Saturday, January 9, 2010

FROM THE SLAVE CATCHER TO THE MODERN DAY POLICE OFFICER.



Many people oftentimes consider Black Americans to automatically hate cops. They say that Black Americans are inherently un-American but yet never seem to produce the reasoning behind why some African Americans tend to have unpopular views about America. This is equivalent to my last post on, “why become a terrorist”. Americans are quick to outcast people who do not agree with the status quo. Let’s be frank, there is a subtext even to the status quo that all parties and non-Black people in America agree with. On certain racial issues, Whites from all political parties will tend to agree. They will more likely than not agree with the notion that all is fair now, that equal opportunity exist notwithstanding the fact that the results are not matching up. Equal opportunity without equal results means no change.

When we began to examine the history of policing as it relates to Blacks, immediately we’re quenched to revisit the southern style of policing, which at best was nothing more than the slave catcher. Everyone knows the duty of the slave catcher. The slave catcher was a sign of oppression and a representative of the establishment that reminded the runaway of that badge of slavery embedded within the fabric of their very person. The slave catcher’s duty was to maintain the most precious profitable property of the south, which were the slaves. When we compare that to the Northern style policing, which most areas throughout the U.S now have, we still see a sign of oppression, humiliation, and manipulation. Blacks were still being subject to harsh and extreme levels of human rights violations. They were still the subject and symbol of the lawbreaker, the native terrorist who must be contained. There were always scares of Blacks possibly revolting and the establishment knew this.



Let’s go over a brief vague history if we may. When we examine the legacy of freedom for the coloreds in America, we must first begin to take notice to the 13th amendment, which gave Blacks their freedom and rights to exist solely as native born Americans. Although it was heavily noted, that government officials did not recognize the 13th Amendment when it came to Blacks, it was still indeed the first major step to granting Blacks full citizenship. Then sadly, to combat the 13th Amendment, the Black Codes were more forcibly enforced, which limited all movement of Blacks, which made it virtually impossible for Blacks to enjoy their newly granted freedom. The orchestration of the first draconian law against Blacks known as “Pigs Law,” which has been nearly cut out of history, came into fruition as well. Pigs Law imprisoned young Black men at highly disproportionate rates just for “stealing domestic animals” (primarily pigs) on the grounds of basic survival. Due to not being able to move about much (Black Codes), Blacks acted under extreme desperateness to seek food. To combat Pigs Law and the Black Codes, the 14th Amendment came into existence, which gave Blacks equal protection under the law. However, even after that Jim Crow was established, which brings us up to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, which pretty much abolished all possible forms of discrimination, or so we think. Throughout all of these battles, however, it was the police that maintained the order and the discrimination that was bestowed onto Black Americans. Therefore, the unanimous perception that Blacks have on police, is indeed a perception of historical presence and meaning. There is no question of police practices today still mimicking some of the actions that police engaged in during the past, whether that be within the sixties or during slavery. A colleague of mine Christine Bell actually believes that the distain towards police by Blacks may even be somehow genetic, given its historical context. Bell argues that just the mere presence of an officer triggers a negative reaction in the mind of the Black individual. Some scholars within the field of psychology and psychiatry have argued that there is a mental defect that Blacks have in American society when it comes to the power government has over them. (See: Cobbs and Grier, Black Rage)

Blacks are still disproportionately denied of their civil rights. They still continue to fight for equal protection under the law, and just their simple birth right to exist with the color of their skin. Disparities continue to rise at astronomical rates, while police work double time to maintain “order”. It is clear by the number of Blacks imprisoned, that things aren’t much different from when the Pig Laws were in effect. The prevalent practice of racial profiling by police makes it quite clear that the Black Codes are still here. Court cases on malpractice of police involving criminal procedure issues make it quite clear that the passing system in its fullest context still lives on today. The passing system mandated that slaves caught without the proper paper work can be readily whipped; well today Blacks are readily shot dead, while their family receives no justice—where is the difference? All of these policies/laws are written and brainstormed by politicians primarily from the dominant society, and just like back in history, the police are still the defenders of those ideas. Therefore, when people speak on the validity of Blacks having a bad perception against cops, they must first stop and ask why. People shouldn’t be so quick to label the situation something other than what it actually is. Look through the history and ask what good have the police ever done for Blacks in America? Yes it is easy to say they’re just doing their job, however, they too have a conscious, and the right to choose not to engage in such action. The day must come, whereby everyone’s experiences and history will be acknowledged and considered in the overall conversation on policing in America. Until such a day arrives, most Blacks will continue to see the modern police officer as nothing more than a reflection of his forbearers. Thus, the title of this post stands correct!

WHY BECOME A TERRORIST?


Disclaimer: I Jason Williams in no way support any actions done by any terrorist for any reason. This note is written for discussion purposes only.

There have been awesome discussions under some of my statuses and notes about terrorists and why they chose to become just that. Last year I had written a note titled, American Arrogance. This note and that note will kind of go hand and hand because I believe it is imperative that Americans understand when they’re being arrogant and thus failing to realize the rationale of foreign born folks and why they engage in the activities that they do. For instance, the founders of the U.S were terrorists as well, for they pillaged, and massacred in order to claim this land as their own. Thereafter, they’ve obtained Black African slaves and then forced them to work the lands under severe inhumane conditions, some of which can still be felt today in more overt and subtle ways. The fact is that most Americans suffer from superpatriotism (see Michael Parenti’s, Superpatriotism). There is a sense of Americans being better than the rest of the world, a hugely accepted pompous attitude that Americans perpetuate through the use of military force.

While Americans enjoy their pseudo sense of superiority, those who benefit from it anyways, they fail to realize the realities of those whom they claim are “hating” on them. People do not wish to kill Americans simply because of the standards of living, which really aren’t even all that! Not all foreign born people want to be in America. America still discriminates against minorities and is far from a free world nation when it incarcerates more people than all the other industrialized nations combined! America is not as great as its citizens may think. If the rest of the world suddenly stopped believing in America and all of its so called greatness, America would collapse. Reason being is because America thrives on its reputation and thus attention from the world community. Without its daily dose of attention it would fail miserably. However, people around the world are starting to wake up; they’re starting to realize the hypocrisy in most of America’s philosophy regarding law, government, and foreign policy. America’s secrets are creeping to the surface, with Rev Wright perhaps being one of the pioneers of the modern movement.

If a person is willing to die for a cause, I heavily doubt he is willing to die due to generic claims such as hating the American people for their freedom. The fact is America’s foreign policy handlings have been oppressing foreign nations for decades. America’s foreign policy has never benefited the rest of the world, it has only benefited itself. There is even intersectionality amongst those in America who benefits from its dirty deeds (e.g.) the poor gets nothing from America and its dirty deeds. It is the dominant ruling group that has always been in charge since the very beginning who would plan the murders, and the theft. It is not the oppressed folk that had dealings with America’s foreign policy orchestration. The oppressed folks are taxed without representation anyways. The fact is who would not fight for their own freedom? If your country was being illegally occupied by a foreign nation and your children are being blown away by bombs, who wouldn’t fight in the name of defending one’s sovereign nation and their children?

Why is it ok for Americans to be “terrorists” but when other people want to defend their nation against the real terrorists they’re told to shut up, sit down, and love it! There is something fundamentally wrong about the mental construct in most Americans regarding the war on terror. They’re failing to see the actions of their own nation and the impact those actions have on other human beings around the world. Hell some people in America feel as though their gov’t is oppressing them and have oppressing them for centuries, can they not accuse their gov’t of being a terrorist or inhumane under international criminal law? See, If America is willing to treat its own Black citizens like subhuman creatures, what makes you think it cares about how it will treat foreign nations? What says you?

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

COMMUNITY POLICING AND HOMELAND SECURITY POLICING



(This is a slight response to an article I read; please see the link below the text to download and view the article for yourself.)

I came across an article that spoke on the issue of community policing and "homeland security policing", and it essentially spoke about how advocates for a new version of community policing under the name of homeland security policing are pushing hard for the original philosophy behind community to be abolished. These advocates believe that terror is of the utmost importance and that it will take the collective help of the communities across the nation to combat terror. Immediately the article gave reference to how funding for community policing has been decreased and thus given to the war on terror, which many would conclude as in being outright sad! My immediate question is simple, isn’t terror a threat that is coming from abroad? To insinuate that we need to conduct “homeland security policing” in the states, is to say that the people are indeed themselves potential terrorist, notwithstanding the fact that we do have domestic terrorism; however the war on terror is gravely pointed at those abroad mainly Arabs and Muslims and now Africans. Therefore, why is there this so called need to push the war on terror into the community policing model?

The reason why the emperors of terror would advocate for homeland security policing is because they specialize in the art of pushing fear onto the masses. As a result of implementing such a model, the citizenry will become further divided, thus creating a very effective police state environment. It would be congruent to the Salem Witch trials massacre. Under the homeland security policing model, everyone and anyone can easily be considered a terrorist and handled accordingly. Why should funding that went to excellent community justice programs and initiatives be taken away in the name of “homeland security”? Do we not believe in taking care of domestic issues first, before policing the world? Something is strangely wrong about the ideology that surrounds homeland security policing.

Some scholars have even argued that it is a stronghold attempt to bring back traditional policing, which for the most part gave the image of police v. society—a militaristic take. The riots in the 60s are a direct source as to why a change needed to manifest, which brought about the community policing model. Community policing sought out to bridge the gap between the poor relations of the underprivileged community and the police. It gave such communities the chance to feel as though they are apart of something, and that they too have a say so in the administration of justice. As for the police, it gave them a new perspective on justice, for it displayed the fact that everything doesn’t need to end in an arrest and a conviction and that minorities can be trusted. Traditional policing had no mercy on the public, notwithstanding that the police are supposed to be employed by the public. Even Sir Robert Peel, the inventor of police believed that the police are an extension of the public. Therefore, it is clear to see that the community policing model is the best possible model to be correlated with democracy and what the inventor of police initially felt about policing.

Why then, do we allow for this new fraudulent model, “homeland land security policing” to implement itself into society. Are all scholars being heard on this matter, or are they just simply being silenced and labeled un-American. It comes down to fear propaganda and an apparent plan to institute a police state. Is government perhaps becoming a bit tyrannical with such ideas as homeland security policing? History has shown the realities of police states. Within police states people tend to live in bondage and in complete obedience to the ruling dictator. Is this something the American people want? Although this matter is still only up for debate the fact is, certain traces of this possibly coming to light can be easily shown (e.g) the patriot act, which effectively limits the liberty of the citizenry. Also, the possibility of full body scans within our airports.

Another huge interest in this fraudulent exchange is the fact that those who advocate for homeland security policing can snatch all of the funding. Both the funding they may receive via grants to homeland security and also grants that have traditionally gone to traditional community policing programs, again the article effectively explains this extortion. At the end of the day it comes down to money. People are willing to allow underprivileged communities to fall in exchange for extorting money in the name of so called terror. So long as the people are eating up the fear propaganda, their plan can and will prevail. Where is the justice in this people?! Innocent people who truly need help when it comes to policing are now going to be laid out to dry, as traditional policing slowly but surely rise again to levels that would of course be much higher than previously recorded. With the war against terror, anyone whom is not in sync with the winning ideology will be considered a possible threat. Muslims and Arabs will be quarantined like clock work even if they’re indeed innocent. Disparities will grow to much larger rates, as Blacks may as well be back into the age of Jim Crow or the Black Codes, and Hispanics accused of illegal alieanship. The homeland security policing model is nothing more than a disguise to institute a police state. Homeland security policing takes the original philosophy of community policing and uses it as a mechanism to fight terror, even though the strategies on how to fight terror are strenuously different than crime prevention in underprivileged communities. BUT again, according to most intelligence the threat of terror is not form the American People, it is from abroad, right? Therefore isn’t it a waste of time and money to institute such a strategy? I guess not for the special interest and those in government who are against the American people!

Money being snatched from underprivileged people doesn’t matter anyway to the general public, because all poor people are simply a waste of time. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that because of the perception of the poor in America, the general public will not be able to see the threat in homeland security policing even if it were written in their bibles, because who cares about the poor. It would be the right more than likely to argue for this model of policing, since they have a huge disdain for the poor, notwithstanding their argument against big government—complete contradictory! Who would have known that the war on terror would eventually descend onto the American people themselves, to quote Rev Wright, are the chickens coming home to roost or is this something more sinister?

Pls be sure to download the article: http://www.gigasize.com/get.php?d=jt3bbhfy5sc

Monday, January 4, 2010

RACIAL PROFILING



There have been much commentary on the matter of the fourteenth amendment and the fourth amendment; however, the commentary in the arena of public opinion has not yet been put on blast like those opinions that comes from out of the academy or from within the courts. When it comes to ensuring that we have an equal society based on a well functioning democracy, society must make sure that everyone is treated properly and fairly by law enforcement. However, lately there have been huge talks on whether or not Muslims should be profiled due to their possible threat of being terrorists. When it comes to the Black experience here in the U.S, many Blacks should readily be able to sympathize with the Muslims, due to the disproportionate profiling that goes on with Blacks in the U.S. Xenophobia is a bacteria embedded within the fabric of American society, thus it is no stranger to those who’ve been historically oppressed.

When the KKK engaged in their negative activities were they profiled? When the Oklahoma bombing occurred were all white males profiled? This is a testament to where the power and discrimination is spewed from within America. The capturing of a young Nigerian terrorist also put Black Americans as well as Africans or any other African descent person at risk of being profiled, for the difference between most African people cannot be deciphered. In all actuality, one may be able to conclude that racial profiling against Blacks will now occur at record highs within America. In addition, a White American woman was even recorded for having said that the Nigerian boy was in fact an African American, when clearly that is false! But the bigger question is why these people are attacking America? Is it truly because of our standard of living? Is it really because we’re a supposedly a free people, even though half of our society is incarcerated? What makes the U.S any different from any other nation? Too many Americans suffer from superpatriotism, I’d say!

Racial profiling has a detrimental effect on the psychology of those who are affected by it. It attempts to institute a form of modern day Black Codes, which effectively controls a person’s traveling. If we are to be considered a free people, law enforcement should not have the right to stop someone just because they feel someone doesn’t belong in a certain section of a town or because of their race. Police should know better than to engage in the usage of stereotypes when performing their duties, but then again many of them aren’t educated, therefore, is it fair to expect them to have a higher level of understanding? However, again the constitution guarantees everyone equal protection under the law yet time and time again we’re seeing that it doesn’t apply to all, thus we have two societies, one for minorities and one for whites. What gives government the right to predict future crime, why should people that fit a certain profile suffer for the actions of a particular individual or group of people? Are all Muslims guilty of terrorism? Are all Blacks drug dealers? Why are there no labels for Whites? Are whites just innately pure and law abiding? Something simply isn’t right with that picture. According to almost every study or form of statistics, Whites are the angels of society.

Racial social engineering will be the demise of this nation. Racial social engineering is directly connected to the White Supremacy Doctrine, which clearly states that all minorities are beneath Whites and that Whites are the rightful owners to society and all that which it has to offer. Every other race but whites are subsequently labeled and demoted to second classed status. There is no such thing as a White terrorist, or a White drug dealer, etc. Of course this would be the “facts” if Whites are controlling gov’t and most of the studies that dictate to society who’s who. In a White Supremacist society, it is whites who define everyone, not the sovereign individual. White supremacy must be attacked at all levels if we’re going to hope for a better union. White supremacy undermines democracy and thus the constitution. It makes us appear to be a phony society. Some would say White Supremacy is one of the main reasons why the U.S is at war now. Minorities haven’t the power within Congress to truly have a say so in the activities the U.S engages in, therefore, the current situation cannot be fully credited to minorities although they too are apart of the U.S society and this is something most Anti-American foreigners would agree with.

Racial profiling has long been a form of harassment in which the state has used against those whom it deemed an enemy. Strict liability offences have been given out to minorities ten times more than their White counterparts. DWB (driving while Black) was a reality for some time on the Jersey Turnpike until the Feds threatened to take over the State Police. DWB still continues to be a form of harassment to most Blacks throughout the nation. Other minorities besides Blacks are also being impacted by the same thing. Racial profiling never seems to affect whites at least not to the levels that it affects minorities. Therefore, if we’re going to get down to the bottom of profiling we must attack White Supremacy for that is the mother of why profiling exists. The numbers don’t lie; the disparities are clearly present for all to view. It will take this nation to come out of denial and face the fruits of its evil. Not all Whites are bad or happy to be profiting off the suffering of minorities; however, a great deal are either in denial or happy about their status within society. Profiling can be researched back to the days of slavery, again human testimony doesn’t lie, and neither does the disparities! So when I am asked whether or not Muslims will be profiled in America, my question would be most certainly yes, everyone whom isn’t White gets profiled in America, it is customary practice! However, the Muslims will face more of a wrath due to their religion!

Sunday, January 3, 2010

RAPISTS AND PUNISHMENT


Disclaimer: I, Jason Williams in no way seek to justify any course of action by any person who wishes to force himself or herself sexually onto another non-consenting human being. (This may be one of my most controversial posts yet, but I felt it needs to be discussed folks).

I always thought that something was fundamentally wrong with those who choose to go out and rape. However, I also feel that the way in which we deal with such persons is completely off base. Clearly, jailing these type of people doesn’t fix the problem, for they come out and become repeat offenders. The question should be, are these people mentally sick? Will incarceration fix the problem, completely? I honestly do not think our current punishment system in place is actually fixing these types of special offenders. The current process is failing to protect society from these intruders. I would say more needs to be learned about the rapist’s brain in order for us to further divulge ourselves into the punishment or treatment process. Perhaps something more in the field of psychology and psychiatry can be developed to better “fix” and/or help these people. Of course I know many people will think of castration, but that will be highly debatable on the grounds of morality.

Many of these offenders clearly admit that they are not in control of their actions. They claim to hear voices, etc. Some would even admit their genuine sexual attraction for youngsters. These are admissions that I don’t think can be fixed by jailing, but rather with extensive medical care. Perhaps a new form of study can be developed to study these types of folks, so that we can bring about better treatment to rectify this unique but ever increasing problem. I really don’t have much to say on this issue; however, I’d love to hear what others have to say on this matter? If you were in charge of setting policy on this issue what would you prescribe?

SOCIAL INJUSTICE AS A FORM OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS?


I had a very interesting conversation today with a good friend about social issues. In the U.S social issues for the most part are ignored by the right and more recognized by the left; however, nothing for the most part has truly been done in the name of social justice. It is as though the left pretend to be aware and for social justice, while really doing nothing to fix things. The movement on juvenile justice has now elevated itself to a matter of human rights. When all else fails, the human rights tag is the last inkling of hope towards getting a problem rectified.

For instance, the warehousing of poor people on non-violent offenses can be seen as a violation of human rights (cruel and unusual punishment). Or the unequal health care system the U.S currently has can be seen as such. Institutionalized racism can also be seen as a violation of human rights. Why is it that the U.S gov’t is always so quick to point out the shortcomings of other nations on human rights but cannot seem to face its own failure? I find it utterly disgustingly sad that when all else fails, movements have to praise their cause in the name of human rights. Why is it that such powerful causes such as equality for all, or women’s rights, juvenile justice, minority rights, or gay rights must be polished under the human rights tag? Why are there so many people who are against human rights?

According to natural law, nobody should be forced to exist in a state for which he does not feel compelled to act. A man should be able to live life the way he pleases, for no other human being has the right to command him otherwise! Where is the consciousness of our fellow human beings? Are people simply evil and blatantly oblivious about the well being of other people lives? Anyhow I say social injustices or issues should perhaps be polished under the human rights tag, for it will grow a bigger awareness about the issues on a world wide scale. Some people outside of U.S borders actually believe nothing wrong goes on here, when that couldn’t be further from the truth. If one’s own country isn’t willing to acknowledge its own dirty evil, then the world has the right to know about it. Let the world know that the U.S believes in punishing children of color more harshly than their white counterparts. Let the world know that juveniles in the U.S can easily be waived to adult court whereby they’re convicted and sent to adult prisons where they will forever be lost to humanity and thus reality. Let the world know that the so called leader of the free world believes in denying women and homosexuals equal rights under the law. Let the world know that freedom of religion is not a reality within the borders of the U.S Remind the world that institutionalized racism is still an ongoing battle herein the U.S. Expose the reality that poverty exist within the U.S. Shout out from the roof tops on how many disparities exist here when it comes to the Criminal Justice System, housing, health care, jobs, etc. Lastly, speak on how some people reject these moral rights in the name of religion! Tell them how we have a fake democracy, and how our congress consist mostly of white males (where’s the representation of society therein?). Create NGO’s in the name of these movements so that hope can be more within reach and not just a long lost dream from within another time.

In summation, I’d like to say that, I don’t think people put the human rights tag on certain issues just because they know it will create bigger buzz; however, they oftentimes do it because sadly, it is their last resort to having their issue being heard. It is heavily easy for politicians to skip over certain issues, while deeming them of low priority. However, those whose lives are directly affected by that negligence know that something must happen and that the fight cannot stop at one’s own govt. Therefore, I must say I am proud to be a supporter of human rights. I feel those who are against it, are nothing more than old unchangeable freaks from another time. Someone said under my status that the mistreatment of our fellow humans is simply natural; my response to that is, capitalism and that type of state of mind is unnatural. Nobody owns this earth or its resources; it all exists for the picking of all, not just a top 10 percent. It is time to label the many social issues that we have as matters of human rights folks. Let us see how many govt's will fall under scrutiny? I think we will be surprised! What says you!!??

Friday, January 1, 2010

BELIEVE BLINDLY



He who believes blindly is a man whom is incapable to accessing the senses of reality! Can it be possible for someone who believes in something blindly to be useful to the collective wellbeing of a nation? Is it rational to put faith in a supernatural being or is it more rational to put faith in your fellow man? Overall it comes down to one being afraid of that which is unknown, so instead it may be easier to confirm to societal expectations than to live your life your way. How many people out in the world believe in something out of complete fear? For instance, those who believe in organized religion. Religion says that those who disbelieve are of the devil and will burn in hell for the rest of their lives; however what’s the difference between that and the story of the three little pigs? Believing in something blindly is also believing in something without a care for the facts. We would be a better world if we used the scientific method more frequently.

Why is it that humans have such a hardened infatuation with believing in things out of fear? Do we not care for the facts, or are most humans just too damn afraid to stand up and take things for that they are. Why do we like to fake the funk so much? Then on top of that most people who believe in religion only believe part-time, they don’t follow every rule stated therein their religious doctrines. Those who hold the key to power and control are heavily aware of what blind faith can bring. Blind faith can bring a person complete control over others, it gives a person immense wealth and prosperity. Can anyone imagine being stuck in a body or mindset that is against the very fabric of who you are? Imagine homosexuals who continue to believe in organized religion even though all of them are against their lifestyle. Sadly, some homosexuals even start to think that they can be changed, as though the biology of who they are can instantaneously be “fixed”! Or how about the thinking teen whom is forced to go to church every Sun, but because his family will outcast him he continues to go. Again I ask can anyone imagine being stuck like that? Are most people walking around with severe mental depression and don’t even know it?

Believing blindly can produce detrimental irreversible damage to the world. For instance, the many wars fought in the name of religion. Believing blindly is equivalent to those who support Obama without questioning his activities. We must remember that it is always in good nature to question everything. We should believe nothing that clearly makes no rational sense! Just because something is called a religion today that doesn’t make it any different from those stories that we now call mythologies. However, only those with indomitable strength can see through the bull, only those with thinking minds can stand the pressure it seems. Most humans are too weak, mentally powerless, and out of touch with themselves. Everyone can seem to agree that two plus two is four, yet we cannot agree when it comes to the supernatural. Some of those who believe in Jesus feel as though they’re better than those who believe in Muhammad yet both stories are no better than those who believe in Zeus or the Fairy God Mother. Logic is used only when it suits certain purposes. Most people aren’t willing to use it on the daily, because they just may see things that they are unwilling to accept. Therefore, they just…..continue….to….believe blindly….

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT


The social contract is a very important ingredient within the asphalt that holds our society together. However, when we began to analyze the social contract we have, we cannot do so without first acknowledging democracy. Typically, one may say that both go hand and hand; however, others would say that they don’t necessarily do. For instance, in a democracy the majority rules, whereas in a traditional social contract, the voices of all are heard and acknowledged. Therefore, when we look at the society in which we live today, one may say it is a mixture of both. A social contract is the contract that the people have with a ruling body, hence we the people are willing to give up our sovereignty to governmental entities in order to be respected and protected by the government. This means that whatever we’re giving up will be will worth its forfeiting, since as per the contract the government will be giving us back just as much as we gave away. (remember the patriot act, yikes!) When this contract is put up for examination, some may come to realize that they’re getting nothing out of the contract and are instead victims or prisoners to a vicious careless entity called government. How can the social contract only apply to some and not all? It is as though those who are not included therein are stuck in some sort of societal bubble that doesn’t allow them to do much—a blackcodes of some sort! This is more prevalent with people of color and those of low economical status.

In addition, are people even given the chance to decide whether they agree to the contract or not? Is it fair that one’s birth alone subjects him to a contract for which he knows nothing about? What if a man wishes to live with his complete sovereignty? Why isn’t the social contract revisited every now and then for updating and verification? Could it be due to fear? So long as the vicious entity continues to push out fear propaganda, people will be reluctant to questioning its duties and thus the contract. If a war on terror persists then the government is able to remind the public of its reason to exist notwithstanding all the visible signs of decay within the contract. The social contract is a contract that political parties play around with. All parities are guilty of lies and deceit, and are most likely filled with neighboring folk who cares not about the contract, but rather for greed and power! Their concern lies not with the people or the betterment of society, their concerns are with their own self interest, yet most simply cannot see this. These contract breakers are able to play magic tricks; they’re able to trick the minds of the people, by getting them to defend interests that don’t belong to them. This is precisely why there are poor conservatives who continue to vote for corporations time and time again and not for their own interests.

Something is dangerously demented with the social contract. There are loads upon loads of poor people who haven’t been heard since the days of Roosevelt—definitely wrong! The social contract has now become a virtual mechanism placed deep within the word fear. Fear is the controller of our social contract, because so long as the people are caught up in fear, there could be no changing to the contract. The process of verification can be denied, and the interest of the select few can be furthered. What is the use of a social contract if everyone’s interest isn’t served? Why give up one’s sovereignty to only be held down in bondage like that of a slave. Who gives the right to fellow humans to keep other humans in bondage? What gives these humans the right to act with impunity against the interest of the rest of us? Government is an entity ran by humans not superhumans or supernatural beings. Where is the trust folks? Why are the public so afraid of the humans therein government, is it just a matter of psychological standing or something more? Are the public really just little children without any mental understanding of true freedom, or is it just simply easier to rely on a social contract that has clearly been breached upon? With decades of social engineering via: education, news media, and sprouts of political and cultural ideology I guess it is no wonder of the public’s decision to remain in bondage…. But then what does that say for those of us who are tired of this damn contract and can see that it has been clearly broken??... So long as most of the people are caught up in confusion, I guess it really doesn’t matter what the enlightened people think.

So much for believing in the social contract, eh? What says you?