Visions of a Freeman - Brain Age - 14, January of 2017

Welcome to:
A view into the Future.

Reality seen from the Eyes of a TRIBalance.

Date is:
January 14, 2017

By pulling a Leech. Blackmail from Imperial Media.
The Divided States: Trump's inauguration and how democracy has failed

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

Pankaj Mishra
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 justice.

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 the Netherlands.

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 cleansing.

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 populations.

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 and progress.


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 Stock Photo

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 Trump.


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 together.

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 slaves'

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 violent.”

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 just some”.

[Image/Video not needed]
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 ever before

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 Allen Lane.

As you can see, The Guardian has omitted four key issues:

1) The Location Integrity.
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 Systems are.

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".

1) Create Laws that limit the Influence of Outsiders over USA Political Affairs, including Media Interests.
2) Create the National Academic Internet as a Public School Service.
3) 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.
4) 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 Model System.

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.

1) Reactivate the Academic Art Systems.
2) Activate the Role Model Systems.
3) Protect the Role Models from Outside Influence.
4) Create more Racial Bridges for Children.
5) Force a better Racial Distribution of Art Products by creating Rules and Laws for Corporations.
6) Allow Celebrities to have their own Social Network and to be able to Social Network between them to reduce the Dependency on outside Influence.

3) The Racial Moderation.

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.

4) The 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 and swinging

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

Laksmi Pamuntjak
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 behaviour.

“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 sex talk.

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 behaviour.

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 Club?
(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.

Back to index