BIRTH OF THE NEW INSURGENTS
Callamity
quite differently than I do. When the Shah, Marcos, Suharto, Pinochet,
and other similar tyrants were in power the U.S. described the
governments they headed as democracies... and the labels communism,
terrorist, or terrorist supporter were slapped on the governments of
Sukarno, Allende, Castro, Mugabe, and Hussein.
My definitions are based on what I assume those words were intended to
mean and not how they have been used or interpreted over time. I think
Lincoln's definition of democracy as "a government of the people, by
the people and for the people" pretty much says all that needs to be
said. "From each according to ability to each according to need in a
system where real estate and the means of production are commonly
owned" is a
satisfactory explanation for communism. And terrorism is "the use of
threats or violence to accomplish a political objective."
Using my definitions... which I challenge anyone to counter... those
tyrants listed above did not preside over democracies. As a matter of
fact, the U.S. itself doesn't meet Lincoln's definition of Democracy
either. It is actually "a government of the corporation, by the
corporation and for the corporation." The U.S. considers any government
that permits corporations to exploit its resources a democracy. Nations
unwilling
to open their doors to the dubious benefits of such a corporate
democracy are labeled either communists and/or terrorists.
The best known and first to be defined "communist nation" never
considered itself a communist country. The name it adopted was the
Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics -- knowing that socialism is not
communism. The Soviets may have aspired to communism but realized
they were far from that stage. Of course, misnomers within the Soviet
bloc existed there as well -- ergo, the GDR, the German DEMOCRATIC
Republic.
Year after year... when the U.S. and its puppet media were extolling
those favored "democracies," those countries were recipients of
extensive financial and military aid from their generous sugar daddy,
Uncle Sam. In addition, Uncle Sam provided professional training and
assistance, compliments of the CIA, for controlling unruly rabble.
which, of course, means anyone who was smart enough to see behind the
veil of
lies and make a stink about it. The diligent graduates of the Shah's
SAVAK were samples of what had been achieved. But in spite of Uncle's
assistance those governments were unable to survive for very long. In
each case their demise resulted from an uprising of their people who
defied lying rulers, brutal police, and military or political
repression.
On the other hand, those dastardly communist and terrorist governments
maintained the support of their people. If such governments were ousted
it was by coups supported by external powers, usually the U.S. Their
replacements became US-installed "democracies" that met the
well-deserved fate just described.
Perhaps my definition (and Lincoln's) of democracy is too limited.
Voting in free and fair elections is certainly a characteristic of
democracies. Didn't those US-listed democracies qualify? And how could
I possibly criticize the U.S.? After all, it holds elections regularly.
They are not limited to one political party, and all citizens are
encouraged to vote.
Quite true... however, they comply only in form but not in substance.
The rhetoric is there... the PR is there... the hoopla is there... but
the reality of an authentic choice is nonexistent. Securing a place on
the ballot and obtaining fair and ample media exposure is only
available to those who have proven their loyalty to the elite.
Elections are nothing more than charades these days. More and more
people know it. That's why the winning presidential vote count never
exceeds the number of eligible non-voters. Yet every party, the media,
employers, unions, educational and religious organizations unanimously
urge the public to vote. I have never heard any source in the U.S. hint
that not voting might be a reasonable and logical option. Although
non-voters outnumber the winners their existence is ignored. The
winner's share is always the percentage of those who voted rather than
those who
were eligible. It's too embarrassing in this hyped-up, supposedly
wonderful democracy to acknowledge that so many have lost confidence.
Just imagine what numbers the non-voters might amass if there was a
well organized and provocative campaign to get people to boycott
elections!
Or, better yet... a campaign to get people to demand Truth, Honor, and
Justice from our elected officials.
I sincerely believe that democracy should represent the voice of the
people. But getting somebody to pull levers or make check marks once a
year after being barraged with smear ads and grandstanding by the mass
media is a weak manifestation of democracy. When people go out of their
way repeatedly to expend money, picket, protest, write letters, and at
times defy the authorities... that to me is evidence of democracy.
Whenever one of those supposed democratic rulers was toppled it was in
my mind a triumph of democracy. The Will of The People won out over
those who were judged unfit to be in power.
Time and time again... a weakling stands up to a more powerful
adversary and against all logic defeats him. Recent history is full of
stories about US puppets getting the bum's rush from their countrymen.
Vietnam, that small, poor, Third World country, took on the French, the
U.S., and troops of other nations. More firepower pounded that little
land than was needed to defeat the Germans and Japanese in World War
II. Years of unceasing attacks by the mightiest military power was
insufficient to crush that valiant nation. Could any election possibly
equal such a commitment to democracy than was shown by the
Vietnamese sacrifices during those years?
How in the world can the anomaly of citizens overthrowing democracies
and defending tyrannies be explained?
Propaganda!
The US government has always played it fast and loose when describing
their friends and foes. George Bush went even farther when he uttered
one of the most stupid phrases ever to fall from the mouth of a fool...
"Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists". The mainstream
media, by echoing and amplifying those distortions, has been able to
fool most of the American people most of the time.
Most... not all. Some of us still know how to reason and come to
logical conclusions, right?
Why do you think Castro's Cuba, despite constant political and militant
harassment by the U.S., outlast so many subsidized favorites? An answer
might be revealed by comparing how that poor sanctioned country and the
wealthy sole superpower treats their citizens
when emergencies arise.
When the Soviet Union finally crumbled, vital trade and other benefits
that Cuba received from the Soviet bloc ceased and an ensuing financial
crisis made it look like the end for Cuba. To clinch that result the
U.S. slapped more onerous sanctions on the island. The consequences for
Cuba were tough austerity measures. The military budget was slashed
almost in half, but high priority social spending for health and
education, was maintained. Food subsidies and rationing assured a
minimum of essential nutrition to all.
Then we had 9/11 and Bush and the neocons finally had an emergency to
exploit. Pre-emptive wars with accompanying increases in the military
budget fattened the military-industrial complex but brought death to
the poor kids who had "volunteered" for the military... as Orwell
called it - The Poverty Draft. Benefits such as tax reductions and
subsidies were dolled out to corporations and the wealthy. The revenue
loss was partially offset by reductions in essential social services.
Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties went bye-bye.
Isn't it self-evident why Cubans would strongly support their country?
And why the U.S., with all the bonuses and promises that military
service holds out, is unable to meet its recruiting quotas... and why
MANY career soldiers are leaving and refusing reenlistment?
People are beginning to stand up to the Big Bullies. Hugo Chávez, like
Castro, has his people behind him. He wins elections overwhelmingly,
overturns a coup, and withstands his opponents' organized strike. With
eighty percent of the population who live in poverty finally getting a
break, the Venezuelan elite and their American allies have met their
match. Protests in other Latin American countries have also been
successful. The oppressive overlords were resisted or ousted.
Peoples around the world are getting pissed off. People who have been
subjected for years and years to the abuses of neo-colonial rule of the
U.S., its allies and puppets have had enough. I imagine that Howard
Beale's familiar outcry "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it
anymore!" may be resonating in their thoughts. Bush's approval numbers
have dropped below 40 percent now so it's pretty obvious
that people are beginning to wake up and realize they were duped... and
that they need to confront those that did the duping.
The indoctrinated, Fox News fed public will instinctively characterize
such actions as criminal terrorism. But is it? I don't think so and I
don't
think Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence,
would think so either. Here are pertinent excerpts from that hallowed
document that justified the colonists' rebellion against their lawful
government (emphasis added):
. . . Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers
from the Consent of the Governed, -- That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in
such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and
accordingly all
Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms
to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and
Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a Design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their
Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their
future Security . . .
The New Insurgents can certainly find justification in those venerated
assertions. We must join the millions of others who are no longer
patsies to the PR campaigns of the media are regularly protesting in
major cities around the world.
We are the New Insurgents. We must help others find the courage to
question their beliefs and views... and question those they support.
Think about it... left to their own selves many Americans wouldn't know
what to die for... let alone what to live for.
Do you know?
I'm just askin'...
Lo Phat Ham
Sam Carana
the people and for the people". You seem to be implying that there was something wrong with corporations.
callemity
Hi Lo Phat Ham!You challange your definitions to be countered, so here we go.You say that the U.S. isn't a democracy but "a government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation." You prefer to see a democracy as "a government of the people, by
the people and for the people". You seem to be implying that there was something wrong with corporations.Instead, corporations are inherently democratic, as they allow shareholders to vote and closely follow customer demand. In a democracy, people are free to choose their level of involvement with a corporation, either or both as customers, staff or shareholders. Corporations are much more democratic than government-owned organizations such as public schools. In corporations, people make decisions, whereas public schools are ruled by bureacracy and compulsion as they effectively have only one customer, i.e. government. Public schools seek to grow into ever larger and more powerful bureaucracies for the sake of it and they compare badly in terms of responsiveness, accountibility, efficiency and innovation with corporations.It's better to split up a large public school into structurally separate corporations that compete for customers. Initially, government will remain the main customer of such corporations; progressively, tax deductions and vouchers should enable such corporations to offer education more directly to a variety of customers. Government as a customer will thus gradually decrease in importance, as other customers (including companies, non-profit organizations, families and individuals) proportionally grow.Best regards,Sam Carana
callemity
Hi Lo Phat Ham!You challange your definitions to be countered, so here we go.You say that the U.S. isn't a democracy but "a government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation." You prefer to see a democracy as "a government of the people, by
the people and for the people". You seem to be implying that there was something wrong with corporations.
Instead, corporations are inherently democratic, as they allow shareholders to vote and closely follow customer demand. In a democracy, people are free to choose their level of involvement with a corporation, either or both as customers, staff or shareholders. Corporations are much more democratic than government-owned organizations such as public schools. In corporations, people make decisions, whereas public schools are ruled by bureacracy and compulsion as they effectively have only one customer, i.e. government. Public schools seek to grow into ever larger and more powerful bureaucracies for the sake of it and they compare badly in terms of responsiveness, accountibility, efficiency and innovation with corporations.
It's better to split up a large public school into structurally separate corporations that compete for customers. Initially, government will remain the main customer of such corporations; progressively, tax deductions and vouchers should enable such corporations to offer education more directly to a variety of customers. Government as a customer will thus gradually decrease in importance, as other customers (including companies, non-profit organizations, families and individuals) proportionally grow.
--
www.LoPhatHam.Com