that is, when uninsured people who can afford to get health insurance don’t, and then they get sick or they get hit by a car, and they show up at the emergency room, who do you think pays for that?

AUDIENCE: We do.

THE PRESIDENT: You do, in the form of higher premiums. Because the hospitals, they've got to get their money back somehow. So if they're treating somebody who doesn’t have health insurance, they jack up premiums for everybody who does have health insurance. It’s like a hidden tax of $1,000 per family every year who has got health insurance. So we're saying that’s not fair. If you can afford to get health insurance, don’t dump the costs on us. The law also requires employers with more than 50 employees to either provide health insurance for your workers or pay a penalty.

Now, some folks say, well, that’s not fair. But if you are an employer, you can afford to provide health insurance, you don’t, your employees get sick, they go to the emergency room or they end up on Medicaid because you're not doing what you're doing -- you should be doing -- why is it everybody else should be bearing those costs?

Now, there are some folks who disagree with me on this. They say that violates people's liberty, telling them they've got to get health insurance. Well, I disagree. So did Congress when it passed this bill into law. It is unfair for folks to game the system and make the rest of us pay for it. (Applause.) It's unfair for responsible employers who are doing the right thing, giving their employees health insurance, to get undercut by some operator that’s not providing health insurance for their employees. That puts the employer who's doing the right thing at a disadvantage, right?

So this idea that you've got responsibilities -- everybody -- that’s what Massachusetts did when they passed their health care plan a few years ago. And, by the way, today, in Massachusetts, almost everybody is covered and the system works pretty well. (Applause.)

All right, let me just wrap up by saying this: Like any law, like any big product launch, there are going to be some glitches as this thing unfolds. Folks in different parts of the country will have different experiences. It's going to be smoother in places like Maryland where governors are working to implement it rather than fight it. (Applause.) But somewhere around the country, there's going to be a computer glitch and the website's not working quite the way it's supposed to, or something happens where there's some error made somewhere -- that will happen. That happens whenever you roll out a new program. And I guarantee you, the opponents of the law, they'll have their cameras ready to document anything that doesn’t go completely right, and they'll send it to the news folks and they'll say, look at this, this thing is not working.

But most of the stories you'll hear about how Obamacare just can't work is just not based on facts. Every time they have predicted something not working, it's worked. (Applause.) I mean, they said that these rates would come in real high and everybody's premiums would be sky high. And it turns out, lo and behold, actually, the prices came in lower than we expected -- lower than I predicted. That’s how well competition and choice work. (Applause.)

They said this would be a disaster in terms of jobs. There's no widespread evidence that the Affordable Care Act is hurting jobs. One of John McCain's former economic advisors admitted just this week -- and I'm quoting here -- “I was expecting to see it. I was looking for it," but "it’s not there.” It’s not there. (Applause.)

The reason is reforming health care is going to help the economy over the long term. Not only will it help lower costs for businesses, not only will it help families, it will free up entrepreneurship in this country. Because if you’ve got a great idea for your own business but you’ve never tried it because your spouse had a preexisting condition and you didn't want to lose your employer-based coverage, you've got the ability now to get your own coverage. That's security. That’s freedom.

So we’re now only five days away from finishing the job.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Five days away.

THE PRESIDENT: Five days. (Applause.) Starting on Tuesday, you can sign up. But you don't have to sign up on Tuesday. You've got six months to enroll in these new plans. You can go to the website; you can check it out; you can see if what I'm saying is true. (Laughter.) You can sign up next week. You can sign up next month. You can sign up two months from now, three months from now. But you can sign up.

Tell your friends, tell your classmates, tell your family members about the new health care choices. Talk to folks at your church, in your classroom. You’re going to a football game, basketball game -- talk to them. Tell them what the law means.

And over the next few months, state and local leaders from across the country are going to hold events to help get the word out. Go out there and join them. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is in Texas right now, working with folks on the ground to make sure this law works for Texas families. All across the country, people are getting ready. All kinds of people are working hand-in-hand because we’re all in this together -- that’s when America is at its best. That’s what this country is all about.

But we need you to spread the word. But you don't have to take my word for it. If you talk to somebody who says, well, I don't know, I was watching FOX News and they said this was horrible -- (laughter) -- you can say, you know what, don't take my word for it, go on the website. See for yourself what the prices are. See for yourself what the choices are. Then make up your own mind.

That's all I'm asking. Make up your own mind. I promise you, if you go on the website and it turns out you're going to save $100, $200, $300 a month on your insurance, or you'll be able to buy insurance for the first time, even if you didn't vote for me -- (laughter) -- I’ll bet you’ll sign up for that health care plan. (Applause.)

So you don’t need to listen to the politicians. You don’t need to listen to me. Just go check it out for yourself. Make up your own mind whether this works for you.

Look, part of the reason I need your help to make this law work is because there are so many people out there working to make it fail. One of the biggest newspapers in the country recently published an editorial I thought was pretty good. They said, the Republicans in Congress are poisoning Obamacare, then trying to claim it’s sick. (Laughter.) That’s exactly what’s been happening.

I mean, they have tried to put up every conceivable roadblock. They cut funding for efforts to educate people about what’s in the law. Some of them said if their constituents called them, we won’t even try to explain to them what’s in the law. They actually opened up an investigation into people who try to help churches and charities understand how to help people sign up for the law.

Some of the tea party’s biggest donors -- some of the wealthiest men in America -- are funding a cynical ad campaign trying to convince young people not to buy health care at all. I mean, think about it. These are billionaires several times over. You know they’ve got good health care.

AUDIENCE: Right! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: But they are actually spending money on television, trying to convince young people that if you’ve got the choice between getting affordable health care or going without health care, you should choose not having any health care. Now, do you think if you get sick or you get hurt, and you get stuck with a massive bill, these same folks, they’re going to help you out?

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: Are they going to pay for your health care?

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: It is interesting, though, how over the last couple years, the Republican Party has just spun itself up around this issue. And the fact is the Republicans’ biggest fear at this point is not that the Affordable Care Act will fail. What they’re worried about is it’s going to succeed. (Applause.) I mean, think about it. If it was as bad as they said it was going to be, then they could just go ahead and let it happen and then everybody would hate it so much, and then everybody would vote to repeal it, and that would be the end of it.

So what is it that they’re so scared about?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You! (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: They have made such a big political issue out of this, trying to scare everybody with lies about “death panels” and “killing granny” -- (laughter) -- right? “Armageddon.” So if it actually works, they’ll look pretty bad. If it actually works, that will mean that everything they were saying really wasn’t true and they were just playing politics.

AUDIENCE: That's right!

THE PRESIDENT: Just the other day, one Republican in Congress said we need to shut this thing down before the marketplaces open and people get to see that they’ll be getting coverage and getting these subsidies because -- and I’m going to quote him here -- he said, “It’s going to prove almost impossible to undo Obamacare.” (Laughter.) Right? So in other words, we’ve got to shut this thing down before people find out that they like it. (Laughter and applause.) That’s a strange argument. Don’t you think that’s a strange argument?

AUDIENCE: Yes!

THE PRESIDENT: And the closer we get, the more desperate they get. I mean, over the last few weeks the rhetoric has just been cranked up to a place I’ve never seen before. One congressman said that Obamacare is “the most dangerous piece of legislation ever passed.” (Laughter.) Ever. In the history of America, this is the most dangerous piece of legislation. (Laughter.) Creating a marketplace so people can buy group insurance plans -- the most dangerous ever.

You had a state representative somewhere say that it’s “as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the Fugitive Slave Act.”

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Think about that. Affordable health care is worse than a law that let slave owners get their runaway slaves back.

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, these are quotes. I’m not making this stuff up. And here’s one more that I’ve heard -- I like this one -- we have to -- and I’m quoting here -- “We have to repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens.” Now, I have to say -- that one was from six months ago -- I just want to point out we still have women -- (laughter) -- we still have children, we still have senior citizens. (Applause.)

All this would be funny if it wasn’t so crazy. And a lot of it is just hot air. A lot of it is just politics. I understand that. But now the tea party Republicans have taken it to a whole new level because they’re threatening either to shut down the government, or shut down the entire economy by refusing to let America pay its bills for the first time in history -- unless I agree to gut a law that will help millions of people.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Think about this. Shutting down the government just because you don’t like a law that was passed and found constitutional, and because you don’t like the idea of giving people new access to affordable health care -- what kind of idea is that?

Think about how that would impact Maryland. This is an area where lots of people would be badly hurt by a government shutdown. A lot of people around here wake up and go to serve their country every single day in the federal government -- civilians who work at military bases, analysts, scientists, janitors, people who process new veterans’ and survivors’ benefit claims. They’d all have to stay home and not get paid. And we all know it would badly damage the economy.

Whatever effect Obamacare might have on the economy is far less than even a few days of government shutdown. (Applause.) I mean, even if you believe that Obamacare somehow was going to hurt the economy, it won't hurt the economy as bad as a government shutdown. And by the way, the evidence is that it’s not going to hurt the economy. Obamacare is going to help the economy. And it’s going to help families and help businesses. (Applause.)

As for not letting America pay its bills, I have to say, no Congress before this one has ever — ever -- in history been irresponsible enough to threaten default, to threaten an economic shutdown, to suggest America not pay its bills, just to try to blackmail a President into giving them some concessions on issues that have nothing to do with a budget.

I mean, this is the United States of America. We’re not a deadbeat nation. We don't run out on our tab. We don't not pay our note. We are the world’s bedrock economy, the world’s currency of choice. The entire world looks to us to make sure that the world economy is stable. You don't mess with that. (Applause.) You don’t mess with that.

And that's why I will not negotiate on anything when it comes to the full faith and credit of the United States of America. (Applause.)

We’re not going to submit to this kind of total irresponsibility. Congress needs to pay our bills on time. Congress needs to pass a budget on time. Congress needs to put an end to governing from crisis to crisis. (Applause.)

Our focus as a country should be on creating new jobs and growing our economy, and helping young people learn, and restoring security for hardworking, middle-class families. (Applause.)

This is not about the fortunes of any one party. This is not about politics. This is about the future of our country. If Republicans do not like the law, they can go through the regular channels and processes to try to change it. That's why we have elections. So they can go through the normal processes and procedures of a democracy, but you do not threaten the full faith and credit of the United States of America. (Applause.)

And, meanwhile, we're going to keep implementing the law.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: It's the law!

THE PRESIDENT: It's the law. And like I said, there are going to be some glitches along the way. Every law has hiccups when it’s first starting off. People forget, by the way, Medicare Part D -- passed by my predecessor, George Bush, passed by a Republican House of Representatives -- the prescription drug bill passed into law 10 years ago was even more unpopular than the Affordable Care Act before it took into effect. Everybody was saying what a disaster it was going to be. The difference was Democrats worked with Republicans to make it work even better. (Applause.) Steny remembers this. Even though Democrats weren't happy that the law wasn’t paid for and was going to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit, and we weren't negotiating a better deal with the drug companies, everybody worked -- once it was the law -- to try to make it work. And today, about 90 percent of seniors like their prescription drug coverage.

So we may not get that same level of cooperation from Republicans right now. But the good news is I believe eventually they’ll come around. Because Medicare and Social Security faced the same kind of criticism. Before Medicare came into law, one Republican warned that, “One of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” That was Ronald Reagan. And eventually, Ronald Reagan came around to Medicare and thought it was pretty good, and actually helped make it better.

So that’s what's going to happen with the Affordable Care Act. And once it's working really well, I guarantee you they will not call it Obamacare. (Laughter and applause.)

Here is a prediction for you: A few years from now, when people are using this to get coverage and everybody is feeling pretty good about all the choices and competition that they've got, there are going to be a whole bunch of folks who say, yes, I always thought this provision was excellent. (Laughter.) I voted for that thing. You watch. (Laughter.) It will not be called Obamacare. (Laughter.)

But I’m always willing to work with anybody from either party. If you’ve got a serious idea for making the Affordable Care Act better, or making our broader health care system better, I'm happy to work with you -- because that’s what the majority of the American people want. They don’t want posturing; they want governing. They don’t want politics; they want us to work together to make the lives of ordinary Americans a little bit better, a little bit more secure. (Applause.)

So, Maryland, I’m asking for your help. (Applause.) I need your help. (Applause.) We may have some very well-funded opponents. We may have some very talkative opponents. But you're going to be the best, most credible messengers to spread the word about this law and all the benefits that the American people stand to get and have earned.

So tell your friends, tell your family. Get covered. Get on that website. Answer the questions of folks who don’t know what this is all about. Point them to HealthCare.gov. Teach them how to use the website. Make sure they sign up. Let's help our fellow Americans get covered. (Applause.)

Then let's keep on working to rebuild the middle class. (Applause.) Let's go and focus on creating more good-paying jobs. Let's build more ladders of opportunity for everybody willing to work hard. (Applause.) Let's make sure the United States of America keeps being a place where you can make it if you try.

Thank you, everybody. God Bless you. God Bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Obama really Cares For the Poor and Veterans

Oldest Living Veteran in the White House
Oldest Living Veteran in the White House | Source

Obama: The Most Brilliant, Decent, Caring, Human And Best President The US Will Ever Have

Some Of Us Are Not Enamored By The Racist Overtures Hurled Obama's Way

Since Obama came into Office in his first Presidential bid, he has been vilified that his detractors, up to the writing of this Hub have kept at it, and may people totally disrespect, hate and make him look bad, even if he is using the ideas they have been vying for.

Some hate him to the extent that they cannot 'stand watching' him, some call him liar in his state of the nation address, others come with guns to his rallies, they have painted him as a witchdoctor with feathers and the whole bit; others have referred to him as a Hitler; others call him a Socialist; there are those that claim he is not an American and that he was born in Kenya, and not Hawaii.

The pundits and talking heads on TV have pointed out to the fact that because of his African ancestry, through his father, he is hated. What I, as a writer and historian and media specialist am observing is that all this is racism revamped. Many of those White people who see an African man with his African family in the White House, cannot accept him, for the legacy of slavery is still alive and well in the United States.What they are not talking about is that the very White House was built by slaves, and now the descendant of slaves is sitting in the White House, and for two presidential terms, for that matter.

So, what they had started doing was to make sure that Obama did not become president for the second term. When that failed and he came into the presidential house and position for the second time, they have set out to destroy his legacy, and they begun attacking his Affordable Care act. The Supreme court upheld it as the Law of the land.

The, the GOP, tried more than 4o times to repeal this law, and failed. When in October 1, 2013, it kicked into effect and people were required to sign it, the computer program crashed. On top of that, some Republican governors refused to implement it in their states, leaving million without health care, and hundreds of thousand of the poor facing possible death every year they had no coverage.

Right now they are accusing him of lying to folks that they can leave their coverage, and the insurance companies are trying to sabotage his ACA, and telling people they are off their coverage(those rich few who can afford it) and meanwhile, these companies do not tell their customers that they can still get ACA, which they offer. so, the GOP has latched onto that rickety non-issue and trying to make it something that they should impeach Obama on.

Others have tried unsuccessfully to secede from the Union; others, those demagogues who are pandering for the Tea bagger's votes, say they will continue to demand defunding Obama Care. Meanwhile, in the most recent elections the voters handed the Tea Bagger a sound and handy spanking and defeat, that, even after they lost, like at the time they lost to Obama in 2012, they still refuse to acknowledge that they have lost and the voters have spoken and spanked them for their transgressions.

He is the most disrespected and all forms of abuse have been hurled at him and he has deflected them with grace, intelligence and a humanity never before seen in American politics and leadership. Some deny that he is African(Black) and other virulent dismiss him as not being half-white. They really never attack his ancestry from his mother's White side. It was the White grandparents who raised him when his mother passed away, because of lack of health coverage.

You never hear them mention them, but as for his father, he has been attacked, vilified and cast in the mode of an undesirable African from Kenya, as were the slaves who were brought here from Africa. They even forced him to show his birth certificates, but the Tea baggers called the "Birthers".

And yet, Ted Cruz who hose father was born n Cuba(and who hatred of Obama was put on display very recently on TV), and he was born of an American mother in Canada, can come here and imposed a government 'Shut-Down', and in a McCarthy-like style and absolutism, dismiss all who do not agree we with the Tea Baggers, and no one asks him about his ancestry, and the fact that he was born outside America, and that his father is Cuban!

It is therefore my contention without any doubt and fear to declare that Obama is the best thing that has happened to America and theWorld. The saddest thing to watch is how the world accepts and loves Obama, and the most cruel and eye=opening one is to see how many White Americans hate, loathe and dismiss him as not their President.

How can the world respect and accept America as a free country when it still hates and is racist against it African citizens? The world is watching an America which does not respect, nor acknowledge their Black(African) President, and the world sees a seething Tea bagger and the racists in the closet that really hate and dislike Obama with such virulent and vicious hate, that, America has had the sheets pulled off their heads(a la Ku Klux Klan).

The Tea baggers are the followers and members of the Ku Klux Klan dressed in suits instead of white sheets. The way they hate Obama, is appalling even to the Africans here in America, who are now beginning to see that they too, as children or people of African ancestry, are a long way-off from being accepted as Americans, in many other aspects and facets

Throughout all this, Obama managed to pass the ACA, equal pay for women, housing subsidies for the middle-class, and many other stellar issues that , despite being blocked in many other ways and forms, he still wins, succeeds,and the bulk of the American people love and adore him. For me his smile and voice and intelligence, reminds me of Malcolm X reborn.

It is very important that some of us point to the Humanity, compassion, intelligence, and caring nature of Obama which is not the norm or commonplace in the American mosaic. With all the fictive approval and disapproval stats about him and into being trusted any more by Americans, well, it is what the Tea Beggars were wishing for, and all those closet racist on the TV and everywhere who rub their hands with glee.

Well, to us, those who have been benefiting from the good he has done for the poor, his approval rating is 100% and disapproval, zero. And his the best that America will ever have to a president that is human and compassionate and cared about the poor… Period!

And The Myths That Hurt Them

While Mental problems, juvenile delinquency and other problems may flow from family relations, we must recognize that relations relations within family are embedded/shaped by the political situation
While Mental problems, juvenile delinquency and other problems may flow from family relations, we must recognize that relations relations within family are embedded/shaped by the political situation | Source

Each One Teach One; Each One Reach One

There are certain myths that are tagged onto the stereo-types and manufactured beliefs about African american that it would be appropriate at this point to tabulate some, in light of the thrust of the article, that those who are poor, mostly African Americans in the US, and poor Africans in south Africa, suffer the same fate and sets of policies and colonization/slavery in much the same way/manner. These myths discussed below in the article by Anissa L. Moody informs us in the following manner:

Black(African American) Mental Health

"What you think you understand about African Americans and mental health may be dead wrong. This might be difficult to accept, particularly because African Americans have taken pride in the myths about our mental health. We believe that mental health is controlled by willpower, faith and even our race. Even experts align with these misguided beliefs, ultimately affecting the way we view mental health in our community and how we take care of ourselves.

Several national studies and leading researchers are now describing African-American mental health as more complex than once considered and, these patterns are critical to not only understanding mental health, but may also be the key to improving our overall well-being.

Looking at the current reports might help to demystify these false beliefs.

Myth #1: African Americans are less likely to have mental health disorders than other ethnic minorities.

Though African Americans still only account for about 3% of the national population with serious mental illness, we now understand that numbers are not clear indicators of mental health in this population. Access to care, low help seeking, misdiagnosis, and delivery of care are all major factors affecting how minority mental health is accounted for and understood. Simply put, is an African-American male more likely to get a mental health diagnosis in the mental health system or the judicial system? Or, when your teenage daughter starts telling you she’s hearing voices do you share this information with her pediatrician or with her pastor?

• Myth #2: African Americans are “strong” and can handle stress.

Though only thirty-one percent of African-Americans believe that depression is a health problem, most would agree that physical ailments are drastically affecting our community. Dr. James S. Jackson, of the University of Michigan, has identified coping skills as key elements in understanding health disparities. According to Jackson, while behaviors like smoking, drug use, and consuming comfort foods may serve as negative coping skills in White Americans, these same behaviors may buffer African-Americans from developing mental health disorders consequently contributing to disproportionate rates of physical health problems like obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. It seems self-medicating may play a significant role in helping African-Americans to function in stressful environments but clearly to the detriment of our health.

• Myth #3: “If our people made it through slavery then we can make it through anything.”

Most important to this new understanding is how we define race. The National Survey of American Life found that race alone is not a predictor of physical or mental health outcomes. Other factors like where you live, your income, and your education may play significant roles. For example, white Americans who experience similar life events to black Americans are just as likely to practice the same unhealthy coping skills, consequently presenting with similar health outcomes. From this perspective, it is easier to understand why some prevention programs fail at achieving their goals given that African Americans are a diverse group with a variety of cultural practices.

What does this all mean for you?

It seems we now have to consider mental health as inextricably linked to physical health and vice versa. This includes an honest assessment of coping skills and daily functioning. Questions that probe this connection are necessary to avoid possible “blind spots” in our evaluations of others and ourselves. Likewise, we can no longer look at race and make blanket assumptions about how someone should manage or take care of themselves. Going to church, while helpful to some, will not work for everyone.

Building on our inherent resilience is a good start. If you understand that the strength of a people depends on their ability to cultivate new skills and seek the support of others, then you are absolutely right!

The Quotation For All Times

The Rich Get Richer; The Poor Become More Poorer...

Jonathan Weisman wrote the following article:

Next year, House Republicans will try again to transform Medicare and Medicaid, repeal the Affordable Care Act, shrink domestic spending and substantially cut the highest tax rates through the budget process. Then they will leave it to the new Senate Republican majority to decide how far to press the party’s small-government vision, senior House aides said this week.

House Republican officials said the first budget blueprint of the 114th Congress will not stray far from the plans drafted by Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and the departing Budget Committee chairman. Those plans, passed along party lines three times since Republicans took control of the House in 2011, were never going anywhere with the Senate in Democratic hands.

With this month’s Republican sweep in the midterm elections, the stakes have changed.

“They’re firing with real budget bullets,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “Real people will get hurt.”

Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, a Budget Committee member, said Tuesday that House and Senate Republicans dealing with the budget would “try and coordinate as much as possible,” and “hew to some basic principles,” the first being achieving a balanced budget in 10 years.

Congressional Republicans intend to present a plan to overhaul Medicare, calling for voucher-like “premium supports” to steer people 65 and over into buying commercial health insurance, and to transform Medicaid, which would be cut and turned into block grants to state governments. They also intend to set up a new commission to study options on Social Security, while relying on what one House Republican aide called “the solid foundation” of the Ryan budget plan.

The fate of the effort will rest in the new Republican Senate. The incoming Senate Budget Committee chairman, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, has been a staunch defender of the Ryan plans, but after a speech Wednesday on Capitol Hill, the senator sounded a cautious note, suggesting he would not approach his new post the way Mr. Ryan has.

He called it “an overreach” to think the Senate Budget Committee would dictate the terms of an overhaul of the tax code, Medicare or other programs that drive the budget deficit.

“Congressman Ryan of the Budget Committee last year, really over the past several years, really used that position to advance his views about how Medicare ought to be fixed, and I thought they were very valuable and very thoughtful,” he said. But, he added, that is not likely to be his approach.

Beyond the Senate Budget Committee, the House’s plans will immediately test the skills of the prospective Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, in balancing conservatives against moderate Republicans like Susan Collins of Maine and Republicans seeking re-election in Democratic states.

For his part, President Obama has other plans. The deficit has fallen from $1.4 trillion in 2009 — or nearly 10 percent of the economy then — to $483 billion, or 2.8 percent of the economy, in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Measured against the economy, the deficit is now below the average over the last 40 years, and as long as the debt continues to fall relative to the economy, Mr. Obama appears to be more concerned about other economic matters.

Continue reading the main story
The White House is sticking to its principle that any deficit reduction has to include tax increases to soften budget cuts, and that no belt-tightening should be undertaken that would jeopardize the economic growth just now picking up momentum.

The president’s real economic policy emphasis will be a broad overhaul of the corporate tax code to free up revenues for long-term spending on roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects. Mr. Van Hollen said Democrats would not bend in their opposition to spending cuts that they say would be largely used to cut taxes for the rich.

And, Mr. Van Hollen said, those arguments will have resonance once Americans realize the fight has moved from symbolic to real.

The Ryan budget faced a vote in the Senate in 2013, and five Republicans voted against it: Ms. Collins; Dean Heller, a moderate-leaning Nevadan; Mike Lee of Utah; Rand Paul of Kentucky; and Ted Cruz of Texas, who saw the plan as too timid. It failed on an advisory vote, 40 to 59.

On the other hand, four Republican newcomers to the Senate — Representatives Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Steve Daines of Montana, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Cory Gardner of Colorado — are already on the record supporting the Ryan approach, with a fifth, Representative Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, in a runoff for the last outstanding Senate seat.

“There’s going to be a strong commitment to get a budget done for no other reason than they’ve made such a big deal about the other side failing,” said Hazen Marshall, a former Senate Budget Committee staff director who has been consulting with the incoming committee leadership. “But that doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy. At the end of the day, you’ve got to get a majority.”

The budget, one of Congress’s first orders of business, sets top-line spending limits, with advisory policy details. But it has one powerful mechanism, a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation that shields legislation from a Senate filibuster.

In 2012, the House budget ordered six committees to produce policy changes that would save $261 billion over 10 years to avert automatic spending cuts at the Pentagon. The results would have pushed 1.8 million people off food stamps and cost 280,000 children their school lunch subsidies and 300,000 children their health insurance coverage.

Elimination of the social services block grant to state and local governments would hit child abuse prevention programs, Meals on Wheels and child care.

A quarter of the cuts in the bill would come from programs for the poor. Cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and subsidized insurance premiums under the health care law made up more than a third of the package’s savings.

Had the Senate gone along with the budget plan that ordered those cuts, the resulting bills could not have been filibustered by opponents.

Mr. Johnson said the parliamentary tactic will be used next year. The question is how. Republicans could again use it to push through budget cuts and changes to entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, or they could use it to advance changes to the tax code that cut revenue.

“There’s a very heightened focus on, ‘The dog caught the bus. Now what are we going to do?’ ” he said.

Mr. Van Hollen said Republicans would have little choice but to push ahead with past budget plans. To do otherwise would indicate that earlier efforts were politics, not policy priorities.

“They can’t say now that they have the power to implement those budgets, they’re not going to do it,” he said.

Chris Chocola, the president of Club for Growth, a political action committee that bankrolled many of the Republican campaigns, pointed to the tax cuts of Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas and the confrontations that Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan had with his state’s public employee unions as models for the Republican Congress. Mr. Brownback is now dealing with budget deficits, but Mr. Chocola noted that the governor was re-elected.

That is all well and good, said Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, but even with the tool of reconciliation, congressional Republicans will face President Obama’s veto pen.

“If we need reconciliation instructions to pass it in the Senate, the chances the president would sign it into law are not very good,” he said. “That’s the reality.”

Dr Frances Cress Welsing - Surviving Racism in The 21st Century part 1

The Making Of The African Man/Woman

What Fanon has to say below,is relevant today:

Come, then, comrades; it would be as well to decide at once to change our ways. We must shake off the heavy darkness in which we were plunged, and leave it behind. The new day which is already at hand must find us firm, prudent and resolute.

We must leave our dreams and abandon our old beliefs and friendships of the time before life began. Let us waste no time in sterile litanies and nauseating mimicry. Leave this Europe where they are never done talking of Man, yet murder men everywhere they find them, at the corner of every one of their own streets, in all the corners of the globe. For centuries they have stifled almost the whole of humanity in the name of a so-called spiritual experience. Look at them today swaying between atomic and spiritual disintegration.

And yet it may be said that Europe has been successful in as much as everything that she has attempted has succeeded.

Europe undertook the leadership of the world with ardor, cynicism and violence. Look at how the shadow of her palaces stretches out ever farther! Every one of her movements has burst the bounds of space and thought. Europe has declined all humility and all modesty; but she has also set her face against all solicitude and all tenderness.

She has only shown herself parsimonious and niggardly where men are concerned; it is only men that she has killed and devoured.

So, my brothers, how is it that we do not understand that we have better things to do than to follow that same Europe?

That same Europe where they were never done talking of Man, and where they never stopped proclaiming that they were only anxious for the welfare of Man: today we know with what sufferings humanity has paid for every one of their triumphs of the mind.

Come, then, comrades, the European game has finally ended; we must find something different. We today can do everything, so long as we do not imitate Europe, so long as we are not obsessed by the desire to catch up with Europe.

Europe now lives at such a mad, reckless pace that she has shaken off all guidance and all reason, and she is running headlong into the abyss; we would do well to avoid it with all possible speed.

Yet it is very true that we need a model, and that we want blueprints and examples. For many among us the European model is the most inspiring. We have therefore seen in the preceding pages to what mortifying set-backs such an imitation has led us. European achievements, European techniques and the European style ought no longer to tempt us and to throw us off our balance.

When I search for Man in the technique and the style of Europe, I see only a succession of negations of man, and an avalanche of murders.

The human condition, plans for mankind and collaboration between men in those tasks which increase the sum total of humanity are new problems, which demand true inventions.

Let us decide not to imitate Europe; let us combine our muscles and our brains in a new direction. Let us try to create the whole man, whom Europe has been incapable of bringing to triumphant birth.

Two centuries ago, a former European colony decided to catch up with Europe. It succeeded so well that the United States of America became a monster, in which the taints, the sickness and the inhumanity of Europe have grown to appalling dimensions.

Comrades, have we not other work to do than to create a third Europe? The West saw itself as a spiritual adventure. It is in the name of the spirit, in the name of the spirit of Europe, that Europe has made her encroachments, that she has justified her crimes and legitimized the slavery in which she holds four-fifths of humanity.

Yes, the European spirit has strange roots. All European thought has unfolded in places which were increasingly more deserted and more encircled by precipices; and thus it was that the custom grew up in those places of very seldom meeting man.

A permanent dialogue with oneself and an increasingly obscene narcissism never ceased to prepare the way for a half delirious state, where intellectual work became suffering and the reality was not at all that of a living man, working and creating himself, but rather words, different combinations of words, and the tensions springing from the meanings contained in words. Yet some Europeans were found to urge the European workers to shatter this narcissism and to break with this un-reality.

But in general the workers of Europe have not replied to these calls; for the workers believe, too, that they are part of the prodigious adventure of the European spirit.

All the elements of a solution to the great problems of humanity have, at different times, existed in European thought. But Europeans have not carried out in practice the mission which fell to them, which consisted of bringing their whole weight to bear violently upon these elements, of modifying their arrangement and their nature, of changing them and, finally, of bringing the problem of mankind to an infinitely higher plane.

Today, we are present at the stasis of Europe. Comrades, let us flee from this motionless movement where gradually dialectic is changing into the logic of equilibrium. Let us reconsider the question of mankind. Let us reconsider the question of cerebral reality and of the cerebral mass of all humanity, whose connexions must be increased, whose channels must be diversified and whose messages must be re-humanized.

Come, brothers, we have far too much work to do for us to play the game of rear-guard. Europe has done what she set out to do and on the whole she has done it well; let us stop blaming her, but let us say to her firmly that she should not make such a song and dance about it. We have no more to fear; so let us stop envying her.

The Third World today faces Europe like a colossal mass whose aim should be to try to resolve the problems to which Europe has not been able to find the answers.

But let us be clear: what matters is to stop talking about output, and intensification, and the rhythm of work.

No, there is no question of a return to Nature. It is simply a very concrete question of not dragging men towards mutilation, of not imposing upon the brain rhythms which very quickly obliterate it and wreck it. The pretext of catching up must not be used to push man around, to tear him away from himself or from his privacy, to break and kill him.

No, we do not want to catch up with anyone. What we want to do is to go forward all the time, night and day, in the company of Man, in the company of all men. The caravan should not be stretched out, for in that case each line will hardly see those who precede it; and men who no longer recognize each other meet less and less together, and talk to each other less and less.

It is a question of the Third World starting a new history of Man, a history which will have regard to the sometimes prodigious theses which Europe has put forward, but which will also not forget Europe’s crimes, of which the most horrible was committed in the heart of man, and consisted of the pathological tearing apart of his functions and the crumbling away of his unity. And in the framework of the collectivity there were the differentiations, the stratification and the bloodthirsty tensions fed by classes; and finally, on the immense scale of humanity, there were racial hatreds, slavery, exploitation and above all the bloodless genocide which consisted in the setting aside of fifteen thousand millions of men.

So, comrades, let us not pay tribute to Europe by creating states, institutions and societies which draw their inspiration from her.

Humanity is waiting for something other from us than such an imitation, which would be almost an obscene caricature.

If we want to turn Africa into a new Europe, and America into a new Europe, then let us leave the destiny of our countries to Europeans. They will know how to do it better than the most gifted among us.

But if we want humanity to advance a step farther, if we want to bring it up to a different level than that which Europe has shown it, then we must invent and we must make discoveries.

If we wish to live up to our peoples’ expectations, we must seek the response elsewhere than in Europe.

Moreover, if we wish to reply to the expectations of the people of Europe, it is no good sending them back a reflection, even an ideal reflection, of their society and their thought with which from time to time they feel immeasurably sickened.

For Europe, for ourselves and for humanity, comrades, we must turn over a new leaf, we must work out new concepts, and try to set afoot a new man.

Amilcar Cabral

Weapon Of Theory
Weapon Of Theory

Theory As A Weapon

The lesson of Fanon are just as relevant for the Africans in America as well as those in Africa. A large pool of African people have been made poor, and a game is still played on them, making them accept their inferiority complexes and play them out in their day-to-day in their decrepit lifestyles. It is then, at this juncture that I will quote heavily on Fanon's:

The Weapon Of Theory

If any of us came to Cuba with doubts in our mind about the solidity, strength, maturity and vitality of the Cuban Revolution, these doubts have been removed by what we have been able to see. Our hearts are now warmed by an unshakeable certainty which gives us courage in the difficult but glorious struggle against the common enemy: no power in the world will be able to destroy this Cuban Revolution, which is creating in the countryside and in the towns not only a new life but also — and even more important — a New Man, fully conscious of his national, continental and international rights and duties. In every field of activity the Cuban people have made major progress during the last seven years, particularly in 1965, Year of Agriculture.

We believe that this constitutes a particular lesson for the national liberation movements, especially for those who want their national revolution to be a true revolution. Some people have not failed to note that a certain number of Cubans, albeit an insignificant minority, have not shared the joys and hopes of the celebrations for the seventh anniversary because they are against the Revolution.

It is possible that others will not be present at the celebrations of the eighth anniversary, but we would like to state that we consider the ‘open door’ policy for enemies of the Revolution to be a lesson in courage, determination, humanity and confidence in the people, another political and moral victory over the enemy; and to those who are worried, in a spirit of friendship, about the dangers which many be involved in this exodus. We guarantee that we, the peoples of the countries of Africa, still completely dominated by Portuguese colonialism, are prepared to send to Cuba as many men and women as may be needed to compensate for the departure of those who for reasons of class or of inability to adapt have interests or attitudes which are incompatible with the interests of the Cuban people.

Taking once again the formerly hard and tragic path of our ancestors (mainly from Guinea and Angola) who were taken to Cuba as slaves, we would come now as free men, as willing workers and Cuban patriots, to fulfill a productive function in this new, just and multi-racial society, and to help and defend with our own lives the victories of the Cuban people.

Thus we would strengthen both all the bonds of history, blood and culture which unite our peoples with the Cuban people, and the spontaneous giving of oneself, the deep joy and infectious rhythm which make the construction of socialism in Cuba a new phenomenon for the world, a unique and, for many, unaccustomed event.

We are not going to use this platform to rail against imperialism. An African saying very common in our country says: “When your house is burning, it’s no use beating the tom-toms.” On a Tricontinental level, this means that we are not going to eliminate imperialism by shouting insults against it.

For us, the best or worst shout against imperialism, whatever its form, is to take up arms and fight. This is what we are doing, and this is what we will go on doing until all foreign domination of our African homelands has been totally eliminated.

Our agenda includes subjects whose meaning and importance are beyond question and which show a fundamental preoccupation with struggle. We note, however, that one form of struggle which we consider to be fundamental has not been explicitly mentioned in this program, although we are certain that it was present in the minds of those who drew up the program. We refer here to the struggle against our own weaknesses.

Obviously, other cases differ from that of Guinea; but our experience has shown us that in the general framework of daily struggle this battle against ourselves — no matter what difficulties the enemy may create — is the most difficult of all, whether for the present or the future of our peoples.

This battle is the expression of the internal contradictions in the economic, social, cultural (and therefore historical) reality of each of our countries. We are convinced that any national or social revolution which is not based on knowledge of this fundamental reality runs grave risk of being condemned to failure.

When the African peoples say in their simple language that, “No matter how hot the water from your well, it will not cook your rice,” they express with singular simplicity a fundamental principle, not only of physics, but also of political science. We know that the development of a phenomenon in movement, whatever its external appearance, depends mainly on its internal characteristics.

We also know that on the political level our own reality — however fine and attractive the reality of others may be — can only be transformed by detailed knowledge of it, by our own efforts, by our own sacrifices. It is useful to recall in this Tricontinental gathering, so rich in experience and example, that however great the similarity between our various cases and however identical our enemies, national liberation and social revolution are not exportable commodities.

They are, and increasingly so every day, the outcome of local and national elaboration, more or less influenced by external factors (be they favorable or unfavorable) but essentially determined and formed by the historical reality of each people, and carried to success by the overcoming or correct solution of the internal contradictions between the various categories characterizing this reality.

The success of the Cuban revolution, taking place only 90 miles from the greatest imperialist and anti-socialist power of all time, seems to us, in its content and its way of evolution, to be a practical and conclusive illustration of the validity of this principle.

However we must recognize that we ourselves and the other liberation movements in general (referring here above all to the African experience) have not managed to pay sufficient attention to this important problem of our common struggle.

The ideological deficiency, not to say the total lack of ideology, within the national liberation movements — which is basically due to ignorance of the historical reality which these movements claim to transform — constitutes one of the greatest weaknesses of our struggle against imperialism, if not the greatest weakness of all.

We believe, however, that a sufficient number of different experiences has already been accumulated to enable us to define a general line of thought and action with the aim of eliminating this deficiency.

A full discussion of this subject could be useful, and would enable this conference to make a valuable contribution towards strengthening the present and future actions of the national liberation movements. This would be a concrete way of helping these movements, and in our opinion no less important than political support or financial assistance for arms and suchlike.

It is with the intention of making a contribution, however modest, to this debate that we present here our opinion of the foundations and objectives of national liberation in relation to the social structure. This opinion is the result of our own experiences of the struggle and of a critical appreciation of the experiences of others.

To those who see in it a theoretical character, we would recall that every practice produces a theory, and that if it is true that a revolution can fail even though it be based on perfectly conceived theories, nobody has yet made a successful revolution without a revolutionary theory.

Those who affirm — in our case correctly — that the motive force of history is the class struggle would certainly agree to a revision of this affirmation to make it more precise and give it an even wider field of application if they had a better knowledge of the essential characteristics of certain colonized peoples, that is to say peoples dominated by imperialism.

In fact in the general evolution of humanity and of each of the peoples of which it is composed, classes appear neither as a generalized and simultaneous phenomenon throughout the totality of these groups, nor as a finished, perfect, uniform and spontaneous whole. The definition of classes within one or several human groups is a fundamental consequence of the progressive development of the productive forces and of the characteristics of the distribution of the wealth produced by the group or usurped from others. That is to say that the socio-economic phenomenon ‘class’ is created and develops as a function of at least two essential and interdependent variables — the level of productive forces and the pattern of ownership of the means of production. This development takes place slowly, gradually and unevenly, by quantitative and generally imperceptible variations in the fundamental components; once a certain degree of accumulation is reached, this process then leads to a qualitative jump, characterized by the appearance of classes and of conflict between them.

Factors external to the socio-economic whole can influence, more or less significantly, the process of development of classes, accelerating it, slowing it down and even causing regressions. When, for whatever reason, the influence of these factors ceases, the process reassumes its independence and its rhythm is then determined not only be the specific internal characteristics of the whole, but also by the resultant of the effect produced in it by the temporary action of the external factors. On a strictly internal level the rhythm of the process may vary, but it remains continuous and progressive. Sudden progress is only possible as a function of violent alterations — mutations — in the level of productive forces or in the pattern of ownership. These violent transformations carried out within the process of development of classes, as a result of mutations in the level of productive forces or in the pattern of ownership, are generally called, in economic and political language, revolutions.

Clearly, however, the possibilities of this process are noticeably influenced by external factors, and particularly by the interaction of human groups. This interaction is considerably increased by the development of means of transport and communication which as created the modern world, eliminating the isolation of human groups within one area, of areas within one continent, and between continents.

This development, characteristic of a long historical period which began with the invention of the first means of transport, was already more evident at the time of the Punic voyages and in the Greek colonization, and was accentuated by maritime discoveries, the invention of the steam engine and the discovery of electricity. And in our own times, with the progressive domestication of atomic energy it is possible to promise, if not to take men to the stars, at least to humanize the universe.

This leads us to pose the following question: does history begin only with the development of the phenomenon of ‘class’, and consequently of class struggle? To reply in the affirmative would be to place outside history the whole period of life of human groups from the discovery of hunting, and later of nomadic and sedentary agriculture, to the organization of herds and the private appropriation of land.

It would also be to consider — and this we refuse to accept — that various human groups in Africa, Asia, and Latin America were living without history, or outside history, at the time when they were subjected to the yoke of imperialism. It would be to consider that the peoples of our countries, such as the Balantes of Guinea, the Coaniamas of Angola and the Macondes of Mozambique, are still living today — if we abstract the slight influence of colonialism to which they have been subjected — outside history, or that they have no history.

Our refusal, based as it is on concrete knowledge of the socio-economic reality of our countries and on the analysis of the process of development of the phenomenon ‘class’, as we have seen earlier, leads us to conclude that if class struggle is the motive force of history, it is so only in a specific historical period.

This means that before the class struggle — and necessarily after it, since in this world there is no before without an after — one or several factors was and will be the motive force of history. It is not difficult to see that this factor in the history of each human group is the mode of production — the level of productive forces and the pattern of ownership — characteristic of that group.

Furthermore, as we have seen, classes themselves, class struggle and their subsequent definition, are the result of the development of the productive forces in conjunction with the pattern of ownership of the means of production. It therefore seems correct to conclude that the level of productive forces, the essential determining element in the content and form of class struggle, is the true and permanent motive force of history.

If we accept this conclusion, then the doubts in our minds are cleared away. Because if on the one hand we can see that the existence of history before the class struggle is guaranteed, and thus avoid for some human groups in our countries — and perhaps in our continent — the sad position of being peoples without any history, then on the other hand we can see that history has continuity, even after the disappearance of class struggle or of classes themselves.

And as it was not we who postulated — on a scientific basis — the fact of the disappearance of classes as a historical inevitability, we can feel satisfied at having reached this conclusion which, to a certain extent, re-establishes coherence and at the same time gives to those peoples who, like the people of Cuba, are building socialism, the agreeable certainty that they will not cease to have a history when they complete the process of elimination of the phenomenon of ‘class’ and class struggle within their socio-economic whole.

Eternity is not of this world, but man will outlive classes and will continue to produce and make history, since he can never free himself from the burden of his needs, both of mind and of body, which are the basis of the development of the forces of production.

The foregoing, and the reality of our times, allow us to state that the history of one human group or of humanity goes through at least three stages. The first is characterized by a low level of productive forces — of man’s domination over nature; the mode of production is of a rudimentary character, private appropriation of the means of production does not yet exist.

There are no classes, nor, consequently, is there any class struggle. In the second stage, the increased level of productive forces leads to private appropriation of the means of production, progressively complicates the mode of production, provokes conflicts of interests within the socio-economic whole in movement, and makes possible the appearance of the phenomena ‘class’ and hence of class struggle, the social expression of the contradiction in the economic field between the mode of production and private appropriation of the means of production.

In the third stage, once a certain level of productive forces is reached, the elimination of private appropriation of the means of production is made possible, and is carried out, together with the elimination of the phenomenon ‘class’ and hence of class struggle; new and hitherto unknown forces in the historical process of the socio-economic whole are then unleashed.

In politico-economic language, the first stage would correspond to the communal agricultural and cattle-raising society, in which the social structure is horizontal, without any state; the second to feudal or assimilated agricultural or agro-industrial bourgeois societies, with a vertical social structure and a state; the third to socialist or communist societies, in which the economy is mainly, if not exclusively, industrial (since agriculture itself becomes a form of industry) and in which the state tends to progressively disappear, or actually disappears, and where the social structure returns to horizontality, at a higher level of productive forces, social relations and appreciation of human values.

At the level of humanity or of part of humanity (human groups within one area, of one or several continents) these three stages (or two of them) can be simultaneous, as is shown as much by the present as by the past. This is a result of the uneven development of human societies, whether caused by internal reasons or by one or more external factors exerting an accelerating or slowing-down influence on their evolution. On the other hand, in the historical process of a given socio-economic whole each of the above-mentioned stages contains, once a certain level of transformation is reached, the seeds of the following stage.

We should also note that in the present phase of the life of humanity, and for a given socio-economic whole, the time sequence of the three characteristic stages is not indispensable. Whatever its level of productive forces and present social structure, a society can pass rapidly through the defined stages appropriate to the concrete local realities (both historical and human) and reach a higher stage of existence.

This progress depends on the concrete possibilities of development of the society’s productive forces and is governed mainly by the nature of the political power ruling the society, that is to say, by the type of state or, if one likes, by the character of the dominant class or classes within the society.

A more detailed analysis would show that the possibility of such a jump in the historical process arises mainly, in the economic field, from the power of the means available to man at the time for dominating nature, and, in the political field, from the new event which has radically clanged the face of the world and the development of history, the creation of socialist states.

Thus we see that our peoples have their own history regardless of the stage of their economic development. When they were subjected to imperialist domination, the historical process of each of our peoples (or of the human groups of which they are composed) was subjected to the violent action of an exterior factor. This action — the impact of imperialism on our societies — could not fail to influence the process of development of the productive forces in our countries and the social structures of our countries, as well as the content and form of our national liberation struggles.

But we also see that in the historical context of the development of these struggles, our peoples have the concrete possibility of going from their present situation of exploitation and underdevelopment to a new stage of their historical process which can lead them to a higher form of economic, social and cultural existence.

The political statement drawn up by the international preparatory committee of this conference, for which we reaffirm our complete support, placed imperialism, by clear and succinct analysis, in its economic context and historical co-ordinates. We will not repeat here what has already been said in the assembly. We will simply state that imperialism can be defined as a worldwide expression of the search for profits and the ever-increasing accumulation of surplus value by monopoly financial capital, centered in two parts of the world; first in Europe, and then in North America.

And if we wish to place the fact of imperialism within the general trajectory of the evolution of the transcendental factor which has changed the face of the world, namely capital and the process of its accumulation, we can say that imperialism is piracy transplanted from the seas to dry land piracy reorganized, consolidated and adapted to the aim of exploiting the natural and human resources of our peoples.

But if we can calmly analyze the imperialist phenomenon, we will not shock anybody by admitting that imperialism — and everything goes to prove that it is in fact the last phase in the evolution of capitalism — has been a historical necessity, a consequence of the impetus given by the productive forces and of the transformations of the means of production in the general context of humanity, considered as one movement, that is to say a necessity like those today of the national liberation of peoples, the destruction of capital and the advent of socialism.

The important thing for our peoples is to know whether imperialism, in its role as capital in action, has fulfilled in our countries its historical mission: the acceleration of the process of development of the productive forces and their transformation in the sense of increasing complexity in the means of production; increasing the differentiation between the classes with the development of the bourgeoisie, and intensifying the class struggle; and appreciably increasing the level of economic, social and cultural life of the peoples. It is also worth examining the influences and effects of imperialist action on the social structures and historical processes of our peoples.

We will not condemn nor justify imperialism here; we will simply state that as much on the economic level as on the social and cultural level, imperialist capital has not remotely fulfilled the historical mission carried out by capital in the countries of accumulation.

This means that if, on the one had, imperialist capital has had, in the great majority of the dominated countries, the simple function of multiplying surplus value, it can be seen on the other hand that the historical capacity of capital (as indestructible accelerator of the process of development of productive forces) depends strictly on its freedom, that is to say on the degree of independence with which it is utilized.

We must however recognize that in certain cases imperialist capital or moribund capitalism has had sufficient self-interest, strength and time to increase the level of productive forces (as well as building towns) and to allow a minority of the local population to attain a higher and even privileged standard of living, thus contributing to a process which some would call dialectical, by widening the contradictions within the societies in question.

In other, even rarer cases, there has existed the possibility of accumulation of capital, creating the conditions for the development of a local bourgeoisie.

On the question of the effects of imperialist domination on the social structure and historical process of our peoples, we should first of all examine the general forms of imperialist domination. There are at least two forms: the first is direct domination, by means of a power made up of people foreign to the dominated people (armed forces police, administrative agents and settlers); this is generally called classical colonialism or colonialism is indirect domination, by a political power made up mainly or completely of native agents; this is called neocolonialism.

In the first case, the social structure of the dominated people, whatever its stage of development, can suffer the following consequences:

(a) total destruction, generally accompanied by immediate or gradual elimination of the native population and, consequently, by the substitution of a population from outside;

(b) partial destruction, generally accompanied by a greater or lesser influx of population from outside;

(c) apparent conservation, conditioned by confining the native society to zones or reserves generally offering no possibilities of living, accompanied by massive implantation of population from outside.

The two latter cases are those which we must consider in the framework of the problematic national liberation, and they are extensively present in Africa. One can say that in either case the influence of imperialism on the historical process of the dominated people produces paralysis, stagnation and even in some cases regression in this process.

However this paralysis is not complete. In one sector or another of the socio-economic whole in question, noticeable transformations can be expected, caused by the permanent action of some internal (local) factors or by the action of new factors introduced by the colonial domination, such as the introduction of money and the development of urban centers.

Among these transformations we should anticipate a progressive loss of prestige of the ruling native classes or sectors, the forced or voluntary exodus of part of the peasant population to the urban centers, with the consequent development of new social strata; salaried workers, clerks, employees in commerce and the liberal professions, and an unstable stratum of the unemployed.

In the countryside there develops, with very varied intensity and always linked to the urban milieu, a stratum made up of small landowners. In the case of neocolonialism, whether the majority of the colonized population is of native or foreign origin, the imperialist action takes the form of creating a local bourgeoisie or pseudo-bourgeoisie, controlled by the ruling class of the dominating country.

The transformations in the social structure are not so marked in the lower strata, above all in the countryside, which retains the characteristics of the colonial phase; but the creation of a native pseudo-bourgeoisie which generally develops out of a petty bourgeoisie of bureaucrats and accentuates the differentiation between the social strata and intermediaries in the commercial system (compradores), by strengthening the economic activity of local elements, opens up new perspectives in the social dynamic, mainly by the development of an urban working class, the introduction of private agricultural property and the progressive appearance of an agricultural proletariat.

These more or less noticeable transformations of the social structure, produced by a significant increase in the level of productive forces, have a direct influence on the historical process of the socio-economic whole in question. While in classical colonialism this process is paralyzed, neocolonialist domination, by allowing the social dynamic to awaken (conflicts of interests between native social strata or class struggles), creates the illusion that the historical process is returning to its normal evolution.

This illusion will be reinforced by the existence of a political power (national state) composed of native elements. In reality it is scarcely even an illusion, since the submission of the local ‘ruling’ class to the ruling class of the dominating country limits or prevents the development of the national productive forces.

But in the concrete conditions of the present-day world economy this dependence is fatal and thus the local pseudo-bourgeoisie, however nationalist it may be, cannot effectively fulfill its historical function; it cannot freely direct the development of the productive forces; in brief it cannot be a national bourgeoisie. For as we have seen, the productive forces are the motive force of history, and total freedom of the process of their development is an indispensable condition for their proper functioning.

We therefore see that both in colonialism and in neocolonialism the essential characteristic of imperialist domination remains the same: the negation of the historical process of the dominated people by means of violent usurpation of the freedom of development of the national productive forces. This observation, which identifies the essence of the two apparent forms of imperialist domination, seems to us to be of major importance for the thought and action of liberation movements, both in the course of struggle and after the winning of independence.

On the basis of this, we can state that national liberation is the phenomenon in which a given socio-economic whole rejects the negation of its historical process. In other words, the national liberation of a people is the regaining of the historical personality of that people, its return to history through the destruction of the imperialist domination to which it was subjected.

We have seen that violent usurpation of the freedom of the process of development of the productive forces of the dominated socio-economic whole constitutes the principal and permanent characteristic of imperialist domination, whatever its form. We have also seen that this freedom alone can guarantee the normal development of the historical process of a people. We can therefore conclude that national liberation exists only when the national productive forces have been completely freed from every kind of foreign domination.

It is often said that national liberation is based on the right of every people to freely control its own destiny and that the objective of this liberation is national independence. Although we do not disagree with this vague and subjective way of expressing a complex reality, we prefer to be objective, since for us the basis of national liberation, whatever the formulas adopted on the level of international law, is the inalienable right of every people to have its own history, and the objective of national liberation is to regain this right usurped by imperialism, that is to say, to free the process of development of the national productive forces.

For this reason, in our opinion, any national liberation movement which does not take into consideration this basis and this objective may certainly struggle against imperialism, but will surely not be struggling for national liberation.

This means that, bearing in mind the essential characteristics of the present world economy, as well as experiences already gained in the field of anti-imperialist struggle, the principal aspect of national liberation struggle is the struggle against neocolonialism.

Furthermore, if we accept that national liberation demands a profound mutation in the process of development of the productive forces, we see that this phenomenon of national liberation necessarily corresponds to a revolution. The important thing is to be conscious of the objective and subjective conditions in which this revolution can be made and to know the type or types of struggle most appropriate for its realization.

We are not going to repeat here that these conditions are favorable in the present phase of the history of humanity; it is sufficient to recall that unfavorable conditions also exist, just as much on the international level as on the internal level of each nation struggling for liberation.

On the international level, it seems to us that the following factors, at least, are unfavorable to national liberation movements: the neocolonial situation of a great number of states which, having won political independence, are now tending to join up with others already in that situation.

The progress made by neo-capitalism, particularly in Europe, where imperialism is adopting preferential investments, encouraging the development of a privileged proletariat and thus lowering the revolutionary level of the working classes; the open or concealed neocolonial position of some European states which, like Portugal, still have colonies; the so-called policy of ‘aid for undeveloped countries’ adopted by imperialism with the aim of creating or reinforcing native pseudo-bourgeoisies which are necessarily dependent on the international bourgeoisie, and thus obstructing the path of revolution.

The claustrophobia and revolutionary timidity which have led some recently independent states whose internal economic and political conditions are favorable to revolution to accept compromises with the enemy or its agents; the growing contradictions between anti-imperialist states; and, finally, the threat to world peace posed by the prospect of atomic war on the part of imperialism. All these factors reinforce the action of imperialism against the national liberation movements.

If the repeated interventions and growing aggressiveness of imperialism against the peoples can be interpreted as a sign of desperation faced with the size of the national liberation movements, they can also be explained to a certain extent by the weaknesses produced by these unfavorable factors within the general front of the anti-imperialist struggle.

On the internal level, we believe that the most important weaknesses or unfavorable factors are inherent in the socio-economic structure and in the tendencies of its evolution under imperialist pressure, or to be more precise in the little or no attention paid to the characteristics of this structure and these tendencies by the national liberation movements in deciding on the strategy of their struggles.

By saying this we do not wish to diminish the importance of other internal factors which are unfavorable to national liberation, such as economic under-development, the consequent social and cultural backwardness of the popular masses, tribalism and other contradictions of lesser importance. It should however be pointed out that the existence of tribes only manifests itself as an important contradiction as a function of opportunistic attitudes, generally on the part of detribalized individuals or groups, within the national liberation movements. Contradictions between classes, even when only embryonic, are of far greater importance than contradictions between tribes.

Although the colonial and neocolonial situations are identical in essence, and the main aspect of the struggle against imperialism is neocolonialist, we feel it is vital to distinguish in practice these two situations. In fact the horizontal structure, however it may differ from the native society, and the absence of a political power composed of national elements in the colonial situation make possible the creation of a wide front of unity and struggle, which is vital to the success of the national liberation movement.

But this possibility does not remove the need for a rigorous analysis of the native social structure, of the tendencies of its evolution, and for the adoption in practice of appropriate measures for ensuring true national liberation. While recognizing that each movement knows best what to do in its own case, one of these measures seems to us indispensable, namely, the creation of a firmly united vanguard, conscious of the true meaning and objective of the national liberation struggle which it must lead.

This necessity is all the more urgent since we know that with rare exceptions the colonial situation neither permits nor needs the existence of significant vanguard classes (working class conscious of its existence and rural proletariat) which could ensure the vigilance of the popular masses over the evolution of the liberation movement. On the contrary, the generally embryonic character of the working classes and the economic, social and cultural situation of the physical force of most importance in the national liberation struggle-the peasantry-do not allow these two main forces to distinguish true national independence from fictitious political independence.

Only a revolutionary vanguard, generally an active minority, can be aware of this distinction from the start and make it known, through the struggle, to the popular masses. This explains the fundamentally political nature of the national liberation struggle and to a certain extent makes the form of struggle important in the final result of the phenomenon of national liberation.

In the neocolonial situation the more or less vertical structure of the native society and the existence of a political power composed of native elements-national state-already worsen the contradictions within that society and make difficult if not impossible the creation of as wide a front as in the colonial situation.

On the one hand the material effects (mainly the nationalization of cadres and the increased economic initiative of the native elements, particularly in the commercial field) and the psychological effects (pride in the belief of being ruled by one’s own compatriots, exploitation of religious or tribal solidarity between some leaders and a fraction of the masses) together demobilize a considerable part of the nationalist forces.

But on the other hand the necessarily repressive nature of the neocolonial state against the national liberation forces, the sharpening of contradictions between classes, the objective permanence of signs and agents of foreign domination (settlers who retain their privileges, armed forces, racial discrimination), the growing poverty of the peasantry and the more or less notorious influence of external factors all contribute towards keeping the flame of nationalism alive, towards progressively raising the consciousness of wide popular sectors. And towards reuniting the majority of the population, on the very basis of awareness of neocolonialist frustration, around the ideal of national liberation.

In addition, while the native ruling class becomes progressively more bourgeois, the development of a working class composed of urban workers and agricultural proletarians, all exploited by the indirect domination of imperialism, opens up new perspectives for the evolution of national liberation.

This working class, whatever the level of its political consciousness (given a certain minimum, namely the awareness of its own needs), seems to constitute the true popular vanguard of the national liberation struggle in the neocolonial case.

However it will not be able to completely fulfill its mission in this struggle (which does not end with the gaining of independence) unless it firmly unites with the other exploited strata, the peasants in general (hired men, sharecroppers, tenants and small farmers) and the nationalist petty bourgeoisie. The creation of this alliance demands the mobilization and organization of the nationalist forces within the framework (or by the action) of a strong and well-structured political organization.

Another important distinction between the colonial and neocolonial situations is in the prospects for the struggle. The colonial situation (in which the nation class fights the repressive forces of the bourgeoisie of the colonizing country) can lead, apparently at least, to a nationalist solution (national revolution); the nation gains its independence and theoretically adopts the economic structure which best suits it.

The neocolonial situation (in which the working classes and their allies struggle simultaneously against the imperialist bourgeoisie and the native ruling class) is not resolved by a nationalist solution; it demands the destruction of the capitalist structure implanted in the national territory by imperialism, and correctly postulates a socialist solution.

This distinction arises mainly from the different levels of the productive forces in the two cases and the consequent sharpening of the class struggle.

It would not be difficult to show that in time the distinction becomes scarcely apparent. It is sufficient to recall that in our present historical situation — elimination of imperialism which uses every means to perpetuate its domination over our peoples, and consolidation of socialism throughout a large part of the world — there are only two possible paths for an independent nation: to return to imperialist domination (neocolonialism, capitalism, state capitalism), or to take the way of socialism.

This operation, on which depends the compensation for the efforts and sacrifices of the popular masses during the struggle, is considerably influenced by the form of struggle and the degree of revolutionary consciousness of those who lead it. The facts make it unnecessary for us to prove that the essential instrument of imperialist domination is violence.

If we accept the principle that the liberation struggle is a revolution and that it does not finish at the moment when the national flag is raised and the national anthem played, we will see that there is not, and cannot be national liberation without the use of liberating violence by the nationalist forces, to answer the criminal violence of the agents of imperialism.

Nobody can doubt that, whatever its local characteristics, imperialist domination implies a state of permanent violence against the nationalist forces. There is no people on earth which, having been subjected to the imperialist yoke (colonialist or neocolonialist), has managed to gain its independence (nominal or effective) without victims.

The important thing is to determine which forms of violence have to be used by the national liberation forces in order not only to answer the violence of imperialism, but also to ensure through the struggle the final victory of their cause, true national independence.

The past and present experiences of various peoples, the present situation of national liberation struggles in the world (especially in Vietnam, the Congo and Zimbabwe) as well as the situation of permanent violence, or at least of contradictions and upheavals, in certain countries which have gained their independence by the so-called peaceful way, show us not only that compromises with imperialism do not work, but also that the normal way of national liberation, imposed on peoples by imperialist repression, is armed struggle.

We do not think we will shock this assembly by stating that the only effective way of definitively fulfilling the aspirations of the peoples, that is to say of attaining national liberation, is by armed struggle. This is the great lesson which the contemporary history of liberation struggle teaches all those who are truly committed to the effort of liberating their peoples.

It is obvious that both the effectiveness of this way and the stability of the situation to which it leads after liberation depend not only on the characteristics of the organization of the struggle but also on the political and moral awareness of those who, for historical reasons, are capable of being the immediate heirs of the colonial or neocolonial state.

For events have shown that the only social sector capable of being aware of the reality of imperialist domination and of directing the state apparatus inherited from this domination is the native petty bourgeoisie. If we bear in mind the aleatory characteristics and the complexity of the tendencies naturally inherent in the economic situation of this social stratum or class, we will see that this specific inevitability in our situation constitutes one of the weaknesses of the national liberation movement.

The colonial situation, which does not permit the development of a native pseudo-bourgeoisie and in which the popular masses do not generally reach the necessary level of political consciousness before the advent of the phenomenon of national liberation, offers the petty bourgeoisie the historical opportunity of leading the struggle against foreign domination.

Since by nature of its objective and subjective position (higher standard of living than that of the masses, more frequent contact with the agents of colonialism, and hence more chances of being humiliated, higher level of education and political awareness, etc.) it is the stratum which most rapidly becomes aware of the need to free itself from foreign domination.

This historical responsibility is assumed by the sector of the petty bourgeoisie which, in the colonial context, can be called revolutionary, while other sectors retain the doubts characteristic of these classes or ally themselves to colonialism so as to defend, albeit illusorily, their social situation.

The neocolonial situation, which demands the elimination of the native pseudo-bourgeoisie so that national liberation can be attained, also offers the petty bourgeoisie the chance of playing a role of major and even decisive importance in the struggle for the elimination of foreign domination.

But in this case, by virtue of the progress made in the social structure, the function of leading the struggle is shared (to a greater or lesser extent) with the more educated sectors of the working classes and even with some elements of the national pseudo-bourgeoisie who are inspired by patriotic sentiments.

The role of the sector of the petty bourgeoisie which participates in leading the struggle is all the more important since it is a fact that in the neocolonial situation it is the most suitable sector to assume these functions, both because of the economic and cultural limitations of the working masses, and because of the complexes and limitations of an ideological nature which characterize the sector of the national pseudo-bourgeoisie which supports the struggle.

In this case it is important to note that the role with which it is entrusted demands from this sector of the petty bourgeoisie a greater revolutionary consciousness, and the capacity for faithfully interpreting the aspirations of the masses in each phase of the struggle and for identifying themselves more and more with the masses.

But however high the degree of revolutionary consciousness of the sector of the petty bourgeoisie called on to fulfill this historical function, it cannot free itself from one objective of reality: the petty bourgeoisie, as a service class (that is to say that a class not directly involved in the process of production) does not possess the economic base to guarantee the taking over of power.

In fact history has shown that whatever the role — sometimes important — played by individuals coming from the petty bourgeoisie in the process of a revolution, this class has never possessed political control. And it never could possess it, since political control (the state) is based on the economic capacity of the ruling class, and in the conditions of colonial and neocolonial society this capacity is retained by two entities: imperialist capital and the native working classes.

To retain the power which national liberation puts in its hands, the petty bourgeoisie has only one path: to give free rein to its natural tendencies to become more bourgeois, to permit the development of a bureaucratic and intermediary bourgeoisie in the commercial cycle, in order to transform itself into a national pseudo-bourgeoisie, that is to say in order to negate the revolution and necessarily ally.

In order not to betray these objectives the petty bourgeoisie has only one choice: to strengthen its revolutionary consciousness, to reject the temptations of becoming more bourgeois and the natural concerns of its class mentality, to identify itself with the working classes and not to oppose the normal development of the process of revolution.

This means that in order to truly fulfill the role in the national liberation struggle, the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie must be capable of committing suicide as a class in order to be reborn as revolutionary workers, completely identified with the deepest aspirations of the people to which they belong.

This alternative — to betray the revolution or to commit suicide as a class — constitutes the dilemma of the petty bourgeoisie in the general framework of the national liberation struggle. The positive solution in favor of the revolution depends on what Fidel Castro recently correctly called the development of revolutionary consciousness.

This dependence necessarily calls our attention to the capacity of the leader of the national liberation struggle to remain faithful to the principles and to the fundamental cause of this struggle. This shows us, to a certain extent, that if national liberation is essentially a political problem, the conditions for its development give it certain characteristics which belong to the sphere of morals.

We will not shout hurrahs or proclaim here our solidarity with this or that people in struggle. Our presence is in itself a cry of condemnation of imperialism and a proof of solidarity with all peoples who want to banish from their country the imperialist yoke, and in particular with the heroic people of Vietnam.

But we firmly believe that the best proof we can give of our anti-imperialist position and of our active solidarity with our comrades in this common struggle is to return to our countries, to further develop this struggle and to remain faithful to the principles and objectives of national liberation. (Fanon)

So that, when the Weak pull their weight and move the struggle along, the better-of will that nation become and live up to its creed. Learning and not forgetting what Fanon is talking about above is of prime importance. Information should not be classed between the pages of a book, but it must also live in the minds of the poor, who are to be taught and exposed to such information of the like that Fanon has just given us up above in this Hub. There should be a way through which the poor can begin to grasp and utilize theory to better their lot. This has to start somewhere.

I choose to start with the musings of Fanon on this ideas of having Theory Be Used As A Weapon. The way he goes about crystalizing it, it will never do harm to those who seek to understand it, and it will help educe many people, and thus strengthen a nation.

Jean Paul Sartre

Wrote Intro To "Wretched Of The Earth"
Wrote Intro To "Wretched Of The Earth"
Fanon's Wretched Of The Earth, Book...
Fanon's Wretched Of The Earth, Book...

Jean Paul Sartre's Take On The Works Of Fanon

Another interesting and relevant issue I would like to add here, is the Prefaced comments of Jean Paul Sartre to the Book, "Wretched Of The Earth," written by Frantz Fanon, below:

"Not so very long ago, the earth numbered two thousand million inhabitants: five hundred million men, and one thousand five hundred million natives. The former had the Word; the others had the use of it. Between the two there were hired kinglets, overlords and a bourgeoisie, sham from beginning to end, which served as go-betweens. In the colonies the truth stood naked, but the citizens of the mother country preferred it with clothes on: the native had to love them, something in the way mothers are loved.

The European élite undertook to manufacture a native élite. They picked out promising adolescents; they branded them, as with a red-hot iron, with the principles of western culture, they stuffed their mouths full with high-sounding phrases, grand glutinous words that stuck to the teeth. After a short stay in the mother country they were sent home, whitewashed. These walking lies had nothing left to say to their brothers; they only echoed. From Paris, from London, from Amsterdam we would utter the words ‘Parthenon'! Brotherhood!’ and somewhere in Africa or Asia lips would open ... Brother hood!’ It was the golden age.

It came to an end; the mouths opened by themselves; the yellow and black voices still spoke of our humanism but only to reproach us with our inhumanity. We listened without displeasure to these polite statements of resentment, at first with proud amazement. What? They are able to talk by themselves?

Just look at what we have made of them! We did not doubt but that they would accept our ideals, since they accused us of not being faithful to them. Then, indeed, Europe could believe in her mission; she had hellenized the Asians; she had created a new breed, the Graeco-Latin Negroes. We might add, quite between ourselves, as men of the world: ‘After all, let them bawl their heads off, it relieves their feelings; dogs that bark don’t bite.’

A new generation came on the scene, which changed the issue. With unbelievable patience, its writers and poets tried to explain to us that our values and the true facts of their lives did not hang together, and that they could neither reject them completely nor yet assimilate them. By and large, what they were saying was this:

‘You are making us into monstrosities; your humanism claims we are at one with the rest of humanity but your racist methods set us apart.’ Very much at our ease, we listened to them all; colonial administrators are not paid to read Hegel, and for that matter they do not read much of him, but they do not need a philosopher to tell them that uneasy consciences are caught up in their own contradictions.

They will not get anywhere; so, let us perpetuate their discomfort; nothing will come of it but talk. If they were, the experts told us, asking for anything at all precise in their wailing, it would be integration. Of course, there is no question of granting that; the system, which depends on over-exploitation, as you know, would be ruined.

But it’s enough to hold the carrot in front of their noses, they’ll gallop all right. As to a revolt, we need not worry at all; what native in his senses would go off to massacre the fair sons of Europe simply to become European as they are? In short, we encouraged these disconsolate spirits and thought it not a bad idea for once to award the Prix Goncourt to a Negro. That was before ’39.

1961. Listen: ‘Let us waste no time in sterile litanies and nauseating mimicry. Leave this Europe where they are never done talking of Man, yet murder men everywhere they find them, at the corner of every one of their own streets, in all the corners of the globe. For centuries they have stifled almost the whole of humanity in the name of a so-called spiritual experience.’ The tone is new. Who dares to speak thus?

It is an African, a man from the Third World, an ex-‘native’. He adds: ‘Europe now lives at such a mad, reckless pace that she is running headlong into the abyss; we would do well to keep away from it.’ In other words, she’s done for. A truth which is not pleasant to state but of which we are all convinced, are we not, fellow-Europeans, in the marrow of our bones?

We must however make one reservation. When a Frenchman, for example, says to other Frenchmen ‘The country is done for’ — which has happened, I should think, almost every day since 1930 — it is emotional talk; burning with love and fury, the speaker includes himself with his fellow-countrymen. And then, usually, he adds ‘Unless ...’

His meaning is clear; no more mistakes must be made; if his instructions are not carried out to the letter, then and only then will the country go to pieces. In short, it is a threat followed by a piece of advice and these remarks are so much the less shocking in that they spring from a national intersubjectivity. But on the contrary when Fanon says of Europe that she is rushing to her doom, far from sounding the alarm he is merely setting out a diagnosis.

This doctor neither claims that she is a hopeless case — miracles have been known to exist — nor does he give her the means to cure herself. He certifies that she is dying, on external evidence, founded on symptoms that he can observe. As to curing her, no; he has other things to think about; he does not give a damn whether she lives or dies. Because of this, his book is scandalous.

And if you murmur, jokingly embarrassed, ‘He has it in for us!’ the true nature of the scandal escapes you; for Fanon has nothing in for you at all; his work — red-hot for some — in what concerns you is as cold as ice; he speaks of you often, never to you.

The black Goncourts and the yellow Nobels are finished; the days of colonized laureates are over. An ex-native French-speaking, bends that language to new requirements, makes use of it, and speaks to the colonized only: ‘Natives of an under-developed countries, unite!’

What a downfall! For the fathers, we alone were the speakers; the sons no longer even consider us as valid intermediaries: we are the objects of their speeches. Of course, Fanon mentions in passing our well-known crimes: Sétif, Hanoi, Madagascar: but he does not waste his time in condemning them; he uses them.

If he demonstrates the tactics of colonialism, the complex play of relations which unite and oppose the colonists to the people of the mother country, it is for his brothers; his aim is to teach them to beat us at our own game.

In short, the Third World finds itself and speaks to itself through his voice. We know that it is not a homogeneous world; we know too that enslaved peoples are still to be found there, together with some who have achieved a simulacrum of phoney independence, others who are still fighting to attain sovereignty and others again who have obtained complete freedom but who live under the constant menace of imperialist aggression.

These differences are born of colonial history, in other words of oppression. Here, the mother country is satisfied to keep some feudal rulers in her pay; there, dividing and ruling she has created a native bourgeoisie, sham from beginning to end; elsewhere she has played a double game: the colony is planted with settlers and exploited at the same time.

Thus Europe has multiplied divisions and opposing groups, has fashioned classes and sometimes even racial prejudices, and has endeavored by every means to bring about and intensify the stratification of colonized societies. Fanon hides nothing: in order to fight against us the former colony must fight against itself: or, rather, the two struggles form part of a whole.

In the heat of battle, all internal barriers break down; the puppet bourgeoisie of businessmen and shopkeepers, the urban proletariat, which is always in a privileged position, the lumpen-proletariat of the shanty towns — all fall into line with the stand made by the rural masses, that veritable reservoir of a national revolutionary army; for in those countries where colonialism has deliberately held up development, the peasantry, when it rises, quickly stands out as the revolutionary class.

For it knows naked oppression, and suffers far more from it than the workers in the towns, and in order not to die of hunger, it demands no less than a complete demolishing of all existing structures. In order to triumph, the national revolution must be socialist; if its career is cut short, if the native bourgeoisie takes over power, the new State, in spite of its formal sovereignty, remains in the hands of the imperialists.

The example of Katanga illustrates this quite well. Thus the unity of the Third World is not yet achieved. It is a work in progress, which begins by the union, in each country, after independence as before, of the whole of the colonized under the command of the peasant class. This is what Fanon explains to his brothers in Africa, Asia and Latin America: we must achieve revolutionary socialism all together everywhere, or else one by one we will be defeated by our former masters.

He hides nothing, neither weaknesses, nor discords, nor mystification. Here, the movement gets off to a bad start; then, after a striking initial success it loses momentum; elsewhere it has come to a standstill, and if it is to start again, the peasants must throw their bourgeoisie overboard. The reader is sternly put on his guard against the most dangerous will o’ the wisps: the cult of the leader and of personalities, Western culture, and what is equally to be feared, the withdrawal into the twilight of past African culture.

For the only true culture is that of the Revolution; that is to say, it is constantly in the making. Fanon speaks out loud; we Europeans can hear him, as the fact that you hold this book in your hand proves; is he not then afraid that the colonial powers may take advantage of his sincerity?

No; he fears nothing. Our methods are out-of-date; they can sometimes delay emancipation, but not stop it. And do not think that we can change our ways; neocolonialism, that idle dream of mother countries, is a lot of hot air; the ‘Third Forces’ don’t exist, or if they do they are only the tin-pot bourgeoisies that colonialism has already placed in the saddle.

Our Machiavellianism has little purchase on this wide-awake world that has run our falsehoods to earth one after the other. The settler has only recourse to one thing: brute force, when he can command it; the native has only one choice, between servitude or supremacy. What does Fanon care whether you read his work or not? It is to his brothers that he denounces our old tricks, and he is sure we have no more up our sleeves.

It is to them he says: ‘Europe has laid her hands on our continents, and we must slash at her fingers till she lets go. It’s a good moment; nothing can happen at Bizerta, at Elizabethville or in the Algerian bled that the whole world does not hear about. The rival blocks take opposite sides, and hold each other in check; let us take advantage of this paralysis, let us burst into history, forcing it by our invasion into universality for the first time. Let us start fighting; and if we've no other arms, the waiting knife’s enough.’

Europeans, you must open this book and enter into it. After a few steps in the darkness you will see strangers gathered around a fire; come close, and listen, for they are talking of the destiny they will mete out to your trading-centers and to the hired soldiers who defend them. They will see you, perhaps, but they will go on talking among themselves, without even lowering their voices.

This indifference strikes home: their fathers, shadowy creatures, your creatures, were but dead souls; you it was who allowed them glimpses of light, to you only did they dare speak, and you did not bother to reply to such zombies. Their sons ignore you; a fire warms them and sheds light around them, and you have not lit it. Now, at a respectful distance, it is you who will feel furtive, nightbound and perished with cold. Turn and turn about; in these shadows from whence a new dawn will break, it is you who are the zombies.

In this case, you will say, let’s throw away this book. Why read it if it is not written for us? For two reasons; the first is that Fanon explains you to his brothers and shows them the mechanism by which we are estranged from ourselves; take advantage of this, and get to know yourselves seen in the light of truth, objectively.

Our victims know us by their scars and by their chains, and it is this that makes their evidence irrefutable. It is enough that they show us what we have made of them for us to realize what we have made of ourselves. But is it any use? Yes, for Europe is at death’s door. But, you will say, we live in the mother country, and we disapprove of her excesses. It is true, you are not settlers, but you are no better.

For the pioneers belonged to you; you sent them overseas, and it was you they enriched. You warned them that if they shed too much blood you would disown them, or say you did, in something of the same way as any state maintains abroad a mob of agitators, agents provocateurs and spies whom it disowns when they are caught.

You, who are so liberal and so humane, who have such an exaggerated adoration of culture that it verges on affectation, you pretend to forget that you own colonies and that in them men are massacred in your name. Fanon reveals to his comrades above all to some of them who are rather too Westernized — the solidarity of the people of the mother country and of their representatives in the colonies.

Have the courage to read this book, for in the first place it will make you ashamed, and shame, as Marx said, is a revolutionary sentiment. You see, I, too, am incapable of ridding myself of subjective illusions; I, too, say to you: ‘All is lost, unless ...’ As a European, I steal the enemy’s book, and out of it I fashion a remedy for Europe. Make the most of it.

And here is the second reason: if you set aside Sorel’s fascist utterances, you will find that Fanon is the first since Engels to bring the processes of history into the clear light of day. Moreover, you need not think that hot-headedness or an unhappy childhood have given him some uncommon taste for violence; he acts as the interpreter of the situation, that’s all. But this is enough to enable him to constitute, step by step, the dialectic which liberal hypocrisy hides from you and which is as much responsible for our existence as for his.

During the last century, the middle classes looked on the workers as covetous creatures, made lawless by their greedy desires; but they took care to include these great brutes in our own species, or at least they considered that they were free men — that is to say, free to sell their labour. In France, as in England, humanism claimed to be universal.

In the case of forced labour, it is quite the contrary. There is no contract; moreover, there must be intimidation and thus oppression grows. Our soldiers overseas, rejecting the universalism of the mother country, apply the ‘numerous clauses’ to the human race: since none may enslave, rob or kill his fellowman without committing a crime, they lay down the principle that the native is not one of our fellow-men.

Our striking-power has been given the mission of changing this abstract certainty into reality: the order is given to reduce the inhabitants of the annexed country to the level of superior monkeys in order to justify the settler’s treatment of them as beasts of burden. Violence in the colonies does not only have for its aim the keeping of these enslaved men at arm’s length; it seeks to dehumanize them.

Everything will be done to wipe out their traditions, to substitute our language for theirs and to destroy their culture without giving them ours. Sheer physical fatigue will stupefy them. Starved and ill, if they have any spirit left, fear will finish the job; guns are leveled at the peasant; civilians come to take over his land and force him by dint of flogging to till the land for them.

If he shows fight, the soldiers fire and he’s a dead man; if he gives in, he degrades himself and he is no longer a man at all; shame and fear will split up his character and make his inmost self fall to pieces. The business is conducted with flying colors and by experts: the ‘psychological services’ weren’t established yesterday; nor was brain-washing.

And yet, in spite of any of these efforts, their ends are nowhere achieved: neither in the Congo, where Negroes’ hands were cut off, nor in Angola, where until very recently malcontents’ lips were pierced in order to shut them with padlocks. I do not say that it is impossible to change a Man into an animal I simply say that you won’t get there without weakening him considerably. Blows will never suffice; you have to push the starvation further, and that’s the trouble with slavery.

For when you domesticate a member of our own species, you reduce his output, and however little you may give him, a farmyard man finishes by costing more than he brings in. For this reason the settlers are obliged to stop the breaking-in half-way; the result, neither man nor animal, is the native. Beaten, under-nourished, ill, terrified — but only up to a certain point — he has, whether he’s black, yellow or white, always the same traits of character: he’s a sly boots, a lazybones and a thief, who lives on nothing, and who understands only violence.

Poor settler; here is his contradiction naked, shorn of its trappings. He ought to kill those he plunders, as they say djinns do. Now, this is not possible, because he must exploit them as well. Because he can’t carry massacre on to genocide, and slavery to animal-like degradation, he loses control, the machine goes into reverse, and a relentless logic leads him on to decolonization.

But it does not happen immediately. At first the European’s reign continues. He has already lost the battle, but this is not obvious; he does not yet know that the natives are only half-native; to hear him talk, it would seem that he ill-treats them in order to destroy or to repress the evil that they have rooted in them; and after three generations their pernicious instincts will reappear no more. What instincts does he mean? The instincts that urge slaves on to massacre their master? Can he not here recognize his own cruelty turned against himself?

In the savagery of these oppressed peasants, does he not find his own settler’s savagery, which they have absorbed through every pore and for which there is no cure? The reason is simple; this imperious being, crazed by his absolute power and by the fear of losing it, no longer remembers clearly that he was once a man; he takes himself for a horsewhip or a gun; he has come to believe that the domestication of the ‘inferior races’ will come about by the conditioning of their reflexes.

But in this he leaves out of account the human memory and the ineffaceable marks left upon it; and then, above all there is something which perhaps he has never known: we only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made of us. Three generations did we say? Hardly has the second generation opened their eyes than from then on they’ve seen their fathers being flogged. In psychiatric terms, they are ‘traumatized,' for life.

But these constantly renewed aggressions, far from bringing them to submission, thrust them into an unbearable contradiction which the European will pay for sooner or later. After that, when it is their turn to be broken in, when they are taught what shame and hunger and pain are, all that is stirred up in them is a volcanic fury whose force is equal to that of the pressure put upon them. You said they understand nothing but violence?

Of course; first, the only violence is the settlers; but soon they will make it their own; that is to say, the same violence is thrown back upon us as when our reflection comes forward to meet us when we go towards a mirror.

Make no mistake about it; by this mad fury, by this bitterness and spleen, by their ever-present desire to kill us, by the permanent tensing of powerful muscles which are afraid to relax, they have become men: men because of the settler, who wants to make beasts of burden of them — because of him, and against him.

Hatred, blind hatred which is as yet an abstraction, is their only wealth; the Master calls it forth because he seeks to reduce them to animals, but he fails to break it down because his interests stop him half-way. Thus the ‘half-natives’ are still humans, through the power and the weakness of the oppressor which is transformed within them into a stubborn refusal of the animal condition. We realize what follows; they’re lazy: of course — it’s a form of sabotage.

They’re sly and thieving; just imagine! But their petty thefts mark the beginning of a resistance which is still unorganized. That is not enough; there are those among them who assert themselves by throwing themselves barehanded against the guns; these are their heroes. Others make men of themselves by murdering Europeans, and these are shot down; brigands or martyrs, their agony exalts the terrified masses.

Yes, terrified; at this fresh stage, colonial aggression turns inward in a current of terror among the natives. By this I do not only mean the fear that they experience when faced with our inexhaustible means of repression but also that which their own fury produces in them. They are cornered between our guns pointed at them and those terrifying compulsions, those desires for murder which spring from the depth of their spirits and which they do not always recognize.

For at first it is not their violence, it is ours, which turns back on itself and rends them; and the first action of these oppressed creatures is to bury deep down that hidden anger which their and our moralities condemn and which is however only the last refuge of their humanity. Read Fanon: you will learn how, in the period of their helplessness, their mad impulse to murder is the expression of the natives’ collective unconscious.

If this suppressed fury fails to find an outlet, it turns in a vacuum and devastates the oppressed creatures themselves. In order to free themselves they even massacre each other. The different tribes fight between themselves since they cannot face the real enemy — and you can count on colonial policy to keep up their rivalries; the man who raises his knife against his brother thinks that he has destroyed once and for all the detested image of their common degradation, even though these expiatory victims don’t quench their thirst for blood.

They can only stop themselves from marching against the machine-guns by doing our work for us; of their own accord they will speed up the dehumanization that they reject. Under the amused eye of the settler, they will take the greatest precautions against their own kind by setting up supernatural barriers, at times reviving old and terrible myths, at others binding themselves by scrupulous rites. It is in this way that an obsessed person flees from his deepest needs — by binding himself to certain observances which require his attention at every turn.

They dance; that keeps them busy; it relaxes their painfully contracted muscles; and then the dance mimes secretly, often without their knowing, the refusal they cannot utter and the murders they dare not commit. In certain districts they make use of that last resort — possession by spirits. Formerly this was a religious experience in all its simplicity, a certain communion of the faithful with sacred things; now they make of it a weapon against humiliation and despair; Mumbo-Jumbo and all the idols of the tribe come down among them, rule over their violence and waste it in trances until it in exhausted.

At the same time these high-placed, personages protect them; in other words the colonized people protect themselves against colonial estrangement by going one better in religious estrangement, with the unique result that finally they add the two estrangements together and each reinforces the other. Thus in certain psychoses the hallucinated person, tired of always being insulted by his demon, one fine day starts hearing the voice of an angel who pays him compliments; but the jeers don’t stop for all that; only from then on, they alternate with congratulations.

This is a defense, but it is also the end of the story; the self is disassociated, and the patient heads for madness. Let us add, for certain other carefully selected unfortunates, that other witchery of which I have already spoken: Western culture. If I were them, you may say, I'd prefer my mumbo-jumbo to their Acropolis. Very good: you’ve grasped the situation. But not altogether, because you aren’t them — or not yet.

Otherwise you would know that they can’t choose; they must have both. Two worlds: that makes two bewitchings; they dance all night and at dawn they crowd into the churches to hear mass; each day the split widens.

Our enemy betrays his brothers and becomes our accomplice; his brothers do the same thing. The status of ‘native’ is a nervous condition introduced and maintained by the settler among colonized people with their consent.

Laying claim to and denying the human condition at the same time: the contradiction is explosive. For that matter it does explode, you know as well as I do; and we are living at the moment when the match is put to the fuse. When the rising birthrate brings wider famine in its wake, when these newcomers have life to fear rather more than death, the torrent of violence sweeps away all barriers.

In Algeria and Angola, Europeans are massacred at sight. It is the moment of the boomerang; it is the third phase of violence; it comes back on us, it strikes us, and we do not realize any more than we did the other times that it’s we that have launched it.

The ‘liberals’ are stupefied; they admit that we were not polite enough to the natives, that it would have been wiser and fairer to allow them certain rights in so far as this was possible; they ask nothing better than to admit them in batches and without sponsors to that very exclusive club, our species; and now this barbarous, mad outburst doesn’t spare them any more than the bad settlers.

The Left at home is embarrassed; they know the true situation of the natives, the merciless oppression they are submitted to; they do not condemn their revolt, knowing full well that we have done everything to provoke it. But, all the same, they think to themselves, there are limits; these guerrillas should be bent on showing that they are chivalrous; that would be the best way of showing they are men.

Sometimes the Left scolds them ... ‘you’re going too far; we won’t support you any more.’ The natives don’t give a damn about their support; for all the good it does them they might as well stuff it up their backsides. Once their war began, they saw this hard truth: that every single one of us has made his bit, has got something out of them; they don’t need to call anyone to witness; they’ll grant favored treatment to no one.

There is one duty to be done, one end to achieve: to thrust out colonialism by every means in their power. The more far-seeing among us will be, in the last resort, ready to admit this duty and this end; but we cannot help seeing in this ordeal by force the altogether inhuman means that these less-than-men make use of to win the concession of a charter of humanity. Accord it to them at once, then, and let them endeavor by peaceful undertakings to deserve it. Our worthiest souls contain racial prejudice.

They would do well to read Fanon; for he shows clearly that this irrepressible violence is neither sound and fury, nor the resurrection of savage instincts, nor even the effect of resentment: it is man re-creating himself. I think we understood this truth at one time, but we have forgotten it — that no gentleness can efface the marks of violence; only violence itself can destroy them.

The native cures himself of colonial neurosis by thrusting out the settler through force of arms. When his rage boils over, he rediscovers his lost innocence and he comes to know himself in that he himself creates his self. Far removed from his war, we consider it as a triumph of barbarism; but of its own volition it achieves, slowly but surely, the emancipation of the rebel, for bit by bit it destroys in him and around him the colonial gloom.

Once begun, it is a war that gives no quarter. You may fear or be feared; that is to say, abandon yourself to the disassociations of a sham existence or conquer your birthright of unity. When the peasant takes a gun in his hands, the old myths grow dim and the prohibitions are one by one forgotten.

The rebel’s weapon is the proof of his humanity. For in the first days of the revolt you must kill: to shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time: there remain a dead man, and a free man; the survivor, for the first time, feels a national soil under his foot. At this moment the Nation does not shrink from him; wherever he goes, wherever he may be, she is; she follows, and is never lost to view, for she is one with his liberty.

But, after the first surprise, the colonial army strikes; and then all must unite or be slaughtered. Tribal dissensions weaken and tend to disappear; in the first place because they endanger the Revolution, but for the more profound reason that they served no other purpose before than to divert violence against false foes. When they remain — as in the Congo — it’s because they are kept up by the agents of colonialism.

The Nation marches forward; for each of her children she is to be found wherever his brothers are fighting. Their feeling for each other is the reverse of the hatred they feel for you; they are brothers inasmuch as each of them has killed and may at any moment have to kill again. Fanon shows his readers the limits of ‘spontaneity’ and the need for and dangers of ‘organization’.

But however great may be the task at each turning of the way the revolutionary consciousness deepens. The last complexes flee away; no one need come to us talking of the ‘dependency’ complex of an A. L. N. soldier.

With his blinkers off, the peasant takes account of his real needs; before they were enough to kill him, but he tried to ignore them; now he sees them as infinitely great requirements. In this violence which springs from the people, which enables them to hold out for five years — for eight years as the Algerians have done — the military, political and social necessities cannot be separated.

The war, by merely setting the question of command and responsibility, institutes new structures which will become the first institutions of peace. Here, then, is man even now established in new traditions, the future children of a horrible present; here then we see him legitimized by a law which will be born or is born each day under fire: once the last settler is killed, shipped home or assimilated, the minority breed disappears, to be replaced by socialism.

And that’s not enough; the rebel does not stop there; for you can be quite sure that he is not risking his skin to find himself at the level of a former inhabitant of the old mother country. Look how patient he is! Perhaps he dreams of another Dien Bien Phu, but don’t think he’s really counting on it; he’s a beggar fighting, in his poverty, against rich men powerfully armed. While he is waiting for decisive victories, or even without expecting them at all, he tires out his adversaries until they are sick of him.

It will not be without fearful losses; the colonial army becomes ferocious; the country is marked out, there are mopping-up operations, transfers of population, reprisal expeditions, and they massacre women and children. He knows this; this new man begins his life as a man at the end of it; he considers himself as a potential corpse.

He will be killed; not only does he accept this risk, he’s sure of it. This potential dead man has lost his wife and his children; he has seen so many dying men that he prefers victory to survival; others, not he, will have the fruits of victory; he is too weary of it all. But this weariness of the heart is the root of an unbelievable courage.

We find our humanity on this side of death and despair; he finds it beyond torture and death. We have sown the wind; he is the whirlwind. The child of violence, at every moment he draws from it his humanity. We were men at his expense, he makes himself man at ours: a different man; of higher quality.

Here Fanon stops. He has shown the way forward: he is the spokesman of those who are fighting and he has called for union, that is to say the unity of the African continent against all dissensions and all particularisms. He has gained his end. If he had wished to describe in all its details the historical phenomenon of decolonization he would have to have spoken of us; this is not at all his intention.

But, when we have closed the book, the argument continues within us, in spite of its author; for we feel the strength of the peoples in revolt and we answer by force. Thus there is a fresh moment of violence; and this time we ourselves are involved, for by its nature this violence is changing us, accordingly as the ‘half-native’ is changed.

Every one of us must think for himself — always provided that he thinks at all; for in Europe today, stunned as she is by the blows received by France, Belgium or England, even to allow your mind to be diverted, however slightly, is as good as being the accomplice in crime of colonialism.

This book has not the slightest need of a preface, all the less because it is not addressed to us. Yet I have written one, in order to bring the argument to its conclusion; for we in Europe too are being decolonized: that is to say that the settler which is in every one of us is being savagely rooted out. Let us look at ourselves, if we can bear to, and see what is becoming of us. First, we must face that unexpected revelation, the strip-tease of our humanism.

There you can see it, quite naked, and it’s not a pretty sight. It was nothing but an ideology of lies, a perfect justification for pillage; its honeyed words, its affectation of sensibility were only alibis for our aggressions. A fine sight they are too, the believers in non-violence, saying that they are neither executioners nor victims. Very well then; if you’re not victims when the government which you’ve voted for, when the army in which your younger brothers are serving without hesitation or remorse have undertaken race murder, you are, without a shadow of doubt, executioners.

And if you chose to be victims and to risk being put in prison for a day or two, you are simply choosing to pull your irons out of the fire. But you will not be able to pull them out; they’ll have to stay there till the end. Try to understand this at any rate: if violence began this very evening and if exploitation and oppression had never existed on the earth, perhaps the slogans of non-violence might end the quarrel. But if the whole regime, even your non-violent ideas, are conditioned by a thousand-year-old oppression, your passivity serves only to place you in the ranks of the oppressors.

You know well enough that we are exploiters. You know too that we have laid hands on first the gold and metals, then the petroleum of the ‘new continents’, and that we have brought them back to the old countries. This was not without excellent results, as witness our palaces, our cathedrals and our great industrial cities; and then when there was the threat of a slump, the colonial markets were there to soften the blow or to divert it.

Crammed with riches, Europe accorded the human status de jure to its inhabitants. With us, to be a man is to be an accomplice of colonialism, since all of us without exception have profited by colonial exploitation. This fat, pale continent ends by falling into what Fanon rightly calls narcissism. Cocteau became irritated with Paris — ‘that city which talks about itself the whole time’. Is Europe any different?

And that super-European monstrosity, North America? Chatter, chatter: liberty, equality, fraternity, love, honor, patriotism and what have you. All this did not prevent us from making anti-racial speeches about dirty niggers, dirty Jews and dirty Arabs. High-minded people, liberal or just soft-hearted, protest that they were shocked by such inconsistency; but they were either mistaken or dishonest, for with us there is nothing more consistent than a racist humanism since the European has only been able to become a man through creating slaves and monsters.

While there was a native population somewhere this imposture was not shown up; in the notion of the human race we found an abstract assumption of universality which served as cover for the most realistic practices. On the other side of the ocean there was a race of less-than-humans who, thanks to us, might reach our status a thousand years hence, perhaps; in short, we mistook the elite for the genus.

Today, the native populations reveal their true nature, and at the same time our exclusive ‘club’ reveals its weakness — that it’s neither more nor less than a minority. Worse than that: since the others become men in name against us, it seems that we are the enemies of mankind; the élite shows itself in its true colors — it is nothing more than a gang.

Our precious sets of values begin to mould; on closer scrutiny you won’t see one that isn’t stained with blood. If you are looking for an example, remember these fine words: ‘How generous France is!’ Us, generous? What about Sétif, then? And those eight years of ferocious war which have cost the lives of over a million Algerians? And the tortures?

But let it be understood that nobody reproaches us with having been false to such-and-such a mission — for the very good reason that we had no mission at all. It is generosity itself that’s in question; this fine melodious word has only one meaning: the granting of a statutory charter.

For the folk across the water, new men, freed men, no one has the power nor the right to give anything to anybody; for each of them has every right, and the right to everything. And when one day our human kind becomes full-grown, it will not define itself as the sum total of the whole world’s inhabitants, but as the infinite unity of their mutual needs.

Here I stop; you will have no trouble in finishing the job; all you have to do is to look our aristocratic virtues straight in the face, for the first and last time. They are cracking up; how could they survive the aristocracy of underlings who brought them into being? A few years ago, a bourgeois colonialist commentator found only this to say in defense of the West: ‘We aren’t angels.'

But we, at least, feel some remorse. What a confession! Formerly our continent was buoyed up by other means: the Parthenon, Chartres, the Rights of Man or the swastika. Now we know what these are worth; and the only chance of our being saved from, shipwreck is the very Christian sentiment of guilt.

You can see it’s the end; Europe is springing leaks everywhere. What then has happened? It simply is that in the past we made history and now it is being made of us. The ratio of forces has been inverted; decolonization has begun; all that our hired soldiers can do is to delay its completion.

The old ‘mother countries’ have still to go the whole hog, still have to engage their entire forces in a battle which is lost before it has begun. At the end of the adventure we again find that colonial brutality which was Bugeaud’s doubtful but though it has been multiplied ten-fold, it’s still not enough.

The national service units are sent to Algeria, and they remain there seven years with no result. Violence has changed its direction. When we were victorious we practiced it without its seeming to alter us; it broke down the others, but for us men our humanism remained intact. United by their profits, the peoples of the mother countries baptized their commonwealth of crimes, calling them fraternity and love; today violence, blocked everywhere, comes back on us through our soldiers, comes inside and takes possession of us. Involution starts; the native re-creates himself, and we, settlers and Europeans, ultras and liberals we break up.

Rage and fear are already blatant; they show themselves openly in the nigger-hunts in Algeria. Now, which side are the savages on? Where is barbarism? Nothing is missing, not even the tom-toms; the motor-horns beat out ‘Al-gér-ie fran-çaise’ while the Europeans burn Moslems alive. Fanon reminds us that not so very long ago, a congress of psychiatrists was distressed by the criminal propensities of the native population.

‘Those people kill each other,’ they said, ‘that isn’t normal. The Algerian’s cortex must be under-developed.’ In central Africa, others have established that, ‘the African makes very little use of his frontal lobes’. These learned men would do well today to follow up their investigations in Europe, and particularly with regard to the French. For we, too, during the last few years, must be victims of ‘frontal sluggishness’ since our patriots do quite a bit of assassinating of their fellow-countrymen and if they’re not at home, they blow up their house and their concierge.

This is only a beginning; civil war is forecast for the autumn, or for the spring of next year. Yet our lobes seem to be in perfect condition; is it not rather the case that, since we cannot crush the natives, violence comes back on its tracks, accumulates in the very depths of our nature and seeks a way out? The union of the Algerian people causes the disunion of the French people; throughout the whole territory of the ex-mother-country, the tribes are dancing their war-dances.

The terror has left Africa, and is settling here; for quite obviously there are certain furious beings who want to make us Pay with our own blood for the shame of having been beaten by the native. Then too, there are the others, all the others who are equally guilty - for after Bizerta, after the lynchings of September, who among them came out into the streets to shout ‘We've had enough' but less spectacular — the liberals, and the toughs of the tender Left.

The fever is mounting amongst them too, and resentment at the same time. And they certainly have the wind up! They hide their rage in myths and complicated rites; in order to stave off the day of reckoning and the need for decision they have put at the head of our affairs a Grand Magician whose business it is to keep us all in the dark at all costs.

Nothing is being done; violence, proclaimed by some, disowned by others, turns in a vacuum; one day it bursts out at Metz, the next at Bordeaux; it’s here, there and everywhere, like in a game of hunt the slipper. It’s our turn to tread the path, step by step, which leads down to native level. But to become natives altogether, our soil must be occupied by a formerly colonized people and we must starve of hunger. This won’t happen; for it’s a discredited colonialism which is taking hold on us; this is the senile, arrogant master who will straddle us; here he comes, our mumbo-jumbo.

And when you have read Fanon’s last chapter, you will be convinced that it would be better for you to be a native at the uttermost depths of his misery than to be a former settler. It is not right for a police official to be obliged to torture for ten hours a day; at that rate, his nerves will fall to bits, unless the torturers are forbidden in their own interests to work overtime.

When it is desirable that the morality of the Nation and the Army should be protected by the rigors of the law, it is not right that the former should systematically demoralize the latter, nor that a country with a Republican tradition should confide hundreds and thousands of its young folk to the care of putschist officers.

It is not right, my fellow-countrymen, you who know very well all the crimes committed in our name, it’s not at all right that you do not breathe a word about them to anyone, not even to your own soul, for fear of having to stand in judgement on yourself. I am willing to believe that at the beginning you did not realize what was happening; later, you doubted whether such things could be true; but now you know, and still you hold your tongues. Eight years of silence; what degradation!

And your silence is all of no avail; today, the blinding sun of torture is at its zenith; it lights up the whole country. Under that merciless glare, there is not a laugh that does not ring false, not a face that is not painted to hide fear or anger, not a single action that does hot betray our disgust, and our complicity. It is enough today for two French people to meet together for there to be a dead man between them.

One dead man did I say? In other days France was the name of a country. We should take care that in 1961 it does not become the name of a nervous disease.

Will we recover? Yes. For violence, like Achilles’ lance, can heal the wounds that it has inflicted. Today, we are bound hand and foot, humiliated and sick with fear; we cannot fall lower. Happily this is not yet enough for the colonialist aristocracy; it cannot complete its delaying mission in Algeria until it has first finished colonizing the French. Every day we retreat in front of the battle, but you may be sure that we will not avoid it; the killers need it; they’ll go for us and hit out blindly to left and right.

Thus the day of magicians and fetishes will end; you will have to fight, or rot in concentration camps. This is the end of the dialectic; you condemn this war but do not yet dare to declare yourselves to be on the side of the Algerian fighters; never fear, you can count on the settlers and the hired soldiers; they’ll make you take the plunge.

Then, perhaps, when your back is to the wall, you will let loose at last that new violence which is raised up in you by old, oft-repeated crimes. But, as they say, that’s another story: the history of mankind. The time is drawing near, I am sure, when we will join the ranks of those who make it."

Fanon's Maxim...

Repression Modern 21st Century Style

An In-Depth View Of The New World Order

There is a new and unique development in human history that is taking place around the world; it is unprecedented in reach and volume, and it is also the greatest threat to all global power structures: the ‘global political awakening.’ The term was coined by Zbigniew Brzezinski, and refers to the fact that, as Brzezinski wrote:
For the first time in history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. Global activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world scarred by memories of colonial or imperial domination.

It is, in essence, this massive ‘global political awakening’ which presents the gravest and greatest challenge to the organized powers of globalization and the global political economy: nation-states, multinational corporations and banks, central banks, international organizations, military, intelligence, media and academic institutions.

The Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), or ‘Superclass’ as David Rothkopf refers to them, are globalized like never before. For the first time in history, we have a truly global and heavily integrated elite. As elites have globalized their power, seeking to construct a ‘new world order’ of global governance and ultimately global government, they have simultaneously globalized populations.

The ‘Technological Revolution’ (or ‘Technetronic’ Revolution, as Brzezinski termed it in 1970) involves two major geopolitical developments. The first is that as technology advances, systems of mass communication rapidly accelerate, and the world’s people are able to engage in instant communication with one another and gain access to information from around the world.

In it, lies the potential — and ultimately a central source — of a massive global political awakening. Simultaneously, the Technological Revolution has allowed elites to redirect and control society in ways never before imagined, ultimately culminating in a global scientific dictatorship, as many have warned of since the early decades of the 20 century.

The potential for controlling the masses has never been so great, as science unleashes the power of genetics, biometrics, surveillance, and new forms of modern eugenics; implemented by a scientific elite equipped with systems of psycho-social control (the use of psychology in controlling the masses).

What is the “Global Political Awakening”?

To answer this question, it is best to let Zbigniew Brzezinski speak for himself, since it is his term. In 2009, Zbigniew Brzezinski published an article based on a speech he delivered to the London-based Chatham House in their academic journal, International Affairs. Chatham House, formerly the Royal Institute of International Relations, is the British counterpart to the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, both of which were founded in 1921 as “Sister Institutes” to coordinate Anglo-American foreign policy.

His article, “Major foreign policy challenges for the next US President,” aptly analyzes the major geopolitical challenges for the Obama administration in leading the global hegemonic state at this critical juncture. Brzezinski refers to the ‘global political awakening’ as “a truly transformative event on the global scene,” since:

For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. There are only a few pockets of humanity left in the remotest corners of the world that are not politically alert and engaged with the political turmoil and stirrings that are so widespread today around the world.

The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination.

Brzezinski posits that the ‘global political awakening’ is one of the most dramatic and significant developments in geopolitics that has ever occurred, and it “is apparent in radically different forms from Iraq to Indonesia, from Bolivia to Tibet.” As the Economist explained, [Though America has focused on its notion of what people want [democracy and the wealth created by free trade and open markets].

Brzezinski points in a different direction: It’s about dignity. Further, argues Brzezinski, “The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening.”

In 2005, Brzezinski wrote an essay for The American Interest entitled, “The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign,” in which he explains the geopolitical landscape that America and the world find themselves in. He wrote that, “For most states, sovereignty now verges on being a legal fiction,” and he critically assessed the foreign policy objectives and rhetoric of the Bush administration.

Brzezinski has been an ardent critic of the “war on terror” and the rhetoric inherent in it, namely that of the demonization of Islam and Muslim people, which constitute one of the fastest growing populations and the fastest growing religion in the world. Brzezinski fears the compound negative affects this can have on American foreign policy and the objectives and aspirations of global power. He writes:

America needs to face squarely a centrally important new global reality: that the world’s population is experiencing a political awakening unprecedented in scope and intensity, with the result that the politics of populism are transforming the politics of power. The need to respond to that massive phenomenon poses to the uniquely sovereign America a historic dilemma: What should be the central definition of America’s global role?

Brzezinski explains that formulating a foreign policy based off of one single event — the September 11 terror attacks — has both legitimized illegal measures (torture, suspension of habeas corpus, etc) and has launched and pacified citizens to accepting the “global war on terror,” a war without end. The rhetoric and emotions central to this global foreign policy created a wave of patriotism and feelings of redemption and revenge. Thus, Brzezinski explains:

There was no need to be more precise as to who the terrorists actually were, where they came from, or what historical motives, religious passions or political grievances had focused their hatred on America.

Terrorism thus replaced Soviet nuclear weapons as the principal threat, and terrorists (potentially omnipresent and generally identified as Muslims) replaced communists as the ubiquitous menace.

Brzezinski explains that this foreign policy, which has inflamed anti-Americanism around the world, specifically in the Muslim world, which was the principle target population of ‘terrorist’ rhetoric, has in fact further inflamed the ‘global political awakening’. Brzezinski writes that:

[T]he central challenge of our time is posed not by global terrorism, but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of global political awakening. That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing.

This ‘global political awakening,' Brzezinski writes, while unique in its global scope today, originates in the ideas and actions of the French Revolution, which was central in “transforming modern politics through the emergence of a socially powerful national consciousness.” Brzezinski explains the evolution of the ‘awakening’:

During the subsequent 216 years, political awakening has spread gradually but inexorably like an ink blot. Europe of 1848, and more generally the nationalist movements of the late 19th and early 20 centuries, reflected the new politics of populist passions and growing mass commitment.

In some places that combination embraced utopian Manichaeism for which the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the Fascist assumption of power in Italy in 1922, and the Nazi seizure of the German State in 1933 were the launch-pads. The political awakening also swept China, precipitating several decades of civil conflict.

Anti-colonial sentiments galvanized India, where the tactic of passive resistance effectively disarmed imperial domination, and after World War II anti-colonial political stirrings elsewhere ended the remaining European empires. In the western hemisphere, Mexico experienced the first inklings of populist activism already in the 1860s, leading eventually to the Mexican Revolution of the early 20 century.

Ultimately, what this implies is that — regardless of the final results of past awakenings — what is central to the concept of a ‘political awakening’ is the population — the people — taking on a political and social consciousness and subsequently, partaking in massive political and social action aimed at generating a major shift and change, or revolution, in the political, social and economic realms. Thus, no social transformation presents a greater or more direct challenge to entrenched and centralized power structures — whether they are political, social or economic in nature. Brzezinski goes on to explain the evolution of the ‘global political awakening’ in modern times:

It is no overstatement to assert that now in the 21 century the population of much of the developing world is politically stirring and in many places seething with unrest. It is a population acutely conscious of social injustice to an unprecedented degree, and often resentful of its perceived lack of political dignity.

The nearly universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions. These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches.

Brzezinski explains that several central areas of the ‘global political awakening,' such as China, India, Egypt, Bolivia, the Muslims in the Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia and increasingly in Europe, as well as Indians in Latin America, increasingly are defining what they desire in reaction to what they perceive to be the hostile impact on them of the outside world.

In differing ways and degrees of intensity they dislike the status quo, and many of them are susceptible to being mobilized against the external power that they both envy and perceive as self-interestedly preoccupied with that status quo. Brzezinski elaborates on the specific group most affected by this awakening:

The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and resentful. The demographic revolution they embody is thus a political time-bomb, as well. With the exception of Europe, Japan and America, the rapidly expanding demographic bulge in the 25-year-old-and-under age bracket is creating a huge mass of impatient young people.

Their minds have been stirred by sounds and images that emanate from afar and which intensify their disaffection with what is at hand. Their potential revolutionary spearhead is likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of students concentrated in the often intellectually dubious “tertiary level” educational institutions of developing countries. Depending on the definition of the tertiary educational level, there are currently worldwide between 80 and 130 million “college” students.

Typically originating from the socially insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of social outrage, these millions of students are revolutionaries-in-waiting, already semi-mobilized in large congregations, connected by the Internet and pre-positioned for a replay on a larger scale of what transpired years earlier in Mexico City or in Tiananmen Square. Their physical energy and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause, or a faith, or a hatred.

Brzezinski thus posits that to address this new global “challenge” to entrenched powers, particularly nation-states that cannot sufficiently address the increasingly non-pliant populations and populist demands, what is required, is “increasingly supranational cooperation, actively promoted by the United States.”

In other words, Brzezinski favors an increased and expanded ‘internationalization,' not surprising considering he laid the intellectual foundations of the Trilateral Commission. He explains that, “Democracy per se is not an enduring solution,” as it could be overtaken by “radically resentful populism.” This is truly a new global reality:

Politically awakened mankind craves political dignity, which democracy can enhance, but political dignity also encompasses ethnic or national self-determination, religious self-definition, and human and social rights, all in a world now acutely aware of economic, racial and ethnic inequities. The quest for political dignity, especially through national self-determination and social transformation, is part of the pulse of self-assertion by the world’s underprivileged.

Thus, writes Brzezinski, “An effective response can only come from a self-confident America genuinely committed to a new vision of global solidarity.” The idea is that to address the grievances caused by globalization and global power structures, the world and America must expand and institutionalize the process of globalization, not simply in the economic sphere, but in the social and political as well. It is a flawed logic, to say the least, that the answer to this problem is to enhance and strengthen the systemic problems. One cannot put out a fire by adding fuel.

Brzezinski even wrote that, “Let it be said right away that supranationality should not be confused with world government. Even if it were desirable, mankind is not remotely ready for world government, and the American people certainly do not want it.” Instead, Brzezinski argues, America must be central in constructing a system of global governance, “In shaping a world that is defined less by the fiction of state sovereignty and more by the reality of expanding and politically regulated interdependence.”

In other words, not ‘global government’ but ‘global governance,' which is simply a rhetorical ploy, as ‘global governance’ — no matter how overlapping, sporadic and desultory it presents itself, is in fact a key step and necessary transition in the moves toward an actual global government.

Thus, the rhetoric and reality of a “global war on terror” in actuality further inflames the ‘global political awakening’ as opposed to challenging and addressing the issue. In 2007, Brzezinski told the US Senate that the “War on terror” was a “mythical historical narrative,”[12] or in other words, a complete fiction.

Of Power and People

To properly understand the ‘global political awakening’ it is imperative to understand and analyze the power structures that it most gravely threatens. Why is Brzezinski speaking so vociferously on this subject? From what perspective does he approach this issue?

Global power structures are most often represented by nation-states, of which there are over 200 in the world, and the vast majority are overlooking increasingly politically awakened populations who are more shaped by transnational communications and realities (such as poverty, inequality, war, empire, etc.) than by national issues.

Among nation-states, the most dominant are the western powers, particularly the United States, which sits atop the global hierarchy of nations as the global hegemony (empire). American foreign policy was provided with the imperial impetus by an interlocking network of international think tanks, which bring together the top political, banking, industrial, academic, media, military and intelligence figures to formulate coordinated policies.

The most notable of these institutions that socialize elites across national borders and provide the rationale and impetus for empire are an interlocking network of international think tanks. In 1921, British and American elite academics got together with major international banking interests to form two “sister institutes” called the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London, now known as Chatham House, and the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States.

Subsequent related think tanks were created in Canada, such as the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, now known as the Canadian International Council (CIC), and other affiliated think tanks in South Africa, India, Australia, and more recently in the European Union with the formation of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Following World War I, these powers sought to reshape the world order in their designs, with Woodrow Wilson proclaiming a right to “national self determination” which shaped the formation of nation-states throughout the Middle East, which until the war was dominated by the Ottoman Empire.

Thus, proclaiming a right to “self-determination” for people everywhere became, in fact, a means of constructing nation-state power structures which the western nations became not only instrumental in building, but in exerting hegemony over. To control people, one must construct institutions of control. Nations like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Kuwait, etc., did not exist prior to World War I.

Elites have always sought to control populations and individuals for their own power desires. It does not matter whether the political system is that of fascism, communism, socialism or democracy: elites seek power and control and are inherent in each system of governance. In 1928, Edward Bernays, nephew of the father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud, wrote one of his most influential works entitled “Propaganda.” Bernays also wrote the book on “Public Relations,” and is known as the “father of public relations,” and few outside of that area know of Bernays; however, his effect on elites and social control has been profound and wide-ranging.

Bernays led the propaganda effort behind the 1954 CIA coup in Guatemala, framing it as a “liberation from Communism” when in fact it was the imposition of a decades-long dictatorship to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company, who had hired Bernays to manage the media campaign against the democratic socialist government of Guatemala.

Bernays also found a fan and student in Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, who took many of his ideas from Bernays’ writings. Among one of Bernays’ more infamous projects was the popularizing of smoking for American women, as he hired beautiful women to walk up and down Madison Avenue while smoking cigarettes, giving women the idea that smoking is synonymous with beauty.

In his 1928 book, “Propaganda,” Bernays wrote that, “If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it.” Further:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society… Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country . . . .

"In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

Following World War II, America became the global hegemony, whose imperial impetus was provided by the strategic concept of “containment” in containing the spread of Communism. Thus, America’s imperial adventures in Korea, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America became defined by the desire to “roll back” the influence of the Soviet Union and Communism. It was, not surprisingly, the Council on Foreign Relations that originated the idea of “containment” as a central feature of foreign policy.

Further, following World War II, America was handed the responsibility for overseeing and managing the international monetary system and global political economy through the creation of institutions and agreements such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), NATO, the UN, and GATT (later to become the World Trade Organization – WTO).

One central power institution that was significant in establishing consensus among Western elites and providing a forum for expanding global western hegemony was the Bilderberg Group, founded in 1954 as an international think tank.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, an up-and-coming academic, joined the Council on Foreign Relations in the early 1960s. In 1970, Brzezinski, who had attended a few Bilderberg meetings, wrote a book entitled, “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era,” in which he analyzed the impact of the ‘Revolution in Technology and Electronics,’ thus, the ‘technetronic era.’

Brzezinski defines the ‘technetronic society’ as, “A society that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics — particularly in the arena of computers and communications. The industrial process is no longer the principal determinant of social change, altering the mores, the social structure, and the values of society.”

Brzezinski, expanding upon notions of social control, such as those propagated by Edward Bernays, wrote that, “Human conduct, some argue, can be predetermined and subjected to deliberate control,” and he quoted an “experimenter in intelligence control” who asserted that, “I foresee the time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behavior and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain.”

Brzezinski, in a telling exposé of his astute powers of observation and ability to identify major global trends, wrote that we are “witnessing the emergence of transnational elites, who are “composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men, and public officials." The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and their interests are more functional than national.

” Further, writes Brzezinski, “It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook.” However, warns Brzezinski, this increasing internationalization of elites “could create a dangerous gap between them and the politically activated masses, whose ‘nativism’ — exploited by more nationalist political leaders — could work against the ‘cosmopolitan’ elites.”[19] Brzezinski also wrote about 'the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society, in the “technetronic revolution"; explaining:

Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.

Further, writes Brzezinski, “Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the steppingstones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society.” Elaborating, Brzezinski writes, “The traditionally democratic American society could, because of its fascination with technical efficiency, become an extremely controlled society, and its humane and individualistic qualities would thereby be lost.”

In his book, Brzezinski called for a “Community of the Developed Nations,” consisting of Western Europe, North America and Japan, to coordinate and integrate in order to shape a ‘new world order’ built upon ideas of global governance under the direction of these transnational elites. In 1972, Brzezinski and his friend, David Rockefeller, presented the idea to the annual Bilderberg meetings. Rockefeller was, at that time, Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and was CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank. In 1973, Brzezinski and Rockefeller created the Trilateral Commission, a sort of sister institute to the Bilderberg Group, with much cross-over membership, bringing Japan into the western sphere of economic and political integration.

In 1975, the Trilateral Commission published a Task Force Report entitled, “The Crisis of Democracy,” of which one of the principal authors was Samuel Huntington, a political scientist and close associate and friend of Zbigniew Brzezinski. In this report, Huntington argues that the 1960s saw a surge in democracy in America, with an upswing in citizen participation, often “in the form of marches, demonstrations, protest movements, and ‘cause’ organizations.” Further, “The 1960s also saw a reassertion of the primacy of equality as a goal in social, economic, and political life.”

Huntington analyzed how as part of this “democratic surge,” statistics showed that throughout the 1960s and into the early 1970s, there was a dramatic increase in the percentage of people who felt the United States was spending too much on defense (from 18% in 1960 to 52% in 1969, largely due to the Vietnam War). In other words, people were becoming politically aware of empire and exploitation.

Huntington wrote that the “essence of the democratic surge of the 1960s was a general challenge to existing systems of authority, public and private,” and that, “People no longer felt the same compulsion to obey those whom they had previously considered superior to themselves in age, rank, status, expertise, character, or talents.” Huntington explained that in the 1960s, “Hierarchy, expertise, and wealth” had come “under heavy attack.” He stated that three key issues which were central to the increased political participation in the 1960s were:

Social issues, such as use of drugs, civil liberties, and the role of women; racial issues, involving integration, busing, government aid to minority groups, and urban riots; military issues, involving primarily, of course, the war in Vietnam but also the draft, military spending, military aid programs, and the role of the military-industrial complex more generally.

Huntington presented these issues, essentially, as the “crisis of democracy,” in that they increased distrust with the government and authority, that they led to social and ideological polarization, and led to a “Decline in the authority, status, influence, and effectiveness of the presidency.”

Huntington concluded that many problems of governance in the United States stem from an “excess of democracy,” and that, “the effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups.” Huntington explained that society has always had “marginal groups” which do not participate in politics, and while acknowledging that the existence of “marginality on the part of some groups is inherently undemocratic,” it has also “enabled democracy to function effectively.” Huntington identifies “the blacks” as one such group that had become politically active, posing a “danger of overloading the political system with demands.”[29]

Huntington, in his conclusion, stated that the vulnerability of democracy, essentially the ‘crisis of democracy,’ comes from “a highly educated, mobilized, and participant society,” and that what is needed is “a more balanced existence” in which there are “desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy.”[30] Summed up, the Trilateral Commission Task Force Report essentially explained that the “Crisis of Democracy” is that there is too much of it, and so the ‘solution’ to the ‘crisis’ is to have less democracy and more ‘authority.’

The New World Order

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, American ideologues — politicians and academics — began discussing the idea of the emergence of a “new world order” in which power in the world is centralized with one power — the United States, and laid the basis for an expansion of elitist ideology pertaining to the notion of ‘globalization’:

That power and power structures should be globalized. In short, the ‘new world order’ was to be a global order of global governance. In the short term, it was to be led by the United States, which must be the central and primary actor in constructing a new world order, and ultimately a global government.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, currently the Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department, is a prominent academic within the American elite establishment, having long served in various posts at the State Department, elite universities and on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1997, Slaughter wrote an article for the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, “Foreign Affairs,” in which she discussed the theoretical foundations of the ‘new world order.’ In it, she wrote that, the State is not disappearing, it is disaggregating into its separate, functionally distinct parts.

"These parts—courts, regulatory agencies, executives, and even legislatures—are networking with their counterparts abroad, creating a dense web of relations that constitutes a new, transgovernmental order,” and that, “transgovernmentalism is rapidly becoming the most widespread and effective mode of international governance.”

Long preceding Slaughter’s analysis of the ‘new world order,’ Richard N. Gardner published an article in Foreign Affairs titled, “The Hard Road to World Order.” Gardner, a former American Ambassador and member of the Trilateral Commission, wrote that, “The quest for a world structure that secures peace, advances human rights and provides the conditions for economic progress—for what is loosely called world order—has never seemed more frustrating but at the same time strangely hopeful.”

Gardner wrote, “If instant world government, [UN] Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this:

"The hope for the foreseeable future lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis, as the necessity for cooperation is perceived by the relevant nations.

He then stated, “In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

In 1992, Strobe Talbott wrote an article for Time Magazine entitled, “The Birth of the Global Nation.” Talbott worked as a journalist for Time Magazine for 21 years, and has been a fellow of the Yale Corporation, a trustee of the Hotchkiss School and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a director of the Council on Foreign Relations, the North American Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission, and the American Association of Rhodes Scholars, and a member of the participating faculty of the World Economic Forum.

Talbott served as Deputy Secretary of State from 1994 to 2001 in the Clinton administration and currently sits as President of the Brookings Institution, one of the premier American think tanks. In his 1992 article, “Within the next hundred years,” Talbott wrote, “nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority.” He explained:

All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary. Through the ages, there has been an overall trend toward larger units claiming sovereignty and, paradoxically, a gradual diminution of how much true sovereignty any one country actually has.

Further, he wrote that, “It has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government. With the advent of electricity, radio and air travel, the planet has become smaller than ever, its commercial life freer, its nations more interdependent and its conflicts bloodier.”

David Rothkopf, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, former managing director of Kissinger and Associates, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, recently wrote a book titled, “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making.” As a member of that “superclass,” his writing should provide a necessary insight into the construction of this “New World Order.”

He states that, “In a world of global movements and threats that don’t present their passports at national borders, it is no longer possible for a nation-state acting alone to fulfill its portion of the social contract.” He wrote that, “progress will continue to be made,” however, it will be challenging, because it “undercuts many national and local power structures and cultural concepts that have foundations deep in the bedrock of human civilization, namely the notion of sovereignty.”

He further wrote that, “Mechanisms of global governance are more achievable in today’s environment,” and that these mechanisms “are often creative with temporary solutions to urgent problems that cannot wait for the world to embrace a bigger and more controversial idea like real global government.”

In December of 2008, the Financial Times published an article titled, “And Now for A World Government,” in which the author, former Bilderberg attendee, Gideon Rachman, wrote that, “for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” and that, “A ‘world government’ would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”

He stated that, “It is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a ‘global war on terror.'” He wrote that the European model could “go global” and that a world government “could be done,” as “The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.”

He quoted an adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy as saying, “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government,” and that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law.” However, Rachman states that any push towards a global government “will be a painful, slow process.”

He then states that a key problem in this push can be explained with an example from the EU, which “has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for ‘ever closer union’ have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians — and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.”

The Global Political Awakening and the Global Economic Crisis

In the face of the global economic crisis, the process that has led to the global political awakening is rapidly expanding, as the social, political and economic inequalities and disparities that led to the awakening are all being exacerbated and expanded. Thus, the global political awakening itself is entering into a period in which it will undergo rapid, expansionary and global transformation.

This ‘global political awakening,' of which Brzezinski has explained as being one of the primary global geopolitical challenges of today, has largely, up until recent times, been exemplified in the ‘Global South,' or the ‘Third World’ developing nations of the Middle East, Central and Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. Developments in recent decades and years in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Iran exemplify the nationalist-orientation of much of this awakening, taking place in a world increasingly and incrementally moving towards global governance and global institutions.

In 1998, Hugo Chavez became President of Venezuela, having campaigned on promises of aiding the nation’s poor majority. In 2002, an American coup attempt took place in Venezuela, but Chavez retained his power and was further emboldened by the attempt, and gained a great burst of popular support among the people.

Chavez has undertaken what he refers to as a process of “Bolivarian socialism," and has taken a decidedly and vehemently anti-American posture in Latin America, long considered America’s “back yard.” Suddenly, there is virulent rhetoric and contempt against the United States and its influence in the region, which itself is backed by the enormous oil-wealth of Venezuela.

In Bolivia, Evo Morales was elected President in 2005 of the poorest nation in South America, and he was also the first indigenous leader of that country to ever hold that position of power, after having long been dominated by the Spanish-descended landed aristocracy. Evo Morales rose to power on the wave of various social movements within Bolivia, key among them being the “water wars” which took place in Cochabamba, Bolivia’s third largest city, in 2000.

The water wars were instigated after the World Bank forced Bolivia to privatize its water so that American and European companies could come in and purchase the rights to Bolivia’s water, meaning that people in the poorest nation in South America could not even drink rain water without paying American or European companies for the ‘right’ to use it. Thus, revolt arose and Evo Morales rose with it. Now, Morales and Chavez represent the “new Left” in Latin America, and with it, growing sentiments of anti-American imperialism.

In Iran, itself defined more by nationalism than ethnic polarities, has become a principal target of the western hegemonic world order, as it sits atop massive gas and oil reserves, and is virulently anti-American and firmly opposed to western hegemony in the Middle East. However, with increased American rhetoric against Iran, its regime and political elites are further emboldened and politically strengthened among its people, the majority of whom are poor.

Global socio-political economic conditions directly relate to the expansion and emergence of the ‘global political awakening’. As of 1998, “3 billion people live on less than $2 per day while 1.3 billion get by on less than $1 per day. Seventy percent of those living on less than $1 per day are women.”[41] In 2003, a World Bank report revealed that, “A minority of the world’s population [17%] consume most of the world’s resources [80%], leaving almost 5 billion people to live on the remaining 20%. As a result, billions of people are living without the very basic necessities of life — food, water, housing and sanitation.”

In regard to poverty and hunger statistics, “Over 840 million people in the world are malnourished—799 million of them are from the developing world. Sadly, more than 153 million of them are under the age of 5 (half the entire US population).” Further, “Every day, 34,000 children under five die of hunger or other hunger-related diseases. This results in 6 million deaths a year.” That amounts to a “Hunger Holocaust” that takes place every single year. As of 2003, “Of 6.2 billion living today, 1.2 billion live on less than $1 per day. Nearly 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

In 2006, a groundbreaking and comprehensive report released by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER) reported that, “The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of global household wealth.” An incredibly startling statistic was that:

[T]he richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth.

This is worth repeating: the top 1% owns 40% of global assets; the top 10% owns 85% of world assets; and the bottom 50% owns 1% of global assets; a sobering figure, indeed. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) report stated that in 2009, “An estimated 55 million to 90 million more people will be living in extreme poverty than anticipated before the crisis.” Further, “The encouraging trend in the eradication of hunger since the early 1990s was reversed in 2008, largely due to higher food prices.” Hunger in developing regions has risen to 17% in 2008, and “children bear the brunt of the burden.”

In April of 2009, a major global charity, Oxfam, reported that a couple trillion dollars given to bail out banks could have been enough “to end global extreme poverty for 50 years. In September of 2009, Oxfam reported that the economic crisis 'is forcing 100 people-a-minute into poverty.] Oxfam stated that, “Developing countries across the globe are struggling to respond to the global recession that continues to slash incomes, destroy jobs and has helped push the total number of hungry people in the world above 1 billion.”

The financial crisis has hit the ‘developing’ world much harder than the western developed nations of the world. The UN reported in March of 2009 that, “Reduced growth in 2009 will cost the 390 million people in sub-Saharan Africa living in extreme poverty around $18 billion, or $46 per person,” and “This projected loss represents 20 per cent of the per capita income of Africa’s poor — a figure that dwarfs the losses sustained in the developed world.”

Thus, the majority of the world’s people live in absolute poverty and social dislocation. This is directly the result of the globalized world order that has been and is being constructed. Now, as that same infrastructure is being further institutionalized and built upon, people are being thrown into the ‘awakening’ like never before. Their very poverty pushes them into an awakening. There is a seemingly lost notion of judging a society by how it treats it weakest members: the poor. Poverty forces one to look at the world differently, as they see the harsh restraints that society has imposed upon the human spirit. Life simply cannot be about the struggle to make payments week-to-week; to afford water, shelter, and food; to live according to the dictates of money and power.

Look to history, and you see that from some of the most oppressive societies can come the greatest of humanity. Russia, a nation which has never in its history experienced true political freedom for the individual, has managed to produce some of the greatest music, art, expression and literature as a vibrant outcry of humanity from a society so overcome with the need to control it.

It the fact that such triumphs of human spirit can come from such tyrannies over human nature is a sobering display of the great mystery of human beings. Why waste humanity by subjecting it to poverty? Think of the difference that could be made if all of humanity was allowed to flourish individually and collectively; think of all the ideas, art, expression, intellect and beauty we aren’t getting from those who have no voice.

Until we address this fundamental issue, any notion of humanity as being ‘civilized’ is but a cynical joke. If it’s human civilization, we haven’t quite figured it out yet. We don’t yet have a proper definition of ‘civilized,' and we need to make it ‘humane’.

The West and the Awakening

The middle classes of the western world are undergoing a dramatic transition, most especially in the wake of the global economic crisis. In the previous decades, the middle class has become a debt-based class, whose consumption was based almost entirely on debt, and so their ability to consume and be the social bedrock of the capitalist system is but a mere fiction. Never in history has the middle class, and most especially the youth who are graduating college into the hardest job market in decades, been in such peril.

The global debt crisis, which is beginning in Greece, and spreading throughout the euro-zone economies of Spain, Portugal, Ireland and ultimately the entire EU, will further consume the UK, Japan and go all the way to America. This will be a truly global debt crisis. Government measures to address the issue of debt focus on the implementation of ‘fiscal austerity measures’ to reduce the debt burdens and make interest payments on their debts.

‘Fiscal austerity’ is a vague term that in actuality refers to cutting social spending and increasing taxes. The effect this has is that the public sector is devastated, as all assets are privatized, public workers are fired en masse, unemployment becomes rampant, health and education disappear, taxes rise dramatically, and currencies are devalued to make all assets cheaper for international corporations and banks to buy up, while internally causing inflation — dramatically increasing the costs of fuel and food.

In short, ‘fiscal austerity’ implies ‘social destruction’ as the social foundations of nations and peoples are pulled out from under them. States then become despotic and oppress the people, who naturally revolt against ‘austerity’: the sterilization of society.

‘Fiscal austerity’ swept the developing world through the 1980s and 1990s in response to the 1980s debt crisis which consumed Latin America, Africa, and areas of Asia. The result of the fiscal austerity measures imposed upon nations by the World Bank and IMF was the social dismantling of the new societies and their subsequent enslavement to the international creditors of the IMF, World Bank, and western corporations and banks. It was an era of economic imperialism, and the IMF was a central tool of this imperial project.

As the debt crisis we see unfolding today sweeps the world, the IMF is again stepping in to impose ‘fiscal austerity’ on nations in return for short-term loans for countries to pay off the interest on their exorbitant debts, themselves owed mostly to major European and American banks. Western nations have agreed to impose fiscal austerity, which will in fact only inflame the crisis, deepen the depression and destroy the social foundations of the West so that we are left only with the authoritarian apparatus of state power — the police, military, homeland ‘security’ apparatus — which is employed against people to protect the status quo powers.

The IMF has also come to the global economic crisis with a new agenda, giving out loans in its own synthetic currency – Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) — an international reserve basket of currencies. The G20 in April of 2009 granted the IMF the authority to begin phasing in the applications of issuing SDRs, and for the IMF to in effect become a global central bank issuing a global currency.

So through this global debt crisis, SDRs will be disbursed globally — both efficiently and in abundance — as nations will need major capital inflows and loans to pay off interest payments, or in the event of a default. This will happen at a pace so rapid that it would never be conceivable if not for a global economic crisis.

The same took place in the 1980s, as the nature of “Structural Adjustment Programs” (SAPs) could not be properly assessed as detrimental to economic conditions and ultimately socially devastating, for countries needed money fast (as the debt crisis spread across the developing world) and were not in a position to negotiate.

Today, this will be the ‘globalization’ of the debt crisis of the 1980s, on a much larger and more devastating scale, and the reaction will be equally globalized and devastating: the continued implementation of ‘global governance’.

As austerity hits the West, the middle class will vanish in obscurity, as they will be absorbed into the lower, labour-oriented working class. The youth of the western middle class, comprising the majority of the educated youth, will be exposed to a ‘poverty of expectations’ in which they grew up in a world in which they were promised everything, and from whom everything was so quickly taken. The inevitability of protests, riots and possible rebellion is as sure as the sun rises.

In the United States, the emergence of the Tea Party movement is representative of — in large part — a growing dissatisfaction with the government and the economy. Naturally, like any group, it has its radical and fringe elements, which tend to draw the majority of media attention in an effort to shape public opinion, but the core and the driving force of the movement is the notion of popular dissatisfaction with government. Whatever one thinks of the legitimacy of such protestations, people are not pleased, and people are taking to the streets. And so it begins.

Even intellectuals of the left have spoken publicly warning people not to simply and so easily discount the Tea Party movement as fringe or radical. One such individual, Noam Chomsky, while speaking at a University in April of 2010, warned that he felt fascism was coming to America, and he explained that, “Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error,” as their attitudes “are understandable.”

He explained, “For over 30 years, real incomes have stagnated or declined. This is in large part the consequence of the decision in the 1970s to financialize the economy.” This constitutes ‘class resentment,' as “The bankers, who are primarily responsible for the crisis, are now reveling in record bonuses while official unemployment is around 10 percent and unemployment in the manufacturing sector is at Depression-era levels.” This same financial industry is directly linked to Obama, who is supporting their interests, and people are noticing.

Another notable feminist intellectual of the left, Naomi Wolf, who wrote a book during the Bush administration on the emergence of fascism in America, and much of her message is being picked up by the Tea Party movement, as those on the right who were listening and agreeing with Wolf during the Bush administration (a considerable minority), then provided the impetus for the emergence of the Tea Party movement and many of its core or original ideas.

In an interview in March 2010, Wolf explained that her ideas are even more relevant under Obama than Bush. She explained, “Bush legalized torture, but Obama is legalizing impunity. He promised to roll stuff back, but he is institutionalizing these things forever. It is terrifying and the left doesn’t seem to recognize it.” She explained how the left, while active under Bush, has been tranquilized under Obama, and that there is a potential for true intellectuals and for people more generally and more importantly, to reach out to each other across the spectrum. She explained:

I was invited by the Ron Paul supporters to their rally in Washington last summer and I loved it. I met a lot of people I respected, a lot of “ordinary” people, as in not privileged. They were stepping up to the plate, when my own liberal privileged fellow demographic habituates were lying around whining. It was a wake-up call to the libertarians that there’s a progressive who cares so much about the same issues. Their views of liberals are just as distorted as ours are of conservatives.

Concerning the Tea Party movement, Wolf had this to say: “The Tea Party is not monolithic. There is a battle between people who care about liberty and the Constitution and the Republican Establishment who is trying to take ownership of it and redirect it for its own purposes.” Further, she explained that the Tea Party is “ahead of their time” on certain issues, “I used to think “End the Fed people” were crackpots. The media paints them as deranged. But it turned out we had good reason to have more oversight.”

In time, others will join with the Tea Party movement and new activist groups, the anti-war movement will have to revitalize itself or die away; since Obama became President their influence, their voice, and their dignity has all but vanished. They have become a pacified voice, and their silence is complicity; thus, the anti-war movement must reignite and reinvigorate or it will decompose.

The ‘Left’s’ distrust of corporations must merge with the ‘Right’s’ distrust of government to create a trust in ‘people’. Soon students will be joining protests, and the issues of the Tea Party movement and others like it can become more refined and informed.

When the middle classes of the West are plunged into poverty, it will force an awakening, for when people have nothing, they have nothing left to lose. The only way that the entrenched powers of the world have been able to expand their power and maintain their power is with the ignorant consent of the populations of the West. Issues of war, empire, economics and terror shape public opinion and allow social planners to redirect and reconstitute society. The people of the West have allowed themselves to be ruled as such and have allowed our rulers to be so ruthless in our names.

People have been blinded by consumerism and entertainment. Images of celebrities, professional sports, Hollywood, iPods, Blackberrys, and PCs consume the minds of people, and especially the youth of the West today. It has been the illusion of being the consuming class that has allowed our societies to be run so recklessly. So long as we have our TVs and PCs we won’t pay attention to anything else!

When the ability to consume is removed, the people will enter into a period of a great awakening. This will give rise to major new political movements, many progressive but some regressive, some fringe and radical, some violent and tyrannical, but altogether new and ultimately global. This is when the people of the West will come to realize the plight of the rest. This will be the era in which people begin to understand the realization that there is great truth in Dr. Martin Luther King’s words, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Thus, the struggle of Africans will become the struggle of Americans: it must be freedom for all or freedom for none.

This is the major geopolitical reality and the pre-eminent global threat to world power structures. No development in all of human history presents such a monumental challenge to the status quo. As global power structures have never resembled such a monumental threat to mankind, mankind has never posed such an immense threat to institutionalized power. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Even if elites think that they truly do run the world, human nature has a way of exposing the flaws in that assumption. Human nature is not meant to be ‘controlled,’ but rather is meant to be nurtured.

A View From the Top

Again, it is important to go to Brzezinski’s own words in describing this new geopolitical reality, as it provides great insight into not only how the ‘global political awakening’ is defined; but more importantly, how it is perceived by those who hold power. In 2004, Brzezinski gave a speech at the Carnegie Council on his 2004 book, “The Choice”.

The Carnegie Council is an elite think tank based in the United States, so Brzezinski is speaking to those who are potentially negatively affected by such an awakening. Brzezinski stated that America’s foreign policy in the wake of 9/11 – the “War on Terror” — is presenting a major challenge to American hegemony, as it is increasingly isolating the United States and damaging the nation’s credibility, as well as hiding the issues in virulent rhetoric which only further inflames the real and true challenge: the global political awakening. He states:

The misdiagnosis [of foreign policy] pertains to a relatively vague, excessively abstract, highly emotional, semi-theological definition of the chief menace that we face today in the world, and the consequent slighting of what I view as the unprecedented global challenge arising out of the unique phenomenon of a truly massive global political awakening of mankind.

We live in an age in which mankind writ large is becoming politically conscious and politically activated to an unprecedented degree, and it is this condition which is producing a great deal of international turmoil.

But we are not focusing on that. We are focusing specifically on one word, which is being elevated into a specter, defined as an entity, presented as somehow unified but unrelated to any specific event or place—and that word is terrorism. The global challenge today on the basis of which we tend to operate politically is the definition of terrorism with a global reach as the principal challenge of our time.

I don’t deny that terrorism is a reality, a threat to us, an ugly menace and a vicious manifestation. But it is a symptom of something larger and more complicated, related to the global turmoil that takes place in many parts of the world and manifests itself in different ways.

That turmoil is the product of the political awakening, the fact that today vast masses of the world are not politically neutered, as they have been throughout history. They have political consciousness. It may be undefined, it may point in different directions, it may be primitive, it may be intolerant, it may be hateful, but it is a form of political activism.

Brzezinski explains that literacy has made for greater political awareness, while TV has made for immediate awareness of global disparities, and the Internet has provided instant communications. Further, says Brzezinski, “Much of this is also spurred by America’s impact on the world,” or in other words, American economic, political, and cultural imperialism; and further,

“Much of it is also fueled by globalization, which the United States propounds, favors and projects by virtue of being a globally outward-thrusting society.” Brzezinski warns, “But that also contributes to instability, and is beginning to create something altogether new: namely, some new ideological or doctrinal challenge which might fill the void created by the disappearance of communism.” Brzezinski explains that Communism emerged in the last century as an alternative, however, today:

it is now totally discredited, and we have a pragmatic vacuum in the world today regarding doctrines. But I see the beginnings, in writings and stirrings, of the making of a doctrine which combines anti-Americanism with anti-globalization, and the two could become a powerful force in a world that is very unequal and turbulent.

A question following Brzezinski’s speech asked him to expand upon how to address the notion of and deal with the ‘global political awakening’. Brzezinski explained that, “We deal with the world as it is and we are as we are. If we are to use our power intelligently and if we are to move in the right direction, we have no choice but do it incrementally.”

In other words, as Brzezinski has detailed his vision of a solution to world problems in creating the conditions for global governance; they must do it “incrementally,” for that is how to “use [their] power intelligently.” The solution to the ‘global political awakening,' in the view from the top, is to continue to create the apparatus of an oppressive global government.

On April 23, 2010, Zbigniew Brzezinski went to the Montreal Council on Foreign Relations to give a speech at an event jointly hosted by the Canadian International Council (CIC), the Canadian counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations in the US and Chatham House in the UK These are many of the intellectual, social, political and economic elite of Canada. In his speech, Brzezinski gives a breakdown of the modern geopolitical realities:

Let me begin by making just a thumbnail definition of the geopolitical context in which we all find ourselves, including America. And in my perspective, that geopolitical context is very much defined by new — by two new global realities. The first is that global political leadership — by which I mean the role of certain leading powers in the world — has now become much more diversified unlike what it was until relatively recently.

Relatively recently still, the world was dominated by the Atlantic world, as it had been for many centuries. It no longer is. Today, the rise of the Far East has created a new but much more differentiated global leadership. One which in a nutshell involves a wanton hazard, an arbitrary list of the primary players in the world scene: the United States, clearly; maybe next to it — but maybe — the European Union, I say maybe because it is not yet a political entity; certainly, increasingly so, and visibly so, China; Russia, mainly in one respect only because it is a nuclear power co-equal to the United States, but otherwise very deficient in all of the major indices of what constitutes global power.

Behind Russia, perhaps individually, but to a much lesser extent, Germany, France, Great Britain, Japan, certainly, although it does not have the political assertive posture; India is rising, and then in the background of that we have the new entity of the G20, a much more diversified global leadership, lacking internal unity, with many of its members in bilateral antagonisms. That makes the context much more complicated.

The other major change in international affairs is that for the first time, in all of human history, mankind has been politically awakened. That is a total new reality — total new reality. It has not been so for most of human history until the last one hundred years. And in the course of the last one hundred years, the whole world has become politically awakened.

And no matter where you go, politics is a matter of social engagement, and most people know what is generally going on-generally going on — in the world, and are consciously aware of global inequities, inequalities, lack of respect, exploitation. Mankind is now politically awakened and stirring. The combination of the two: the diversified global leadership, politically awakened masses, makes a much more difficult context for any major power including, currently, the leading world power: the United States.

Conclusion

So, the Technological Revolution has led to a diametrically opposed, antagonistic, and conflicting geopolitical reality: never before has humanity been so awakened to issues of power, exploitation, imperialism and domination; and simultaneously, never before have elites been so transnational and global in orientation, and with the ability to impose such a truly global system of scientific despotism and political oppression.

These are the two major geopolitical realities of the world today. Reflect on that. Never in all of human history has mankind been so capable of achieving a true global political psycho-social awakening; nor has humanity ever been in such danger of being subjected to a truly global scientific totalitarianism, potentially more oppressive than any system known before, and without a doubt more technologically capable of imposing a permanent despotism upon humanity. So we are filled with hope, but driven by urgency. In all of human history, never has the potential nor the repercussions of human actions and ideas ever been so monumental.

Suddenly, global elites are faced with the reality of seeking to dominate populations that are increasingly becoming self-aware and are developing a global consciousness. Thus, a population being subjected to domination in Africa has the ability to become aware of a population being subjected to the same forms of domination in the Middle East, South America or Asia; and they can recognize that they are all being dominated by the same global power structures. That is a key point: not only is the awakening global in its reach, but in its nature; it creates within the individual, an awareness of the global condition. So it is a ‘global awakening’ both in the external environment, and in the internal psychology.

This new reality in the world, coupled with the fact that the world’s population has never been so vast, presents a challenge to elites seeking to dominate people all over the world who are aware and awakened to the realities of social inequality, war, poverty, exploitation, disrespect, imperialism and domination. This directly implies that these populations will be significantly more challenging to control: economically, politically, socially, psychologically and spiritually. Thus, from the point of view of the global oligarchy, the only method of imposing order and control — on this unique and historical human condition — is through the organized chaos of economic crises, war, and the rapid expansion and institutionalization of a global scientific dictatorship. Our hope is their fear; and our greatest fear is their only hope.

As Charles Dickens once wrote, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” That has never been so true as it is today.

Zbigniew Brzezinski - Master Creator Of The New World Order

“Given the contemporary reality of what I have called in my writings ‘Global Political Awakening,’ a policy of force based primarily on Western and in some cases former colonial powers does not seem to me a very promising avenue to an eventual soluti
“Given the contemporary reality of what I have called in my writings ‘Global Political Awakening,’ a policy of force based primarily on Western and in some cases former colonial powers does not seem to me a very promising avenue to an eventual soluti

Repression a la carte... A New World Disorder...

Andrew Marshall proceeds apace to write the adjoining piece below:

His essay (Part II) will undertake an examination of these two geopolitical realities on a national scale, focusing primarily on the “American Awakening.”

The American Awakening

In the past decade, there has been an enormous surge in popular political activism, which has corresponded to the expansion of imperialism, exploitation and despotism in the world. The events of September 11, 2001, sparked two major geopolitical events. The first was the implementation of the Bush Doctrine – the “War on Terror” — which was organized in response to the terrorist attacks.

This imperialist expansion led to the war and occupation of Afghanistan, the war on Iraq and subsequent occupation, the war in Lebanon in 2006, the war on Somalia, continuing military expansionism and imposition in the Palestinian territories, as well as expansive covert operations in the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and around the world.

The second major geopolitical trend instigated by the 9/11 attacks was the formation of what has come to be known as the “9/11 Truth Movement,” in which millions of people around the world, including thousands of academics, architects, engineers, government officials, intelligence and military officials and other professionals, as well as an exponentially growing abundance of people in the general population internationally have sought to question and challenge the official accounts of the events of 9/11.

Like all activist groups, there are fringe and radical elements within the movement, those who claim that “no planes” were used in the attacks, or that the attacks were undertaken by Israel – with anti-Semitic undertones — or other such fringe theories. Regardless of the fringe elements, the main focus of the movement is based around the fact that the official story of events does not stand up to any form of independent and unbiased, rational analysis.

The media for years ignored the growing international movement, but only in recent years have acknowledged the movement; however, they did not address the movement by analyzing the information and issues, but rather by seeking to discredit and demonize the political movement, focusing on the fringe elements and beliefs and applying labels of “conspiracy theorist,” attempting to discredit anyone who questions the official story.

In 2006, Time Magazine acknowledged that the 9/11 Truth Movement is not a “fringe movement,” but is, in fact, “a mainstream political reality.” They also cited a major political poll by Scripps-Howard in 2006, which revealed that 36% of Americans think it is “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves.

The growth of this movement spurred on major new movements and political activism, driven almost exclusively by organized and ‘politically awakened’ civilians. Driven largely by the Internet, this movement has awakened a mass of people globally to the political and strategic reality of what is known — in military terms — as a “false flag operation”, in which an attack is carried out against a certain target, where those undertaking the attack fly the flag of someone else (i.e., “false flag”) in an effort to implicate them in the attack; and thus the response to an attack would be against the perceived attackers.

It is, essentially, a covert military stratagem: a strategic deception. The Greek dramatist and playwright Aeschylus wrote that, “In war, the first casualty is truth.” A false flag attack an act of war that is deliberately designed to deceive and hide the truth. It is an attack carried out and blamed on one’s enemy in order to justify implementing a political agenda. Governments have used such tactics for centuries, and especially western nations in the past half-century.

This movement has spawned an activist resurgence in other global issues, such as the global economic system, and most notably, the central banking system, particularly the Federal Reserve. While many Americans knew next to nothing about their central bank, the Federal Reserve, a growing movement of Americans and others around the world were educating themselves about the Federal Reserve System and the global banking system in general.

Many found a leader in a Texas Congressman named Ron Paul, who campaigned on the Republican ticket for President in 2008, and who drew the widest grassroots support from across the nation of any Republican candidates. Among Democrats, “9/11 Truthers” and others critical of US foreign policy came to find a passionate leader in Cynthia McKinney, who was one of the lone voices in Congress to directly challenge the Bush administration on the official version of events, and has challenged the election fraud in 2000 and 2004, conducted a Congressional hearing on covert activities in Africa, exposing the hand of western nations behind the Rwandan genocide and Congo Civil War.

In late 2008, as the government began its financial bailout of the banks, the “End the Fed” movement emerged in sporadic protests at the 12 Federal Reserve Banks located around the country, and over 40 protests took place across the nation within a matter of months.[3]

The “Homeland Security State” Targets Dissenters

With the increasing militarization of foreign policy, we also see the increasing militarization of domestic politics, and most notably the emergence of a high-tech surveillance police state: a “Homeland Security State.” National and international elites are in the process of incrementally constructing a ‘new totalitarianism’ in replacing democracy. Civil rights and freedoms are dismantled through anti-terrorist legislation, wiretapping and internet surveillance are rampant and expansive, “Watch lists” are constructed, which often include the names of dissenters, and the military is increasingly poised to partake in policing.

Further, over the past decade, we have seen the rapid expansion of “Continuity of Government” (COG) plans, which plan for the suspension of the Constitution and imposition of martial law in the event of an emergency.[5] At this point in American society, if there was a rapid and expansive economic collapse or another major terrorist attack on US soil, America would transform into a military government, more fascist in nature than anything; but equipped with an arsenal and “technetronic” police state the likes of which no dictator in history has had access to. Freedom has never been so threatened; yet, people have never been so mobilized in modern history to challenge the threats to freedom and democracy in America, in the West, and in the world.

In 2003, General Tommy Franks gave an interview with Cigar Aficionado magazine in which he elaborated on this concept. Tommy Franks was the former Commander of the Pentagon’s Central Command over the Middle East, and thus he was the top General overseeing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In his interview with the magazine, Franks stated that the objective of terrorism is “to change the mannerisms, the behavior, the sociology and, ultimately, the anthropology of a society,” and thus, in the event of another major terrorist attack in America or in the West:

The western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy. Now, in a practical sense, what does that mean? It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the western world—it may be in the United States of America—that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution.

One interesting facet that very little is known about in the militarization of domestic society and incremental totalitarianism is how the coercive state apparatus, while being justified under the guise of fighting terrorism or “protecting the Homeland,” is in fact being directed against citizen activists and popular political movements. For example, following 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security established what are known as “Fusion Centers,” set up all over the United States, and which are designed as “information sharing and collecting” hubs, in which agencies like the CIA, FBI, Department of Justice, Homeland Security and the US Military collect and analyze information together. As of July 2009, there were 72 acknowledged Fusion Centers on the United States.[7] Think of them as local surveillance centers, because that’s what they are.

Fusion Centers are also positioned to take part as local command centers in the event of a national emergency or implementation of “Continuity of Government” plans to declare martial law. State and local law enforcement agencies provide the majority of information to the local Fusion Centers, which is then analyzed and disseminated to the major intelligence, military or Homeland Security departments and agencies. However, in recent years, Fusion Centers have been criticized for their purported agenda, as they are justified on the basis of acting as centers designated for “counter-terrorism” purposes, but in practice are directed against citizen groups.

In the spring of 2009, it was revealed that the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) — a Fusion Center – had put out an information pamphlet designed to help law enforcement officials identify “potential domestic terrorists.” According to the report:

If you’re an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, if you possess subversive literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.

When did our society become something out of 1984? When did our governments designate “subversive literature” as a sign of terrorism? The report classified such activities as being part of a “Modern Militia Movement,” and further identified “potential threats to American security” as:

People who supported former third-party presidential candidates like Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr are cited in the report, in addition to anti-abortion activists and conspiracy theorists who believe the United States, Mexico and Canada will someday form a North American Union.

In other words, those who are opposed to the political and economic process of “North American integration”[10] are seen and identified as 'potential militia members.' The report even directly identified possession of such films like the anti-Federal Reserve film, “America: Freedom to Fascism” as “potential signals of militia involvement.”[11] The document put out by the Fusion Center further warned law enforcement officials to be 'on the lookout' for 'bumper stickers advertising third party candidates, or people with copies of the United States Constitution.' The report wrote that due to the economic crisis, “A lush environment for militia activity has been created,” and:

It goes on to cite possible militia members as people who talk about the New World Order conspiracy, express anger with the Federal Reserve banking system, resist paying taxes, warn other citizens about the perceived dangers of radio frequency identification (RFID) or lobby for a return to strict constitutionalism as possible threats to law enforcement.

While the memo does offer something of a lopsided summary of many of the various groups which swelled enormously following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it also links individuals who are otherwise peaceful with the Ku Klux Klan and other violent organizations.[12]

Another Fusion Center in Virginia identified many universities as potential “radicalization nodes” for terrorists, singling out “historically black colleges” as potential threats, and “it also contains an extensive list of peaceful American and International activist groups from nearly all cross-sections of political engagement, placing them side-by-side with groups that have long been known for resorting to violence.”

In April of 2009, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) released a report on the threat to liberties and civil rights posed by the Fusion Centers, saying that, “Fusion centers have experienced a mission creep in the last several years, becoming more of a threat than a security device. With no overarching guidelines to restrict or direct them, these centers put Americans’ privacy at huge risk.” The ACLU report identified several “troubling incidents” concerning Fusion Centers violating privacy and civil rights:

- A May 7, 2008 report entitled “Universal Adversary Dynamic Threat Assessment” authored by a private contractor that labeled environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, the Humane Society and the Audubon Society as “mainstream organizations with known or possible links to Eco-terrorism”;

- A potential abuse of authority by DHS officials who improperly monitored and disseminated the communications of peace activists affiliated with the DC Anti-War Network (DAWN);

- A report produced on February 19, 2009 by the North Central Texas Fusion System entitled “Prevention Awareness Bulletin” which described a purported conspiracy between Muslim civil rights organizations, lobbying groups, the anti-war movement, the US Treasury Department, hip hop bands and former Congresswoman and presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney to “provide an environment for terrorist organizations to flourish”;

- A “Strategic Report” produced February 20, 2009 by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that described a purported security threat posed by the “modern militia movement” but inappropriately included references to social, religious and political ideologies, including support of third party presidential candidates such as Congressman Ron Paul and former Congressman Bob Barr; and

- A “Protective Intelligence Bulletin” issued by the DHS Intelligence Branch of the Threat Management Division of the Federal Protective Service which improperly collected and disseminated information regarding political demonstrations and inappropriately labeled peaceful advocacy groups and other activists as “extremists.”

To those in power, ‘peace’ is an ‘extremist’ idea, because ‘war’ and ‘violence’ are the norms to them. Now it has come to the point where those who challenge the structures of power are simply designated as terrorists and extremists. This is an incredibly dangerous political road at which the end is despotism and the death of democracy. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, as one of those identified by Fusion Centers as providing “an environment for terrorist organizations to flourish,” had this to say about the Fusion Center report:

As a student of COINTELPRO, the government’s infamous Counter-Intelligence Program [directed against the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s], I know what my government is capable of doing to quash dissent. That’s why I voted against the Patriot Act, worked in Congress to roll back the Secret Evidence Act, and introduced legislation to repeal the Military Commissions Act. I come from a long legacy of activists for justice and freedom inside this country. I am on the advocacy front lines for peace abroad and justice at home. But I know that we will not have peace or justice without truth. Truth is the foundation of the dignity that we seek. Dignity for all is not a threat to the United States.

It has become evident that the response of the American government to the “global political awakening” within the United States is aimed at demonizing, discrediting, and oppressing activist groups and political movements. But how far can this oppression go?

Detention Camps for Dissidents?

One startling and deeply concerning development in the area of “Homeland Security” is the highly secretive and deliberately quiet establishment of “detention centers” within the United States, designed to house millions of people in the event of an “emergency.” In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft “announced [a] desire for camps for US citizens he deems to be ‘enemy combatants,'” and that his plan “would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of US citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.”

Also in 2002, it was reported that FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (now under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security), was “moving ahead with plans to create temporary cities that could handle millions of Americans after mass destruction attacks on US cities.” Newsmax reported that, “FEMA was seeking bids from three major real estate and/or engineering firms to help prepare for the creation of the emergency cities, using tents and trailers — if an urban area is attacked by NBC [nuclear, chemical or biological] weapons.”

In 2006, Dick Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, and its subsidiary company, Kellogg-Brown & Root (KBR) received a major contract from the Department of Homeland Security worth $385 million, which was given “to support the Department of Homeland Security’s [DHS] US Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] facilities in the event of an emergency.” A press release on KBR’s website stated that:

The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the US, or to support the rapid development of new programs.

Further, it stated that, “The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other US Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked with providing housing for ICE personnel performing law enforcement functions in support of relief efforts.”

Within two weeks, “Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the Fiscal Year 2007 federal budget would allocate over $400 million to add 6,700 additional detention beds [an increase of 32 percent over 2006].” As historian and author Peter Dale Scott reported:

Both the contract and the budget allocation are in partial fulfillment of an ambitious 10-year Homeland Security strategic plan, code-named ENDGAME, authorized in 2003. According to a 49-page Homeland Security document on the plan, ENDGAME expands “a mission first articulated in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.” Its goal is the capability to “remove all removable aliens,” including “illegal economic migrants, aliens who have committed criminal acts, asylum-seekers [required to be retained by law] or potential terrorists.”

Considering that the government labels anti-war activists, libertarians, progressives, and other peaceful citizens groups as “extremists,” “paramilitary members” and “terrorists,” this is especially concerning. In 2008, a former US Congressman wrote an article for the San Francisco Chronicle in which he warned that, “Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of ‘an emergency influx of immigrants in the US, or to support the rapid development of new programs’.” He elaborated:

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

As Peter Dale Scott explained:

The contract evoked ominous memories of Oliver North’s controversial Rex-84 “readiness exercise” in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary “refugees,” in the context of “uncontrolled population movements” over the Mexican border into the United States. North’s activities raised civil liberties concerns in both Congress and the Justice Department. The concerns persist.

“Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters,” says Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers, the US military’s account of its activities in Vietnam. “They’ve already done this on a smaller scale, with the ‘special registration’ detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo.”

Plans for detention facilities or camps have a long history, going back to fears in the 1970s of a national uprising by black militants. As Alonzo Chardy reported in the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987, an executive order for continuity of government (COG) had been drafted in 1982 by FEMA head Louis Giuffrida. The order called for “suspension of the Constitution” and “declaration of martial law.”

More recently, there have been several reported incidents of small towns having major “detention centers” being built in them which remain empty and maintained for the event of an “emergency.” One such facility is being proposed for the City of Italy to build “a detention center for illegal immigrants.” There was also an effort to have a detention center built in Benson City “to house illegal immigrants.”

A major American prison corporation, Corplan Corrections, “Has been at the center of numerous controversies, including a bizarre prison-building scheme in Hardin, Montana that involved a private military force called American Police Force run by an ex-con. The prison cost the small town $27 million but never housed any prisoners.” Further, Corplan “has approached city officials in several towns across the US – Benson, Arizona; Las Cruces, New Mexico; and Weslaco, Texas – with a proposal to build a new detention center for immigrant families.”

These facilities, built under the pretenses of housing “illegal immigrants” yet largely remaining empty, could potentially be used to house not only immigrants, but also Muslims and “possibly dissenters” following a major emergency, such as an economic collapse or terrorist attack within the United States. After all, in World War II, Canada and the United States rounded up Japanese and German immigrants into internment camps. Again, it becomes evident that the response of power structures to the manifestation of the global political awakening within the United States is to oppress and suppress the people, and with that, undermine democracy itself.

Understanding Revolution and Counter Revolution

During the first phase of the global economic crisis in December of 2008, the IMF warned governments of the prospect of “violent unrest on the streets.” The head of the IMF warned that, “Violent protests could break out in countries worldwide if the financial system was not restructured to benefit everyone rather than a small elite.” Naturally, the IMF director leaves out the fact that he is part of that small elite and that the IMF functions for the benefit of that very same elite.

In late December of 2008, “A US Army War College report warn[ed] an economic crisis in the United States could lead to massive civil unrest and the need to call on the military to restore order.” The report stated that, “Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities … to defend basic domestic order and human security.”

Throughout 2009, there was an abundance of civil unrest, protests and even riots all across Europe in response to the economic crisis. In February of 2009, Obama’s intelligence chief, Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the economic crisis has become the greatest threat to US national security:

I’d like to begin with the global economic crisis, because it already looms as the most serious one in decades, if not in centuries … Economic crises increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they are prolonged for a one-or two-year period… And instability can loosen the fragile hold that many developing countries have on law and order, which can spill out in dangerous ways into the international community.

In other words, the economic crisis poses two major social threats to the “national security” (i.e., imperial status) of the United States. Of key importance is that America and other western nations may lose control of their colonial possessions and interests in the developing world – Africa, South America and Asia – as the people in those regions, the most “politically awakened” in the world, can cause “regime-threatening instability” as the prospects of riots, rebellion and revolution expose the failure of their national leaders and governance structures.

This would pose an immense threat to the interests of the West in those regions, as they primarily rely upon local nation-states to control the populations and resources. Concurrently, these revolts could spread to the developing world. So western elites are faced with the prospects of possibly losing their control over the world’s resources and even their own domestic populations. The natural reaction, in imperial logic, is to militarize both the foreign and domestic spheres.

No wonder then, that in 2008, the highest-ranking general in the United States, “Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ranks the financial crisis as a higher priority and greater risk to security than current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” He explained, “It’s a global crisis. And as that impacts security issues, or feeds greater instability, I think it will impact on our national security in ways that we quite haven’t figured out yet.”

The head of the World Trade Organization (WTO) warned that, “The global economic crisis could trigger political unrest equal to that seen during the 1930s.” He elaborated, “The crisis today is spreading even faster [than the Great Depression] and affects more countries at the same time.”

In February of 2009, renowned economic historian and Harvard professor, Niall Ferguson, predicted a “prolonged financial hardship, even civil war, before the ‘Great Recession’ ends,” and that, “The global crisis is far from over, [it] has only just begun, and Canada is no exception,” he said while at a speaking event in Canada. He explained, “Policy makers and forecasters who see a recovery next year are probably lying to boost public confidence,” while, “the crisis will eventually provoke political conflict.” He further explained:

There will be blood, in the sense that a crisis of this magnitude is bound to increase political as well as economic [conflict]. It is bound to destabilize some countries. It will cause civil wars to break out, that have been dormant. It will topple governments that were moderate and bring in governments that are extreme. These things are pretty predictable.

Even in May 2009, the head of the World Bank warned that, “The global economic crisis could lead to serious social upheaval,” as “there is a risk of a serious human and social crisis with very serious political implications.” Zbigniew Brzezinski himself warned in February of 2009 that, “There’s going to be growing conflict between the classes and if people are unemployed and really hurting, hell, there could be even riots!”

In March of 2010, Moody’s, a major credit ratings agency, warned that “social unrest” is coming to the West, as the US, the UK, Germany, France, and Spain “are all at risk of soaring debt costs and will have to implement austerity plans that threaten ‘social cohesion.'”

In 2007, a British Defense Ministry report was released assessing global trends in the world over the next 30 years. In assessing “Global Inequality," the report stated that over the next 30 years:

[T]he gap between rich and poor will probably increase and absolute poverty will remain a global challenge… Disparities in wealth and advantage will therefore become more obvious, with their associated grievances and resentments, even among the growing numbers of people who are likely to be materially more prosperous than their parents and grandparents.

Absolute poverty and comparative disadvantage will fuel perceptions of injustice among those whose expectations are not met, increasing tension and instability, both within and between societies and resulting in expressions of violence such as disorder, criminality, terrorism and insurgency. They may also lead to the resurgence of not only anti-capitalist ideologies, possibly linked to religious, anarchist or nihilist movements, but also to populism and the revival of Marxism.[35]

Further, the report warned of the dangers to the established powers of a revolution emerging from the disgruntled middle classes of the West:

The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy.

While the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.

From the Old World to the New

So here we are, in the year 2010, the end of the first decade of the 21st century; and what a century it has been thus far: 9/11, a recession, the war on Afghanistan, the “war on terror”, the war on Iraq, terrorist attacks in Bali, Madrid, London and all across the Middle East; the war on Somalia, the Congo Civil War (the deadliest conflict since World War II, with upwards of 6 million innocent civilians killed since 1996); the Russia-Georgia war, the expansion of the war into Pakistan, the election of Barack Obama, the global economic crisis and here we are.

All of human history is the story of the struggle of free humanity — the individual and the collective — against the constructs of power, which sought to dominate and control humanity. From humanity’s origins in Africa, civilizations rose and fell, dominated and decimated. From Ancient Egypt to Greece and Rome, the Chinese dynasties, the Mayans and Aztecs, all sought domination of land and people. The Persian Empire and the Ottoman Empire expanded and controlled vast populations and diverse people; and with the emergence of Capitalism came the emergence of the European powers.

For the past 500 years, Europe and America have dominated the world; and in fact, only in the last 65 years has America dominated the globe. The Peace of Westphalia was signed in 1648, ending the Thirty Years’ War in the Holy Roman Empire and the Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands.

This agreement effectively ended the Holy Roman Empire, and marked the emergence of the idea of the modern nation-state. University studies in International Relations begin with the Peace of Westphalia, as it is viewed as the beginning of the international system we know today.

Out of this emerged the great European empires: the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Dutch, and later the French, British and German empires, which created the first global political economy with the Atlantic Slave Trade, trading weapons and goods in exchange for captured slaves, fueling internal civil wars among the large African empires to feed them a supply of slaves which they then took to the Americas to use as a labour force.

That labour force would produce goods taken back to Europe, traded among the world’s empires, and ultimately financing the continued flow of weapons into Africa. It was a triangular trade between Europe, Africa and the Americas. At this time, the notion of ‘race’ originated through a series of legal decisions made in the colonies.

In the 1600s, the colonies in the Americas were made up of white, Indian and black indentured laborers and slaves, both ‘Un-free blacks and whites,' with blacks being a minority, yet they still “exercised basic rights in law.”

A problem arose for elites attempting to control the labour class: the Un-free native labour force knew the land and could escape easily (so they would later be largely eliminated through genocide); and in the 1660s, the labour class was becoming rebellious, where black and white laborers worked together and rebelled against local elites.

The entire lower class of society was united — regardless of their varied and expansive differences — and they were united against the elites. Thus, a doctrine of ‘divide and conquer’ was implemented against the psycho-social foundations of the people.[37]

The elite “relaxed the servitude” of the white laborers, and “intensified the bonds of black slavery,” and subsequently “introduced a new regime of racial oppression. In doing so, they effectively created the white race — and with it white supremacy.”

Thus, “The conditions of white and black servants began to diverge considerably after 1660.” Following this, legislation would separate white and black slavery, prevent “mixed” marriages, and seek to prevent the procreation of “mixed-race” children. Whereas before 1660, many black slaves were not indentured for life, this changed as colonial law increasingly “imposed lifetime bondage for black servants — and, especially significant, the curse of lifetime servitude for their offspring.”[38]

A central feature of the social construction of this racial divide was “the denial of the right to vote,” as most Anglo-American colonies previously allowed free blacks to vote, but this slowly changed throughout the colonies. The ruling class of America was essentially “inventing race.” Thus, “Freedom was increasingly identified with race, not class.”[39]

In 1648, the nation-state emerged; in 1660, racism was created through legal decisions; and in 1694, the Bank of England was created and the birth of the central banking system took place. All of these were essentially ‘social constructions’ — nation, race, currency — in which they are simply ideas that are accepted as reality. A nation is not a physical entity, race has no true basis for discrimination or hierarchy, and a currency has no actual value. They only hold as true because everyone accepts them as true.

From this period of immense transition, European imperial nations dominated the world; racism justified their domination, and central banks dominated the empires at home and abroad. The 1800s saw the Industrial Revolution, which instigated the decline of slavery and the emergence of paid labour and hourly wages.

Eventually, the notion of ‘race science’ emerged within the eugenics movement, originating in Europe, and later migrating to the United States in the late 19 century. This helped justify the ‘Scramble for Africa,' which began in the 1880s and entailed the European empires formally colonizing the entire continent of Africa, carving it into nations among them, but justifying it on the basis of a racist “civilizing mission.”

The European imperial age declined with World War I, a battle of empires and economies. This led to the collapse of many European empires as well as the Ottoman and Russian empires, with the emergence of the Soviet Union as well as nation-states in the Middle East. The emergence of fascism took root in the 1920s and 30s, and grew to coalesce in World War II, which led to the ultimate decline of the British and French empires, and the emergence of the American empire.

America became the engine of empire for the Atlantic community, Europe and North America. It created and ran international organizations allowing for transnational elites to share power among an increasingly global — an increasingly smaller — group of elites. The World, for nearly fifty years, was defined as a global struggle between Communism and Democracy – between the Soviet Union and the West. This historical myth hides the face of global domination: a struggle between two blocs for global domination of the world’s people and resources.

With the end of the Cold War came the emergence of the New World Order, a world in which there was only one global power: the United States. I was born shortly before the Berlin Wall came down, and I developed a memory only after the Soviet Union collapsed; the only world I know is the one in which the United States has been the only global power. I know only the era of ‘globalization’ and the promises it made my generation. Think of the effect upon the youth this great period of transition will have.

The history of humanity is one of constant change, sometimes slow and incremental, at other times rapid and expansive. Today, we are in a period in which we are seeing a convergence of never-before-seen global realities. The population of the world has never been so monumentally large — at 6.8 billion — and among the global population, for the first time in human history, there is a true “global political awakening.”

This does not mean that everyone is correct in their views, but it does mean that the world’s people are thinking and acting — even if incidentally or unknowingly — about the global polity. This is most especially so in the areas where the Atlantic world has dominated for so long, as they have been subjected to poverty, racism, and war like no other people on earth. Their ‘awakening’ was forced upon them, and the West is now having its awakening forced upon it.

At our current position, we are about to undergo a global historical period of transition, the likes of which has never before been seen. The incremental and slow building ‘global political awakening’ that emerged around the world in the past century, is reaching a precipice and rapid expansion at the beginning of the 21 century.

Global power has never been so centralized, with international institutions and systems of global governance holding authority over several realms of humanity. We are partaking in global wars seeking to dominate populations and control resources, democracy is eroding in the West, and wealth disparities have never been so great in all of human history.

For the first time in the last 500 years, the East has risen — with China and India – as new global powers, rising within the system not against it; marking the first time that nation-states have not risen against the global power, but with the global power. China and India are being brought within a new global political and economic system that is being constructed: a global totalitarian system of continental colonies to a global state. In 1998, then Secretary-General of NATO, Javier Solana, gave a speech in which he said:

It is my general contention that humanity and democracy — two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order — can serve as guideposts in crafting a new international order, better adapted to the security realities, and challenges, of today’s Europe.[40]

Further, he explained, “The Westphalian system had its limits. For one, the principle of sovereignty it relied on also produced the basis for rivalry, not community of states; exclusion, not integration.” Thus, to truly have global power, the international system of nation-states must be ‘re-imagined’ and altered: first, into continental governance structures, and ultimately a global structure. As Solana said, “In the United Nations, the ideal of a global institution including all nations became a reality,” and “the ideal of European integration was set in motion.” He elaborated:

But an integral part of the evolution of the Atlantic Alliance was the idea of reconciliation: the integration of our militaries, the common project of collective defense, and the willingness to work towards a common approach to defend the Alliance’s common values.

Unfortunately, also out of the same ashes of the second world war emerged the East-West confrontation that left Europe deeply divided for more than four decades. As our century comes to an end, we at last have the opportunity to overcome this division and to set free all the creative energies this continent can muster to build the new security order which will lead us into the 21st century.[41]

It is a difficult balancing act for global powers — particularly the United States – to manage the integration of China into the ‘new world order,' while simultaneously both of them compete for control of global resources, located primarily in regions of the world which are experiencing the most rapid and extensive ‘awakening’. The imperial mindset — like that of Brzezinski’s – seeks to rationalize global power as being equated with ‘global stability,' and that without empire, there is only ‘chaos’.

Thus, imperial logic dictates that America must seek to dominate as much of the world as fast as possible, and hence control global resources, which will allow it to determine the terms of China and other powers’ inclusion in the new world order. This has the potential to spark a global war — a World War III type of scenario between the NATO powers and the China-Russia alliance — the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) — who seek to share power, not to be dominated.

Global populations at home and abroad have never been so challenging to control: global war is inevitable in the imperial mindset. As Brzezinski himself stated in a speech to Chatham House in London in 2009:

But these major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.[42]

In many people’s view of the global economic crisis, the problem was ‘greed’. Greed is not the problem, it is but a symptom of the disease that is ‘power’; which, like a cancer, expands and kills its host. Humanity is entering what will likely be the most turbulent period in human history. The future is not yet written; all that is certain is that everything will change.

What it comes down to is that it's the greatest human struggle in the history of our small little planet: the struggle of the world’s people — in every corner of the world, from every religion, ‘race,' ethnicity, ideology, language, sex, gender and variation — against a global power elite who control the most advanced, technological, and lethal tools of oppression every conceived. Make no mistake, we are not repeating history, we are making it.

The Power of Ideas

Our awakening is the greatest threat to these global elites, and it is our only hope of protecting any notions of freedom, liberty, family, equality and individuality. It is these notions that have led to and created the greatest developments and ideas in human history. Humanity’s best is within these concepts, and its worst is within power. The shame of humanity is within its systems of power, so for humanity to survive we must re-imagine and remodel our global system and global power.

We cannot design a society for humanity without taking into consideration human nature. If you build it, they will come. If we keep creating positions of great power, and continually globalize power, it will attract exactly the wrong type of people to those positions of power: the ones that want it and want to abuse the power.

These people are more likely to get to these positions of power because they are willing to do anything to get there, which means that once they have it, they will do anything to maintain and expand it. And so power grows, and the cancer spreads. Imagine if Hitler’s rise to power took place not in the era of nation-states, but in the era of the ‘global state.’ All that is required is one tyrant, and humanity is nothing if not proof that there are always tyrants in waiting.

What is a nation? Is it an army, a flag, an anthem, or a building of government? A nation is an idea — and is constructed by a series of ideas. There is no ‘real’ border, it is an imaginary line, and everyone in the world pretends they are there, and nation-states (which are really people who are in control of these ideas), govern accordingly.

Now we are in a period in which elites are attempting to re-imagine the international community, to erase the ‘idea’ of borders, and to ultimately re-program humanity to follow their example. Social planners seek to control not simply our land, resources and bodies, but most importantly, our minds. World government will be sold to us on the ‘ideas’ of peace, something all of humanity wants; all save the powerful, for war and conflict is the means through which power is accumulated and society is transformed.

True peace will never be possible with a singular global power structure; for once power is globally centralized, what more can the powerful seek to achieve? Thus, the powerful fight each other for control of the centralized authority, paranoia governs their minds, and distrust and hatred directs their actions. Power subsequently becomes its own worst enemy, as it eats away at its host and destroys the body within which it lives.

True peace can only come from human understanding. Free humanity must understand each other if we are to live among each other. We cannot any longer view each other through the lenses of power: through the media, government, economic, and social structures. These structures are designed with the intent to mislead and misrepresent people, they are illegitimate and must be considered as such.

We must view and understand each other on a human level: on ideas of freedom, liberty, family, equality and individually. To achieve that understanding, one realizes that freedom must be for all or none, that liberty is not to be selective, the importance of family, the necessity of equality and the acceptance and celebration of individuality. With that, peace is inevitable. With power, peace is impossible.

Just as elites seek to re-imagine and recreate our world, we too, can do the same. This must begin with the human understanding, where we enter into a new Renaissance or Enlightenment, not western, but global; where the people communicate and interact with each other on a personal basis, not through elite structures.

This must be the aim of the global political awakening: to achieve peace through peaceful means. If everyone in the world simply decided to no longer acknowledge people and positions of power, that power would vanish. If there is no army, because the soldiers decided to no longer recognize the government, there is no one to pull the trigger on people in the street.

I think, therefore I am. If I think I am free, I will become free. But while an individual can do this, it does not work if everyone doesn’t do it. This requires all people, everywhere, to work together, talk together, learn together, think together and act together. We can either do this now, or potentially be subdued for decades if not longer.

If we do not achieve global peace and freedom for all people, if we do not understand each other, power will win, at least for a while. What is important to note is that the emergence of a technetronic society reduces the need for people, as technology can watch, listen, control and kill people with the push of a button.

We are also in danger of becoming a docile, tranquilized society, lost in drugs — whether recreational or even more notably, pharmaceutical. We must avoid entering into a ‘brave new world,' and instead bravely construct a different world.

From the militarization of domestic society, it would appear as if we are moving into a world quite reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, in which the world is divided into a few major regional blocs that war against each other and terrorize their populations through acts of physical terror and total surveillance (“Big Brother”).

This is but a phase and evolution into the final stage — the grand idea — or as Aldous Huxley referred to it, “The Ultimate Revolution”: the global scientific dictatorship. That will be the focus of the third and final part in this series.

Ruling Through Qusling Fiat

The ethno-nationalism that marked apartheid’s dying days has now morphed into a malignant “nativism” that threatens post-apartheid democracy. Mr. Zuma has not done much to address the crisis. He issued a soft condemnation a week after the first attac
The ethno-nationalism that marked apartheid’s dying days has now morphed into a malignant “nativism” that threatens post-apartheid democracy. Mr. Zuma has not done much to address the crisis. He issued a soft condemnation a week after the first attac

If one were to take a peek on the type of Democracy in South Africa, it is Damn Crazy. There is no way that the type of governance that we have witnessed for the past 20+ years of ANC can be deemed legit. There are many sides to this story, but there is one constant.

The present-day government should be charged with malfeasance and malgovernance. If Money is the root of all evil, as the maxim goes, the easy is deeply rooted in money looted from the public coffers. When it comes to democratic rule and governance, we have instead corruption and all that goes with it.

With the advent of the New World Order, Africa is the lackey of the Western Interests. ANC is the Running Dog for the deep monied interests with investments in South Africa. This is not just a platitude or attack against the governing ANC, but a fact. A lot of the things that they are doing and have done are instructions/or learned from their handlers.

One can see from how they bungled, bribed and created their way into hosting the World, as one example. The money they spent on highways and the stadiums and Bus stops for the "Reyava"(We Are Going/Moving) bus companies, the Gautrain, and such like structures and renovations, are just merely White Elephants, and the ANC did not gain much from that enterprise, and the people of South Africa got zilch.

One can also see the ANC as it is having a big fight in their hands with the E-toll scam that the citizens of South African are up in arms and fighting against these eTolls. This goes on into some other areas of service delivery, which is poor and very bad.

The problem I call the running dogs of Imperial capitalism this is borne by the fact that one can see that the ANC is in cahoots with the West. They have outsourced electricity and water to Germany and France. They are parcelling public lands to the highest Western bidders. They are in bed with the IMF and World Bank and have even agreed to pay-off the IMF/World Bank Debt of the former Apartheid Masters.

They have kowtowed to the demands of the Structural Adjustment as propounded by the IMF/World Bank: meaning, poor school, dysfunctional health system, the creation of all the proposals by the World Back as part of the conditions of the ANC's receiving of the Loan.

The water shortages, the electricity load-sharing, all placed and foisted(without the poor knowing anything) on the backs of the poor and many of their projects, like the World Cup and the electricity and water for the Big coal Mining companies, are supported by the ANC with the South African people's Tax monies, and so many other nefarious going-ons that in the end, the People of South Africa are hyped, neither gained and lost everything, the ANC gets its commission, and the Corporations rake billion out of South Africa's natural resources and people's labor power without let-up.

In this case, then the New World Order means that the ANC has to comply with all the demands of its former Masters, and they are just happy to be care-takers of Western interests. Meanwhile, their supporters and polity along with the army of poor African masses, along with poor Whites, these are forgotten, and only remembered when its time for the national elections. The role of the ANC is to stay in power, then, afterwards, it is business as usual for the investors of foreign capital and some other shenanigans they are embroiled-in with the former masters, for the next voting cycle.

What the ANC is doing, is continuing an imperialist draining of South Africa, its perspectives and doctrines to rule over South Africa, And they are doing it in a shabby/amateurish way because they do not have the depth and breadth of experience ruling the country of South Africa, because they have not ever run nor ruled a country prior to the 20+ year rule. To get a sense of what I am talking about, I will post the coming of a New World Order by first citing the later doctrine as espoused and implemented by the US and the world:

"The second major geopolitical trend instigated by the 9/11 attacks was the formation of what has come to be known as the “9/11 Truth Movement,” in which millions of people around the world, including thousands of academics, architects, engineers, government officials, intelligence and military officials and other professionals, as well as an exponentially growing abundance of people in the general population internationally have sought to question and challenge the official accounts of the events of 9/11."

But, in reality, these same people challenging this New World Order doctrine of the US, had their counterparts of the opposite side of the spectrum. Their peers, working towards realizing and implementing this strategy, had money and clout to do this and thus the Bush Doctrine and the War on Drugs served to make it easier for this New World order to be implemented.

It is also worth noting that the ANC, when it ascended into power, it came on the heels of what is known as the Total Strategy laid down and implemented by the Nationalist Apartheid Party in order to counter the oncoming onslaught against the Apartheid regime. This needs to be posted below so's to give the reader what other facets of Apartheid were in use, and are still in use today, when the ANC bungled into power. Before I post the following yarn, it is worth also noting how much of this is not known nor spoken about on the Social Media by the political pundits in South Africa...

The Total Strategy

The 1980s in South Africa were about reform, repression and resistance. This era was characterized by deep social divisions and racial tensions. The situation was exacerbated by the powerful influences of demographic changes, increasing urbanization, continued industrialization,rising personal incomes, and spreading education affecting all of society, including mass communication, national security and wars with the Frontline States. Another aspect to this social situation was the fact that the South African political system itself was unstable.

This was possible because there existed three arenas of power the State, political society and civil society. The State in South Africa was composed of several institutions of public power: the executive, administration, judiciary, police, military and intelligence organs. Political society consisted of formal vehicles of competition of competition for state power: parliaments, local councils,parties,fronts, alliances and coalitions.

Civil society was composed of innumerable collectivities in and through which people organized their social life: clubs, sports, associations, recreational networks, churches, cultural organizations, street committees, women's groups and so forth. The Apartheidizers operated within tis mix with shrewd aggression and determined authoritarian force.

The authoritarian nature and state of the Apartheid government restricted and stifled society's democratic processes. The very people that the Apartheid regime was disempowering built social movements within their civil societies to express their political demands. The workers strikes in the 1970s, the students 1976/1977 uprisings, staying away from work and public transportation and the 1984 rent boycotts led to the regime enforcing a state of emergency in the subsequent years, and this exposed and heightened long-term structural contradictions in the economy, cities, rural areas and within the political systems.

In turn, these stresses became the foci of the state strategy and ruling class reforms over the next two decades. Within the state, there were important differences of opinion on how to respond to the deepening post-Soweto crisis. The military, under the leadership of the Minister of Defense, P. W. Botha(later became President), was highly critical of the laissez-faire practices of the Vorster regime.

The latter was characterized by Empire-building, uncoordinated departmental action, internecine conflicts within the Security establishment, and the absence of an overarching strategic plan. The military's solution, under General Magnus Malan to these problems, was the formulation of "Total Strategy", which was presented publicly for the first time in the 1977 Defense White Paper(Leornard)

The Nooks and Crannies of Total Strategy

Total Strategy can be defined as involving the coordination of the military, economic, psychological, political, sociological,diplomatic,cultural and ideological fields of state activities. The Total Strategy was justified by the Apartheid regime that South Africa was under 'Total Onslaught,' and therefore required a 'Total Strategy' capable of combining effective security measures with reformist policies aimed at removing the grievances that revolutionaries could exploit.

The military was able to win support for these arguments from the Verligte(Liberal) element in the National Party and sectors of the English and Afrikaans capital. By proposing that defense was more than a military matter, the military also laid claim to their right to have a say in all public-policy decision-making; also 'winning the mind and hearts of the African majority.'

Having won the support of business and liberal nationalists, and also isolating the Verkrampte (Conservative) elements in the National Party, the new political alliance(businessmen, politicians, and security) embarked upon a three phase 'rationalization' program to reorganize the State.

When Botha became Prime Minister in 1978, the military build-up he had promoted as Defense Minister was already underway. With his political opposition within the National Party on the defense, Botha was in a position to start implementing Total Strategy. He and Magnus Malan, the Minister of Defense under Botha, advocated for defending South Africa from what they termed to be a "Total Onslaught".

Though known to be hot-tempered militarist, Botha established himself as a competent administrator and an experienced political operator. Botha was also viewed as a hard-liner on racial issues, but as a prime minister he had adopted a rhetoric that was markedly verligte( liberal) in tone, a reflection of the military's Total Strategy.

A report in the South African press identified a main source of the Total Strategy concept advocated by Botha and Malan, as a slim, little-known book by a French General, Andre Beaufre, titled Introduction a la Strategie. In this book, Beaufre draws from such classic military sources as Von Clauswitz and Mao. Beaufre describes the implications for modern military planners and calls for a "Total Strategy" coordinated throughout all fields of government policy.

The book describes various types of conflicts, including the kind of protracted guerrilla war South Africa was facing. In speeches of both the military leaders and government officials paraphrased passages form the book and describing their modern war as "Total," and they asserted that it was going to be carried-out not only in the military sphere, but in all fields,including the political, economic, diplomatic, cultural and even today as we speak, these are still in applications in one form or another.

A very clear statement of the Total Strategy in South Africa appeared in the 1977 Defense White Paper under the heading "National Security" and it states that:

"We are today involved in a war, whether we wish to accept it or not. It is therefore essential that a 'Total National Strategy' be formulated at the highest level. The defense of the Republic of South Africa is not solely the responsibility of the Department of Defense. On the contrary... [it] is the combined responsibility of all government departments."

This can be taken further — it is the responsibility of the entire population, the 'nation'*(in this case, the 'nation' means the white nation only), and every population group. In 1971 South Africa had established the 'State Security Council' to fill a similar function of formulating "Total National Strategy" for National Security. (Department of Defense White Paper, 1977) A more comprehensive definition of Total Strategy was thus put forth as follows:

"... The comprehensive plan to utilize all the means available to a state according to an integrated pattern in order to achieve the national aims within the framework of the specific policies. A 'Total Strategy' is, therefore, not confined to a particular sphere, but is applicable at all levels and to all functions of the state structure."

The section concludes with fourteen aspects of Boer National security that are included in the formulation of a Total strategy:

  • Political Action
  • Military/paramilitary action
  • Economic action
  • Psychological action
  • Scientific and technological action
  • Religious-cultural action
  • Manpower services
  • Intelligence services
  • Security services
  • National supplies, resources, and production services
  • Transport and distribution services
  • financial services
  • Community services
  • Telecommunications service

While the White Paper in 1977 cited the key role of the State Security in formulating the Total Strategy, this body lay dormant after its creation. The origins of this body are linked with those of BOSS(Bureau of State Security). When the Apartheid State was combating the new underground and guerrilla activities, the failed ANC Wankie wars, from the mid-sixties, as noted above, several national security bodies were established, (a State Security Committee and an Intelligence Coordinating Committee), but these were apparently not considered adequate. Boss was formed in 1968-69 as the coordinating agency for intelligence and security.

The state Security Council included the prime minister, the ministers of justice, defense, police, foreign affairs, commissioner, foreign affairs, national security, The chief of the Defense Force, the police commissioner, the secretaries for foreign affairs and justice, as well as other ministers and members of parliament co-opted on an ad hoc basis. In the Vorster government, the State Security Council was not active and that its functions were performed on an informal basis by Vorster and General van den Bergh of BOSS.

Everybody Has To Pull Themselves Up By Their Bootstraps _ But Thave No Shoes On Their Feet

Albert Luthili
Albert Luthili
A woman carries her child as she walks alongside a line of shacks in the impoverished township of Diepsloot on the outskirts of Centurion, South Africa, on April 24.
A woman carries her child as she walks alongside a line of shacks in the impoverished township of Diepsloot on the outskirts of Centurion, South Africa, on April 24. | Source

The Story Of Past History Of The Poor Being Important In Great Civilizations

So that, the neglect and oppression/suppression of their most gilding citizenry by the ANC, is merely refurbishing what were the left-overs from the Apartheid Total Strategy Doctrine with an update of the New World Order Doctrine-having a tinge of the Gulag mid-set of the Former Soviet Union, and pandering on the new Chinese "Soft Power" doctrine.

What we have here is a conglomeration of Doctrines that are not of the People of South Africa's design but simply stated, our government is just like Pinnochio. We are highly strung up, and bereft of our own national will and Decision-making. Many of the shenanigans by the ANC, are straight out of the Apartheid's , Western interests Playbook. there is nothing new in their shabbily ruling over us, the only problem is that the trying to rig it to look authentically and originally home spun(Conceived as originally South African).

The stated Total Strategy above, is what we see the ANC trying to work it in such a way it look and seems like they have come up with some noble ideas built on the arcane Apartheid concepts, they found in the Parliamentary law logs. They pick-and-choose what works, whilst in the interim they are so corrupt that they tare about to top the list of the most corrupt regimes around the world. They are also having the odious distinction of being the most unequal society globally. The ANC are doing the Caretakership shop very diligently, for in their 20+ years of rule, they have managed to surpass old regimes in many categories and as expert 'ass-lickers' to foreign investors and interest.-for a paltry pittance.

The ANC has done a fabulous job in ignoring and impoverishing their weakest denizens and has arrogantly displayed impatience and disregard whenever they raised their dissatisfactions. They have managed to fall into disrepute with their base, and have also created a sector, with the African community, that distrusts and dislike them intensely. What they are doing about that, is that they go out of their way to show that they couldn't care less, and that, as Sisulu's daughter, who grew up in the West, uttered the remarks that, 'now everyone is free, they will have to pull themselves up with their own bootstraps.' But what she does not know very well is that nearly the whole African society have neither boots nor shoe-let alone socks.'

What hey are not telling us is that they are busy rehashing and plagiarizing Apartheid and trying to present their spin to us being these great law-makers and thinkers of the type never ever seen before , even during Apartheid. But all what they have ben doing so far, is to try and apr if not copycat Boer Doctrines, and stealing some from the West. We have been gypped; sold hyped so-called success bamboozled; taken; had; taken for a ride; and used and abused in all aspects of our decrepit existence by our own supposedly African brothers and sisters-so-called leaders in power today in South Africa.

Apartheid never went away, and it is alive through the help of their cousins' New World Order Doctrines from America and China. The ANC does not contemplate the future as it is becoming a danger and threat to their present rule. They see themselves as ruling 'until Jesus comes', their words, not mine. Having said so, they have proceeded to empty the public coffers, lining their own pockets, along with those of their families and friend; meanwhile, the country of South Africa is going down in flames, and the intense anomie and namelessness; the law has been flaunted and gutted, and means nothing; Nobody respects the police, the army and the parliamentary or regional officials. They are all disregarded and meaningless.

All the time, the weakest and poorest people in South Africa of all races bear the brunt of this callus official attitudes towards the protestation of the former. A lot of ordinary people within South Africa are bemoaning the fact and reality that they have bee thrown out of the loop and are treated worse than during the rule of Apartheid. This is because the ANC has not serious experience of ruling, and when they started handling the helms of power, the acted like thugs and lilliputian neophytes. We have a bunch of quislings selling us out, and being turncoats to the stated goals of liberating Africans, and are just a terrible cabal or mental dwarfs that will never stay in power very long enough.

In the history of man, there has never been any longevity for any government that will outlive its detractors if it treats the poor and meek with outmost disregard. In fact, the results therefrom have seen such regimes toppled without much fanfare. And in the case of the ANC, they have tightened their own noose around their dastardly, opportunistic fat necks, which in a very short while, will be tightened by the very people they have oppressed, suppressed and depressed. So much over the past 20+ years.

Greed and disrespect of one's polity is a recipe for disaster. Money blinds many people in many ways and for many reasons. The ANC has taken it to another level, and it is killing and causing its own people to even loose their lands, cultures, societies and everything, just so that they, and their cronies and hanger's on could gain from such enterprises. That is a myopic and shortsighted immature and inexperienced view of governing a country.

A country can only be strong if it takes care of its weakest citizens. This is important to learn from Africa's antiquated history. There were great societies and civilizations of Egypt, Mali, Songhai, the Moorish Spain, Monomotapa, Mapungubwe and the list goes on over the millenniums. The weakest citizens of these civilization were taken of, and this made this civilized societies to be some of the greatest the world has seen to date. Africa, itself, to date, has not managed to reach that zenith, again. We are just have clowns and cowards ruling over us and looking only after themselves, their families , friends and acquaintances

There has been a spate of violent encounters between the White police and the African population in the US today. The past two years has seen youth, young women and elderly men murdered in front of cameras. The Eleanor Bumpers case, Amoudou Diallo murder, and the Byers cases were but a prelude which spawned the multiple killings that we are now able to see on camera. With the advent of the mobile phone with its embedded cameras and videos, we are begin to see what happened to those who did not have the fortune to have their death recorded, as in the cases and many others I have not cited in New York City.

The White ruled government of America has never really taken care of the poor and weak. This, one can glean from the time of the case of Dread Scot, who was assailed and berated by judge Tawney, to the effect that he, Dread Scott, has no rights that need be recognized and acknowledged by any White person, whatsoever. So it is in the technological digital age, whereby these biases are recorded, and although efforts are being made to refute what the cameras and videos capture, that really does not alter the truth, instead, the truth is magnified for all and sundry to see and learn the truth about the evil treatment Africans in America are being subjected to in America today.

To see much more clearly that not much has changed, the reader can try and give themselves time to watch the Video Movie below.

PANTHER ( 1995 ) Full Length Movie

Ferguson: Life Matters (RT Documentary)

The Impoverished Americans

The Panther Movie, above, is very much close to the truth of the actual events, but made a movie… It does compromise the hard edge reality that prevailed during the days of the Panthers. I have also elected to post below, the COINTELPRO - The FBI's War On Black America.

Mixing "movies" about the Panther and some actual documentaries, stories and history of the Panther, I am trying to also establish that the present-day war is not new, a different day and year, but same events, and raw and naked racism barring its teeth, in both time-period. The themes in the "Panther" The Movie, and the events in Fergusson, and those 1960s events as depicted in the COINTELPRO's War on the Black Panther.

What am I saying, the vents that we see of you black boys, girls and elderly being shot to death, hung and tortured, are reminiscent of the Emmit Till murders, and the assassination of Medgar Evers, Malcolm and Martin Luther.

Today, we see the murder of young boys and blacks, youth and elderly Africans in America, that in the end, there is not much that has changed, even with an African American President at the helm. America, in its history with African people here in America, has never treated them as equals, human and fairly.

Hillary pointed out this 'known' anomaly in terms of race relations in America, that, Africans in America, have been treated badly, blocked from voting, and incarcerated or never got same jobs as their White counterparts. She has drawn the wrath and ire of the racist White Americans bent on 'keeping the Africans in their places.'

Looking bak into history by viewing and reviewing the videos posted above, one thing constantly arises, African people are unfairly killed and incarcerated, victimized, intimidated, abused and harassed in the streets, schools, churches(the nine that 9 people were recently murdered) — akin bombing of the little church girls in the 1960-in the US. The same modus operandi, the same play-book, and the same racism that respects nobody who is not European, and does not recognize the civil rights of African Americans, and they feel not obliged to respect, any of those laws protecting Africans along with Africans in America-a la Dread Scott in the 1800s-Up to Black lives matters in 2015: Same oppression and repression of Africans in America-Nothing has changed.

When one Watches the members of the GOP in a discussion format, were vehemently opposed to the present immigration of peoples from Latin America, Mexico and South America. The strange thing that seems to be like a hangover, they keep on attacking Obama for trying to better the lives of all in America, and yet Obama is not running for the third term,m. In fact, Obama has proven to many of his detractors, from their blocking him from all ends, he managed to implement policies which are going to leave America in a better and different position.

This is despite the vicious and virulent opposition to anything he said of tried to do to better America. He took care of banks and the middle class homeowners in America; he started the economy growing and rolling; he got women equal pay for equal work; he managed to give America a National Affordable care; he phased out the war stance that America was in; he has recently achieved some truce with Iran(Although, as of the writing of this piece, the congress was debating as to whether to endorse this proposal or reject it).

The poor people in the streets are crying out loud, and many are saying that "Black Lives Matter." With all its complications, it arises out of a suffering that is still going on-trigger happy cops are running amok. The umber of young Africans in America being gunned-down, tangled, hung, and incarcerated, is now out of whack. It may be paltry, removing and withdrawing troops from Iraq, and promoting a diplomatic policy in dealing with international affairs.

Pre-evaluation Of Affordable Care Act: By The New York Times Editorial

As far as I can tell, Obama has done a lot for the Country of America, and this has two sides and responses to it. I choose to be deliberately for the good he has done. It is amazing when one looks at some discussion or posted queries here on HubPages, the responses as they were two years ago, and the real in the waning years of Obama Rule, 18 months left as to the writing of this piece, that this gives one a better 20/20 perspective on Obama.

His achievements may not resonate with many, but it should not be forgotten how he was blacked, and vilified the whole way with no respite, yet, one has just to review his achievements, to date, to see that he was indeed a very good and excellent President. The tread that generated these responses will be posted below, and I will give some responses to it, 2 years old, and I will try and show what has Obama done with less then 18 months left for his Presidential terms to expire.

I hope the people cited here from HubPages will not mind for I wanted to make use of their discourses in order to make my point about Race, poverty and the bad treatment the weakest of the weakest are treated like in the United States. I have avoided many of the negative comments, but wanted to keep the spirit of Obama's achievements in the context I choose. There has been enough negativity already, and for now, I want to keep in check the achievements of Obama as best as I can, before he moves out of office.

social security
born alive legislation
Obamacare (lots there)
the SCOTUS
the stimulus
the deficit
oil
mortgages
US history
clean energy
blaming Bush
the Tom Hanks video
the auto bailout

Justsilvieposted in reply to this:
Both sides get ugly during a race... and I hate it especially when they start picking of family... its like nothing is sacred... but... this has gone further...

Before and after his election to the presidency, Barack Obama has been painted time and time again as subhuman in graphics, email transmissions and posters used to undermine him. While it’s nothing new for politicians to be turned into caricatures, the ones used to criticize Obama frequently have racial overtones. The president has been portrayed as a shoeshine man, an Islamic terrorist and a chimp, to name a few.

The image of his altered face has been shown on a product called Obama Waffles in the manner of Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben. The depictions of Obama as ape-like have arguably sparked the most controversy, considering that blacks have been portrayed as monkey-like for centuries to suggest that they’re inferior to other groups.

Still, when Marilyn Davenport, an elected official in the Republican Party of Orange County, Calif., circulated an email depicting Obama and his parents as chimps, she initially defended the image as political satire. Mike Luckovich, Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, had a different take. He pointed out to National Public Radio that the image wasn’t a cartoon but Photoshopped.

“And it was crude and it was racist,” he said. “And cartoonists are always sensitive. We want to make people think—we even want to tick people off occasionally, but we don’t want our symbolism to overwhelm our message. …I would never show Obama or an African American as a monkey. That’s just racist. And we know the history of that.”

He said give him 3 years and if it wasn't better, he'd be a one term President. I didn't expect him to keep all his promises. I expected him to concentrate on what the people needed, especially during those first two years, instead of worrying about his "legacy". Our GDP sits at 1.8% and this Administration claims that as an "accomplishment". That's scary. Unemployment is at 8.3% , and they are claiming they've created all these jobs.

MamaTschet profile image82MamaTschet posted this in reply to this"
Sue, I disagree with you. I am one of the many fortunate people that many of his programs have helped. No, I am not on welfare. I strongly agree with Obamacare. The insurance companies in this country are literally raping all of us, not only Health Insurance, but auto, liability, etc. These have been skyrocketing for years and years! Someone had to do something!

And all the ignorant people who thought that this latest round of increasing Health Insurance premiums was due to Obamacare, didn't stop to read that it hasn't even gone into effect yet. His help with our mortgage issue has kept us in our house. And we lost our business thanks to Mr. Bush, not Mr. Obama.

Thanks to the banks who have turned this company upside down. It is difficult to run a company, let alone a country when the people that are on your team or force are opposing parties and have only one agenda in mind, to bring him down. I will not stand by and let people disrespect the President of the United States. THAT IS WRONG! I don't care what you believe, the office deserves respect. Maybe if everyone would work together we might actually make some headway.

Quilligrapher profile posted in reply to this"
Howdy Sue. How do you do? Mind if I jump in?

As of August 28, only six Republican controlled states (Florida, Mississippi, Texas, Wisconsin, South Carolina and Louisiana) have opted out. These states now have the largest number of uninsured Americans. A full 25-percent of the 15.8 million citizens that can be helped by Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act resides in these states. Another five GOP governors are tilting in the same direction. An equal number of Democratic states have or are expected to opt in while 25 are still sitting on the fence.

Saying “if it happens” seems to be both premature and wishful thinking. But to answer your question, Sue, the expansion of Medicaid would provide healthcare coverage through insurance exchanges to all individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line.

Did you know, Sue, Republicans were the first to proposed a mandate? Gov. Romney’s Massachusetts version of the Affordable Care Act is so similar to President Obama’s PPACA he is reluctant to even talk about it. One of his campaign officials caught a firestorm of criticism from the GOP for just mentioning it in an interview.

Both versions recognize the need for the individual mandate, a measure first published in "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans" in 1989 by conservative Stuart M. Butler of the Heritage Foundation. The proposal contained a provision to “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.”

The language was revised and later included in two congressional bills introduced by Republicans in 1993 and the concept became the cornerstone of Gov. Romney’s 2006 CommonwealthCare Act in Massachusetts.

The PPACA provides for access to need-based, affordable policies. Each American’s medical risk is shared among a pool of all insured Americans and that is what insurance is intended to do. The penalty provision of the mandate is designed for the greedy, self-serving individuals who can afford the premiums but refuse to join all the other insured Americans to spread all the risks over a larger pool. In fact, the so-called penalty turns out to be the largest insurance bargain ever conceived. Those refusing to insure themselves will love it!

The $695 a year penalty, or the 2.5 percent of your annual family income, is actually a 'helluva' lot less than the cost of a typical, respectable insurance policy. For those who do not need much health care, it is the cheapest insurance policy ever invented. When they ultimately become ill and have a pre-existing condition, they can buy an insurance policy at a bargain basement price that was not even available to them before the mandate.

Finally, data gather in Massachusetts indicates that the average citizen there wants to do the right thing and the number of insured citizens rose by more than 7% under that state’s individual mandate. Polls reveal an overwhelming majority of residents have voiced support for the law since it was enacted. Both Gov. Romney and Gov. Deval Patrick, the Democrat who succeeded him, praised the success of Mr. Romney’s version of Obamacare.

Ralph Deeds replied to this:
The Affordable Health Care Act has a number of cost saving measures. More are needed. The health care non-system is very inefficient and doesn't produce very good results. A variety of measures will be needed to curb escalating health care costs. There are many good suggestions floating around. One is to quit paying for individual tests and procedures. This system provides an incentive for unnecessary tests and procedures, which run up the costs and sometimes are harmful to patients. Nobody wants to talk about it, but a limit will have to be put on Medicare payments costly, futile hail Mary end-of-life care which contributes disproportionately to health care costs.

A new report from a panel of experts convened by the Institute of Medicine estimated that roughly 30 percent of health care spending in 2009 — around $750 billion — was wasted on unnecessary or poorly delivered services and other needless costs. Lack of coordination at every point in the health care system is a big culprit.

The panel cited studies showing that 20 percent of patients reported test results or medical records that were not transferred from one place to another in time for an appointment, requiring additional tests or visits.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

Times Topic: Health Care
One study found that a typical Medicare patient with Type 2 diabetes (without other medical conditions) saw five different doctors in a year. Another showed that the rate at which primary doctors referred patients to specialists doubled over the past decade. In one survey, primary care doctors who had Medicare patients coordinated with an average of 229 other physicians in a single year to care for those Medicare patients, blurring accountability.

No wonder another survey found that 75 percent of hospital patients were unable to identify the clinician in charge of their care. Almost two-thirds of patients don’t know how much their care costs until they receive a bill, and less than half receive clear information on the benefits and trade-offs before undergoing treatments. Worse, the extra spending did not help patients. In fact, one study found that one-third of hospitalized patients are harmed during their stay, driving up their medical costs.

The panel concluded that there is no single answer for reducing inefficiencies. Instead, it said that every participant in the system — doctors, hospitals, big integrated health care systems, insurance companies and government agencies — had to expand ways to provide usable information when doctors and patients decide on treatments, engage patients in clinical decisions, and adopt technology-assisted practices that have improved reliability and cut costs in other industries.

What’s clear from this report is that the pilot projects in the Affordable Care Act to encourage better coordination of care, make medical prices transparent and accelerate the use of health information technology are only a modest start. These have to be expanded, not repealed, if the nation hopes to make a real dent in health care costs.

Mighty Mom replied:
Thank you, Ralph.
The opponents here seem to focus exclusively on the individual side of Obamacare. And seem fixated on the "tax" (which as we know only applies if you don't choose to buy coverage or qualify for Medicaid).
Totally missing the bigger picture.
By design, I suspect.
smile

Meanwhile, there are a few of us (Quillographer, you, me, probably others I can't remember at this moment) presenting the substantial benefits ACA provides to the care delivery side of the equation. Things that will improve efficiency and thus reduce costs, despite providing care to millions more Americans who will be insured under ACA.

Once again, let me state for the record:
The ACA provides funding to improve health care quality, access, care coordination (including information sharing through IT) and capacity building -- including funding for staff development. It provides funding for wellness programs to make citizens healthier, which of course will also reduce the need for more expensive health care (hospitals, ERs).
The actual implementation plans to take advantage of ACA funding are not dictated at the federal level. They are created locally. There are already successful pilot projects out there.
The Medicaid funding flows through the state's low-income health insurance plan (Medi-Cal where I live). The insurance exchanges are state-run, not federal.

My region (4-counties surrounding Sacramento) will be publishing its market analysis and strategic plan at the end of this month. I have been privileged to be part of this project.
Once it is public, I will be happy to provide links.
MM

Quilligrapher repied to this:
Nice to chat with you, Phion. Thank you for your comments.

You make your opinions very clear. However, these are your conclusions and you are welcome to them even though they have no basis in fact. Based upon your research, exactly how many Americans have you determined make up “the gross amount of people” and the “vast number” you alluded to in your opening sentence?

I guess you have never lost a job in your lifetime and had to rely on an unemployment check to feed your family and to pay your bills. Perhaps you have never know any elderly folks who are managing to get by on a meager fixed income but can use a helping hand paying the heating bill in the throes of winter. Or, perhaps, you just do not have any empathy.

Your claim about the individual mandate is false. The mandate evolved out of the Conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 as best financial mechanism available to drive healthcare reform using a non-government, free enterprise insurance model. {1} If you choose to use it as an excuse to bash social programs that help the needy, go right ahead but your statement still misrepresents the purpose and the function of the individual mandate. I recommend you do some more research.

Furthermore, everyone knows that the “War on Poverty” will never end. More importantly, however, every society is judged on how well it treats the least fortunate.

It is nice to have heard from you, Phion. I hope we get to share again soon.

Jean Bakula profile image98Jean Bakulaposted 2 years ago in reply to this
I never wanted to believe many people disliked President Obama because of race, I live in a diversified state, and am open minded. On the morning after the election, an old friend I had since HS said, "We are so upset that a black person is President!" "We" being her and her boyfriend.

"We had been friends for over 30 years, and although I knew she was not comfortable with people too much different from her, it shocked me. We got together a few more times, and since she had divorced out of my husband's side of the family, I just stopped bothering with her. I don't understand hate directed at people of color or with a disability or the LGBT community, or anyone different.

"In the D Convention tonight, I was struck by how many speakers mentioned the word 'love.' As Americans, we used to want to help our neighbors get back on their feet, or help them when they were sick or had a death in the family. The Republican Party has been hijacked by a bunch of people so ultra conservative, they only like those that are cookie cutter images of them. What do they do for recreation? Count their money every night? I'd rather having caring people in charge who want to lift others up. I don't believe success is measured in money."

59American Viewposted in reply to this:

Quill,

How are you and hope all is well. Wonder if you could send some of that rain down here, we sure could use. You know how it is in Texas its summer it's hot and its dry.

I think you misinterpret my response to Jean. There is no spinning involves because I agree with her. Heck, I didn't even mention that disgusting shoe incident. I was merely giving my perspective on the lack of respect.

Joe Wilson has the right to disagree with any and every policy of President Obama. To say you line on the floor of Congress is disrespectful and it never should have occurred under any circumstance.

People today have lost view of what respect really means. Somehow people have forgotten that everybody has their right to their own opinion. They get incensed if somebody doesn't agree with them, first they will be irate, and then the name calling will begin. Some people think they can force you to respect them. Look at gangs, they think shoving a revolver in-your-face will make you respect them. Long forgotten of the days of you have to give respect to earn respect.

It's no wonder how we got here, all one has to do is just reflect on what the kids grow up and who they believe their heroes are. Rappers who are admitted him so and drug dealers, openly spit on the law and act like he can do anything they want to anybody they want. Kids grow up wanting to be like that. Movies that glorify gangsters and illegal activities and turn them into heroes for doing so. I could go on with the whole is more I think you understand where I'm going with this.Long gone are the days for John Wayne was a hero, when kids addressed adults as Mr. and Mrs.

Take journalism, in all forms and medium from the cable, the local news, to newspapers, to the Internet, the language of the reporting has become adversarial is best. There's a lot of disrespect the way on news is brought to us now. The Rachel Maddows, the Ed Schultz , the Bill O'Reilly's, the Sean Hannity's, and many more are emboldened was the way they report and the way they interview. The so worried about trying to make people look bad that they forget about the issue the trying to report about and inform us the public. Over the last two weeks of the conventions one word was prevalent in almost every article written in many shows on the air in the word was lie.

Respect is not a left or right issue, is an issue that faces everyone in this country. If lack of respect continues at the pace it is I can't imagine or country will be even 10 years from now.

More by this Author


Comments 8 comments

Things Considered profile image

Things Considered 7 years ago from North Georgia Foothills

Good thoughts.


ixwa profile image

ixwa 7 years ago Author

Thank you, Things Considered, and I hope to keep on doing more of the Public Good.


fiona_33 profile image

fiona_33 6 years ago from UK

Interesting hub, thanks. My own view is that we expected Obama to somehow change everything overnight, and that's just not possible. But if we give him eight years in office, he will make the great changes he promised.


ixwa profile image

ixwa 6 years ago Author

fiona_33: Welcome to the Hub above , and I am happy you came and read the piece. It is true that change cannot come overnight, but there are things that have changed and more still remain the same. What you have said about Obama getting eight years of rule is fresh and rare. There is much good he has done, and many people are unhappy with him and his new policies and there are those who are not against him as a president and an agent of change. These have hardly gelled and we have already heard how he should not be reelected in some quarters, and the jury is still out on that issue. That will be depended on the view people will have about him after 3 or less years he has to go, i.e., they will have had many learning moments from his actions and policies, and will be voting against or for his record. It's encouraging to hear you say that we need to give him eight more years to be able to see the changes he would have wrought. As a nation, we need more compassion in caring for our downtrodden citizens, and this will empower us and will give us more respect globally; it is also only fair to give him and his policies a fair chance to see if whether these work or not. Voting in 2012 will decide that. Thank you again.


couturepopcafe profile image

couturepopcafe 6 years ago

I just came across this hub, a little late I guess. I'm not sure where you stand on any of it. I guess you are for the downtrodden (Mexican?) Inner cities have historically been the hub for immigrants in this nation, whether Irish, Italian, Jew, Mexican or otherwise. The difference today is that the New Majority is mostly illegal. I know there are a million legals but there are eight million (by some counts) illegals. I've been to the New Mexico and Arizona borders. They are littered like a war zone with human waste, food, excrement, clothes, and animal carcasses. Why should any state put up with this in the name of the tired and the poor? The downtrodden can be as graceful and respectful as the rest of us. I'm a bleeding heart myself but I know the difference between a person down on their luck asking for a temporary handout and a shrewd low life looking for a lifetime pass.


ixwa profile image

ixwa 6 years ago Author

couterepopcafe. Hello Welcome to the hub and I appreciate your response above. It is great to see that you do not consider yourself a "low-life" person", and , I note that you do not , correctly so, regard yourself as a 'down-trodden person". The article above is about how a civilization gets its props as being compassionate and open to all who seek a better life in countries like the US, and one can point out to that reality. I do not think that the government should be in the business of 'putting up with with this in the name of the tired and the poor'. At this time and age, this sounds like what a lot of people , in the States, consider to be what they want. I do not know if that is wrong or right.My Hub is questioning the notion of a civilized nation not taking care of its desolate and forlorn public, as whether it has been a great an civilized country by the way it attacks or helps the denizens within its borders. Or maybe we have not yet experienced one such civilization in our life time, so it really becomes hard to wrap our brains as to what "A civilized civilization" does, or is like. But if our measure of development and our being a greatly sophisticated and well-developed people has to be grasped and understood, then we need more than not caring less about the misery of others in our midst, and also being callous about it; we cannot pretend from lofty heights that we are not affected, when in effect we are in the world and with the world. We all are affected by all the human misery within our borders, no matter what country one is in, more especially America. You seem to have a good grasp as to why people are asking for a handout, or run out of luck. Good for you because that remains your experience and perspective The article about is trying to explore how a great country like this one has to ignore and mistreat other humans as less human, on the one hand; and on the other hand projected and present itself as the greatest civilization there ever was; and does this make this civilization any better, or advanced, because it does not care about the destitute; or, what? These and other questions will be covered in a more expanded form in the article above in the coming weeks. Anyway, thank you for your input, and I will work on much harder to explore come issues which I think need to inserted into the hub, to make it more coherent as the issues it is raising are contemporary talking points and real-politik playing itself out right before our eyes. Thank you


couturepopcafe profile image

couturepopcafe 6 years ago

Thanks for a bit more clarification. I'm still a little confused though. I know our 'government' has all kinds of programs to help those in need. What group do they ignore and mistreat specifically? I'm just trying to gain a perspective but if you'd rather wait for a future blog you don't need to go into too much detail. Thanks.


ixwa profile image

ixwa 6 years ago Author

I think you have mentioned a few in your first response, whether you meant it historically or contemporarily, namely, the Mexicans, Jews, Irish, Italians, (Africans, Chinese and other Asiatics(both here and abroad, and so forth). By the way, those programs, mostly are for citizens and few for the illegals, if any. I think you have the perspective, and it all depends on what you have to add to your present perspective about the history of race relations, and I do not think this article is much directly about that. An interesting book to read would be "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" which might give some tad historical perspective. Like I said, I will blog on that type of topic in the near future. Thank you for your response and good feed back.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working