The poverty of philosophy

Most of my Latino and black people who are struggling to get food, clothes and shelter in the hood are so concerned with that, that philosophising about freedom and socialist democracy is usually unfortunately beyond their rationale. They don't realize that America can't exist without separating them from their identity, because if we had some sense of who we really are, there's no way in hell we'd allow this country to push it's genocidal consensus on our homelands. This ignorance exists, but it can be destroyed.

Nigga talk about change and working within the system to achieve that. The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within, it's not you who changes the system; it's the system that will eventually change you. There is usually nothing wrong with compromise in a situation, but compromising yourself in a situation is another story completely, and I have seen this happen long enough in the few years that I've been alive to know that it's a serious problem. Latino America is a huge colony of countries whose presidents are cowards in the face of economic imperialism. You see, third world countries are rich places, abundant in resources, and many of these countries have the capacity to feed their starving people and the children we always see digging for food in trash on commercials. But plutocracies, in other words a government run by the rich such as this one and traditionally oppressive European states, force the third world into buying overpriced, unnecessary goods while exporting huge portions of their natural resources.

I'm quite sure that people will look upon my attitude and sentiments and look for hypocrisy and hatred in my words. My revolution is born out of love for my people, not hatred for others.

You see, most of Latinos are here because of the great inflation that was caused by American companies in Latin America. Aside from that, many are seeking a life away from the puppet democracies that were funded by the United States; places like El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru, Columbia, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Republica Dominicana, and not just Spanish-speaking countries either, but Haiti and Jamaica as well.

As different as we have been taught to look at each other by colonial society, we are in the same struggle and until we realize that, we'll be fighting for scraps from the table of a system that has kept us subservient instead of being self-determined. And that's why we have no control over when the embargo will stop in Cuba, or when the bombs will stop dropping in Vieques.

But you see, here in America the attitude that is fed to us is that outside of America there live lesser people. "Fuck them, let them fend for themselves." No, Fuck you, they are you. No matter how much you want to dye your hair blonde and put fake eyes in, or follow an anorexic standard of beauty, or no matter how many diamonds you buy from people who exploit your own brutally to get them, no matter what kind of car you drive or what kind of fancy clothes you put on, you will never be them. They're always gonna look at you as nothing but a little monkey. I'd rather be proud of what I am, rather than desperately trying to be something I'm really not, just to fit in. And whether we want to accept it or not, that's what this culture or lack of culture is feeding us.

I want a better life for my family and for my children, but it doesn't have to be at the expense of millions of lives in my homeland. We're given the idea that if we didn't have these people to exploit then America wouldn't be rich enough to let us have these little petty material things in our lives and basic standards of living. No, that's wrong. It's the business giants and the government officials who make all the real money. We have whatever they kick down to us. My enemy is not the average white man, it's not the kid down the block or the kids I see on the street; my enemy is the white man I don't see: the people in the white house, the corporate monopoly owners, fake liberal politicians those are my enemies. The generals of the armies that are mostly conservatives those are the real Mother-Fuckers that I need to bring it to, not the poor, broke country-ass soldier that's too stupid to know shit about the way things are set up.

In fact, I have more in common with most working and middle-class white people than I do with most rich black and Latino people. As much as racism bleeds America, we need to understand that classism is the real issue. Many of us are in the same boat and it's sinking, while these bougie Mother-Fuckers ride on a luxury liner, and as long as we keep fighting over kicking people out of the little boat we're all in, we're gonna miss an opportunity to gain a better standard of living as a whole.

In other words, I don't want to escape the plantation I want to come back, free all my people, hang the Mother-Fucker that kept me there and burn the house to the god damn ground. I want to take over the encomienda and give it back to the people who work the land.

You cannot change the past but you can make the future, and anyone who tells you different is a Fucking lethargic devil. I don't look at a few token Latinos and black people in the public eye as some type of achievement for my people as a whole. Most of those successful individuals are sell-outs and house Negros.

But, I don't consider brothers a sell-out if they move out of the ghetto. Poverty has nothing to do with our people. It's not in our culture to be poor. That's only been the last 500 years of our history; look at the last 2000 years of our existence and what we brought to the world in terms of science, mathematics, agriculture and forms of government. You know the idea of a confederation of provinces where one federal government controls the states? The Europeans who came to this country stole that idea from the Iroquois lead. The idea of impeaching a ruler comes from an Aztec tradition. That's why Montezuma was stoned to death by his own people 'cause he represented the agenda of white Spaniards once he was captured, not the Aztec people who would become Mexicans.

So in conclusion, I'm not gonna vote for anybody just 'cause they black or Latino they have to truly represent the community and represent what's good for all of us proletariat.

Porque sino entonces te mando por el carajo cabron gusano hijo de puta, seramos libre pronto...

Viva la revolution!

Un click pe zi

52 of the world's poorest countries (of which 37 are in Africa) owe a total of $376 billion in debt. The repayments for this huge amount of money take up a very large portion of each country's income to, leaving them with little left to help themselves and solve their hunger problems.

The areas where chronic persistent hunger occurs need capital and resources to develop and implement schemes to help solve their problems. Cancelling world debt would provide these countries with the ability to help themselves, such as being able to develop their economy in order to safeguard against future hunger problems, develop and import technologies to begin and increase the amount of output from their arable land or help fund imports of food from abroad, helping to solve the redistribution problem

The G7 (Group of seven), the seven countries with the largest economies in the world, pledged to cancel $100 billion of this debt in June 1999. An impressive figure, but actually, lending governments already know they are not going to receive most of this $100 billion back and have made provisions to cover their losses. So although this is a good start, in many countries it will have no significant impact on their payments - it is cost-free, and also benefit-free. If the debt being cancelled is debt that could never have been paid anyway, this will have little impact on the repayments for poor countries.

Many countries are pledging to cancel 100% of the debt owed to them if certain conditions are meet. For example, an extract from a speech Bill Clinton made on October 12th 1999, archived on the US State Department's website says:

"Last month, I went even further, announcing that the United States will forgive 100 percent of the debt owed us by the world's least developed countries if they will use the savings to address basic human needs. And I committed the United States to a new effort to accelerate the development of vaccines for diseases that devastate the developing world." - Bill Clinton

You can help these poorer countries by supporting and helping those groups and individuals who are trying to convince their governments to cancel world debt. Your support could give a debt free start to 1 billion people, and help to solve the world's hunger problem. Alternatively you can support online by clicking a button at http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1 where advertisers will donate 1 1/2 cups of staple food to a hungry person.

Preemptive strike doctrine sau cum sa faci scandal de unu singur

Uite ca dupa aproape 1000 de ani de "progres" ne-am intors de unde am plecat, la evul mediu sau mai rau. Toate eforturile de pana acum ale statelor, de a recurge la dialog in loc de conflict, la diplomatie in loc de amenintari sau folosirea fortei au fost degeaba sau, ma rog, devin inutile in actualul context global. In loc sa ne indreptam spre o perioada de prosperitate comuna, in care toate statele sa se inteleaga si sa se accepte reciproc, deci sa invete sa convetuiasca, ne intoarcem la epoca in care cel mai puternic poate sa-si impuna vointa prin forta bruta. Albert Einstein spunea ca "atata timp cat vor exista oameni, vor fi si razboaie". Altii au spus ca e in natura omului sa fie violent si inclinat spre castiguri personale si avantaje egoiste, in timp ce altii au sustinut valorile avantajului comun, cand fiecare castiga ceva pentru el, dar si pentru ceilalti din societate. Multi oameni inteligenti, pornind de la marx, rawles, utilitaristi, au scris volume intregi despre cum ar trebui sa functioneze o societate, despre cum ar trebui reglate raporturile dintre state si indivizi si chestii de genu asta. Intre cele doua razboaie mondiale, liberalii au sperat ca statele, invatand din greselile primului razboi mondial, vor realiza ca doar cooperarea poate pune capat conflictelor dintre ele. Plutea in aer o atmosfera de optimism, a fost creata Liga Natiunilor (precursoarea ONU de astazi) si totul parea ca evolueaza inspre bine. Apoi a venit al doilea razboi mondial si locul liberalilor a fost luat de realisti, care au spus ca e in natura statelor sa se bata inter ele, ca fiecare stat trebuie sa-si asigure suprevietuirea prin orice mijloace aflate la dispozitia sa, ca nici un stat nu trebuie sa se bazeze pe altul pentru a-si garanta securitatea. Mai presus de toate, securitatea unui stat era exprimata in putere armata. Viziunea asta a dus la perioada vesela a razboiului rece, in care SUA si URSS au stat in echilibru si, nevrand sa intre in conflict deschis, s-au antrenat in razboaie din alte parti ale lumii, ca cel din Coreea si Vietnam. Dar dupa caderea Uniunii Sovietice, SUA nu a mai avut nici un rival asupra caruia sa-si concentreze atentia, care sa justifice sumele imense cheltuite pe bugetul armatei si asa mai departe. Asa ca s-a autodeclarat jandarmul lumii. Asta inseamna ca de fiecare data cand america considera ca cineva calca stramb, e in "dreptul" ei sa intrevina si sa puna lucrurile la "punct". Chestia asta n-ar fi asa de importanta, daca ar exista ceva mai presus de SUA in sistemul international, ca de exemplu o organizatie internationala functionala, ca NATO sau ONU. Desi america face parte din Consiliile Permanente de Securitate ale ambelor organizatii, teoretic, ea ar avea nevoie de aprobarea acestora inainte de a lua orice fel de masuri impotriva altor state, pentru ca, nu-i asa, statele, cel putin juridic, sunt egale intre ele. Dar iata ca razboiaiele din Afghanistan si Irak, in care SUA a actionat fara aprobarea ONU, ne-au aratat exact cat de bine functioneaza organizatia asta. Daca ar fi fost intr-adevar ceea ce trebuia sa fie, ONU ar fi trebuit sa impuna sanctiuni americii pentru atacarea unui stat suveran, cum e Irakul, fara justificare. Dar in ochii statelor unite, faptul ca au vrut ei e o justificare suficienta. Si bombele nucleare, ia-le de unde nu-s.

Din 2002 avem insa de-a face cu "Preemptive Strike Doctrine", o politica a guvernului american care-i permite sa atace alt stat, inbaza unei minime justificari a intentiilor acestuia. Sau, mai pe scurt, daca SUA are impresia ca cineva ii contesta puterea militara, are dreptul sa-l atace si sa-si mentina statutul in sistemul international. Ideea asta nu e deloc noua, de-a lungul istoriei au fost multe cazuri, pornind de la egipteni, acuma aproape 5000 de ani, trecand pe la francezi, rusi in al doilea razboi mondial, israelieni vs. irakieni in '81 etc. Doctrina asta strategica e reglementata juridic doar in cazuri specifice. In rest, este considerata ilegala la nivelul statelor.

Cativa presedinti americani au ramas in istorie prin teoriile si doctrinele pe care le-au aplicat la vremea lor. Roosevelt a avut "The New Deal", Truman a avut "Truman Doctrine", Lyndon Johnson a avut "The War on Poverty". Bush va ramane in istorie cu "Pre-emptive Strike", o strategie militara care promoveaza razboiul in locul pacii, crearea de inamici in loc de prieteni, precipitarea conflictelor in loc de negocierea disputelor si crearea de dezavantaje pentru propria econome.

In termeni largi, strategia asta slabeste tarile care nu pot raspunde amenintarii militare americane si forteaza puterile importante, ca Rusia, China, Franta, Germania, Japonia, Anglia, sa se alieze pentru a respinge un eventual atac. Altfel spus, revenim la sistemele de aliante care guvernau Europa in perioada imperiilor sau in timpul razboiului rece. in loc sa se detensioneze relatiile si asa incordate intre state, ele se tensioneaza si mai mult. Si din experienta stim ca lucrul asta nu poate duce decat la mai multe conflicte. Aflate intr-o pozitie de putere, SUA se supune celebrului slogan: "Puterea tinde sa corupa, iar puterea absoluta corupe absolut." (John Emerich Edward). Momentan, nu exista nici un stat sau alianta care sa poate contesta suprematia statelor unite in lume, iar america intentioneaza sa pastreze lucrurile in felul acesta. Populatie controlata in interior, miliarde de dolari anul pompati in pentagon si armata, lasitatea altor state, toate contribuie la starea de fapt. Viitorul suna bine.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke)

SUA, patria democratiei

In ultimii ani, dupa asa-zisul atentat din 9/11, statele unite au suferit o usoara modificare in conceptul de democratie pe care se bazeaza. Cam toate amendamentele din constitutia lor se refera la libertatile individului, la libertatea cuvantului si a asocierii si asa mai departe. Numai ca varianta asta a Americii a disparut de mult timp. Alaturi de celelalte avantaje pe care le-au adus "atentatele teroriste" se numara si posibilitatea pe care o are acuma guvernul american de a transforma statele unite intr-un soi de dictatura.

Mai nou, in baza Patriot Act, politia are voie sa intre in casa cetatenilor fara ca acestia sa fie acasa si fara mandat. Aceasta este o incalcare flagranta a drepturilor omului. mai mult decat atat, tot politia are dreptul de a retine pe oricine fara limita, fara justificare si are voie sa tortureze legal prizonieri care sunt acuzati de terorism. Chestia asta e destul de amuzanta, pentru ca majoritatea "teroristilor" arestati pana acuma au fost eliberati din lipsa de probe. Practic chestia asta da guvernului posibilitatea de a aduce la tacere pe oricare opozant al sistemului, sub acuzatia de terorism. Daca va suna relativ cunoscut, e din cauza Inchizitiei sau a lui Hitler, care faceau la fel.

De fapt, asemanarile intre guvernarea Bush si cea a lui Hitler sunt foarte multe. Amandoua pretindeau ca lupta impotriva "elementelor destabilizatoare" din interiorul si exteriorul tarii si amandoua au inscenat atentate pentru a obtine sprijinul populatiei pentru anumite masuri. De exemplu, dupa ce nazistii au dat foc Reichstag-ului si au dat vina pe comunisti, au trecut prin parlament The Enabling Act, o lege care facea constitutia democratica nula si care a insemnat persecutarea evreilor, tiganilor si a altor minoritati, deportari si genocid. Asemanarile dintre Patriot Act si The Enabling Act sunt izbitoare. Ce e mai ciudat e ca americanii par sa nu aiba nimic impotriva. Ei sunt atat de bombardati zilnic de cuvinte ca teroare, terorism, atentat, suspect etc, incat ajung sa accepte chiar si cele mai discutabile masuri ca sa-si mentina conceptul asta vag de securitate. Ca dovada, o familie din California a devenit pioner in domeniul micro-cipurilor. Astea's niste dispozitive foarte mici, care deja sunt atasate la noile pasaporturi americane. Inauntru este un cod de bare scanabil, care contine toate datele despre individ. se preconizeaza ca in cativa ani, micro-cipurile vor contine si numere de conturi bancare si ca toate actiunile dintre individ si societate vor fi reglate prin ele. Acesta este un lucru foarte grav, deoarece ofera autoritatilor puterea de a tine masele sub control in intregime. Daca cineva iese din randuri sau ridica vocea impotriva oranduirii, i se poate inchide cipul si individul respectiv este adus la tacere, interzicandu-i-se accesul la spitale, invatamant si bani. Pe langa asta, el poate fi urmarit peste tot in lume tot prin intermediul cipului, care este dotat cu GPS.

Ce mi se pare mie fascinant la chestia asta cu cipurile e ca ele nu sunt impuse populatiei, ci oamenii ajung sa le ceara. Evident, spre a face fata amenintarii "teroriste". Numai ca asta nu exista. A doua definitie din dictionar pentru terorism este: "doctrina folosita de un sistem de guvernamant pentru a tine populatia in frau, pentru a uni o societate divizata impotriva unui inamic comun si de a oferi un sentiment de coeziune sociala." Ori exact lucrul asta s-a intamplat dupa 9/11. Bugetul Pentagonului a crescut cu 100 de miliarde de dolari pe an de atunci. Tot atentatele au oferit pretexte pentru a ataca doua tari care nu erau pe placul americanilor si dintre care, din intamplare, unu se afla la granita cu Federatia Rusa (afghanistan) si unu detine rezerve importante de petrol (irak). Irakul este de asemenea vecin cu Iranul, care detine rezerve la fel de importante de hidrocarburi. Deja la televizor se aude tot mai des ca Iranul are arme nucleare, ca e pe axa raului, ca e o amenintare la adresa securitatii statelor unite si a lumii, bla bla bla. Scenariul aplicat este acelasi ca in cazul invaziei din Irak. Dovada ca nici pana acuma americanii nu au gasit armele nucleare cu existenta carora si-au motivat atacul, neavand aprobarea Consiliului de Securitate al ONU (care in treacat fie spus, este o institutie care nu functioneaza deloc, dar asta e o discutie pentru alta data).

Alt stat vizat mai este si Siria, considerat ca fiind singurul stat declarat terorist din lume. Nu e deloc greu de crezut ca fara interventia celorlalte state si institutii nationale, nu exista nici o forta in stare sa tina statele unite in lesa in mediul internationa. De bine de rau, URSSul mai facea asta, opunand americii o armata relativ egala, deci era un soi de echilibru. Dar in prezent, cu o armata superioara oricarei alteia, cu o populatie pe cale sa fie adusa la stadiul de oi si cu un stil de politica foarte agresiva, statele unite cam fac legea in lume si si-au atribut de la sine titlul de "jandarm mondial". Sa fereasca dumnezeu daca nimeni nu face nimic si populatia SUA nu se trezeste, pentru ca ei sunt singurii care mai pot face ceva in legatura cu asta.

N. Rockefeller (din dinastia faimoasa de bancheri americani):

"By having this war on terror, you can never win it ...
...so you can always keep taking people's liberties away...
...the media will convince everyone that this is real. "

"The goal is to get everybody in this world chipped with an RFID chip."