Visions of a Freeman - Brain
Age - 14, January of 2017
A view into the
Reality seen from the Eyes of a TRIBalance.
By pulling a Leech. Blackmail from Imperial Media.
The Divided States: Trump's inauguration and how democracy has
Donald Trump and his demonisation of minorities are not the
exception in US history – they are its logical conclusion.
Pankaj Mishra examines the dream of the multiracial democracy,
and America’s failure to realise it
[Image not needed]
Obama supporters at the Washington Monument celebrate his
inauguration in January 2009. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo
Friday 13 January 2017 12.00 GMT
Never in human history have so many diverse peoples lived
together as in our time. Nor has the appeal of democracy ever
been so widespread. The promise of equal rights and citizenship
held out by modern society has been universally embraced,
especially keenly by people long deprived of them. But, as
Donald Trump, the favoured candidate of white supremacists,
becomes president of the United States, the quintessential
multicultural democracy, the long arc of the moral universe, as
Martin Luther King called it, does not seem to be bending to
Trump came into political prominence accusing the first black
president of the United States of being foreign born; he rose to
supreme power stigmatising Mexicans as rapists and Muslims as
terrorists. His election victory was engineered by Steve Bannon,
the executive chairman of Breitbart News, an online site
notorious for its antisemitism, racism, misogyny and xenophobia.
The joint arrival of Trump and Bannon in the White House, where
they will enjoy nearly unlimited power, completes a
comprehensive recent rout of the founding principle of the
modern world: that, as the revolutionary phrases of 1776 had it,
“all men are created equal”, entitled to the “unalienable
rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
Hatemongering against immigrants, minorities and various
designated “others” has gone mainstream universally – even in
Germany, whose post-Nazi politics and culture were founded on
the precept “Never Again”. An era of separatism, in which people
barricade themselves in fortresses, united only with those who
look and speak like them, has unexpectedly dawned. Back in 1993,
the suggestion from Gianfranco Miglio, the intellectual theorist
of Italy’s Northern League, that “civilised” Europe should
deploy the atavistic nationalism of “barbarian” Europe (the
east) as a “frontier guard to block the Muslim invasion” would
have seemed preposterous. Today, the demagogues ruling Hungary
and Poland claim to be the sentinels of a Christian Europe
threatened by Muslim refugees and immigrants. Brexiters in the
UK, imitating Tory tactics in London’s mayoral election,
conjured up minatory visions of foreigners. A near-majority in
the Jewish population of Israel wants the country’s Arab
citizens to be expelled. Geert Wilders’ demand for mass
deportations of Muslims may help him become prime minister of
White nationalists in both Europe and America revere Vladimir
Putin, who openly rails against “so-called tolerance”, and who
inaugurated his regime – and his quest for an “organic” Russian
community – with a vicious assault on Chechnya. In India, the
world’s largest democracy, Hindu supremacism feeds off a
relentless ostracising of minorities. The Turkish president
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is trying to consolidate his support by
encouraging attacks on Turkey’s Kurdish citizens. Politicians in
Sri Lanka have flourished at the expense of a Tamil minority,
which, traumatised by a massacre in 2009, is now routinely
victimised by discriminatory policies. Rwanda’s president, Paul
Kagame, continues to draw political dividends from his
persecution of Hutus. Assaults on religious and ethnic
minorities enjoy broad sanction in Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. The much-celebrated advent of
democracy in Myanmar now seems to have been a signal for ethnic
It was not so long ago that free trade and the “magic of the
market”, in the exuberant phrase of the Financial Times
commentator Martin Wolf, seemed to be bringing about the benign
homogenisation of all human societies. As Louis Vuitton opened
in Borneo and the Chinese turned into one of the biggest
consumers of French wines, it appeared only a matter of time
before free trade and consumer capitalism were followed by the
rule of law, the enhanced use of critical reason, the expansion
of individual freedom and the tolerance of diversity. Instead,
the world at large – from the US to Indonesia – is undergoing a
militant tribalisation. The new demagogues combine xenophobia
with progressivist rhetoric about decent housing, efficient
healthcare systems and better schools. Insisting on linguistic,
religious, ethnic, and racial differences, they don’t just
threaten free trade, or the globalist dream of achieving
cosmopolitan unity through intensified commerce and digital
communications. They seem to be deforming nothing less than the
secular and egalitarian ideals of modernity.
The emphasis today on cultural
difference is unquestionably a response to the painful
experience of globalisation
The deformations are particularly ominous in the US, a primarily
immigrant country. The abolition of slavery, and an influx of
immigrant labour from China, Japan, Ireland, Russia and Germany
in the 19th century, turned the US into what Walt Whitman called
a “teeming nation of nations”. American politicians and
publicists of varying political commitments have since insisted
that they are engaged in building a multiracial “city upon a
hill”, a country that, dedicated to equal rights and potential
for all its citizens, would be an example to all people on
earth. Their claims to a quasi-providential mission have been
strengthened by the fact that many among the huddled masses
around the world, as well as new immigrants in the country, have
eagerly wished to be American.
It is also true that the American ideal of the melting pot
appears to have little scope for an organic community of the
kind Putin, or Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage invoke. Yet the
treacherous fantasy of a homogenised citizenry has repeatedly
erupted in the US; and this time it threatens democracy
everywhere in the world.
The emphasis today on cultural identity and difference is
unquestionably a response to the painful and bewildering
experience of globalisation. Those vowing to “take back control”
from unaccountable technocracies and opaque financial markets
hope to reconstruct a political space by forging afresh the
sovereign “people” – a political project that is most quickly
achieved by identifying the “enemies” of the people. Ethnic and
religious minorities have always been scapegoats for the
suffering inflicted by impersonal markets – the word
antisemitism was coined in the late 1870s during a severe
economic downturn when demagogues channelled mass rage at Jewish
But this explanation has an even more disturbing aspect, which
we should not flinch from. The identification and demonisation
of racial and ethnic “others” is far from being an aberration in
liberal democracy. Nor is it merely a pathology unleashed by
economic shocks. Rather, such injustices are central to
democracy, as conceived and practised for much of modern
history, and they are inseparable from liberal ideals of reason
The African American thinker WEB Du Bois had diagnosed the
built-in contradictions of democracy and liberalism as early as
the 19th century. In his view slavery had violently coerced
Africans into a world economic system, and then global
capitalism, binding together more people of different social and
historical backgrounds, had piled new economic inequalities on
to older racial prejudices and discrimination. Both forms of
degradation were vital to the making of prosperous democracies
in the Atlantic west; and they made it arduous, if not
impossible, for the degraded to realise the modern promise of
freedom and equality. “The problem of the 20th century,” Du Bois
predicted in 1903, would be “the problem of the colour-line.”
Du Bois wrote as Jim Crow segregation in the industrialising US
cancelled gains from the abolition of slavery and as white men
scrambling for colonies and empires in Asia and Africa built new
racial hierarchies. He would later conclude that the end of
slavery in the American south had actually enabled industrial
capitalists in the north to expand globally, and, together with
their white European counterparts, help entrench “a new
industrial slavery of black and brown and yellow workers in
Africa and Asia”. Du Bois feared that the “colour of the skin”
and “texture of the hair” would become the basis of denying “the
opportunities and privileges of modern civilisation” to many.
[Image not needed]
WEB Du Bois diagnosed the built-in contradictions of democracy
and liberalism as early as the 19th century. Photograph: Alamy
The 20th century seemed to both prove and disprove Du Bois’s
anxieties about the exclusionary nature of modern politics and
economy. Antisemitism, simmering through successive political
and economic crises in Europe, exploded in the worst crime in
human history. Ruthless imperialists in Asia and Africa presided
over wars and famines that killed countless millions. Yet
decolonisation led to the creation of independent nation states
with egalitarian ideals, followed belatedly by the end of
apartheid in South Africa. Some of these globalised economies
have appeared in recent years to outpace those of their former
western overlords. The problem of the colour line was tackled by
the civil rights movement and then seemingly partly solved by a
series of successful black politicians, athletes, pop stars,
artists and intellectuals; it seemed to have been finally
cracked in 2008 when the son of a Kenyan Muslim was elected
president of the United States.
But hopes for a post-racial democracy were always extravagant.
Obama’s own sanguine attempt at colour-blindness was mocked by,
among other things, widely circulating photos that depicted him
as a monkey. Ethnic-racial separation has remained starkly
evident in the killing or cruel treatment of minorities, housing
discrimination against them in major cities and the destitute
conditions of many African American and Native American
communities. Moreover, reactionary tribalism, or the political
urge to create a society of unequal men and women, has never
lacked potent sponsors in the US.
By the 1970s rising extreme right groups, the Minutemen, the
American Nazi party, the Aryan Nations and a revived Ku Klux
Klan were leading a white backlash against the civil rights and
feminist movements. The Turner Diaries – a cult 1978 novel by
William Pierce, founder of the white nationalist organisation
National Alliance – incandescently evokes an America ruled by
“swarthy Jewboys” and overrun by African Americans, who have
been freed by politically correct legislation to deprive white
men of their guns and rape white women.
The destabilisation of the old racial order and gender roles
spawned a netherworld of political rage, manifest in recent
years in the rise of white militias, attacks on abortion clinics
and random shootings. Timothy McVeigh’s murder of 168 Americans
in Oklahoma City in 1995 now seems an early salvo in what the
isolationist conservative Patrick J Buchanan called a “war for
the soul of America”. McVeigh was known to rail against feminism
and the political correctness that, in his view, pampered
African Americans. Writing about the destruction of the white
middle class and the American dream in general in a small-town
newspaper in 1992, McVeigh, then a young veteran of the Gulf
war, chillingly anticipated our age of anger.
Racism on the rise? You had better believe it. Is
this America’s frustrations venting themselves? Is it a valid
frustration? Who is to blame for the mess? At a point when the
world has seen communism falter as an imperfect system to manage
people, democracy seems to be headed down the same road. No one
is seeing the “big” picture.
The big picture in 1992 for many, Democratic as well as
Republican, was the “end of history” and the worldwide triumph
of American-style democracy and capitalism. In this supposedly
post-political phase, when national politics seemed merely an
adjunct to transnational markets and information networks, it
was left to political outliers such as Buchanan to demand social
and economic justice for white American workers. Calling for
economic protectionism, an end to immigration and toughness with
minorities, Buchanan anticipated the xenophobic nationalism of
It was America’s founders, however, who first betrayed the acute
tensions in the modern ideologies of individual emancipation.
They indeed committed themselves, as Obama asserted in his
farewell speech in Chicago this week, to a radical political
experiment with their belief in the liberty and equality of
every person; but they formulated their self-evident truths in
the same Virginian swamp where slaves languished. As it turned
out, a mixed and extremely unequal population couldn’t but
exacerbate the challenges of realising the universal community
of freedom in the US – not to mention in the rest of the world –
that immigrants, free traders and imperialists knit closely
European settlers, traders and colonists from the 17th century
onwards had represented many of the non-European peoples they
managed to subdue as uncivilised and inferior, if not candidates
for elimination. Racial categories became steadily indispensable
to the settlers and colonials of the New World. By the late 18th
century, however, people who had been strong-armed into the
modern world economy posed a serious moral and political dilemma
to those affirming universal human equality and freedom. One way
to escape this was to distinguish between those who are properly
human and those who aren’t; those who deserve freedom and those
who don’t. Thus, a priori distinctions between human and
non-human, reason and unreason, civilisation and barbarism
underpinned the modern ideals of freedom and democracy from the
time they were formulated. John Stuart Mill was upholding these
older hierarchies when he, justifying British rule over India,
wrote in 1859 that “despotism is a legitimate mode of government
in dealing with barbarians”.
[Image/Video not needed]
Barack Obama says goodbye: ‘Yes we did. Yes we can’
Though opposed in principle to slavery, many Enlightenment
thinkers and their adepts simply assumed that democratic
principles – liberty, equality, toleration, natural rights and
human dignity – applied only to civilised white men. Colonised,
enslaved and indigenous peoples did not seem capable of reason–
the unique characteristic apparently of the human subject
liberated from religion and tradition. If David Hume was “apt to
suspect the Negroes” to be “naturally inferior to the whites”,
Montesquieu had little doubt that they were “barbarians”.
Voltaire, who like John Locke held stocks in a company profiting
from the slave trade, thought that blacks had only “a few more
ideas than animals”. Obama claimed in his speech that African
Americans protesting against racial discrimination are demanding
“the equal treatment that our founders promised”. In fact,
Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner, believed that blacks were
“inferior to whites in the endowments of both body and mind” and
that his white American compatriots had no choice but to
exterminate Native Americans, “ignorant savages” and “beasts”.
Such obsessive dehumanising might seem to negate the humanist
ideals that became institutionalised in the American revolution.
But, as the Swedish writer Gunnar Myrdal pointed out in his
classic study An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern
Democracy (1944), people “placed lower in the biological order
than the white man and nearer to the animals” could then be
“kept outside the white man’s social and moral order”. Not
surprisingly, the pseudo-science of phrenology, which posited
biological differences between races, was nowhere more popular
than in the US, where white men used it to make the fiction of
racial superiority appear a self-evident truth.
“How is it,” Samuel Johnson caustically remarked in 1776, “that
we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of
Negroes?” However, American anti-colonists, devotees of Locke,
linked liberty to property rights rather than egalitarian
democracy (McVeigh was prone to invoke, not entirely inaptly,
both Locke and Jefferson). The slaves’ conspicuous lack of
liberty did trouble the conscience of Jefferson and his
colleagues, but their ambiguous response was to promote racial
separation. A new book by the historian Nicholas Guyatt, Bind Us
Apart, argues that “separate but equal” – the notorious
reasoning by the US supreme court in 1896 that enshrined Jim
Crow segregation in law – is “a founding principle of the United
States”. Guyatt, building on the pioneering work of the
historian Edmund Morgan, demonstrates that America’s founders
were obsessed with the “mental and political compromise” of
racial separation long before the American south
institutionalised segregation in the wake of the civil war. In
fact, American leaders kept toying with the abhorrent (and
unworkable) prospect of mass deportations to Africa right up
until the civil war.
Racial degradation of non-whites became a
form of democratic solidarity – a way to unite white 'wage
The more inclusive and equal order for white Americans promoted
by Andrew Jackson and the Jacksonians in the first half of the
19th century managed to degrade Hispanics, Native Americans,
slaves, free black people and women. More such paradoxes came to
define an increasingly vibrant American democracy after the
emancipation of slaves and the end of the civil war. It was then
that racial separation and exclusion came to unmistakably
demarcate the community deserving of freedom and equality in the
US. Segregated schools, railroad cars and lunch counters across
the American south would for decades bolster the fiction that
the races are separate but equal, while the lynching and
disfranchisement of black people underscored which of the races
was on top.
In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusionary Act, which
prohibited the entry of Chinese labourers. The xenophobic
legislation, which inspired antisemitic demagogues as far as
Vienna, made no sense: Chinese immigrants constituted a mere
0.002% of the US population in 1880. But this was also the time
when a country previously abundant in jobs and land was
discovering the trauma of unemployment amid economic crisis and
social conflict; and many citizens came to cherish their
citizenship as an exclusive privilege that should not be made
available to all and sundry, especially their racial underlings.
Racial degradation of non-whites became a form of democratic
solidarity in the US in the turbulent late 19th century. For
both rightwing and leftwing populists, it was a way to unite
white “wage slaves” against Asian immigrants and African
Americans, and heal the wounds to their dignity. Fresh
immigrants from Ireland could also achieve honorary whiteness by
persecuting African Americans – the colour line was negotiable
for some people at least. If antisemitism in Europe was the
socialism of fools, racism in late 19th-century America was the
democracy of the aggrieved left-behinds and pushy newcomers.
Many progressives, as Du Bois saw clearly, were complicit in it.
The trust-busting American president Theodore Roosevelt swore by
political equality, economic security and social opportunity for
all Americans. But his inclusive order pitilessly rejected
non-whites. Wishing to “tighten”, in Henry James’s mordant
assessment, “the screws of the national consciousness as they
have never been tightened before”, Roosevelt hoped that war and
conquest abroad would forge racial unity and democracy at home.
The original liberal internationalist Woodrow Wilson was hardly
atypical in his reverence for what he called the “great Ku Klux
Klan”, which had emerged after the end of slavery to protect
whites from “the votes of ignorant Negroes”.
A widespread faith in eugenics, the much revered pseudo-science
of the early 20th century, went on to shape the 1924 Immigration
Act and its system of quotas, which favoured newcomers from
north-western Europe over racially suspect (often Jewish)
south-eastern Europeans and excluded “descendants of slave
immigrants” as well as Asian immigrants. More than 100,000
Japanese Americans were incarcerated as the US fought the second
world war, ostensibly for freedom, with a segregated army. The
civil rights revolution of the 1960s finally ended the terrors
of Jim Crow. But increased political clout by African Americans,
“the unmeltable ethnics”, in the infamous phrase of the
conservative writer Michael Novak, provoked a backlash whose
political reverberations can be felt to this day.
The civil rights movement made it impossible to appeal to racial
furies as thunderously as George Wallace, the governor of
Alabama whose war cry in 1963 was “Segregation now, segregation
tomorrow, segregation forever”. It could not, however, prevent
white politicians from dog-whistling. Richard Nixon’s Wallace-lite
overtures to the “silent majority” evidently aghast at assertive
blacks and multiculturalist liberals were refined by Ronald
Reagan. As he attacked affirmative action and other gains of the
civil rights movement under the guise of promoting such
liberal-left causes as “colour blindness” and a “level playing
field”, Reagan reached out to white working class voters with
code words such as “states’ rights”, “welfare moms”, “quotas”
and “reverse racism”. If the Willie Horton ad used in the George
HW Bush presidential campaign in 1988 clarified the persisting
power of racial dreads, the George W Bush administration’s
response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 suggested that
“segregation forever” had long been more than a nasty slogan in
large parts of the US. Trump eventually reaped the electoral
harvest of a reflexive loathing among many Americans for Obama –
“a guy”, as Fox News’ Glenn Beck put it, with “a deep-seated
hatred for white people”.
The never fully repressed denunciation on the basis of race has
exultantly returned in our own time. Trump’s consigliere, Steve
Bannon, responded to the recent spate of murders by police of
unarmed African Americans with: “What if the people getting shot
by the cops did things to deserve it? There are, after all, in
this world, some people who are naturally aggressive and
Blithely attacking minorities (and recklessly baiting China),
Trump and his confederates have violated even the fragile
moratorium on antisemitism in place since the exposure of Nazi
crimes. Their abrupt legitimation of vile stereotypes that were
supposedly laid to rest ages ago has grim repercussions for the
rest of the world’s hybrid and unequal societies. It is in the
US that a faith in inevitable and irreversible progress – a
“more perfect union” – has long bridged the abyss between the
high-minded ideals of democracy and the cruel facts of
structural violence and inequality. Obama again insisted this
week that America “has been defined by forward motion, a
constant widening of our founding creed to embrace all, and not
A restaurant in Maryland in 1948, with separate entrances for
white and black customers Photograph: Joe Schwartz Photo
Archive/Corbis via Getty Images
Trump’s ascent reveals the longterm winners and losers of this
distinctively American ideology – the most powerful religion of
our time. Many white American liberals are perplexed why their
reverent invocation of America’s inclusive ideals and their
complaints about the identity politics of minorities are met
with angry calls to “check your privilege”. But, contrary to
many hopes and claims, America’s liberal-democratic order has
been largely inclusive for those who are privileged enough to be
included in it. Exclusion has become steadily less crudely
racial than it was during the unconscionably long era of
segregation; but it is determined today by gender, property,
educational and economic opportunity as well as by race.
This multidimensional inequality has grown more intolerable
during a prolonged economic crisis. It has boosted the appeal of
the ethno-racial nationalism that surged in Europe and America
during the first phase of intensive globalisation in late 19th
century, when, as Du Bois wrote, an American and European elite
built up “concentrated economic power and profit greater than
the world had envisioned”. Many among the middle and the working
classes today feel excluded from both the benefits of the
welfare state and the bonanzas of the rich. They aim their rage
at both an aloof technocracy and people they suspect of
exploiting the taxpayers’ generosity. As in fin de siècle
America and Europe, political opportunists try to capitalise on
their fears by demonising foreigners, immigrants, refugees – all
supposed parasites on the hard-working and cruelly neglected
classes that should be weeded out.
We are discovering yet again that an atomised people
repoliticises and reconstitutes itself by learning, in the bleak
formulation of the Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, “how to keep at bay
something foreign and unequal that threatens its homogeneity”.
We are finding out that racism is not simply a product of
ignorance, prejudice or arrogance; it endures, despite all our
cautionary tales and resolves of “never again”, because its
promise of social solidarity serves to assuage human fears and
nurture hopes for the future. Racial exclusion, a response to
the insatiable modern demand for equality, liberty and dignity,
is bound up insidiously with the most virtuous ideals of
liberalism and democracy.
This is especially true of the US, which, as Guyatt warns,
obviously “bears the scars of its segregated past” but “also
retains an instinct for racial separation that manifests itself
even among those who forswear racist beliefs”. Bill Clinton
surpassed Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes in condemning African
Americans to mass incarceration and poverty while deregulating
financial markets for the benefit of his patrons on Wall Street.
The rhetoric and actions of Trump’s cabinet, the wealthiest and
most fanatical yet, will no doubt clarify further the inhuman
practices that drive a politics and economy ostensibly devoted
to human freedom.
Genuine democratic equality under the
Trump administration will be a more formidable challenge than
Those who oppose them should welcome this clarity. It has taken
too long for the ellipses, omissions and subterfuges in the
American – and now universal – promise of liberty to be widely
noticed. Several generations of anti-imperialist thinkers and
activists, who intimately experienced the worldwide “industrial
slavery” that Du Bois wrote about, repeatedly pointed out that
those who promise equal rights universally enforce at the same
time a global hierarchy in which those rights are reserved for
some and forbidden to others. Certainly, Gandhi would have found
very familiar the politicians who guarantee liberty, equality
and dignity to people who look like them while flagrantly
denying them to those who don’t.
Gandhi would also have recognised, just as his American disciple
Martin Luther King did, the imperative of building a civic
democracy that takes into account the pluralistic nature of
contemporary societies and the apparent incompatibility of
competing claims and values: a democracy that acknowledges
incommensurate goals and stimulates cooperation and reciprocity
rather than competition and animosity between its individual
members. The arduous task of creating unity in diversity, among
people riven by race, class and gender, never confronted the
founders of the United States. Too many complex issues – such as
the nature of human freedom and equality – seemed self-evident
to them; and too many of their successors also concealed the
self-evident contradictions in the American programme by
banishing from sight the enslaved, colonised and dispossessed
people whose resources and labour enabled the enjoyment of life,
liberty and happiness.
Today, as white supremacists prepare to occupy the house built
by slaves in Washington DC, it may be hard to resist the fear
that these pugnacious men, “struggling to hold on to what they
have stolen from their captives”, as James Baldwin put it in
1967, “and unable to look into their mirror, will precipitate a
chaos throughout the world that, if it does not bring life on
this planet to an end, will bring about a racial war such as the
world has never seen”. Certainly, genuine democratic equality
under the Trump administration will be a more formidable
challenge than ever before. But at least it won’t appear veiled
by the illusions of the past – which may give present and future
generations a better chance of bending the intractable arc of
the moral universe to justice.
• Age of Anger by Pankaj Mishra is published later this month by
As you can see, The Guardian has omitted four key issues:
2) The Role Model System.
3) The Racial Moderation.
4) The Computer Information Systems.
1) The Location Integrity.
People often need a sense of belonging to something in order to face hardship as
they want to believe that others will be there to care about them. When the
Leaders or Channelers do not seem to care about the "Spirit of the Union" People
start feeling helpless and thus seek many ways to achieve a higher Integrity and
a sense of purpose.
There are many things that many things that can help weaken the perception of
Union and Integrity in a Country and one of them is the perceived excessive
influence of outside actors in local affairs, where the outsiders matter too
much and the locals seem to matter too little. That issue has to do with outside
influence and also has to do with how purposed and transparent the Academic
What British The Guardian does not mention is that the USA Republican Party and
the United States is invaded by British Media Interests like FoxNews, who's
focus is partly for the complacency of British Interests, thus neglecting the
Local Integrity Concerns helping People to feel like the media simply does not
care about them, and so they seek People that do care.
Obama allowed and even enforced improper British Influence over the USA's
Internal Affairs and cared very little that for example British Nobility has far
more rights in FoxNews than any USA Celebrity could every dream off, as they are
portrayed as semi naked or fully naked sex fun dolls. The USA is an Invaded
Country and the outside influence has reached criminal levels. The Guardian is
one of those Media that Parasites the USA's Political System and you can see
that by the fact that it seems entirely dedicated, in Politics, to interfere
with the USA's Internal Affairs while neglecting and barely mentioning British
Cultural and Political Affairs.
There is a high chance that given the opportunity that such improper influence
could be made available that The Guardian, in order to avoid the topic
altogether tries to Blackmail the USA with a message that basically implies:
"Allow Improper Influence and Interference or we burn your country with
Division. You have been warned".
Create Laws that limit the Influence
of Outsiders over USA Political Affairs, including Media Interests.
Create the National Academic Internet
as a Public School Service.
Create Democratic Systems where "We
the People" can exercise Democracy and allow Corporations to be able to
include a Non-Profit Organization as part of it's Main Structure, so
People can enjoy Virtual Communities.
Remove the Privileges of Nobility and
the USA Celebrities that have been indirectly supporting the Nobility
Structure, which is illegal in the USA.
2) The Role
The Role Model System is a Function of the Academic System. Among it's Purposes
are to Guide the People towards less Racial Tensions and Hatred, as well as
Bridging the Racial Divide.
In order to achieve it's Goals it must create Decent Black Artists that White
Parents can present to their children and thus teach the Children to respect and
admire Black People.
Such Academic Reversal of Racism is not even mentioned or even contemplated in
the opinion published by The Guardian that I included above and if that is not
bad enough notice that Obama did not care about such Role Model Bridges but
somehow The Guardian does not value Role Models at all, in that Opinion, to even
consider a way to
reduce Racial Tensions in an Academic Way.
Reactivate the Academic Art Systems.
Activate the Role Model Systems.
Protect the Role Models from Outside
Create more Racial Bridges for
Force a better Racial
Distribution of Art Products by creating Rules and Laws for
Allow Celebrities to have
their own Social Network and to be able to Social Network between them
to reduce the Dependency on outside Influence.
The Guardian has totally discarded the possibility of a better distribution of
Art, Culture and Politics along the lines of Skin Color and instead speaks of a
Country it envisions as a Wild and Blind Creature destined to it's doom having
as argument hand picked, out of time and out of context favorite examples as it
repeatedly insists in supporting racist phrases and thus Racism in General.
Truth of the matter is that if Obama had cared at least a little bit about
Racial Fairness we would have seen at least one major Black American Celebrity
that actually looks like a Decent, Admirable by White Parents, Black American.
Needless to say, The Guardian shows it does not care as well, as it seeks
excuses to support Racism by providing strong arguments to the Racists.
Set a Minimum Racial Quota for at least the Cultural System where it can be
applied and then use the Role Models to help bridge the Racial Divide, specially
among Children, using the Academic Systems when it is appropriate.
Computer Information Systems.
Instead of advocating for the continued decay of Racial Tolerance in order to
keep the improper influence and distract the victim like The Guardian does, what
the USA needs, as well as the world is more Art on the Community Levels and it
can be achieved with relative ease using the Computer Information Systems, like
Local Community Art
Internet Portals or in My Case, the Chat/Ships Games and Social Networks.
As you can see I do not see the need for Fascist, Racist Media that do not
believe in Academic Systems, Role Models, Cultural Quota Fairness and Social
Networks as ways to reduce Intolerance and Hatred (and thus Hate Crimes and
Regular Crime) in Society. Thus I ask some of My readers to please consider
supporting Decent, Civilized and
Academic Solutions for the greater benefit of Society and not Media that wants
revenge and to Black Mail because it sees it is loosing improper and corrupt
influence, for example.
But how much does The Guardian care for Role Models as a
way to avoid the Collapse of Society in Hatred and Racial Violence?
See for yourself:
The Guardian's Message for Children.
Jakarta: the unlikely capital city of sex
A little past midnight, sitting at the bar of a stylish Jakarta
establishment, all around was giddy, shaking, unfiltered lust.
Author Laksmi Pamuntjak discovers the swinging scene among
Indonesia’s middle class
[Image not needed]
‘But what men and women alike are doing is to lay claim to twin
rights that ought to be incompatible – dreaming simultaneously
of escape and stability.’ Photograph: Marvi Lacar/Getty Images
Friday 13 January 2017 21.00 GMT
There is a peculiar thrill to hearing your city described in
terms less than conventional, more so when the talk is
salacious, bordering on risqué. For all the respect you wish
accorded to the weight of its history, the joy of its music, the
singularity of its people and character – you also want it to
speak for itself, ie to reveal itself with all its grey zones,
its convolutions, the breadth of its unadvertised parts. Deep
down there is a will for it to have a few tricks up its sleeves,
to possess of certain quirks. You will it, for want of a better
term, to have a secret subterranean world of sweet and shady
dealings, just as the human psyche craves, seeks out, even needs
its hidden life.
This was how I reacted when a friend declared, out of the blue,
that Jakarta – capital city of the world’s largest Muslim
majority country – is “the capital city of sex”. He is a
businessman, notably reserved, sparing with words. Yet that
evening, a little past midnight, sitting at the bar of one of
the city’s most stylish establishments, all around was giddy,
shaking, unfiltered lust. I could see how even he couldn’t look
away. Through an accident of history, he became the reluctant
observer par excellence of the city’s collective sexual
“Just look at these people,” he said, when I asked him to
elaborate on his earlier statement. “Where do you think they go
as the night wears on? This is not their last stop.”
It’s not just sexual innuendo, it’s pure
The next morning I am in Pilates class. We are a group of eight,
ranging in age between 22 and 55; and even if I can’t see myself
socialising with any of them, there is a natural camaraderie
between women in groups. By the end of the first session, you’ll
know what sexual positions A’s husband prefers; the way B loves
to stretch her toes beyond her husband’s toes when they make
love; which specialist, after almost 45 years of marriage, C’s
near-senile father gets dragged to by his wife in order to “get
it up” again.
Outside the class are modest, soft-spoken mothers, wives,
daughters, homemakers, breadwinners. Inside the class, it’s not
just sexual innuendo, it’s pure sex talk. And a lot of pelvic
workouts. Everybody loves these because they strengthen the
pelvic floor, help “tighten the grip” on your partner’s member.
The women talk about this too, often in sweltering detail.
Today, one woman badly wants to talk to me. She’s approaching
50, but her body – petite, lithe, toned to the hilt – is the
envy of the group. She’s had work done on her face, but ever so
subtly: some Botox on the lips, a little smoothening in the
areas around the eyes, brow and eyelash extensions. And suddenly
she comes out with it: “You know, the whole scene my husband
puts me through? It’s really degrading,” she says. “What scene?”
I ask her. She looks at me incredulously. “Why, the swinging
scene, of course.” As if I should know.
We are impervious to information until we are ready for it.
It is surprisingly easy to be inducted into the swinging scene:
the procedures are pretty straightforward. The key is knowing
someone on the inside. I type “Jakarta swinging scene” into
Google and in two seconds I am staring at links to several
websites with physical addresses and email addresses of who to
contact. There are several swinging clubs around town, with
varying degrees of discretion, my Pilates friend informs me. But
“the safest way”, she adds, is to join an official group online.
[Image not needed]
‘In some cases, women like my friend, for instance, prefer to be
pleasured by two or three men including her husband, but refuse
to have their husbands pleasured by other women.’ Photograph:
Marvi Lacar/Getty Images
The other avenue is word of mouth. A swinger like my Pilates
friend, for instance, can ask a married friend, or a married
colleague, who looks like they may be open to such arrangements,
and find out whether they are interested. When interest is
confirmed, she can show the couple’s photos to her husband and
ask him if he is interested. The next stage is known as “getting
to know you”. This can be anything from a coffee hookup to
dinner for four, and once mutual trust is established, the
couples can go straight to the main event – in a private house,
apartment, or hotel room.
The rules of engagement will be spelled out: how many couples,
how many men, how many women. In some cases, women like my
friend, for instance, prefer to be pleasured by two or three men
including her husband, but refuse to have their husbands
pleasured by other women.
Whichever configuration you go for, two governing principles
remain. One is the partner’s consent. If a husband or a wife
seeks the company of one of their swinging partners behind the
other’s back, then the deal is off. He or she has committed
adultery. The other principle is absolute discretion. Identities
are kept in the strictest confidence.
It is on those two key principles that the entire viability of
the practice rests, both as a form of collective “rush” – a
wild, euphoric, almost irrational sensation accessible only
through furtive, backstairs channels – and as a means of escape
from the stultifying conventions of formal life. For in my home
city, there is much to escape from: so much more than just the
nauseating tedium of urban and suburban middle-class marriages –
what Conrad would call the “hopeless emptiness of everything.”
There is also the mounting ugliness of Indonesian politics, the
unfathomable speed at which religious intolerance is on the rise
and moderate voices undermined, the steady mainstreaming of the
fascist right and how it has redefined conservatism, the
maddening routine of Jakarta traffic jams.
As long as they err together,
consensually, with eyes wide open so to speak, it is not errant
The average married person is, to varying degrees, both an
escapist and a conservative pragmatist. He or she may not care
to join anti-LGBT rallies; he or she may not overtly show
anti-Chinese and anti-Christian sentiments by baying for the
blood of Jakarta governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama who is
currently standing trial for “blasphemy law”; he or she may be
appalled by paedophiles but doesn’t support President Joko
Widodo’s advocacy of chemical castration; he or she may find the
conservative Islamic group Family Love Alliance (AILA)’s motto
of “strengthening family values” quite appealing but won’t rule
out the occasional fun nights at orgies. But what men and women
alike are doing is to lay claim to twin rights that ought to be
incompatible – dreaming simultaneously of escape and stability.
While some have adulterous Emma Bovary-style affairs, others
more sexually liberated, such as my Pilates friend and her
insatiable husband, sign a pact. It is the fiendishly clever
thing to do, the genius being that it gives the other party at
once the right to err and keep their honour: as long as they err
together, consensually, with eyes wide open so to speak, it is
not errant behaviour. Opting for this choice is arguably more
honourable than polygyny, the right still exercised by
Indonesian men, permitted under Islamic marital jurisprudence,
to have four wives at the same time.
The true feat of this “whole scene” is not its conforming to a
larger class-based historical tradition – of libertinism among
France’s bourgeois society, for instance, the roots of which
have existed much longer but the practice of which, since the
dawn of Aids, has only enjoyed a revival since the beginning of
the new millennium, with the publication of such books as The
Sexual Life of Catherine M. and Atomised, and the proliferation
of heterosexual échangiste (swinging) clubs around France.
It is, rather, that the “whole scene” is both traditional and
radical. Even if the Islam that is supposed to make up the 90%
of Indonesia’s majority is mostly of the moderate and syncretic
kind, Indonesian society on the whole is still pretty
conservative. Morality is almost always linked to sexual
behaviour, not corruption, say, or mendacity in public office.
So what the “whole scene” offers is a way to buck the system: to
deviate from the norm, to create an island for yourself, but to
do so in a way that is also legitimate. The marriage pact is
indeed a powerful thing: as long as it stays intact.
In all this, the most tactile and transforming part of the
triumph, is, of course, the experience of the rush itself. At
48, my friend’s desire for sex, which has seen a steady increase
since she hit the big Four Oh, is at an all time high.
Meanwhile, her husband, who first introduced the swinging idea
to her five years ago, is, in her own words, “hypersexed.” “He
can never get enough,” she tells me.
As time progressed, he was experiencing a decline in
professional and social confidence. He grew sullen and bitter;
she suspected him of having an affair. With two teenage children
they both love deeply, divorce is not an option. So she said yes
to their first foray into sexual adventurism.
“Doesn’t it upset you a bit, the idea of being offered to other
men as though you’re like some possession?” I ask her as we go
to the reformer machine for some butt exercise.
“In the beginning, yes,” my friend says, as she prepares herself
for a “spider” – an intricate movement that requires the widest
plié – “Also the idea that my husband desired me only when he
saw me being desired by other men. It was humiliating.”
“It got better after two years. I began to love the riskiness of
it all; the constant flirting with danger.” She says as she
seizes the belts for a little arm exercise, “And the variations!
Nothing like entering a room, not knowing how it will be – my
own ravishment in the hands of sometimes strangers. I became
addicted to these … these myriad levels of bliss.”
There is a buoyant, almost touching quality to her expression as
she looks for the right words. “It really turns me on, being
desired by many men,” she tells me. “And nowadays I love it that
my husband desires me more because of it.” In some perverse way,
she feels liberated, more in control of her body. She also finds
herself fantasising about some of the men she’s encountered,
wondering what it would be like to see them on the sly, having
them savour her in her own terms, not her husband’s.
“What if you fall in love with one of them?” I ask.
“I just don’t,” she says, haltingly. “The minute I feel it, it’s
goodbye. If you can’t separate sex and emotions, forget it.”
I’m not convinced.
When I ask her what has changed, she replies, “Time.” The rush
changes, the body changes, the pleasure changes. It is not
anymore merely about the ecstasy of engaging in something
mysteriously forbidden, testing the nebulous line between power
and powerlessness, about feeling richly fulfilled and groaningly
hollow, about seizing control and being humiliated. It is,
rather, about the “joy of being surprised.” A quasi-religious
experience, then: Saint Teresa by way of Bernini?
“But isn’t that what being high does?” My friend says. “To me
sex often feels like the highest truth, a gift from heaven.
Because the body doesn’t lie. And good sex is like this
limitless thing, you know. You discover new things every time.”
Does it change your feeling sexually towards your husband? I ask
her. On this she was less than categorical: in some ways, she
feels she has come to understand his needs better, and
consequently their lovemaking is more inventive than ever. At
other times, it is the secret fantasies she harbours while
making love to her husband that give her the real rush to the
head, and are the real flames of her intoxication. “Monogamy is
so passé,” she says with a somewhat studied conviction, “Surely
we’re not designed for it.”
What about the “degrading” aspects she mentioned earlier? “Oh,”
she says with a dismissive wave of the hand. “I didn’t mean it.
I was in a bad mood.” But when the group has dispersed, she
half-whispers, “Actually, nowadays my husband is insisting that
I watch him being serviced by other women. I hate it. But he may
leave me if I don’t allow him what he needs.” For a fleeting
moment she looks genuinely pained, and no amount of poise and
valour can mask it.
Indonesian women are as irreducible to
stereotypes as Indonesia
But are such contradictions so surprising, wonders this
Indonesian of Javanese and West Sumatranese extraction, schooled
both in grace, modesty, and low-keyness and in a take-charge,
matrilineal kinship assertiveness? We Indonesians have long
lived with stories of emancipation. The Javanese have lived with
the Book of Centhini, an encyclopaedia of life that tells of
frenzied orgies, sex with animals, all kinds of sexual escapades
and illicit pleasure – for more than 200 years. They have lived
even longer with old village rituals such as Tayub parade, where
provocatively dressed women dancers playfully seduce men. This
is understood, uncontested, even celebrated by women as part of
folk culture. And yet, there are so many stories of repression,
injustice, and misogyny – just a few weeks ago, two prominent
women rights activists were sexually harassed on the streets of
Jakarta – and of the art of dealing with them with dignity.
Indonesian women are as irreducible to stereotypes as Indonesia,
with its fabled 17,000 islands, is reducible to a single
country. For every sequestered and powerless victim, there is
the sexually autonomous and powerful agent.
The next time I see my friend, she is going away with her
husband to Singapore. They are planning to hook up with two
couples they know intimately. The airport is teeming with people
going on the mini-pilgrimage to Mecca; she pulls me aside and
tells me that some of her friends are among them. “Everyone I
know is going on some kind of religious pilgrimage,” she says.
“I mean, should I?”
I point out to her that a rush is a rush; everyone has his or
her own kick. Not everybody has the money, or the lack of
inhibition to do what she does. Not that they won’t find a way.
It is certainly odd, the want of your own wicked story.
“I just love sex,” she sighs, even if her eyes tell a more
complicated story. “If only more people were like me.”
Changes have been made to this article to protect identities.
This is an edited version of an article published in the January
2017 issue of the quarterly literary magazine Kulturaustausch.
Why would the World want a Gigantic British Swinger
(British Commonwealth of Nations)
I am also asking the Decent Reader to consider and support My Motion in regards
to the Destitution of Katherine Vine, the Chief Editor of The Guardian for
unacceptable, depraved and sick behavior that has no place in the Civilized,
Educated World. My invocation also includes the Decent British People.