Government Schools and Concentration Camps, I mean Classes

Now I want to make one thing clear. As a child I attended school. With that being said, I was educated at home. I say this because many of us do not or cannot see the difference between school and education. Schooling is just that, sending kids to a building where they will unnaturally be around people their own age, learning to be instructed in whatever the system operating the school desires to be taught.

Me, I was reading before first grade, learned addition, subtraction, division, fractions and square roots all at home. Not to mention I learned every type of rock, plant, animal and chemical there was – all at home and prior to any formal government school instruction. I call it government schools because that is what my folks used to call it. They made it clear that the government public schools (at least in the 1960s) didn’t really want to teach African Americans anything of value. So it was common place to learn at home and hope the school supplemented that lesson. Those days are gone and now we have forgotten the mandates of government public schools – to do the bid of the state. Regardless if that means suspending African America males disproportionately to other races, sending students into severely overcrowded class rooms, and graduating a population with a high school degree but 80 percent of the graduates can’t read or do math on a functional grade level when in college.

Even as a kid (and yes I read Hegel at age eleven), I understood the Hegelian Dialectic or "Consensus Process." Simply put it is plain old brainwashing. To quote William T. Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education 1889-1906 (1835-1909), “Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average American [should be] content with their humble role in life, because they're not tempted to think about any other role.” But what could be expected, the political father of the modern day public government education system was Woodrow Wilson. As then president of Princeton and addressing the Federation of High School teachers he stated: 'We want one class of persons to have a liberal education and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks,' thus designing a school system that would prevent 'the masses' from learning anything liberating when they got there. Even the courts assert such. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in its Palmdale School District opinion, November 2, 2005 read: a “parents…”fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished. The constitution does not vest parents with the authority to interfere with a public school decision as to how it will provide information to its students or what information it will provide, in its classrooms or otherwise [See Yoder, 406 U.S. at 205].

The reality is that with a closed educational system we will never have an open political system. But politicians and leading educators in history didn’t hide this fact. It was John D. Rockefeller, whose family ironically founded the National Education Association, who said: "I don't want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of workers." Even Dr. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence even advocated that “our pupil be taught that he does not belong to himself, but that he is public property.”

This our hypocrisy, on the one hand broadly proclaiming the importance of individuality yet at the same time ignoring that we promote a one-size-fits-all schooling that is forced on us. Thus we proclaim our schools are free when they are not, over-looking that a "free education" is nothing more than a state-owned and socialized education. I suggest this because if the state pays and provides the area of what should be instructed, then they can only accomplish what John Stuart Mill characterized as shaping “people to be exactly like one another; and as the mold in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government.” This is not hard to see, as a parent or a teacher, it is obvious that as Curriculums become more standardized, government from the county to the feds end up having more and more control in the schooling process – notice how I didn’t say education. And since the public school system is funded by tax dollars, the more teachers and administrators are protected and seen as the main stakeholders as compared to the students and parents. It is supply and demand in reverse.

In last year’s state of the Union address, President Obama advocated that every state should require that “all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18,” which in simple terms is a federal. This is a bad idea and an omen. On the real, government public schooling isn’t education at all and serves to advance political dogma in the form of reducing opposition to wealth transfers via the old communist instructional tactic that such is the American democratic way (namely because systems of state-controlled and managed schools will only be free to teach whatever the state desires).

The Public government school System is in creation to continue “social re-engineering of the minds of our children. Folk forget or rather don’t know that the government public education machine prevalent today is rooted in what Massachusetts did around 1850, and that the people resisted, even with guns until the 1880's when the state militia forcibly took children to school. I can even give a real life example. My daughters school is teaching that General Olgethorpe was a great man. Ironically I had talked to her about it when she was in the first grade when she asked “who invented Georgia.” I told her about Oglethorpe, his treachery and the manner in which helped to colonize (take Georgia from the people who lived there) America. I received a not from her teacher indicating that my daughter, all seven years old of her stood up and informed here teacher that General Oglethorpe was not a hero in her eyes as the school was attempting to teach. The teacher shared it with the other teachers in the school and she asked me if we talked about that type of stuff a lot. I responded yeas, and she knows all the halogens on the periodic table also.

If America was truly free, then Obama would not make such a statement - a free nation doesn’t compel parents to send their children to school. If history is any indication and the objectives of the individuals I quoted are on the inside looking out, then it is no wonder that in most cases if one is an African American in an urban areas, our kids generally receive a poor quality of education. Making a segregated world exist even if the law states otherwise for the gap between the haves and have-nots, is growing. Some states are so open with it that they have set different standards of academic performance based on racial ethnicity. Other states have even stopped teaching certain subjects like algebra based on race. Maybe this is why the government and others are against home schooling, because it makes people think for themselves and produces people like me. I do not want to even think of where I would have been if my parents and realitives had not instructed me, or taught me the constitution at age 9 or how to hunt or fish. I know for certain I would not have learned such sitting in a Government Concentration Camps, I mean Classes, especially if I expected them to teach instead of school me.

Black Progressive is An Oxymoron

Seems it has become fashionable over the past four years for African Americans to consider themselves to be politically progressives as opposed to liberals. The way I have managed to understand progressivism, in simple terms is that it is a political ideology that states it desires better conditions in society that is rooted in early 20th century liberal philosophy. It is supposed to be a response to the impact of industrialization as well is a political philosophy in between the response taken by traditional conservatives and socialist to deal with social and economic issues. Naturally, it started in urban areas and was first championed by folk advocating egalitarian and liberal methods to reform socioeconomic policy.

Scholars have had a very difficult time defining Progressivism. Some have even grouped both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as Progressives even absent of any common ideological ground between the two. They even add Lyndon Johnson and now, Barack Obama in scope and aim.

For some oddly coherently dissonant reason (historical and philosophical), I find it implausible and oxymoronic for any African American to call themselves progressives.

I would advance that most describe themselves as such either because of the aforementioned adumbrated definition, or because they support President Obama and white democrats call him progressive. In the past I have often had to disabuse politically, what I comprehended about the progressive political orientation. Specifically that it is rooted in the concept of liberal internationalism as implemented first via the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States. Albeit not called such during the time of the imperialistic colonization of Africa, Wilson approach to the world (on behalf of the well-being of America) was immured to practices similar to what led to the enslavement of Africans and the subjugation of other world ethnic nationalities. This is the main reason I find African American progressive as a term, to be dysfunctional and improbable.

It assumes the false and contumelious Kantian Moral Imperative of exceptionalism that resulted in apartheid in South Africa and Nazism as well as the White Man’s Burden in Europe. The Progressive narrative in antithetical to the political philosophies of African Americans from a chronicled perspective and stresses a “muscular nationalism” designed to serve Americas well being only from a plutocrats perspective singularly internationally – meaning foreign policy is for the simple goal of protecting US national security (the wealthy). Ergo, the best national security involves advancing democracy abroad even by military force, regardless if nations desire such or not.

Back home, we have seen the pseud Darwinism of progressive politics from the attributing of race based cultural traits being antecedents for criminal behavior (Cesare Lombroso) and prior to that in the opinion of Chief Justice Roger B. Tanny who wrote in the Dred Scott ruling: that free blacks would always be “identified in the public [white folks] mind with the race which they belonged, and regarded as part of the slave population rather than free.”

True, Progressives began in response to political powers unwilling or unable to address the economic and social changes consequential of the industrial revolution in America; but somewhere it turned into a monster that overlooked liberty, self-determination, sovereignty and individual rights- all in complete contradiction of the struggles of African Americans from slavery to the civil rights movement. And just as then, Progressives today want the same things from safety to making sure that our political system is free from corruption. The problem is that they want all of this implemented by advancing American interests by a Hobbesian (warlordism) the internationalism that at the same time make positive-sum interactions almost impossible.

First progressives place America first and intentionally ignore that we live in a global world and not an isolated one. Thus they miss the bigger picture that most African Americans have traditionally observed, that declining living standards, weapons proliferation, deforestation and social injustice everywhere, especially when perpetrated by America, is a hazard and a danger to us all. This means that progressives applaud approaches put forth by men like Obama, Roosevelt, Truman and Wilson because simply put, their policy advocate that the United States knows what's right and what other should do -- all the US has to do insist that others snap into line. Thus both the left and right looks at other nations as objects of American foreign policy, rather than as being free agents themselves.

Now it seems in the age of Obama, even liberals support war under the cover of other attributes. The war in Libya was the progressive way to protect innocent civilians. President Obama is in many way similar to both Wilson and Roosevelt. This is why I assert that black and Progressive are incompatible just as freedom and ignorance, for progressives thrive and promulgate economic inequality for if it didn’t exist they would not be able to survive. This is the reason why the 99 percent exist, and why we find ourselves in wars in Libya, Yemen, Somalia and asking for one in Syria. The progressives do not send their kids off to war for a better life or struggle economically, they have it all, unlike most African Americans, even the ones who call themselves progressive.

Information is the currency of democracy

Last I heard the United States was supposedly a bastion of democracy. You know freedom of expression, speech, information and religion. But it seems that only is consistent and true when expression, speech and religion is in support of the United Sates.

I find it strange that the principles that we as a nation promote that make us different and stand out, that the rest of the world - namely democracy, and what we fight for in other places is really just a willy nilly catch phrase. It is OK for us to put and plant what we think and call democracy in places like Iraq and Afghanistan - even if folk do not want such or even if we fail. But when other folk use our idealistic tendencies it becomes sacrilegious.




















Last I heard the United States was supposedly a bastion of democracy. You know freedom of expression, speech, information and religion. But it seems that only is consistent and true when expression, speech and religion is in support of the United Sates.

I find it strange that the principles that we as a nation promote that make us different and stand out, that the rest of the world - namely democracy, and what we fight for in other places is really just a willy nilly catch phrase. It is OK for us to put and plant what we think and call democracy in places like Iraq and Afghanistan - even if folk do not want such or even if we fail. But when other folk use our idealistic tendencies it becomes sacrilegious.

Our "imperial arrogance" asserts I guess, that the only folks with rights to a free and pen society are us and no one else. We have the audacity to proclaim being open, democratic and proponents of the free sharing of information unless it pertains to information of ours. Then we become the incarnate of Mussolini and fascism. Expression is obviously OK except for the Internet. Why? I cannot answer, but i can say we use our power to make private enterprises including Paypal and Amazon.com and master card to control what the supreme courts have considered expression as well - money, when anything we disagree with is cited or revealed. It is just ridiculous, the greatest democracy in the world asking for an Internet site to be shut down and its owner killed or jailed for sharing information that he did not steal.

How quick we are to reference Thomas Jefferson but forget it was he who wrote “Information is the currency of democracy." I just find it two-faced to say on the one hand we are a Nation of liberty and freedom yet on the other hold freedom of the Internet as being completely different. Even condemning China for their censorship but we espouse the same behavior and practice from a governmental locution regarding Wikileaks. Common sense tells me that if one condemns wikileaks we have to do the same with the New York Times and other web sites.

Freedom in the US is a myth. This is the only postulate that can be contrived from this entire wikileaks fiasco. Such is even more convoluted when we have no laws to even assert criminal behavior on the web sites owners behalf outside of an outdated 1917 espionage act that deals with maps.

tweet-a-boo, i see you

If you are an avid reader, you may be we4ll aware of two of the finest works of science fiction written over the past 100 years: Audous Huxley’s A Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984. In A Brave New World, Huxley attempts to warn us of a future plagued with interest supportive of scientific utopianism. A world in which people are just victims of propaganda to be manipulated. In 1984, George Orwell describes a petrifying dangers that man, in search of a Utopia may create via government in order to have an orderly society, but at the expense of the freedom of the people. In the book “Big brother” is always watching, “Ignorance is strength” and “freedom is slavery.”

Yesterday, the U.S. Library of Congress said it will start saving and archiving all worlds’ tweets from around the world due to a new partnership with Twitter. Each public tweet from 2006, when the first began to date will be archived. This means that all information that is on the public timeline, from twitpics, to your location, to any link will be recorded for all of history for anyone to search and study.

This just displays how significant view the Internet is in this digital age. After six months, all public tweets will be made available to the Library of Congress. It has been estimated that between 50 to 60 millions of tweets are published each day. Biz Stone, one of the founders of the micro-blogging service wrote “…there are some specifics regarding this arrangement. Only after a six-month delay can the Tweets will be used for internal library use, for non-commercial research, public display by the library itself, and preservation."

So be leery of what you send out in your limited 140 character space, for if you plan to run for congress or any political office, your tweets will be available for you opponents to use anyway fit.

freeman or slave

Point of order: 1] was trying not to post in honor of the basketball gods, sorry couldnt help it 2] aint thera flu the best thang since hot sauce?

In 1996, while I was in Senegal, I caught word of something that was going on in America. It reminded me of Waco in a sense given that I was living in Nigeria when that federal siege and stand-off was conducted. It involved a group of patriots know and the Montana Freemen.
From what I can recall of the stand-off between the Freemen and the federal agents that surrounded their 960-acre farm lasted 81 days can be reduced to the concept of individual sovereignty. The Freemen believed in the doctrine of individual sovereignty as expounded by the Sovereign Citizen Movement, and rejected the authority of the U.S. Federal Government. As a consequence of these beliefs they implemented actions to set up their own parallel systems of government common-law court, banking, and credit. Now some would say they were just plane ole right wing zealots, extremist or racist, but in a country where we look at television more than we read; and know more about celebrities than the constitution, history or science, then it is not hard to be an extremist of one concerns himself with the latter.

Their belief ironically was an extension from what this nations was founded on. The Revolutionary War was fought for one purpose only SOVEREIGNTY. Fuck what you heard, it wasn’t about freedom or religion or the British. In fact expost facto to the end of the revolutionary war, the colonies were each separate and Independent countries and still are today for each FREEMAN 21 years of age or older who owned land and was able to vote was a king in his own home; was untaxable (land and his income included). The Freemen of Montana understood this and viewed the U.S. government as a Foreign Corporation when compared to the state. As such, a corporation cannot have citizens, and that people accept to become citizens of this corporation when they accept a social security number and register to vote.

These were not some average run of the mill, local-jocal country cats. In fact they were the opposite, well read, informed of their rights under the constitution and had the skills to implement what they thought. They used "Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code", a "Bankers Handbook" and various materials regarding the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to file notices of liens against public officials. These liens were supposedly sold to generate equity to fund efforts to pay of the US national debt. Since the liens they filed conformed to the UCC, and that their "Justus Township" court had an interest in a tort claim for damages created (national debt) by public officials for violations of their oaths of office. The Freeman viewed public officials' support and support of the credit system as a non-constitutional act that was "...depriving the people of their property until our posterity wakes up homeless...”

See the Freemen saw in 1996 what we are experiencing today - the perpetual national debt fiat credit system, and of the relationship of that system to inflation and price manipulations that were financially undermining and bankrupting the private individual class of individual Americans – especially farmers and ranchers.

Now I am bring up this lesson from history to assert one thing, and that is that in order to be free and have the ability to exercise one’s liberty, we must be aware and informed. What is going on now in the present with respect to our government is criminal and in many cases unconstitutional. It is as if we accept without query and believe what is told to us just because we like the messenger without any additional forethought what so ever. But such has always been the nature of serfs. Maybe the Freemen had it right after all? Maybe not. But one thing for certain, they did show a lucid example of what it means to be a free man as opposed to being a slave – that believes whatever is told to them and afraid to find out or answer questions on their on.

Looking up to idiots

I would like to hope folk a blessed holiday season. But I must get back on the grind, for my reservation desires to promote self determination, and given the current worldly state of affairs, the window of opportunity is gradually closing. As we a wait the historic day where the new president of these United States assumes office, I still would like to reinforce that we should not look at jones as a savior, as 40 acres and a mule, of meaning emancipation, or that we have overcome.

We have not. The President Elect is but one man, in character and content that exist in all men. It is on us to assume the burden of responsibility for his success or our failures. We are the real folk that have to put in work. To assume the importance of liberty , in particular in the capacity of being versant and well informed. The decision is only ours whether or not to re-evaluate our current priorities and rearrange them such that the general community in the form of our neighborhoods, schools, and families are first. We must admit our faults and our general collective responsibility to correct what we can. Some of us men need to lift up our skirts and find our balls, and some of our sisters need to stop defining materialism and cosmetic falsities as being things of value. And most of all we, all need to stop looking up to folks that do not represent values we desire for a healthy community to reflect.

I hope that with Obama, folks will get a view of the possibility of family, the importance and the attractiveness in intelligence and reading and staying informed. I hope that people can observe how this one woman defines womanhood via being the supporter of her husband and children regardless. I Hope that people see in him, the value of reasoning and thinking as well as leadership. But the truth is, that down here on the grown level, we more than likely look up to idiots. I mean its cool to have a favorite musician or actor, but don’t allow them to be the source of information that you use to make your decisions. Nor be so absorbed in their life that you desire to be like them or live their kind of life. Don’t tolerate people who disseminate dumb ass, criminal and basically mal-adaptive behavior that you know is foul – but it makes u dance. We cannot complain. I feel if we don’t speak out and in action move to change that which we consider foul, then we are just as much of the obstacle.

All we do is follow, and we tend to follow idiots, or have more or as much interest in them than ourselves, All we do is follow. We rarely ever observe things, think about them and putt into action what we say. It is on both of us: the people and the president elect. I don’t want him to get up there and change the “our” you spoke about Mr. Obama, to the WE [Washington insiders]. Yep I still have a problem with you saying you gone change the “old boy “ network of “Washington Insiders – but I can let that pass for now. Because it remains on us and I am afraid and hopeful in the same instance. The window of time is small and we need to do something for a change rather than ask or expect for one person, to be our savior – he still is a politician.

negro comfortable up in here

One book that left a lasting impression on me as a child was written by Samuel Yette. It was called the choice. In summary he suggested that people of African descent in America had a choice to be proactive or inactive in sustaining their survival in America in light that many in the majority would not lift a finger, if the government proffered such, to enact measure to repress African Americans.

I say this for as some of you all know, I am proud to have been raised in a strong family. My aunt was arrested for sitting in a library to study in the late 1950s. My mother and her siblings marched and were confronted with dogs being unleashed on them as well as the forceful pressure of water from fire hoses sprayed on them. I have learned that the weapon of choice in the war with injustice and hate is the mind as facilitated with words seasoned with serious rumination and historical precedence. So it is not surprising II feel it is my duty to protect and enunciate my beliefs as eloquently as possible in forums with those who preach hate and intolerance. This is why I frequent and post to the Nazi, and racist and skinhead websites/blogs and read them just as much and if not more than blogs run by African Americans.

And you may also be aware that it frustrates me when I share these blogs with others, in particular African American men, and they on the surface appear afraid to post for whatever reason. I had one fellow inform me in query, why post and address such ignorance? My response was that Martin Luther King Jr, and out parents confronted such ignorance in the face of death but it did not stop them for freedom most be aggressively pursued as Frantz Fanon wrote and cannot be given, for if it is it can also be taken back.

As men we must protect and serve our community as a collective. Meaning when we see any form of injustice we must assert our thoughts objectively in the stance for self determination. To do no such thing is unacceptable. Many of these folks, like the skinheads who were just recently exposed to have plotted to kill 88 African American college students, behead non-whites and murder Barack Obama; do so for they know that African American men will not stand to confront them as our ancestors did, men such as David Walker, Martin King Jr and Malcolm X.

They know and smell our aura of weakness and insecurity. And this makes no sense to me, for we will fight our own for calling us out of our name, or will tell a person who is washing our car that they missed a spot, before we would tell a skinhead that we don’t get down like that.

But they do what they do, for they know we Negro comfortable up in here. Yep, we got our Iphones, our 25 pair of air force ones, our big cars, but we don’t have the appreciation of knowledge when we know that there was once a time when folks did learn to read, if found out, their eyes would be removed from their heads and their tongues cut out. That alone should show one the importance of such. Instead we wait for other to tell us instead of have the patience to inform ourselves.

Maybe Frank Tannenbaum was correct when he wrote in Slave and Citizen about the history of America when he asserted “We have denied ourselves the acceptance of the Negro as a man because we have denied him the moral competence to become one, and in that have challenged the religious, political, and scientific bases upon which our civilization rest…and this separation has a historical basis, and in turn it has molded the varied historical outcome.” Yep we still thank we free, and even worse, are Negro comfortable up in here.

and this poem is for we:

Is my mind clear can I see?

I hold my TV and radio dear

Im Negro comfortable up in here

So what I care about the other

About stars and actors over there

Im Negro comfortable up in here

Yea, I don’t read, I listen to what they say

The drop date for lil Wayne’s new cd is near

Im Negro comfortable up in here

Yea im voting for Barack

Don’t know how he differs from McCain real clear

Im Negro comfortable up in here

Stocks and bonds and economics, say what

To busy waiting for VIP in club and BET with cold beer

Im Negro comfortable up in here

We the corporation

Jones, originally I was gone post one of two essays I found on my jump drive today. The first is called Scorn of Lady Macbeth (about women using kids as pawns in relationship) and the second is called Work hard and don’t make excuses (about demise of work ethic in youngins today). Maybe next week, but I had to detour for a few based of an astute comment left on the prior post by my folk Curious. His comment reads as follows:

"I had to look up wt the Glass Steagall Act was and what effects it may or may not have had in the banking industry. As a Liberterian I would have thought that you would have approved of repeal of the Act. Doesn't this mean that there is less government interference and therefore more chance to make money by the industry and less chance of losing money on waste and regulation?"

Yes it is true; I am a Libertarian, a civil libertarian. But it is also true that I do feel as I do about the repealing of the Glass-Stegall Act. How can this be since I am against government intervention and protecting me from myself? It is simple. When I read the constitution of these United States of America, especially the Preamble, which learned as a child looking at Schoolhouse Rock on Saturdays in between cartoons, the first thing that I recall is the phrase WE THE PEOPLE.

This is very important to me for it “ordains and establishes” a foundation for my civil liberties as an individual as well as a self professed civil libertarian. Especially as implied via the 14^th amendment for I consider myself a sovereign citizen. I do not believe nor do I accept that institutions, groups and last but not least – corporations, are ordained as such under the constitution. Consequently I do not equate the rights of corporations as that of or equal to those of individual citizens, I just don’t and folk don’t get down like that with respect to dialectical ruminations of the constitutional sort. For again, in the preamble to the constitution, it reads WE THE PEOPLE and not WE THE CORPORATION. Curious, hope that answers your query. Great comment as usual.

Addendum: The song today is Citizen Sovereign – corner of my eye (1996) by savagebeastmonsta-sameblakmuthafucas - us. My interpretation and application of what the 14^th amendment is to me if yawl aint ever read it. For as I have written before, Ignorance and freedom is incompatible. Enjoy

PS – Buy Fast and Gamin’ Today.

CORPERATION, 14^th amendment, Libertarian, liberty, Glass-Stegall Act, constitution, savagebeastmonsta-sameblakmuthafucas, Preamble, Schoolhouse Rock