A Day of Awareness

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY MORE TIMELY THAN EVER

By Dinizulu Gene Tinnie

It is a fair guess that most Americans consider slavery to be a thing of the past, officially ended in the US in 1865, although more thoughtful minds among us are keenly aware that “the peculiar institution” of slavery, which defined most of this country’s history, lives on today in many forms, such as the prison system, sharecropping, migrant labor camps, under the cover of the foster care system, and among the millions of workers who are not paid a living wage. 

And perhaps most Americans are vaguely aware of global worker exploitation to produce everything from raw materials and components for our most sophisticated technological gadgets to the cheapest novelties and trinkets possible, but few dare call this system of production by its truthful name of slavery.

It may also be easily forgotten that slavery, as we will recall from the history of the Middle Passage which forcibly brought millions of Africans across the ocean, also includes human trafficking, and the brutal, exploitative practices of that barbaric business, such as extortion of the wages of the survivors who find illegal employment in wealthy nations, not to mention those, often children, sold into sex trafficking.

A Day of Awareness

It is with such concerns in mind that the United Nations, has designated December 2 (a date known in American history as the anniversary of the 1859 hanging of Abolitionist John Brown) as an International Day of awareness to call global attention to the pervasive crimes of slavery in our time.

According to the UN, “The International Day for the Abolition of Slavery, 2 December, marks the date of the adoption, by the General Assembly, of the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others (resolution 317[IV] of 2 December 1949).”

The UN further explains:

Slavery is not merely a historical relic. According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) more than 40 million people worldwide are victims of modern slavery. Although modern slavery is not defined in law, it is used as an umbrella term covering practices such as forced labour, debt bondage, forced marriage, and human trafficking. Essentially, it refers to situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, deception, and/or abuse of power.

In addition, more than 150 million children are subject to child labour, accounting for almost one in ten children around the world.

Facts and figures:

• An estimated 40.3 million people are in modern slavery, including 24.9 in forced labour and 15.4 million in forced marriages.

• There are 5.4 victims of modern slavery for every 1,000 people in the world.

• 1 in 4 victims of modern slavery are children.

• Out of the 24.9 million people trapped in forced labour, 16 million people are exploited in the private sector such as domestic work, construction or agriculture; 4.8 million people in forced sexual exploitation, and 4 million people in forced labour imposed by state authorities.

• Women and girls are disproportionately affected by forced labour, accounting for 99% of victims in the commercial sex industry, and 58% in other sectors.

(Further information from the UN is available at these links:

On the Homefront

While the International Day is welcomed for calling attention to the many forms and magnitude of modern slavery, it is even more important as an occasion for awareness of actions and solutions, as those who are victimized, directly or indirectly, find ways to address the problem.

For example, in a timely fashion, the regular “Building Bridges” program on independent nonprofit New York radio station WBAI-FM, shares this notice via the Internet:

Farmworker women launch their “Harvest Without Violence” campaign to end sexual violence in Wendy’s fast food supply chain featuring The Coalition of Immokalee [Florida] Workers

Now, amidst the stories that are surfacing about sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape against women, too often low-wage woman workers have been subjected to sexual violence against their person in their workplace, but their voices have oftentimes been eclipsed.  And, we barely think about the workers who are responsible for the bounty of food on our tables. 

So, “Building Bridges” is off to join the formidable farmworker women leaders of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (“CIW”) for a major “Harvest without Violence” march.  The CIW Women’s Group traveled to the Big Apple to demand a meeting with Wendy’s Board Chairman and major shareholder Nelson Peltz to share their powerful stories and demand Wendy’s do its part to end sexual violence in the fields. Join the farmworkers in their Boycott Wendy’s march through Midtown Manhattan to Trian Partners, the multi-billion dollar asset management firm founded by Nelson Peltz, the non-executive chairman of The Wendy’s Company, based in New York.  Declare that farmworker women should not have to surrender their dignity for the right to put food on their families’ tables!

 

Year-Round Awareness, Action, and Support

This single example, like the single day dedicated to the Abolition of modern Slavery, serves as a reminder of how many similar situations exist and how many more days of the year there are which demand awareness and resolve by thoughtful citizens everywhere to abolish all forms of modern slavery and ensure social justice, as articulated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In America, these concerns become increasingly timely as traditional jobs are increasingly lost to automation or shipped overseas, real wages remain flat while living costs increase, graduates enter limited job markets burdened with student loan debt, and the great divide between the wealthiest few and the vast majority continues to widen, aided and abetted by complicit political leadership, all of which threaten us with new, much broader forms of actual slavery by other names.

Advertisements

On White Supremacy

black-white-manAll pedagogy aside, from a cultural, communications, and business pov, and with regard Daryl Scott‘s statement that “White supremacy is not simply an ideology, a condition, or an analytical concept. It is often a movement with real people who would like to oppress you–to dominate you and perhaps even exterminate you,” in my humble opinion, ‘white supremacy’ is a delusional myth of a group of people that discovered gunpowder in China and proceeded to use it against everyone else, including themselves. GUNS are the tools of any type of SUPREMACY. For without GUNS small white people would be overruled by larger African people.

american-genocideLikewise, the killing temperament of people who would dominate other people should, by all means, turn in on the perpetrators, once those with a peaceful and loving temperament become the majority on Earth and see fit to punish the pirates and murderers for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. The recent political outcome bears witness to the fact that the Western Empire is tumbling, crumbling, and spiraling down into the abyss. Certainly, there are enough good people being good speakers by following good ethical principles by this late date. Perhaps, we should turn away from teaching HIStory, altogether, and simply teach ETHICS, which could develop good people who practice morality, fairness, justice, kindness, and love.

american-genocide2

We can debate supremacy all we want. It has no basis because, after all, “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.” However, as Dr. Claude Anderson has insisted “the pursuit of Happiness” really means “the pursuit of Property” for Europeans. Therefore, supremacy might be based on how many acres of land a person or group of people hold.

american-genocide3

Harlan Hollenbeck wrote: Because those who conquer write the history books, and they do so in a way to excuse their atrocities. But the truth and our ancestors’ stories still live inside us!

The fact that most of that acreage in the Americas was stolen from indigenous peoples by European colonialists could indicate that whites are superior. However, the fall of the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman Empires, along with the fall of the Third Reich are good indicators that the fall of this decadent white supremacist conglomerate is predictable and predicated upon the delusional myth of the supremacy of one group over another or others.

 

 

1originalhumanShock Metaphysics Melanin Mandate (#20)
The Fear of Being DNA Deficient and Finding Out You Ain’t’ Sh..!

I woke up this morning to a jaw-dropping comment by “Perfections Paint Wine Sip” on my interview with A.P. Brooks on her nine-year, researched book, SKIN: A Matter of Race https://goo.gl/yQkBtZ. She wrote:

{BEGIN COMMENT}
Amazing conversation and confirmation! So now instead of using videos and visuals and Diop’s Two Cradle Theory to share how the European nature was developed to include how vicious they treated each other to understand why we had no chance and never will I will definitely suggest reading A Matter of Race!!! <—So excited and I will purchase the book too!

That said if we understand that race was a construct to conquer and divide to which gave birth the delusional backwards false concept of white skin supremacy and pseudo-science that are directly responsible for further spiraling the minds of racist whites into a self-created, self-refueling gene altering generational insanity why do we respond to such psychotic behavior as if our skin color is in part or the reason for their psychosis? Isn’t that a glaring neon sign of dysfunctional (PTSS/PTSD behavior?

We do not die while driving black or denied equal justice because we are black! All of the horrors we have experienced for centuries is rooted in and is because of a people with a deeply embedded mind wound caused and created by their own cycled through generations! <—What does my skin color have to do with their inability to accept or deal with other human beings who skin color differs? That is their narrative and reality forced on all other human beings! <–Power is the ability to define reality and to have other people respond to your definition as if it were their own. – Dr. Wade Noble

Marching begging and shouting black lives matter will never change anything because it is the other half of the lie to include it falls on deaf ears polluted by a distorted twisted mind that has no issues with their behaviors or horrific historical actions! So in my view to fight racism and find solutions to our conditions based on our skin color is just a dysfunctional as it bolsters the augment of race rather than the truth which is these people are PSYCHOTIC and have no intention of changing!

Without therapeutic interventions to relieve the racist mind of it distortions that lead to the vilest, barbaric acts on human beings and the planet IN THE HISTORY OF MAN that continues to date we will never live in peace with them! HOW?

We are NOT their therapist and we already have the burden of relieving the effects on our minds as we have been attempting to exist in an unnatural backward hostile environment that was intended to breed dysfunctional behaviors!

IN RESEARCH CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION! “Correlation is not causation” means that just because two things correlate does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. <–My skin color did not create the deeply embedded distorted mind wound that racist whites suffer from nor is their inherent barbaric nature caused by my dark skin!

In that, regard isn’t it about time we dealt with this matter in truth as it is healing for the mind wounds we have incurred by forced and brutal interaction with a people who are extremely hostile and psychotic.
{END COMMENT}

After reflecting on “Perfections Paint Wine Sip” comment and my last two interviews with A.P. Brooks (https://goo.gl/yQkBtZ) and Dr. Jacqueline Battalora’s, Birth of a White Supremacist Nation (https://goo.gl/HAzcD2), I began looking at the history of the Eurasian from the time they emerged out of the caves.

They have been forced by nature to learn how to do only two things well. 1) divide and conquer and 2) preserve “whiteness”. I use quotation marks for whiteness because the term “white” as it relates to race and a group of people didn’t come into existence and law until 1681 before the founding constitution of America.

Nonetheless, every melanated person born in the US has never known the true North. We have individually and collectively always had to respond to Eurasians color sickness known as racism. It is thanks, in part, to Dr. Francis Cress Welsing’s work in the ISIS Papers (http://amzn.to/2gzWn3b) and how she discovered they developed what was known as #ReactionFormation and #PsychologicalProjection.

Reaction Formation is the tendency of a repressed wish or feeling to be expressed at a conscious level in a contrasting form. When you want something or want to BE something so bad, which in their case is to have color and be able to create color (procreate) that you consciously begin to despise and hate a group of people (the majority) to the detriment of your own good.

Psychological Projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. As Psychological Projection relates to race, it is called White Fragility (https://goo.gl/57lHOq). This is how and why “whites” scream “white lives matter”, deny “white” privilege exists, despise affirmative action, and actually have the nerve to say, we are racist towards them; LMBAO, SMDH!

Just think about the genetic deficiencies in their non-melanated skin? Realize that they have never invented or created ANYTHING original because they were never chosen first by Nature to walk the Earth!

One of the Philippe Matthews Show’s experts, Dr. Louann Brizendine (https://goo.gl/R4J8Ss) sent this email to a few days after her appearance on the show:

{BEGIN EMAIL}
I think you will deeply appreciate this:
“…each of us can trace our mitochondrial DNA lineage to a single human female who existed in Africa about two hundred thousand years ago. She is the common mother of our species. We do not know what she looked like, although her closest modern-day relatives are women of the San tribe from Botswana or Namibia.”…pg 338 THE GENE by S. Mukherjee 2016 especially read Part Five, the chapter called “So, We’s the Same” p329-351

Happy Sunday my friend,
Dr B
{END EMAIL}

The fact that they have attempted to erase a history of a people who first populated the planet. The fact that they are barbaric in nature because they have a genetic fear of annihilation. They want to matter so badly. They want to belong and be accepted by Melanated people, but they don’t and never will so it creates epigenetic hate (https://goo.gl/R4J8Ss) that is PROJECTED outward onto anyone who is not like them.

Their DNA is deficient and relies on Melanin to survive. They are grossly afraid that the world will see them for who they really are, so they are compelled to purchase arsenals of guns out of fear that once Melanated Americans figure out that they are not powerful, never built or created anything; we would be justified in executing them on sight. This is their inherent, internal fear. When you live below your genetic potential, you must create a narcissistic, center of the universe or god complex (https://goo.gl/yQkBtZ).

Long after they left the caves, when you look at the history of Europe, you will begin to see how these barbaric minds/brains began to shape and form this conquer all mentality. They simply want to exist as a dominant race even though they are a minority in the world.

joan-royal

Imagine living with that type of fear? You have to live and work around the very people you continually oppress and hope they won’t turn around and kill you when they wake up to your shallow veil of oppression. Once melanated people realize “whites” genetic fear, racism, and oppression of any kind can no longer control or influence us, melanated Americans will be forced to respond to racism. This is why protesting for the sake of protesting does not work. You are fighting an effect with another effect. You are trying to put a bandage on a symptom and not able to see or cure the cause. You can’t fight or conquer something you don’t understand or can’t see. Racism lurks in the shadows of the #CognitiveDissonace mind (https://goo.gl/bIqpoR).

Learn how to raise your frequency to see beyond the veil of racism. Racism is merely an effect of a DNA deficient species that is a mutation from the ice age, an insecure people who will never be able to be Melanated or produce Melanated offspring. Particularly “whites” (men) of America who must have guns to feel safe and protected from the fear of insurrection or another #BeaconsRebellion or #NatTurner rebellion (https://goo.gl/9XRKT7).

With this deeper look and understanding of the racist minds of “whites” in America and the world at large, you can look at most of them and honestly say: #youaintshit!

HASH:
#FracisCressWelsing, #ReactionFormation, #NatTurner, #PsychologicalProjection, #IsisPapers, #MentalSlavery, #divideandconquer, #dnadeficient, #youaintshit, #CognitiveDissonace, #PTSS, #BeaconsRebellion, #PsychologicalProjection

RELATED:
– Saint Xavier University Students Challenge Institutionalized White Supremacy https://goo.gl/fV7W9V
– Birth of a White Supremacist Nation with Dr. Jacqueline Battalora https://goo.gl/HAzcD2
– Dr. Louann Brizendine on the Male HATE Brain https://goo.gl/R4J8Ss

MORE:
Want More Melanin Mandate’s from #SHOCKMetaphysics?

Download the FREE 6-Day Crash Course www.ShockMetaphysics.com  Facebook: https://goo.gl/FHCAJD | Privated FB Group: https://goo.gl/MNH52U | Twitter: https://goo.gl/f77s5h

 

Obama Endorsed

In 2008, when we elected Barack Obama to the U.S. Presidency, I created this page to ask people “What does America mean to you?”  Although I received only a few responses, I continue to post this page with the trust that, eventually, people will answer this question.

I’m proud to say that my brother Carlton G. Cartwright, Founder and Executive Director of The Children’s Coalition, Inc. had the opportunity to videotape President Obama in West Palm Beach, FL

Be sure to see all of the videos – Parts 1-3.

Excerpt from The New Yorker’s Endorsement of President Obama:

In the realm of foreign policy, Obama came into office speaking the language of multilateralism and reconciliation—so much so that the Nobel Peace Prize committee, in an act as patronizing as it was premature, awarded him its laurels, in 2009. Obama was embarrassed by the award and recognized it for what it was: a rebuke to the Bush Administration. Still, the Norwegians were also getting at something more affirmative. Obama’s Cairo speech, that same year, tried to help heal some of the wounds not only of the Iraq War but, more generally, of Western colonialism in the Middle East. Speaking at Al Azhar University, Obama expressed regret that the West had used Muslim countries as pawns in the Cold War game of Risk. He spoke for the rights of women and against torture; he defended the legitimacy of the State of Israel while offering a straightforward assessment of the crucial issue of the Palestinians and their need for statehood, citing the “humiliations—large and small—that come with occupation.”

It was an edifying speech, but Obama was soon instructed in the limits of unilateral good will. Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hu Jintao, and other autocrats hardened his spirit. Still, he proved a sophisticated and reliable diplomat and an effective Commander-in-Chief. He kept his promise to withdraw American troops from Iraq. He forbade torture. And he waged a far more forceful campaign against Al Qaeda than Bush had—a campaign that included the killing of Osama bin Laden. He negotiated—and won Senate approval of—a crucial strategic-arms deal with the Russians, slashing warheads and launchers on both sides and increasing the transparency of mutual inspections. In Afghanistan, he has set a reasonable course in an impossible situation.

[In contrast,] Mitt Romney has embraced the values and the priorities of a Republican Party that has grown increasingly reactionary and rigid in its social vision. It is a party dominated by those who despise government and see no value in public efforts aimed at ameliorating the immense and rapidly increasing inequalities in American society. A visitor to the F.D.R. Memorial, in Washington, is confronted by these words from Roosevelt’s second Inaugural Address, etched in stone: “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide for those who have too little.” Romney and the leaders of the contemporary G.O.P. would consider this a call to class warfare. Their effort to disenfranchise poor, black, Hispanic, and student voters in many states deepens the impression that Romney’s remarks about the “forty-seven per cent” were a matter not of “inelegant” expression, as he later protested, but of genuine conviction.

If the keynote of Obama’s Administration has been public investment—whether in infrastructure, education, or health—the keynote of Romney’s candidacy has been private equity, a realm in which efficiency and profitability are the supreme values. As a business model, private equity has had a mixed record. As a political template, it is stunted in the extreme. Private equity is concerned with rewarding winners and punishing losers. But a democracy cannot lay off its failing citizens. It cannot be content to leave any of its citizens behind—and certainly not the forty-seven per cent whom Romney wishes to fire from the polity.

The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of the public good. In contrast, the sort of public investment championed by Obama—and exemplified by both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act—takes to heart the old civil-rights motto “Lifting as we climb.” That effort cannot, by itself, reverse the rise of inequality that has been under way for at least three decades. But we’ve already seen the future that Romney represents, and it doesn’t work.

The re-election of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney—a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity.

[Read entire article]

Proclamations

Who really built the United States of America?

What’s the matter with white people?

Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation Dilemma

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war,” said Lincoln at Gettysburg, “testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure.” Lincoln was fond of drawing attention outward, from local events to world import, from the crisis in America to the larger question of whether any democracy could survive the test the divided United States then faced. The Civil War, he argued, “embraces more than the fate of these United States.” Before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation — which would free slaves only in the seceded states that remained beyond the president’s immediate control — he fretted about “a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope’s bull against the comet,” referring to Callixtus III, who supposedly excommunicated Haley’s Comet because it was a bad war omen.

And when he had finally signed the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September of 1862, he spoke to celebratory crowds gathered outside the White House: “It is now for the country and the world to pass judgment.”

This was more than a rhetorical trope, and not just a reminder that the world was watching. Lincoln’s agonizing over the proclamation reflected a host of worries about self-government, practical politics, the future of the newly free African Americans and very possibly his own racist misgivings.

But foremost among these was the question of legitimacy and the constitutionality of the document. Even if issued as a war measure, a mere confiscation of enemy property, it was sure to be seen by many — perhaps even by Lincoln himself — as extraordinary medicine, even extra-legal. His Hamlet-like vacillating and deception during that period 150 years ago, when he pondered the document, wrote it, hid it in a drawer and finally issued it can best be understood in terms of Lincoln’s deep-seated fears about the viability of democracy: Was it capable of fixing itself?

In the late 19th century, as white Americans tried to exorcise the memory of slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation lost luster, replaced in the popular imagination by the more eloquent Gettysburg Address (which didn’t even mention slavery). And today it seems strange that we celebrate the proclamation at all, except as a precursor to the far more sweeping and triumphant accomplishment of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which two years later banned slavery everywhere in the country, without qualifications or geographical exceptions. We have mostly forgotten the reality of the document itself, its ignominious origins in military crisis, its lack of moral certainty, its dull rhetoric and all the other faults that led historian Richard Hofstadter to complain that it “had all the moral grandeur of a bill of lading.”

And yet this document of war remains a sacred document of democracy, testament to the messiness rather than the ideals of governing. In an age when Western democracies are confronted by new forms of authoritarianism, which offer prosperity and security in exchange for political quiescence, the Emancipation Proclamation forces us to think about the fundamental vexations of representative government: Is democracy capable of resolving grand crises? Can we defend against terrorism without compromise to liberty? Can we reform our economies and free ourselves from crippling debts? Can we stave off environmental apocalypse? In short, is democracy capable of great things?

Both celebrated and condemned

If you can make your peace with the Emancipation Proclamation, you can make your peace with Lincoln. The president claimed it as the signal accomplishment of his administration, and it established him in the minds of free slaves and the annals of popular history as “the Great Emancipator.” Parsing the document may be the most productive and inconclusive franchise in Lincoln scholarship. Over the past 150 years, it has been celebrated as the death knell of slavery yet condemned as an unconstitutional usurpation of power, a capitulation by the president to his radical left flank, proof of Lincoln’s slow and inadequate evolution toward racial justice, a mere tool in the prosecution of the war, a political gambit to demoralize the South, a reckless invitation to race war, and both the least and the most that a cautious, deliberate leader could manage at the moment.

During his presidential campaign, Lincoln promised that his personal opposition to slavery wouldn’t affect the institution where it was legal. And while the Civil War was first prosecuted with assurances that the goal was the restoration of union, not abolition, Lincoln began dropping hints of of a general emancipation in the summer of 1862.

His record on slavery up to that time had been mixed. He had countermanded or discouraged orders by Union generals freeing slaves in Missouri, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, citing presidential prerogatives and the necessity of placating the slave-holding but still-loyal border states. But he had also signed an April 1862 bill that abolished slavery in the District of Columbia, and a few months later he freed slaves throughout U.S. territories.

His rhetoric was equally ambivalent. Lincoln’s opposition to slavery often seemed lukewarm. As Frederick Douglass said years after the war, “Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull and indifferent.”

Historians have attempted to square these apparent contradictions in different ways. John Hope Franklin, in his 1963 history of the Emancipation Proclamation, gave Lincoln the credit of most doubts, depicting the president besieged on all sides, from radical abolitionists who denounced an urgent moral evil to slaveholders still loyal to the Union who constantly threatened to join the South if Lincoln wavered on his promise to pursue only reunification. “The pressure of individuals and groups added to the President’s woes without contributing to a practical solution of the problem,” wrote Franklin.

No matter his feelings on slavery, Lincoln felt compelled to present and defend the Emancipation Proclamation as a military necessity — a strategic blow to the South, where the economy and thus the war effort depended on slave labor — rather than a moral statement. When it came, it was essentially two documents, beginning with a threat issued on Sept. 22, 1862, that he would emancipate slaves in any state still in rebellion on Jan. 1, 1863. He shared the preliminary proclamation with his Cabinet on July 22 but withheld it on the advice of Secretary of State William H. Seward, who feared it would look desperate to issue it in the midst of the summer’s military disasters. Lincoln waited two months, until after the battle of Antietam — by no means a decisive Union victory, but at least not a disaster — to make it public. The actual proclamation, greeted by ecstatic Jubilee celebrations on New Year’s Day by African Americans and abolitionists in the North, made good on the earlier threat.

Version one

The first proclamation wasn’t universally popular in the United States or abroad. It angered abolitionists for its half measures, for being merely an instrument of military policy, for its vague promise of compensation to slave owners and for its mention of colonization — Lincoln’s scheme to send freed blacks to other countries after liberation. The working class in England loved it, but their leaders, deeply embroiled in Colonial projects, saw it as a dangerous invitation to black-on-white war and fundamentally hypocritical. “The principle asserted,” said the Spectator, “is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.” Between the preliminary threat and the actual emancipation, however, feelings softened, especially among abolitionists.

Yet nothing that troubled Lincoln in the first document was cleared up by the second. Lincoln repeatedly said he believed that the proclamation was constitutional, but it was immediately declared not so by editorialists throughout the North and the South. Even former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, who had dissented in the notorious 1857 Dred Scott case and resigned from the court in part because of the decision, attacked Lincoln’s proclamation as an unjust extension of executive power. When Lincoln had a chance to appoint a new chief justice in 1864, he chose the stalwart anti-slavery Republican Salmon Chase, in part because Chase could be counted upon not to overturn the proclamation.

Regardless of Lincoln’s motivations and true feelings, his delay and mixed messages had a serious impact on African Americans, according to some scholars.

“There is no making sense of such a perverse record,” writes historian Mark Neely Jr., who has convincingly demonstrated the miserable effect Lincoln’s equivocating had on free blacks. The nation was riven by race riots, and some African Americans in the North were seriously considering leaving the country: “A truthful revelation of the government policy embodied in a document in Lincoln’s desk might have changed the course of their lives.”

But likely, Lincoln was no less consistent than any other man, and though a gifted logician in argument, he was not necessarily logical in his own views on race and slavery. If he could be transplanted from his age into ours, his racial views would sound like the soft-core animus of a genteel “Bell Curve” racist: Intent on basic fairness, but convinced that whites are more civilized and better adapted to self-governance than blacks. His view on abolition might remind us of the sincerely halfhearted way that many people today embrace environmentalism or vegetarianism, convinced of their moral necessity yet unwilling to zealously oppose an entrenched way of life. This is either hypocrisy or moderation, depending on one’s perspective.

In fear of great power

Throughout his career, Lincoln was haunted by an almost superstitious fear of executive fiat, which may best explain his anguish before signing the proclamation. It showed up early, in an 1838 speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield, Ill., in which he imagined a Nietzschean superman rising up within American democracy and threatening it with dictatorial ambition: “Is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? And when such an one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.” This “towering genius,” Lincoln feared, might exploit the demagogic potential of slavery: “It thirsts and burns for distinction; and if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen.”

This was Lincoln in fear of a man just like himself. The idea of great power often seemed to flummox him. “If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution,” he said, as preamble to some of his more overtly racist and despairing remarks about slavery. His comparison of emancipation to a papal “bull,” and his frequent reference to it as a “thunderbolt” suggest how keenly he felt it might set a dangerous precedent for a nation of laws, even if limited in scope and justified as an act of war. Perversely, he yielded often enough to the temptation he abhorred, suspending habeas corpus and arresting a political opponent for giving a speech that might discourage the war effort.

And yet there is almost universal agreement — and Lincoln felt so, too — that while the 13th Amendment abolished slavery legally, the Emancipation Proclamation had killed it symbolically, and, short of a Southern victory, in all practical senses. So while a magnificent act of human justice, it was hardly an accomplishment of democracy. By the summer of 1862, Lincoln had despaired of a purely democratic process to abolish slavery, through compensation, containment and a natural withering away. Slavery would require an extraordinary response, a “thunderbolt” from outside the system of laws and representative government. He himself would have to hurl that bolt.

A crisis he envisioned

The unruliness of democracy, bitter sectional feeling, entrenchment of the slave system and Southern moral defensiveness had led America to the place of crisis Lincoln so feared in his Lyceum speech. Secession and war were failures of the democratic system, and the emancipation order underscored that failure.

This was not the way things were supposed to work in the City on a Hill, which looked impotent and broken in a world still full of vigorous autocrats. In 1861, a year before the American emancipation, Alexander II of Russia freed more serfs, and promised them more opportunities, than Lincoln did the slaves. In 1879, as Reconstruction was failing, the czar compared his thoroughly authoritarian solution with Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, saying he could not “understand how you Americans could have been so blind as to leave the Negro Slave without tools to work out his salvation.”

Lincoln was long dead. But he might have said it wasn’t a matter of being blind to the problem or unaware of the dangers. He had done what he could, which might be more than the Constitution allowed. And in so doing he had righted a great wrong, paved the way for the union to survive and set a precedent that deeply troubled him.

We can sympathize today, living in a democratic system that is even larger and more unwieldy, and growing more polarized. It is a common theme of political speculation that large, Western democracies may be endangered, today: by the lethargy with which they respond to crises, the half measures and sausage making that vitiates most efforts at reform, and the sheer accumulation of threats — environmental, political and social. The Emancipation Proclamation is a terrifying reminder that sometimes the only way to fix the system is to let it break down and then hit the reset button.

What does America mean to you?

 

One Woman’s Voice

Absurdity Rules the World By Siv O’Neall

July 20, 2012

The absurdity of the world today is so blinding that we can barely see through the fog to discern what went so wrong.

Plans had been spun for years in the dark underground caves by the enemies of man. The Neoconservatives had it all planned, but one factor was missing.
Propaganda had already been working its insidious misinformation. The mass media were already more than willing to play the game of Big Money.

Americans were thoroughly indoctrinated to toe the line of Big Power. Respect for power and blind obedience were the result of the U.S. educational system. “I pledge obedience to the flag of the United States of America …” Millions and millions of yes-men had been molded out of the clay of propaganda and history books.

Yes, the Neoconservatives had it all in hand. Ronald Reagan had taken the first big step to load the dice. Anybody with a conscience was now going to be deprived of any realistic means of resetting the scales to a just balance. This was the beginning of the policy of ‘starving the beast’. The little people had no say. Only Big Money weighed heavily enough to tip the balance. Bill Clinton continued in the steps of his predecessors and the famous climbing ladder, supposed to be available to all Americans, became more and more of an illusion.

But the real introduction of lawlessness and the total contempt for the needs of the masses, that were soon to follow, were still only in the sick minds of the Neocon cavemen. In order to carry out their destructive projects, one factor was standing in their way. The people might become a powerful force against their openly unconstitutional planned take-over. Could even the Supreme Court be relied on to take the side of the Neocon monsters? The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)[1] may well have as its goal the promotion of American global leadership, but would the end justify the means? Could this little clique of psychopaths do their deeds and clear the hurdles that were still in clear view?

The path to world domination is made possible

September 11 made it all possible. Whatever really happened on that fateful day will probably never be known to the public, even though theories abound. But what we do know is that mass hysteria was awakened in the American people and the surgeons could now come in and chop away at human rights, spread fear instead of showing a reasonable calm, and all this without being hampered by any humanitarian considerations. The homeland had been attacked. All means were from now on considered legal.

The cheerleaders were in full swing, flags were waving all over America the beautiful. National pride was steered towards revenge with an unstoppable force, constantly nurtured by radio, television and bumper-sticker propaganda.

Patriotism had its field day and barely any questions were asked. The tiny clique of cavemen made preposterous statements, unsupported by any real facts and the citizens lapped it up blindly, without the slightest attempt at verifying the truth of the accusations. Mass hysteria snowballed.

A country was pointed out as being behind this incomparably heinous deed. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever, but people didn’t pay any attention. The propaganda channels were screaming: “Never in the history of mankind has a deed been wrought that was more evil, more undeserved, more incomprehensible.

What do they have against us?

There’s absolutely nothing in the world that we have done that would deserve an attack like this one.”

The rah-rah chorus got louder and louder. “Our country, the most civilized, the most moral and the most powerful country in the world has been attacked by an evil country. How did they dare?”

The patriotic screams covered over any voice that dared point out that the entire show didn’t make any sense.

The ingenious invention – the WAR ON TERROR

Now the doors were open for the United States of America to put their underground plans into action. From that day on, any lies were accepted without so much as a question as to the logic and credibility of the claims brazenly made.

The U.S. President became an ever more powerful actor on the world stage. He could wage wars that were not wars. He could kill civilians who were not civilians. He could initiate invasions of nations that were not invasions. Up was down and down was up. Sense and logic had given up the stage to hysteria and illusions. Non-sense is the rule of the day.

How was this possible? Because of an attack on two skyscrapers that collapsed like sand castles because two airplanes flew into them and a third one that did so without anything hitting it? No, that wasn’t enough. It wasn’t quite that simple.

They had to invent a WAR ON TERROR. Never was a shrewder invention made in human history. Everybody who opposes our holy war on terror is a terrorist. Et voilà. As simple as that.

The fear and pride in their country made Americans blind to what was really going on in the aggressive U.S. politics. Countries were invaded and torn apart, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, lost their homes, were made to flee their countries. Families were disunited, parents were searching for their children, children were crying for their lost parents. The horror that spread through the world was hidden from the American people due to the corruption of the mass media. What they saw on their television screens was theater à la carte. What they heard and read was that the United States was saving the world from tyranny and introducing freedom and democracy.

The overall purpose of the PNAC people, the Neoconservatives, is to control the planet At whatever cost. Cost in human lives, cost in destruction of the environment, cost in the destruction of other people’s cultures. Millennia of traditions are of no importance.

To this end slogans are made up that fit their goal. Muslims are terrorists. Everybody who is against the War on Terror and Washington’s all-means-justify-the-end principle is a terrorist and should be sent to lifelong imprisonment or killed outright. Drug traffic is evil, unless it’s run by the United States. U.S military are all good people and are justified in doing whatever they are doing. Except for a few bad apples, of course.

Whatever country does not cooperate fully with the United States is corrupt and should be made to see the light.  See Libya.  See Syria.  See Iran.  And first of all there was of course Afghanistan and Iraq. Any country which has valuable resources that they don’t willingly turn over to U.S.-centered corporations must be taught to rethink their policies. Or they will become the victims of invasions and ghastly killing sprees.

Washington’s sore toe

Latin America was once considered the U.S. backyard and it is against nature itself that those countries now have the gall to run their own business. So Paraguay happens. So Mexico happens. How long will they be able to run business in Colombia? When will the freedom fighters (the ‘terrorists’ of course) manage to stop the corrupt and deadly U.S. influence over the running of this nation?

When will the other September 11 be repeated, the one in Santiago, Chile, in 1973, when Salvador Allendewas killed and a murderous dictatorship installed? Oh yes, the neoliberalism of Milton Friedman and the Chicago boys dates back much farther than to the Neoconservative fanatics.

coup was tried again in April of 2002, this time against Hugo Chávez, but the rage of the people made this coup a miserable failure. Chávez was reinstalled after two days of rightist brainless celebrations.  If the mass media had done their job, the power behind the coup, that is the United States, would have become a worldwide laughingstock.

Caring for the people is communist-inspired soft-headed nonsense

Socialism is for the weak of heart, and a strong nation doesn’t need nationalized enterprise. Private ownership is what makes for progress and private profit is what makes the world go round. Real men are capitalists.

The people are of no importance. They are all collateral damage. Who needs the local store owner? Who needs the industrial worker since labor is so much cheaper elsewhere. Who needs the small farmer since agribusiness is so much more profitable to the corporations?

The United States is busy wielding its secret power in any country that becomes a threat to the Empire – any country that might possibly be won over to democracy in a popular uprising. Egypt looked at first like a promise to the world of freedom, but there is not a chance that a new regime will ever heed the voice of the people who fought so bravely in Tahrir Square over a year ago. The military and the Muslim Brotherhood will no doubt do whatever Washington tells them to do.

Libya was callously and stealthily destroyed. Tripoli and much of the rest of the country was bombed to smithereens. And what had Qaddafi made himself guilty of? Making Libya the richest country in Africa after its having been the poorest. But he threatened to nationalize the oil and gas and that is strictly verboten if the U.S. can have a say. And they made sure they did. Qaddafi had to go since Libya is essential for U.S. control over the Middle East [2].
And then comes Syria, an increasingly bloody mess, waiting for its turn to be submitted to the same destiny.

And who is in collusion with Washington in all this western imperialism? NATO, of course. The EU with all its puppets called Barroso, Christine Lagarde (IMF), Cameron, Sarkozy/Hollande (in spite of Hollande’s empty talk of ending austerity measures), Merkel, who might well be the one honest prime minister/leader in Europe, since she seems to be acting for Germany more than for the Empire.

But Washington is the preserver of freedom and democracy in the world and no country is as free or has the moral rectitude of the United States. Follow the example of Washington and all will be well. We will all be little Americans and we will all be eating big Macs at MacDonald’s and buying our T-shirts at Walmart’s.

The way the Empire runs its mission of saving the world is by ignoring any humanitarian needs at home or abroad. The standard of living is steadily going down in the Western world. Who cares? People are dying by the hundreds of thousands all over the world and in particular in the countries that have become the special targets for Washington since they are considered essential for U.S. absolute global domination.

The corporations are getting together to make the poor farmers in Africa a mass of starving slaves of Big Money, the victims of the monstrous proceedings of the totally immoral corporate agribusiness.

The absurd world

We are living in a theater of the absurd. Our world has been emptied of all real meaning. The substitute for real living is accumulating – whatever. Mainly money, of course, or things. Anything. In the absence of money, we accumulate debt. Our reason for living has become adding one gadget to another, or one million to another, and then, finally, sitting on top of a tower of failed hopes and ambitions.

Communication is getting limited to incessant blabber on our mobile phones to say – nothing. People have let their own hearts and minds go stale and they are now only occupied with a semblance of communication which has become an obsession without any meaning, with no ideals, no goals in life.  What are we going to become? Empty vessels of hate and fear, exactly the robots that the monsters in power were planning on.

Politics have become entertainment, another soap opera to distract the masses. There is no sense in participating in the election game since all elections are rigged in advance. The stage is set for the Corporations to run the planet Earth into the ultimate abyss.

Have people even noticed that democracy is dead?

Conclusion

The predator hawks are flying across the skies, swooping down to attack wherever there is a vague sign of populism, combined with resources of any kind that can be turned into money.

All this is made possible in the thick fog spread over the world by the WAR ON TERROR. Anything goes. People are totally ignorant of how the Corpocrats are busy destroying their lives and the environment. The blind and deaf people, the propaganda victims, are the perfect, easily manipulated human robots that the Neocons were depending on for their total success.

Unless we can relearn to use our brains and our critical sense, our ability to see the reality through the fog of fear and indolence, not only will we ourselves be done away with through the gradual ‘starving of the beast’, but the whole planet will be made a sterile desert. At the end of the day the predators will be found begging for the crumbs of food left over from the few self-supporting farmers who managed to withstand the corporate predators.

[Source]