Welcome to Earth Colony: SLAVE MORALITY v. MASTER MORALITY OR NOT OF GLORY BUT OF GREED

John Brown, pic EC

John Brown was a great man. He was an abolitionist in the pre-civil war United States.  He eventually came to understand that Christian religious/moral arguments against slavery would never be persuasive to slave owners and their states to stop the institution of slavery. Nor did he believe moral arguments could cause an anti-slavery amendment to the U.S. constitutional because Congress could never meet the required 66% ratification of both houses of Congress or 66% of the States because of greed.

He also came to understand that logical arguments based upon the Enlightenment premise that each person has inherent natural rights and that each person must be presumed reasonable would not be persuasive to the slave owners, their states, and the massive economic infrastructure which had grown dependent upon slave labor for national economic prosperity, either.  He understood that race ideology was a tool used to short circuit logical reasoning so as to create straw man arguments based upon the premise of white supremacy.

John Brown was compelled to reach one conclusion.  It would be necessary for African Slaves to fight their way out of slavery by any means necessary.  With that thought in mind, John Brown and some of his sons seized a U.S. military armory.  They then called on neighboring slaves to fight their way out of slavery side by side with them.  The slaves refused to do so.

Some of the slaves informed on him.  The others refused to stand and fight.  John Brown fought the U.S. Army. Most of his sons were killed. He was wounded and captured. He was hanged on December 2, 1859.  But he stated in his last words that only a bloody war against the slave owners and their states could free the slaves.  He was right.  The Civil War started in 1861 only two years later.  Over 600,000 people died in just four (4) years.  It was a savage blood bath.

I do not mean to belabor you with so much history; but history is so important for an understanding of present social circumstances. What people did and thought in the past should be studied. Note, the slaves wouldn’t fight and note some of them informed the plantation owners of John Brown’s plan.  Can we identify the same patterns today?  I answer yes. However, first we must examine some of the most influential thoughts on population of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. These are thoughts which every African American should know and understand.

MASTER MORALITY

thomas malthus

THOMAS MALTHUS

The method to reduce birth rates of poor populations was devised centuries ago. Thomas Malthus wrote a book entitled: ‘Essays on the Principle of Population’ in 1798. In that book he laid down a theory.  He said that population will grow indefinitely because people have an automatic sex drive which causes them to reproduce offspring and because people need to eat food. He stated that unless there are checks and balances in the environment to stop it population would grow unabated.

What should be of concern to African Americans is what Malthus identified as a method to decrease the birth rate of an unwanted population.   He termed it ‘Preventative’ checks on population growth.  It originates as political policy.  As such the sentiment and laws of the general public promote and execute such method as a matter in the interest of the state.

By the ‘Preventative’ method to decrease a population’s birth rate he said that two general political policies must be executed among the lower classes.

The first, he said, must be a policy to institute ‘vice’. Vice would constitute the social encouragement of uncivilized habits combined with poverty.  For example: discourage good hygiene, make them live in neighborhoods that are polluted areas of a given city with narrow streets making them more vulnerable to disease and or physical disability, provide less habitable dwellings than needed by the them so there is homelessness, make available to them low paying jobs, discourage them from marriage, make their schools dysfunctional, provide small portions or cheap low quality food, allow prostitution, make criminal acts a more likely choice for the young especially the males, and introduce communicable diseases into their population .

The second policy under the ‘Preventative’ method, he said, should be ‘misery’. Misery would constitute psychological depression, low self-esteem, suicide, and institutionalized hopelessness.  Misery would follow as a byproduct of the first policy. If executed as a matter of public policy, each of the two types of ‘Preventative’ methods would decrease the birth rate of a given population over time.

Charles Darwin

 CHARLES DARWIN

Charles Darwin wrote: ‘The Descent of Man’.  It was published in 1871.  As you can see it follows in time Thomas Malthus’ book who in turn followed Adam Smith’s cornerstone theory on capitalism: ‘The Wealth of Nations’ (1776).  These writers signaled the birth of a new world view.

Darwin theorized that in nature animal species compete with different species and with others in their own species for resources of every kind.  Even when there are plentiful resources greed or the fundamental insecurity of an animal will drive it to take everything for itself.  For Darwin, conflict is one of the driving forces of animal and therefore human history.  History for him is not of glory but of greed. He stated that racial extinction is the result of inter-racial or tribal competition for resources in times of plenty and scarcity.[1]

Darwin predicted in ‘The Descent of Man’ that ‘race’ war is inevitable and that in the future lower races will be exterminated by higher races. This is a population issue because for Darwin genocide is natural not criminal. The law of nature that he describes can reduce a population by increasing the death rate due to war with another group of people or animals. He also said that it is just as illogical to breed defective people as it is to breed defective animals. Please, bare with me, this is very important for you to think on.[2]

 Galton

FRANCIS GALTON

Arguments for the application of Preventative population control through state power was triggered by the Eugenics movement.  Francis Galton was the cousin of Charles Darwin. Galton wrote the book: ‘Hereditary Genius’. In that book he theorized that intelligence is a heritable genetic trait like hair color, skin color, and height and that it is passed down from one generation to a succeeding generation.  He argued that there should be selective breeding.  He invented a mathematical method to prove his theory of inherent intellectual differences between races.  His statistical method is called the normal distribution curve and the difference between means.[3]

With that method, he argued that races have different naturally determined levels of intelligence, physicality, and sexuality.  From that argument he founded the theory of Eugenics and the Eugenics movement.  The basic premise of the Eugenics’ theory corresponds to that of both Malthus and Darwin.  He argued that there should be political policies which restrict the reproductive opportunities of lower races and genetically defective people.  In the United States for nearly 80 years many states enacted laws which vested the state with executive power to sterilize women and to castrate men who were deemed genetically unfit.[4]  Such state eugenical laws were supported by the Supreme Court ruling in Buck v. Bell, 1927.

Margaret Sanger

MARGARET SANGER

Galton’s theory gave rise to early 20th century birth control organizations like the ‘American Birth Control League’, its spin off: ‘The Negro Project’, and today, the ‘Planned Parenthood Federation of America’.  It was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921. Margaret Sanger believed in White Supremacy.[5]

Her husband William Sanger was Jewish by birth but was not his religious practice as an adult man. He and Margaret were both Communists.  It’s important to know their political and philosophical beliefs because as Communists they believed in an inherently amoral universe. One structured by natural law as argued by both Darwin and Galton.

She targeted African women in Harlem, New York, through the ‘Negro Project’ clinic; she also targeted other minority ethnic women and men to reduce their number of pregnancies and thereby their birth rate.[6] She argued that ‘dysgenic’ groups like African Americans had two choices. They could either choose segregation or sterilization.

She organized at a time when the poor and/or immigrants were crowded into cities but in a nation where there was no scarcity of land, food, and other resources in the United States.

The basis of her argument to women was that having too many children was unhealthy and would cause a shorter life-span.  And to both men and women her argument was that they could not financially afford to care for too many children.

She did not address the extremely unequal distribution of income which existed at that time in the United States. At that time 1% of the U.S. population took home 28% of the national income.  Nor did she target the wealthy that were called the gilded class as being exploitative of the poor.

She didn’t target the wealthy because the wealthy were funding her birth control clinics.  Familiar names to students of the international banking system are listed.  John D. Rockefeller who if you recall was one of the founders of the Federal Reserve Bank and Income Tax acts of 1913; Julius Rosonwald of Sears and Roebuck, Company; Clarence Gamble,  founder of Proctor and Gamble; and the Ku Klux Klan were all financial donors of her organization.

Her ideas were a direct offshoot of Malthus, Darwin, and Galton.[7] However, her interest was not in theory. She moved to institutionalize their ideas into state and federal law. She appealed to women’s moral sensitivity because she argued on the premise of a moral argument, i.e., a ‘women’s right to choose’ when in fact she did not believe in essential morality of any kind.  She argued it at a time when women were generally abused in society. She was for them what Paul was to Christianity.

Black Flag spray

      APPLICATION OF THE MASTER MORALITY

Now, let’s look at some facts and ask ourselves: could the target population for preventative political policies Thomas Malthus wrote on in his book be us?

In 1954, the Supreme Court held in ‘Brown v. Board of Education…’ that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. It signaled the beginning of racial integration of public facilities in the United States; it initiated the legal movement against ‘Jim crow laws’ premised upon ‘separate but equal’.

That same year (1954 to 1960) the birth rate of African American women was 4.5 births per woman. Thereafter, their birth rate started to go down such that by 1970 it was 3.0 children per African American woman ages 15 to 45.

By 1975 it was 2.5.  Today, 2013, the number of babies per African American woman between 15 and 45 is 1.9.  That is a 50% decrease over 55 years.  That amounts to a one percentage point decline per year from 1954.  At 1.9 babies per woman, for the first time African Women are not reproducing enough babies to replace the current population of 42 million.

Why is this happening to us?  One reason is that the Federal Drug Administration approved the birth control pill in 1960.  We see a negative correlation between the increased use of and marketing of birth control pills and a drop in the African American fertility rate.  That is a fact.

Was the marketing of the birth control pill a racist reactionary response to the civil rights movement and racial desegregation? A correlation does exist but it doesn’t prove causation; it could simply be a coincidence. But another Supreme Court decision might move us to a cogent inference.  It was Roe v. Wade, 1973.

Roe v. Wade was premised on the proposition that a woman has the sole individual right under the U.S. constitution to determine whether or not she should or could carry her pregnancy to term. She needs not to legally consult with anyone. She could act on her own individual needs and wants. However, the court did impose a time limit.  She must decide to abort the fetus within the first trimester (3 months) of her pregnancy.

The abortion statistics are startling.  Since 1973, African American women have constituted 32% of all abortions while constituting only 3.5 percent of the total population.  That amounts to over 22,000,000 abortions.  It equals 70 abortions per hour nationwide as of this writing. The 22,000,000 (million) abortions is three (3) times more than the number of Baby Boomer African Americans born between 1946 and 1964.  It is one-third (1/3) of the total number of people killed during World War II.  It is a slaughter.

Does what we have described conform to the Preventative Method proposed by Thomas Malthus?  Remember, he argued that there must be political policies in place to decrease the birth rate of unwanted populations of people. Infanticide or abortion was one of his proposed methods to kill those who are unwanted.

Malthus also argued that unhealthy social conditions ought to be intentionally constructed to demoralize an unwanted population of people.  He argued that unwanted people should be made miserable. Are there other socio-economic conditions which are evidence of the application of his method on African American people?  Let’s list some social conditions to see.

Given that racism is a social construction it follows logically that most misery suffered by African Americans is a derivative of institutionalized racism.  So the following conditions are social constructions for the most part just as the misery of Native Americans (birth rate of 1.4) is a derivative of reservation (concentration camp) life.

  1. African Americans are disproportionately poor at about 27% of the total U.S. population.
  2. About 15 million African Americans live in urban ghettoes.
  3. The national high school dropout rate for African Americans is 42%.
  4. Between 1976 and 2010, there were 273,366 African American ‘black on black’ homicides; that averages to 23.9 homicides per day nationwide.
  5. African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to murder their infants as compared to other ethnic groups and lead the nation in infanticide.
  6. There are now over 200,000 African American children in foster care homes.
  7. Between 1973 and 2013 there have been approximately 22,000,000 African American abortions; that number equals 1,687.5 abortions per day.
  8. The top ten leading causes of death are: heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, unintentional injuries, kidney disease, chronic lower respiratory disease, homicide, infection, and Alzheimer disease.
  9. Nearly 1,000,000 African American men and women are incarcerated in city, county, state, and federal jails and prisons.
  10. About 1 out of every 4 (25%) are in the criminal justice system.
  11. The African American national unemployment rate is about 13% to 20% for the year 2013.
  12. About 9 million African Americans receive food stamps or put another way, 1 out of 3 Americans on food stamps are African American and they are primarily women with dependent children.
  13. Approximately 72% of all African American births are to single parent female headed households.
  14. The highest annual death rate per 100,000 at 898.22.
  15. 85% of ‘Planned Parenthood’ clinics are in low income neighborhoods.

I think the evidence is compelling. The social conditions which pressure a population’s birth rate to decrease are fundamental conditions to the life of the majority of African Americans.  Therefore, a cogent conclusion can be drawn.

Probably, birth control pills, abortion law, over the counter sales of Depo-Provera, Norplant, and Lunelle are primarily aimed at African American women and girls.  The purpose in this early part of the 21 century differs from that of the last part of the 20th century in four important aspects.

Automation used in factories in the United States to eliminate the need for people, the exodus of capital (factories overseas) to Asia, continuous civil rights demands on governments by some African Americans, and the aging of America resulting in a larger dependent population are collectively making African Americans more than ever before a dependent population.

These four facts make African Americans an economically unwanted population. No longer cheap labor and not withstanding their high consumption capacity of 1 trillion dollars spent per year much of which is just Federal and State money going back to Federal and State governments they are perceived as what Henry Kissinger called ‘useless eaters’.[8]

The cost to maintain African Americans is high. For example a cost of 16 billion dollars per year for food stamps; another 40 billion dollars per year on incarceration costs; 154 billion dollars in welfare costs are just a few costs which the plutocrats calculate eat away at the 1 trillion dollars spent by African Americans annually. Furthermore, most of that 1 trillion dollars is spent in ghetto neighborhood stores, fast-food outlets, and quick loan and check cashing outlets.  For 60 years it has been a continuous ‘quantitative easing’ monetary disbursement by the U.S. Treasury Department. Add to that the fact that racially African Americans are generally unwanted in the U.S.  We are perceived as a greater cost to the plutocrats than we are a benefit to them.

John Brown discovered that slaves would not fight to save themselves. He discovered that the condition of slave misery permeated the consciousness of African people. They identified themselves as slave; theirs was a slave morality. John Brown was hanged under the rule of master morality.  You better wake up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Darwin, Charles, Chapter 7, The Descent of Man, published 1871

[2] Ibid, Chapter 7

[3] Galton, Francis, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, Published, 1883

[4] Laughlin, Harry, Eugenical Sterilization in the United States, Pub.1922

[5] Sanger, Margaret, Pivot of Civilization, published, 1920

[6] Sanger, Margaret, A Plan for Peace, published, 1932, pp. 107-108

[7] Sanger, Margaret, The Pivot of Civilization, Published, 1920

[8] National Security Council, Washington D.C. 20506, April 24, 1974

(For Criminal citations see: Bureau of Justice Statistics: Homicide Trends, by James Fox)

Welcome to Earth Colony: A PARTICULAR LINE OF REASONING

Book Cover Earthcolony

Chapter 11

SECRET BROTHERHOODS AND POLITICAL CLUBS

Fundamental to Plato’s theory of knowledge is the premise that nature does not manifest truth to human senses through ‘appearances.’ So, building upon his theory of knowledge Plato argues that political science turns appearances to useful art. That premise turns on one of Plato’s greatest questions: ‘How do we get them to believe?’  For Plato, all of the extrinsic characteristics of government are illusory and thus turn on deceit. The ‘useful lie’ which is propagandized in myriad forms by politicians cannot be exposed to the masses as a lie. The masses must ‘believe’ or at least have the ‘opinion’ that what they are told is actually bone fide. Therefore, the existence of cohesive secret societies or networks who do know that the truth promoted is a lie and are bound not to tell the ‘truth’ that it is a lie are necessarily at the core of the successful operation of a political state and the implementation of its policies.

For example, in 1910 a secret cartel of bankers met to establish the Federal Reserve Bank and the 26th amendment. Both Acts of Congress were promoted by a U.S. Senator who belonged to that secret cartel.[1]  Under President Woodrow Wilson who was vetted by the secret cartel, both the Internal Revenue Service Act and the Income Tax Amendment were signed into law in 1913.  The American people did not know that it was the result of a secret society of bankers:  the Meyer Rothschild family, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller.  The American people did not know that their attorneys and representatives would be placed on Presidential cabinets throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. That is just one example of what Plato meant by ‘secret brotherhoods and political clubs’.  The American people did not know and generally don’t know today that those financial interests control all aspects of the United States government.

Plato does not name a specific ‘secret brotherhood’ or ‘political club’ he merely argues that they are necessary so that upper castes plutocratic families and owners of financial institutions can coordinate all agencies of government to promote their economic and caste, i.e. race interests.[2]  It is they who would be the guardians of the state.[3]  Despite the fact that he does not name old established secret brotherhoods, there are some existing secret societies in our own society which fit the form described by Plato. Usually, the influence these groups have is ignored by institutional scholars because it is the money from their secret societies which finance scholars in educational centers. No doubt many scholars belong to one or another of such groups or want to advance in their academic careers.  The absence of scholarly treatment of the confluence of secret societies and our government preempts a full understanding of the political process in our society. Two other examples of secret societies are the Society of Freemasons and the ‘Skull and Bones’ establishment which were incorporated circa 1832.  We shall examine Freemasonry to illustrate Plato’s theory.

Freemasonry is an old and established secret society with modern roots in Scotland and France. It was common throughout the colonies by the time the colonists rebelled against the East Indian Company of England and its major share holder, the king of England.  In fact, the many lodges which existed in the colonies were given their charters by the grand lodge of England presided over by King George the IV.  Their land grants were also conveyed to them by the King of England.  Presidents such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Jackson, James Polk, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt just to name a few were practicing Freemasons. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Congressional representatives who ratified the Constitution were Freemasons, too.

In the colonies, aside from their cosmological beliefs the Masons had a political purpose. Their purpose was to establish a secular form of government immune from political tyranny and the controls of religious dogma and religious leadership. To achieve such a purpose they borrowed a constitutional formula from Aristotle and fused it with the political theories of John Locke and Charles Montesquieu. With it all they devised a constitution which divided power among three branches of federal government and separated it and its functions from state governmental powers.[4] Their fraternity would be the opposite complement of the new constitution; it would not be open nor would it be democratic in nature. Its counter-act to schismatic religious affiliation by individuals would be to impose an allegiance upon their individual members to universal brotherhood by their promotion of what they considered to be the true and ancient natural religion, race identity, and secularism.

They considered themselves a ‘secret society’ dating back thousands of years. They did not and do not allow females and ‘blacks’ entry into their society.[5] They did not allow Catholics to become ‘brothers’. There society was not a ‘religious’ one, but rather it was based upon naturalism and deism with an orientation to sun worship. Therefore, except for Catholics, one’s religious affiliation did not matter though most of the members were Protestant. They made entry into their group by males dependent upon another Freemason ‘vouching’ for an initiate’s entry and an oath from the initiate that the secrets he learned from the brotherhood would not be made known publicly.

The secrets involved their rituals and the sign codes with which they used to communicate to one another secretly in public.  Most of their symbols are Nubian-Egyptian, e.g., the Obelisk, one of which is called today the Washington Monument, the builder’s plummet and square, the eye of Horus as depicted on the one dollar bill above the pyramid, the colors red, white, and blue which are the color patterns on the columns of great temple in Karnak, the sacred lake of Karnak in Egypt which is replicated by the Reflecting Pool in Washington D.C. In fact, the city of Washington D.C. is laid out in such a way that its streets geometrically describe Masonic symbols and numerology.

Our concern here is not with Masonic beliefs but rather with what Plato hypothesizes in the Republic and how Freemasons applied his theory to concentrate power in their organization. He hypothesized that secret brotherhoods and political clubs are necessary for the furtherance of the status quo. His quest was to find a political solution to what Hesiod described in Works and Days as the inevitable cycle of cultural decay or change. For him a well managed state will need two governments. One will be the ‘apparent’ government. That he argues is the government for and by the people, the demos.  But keep in mind Plato’s theory of knowledge, for here the government which ‘appears’ is no more true than what appears naturally to the senses. On the contrary, it is the hidden government which is actually the power which drives social mechanisms.

The intent of the founders was to insure by virtue of their hidden power that neither religious zealots elected as congressional representatives or mob rule would evaporate their new state and their growing economic empire.  By the careful appointment of their own members in key positions throughout federal, state, and local institutions they proceeded on the theory that they would be able to control government without cessation. For them, governmental power was exclusive and was centered in the Grand Lodge. Their network would be the hidden capstone of the social hierarchy. Their members would filter down throughout society according to graded degrees providing their leadership with the political control they needed in every part of the new state.

Understanding the nature and function of dual government as posited by Plato is important for another reason. It allows us to understand how the Ku Klux Klan originated and by whom.  Further, we can know what the Ku Klux Klan aimed at doing when it was founded circa 1867 and how it gained immense political, police, and judicial power by the mid 1920s.[6]  It, too, is a secret society and was originally established by Freemasons in the southern states. A famous early twentieth century race historian named Walter L. Fleming states regarding the relation between Freemasonry and the Ku Klux Klan: “General Albert Pike, who stood high in the Masonic order, was a chief judicial officer of the Klan.”[7] Albert Pike was an ex-confederate general who not only became the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite for the southern states from 1859 to 1891 but formulated the rituals and costumes of the original Ku Klux Klan.  It was Pike’s vision which both the novel ‘The Clansmen’ and the film ‘Birth of a Nation’ captured in print and on screen in 1915.[8]  His statue stands in WashingtonD.C. to this very day.

Pike makes clear what the aim of the Ku Klux Klan was to be when he wrote in his newspaper: “…We would unite every white man in the South, who is opposed to negro suffrage, into one great Order of Southern Brotherhood, with an organization complete, active, vigorous, in which a few should execute the concentrated will of all, and whose very existence should be concealed from all but its members.”[9] Here the Ku Klux Klan aimed to enlist men who were ex-confederate soldiers and sympathizers in the already existing society of Freemasons to exert secret political and police power through terror over liberal democrats and ex-slaves in the south.  This is exactly what Plato admonishes in his Republic when he claims that there is nothing more important than to guard the purity of race.  So, we may infer that at the nucleus of the political strategy of both Freemasonry and the Ku Klux Klan is the Platonic recipe for dual government aimed at the preservation of an elite race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Senator Nelson Aldrige

[2] Aristotle calls this kind of group ‘boule’ in his ‘Politics’ and he, too, suggests a role similar to that Plato describes.

[3] C. Wright Mill, The Power Elite, Oxford University Press, 1956, p.251

[4] Aristotle in Twenty-Three Volumes XXI, Politics, Book IV, section 11-12, with an English Translation by H. Rackham, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1932 On the three elements of government he states: “…one is what is to be the body that deliberates about common interests [legislature], second the one connected with the magistracies [executive], that is, what there are to be and what matters they are to control, and what is to be the method of their election, and a third is, what is to be the judiciary.” Brackets mine.

[5] However, some African Americans formed the ‘Boule’: Sigma, Pi, Phi fraternity in1911 to serve the powerful plutocratic secret societies.

[6] For example, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

[7] Walter L. Fleming, Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth and Disbandment, Neale Publishing Company, 1905

[8] Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith; Thomas Dixon, The Clansmen, New York Doubleday, Page and Company, 1905

[9] Albert Pike, Editorial, Memphis, Tennessee, Daily Appeal, April 16, 1868

Welcome to Earth Colony: WE, THE PEOPLE, ARE IN CHARGE!

 

war2

Though the moral argument for a ‘just war’ has its roots in older Indian texts; the Western world traces the theory to St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Thomas Aquinas, and later schools of thought in Europe.  The idea is based upon ‘proportionate justice’.  Proportionate justice in turn is based upon the assumption that rewards and punishments can be meted out rationally and thus fairly.

The theory of just war belies yet another assumption.  That assumption is that moral people can determine whether or not an act of military aggression is justified based upon facts and if warranted how much aggression should be acted out on an aggressor.

They also argued that a war is unjust and illegitimate if it is rationalized on the grounds of ‘national self-interests’, ‘individual interests’ or if the people needed to support the war do not want war.  Here, they clearly assumed that a democratic scale of measure would be used to make decisions on war and peace.

One problem the American people face is that the plutocrats who have amassed control of Federal and State governments do not act upon moral grounds unless the consequences of doing so will benefit them.  We are left with this fact.  Plutocrats generally are amoral persons and some of them are evil.  Therefore, theological or philosophical moral arguments against a military strike on Syria would not be persuasive to them.

Yet another problem faced by the American people is the problem of ‘legality’.  One might think that even in the absence of theology and or philosophy at least there can be a consensus on rules or law.  But plutocrats bend, change, and ignore laws so that no matter what the circumstance their purposes are served.

The Constitution vests the American people with the power to declare war and to fund war.  Limited wars must also be approved by Congress.  Neither the President nor the Supreme Court has inherent war power.  That power is solely vested in the People who at the end of the day fight the wars and shed blood.  Nevertheless, the facts of history compel us to be on notice.

5,000 years of human history afford us not only a clear understanding about the nature of war and the kinds of persons who wage it but of the reasons for which war is waged.  War is waged to dominate, control, exploit, and profiteer off more peaceful folk and their resources.  Wars waged for those purposes are not waged on principles of legality.  On the contrary, they are waged outside of civilized law unless those laws benefit those whose intent is to plunder the wealth of others.

Therefore, arguments on the legality of a strike against Syria would not be persuasive to those who intend to wage war.  They push aside all rules of evidence that stand in their way.  For example,

One method used by the plutocrats is the ‘false-flag’ method. It is analogous to a police officer planting a gun on an innocent person or claiming that he or she saw a gun to justify either arresting or killing that innocent person.

Hitler used a false-flag to trigger the invasion of Poland.  Sixty million (60) dead later the Nuremberg War Crimes Hearing had to sort out and weigh the evil involved in World War 2.

Lyndon Johnson used a false-flag to arouse public sentiment for bombing North Vietnam.  Thirty five years later and over 50,000 dead Robert McNamara confessed that it was an unjust war. See the documentary: ‘The Fog of War’.

George Bush used a false-flag to argue that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and to arouse the American people to bomb and invade Iraq.  Now, over 50,000 casualties and 1.5 trillion dollars later it is generally acknowledged that the allegations against Iraq were false. Now, it is President Barak Obama.

The plutocrats in a faceoff with the American people subscribe to a Darwinian world view.  They are persuaded that conflict is a universal law of nature and that the stronger necessarily dominate the weaker in nature and so, too, in politics.  Theirs is an amoral theory of justice in an amoral universe, but they are rational.  It is the zero sum game; it is the game of ‘all or nothing’ they play.  So, what argument must be used by the American people to persuade them to stand down?

Only a utilitarian argument will persuade them. The American people must make a utilitarian argument to the plutocrats who have amassed control over the White House and much of Congress.  That argument to them must be that the cost of them acting against the will of the American people will immeasurably outweigh what they augur their gains or benefits to be from war with Syria.  They must be persuaded to understand that what Congress now knows is that a military strike against Syria is against the will of the people. They must be persuaded that torrents of rage will rain down on Congress and the lobbyist they are financially beholden to if the will of the people is ignored and that the rage will be unbearable.

Neither the President nor the Supreme Court has war power.  War power is solely vested in the People of the United States who at the end of the day are those who fight the wars and suffer loss of blood.  We the People must make it categorically and unequivocally clear to all that we, the People, are in charge of this government.

 

 

 

Welcome to Earth Colony: THE BIG LIE, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

dead_hadji_91_829small

The Constitution is clear on the power to declare war.  Only Congress can declare war[1] and only Congress can approve funding for war. The Constitution and Federal statutes are also clear on the definition of inherent executive power to use military force against foreign nations without congressional approval if the security of the United States is threatened or it is under imminent attack.[2]

Most United States Congressional legislators are trained to be lawyers.  If they are not trained to be lawyers then at least they are knowledgeable of the United States Constitution and Federal Statutes, particularly the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Since the discovery that some form of sarin gas was used in Syria which resulted in the deaths of several hundred persons, a debate has evolved between Congress and President Barak Obama.  It is a debate on War Power.

The issue presented to the public is whether or not Congress (the People of the United States) should be involved in the decision making process to determine whether or not The People of the United States should commit to bomb the sovereign nation of Syria as ‘punishment’ for the use of sarin gas on its own people.

There are two over arching issues, however. One is whether or not Syria is legally subject to the Executive Branch of the United States Government? No reasonable person would make the argument that it is because Syria is not subject to the Executive Branch of the United States Government and has not posed a threat to U.S. national security.  For that reason alone President Barak Obama does not have the legal nor moral authority to bomb Syria.

The second issue is whether or not the Government of Syria knowingly, purposely, recklessly, or negligently used sarin gas to kill its citizens?  Now we must ask: what evidence has been proffered by the President to U.S. citizens?

The Obama administration has used straw man arguments and has proffered at most circumstantial evidence that the Syrian Government used sarin gas on its people.  It has proffered satellite data of phone calls near the scene of sarin gas use and satellite data of the use of artillery near the scene of sarin gas use.  And notice, the use of that presumed evidence is peppered by Secretary of State John Kerry with emotive terminology to manipulate the American People emotionally.

However, satellite data on phone calls and artillery use in the area where the gas was used can be simulated by computer programs as it is done in war games for training purposes. Therefore, such evidence cannot be rationally authenticated and thus cannot be used to justify the bombing of a sovereign nation.

If one accepts as credible United Nations scientists that sarin gas was used and that people actually died then the question now is: who used the sarin gas?  The fact is that there is no direct evidence which conclusively proves who used the sarin gas.

If we further assume that Bashar Assad and the U.S., Israeli, and Saudi rebel leaders are rational persons then what a rational Congress ought to ask is: who would benefit by the use of sarin gas on Syrian people?  Certainly, Bashar Assad would not benefit.  He would lose both Russian and Chinese support as well as his government.  Therefore, he didn’t use the sarin gas. That leaves the rebels.

The rebels would gain from the use of sarin gas because it would enlist the overt might of the U.S. military to destroy the Syrian government. The rebels would then get Syria to ghettoize.  The Israelis would gain because Israel would then be able to undermine Hezbullah in Lebanon and that would allow Israel to take Lebanon’s southern territories to ghettoize, again.  The Saudis would gain because they would feel that greater military pressure would be put on Iran, a nation they want to ghettoize.  And of course, U.S. corporations would gain because they could get contracts to exploit resources and rebuild Syria, again.  Therefore, the rebels and their supporters used the sarin gas.

President Obama drew a Red Line.  Now he should be hoping that Congress gives him a way to back down and to save face by saying no to him because if he bombs Syria there will be terrible repercussions as far away as the Korean peninsula.  Korea is China’s trump card.  Expect South Korea to be under extreme military pressure from North Korea if Syria is bombed.  Russia will up support for Syria,too. President Obama is in a mess.  He should step out of it and clean his shoes.

 

 

 

 



[1] Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11

[2] Article 2, section 2; and Article 2, section 2, clause 1; Stat. 838 (1941); 56 Stat 176 (1942), et al