Tuesday 26th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

defining democracy.....

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet, that did not commit suicide." — John Adams in a letter to John Taylor 1814

By Jim Mamer / Original to ScheerPost 

In the last week or so I have received at least five mailers asking for donations to “save our democracy.” And, in recent episodes of broadcast news, I’ve heard mention of multiple “threats to our democracy” emanating from claims of election fraud, attempts at new voter restriction, gerrymandering schemes, and various long-term results of Shelby County v. Holder which narrowed provisions of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. 

While I have no reason to doubt that most of these “threats” are sincerely felt, they all seem to assume that, in this country, we have a common definition of “democracy” with characteristics that often seem to have been relatively stable since, perhaps, the end of the Civil War. But that is not true.

To understand, it is essential to acknowledge that the United States was not created as a democracy. The founders, after all, created a government that accepted slavery, engaged in genocide against the Indigenous peoples, and denied voting rights to all women and to men without property.

The 1787 Constitution featured a number of anti-democratic elements. In the Congress, only the House of Representatives was popularly elected, senators were selected by state legislatures and the anti-democratic Electoral College chose the president.

What seems lost in current discussions of democracy in the U.S. is the painful history of struggle, largely by marginalized groups, to be included while those with privilege did all they could to exclude them. Objections to an inclusive democracy are nothing new.

 

Democracy Does Not Have Just One Definition

Part of the problem is that most Americans seemed to have learned to define democracy rather casually. As a result, some accept the simple idea that democracy equals voting. Others prefer the more chauvinistic and dangerous belief that the government of the United States is the very definition of democracy. So Lincoln’s pronouncement at Gettysburg, that we have a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” might be the best one can expect.

In “Democracy’s Meanings: How the Public Understands Democracy and Why It Matters” (2023) the authors argue that Americans think about democracy in ways that “go beyond voting or elected representation.” In their book, they classify these viewpoints into four groups. The smallest group, comprising about 10% of Americans, is made up of citizens who see democracy as an ambiguous and ill-defined concept.

Those in the other three groups see democracy as having a purpose: The first group believes that, in a democracy, voting and fair treatment are most important goals while ideas about equality are mostly limited to civil liberties. The second group believes that democracy ought to facilitate basic social and material needs of citizens. And the third sits somewhere in between the previous two. 

But no matter the group, when Americans have been asked, in a variety of polls, if they feel that their democracy is working well, the responses tend to be pessimistic. 

According to the Pew Research Center, in 2022, 6 in 10 said democracy is in crisis. According to a 2022 Quinnipiac poll, 69% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans think the nation’s democracy is on the brink of collapse. And the figure for independents is similar at 66%. In a 2023 poll from Associated Press, only about 1 in 10 gave high ratings to the way democracy is working. 

One crucial factor in all of these polls is that when the questions are asked, they are not preceded with a specific definition of democracy. That leads one to question what the various responders think is not working.

 

High School Texts Do Not Define Democracy 

In “The Americans,” the first mention of the word “democracy” is in a description of what the Puritans did NOT intend to create. “Although Puritans made no effort to create a democracy, the Massachusetts Bay Company extended the right to vote not only to stockholders but to all adult male members of the Puritan church – 40 percent of the colony’s men.” 

Later in the same text, it is written that in the early days of the country, Americans “favored a republic – a government in which citizens rule through elected representatives…” and not a democracy, which, they feared, “placed power in the hands of the uneducated masses.”

In “History Alive!,” democracy is elevated to a “founding ideal” best expressed in the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” But, on the same page in a sidebar, the authors add that “The right to vote is so instrumental to a democracy that most Americans today think little about it. For much of our history, however, this right was denied to women and most African-Americans because their consent was not considered important to those who governed.” 

Nothing is written in either text suggesting that denying the vote to so many disqualified the early United States from being democratic. And very little is written that specifically identifies how the bumpy moves toward democracy involved seemingly endless conflicts, compromise and accommodations.

It is hard to know what students are supposed to take from these descriptions. And I confess that, as a teacher, I never fully realized how utterly useless such explanations were. Perhaps most of us (teachers, students, publishers) just assume that the meaning of democracy is clear and commonly held. 

In any case, the careless use of the word “democracy” in textbooks does seem to explain, at least in part, how so many Americans seem to hold very different views of what democracy entails or should foster.

What should a high school text teach about democracy?In general, high school texts should contain a simplified version of what Princeton historian Sean Wilentz writes in his massive work “The Rise of American Democracy.” He begins with a description of the historical arc of the term stating that “Important elements of democracy existed in the infant American republic of the 1780s, but the republic was not democratic…”

“Democracy” is a troublesome word…. Since the Revolution, citizens, scholars, and political leaders have latched onto one or another aspect of government or politics as democracy’s essence. For some it is a matter of widened political rights, usually measured by the extent of the suffrage and actual voting; for others, democracy means greater opportunity for the individual pursuit of happiness; for still others, it is more cultural phenomenon than a political one, ‘a habit of the heart,’ as de Tocqueville put it…”

In other words, democracy is multifaceted. Wilentz describes it as a process “…rooted in a vast array of events and experiences, that comes into being out of the changing human relations between governors and the governed.” And he concludes by writing that, “Today, democracy in America means enfranchisement, at a minimum, of the entire adult citizenry.” 

This idea that democracy depends on the enfranchisement of the whole adult population is key. Contemporary attempts to reduce, limit, or render less effective the votes of so many are clear extensions of the founder’s fear of “the people,” or in other words, their fear of an inclusive and diverse democracy.

Democracy, Wilentz concludes, “is never a gift, [but] must always be fought for, by political coalitions that cut across distinctions of wealth, power, and interest…democratic successes are never irreversible.” 

 

The Value of Democratic and Anti-Democratic Examples

I am convinced that it would be helpful if schools, from the beginning of high school, would teach students to identify policy elements, in a variety of countries, that are democratic or anti-democratic. 

At the very least, the fundamental question would cease to be whether or not the United States is a democracy, but rather whether students can identify elements that are democratic as well as those that are anti-democratic in a variety of governments. Here is some of what they might discuss:

Examples of structural anti-democratic elements in American government would include the fact that senators were originally selected by state legislatures but also that each state, regardless of population, still has only two senators which is a clear contradiction with one person, one vote.

A well-known post-civil war example of an anti-democratic policy is found at the end of Reconstruction when, with the enactment of Jim Crow laws, recently enfranchised Black men were systematically denied the vote. 

Another example, perhaps lesser known, is how Susan B. Anthony, arguedlike many women suffragists did, that the 14th Amendment clearly gave women the right to vote by stating that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” 

Given that she was a citizen, she registered, voted, was arrested, and then convicted.

At the trial’s end she addressed the court, “It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people — women as well as men.” 

 

Contemporary Attempts to Reduce the Size of the Electorate

Today’s “threats to democracy,” which continue to extend the original fear of “the people,” come from those opposed to increasing the number of voters. This is especially true when these new voters include people of color and/or those less wealthy. It is no accident that those now claiming election fraud never accuse the residents of the most privileged districts.

In 2021, anti-democratic forces in Georgia, for example, reacted quickly when an expanded electorate resulted in Democratic victories in presidential and Senate elections. In response, the state legislature passed new restrictions on voting. Among them are strict new ID requirements  and a reduction in the time available to request absentee ballots. 

When the Atlanta Journal-Constitution analyzed the state’s list of voterswithout ID by comparing it with their registration information, they found that more than half are Black and mostly live in large Democratic-leaning counties. Seemingly, just to add a note of cruelty, the Georgia legislature also made it illegal to provide water to voters waiting in long lines.

 

Other Ways to Attack Democracy

Rhetorically at least, the majority of Americans accept the idea that democracy requires universal enfranchisement. So, when it becomes too obvious, or too difficult, to reduce voter participation, those who oppose universal enfranchisement have found ways to make voting much less effective. These too are extensions of the founders’ fears.

One of the most common ways of making voting less effective is to gerrymander districts. But even when the Supreme Court recently concluded that Alabama’s gerrymandered congressional districts were created specifically to prevent a second majority-Black district, the state defied the Court’s order to give minority voters a greater voice. And, so far, their defiance is holding.

 

The Increasing Power of Lobbyists

In any democracy it is assumed that those elected have a duty to listen to constituents. Thus, lobbying by constituents is an expected part of democracy, but this practice is now dominated by multi-million dollar organizations. Those hoping to bring attention to philosophical or moral issues are drowned out. 

Nevertheless, the only mention of lobbyists in the history textbooks that I have is in “History Alive!.” The first mention is accompanied by an early 20th century sketch of “two female lobbyists” attempting to influence two senators to support women’s suffrage. The second mention reports that, in the 1860s, C.P. Huntington traveled to Washington as a lobbyist in order to get government support for a transcontinental railroad.

Times have changed. Right now, there are 535 members in both houses of Congress, each with a small staff. But OpenSecrets reports that in 2022 at least 13,784 organizations deployed 12,609 federal lobbyists. In 2022, the money spent on lobbying climbed to $4.1 billion. That is what “two female lobbyists” attempting to speak to a senator about abortion access in 2023 would be up against. 

The list of the top 10 lobbying groups in 2022 indicates what causes these lobbyists are likely to represent. The National Association of Realtors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Big pharma, the American Hospital Association, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Amazon, the American Medical Association, the Business Roundtable, the American Chemistry Council and Meta (formerly known as Facebook). No matter who wins the elections these 12,609 professional lobbyists remain.

The Economist publishes an annual “Democracy Index” measuring the worldwide state of democracy, primarily in the realm of political institutions and political freedoms. In recent years, the United States has been rated a “Flawed Democracy.”

Of course, the struggles for and against inclusive democracy continues. And, of course, this country has experienced deep divisions before. 

The Depression caused many to fundamentally doubt the American economic system. The assassination of Martin Luther King left a permanent scar on the American psyche. Our aggressive war in Vietnam fragmented the population. But the country did move forward and the 1970s saw progress in voting rights, gay rights, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Nixon’s visit to China.
One wonders how different the current period is. Divisions in public opinion run deep and receive constant attention. But the question remains whether these current splits — on issues including fundamental women’s rights, LGBTQIA+ rights, school curriculum, school books, and immigration — will end up destroying the goal of an inclusive democracy and leave the federal government unable to govern.

https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/27/missing-links-in-textbook-history-defining-democracy/

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE FOR THE SAKE OF DEMOCRACY.....

anarcho-dreaming.....

BY Michael Matulef

 

Without the erroneous public perception and judgment of the state as just and necessary and without the public’s voluntary cooperation, even the seemingly most powerful government would implode and its powers evaporate. Thus liberated, we would regain our right to self-defense and be able to turn to freed and unregulated insurance agencies for efficient professional assistance in all matters of protection and conflict resolution...

—Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Production of Defense

 

 

In contemporary times, the state has assumed an aura of sacred infallibility, commanding zealous and unquestioning devotion from its citizenry. This blind allegiance mirrors the fervent tribal reverence once conferred upon shamans in ancient societies, where faith and tradition superseded rational inquiry. However, unlike those organic, community-rooted systems of old, the modern state’s claimed supremacy stems not from any factual basis or empirical assessment but rather from pervasive myths surrounding its purported omniscience and benign intentions.

 The State as Manmade Myth

Despite the prevailing sentiment, the state does not innately possess powers exceeding those held by ordinary individuals. The state is a human invention, devised as an organizational tool to coordinate collective affairs, not as a deity to be worshipped without reservation. And yet the average modern citizen acquiesces without resistance to the state’s declared authority, obeying its often ambiguous dictates as if they were divine commandments inscribed in stone.

Like pagans conducting rituals to appease temperamental spirits, voters today participate in elections and political processes, hoping to shape their nation’s destiny and align it with their own interests. But these efforts primarily serve to perpetuate the mythological legitimacy of the state apparatus, just as pagan rituals functioned to intensify a shaman’s exalted status among the tribe. Neither shamans nor states truly possess the far-reaching powers attributed to them by their faithful adherents. Their authority stems not from empirical facts but from the circulation of persuasive myths and the inculcation of social conditioning.

By recognizing the human origins and agenda-driven mythmaking processes that grant legitimacy to state power, we can begin to fundamentally reevaluate the relationship between the governors and the governed. This shift in perspective empowers us to challenge the sacrosanct prestige of the state and explore alternative organizational forms that prioritize individual autonomy, voluntary cooperation, and spontaneous order.

 The Fiction of State Omniscience

The misplaced confidence in state authority is often rooted in an inflated notion of its knowledge and capacities. The state is frequently portrayed as an omniscient, omnipotent entity capable of expertly designing and engineering society, as well as benevolently guiding the masses toward enlightenment. In reality, no singular organization or institution, irrespective of the resources and technological prowess at its disposal, can ever hope to attain total insight into the unfathomably intricate and constantly evolving network that is human civilization.

The belief that imperfect and fundamentally limited human institutions can completely understand and manipulate dynamic social systems is a fiction, a delusion of grandeur. And yet millions of people continue to voluntarily relinquish their personal agency to the mythic idol of the state, placing implicit and unquestioning faith in its imagined omniscience and benevolence. They surrender autonomy over their own lives to participate in the spectacle of elections that promise change yet repeatedly fail to deliver meaningful reform to unseat entrenched interests.

 The Triumph of Spontaneous Order

In stark contrast to the top-down control paradigm, free-market anarchists argue that authentic and enduring social order largely arises spontaneously from the bottom up, not by centralized governance and imposition. The evolutionary emergence of diverse human languages provides a compelling illustration of this basic principle in action.

Language developed gradually over millennia through decentralized networks of voluntary interactions between individuals and groups seeking to communicate, cooperate, and find shared meaning. No central authority or government decreed the proper grammar or vocabulary, yet complex and subtle linguistic structures emerged informally over time through practical usage and the adoption of successful conventions. The structures of language arose spontaneously from human action but not human design.

Similarly, individuals can successfully cooperate to fulfill basic human needs and organize complex societies without reliance on authoritarian oversight or coercion. By leveraging reason, trial and error, reputation, competition, and the universal human capacity for recognizing and pursuing shared interests, people can develop sophisticated consensual social systems far exceeding in complexity and subtlety than any state bureaucracy could hope to articulate through legislation.

Robust extended orders in the form of organic moral codes, common law jurisprudence, sound money, and dynamic markets all evolved through decentralized processes well before the rise of the modern bureaucratic nation-state. Even ecosystem development and the self-organization of nature reveal the remarkable capability of spontaneous orders to achieve symbiosis amongst diverse constituents following simple, localized rules, but there’s no conscious, top-down design.

Decentralized evolutionary processes demonstrate the power to generate functional complexity and harmony that vastly exceeds the boldest designs of even the most well-meaning political planners and social engineers. The pledge of allegiance to centralized authority is philosophically flimsy when contrasted with the beauty of emergent spontaneous order arising freely, unencumbered by parasitic external manipulations. Though the state holds aspirations to achieve and maintain order, it cannot duplicate the dynamic elegance and intricate complexity birthed by decentralized networks of freely cooperating individuals.

 Unveiling the Façade

On closer and more critical examination, the projected aura of state power and authority unveils itself as a thin façade. The state is comprised of intrinsically imperfect human institutions that remain vulnerable to the same pitfalls and limitations as any other human endeavor. Its weaknesses and failings become rapidly apparent whenever its policies or attempts at social engineering prove unsustainable, provoking unrest and ultimately open resistance from the populace meant to submit to its authority.

When the state aspires to abolish private property ownership and dictate every aspect of economic behavior from the top down, it leads to catastrophe. Totalitarian experiments in social engineering imploded under the weight of their own internal contradictions. No individual or institution, no matter how ambitious, can substitute their limited knowledge and flawed human judgment for billions of dispersed decisions and transactions made by localized actors with direct knowledge of their own unique circumstances and subjective values.

Like a cancer, government bureaucracies grow unrestrained, coalescing into sprawling hierarchies that centralize power. This concentration enables an endless list of egregious civil liberty encroachments—warrantless surveillance, censorship, and prohibitions. These symptoms underscore the diagnosis: unfettered state power threatens freedom.

 The Path beyond State Worship

When contrasted with the darker aspects of human nature manifested in the predatory state, the decentralized philosophy of voluntaryism and free-market anarchism provides a compelling antidote to the destructive impulse toward state worship exhibited across societies. It seeks to completely dismantle the veneer of legitimacy and pedestal upon which the state stands and restore agency to the sovereign individual as the fundamental unit of ethics and civilization.

Free-market anarchism strips power away from entrenched, coercive, elite institutions and vests it within ordinary people possessing the natural capacity to successfully cooperate through voluntary exchange. In place of the state’s monopoly on legal violence, voluntaryists recognize that rather than attaining power, common people are most fulfilled when empowered to pursue their own diverse values and self-interests harmoniously and noncoercively to the greatest extent possible through economic and social freedom. They realize humanity’s potential through emancipation from domination.

In envisioned anarchic systems, individuals would be liberated to contract with one another on their own terms and by their own consent. Voluntary interaction allows decentralized solutions to emerge based on direct feedback, spontaneously coordinating the needs of the participants involved. Without a coercive centralized authority legally imposing its limited will and ignorant grasp of local knowledge, voluntary decentralized networks can permit an outpouring of diverse bottom-up solutions adapted to a tapestry of local conditions and individual preferences.

Superstition, blind submission, and abandonment of personal responsibility may have dominated premodern tribal communities. But retaining these anachronistic psychological tendencies manifest as irrational faith in state power represents regression, not human advancement. True progress demands skepticism, critical analysis, and debunking of the many myths cloaking the state. Only through emancipation from falsehood can the politics of sociopathic domination be displaced by voluntary civil cooperation grounded in the advanced economics of free choice and sound money.

As the mental shackles and superstitions of obedience-based state worship are cast off, ordinary people regain control over their economic and social destinies, realizing the transformative potential of unrestrained cooperation through the exercise of their natural liberty. Freed from the depraved folly of submitting to human political authority and emboldened by an ethical philosophy of self-determination, we can forge a new path forward toward unprecedented human flourishing. The crucial task before us is clear: we must challenge institutionalized assumptions, shatter existing paradigms of collective identity that diminish individual worth, and evolve society beyond the crippling grip of mysticism, coercion, and unreason. A brighter future awaits those willing to abandon the false prophets of the past while actualizing their own innate power as individuals to shape our shared destiny. But the price of transcendence is eternal vigilance.

https://mises.org/wire/state-modern-day-superstition-unraveling-illusions-authority

 

THE MISES INSTITUTE IS OFTEN A REFUGE FOR GOOD WELL-SHAVEN PEOPLE WITH CASH AND GUNS FOR SELF-DEFENCE....

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.....

 

childish democracy....

Yes, as TomDispatch regular and historian Steve Fraser, author of Class Matters: The Strange Career of an American Delusion, points out today, child labor is making a grim comeback in this country — and immigrant children are leading the way. This brings to my mind a tale from my own past. My grandfather, born in what’s now Ukraine, fled home at age 14, spent two years all too literally working his way north to Hamburg, Germany, where he got a job as a “scribe” — he had beautiful handwriting — and then boarded a boat for America. As his daughter, my Aunt Hilda, wrote years ago, “A boy of 16, he arrived in New York from Europe in March 1888. It was during the famous blizzard and after a sea voyage of about 30 days. He had no money. He often said that he had a German 50-cent piece in his pocket when he landed. His trip had to be in the cheapest part of the ship — way down in steerage. Poor boy… and for the first few months in America I imagine he slept behind the stove in somebody’s kitchen.”

She hardly needed to add that, as immigrant labor, he went right to work. His wife, my grandmother Celia, was born into a poverty-stricken family — her parents had been immigrants — two years before he arrived and, as Hilda reported, she completed just one year of high school before she, too, had to go to work “as soon as possible… The last job she had was with the telephone company as an operator. She was with them for a year or two when she left to get married” at age 17.

And that is indeed ancient history, personal and otherwise. But how unbelievably eerie that such a distant tale should once again be so desperately of this moment. Let Fraser explain. Tom

 

 

Caution: Children at WorkThe Return of Child Labor Is the Latest Sign of American Decline     BY 

 

An aged Native-American chieftain was visiting New York City for the first time in 1906. He was curious about the city and the city was curious about him. A magazine reporter asked the chief what most surprised him in his travels around town. “Little children working,” the visitor replied. 

Child labor might have shocked that outsider, but it was all too commonplace then across urban, industrial America (and on farms where it had been customary for centuries). In more recent times, however, it’s become a far rarer sight. Law and custom, most of us assume, drove it to near extinction. And our reaction to seeing it reappear might resemble that chief’s — shock, disbelief. 

But we better get used to it, since child labor is making a comeback with a vengeance. A striking number of lawmakers are undertaking concerted efforts to weaken or repeal statutes that have long prevented (or at least seriously inhibited) the possibility of exploiting children. 

Take a breath and consider this: the number of kids at work in the U.S. increased by 37% between 2015 and 2022. During the last two years, 14 states have either introduced or enacted legislation rolling back regulations that governed the number of hours children can be employed, lowered the restrictions on dangerous work, and legalized subminimum wages for youths.

Iowa now allows those as young as 14 to work in industrial laundries. At age 16, they can take jobs in roofing, construction, excavation, and demolition and can operate power-driven machinery. Fourteen-year-olds can now even work night shifts and once they hit 15 can join assembly lines. All of this was, of course, prohibited not so long ago.    

Legislators offer fatuous justifications for such incursions into long-settled practice. Working, they tell us, will get kids off their computers or video games or away from the TV. Or it will strip the government of the power to dictate what children can and can’t do, leaving parents in control — a claim already transformed into fantasy by efforts to strip away protective legislation and permit 14-year-old kids to work without formal parental permission.

In 2014, the Cato Institute, a right-wing think tank, published “A Case Against Child Labor Prohibitions,” arguing that such laws stifled opportunity for poor — and especially Black — children. The Foundation for Government Accountability, a think tank funded by a range of wealthy conservative donors including the DeVos family, has spearheaded efforts to weaken child-labor laws, and Americans for Prosperity, the billionaire Koch brothers’ foundation, has joined in.

Nor are these assaults confined to red states like Iowa or the South. California, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Hampshire, as well as Georgia and Ohio, have been targeted, too. Even New Jersey passed a law in the pandemic years temporarily raising the permissible work hours for 16- to 18-year-olds.

The blunt truth of the matter is that child labor pays and is fast becoming remarkably ubiquitous. It’s an open secret that fast-food chains have employed underage kids for years and simply treat the occasional fines for doing so as part of the cost of doing business. Children as young as 10 have been toiling away in such pit stops in Kentucky and older ones working beyond the hourly limits prescribed by law. Roofers in Florida and Tennessee can now be as young as 12.

Recently, the Labor Department found more than 100 children between the ages of 13 and 17 working in meatpacking plants and slaughterhouses in Minnesota and Nebraska. And those were anything but fly-by-night operations. Companies like Tyson Foods and Packer Sanitation Services (owned by BlackRock, the world’s largest asset management firm) were also on the list.

At this point, virtually the entire economy is remarkably open to child labor. Garment factories and auto parts manufacturers (supplying Ford and General Motors) employ immigrant kids, some for 12-hour days. Many are compelled to drop out of school just to keep up. In a similar fashion, Hyundai and Kia supply chains depend on children working in Alabama.

As the New York Times reported last February, helping break the story of the new child labor market, underage kids, especially migrants, are working in cereal-packing plants and food-processing factories. In Vermont, “illegals” (because they’re too young to work) operate milking machines. Some children help make J. Crew shirts in Los Angeles, bake rolls for Walmart, or work producing Fruit of the Loom socks. Danger lurks. America is a notoriously unsafe place to work and the accident rate for child laborers is especially high, including a chilling inventory of shattered spines, amputations, poisonings, and disfiguring burns.  

 

READ MORE:

https://tomdispatch.com/caution-children-at-work/

 

 

---------------------

 

The documentary record of “mind control” experiments conducted by the United States and other governments during the Cold War is just the tip of the iceberg, and our collective ignorance is by design. In early 1973, as the fallout from the Watergate scandal exposed the need for greater congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence agencies, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) ordered the destruction of all documents related to MK Ultra.

Launched in the wake of the Nuremberg Trials, which exposed the extent of Nazi atrocities carried out in the name of science, MK Ultra involved a range of grotesque experiments on unwitting test subjects within and beyond U.S. borders. Newly revealed evidence exposes previously hidden links between MK Ultra experiments on Indigenous children in Canada and imprisoned Black people in the U.S.

On April 20, 2023, a group of Indigenous women known as the Kanien’kehà:ka Kahnistensera (Mohawk Mothers) achieved a milestone in their ongoing lawsuit against several entities, including McGill University, the Canadian government and the Royal Victoria Hospital in Quebec. The parties reached an agreement whereby archeologists and cultural monitors would begin the process of searching for unmarked graves, which the Mohawk Mothers believe are buried on the grounds of the hospital.

 

READ MORE:

https://truthout.org/articles/new-docs-link-cia-to-medical-torture-of-indigenous-children-and-black-prisoners/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.....

your car is clapped out.....

IT CANNOT BE FIXED...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyBnf-7wQH0

Jesse Watters: Biden’s too WEAK to be president

 

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.....

bidenocrapcy....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1ROmYVeiFw

 

This is a strange but amusing satire of the Biden administration using many Tucker Carlson's rants — EXPOSING AN UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH....

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.....