Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • Djehuti Sundaka
    At the core of all racists is the belief that they should be privileged to have and do things that others should be restricted from doing. Instead of
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      At the core of all racists is the belief that they should be privileged
      to have and do things that others should be restricted from doing.
      Instead of pretending to be concerned about the concept of democracy and
      dispossession in Zimbabwe, perhaps they should pretend to be concerned
      about the concept of democracy and dispossession in the land of the
      non-elected president currently known as the Kingpin of Terrorism.

      Djehuti Sundaka
      Thank You, Kenny-Boy
      By William Rivers Pitt
      t r u t h o u t | February 28, 2002

      "Between the idea
      And the reality
      Between the motion
      And the act
      Falls the Shadow."
      - T.S. Eliot

      In the last three months, an angry song of betrayal and loss has
      insinuated itself into constant rotation on the alt-pop radio stations.
      When the news of the Enron calamity on NPR becomes too maddening, flee
      to one of these stations and you will see what I mean. Spend ten minutes
      flipping the dial, and the gravelly growl of Nickelback will inevitably
      come pouring through your speakers:

      "This is how you remind me of what I really am..." goes the refrain.

      In these days, it is difficult to listen to the meanest and most vapid
      song on the radio without giving it with a level of context it does not
      deserve. The state of this nation and the world has added dazzling and
      disturbingly vivid color to what was once mundane and beneath notice.
      Music bears a heavy burden with this, and Nickelback has become my
      personal musical albatross. Whenever that chorus finds its way into my
      car speakers, I cannot help but think the same dismal thought:

      Thank you, Kenny-Boy. Thank you for reminding us of what we really are.

      Americans like to believe they live in a democracy, based upon their
      individual right to vote. Those who remember their high school civics
      lessons like to think of America as a Constitutionally democratic
      republic, based upon the right to choose representatives in government.
      The essence of the ideal remains constant - We the People run the show,
      we choose the leaders, and they in turn honorably represent our
      interests to the best of their abilities.

      The underpinnings of this ideal have been subverted by years of campaign
      finance chicanery on both sides of the political aisle, and this is no
      secret. Only benightened fools miss the influence cash-heavy donors have
      upon the legislative process and the formation of national policy. Yet
      we cling to our belief, almost in desperation, that the purity of the
      American democratic ideal still beats like a living heart within the
      body of our government and the souls of our representatives.

      Thank you, Kenny-Boy, for shattering that illusion forever.

      The roll call of Senators who have taken vast amounts of campaign
      donations from Enron reads like a who's who list of the Washington DC
      cocktail circuit:

      Robert Bennett (R-Utah): $8,053
      Christopher Bond (R-Mo): $17,000
      John Breaux (D-La): $11,000
      Conrad Burns (R-Mont): $23,200
      Michael Crapo (R-Idaho): $18, 689
      Phil Gramm (R-Tx): $101,350
      Ernest Hollings (D-SC): $3,500
      Kay Baily Hutchison (R-Tx): $101,500
      Charles Schumer (D-NY): $21,933
      Jordon Smith (R-Or): $14,500

      The final balance of Enron contributions to House and Senate
      officeholders comes to 72% for Republicans and 28% for Democrats. As
      political Jedi James Carville recently noted on Meet The Press, "If the
      score of a game is 72-28, that is not a tie." Of the 30 Senators who
      have never received Enron money, only 7 were Republicans. In the House,
      there is not one single member who has not accepted Enron money at one
      time or another.

      While Carville makes a valid political point, this does not spare us
      from the stark reality to be found in the disbursements above. The taint
      of Enron is as bi-partisan a fact as has ever been found on Capitol
      Hill. These members, whose job it is to zealously represent our
      interests, have for years been ravaging the regulation of the energy
      industry at the behest of companies like Enron. They have done it
      because they were paid to do it. It is as simple as that.

      Thank you, Kenny-Boy, for helping us to see where their loyalty is truly
      to be found.

      After the election, Enron used its financial reach to better its
      fortunes. As the Bush administration pulled together national energy
      policy behind locked doors, an Enron lobbyist named Edward Gillespie was
      formulating plans to defang the anticipated Democratic attacks against
      it. 'Carterize the Democrats' was the run of his thoughts. Make them the
      party against sound policy, remind voters of the gas lines of the 1970s,
      and above all, obscure the perception that the GOP sits snugly in the
      pocket of big business.

      Some weeks after Gillespie crafted memos detailing his plans, television
      advertisements began appearing across the country comparing Democratic
      resistance to Bush's energy plans to Carter's request that Americans
      wear sweaters to defray energy costs. This obvious connection between
      the formulation of Bush's energy policy and Enron, including the six
      meetings between Enron executives and chief policy formulator Dick
      Cheney, is among the myriad reasons why the administration is fighting
      tooth and nail to keep those meetings secret.

      Thank you, Kenny-Boy. You couldn't just subvert the legislative process
      with your all-encompassing funding. You had to roll up your sleeves and
      get right into the game, didn't you?

      Congressman James Greenwood (R-PA), who chairs the oversight and
      investigation wing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, stated
      recently that Enron's financial practices, while uncommon, are certainly
      not unheard of. Mr. Greenwood believes that there could be "dozens of
      Enrons" lurking in the weeds, just waiting to implode. The disaster of
      the first Enron still echoes on Wall Street. American faith in the stock
      market, in the accounting industry, and in the viability of virtually
      every retirement portfolio in the country, has been badly shaken. Two or
      three more could bring our whole economy down around our ears.

      Thank you, Kenny-Boy.

      The time is well-passed for the American people to throw down a marker
      before their elected representatives. In the wake of Enron, and in view
      of the all-encompassing reach that company had into the most fundamental
      operations of our democracy, the moment has arrived to draw a line in
      the sand. There are two significant pieces of legislation about to
      arrive in the Senate. Each speaks to our common calamity. Each should be
      considered a litmus test.

      The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill will soon be debated,
      depending upon when Majority Leader Tom Daschle chooses to bring it to
      the floor. For a time, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) sought recruits to
      instigate a filibuster. For a time, he almost had enough Senators to do
      it. As the drumbeat of Enron echoed louder and louder, however, the
      number of members willing to fall on their sword in public for the sake
      of keeping the corporate cash troughs open dwindled below the required
      40. McCain-Feingold will likely pass, and immediately be delivered to
      Mr. Bush.

      We must look closely at the names of those Senators who vote against it,
      for they will be exposing themselves as avatars of all that raised Enron
      on high in the first place. Be they Democrat or Republican, all who vote
      against it should be repudiated. The (D) or (R) after their names should
      be stricken and replaced with (T), for Traitor.

      The other piece of legislation that bears close scrutiny is Bush's
      energy bill, which flew through the House and will soon be debated in
      the Senate. Unless the big secret Bush is trying to keep about those
      energy policy meetings is that everyone who drafted it was stoned on
      Cheney's heart medication while they wrote it, the true secret will
      almost certainly prove to be that Enron executives crafted virtually
      every line. Considering all we now know, allowing this energy bill to
      become law would be a betrayal of every principle the American people
      stand for.

      Thank you, Kenny-Boy. Thank you for reminding us that principle still
      counts for something in America.

      Much of the reason 100 million people did not vote in the 2000 election
      is found within the bitter reality of men like Kenny-Boy. Many Americans
      hold onto the ideals that formed this country, but have lost the belief
      that they have any say in the matter. The fact, however, remains that
      the situation is not beyond salvage. The collapse of Enron has vividly
      exposed the wretched excess of modern political pandering and sanctioned
      bribery. It is so foul that something must be done. The political
      pressures are simply too great for weathervane politicians to ignore

      If you hold the idea that something can indeed be done, keep that
      pressure on. Write your Congressperson and let them know you are
      watching. Let them know you vote, and let them know that your vote will
      go to whichever person best exemplifies the ideals we Americans still
      believe in, even in the face of the ugliest truths. There have been many
      American Revolutions. The time has come for another one.

      Thank you, Kenny-Boy. Sometimes we can only know truth by seeing its
      opposite. You have given us that vision. Even in your wretchedness, you
      may have saved us all.

      William Rivers Pitt maintains his own site. You can visit him at :



      Pizza Crust, Principles and Politics
      By Dana Milbank
      Tuesday, February 26, 2002

      It was the modern political equivalent of Moses and the Burning Bush. On
      Inauguration Day 2001, Bush presidential aides entered the White House
      to discover the Miracle of the Warm Pizza Crust.

      The famous crust was found, appropriately enough, in a pizza box that
      had been left on a desk when a Bush aide arrived for work on the new
      administration's first day. The discovery was included in a list of
      alleged vandalism of White House offices by departing Clinton aides,
      furnished by the Bush White House to the investigative arm of Congress,
      the General Accounting Office. But when presented with the warm-crust
      allegation, Clinton officials pointed out that no Clinton aides assigned
      to that office were even in the White House complex after Jan. 19 -- the
      day before inauguration.

      This means that even if the Clinton aides left at midnight the night
      before and the Bush aides showed up at noon on Inauguration Day, the
      pizza crust stayed warm for 12 hours.

      That the Bush administration would cooperate so freely in the GAO
      investigation of such matters as pizza temperature in the Clinton White
      House stands in stark contrast to the administration's stand against
      another GAO investigation, this one involving Vice President Cheney's
      energy task force. In protecting the identities and requests of
      outsiders who met with the task force, top White House officials have
      indicated they may challenge the constitutionality of the law empowering
      the GAO -- a move that, if successful, would pretty much put the
      80-year-old office out of business.

      In the GAO's Clinton vandalism probe, due to wrap up in April, the Bush
      administration has furnished the agency with a list of allegations.

      "We are saddened that especially after the events of September 11, 2001,
      the White House continues to push this matter," two former Clinton aides
      in charge of White House administration, Mark Lindsay and Mike Malone,
      wrote to the GAO last month.

      Lindsay and Malone pointed out some apparent flaws in the catalogue of
      Clinton vandalism, including the Warm Pizza Crust incident. The Bush
      team gave the GAO a photo of a dirty room in the White House complex,
      but the Clinton aides wrote that "the office featured in the photograph
      was vacated at least one week prior to Inauguration Day, and had been in
      fact completely cleaned by the morning of January 20th."

      Then there was the case of Room 145 in the building next to the White
      House. The Bush administration said "historical artifacts" had been
      taken from the office. "We understand that at least one of the
      artifacts, an historic fireplace mirror, can be found hanging over the
      fireplace in [Bush] Chief of Staff [Andrew H.] Card's office," Lindsay
      and Malone wrote.

      The GAO itself, in its suit filed last week against Cheney over the
      energy task force records, argues that the White House worked to
      "facilitate the investigation" into alleged Clinton vandalism. The suit
      points out that before President Bush came to office, "the executive
      branch has complied with countless GAO requests for information." The
      Clinton White House gave GAO the names of outside consultants who met
      with its health care task force and "thousands of documents" from a task
      force on trade relations with China.

      Even the Nixon administration, no standard of transparency, relented
      during the Watergate years when the GAO wished to examine White House
      records. "To litigate the GAO's authority would bring only negative
      publicity and defeat," former Nixon counsel John Dean has said.

      Apples and oranges, says the Bush White House. Previous GAO requests did
      not involve requests for information about meetings of the president or
      vice president, Bush aides say, while the current request is for
      meetings held by Cheney in his role as head of the task force. "This
      would be something we've never seen before," a senior Bush aide says.

      But that principle is a bit murky. While the GAO had not previously
      asked the current White House for information regarding the contacts of
      the president or vice president, the Bush White House has been quick to
      relinquish to Congress such information from the Clinton White House.

      Last September, Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), chairman of the House
      Government Reform Committee, asked for e-mails from the Clinton White
      House to see whether campaign contributors had inappropriate influence
      over President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. The National
      Archives, noting that Bush "agreed to this release," turned over 2,000
      pages of e-mails two months later, including those to Gore from his
      staff and between senior Gore staff.

      Also last year, Bush raised no objection to handing over to Burton's
      committee 2,475 pages of Clinton documents related to the Marc Rich
      pardon -- including phone records, a list of visitors cleared to enter
      the White House and notes of Clinton conversations with a foreign

      Clinton did not object. But such flexibility was learned the hard way.
      Lanny Davis, who was Clinton's special counsel, says Bush is right to
      stiff the GAO, and Clinton was right to try to block earlier
      congressional "encroachments," too. Problem is, it never works.

      "Been there, done that," Davis said. "We abandoned principle under the
      pressure of politics, and unfortunately, that's going to happen here."
    • Djehuti Sundaka
      I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great
        industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of
        credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our
        activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the
        worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated
        governments in the civilized world -- no longer a government by free
        opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the
        majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of
        dominant men."
        -- Woodrow Wilson, years after signing the Federal Reserve Act
      • Djehuti Sundaka
        HAPU-MAATY ( MAAT CONSTITUTION ) The Hapu-Maaty is structured to eliminate poverty and injustice in a politically independent Maat society based on a system of
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 29, 2002
        • 0 Attachment


               The Hapu-Maaty is structured to eliminate poverty and injustice in a politically independent Maat society based on a system of social balances.  The political administration of such a society is referred to as a protectorate rather than as a government as its central purpose is for the protection of the rights (i.e. justifiable liberties) and well-being of the people.  In regards to poverty, the Hapu-Maaty calls for a society in which each family is economically self-sufficient based on the possession of adequate agricultural land that can never be sold.  Under this standard, no one can ever become deprived of their land or acquire so much land that others would become deprived.  This eliminates the possibility of anyone becoming homeless or being without a source of sustenance.  However, as a purely agricultural society lacks the social advantages to be found in an urban environment, a Maat society is balanced with possessions of land in a local urban district.  This urban area allows for the facilitation of commerce, education, and other social advantages of urban life.  To ensure the prosperity of this urban aspect of society, the Hapu-Maaty also calls for a protectorate balanced budget with an unchanging monetary standard to prevent the occurrence of inflation.
               In regards to injustice, the Hapu-Maaty requires that all able bodied citizens be trained in law-enforcement and be responsible for dealing with criminal activity.  This not only reduces the probability of crime in the average citizen but also reduces the probability of crime concerning police abuses.  When citizens are empowered to be responsible for justice, official law-enforcement will be less likely to be irresponsible with its duties.  Even at the national level, the possibility of state abuse through the military is kept in check with a well regulated militia to stand against any conceivable acts of state tyranny.  However, such acts should be inconceivable under a Maat protectorate that requires a complete consensus of Maat by protectorate officials who only serve for one year out of seven.  Overall, these balances of the Hapu-Maaty are designed to bring about social harmony and economic prosperity for all members of a Maat society and serve as a deterrent to the social injustices inherent in a democratic society.
               One of the primary aspects of the Hapu-Maaty is its ideological foundation in the concept of justice as opposed to the concept of democracy.  Under the Hapu-Maaty, no elections are held for determining protectorate officials and no votes take place to determine the laws of society.  The officials of the legislative assemblies of a Maat society represent the interests of justice for all rather than for the political designs of specific interest groups.  As the practice of democracy is usually associated with the concepts of freedom and justice, it should be recognized that not only does the practice of democracy not ever ensure the existence of freedom or justice, the practice of democracy isn't even intended to ensure the existence of freedom or justice.  The purpose of democracy is for ensuring the interests of a voting majority regardless of freedom or justice.  At the popular level, it is a system based on the assessment of a population's major desires and the enforcement of those desires upon all.  Whether or not those desires are in the best interests of all or are even fair to all is never the ultimate issue.  This fact is in part recognized under various forms of representative democratic governments that have individuals elected to make decisions for a voting population regardless of what the population's main desires may actually be.  The voters themselves are not allowed to vote upon the issues that their elected officials decide upon nor are they allowed to veto such decisions once made.  The most a voting population can do is elect other officials who will ultimately make similar decisions as the ones before.  Even in this, an elected representative for a given district will only represent the interests of the political party to which the representative belongs.  All other perspectives to have failed in having their representatives elected will not be represented for the district.  In a bicameral system, the democratic decisions of the popularly elected district representatives to form the lower house are subject to the democratic approval of the officials to form the upper house.  The officials of the upper house are far less in number than the representatives of the lower house and may have obtained their position through either popular vote or by appointment depending upon the government.  Under a presidential system, if a democratic decision of the lower house passes the democratic approval of the upper house, it is still subject to the approval of a single person whose position may be the product of an electoral college rather than a popular vote.  Under this person's administration, the policies of a previous administration may be totally reversed to suit the needs of the administration's political party and of the special interests to have financed its political campaigns.  Such special interests will exercise the greatest of influence upon the administration to the neglect of a voting majority's will showing that the mere election of representatives can in no way ensure freedom or justice for the docile voting masses.  This model of decreasing decision makers the higher one goes in a democratic government shows that the voting masses are not considered to be qualified for making the decisions to ultimately affect their lives (although they are considered to be qualified in choosing the people who will).  Only in matters of non-importance to the overall power structure are the masses allowed to have any say in the issues to affect them.  Be it a vote upon an issue or a vote upon a candidate, the ultimate choice to be made in such matters can never be of any true importance.  The fact that a vote can go either way on any issue shows that neither choice of an issue is so important that it must be chosen or enforced.  Voting, in this respect, is a method of decision-making based on chance in which a voter gambles upon a given issue to have the support of a majority.  As gambling of any kind is a very irresponsible way of making decisions, governing a society through votes is no more responsible than governing a society upon the outcome of a roulette wheel.  This is why matters of true importance can never be voted upon as any issues voters are willing to accept upon losing a vote can't be truly important.
               Significant examples exist in which it is seen that democracy is never employed in matters of great importance.  In the military, enlisted men are not allowed to elect their officers nor are military decisions made upon a vote.  Such matters as pertains to the defense of a nation are of such importance that only individual competency can provide the basis for who is to have military responsibility in making the overall decisions.  To employ a democracy in a military organization would be disastrous as the election of unqualified individuals to positions of authority and the making of major decisions through the votes of unqualified soldiers would certainly jeopardize the security of the nation to be defended.
               In a public school system, democracy is certainly never employed to allow children to elect their teachers or to vote upon school policies and curriculums.  Such matters as pertains to the education of the youth are of such importance that only the adults involved in the educational system may determine what's best for the youth.  Even within a classroom environment in which a teacher may allow students to vote upon when they would like to take an upcoming exam, the students have no say in whether or not they should actually take the exam nor is their choice of when to take the exam of any real importance to the teacher.  Had such a choice been of any significant importance to the teacher, the students would never have been allowed to have arrived at a decision contrary to the teacher's better judgment.  Even at the college level where mature adults have paid to take a class, democracy will only be allowed in matters of non-importance to the professor.
               On the family level, it goes without saying that the providers of a household will not allow any democratic decisions by the non-providers of the household that are of significant importance to the providers.  As the position of the providers is of ultimate importance to the entire household, only their decisions can ever hold any weight in matters significantly affecting all.  Even when looked at on an individual level, a democracy of one's desires for skipping an important regular task would seldom be allowed to override the better judgment of actually doing the task.  The bottom line of all these situations is that mass desires are never an adequate substitute for qualified judgments and are therefore never allowed for situations of significant importance by those in power.  When such conditions are implemented on a national level, an ongoing struggle between the despotism of the democratic masses and the despotism of the governing elite will take place eventually resulting in a state of tyranny to the benefit of a non-democratic elite.  Such a situation had in part been recognized by such individuals as James Madison and Benjamin Franklin at the ratification of their nation's constitution.  In a letter written to Thomas Jefferson dated October 24, 1787, James Madison had expressed that:

          "Those who contend for a simple democracy, or a pure republic, actuated by the sense of the majority, and operating within narrow limits, assume or suppose a case which is altogether fictitious. They found their reasoning on the idea that the people composing the Society enjoy not only an equality of political rights, but that they have all precisely the same interests and the same feelings in every respect. Were this in reality the case, their reasoning would be conclusive. The interest of the majority would be that of the minority also; the decisions could only turn on mere opinion concerning the good of the whole, of which the major voice would be the safest criterion; and within a small sphere, this voice could be most easily collected, and the public affairs most accurately managed."

          "We know, however, that no society ever did, or can, consist of so homogeneous a mass of Citizens. In the Savage state, indeed, an approach is made towards it, but in that state little or no Government is necessary. In all civilized societies, distinctions are various and unavoidable. A distinction of property results from that very protection which a free Government gives to unequal faculties of acquiring it. There will be rich and poor; creditors and debtors; a landed interest, a monied interest, a mercantile interest, a manufacturing interest. These classes may again be subdivided according to the different productions of different situations and soils, and according to the different branches of commerce and of manufactures. In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded on accidental differences in political, religious, or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction may appear to the enlightened Statesman or the benevolent philosopher, the bulk of mankind, who are neither Statesmen nor philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light."

          "…Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny is, under certain qualifications, the only policy by which a republic can be administered on just principles."

          "…In the extended Republic of the United States, the General Government would hold a pretty even balance between the parties of particular States, and be at the same time sufficiently restrained, by its dependence on the community, from betraying its general interests."

          James Madison's sentiments on this matter would receive greater elaboration in Federalist Paper #10 dated November 23, 1787.  While arguing for the merits of a republican form of government in opposition to a democratic one, he also had made assumptions pertaining to the maintained integrity of elected officials and to the limits of factions that today are plainly observed to have been erroneous.  The inevitability of public representatives to succumb to the dictates of private interests in betrayal of the public had not been fully recognized by Madison although others had not been as naive.  Of this form of government, Benjamin Franklin, in his address to the Constitutional Convention dated September 17, 1787, had well predicted that such a system would eventually result in despotism.

          "In these moments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, -- if they are such; because I
          think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a
          blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well
          administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before
          it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of
          any other."

          In a letter to William F. Elkins dated November 21, 1864, Abraham Lincoln had expressed his fears in saying:

          "…I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

          Fifty-two years later, Woodrow Wilson had confirmed both Lincoln's fears and Franklin's prediction as quoted by Robert L. Owen (the Father of the Federal Reserve Act) in "National Economy and the Banking System," Senate Documents No. 23, p. 100, 76th Congress, 1st Session, 1934.

          "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world -- no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

               As democracy is plainly seen to be subject to inevitable despotism, its mere existence can never ensure a state of freedom or justice for all.  Most of the rhetoric to associate the states of freedom and justice with democracy are based on a biased view that confuses the benefits of a prosperous economy with the results of a democracy.  It is seldom taken into account that prosperous economies have ever existed without the existence of democracy or that freedom and justice are greatly abused in existing democracies.
              At the beginning of the world's most popular democracy, the decision to have maintained the enslavement of millions had been decided by a single democratic vote.  The two most famous leaders of this democracy are known to have been among the largest holders of enslaved people and to have been responsible for the mass murder and dispossession of many indigenous peoples.  Accompanying this democracy's genocidal expansion had been a concept of "Manifest Destiny" that had been of great appeasement for the democratic masses.  Later in this democracy's history, a certain population of its citizens had been singled out for wartime relocation to concentration camps while the indigenous inhabitants of the Aleutian Islands had been restricted in their freedoms as well.  The withholding of civil rights, the lack of enforcement of civil rights, the government violation of civil rights (nullifying its own bill of rights), racial profiling, racial prejudice in the "justice" system, and the existence of government corruption at every level have all been the common characteristics of the world's most popular democracy.  As the willingness to ignore the common good for personal interests is such a general feature of this democracy's population, it should be of no surprise that its government corruption rests upon representatives engaged in the same type of behavior.
              In the realm of economics, the world's most popular democracy has completely subjugated its own people through the establishment of a privately owned central bank issuing a non-standardized interest-bearing currency.  This currency requires a graduated income tax along with property taxes in order to pay off a debt that can never be paid.  Thus, such taxation effectively renders all land and means of production to be the property of the state.  If it's not paid, a person will be subject to losing either "their" property or "their" freedom.  Ownership and the ability to make a living in the world's most popular democracy are therefore not regarded as being the rights of the people but are merely regarded as being the granted privileges of a fascist state.  Fascism, it should be recognized, is the description of an economic state in which the factors of production can be privately owned while ultimately under the control of the state.  When the state tells the "free" press what information to withhold or misinformation to allow, or farmers how much to produce, or directs certain corporations in how much to price their production, the state is economically a fascist state.  Thus, through taxation and the control of capital, production, and information, the world's most popular democracy exercises fascist control over its democratic masses.  In doing so, it is the perfect example of a quote from Goethe stating that "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
              On the international scene, the world's most popular democracy is known to be a consistent supporter of various totalitarian regimes and of economic subversion that it may obtain cheap mineral resources and cheap manufactured products produced by underpaid human labor.  Such a democracy had been acknowledged by Martin Luther King Jr. as being "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."  It is therefore clear that both nationally and internationally, neither freedom nor justice has ever been ensured by the ongoing despotic history of the world's most popular democracy.
               In stark contrast to the many shortcomings of a conventional democratic society, a Maat protectorate is established to protect the rights of its sovereign self-governing citizens rather than to exercise power over them.  As the central focus of Maat is upon the concept of justice, all decisions are made for the benefit of every person as opposed to making decisions for the desires of a majority.  No law can pass in which a single person is to be wronged and all sovereign citizens at the level for which a law will apply are entitled to review each decision to ensure its correctness (in direct contrast to a republican democracy).  If any attempt is ever made by a protectorate to enforce an unjust decision, a well-organized militia will stand ready to prevent the decision and have the protectorate officials replaced.  It is this aspect of citizen empowerment in a Maat society that ensures freedom and prevents the establishment of state tyranny.  Without this mandatory feature, the state would be free to make decisions to the detriment of the people with no means of correction.  Only when the people are required to possess arms, be trained, and be organized apart from the state, can freedom from state tyranny be ensured.  Furthermore, under the Hapu-Maaty, women are the beneficiaries of both the land inheritance and for representation of the highest executive office due respectively to recognition as being the primary family caretakers and gender representatives of Maat.  With the institutional assurance of both economic and political enfranchisement, women under the Hapu-Maaty can never end up as second class citizens or as the victims of a male hegemony.  In short, whereas a democracy is ultimately committed to fulfilling the desires of a voting majority regardless of justice, Maat is committed to ensuring justice for all regardless of popular desire (i.e. immaturity does what it wants while maturity does what it should).  Justice is the only choice to be made under a Maat protectorate thereby precluding any democratic appeals for alternate decisions.  It is this focus on justice that facilitates the social harmony of a Maat society in contrast to the isfat expressed in the political conflicts of a democracy.


        • Djehuti Sundaka
          The late Dr. Huey P. Newton, co-founder of the Black Panther Party, a brilliant thinker, pointed to an invisible elite which controls U.S. foreign policy in
          Message 4 of 4 , Nov 30 2:13 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            The late Dr. Huey P. Newton, co-founder of the Black Panther Party, a
            brilliant thinker, pointed to an invisible elite which controls U.S.
            foreign policy in the People's name, but in their own interests. Writing
            in 1974, Newton described them as "a group wielding predominant power in
            the American polity." They care not one whit for American ideals argues
            Newton, for they "impose [their] own interpretation of the American
            tradition onto the framework of policy making in the state."

            Newton reasons this group, which he describes as "expansionist" and
            "militaristic" explains the paradox at the heart of U.S. foreign policy,
            which states one thing, yet does another. [See "The Huey Newton Reader,"
            7 Stories Press, 2002, p. 297.]

            Is the majority of the American population against being expansionist
            and militaristic? Is the majority of the American population seeking to
            abandon lands acquired through a history of expansionist militarism or
            are they quite content to remain on those lands and even kill anyone who
            should attempt to restore those lands to its rightful inhabitants? Is
            not "Manifest Destiny" an American ideal? Don't the majority of the
            Americans continue to gleefully patronize the transnational corporations
            that control and destroy their lives? Haven't they ever been free to
            vote for anything other than the Democrats and Republicans who serve the

            Just like a lynch mob and just like six wolves and three sheep voting on
            what to have for lunch, America is a democracy. Democracies have never
            been about justice, that's why they exist. Any insistence on justice in
            all decisions affecting the public means that a democratic vote of the
            majority can't be used to get its own way in spite of justice. Justice
            says to the wolves and the sheep that you won't be allowed to eat your
            fellow members but a democracy puts it to a vote. Justice isn't
            determined through votes and a democracy can't be a democracy if it's
            restricted to only doing the right thing. It is the ability to ignore
            doing what's right in order to appease a voting majority that makes a
            democracy what it is.

            We have a democracy. And like many people around the world and
            throughout history, we don't have justice. A lack of democracy has
            never been the problem. After all, it had been a democracy that had
            voted to retain slavery for itself from the very beginning. It's a lack
            of justice that's always been the problem. And an unjust people cannot
            be expected to vote for anything other than unjust representatives to
            represent their unjust will.

            Evil is what evil does. Democracies aren't established to prevent evil,
            they're established to allow it at a voting majority's convenience.

            Djehuti Sundaka
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.