The definition of submission is “the act of submitting to the power of another or the act of accepting the authority or control of someone else.”
At the beginning of January, over one million Americans had their unemployment benefits stopped. These are people who have been unemployed for many months, people who had to rely on these unemployment checks for their subsistence while they sought employment.
How did this happen in the wealthiest country in the world? Well, it’s not so difficult to explain. Many in Congress, the body that decides such things, felt that continuing to supply these unemployment checks would result in people losing their motivation to work. And, I must say I understand their thinking. Who would not choose $300 to $400 every week, which translates to $1,200 to $1,600 every month for not working? Of course, one might ask, can families survive on $300 to $400 per week? Is there anyone out there whose monthly rent or mortgage is less than $1,200 every month?
After paying the rent, there’s the issue of buying food, clothing, paying health insurance premiums, car insurance premiums, gasoline (especially for those living outside urban areas where public transportation is scarce and the ownership of cars is crucial), etc. The powers that be want to motivate the unemployed to look for jobs but in denying them funding, they are eliminating access to travel needed to look for jobs. Yet, their thinking on this issue is sound. Who wouldn’t choose a life of poverty in order to not work?
What I find puzzling is the lack of response from those affected by this act, or lack of, by “their” Congress. I may be mistaken, but I’ve read about working people taking to the streets in Britain, in France, in Spain, and in Greece refusing to quietly accept the austerity measures imposed on them. Yet, despite the fighting spirit noticeable in the people of this country, workers seem to be willing to passively accept their condition without rebelling.
We also must consider who is making these decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans. Most of the people in Congress are former lawyers or corporate executives and managers, with a smattering of doctors. In other words these are people who have a good deal of financial resources and have not experienced the day to day struggles for financial survival that laborers experience. Notice, you will not find factory workers, plumbers, firemen, office secretaries, etc., in Congress.
More than half (268 out of 534) of congressional lawmakers are worth more than $1 million. The median net worth for all House members is $896,000 and, for Senators, $2.5 million. Why do I refer to the above figures? Because these are the folks who make life and death decisions for struggling workers. These are folks who have a vested interest in reaching decisions that protect their wealth and the wealth of those like them. In other words they are the squires of the elite class (read below) and are part of the group who are not friends of workers.
Ben Tanosborn explains in his article in Intrepid Report: America in denial: Width and breadth of today’s poverty, “That’s exactly where we, Americans, fool ourselves . . . by depicting a small-in-numbers ‘common enemy’ in that easy to hate catchall group of One-percenters: those ‘heartless capitalists’ who control just about all the wealth and make the rest of us poor . . .”
And therein our naïveté, blaming that easy 1 percent target of elite folks instead of the real culprit: an unregulated capitalist system gone berserk through the elimination of geographical barriers in the movement of capital and a poorly thought-out, unrestrained globalization of commerce.
In the United States, the 1% Elite, today’s knighted gentry, could not maintain total rule of the nation if it weren’t for a sizeable group of squires, the 19% Sub-elite. In the wealth distribution scheme of things—which directly impacts the poverty level—the Bottom Fishers (80% of the population in the US) lost more than ONE-THIRD of their wealth from 1983 to 2010 . . . not to the hated elite of 1 percenters (Knights) but to their lackeys, the 19 percenters (Squires). It places the wealth of the Haves, or one-fifth of the population, at 88.9% of the nation’s total; the Have-nots, representing the other four-fifths, just holding on to 11.1%.
The width of inequality, and the corresponding poverty which emanates from it, measured time and again by economists and social scientists, does not seem to surprise or bother us. In fact, we seem antagonistic to support for any redistribution policies by the government (approximately half the population feels that way). Perhaps it is a sentimental-must to stick with the mythology of the American Dream, our independent character and exceptionalism, or even accepting our position of income and wealth inequality, and corresponding poverty, among the other industrialized countries in the world. Instead of acknowledging that we might be among the most unequal, if not THE MOST, among the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) nations, we prefer to look at the masses of undocumented immigrants from often-corrupt third world nations and rationalize how well off we are.”
Tanosborn’s description, using knights and squires, illuminates the real role of Congress and the president. They are the squires, doing the bidding of the knights in shining armor. They ensure that nothing of substance changes and that the wealth of the knights and their own wealth remains unchallenged. They have enforcers such as the police and the military to intervene when things get out of control. And, then there’s the media and the schools that continue to tell us how lucky we are to live in a country of opportunity and upward mobility.
Tanosborn is right on target. The concepts of “American Exceptionalism” and “The American Dream” have kept us mesmorized and immobilized. We tend to accept the notion that we are fortunate to be living in this country which is the model for freedom, democracy, and opportunity. This explanation helps us understand why we blame the poor for being poor and why we refuse to support an adequate safety net. In other words, we have been brainwashed by the ruling class and their lackeys. It’s time to fight back and I do not mean voting for Democrats.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.
RSS
Americans have been brainwashed into submission
Posted on January 30, 2014 by Dave Alpert
The definition of submission is “the act of submitting to the power of another or the act of accepting the authority or control of someone else.”
At the beginning of January, over one million Americans had their unemployment benefits stopped. These are people who have been unemployed for many months, people who had to rely on these unemployment checks for their subsistence while they sought employment.
How did this happen in the wealthiest country in the world? Well, it’s not so difficult to explain. Many in Congress, the body that decides such things, felt that continuing to supply these unemployment checks would result in people losing their motivation to work. And, I must say I understand their thinking. Who would not choose $300 to $400 every week, which translates to $1,200 to $1,600 every month for not working? Of course, one might ask, can families survive on $300 to $400 per week? Is there anyone out there whose monthly rent or mortgage is less than $1,200 every month?
After paying the rent, there’s the issue of buying food, clothing, paying health insurance premiums, car insurance premiums, gasoline (especially for those living outside urban areas where public transportation is scarce and the ownership of cars is crucial), etc. The powers that be want to motivate the unemployed to look for jobs but in denying them funding, they are eliminating access to travel needed to look for jobs. Yet, their thinking on this issue is sound. Who wouldn’t choose a life of poverty in order to not work?
What I find puzzling is the lack of response from those affected by this act, or lack of, by “their” Congress. I may be mistaken, but I’ve read about working people taking to the streets in Britain, in France, in Spain, and in Greece refusing to quietly accept the austerity measures imposed on them. Yet, despite the fighting spirit noticeable in the people of this country, workers seem to be willing to passively accept their condition without rebelling.
We also must consider who is making these decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans. Most of the people in Congress are former lawyers or corporate executives and managers, with a smattering of doctors. In other words these are people who have a good deal of financial resources and have not experienced the day to day struggles for financial survival that laborers experience. Notice, you will not find factory workers, plumbers, firemen, office secretaries, etc., in Congress.
More than half (268 out of 534) of congressional lawmakers are worth more than $1 million. The median net worth for all House members is $896,000 and, for Senators, $2.5 million. Why do I refer to the above figures? Because these are the folks who make life and death decisions for struggling workers. These are folks who have a vested interest in reaching decisions that protect their wealth and the wealth of those like them. In other words they are the squires of the elite class (read below) and are part of the group who are not friends of workers.
Ben Tanosborn explains in his article in Intrepid Report: America in denial: Width and breadth of today’s poverty, “That’s exactly where we, Americans, fool ourselves . . . by depicting a small-in-numbers ‘common enemy’ in that easy to hate catchall group of One-percenters: those ‘heartless capitalists’ who control just about all the wealth and make the rest of us poor . . .”
And therein our naïveté, blaming that easy 1 percent target of elite folks instead of the real culprit: an unregulated capitalist system gone berserk through the elimination of geographical barriers in the movement of capital and a poorly thought-out, unrestrained globalization of commerce.
In the United States, the 1% Elite, today’s knighted gentry, could not maintain total rule of the nation if it weren’t for a sizeable group of squires, the 19% Sub-elite. In the wealth distribution scheme of things—which directly impacts the poverty level—the Bottom Fishers (80% of the population in the US) lost more than ONE-THIRD of their wealth from 1983 to 2010 . . . not to the hated elite of 1 percenters (Knights) but to their lackeys, the 19 percenters (Squires). It places the wealth of the Haves, or one-fifth of the population, at 88.9% of the nation’s total; the Have-nots, representing the other four-fifths, just holding on to 11.1%.
The width of inequality, and the corresponding poverty which emanates from it, measured time and again by economists and social scientists, does not seem to surprise or bother us. In fact, we seem antagonistic to support for any redistribution policies by the government (approximately half the population feels that way). Perhaps it is a sentimental-must to stick with the mythology of the American Dream, our independent character and exceptionalism, or even accepting our position of income and wealth inequality, and corresponding poverty, among the other industrialized countries in the world. Instead of acknowledging that we might be among the most unequal, if not THE MOST, among the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) nations, we prefer to look at the masses of undocumented immigrants from often-corrupt third world nations and rationalize how well off we are.”
Tanosborn’s description, using knights and squires, illuminates the real role of Congress and the president. They are the squires, doing the bidding of the knights in shining armor. They ensure that nothing of substance changes and that the wealth of the knights and their own wealth remains unchallenged. They have enforcers such as the police and the military to intervene when things get out of control. And, then there’s the media and the schools that continue to tell us how lucky we are to live in a country of opportunity and upward mobility.
Tanosborn is right on target. The concepts of “American Exceptionalism” and “The American Dream” have kept us mesmorized and immobilized. We tend to accept the notion that we are fortunate to be living in this country which is the model for freedom, democracy, and opportunity. This explanation helps us understand why we blame the poor for being poor and why we refuse to support an adequate safety net. In other words, we have been brainwashed by the ruling class and their lackeys. It’s time to fight back and I do not mean voting for Democrats.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.