Here are this week’s five links that are worth your time:
|Quincy Larson firstname.lastname@example.org||Thu, Jan 14, 9:07 PM|
|Quincy Larson email@example.com||Thu, Jan 14, 9:07 PM|
Can contracts be a valid means of formalizing agreement? Sure, but we have to introduce issues of consent. Consent cannot exist unless viable alternatives exist as well. Much like we shouldn’t evaluate individuals as if they lived in a social vacuum, or evaluate actions as if they took place in a causal vacuum, a contract can not, and should not, be judged in a vacuum, but rather must be contrasted with the institutions that sustain it. A contract may or may not be valid in itself, but if these institutions do not provide or allow any alternatives, then the contract cannot possibly be justified.
“We are 21st century citizens doing our very best to interact with 19th century-designed institutions that are based on an information technology of the 15th century.”
— Pia Mancini
Every day we see new blockchain technology surfacing in our midst. No matter how much we try to grasp the latest technology, they always have something new to offer to the table. Ever wonder what the root of all these blockchain technologies is? Well, consensus algorithms are the primary root of these revolutionary techs.
Consensus algorithms are what that makes all these blockchain consensus sequence different from one another. Blockchain network facilities millions and millions of people in the same space. So, how come they never interfere with one another or exist Binancemutually?
The answer is in the architecture of the blockchain network. The architecture is cleverly designed, and consensus algorithms are at the core of this architecture.
If you really want to know how blockchain consensus sequence works then you have to dive in much more in-depth than you think. That’s why I’ll be covering all there is to know about consensus algorithms in this guide. So, let’s get on with it!
The technical definition would be:
Consensus algorithms are a decision-making process for a group, where individuals of the group construct and support the decision that works best for the rest of them. It’s a form of resolution where individuals need to support the majority decision, whether they liked it or not.
In simple terms, it’s just a method to decide within a group. Let me clear it up with an example. Imagine a group of ten people that want to make a decision about a project that benefits them all. Every one of them can suggest an idea, but the majority will be in favor of the one that helps them the most. Others have to deal with this decision whether they liked it or not.
Now imagine the same thing with thousands of people. Wouldn’t that drastically make it way more difficult?
Consensus algorithms do not merely agree with the majority votes, but it also agrees to one that benefits all of them. So, it’s always a win for the network.
Blockchain consensus models are methods to create equality and fairness in the online world. The consensus systems used for this agreement is called a consensus theorem.
It’s all theft thru fraud.
Actually, you volunteered to accept the conditional use of, and employ a constructive United States public vessel identified by a vessel identification number [and termed a Social Security Number] FOR THE PURPOSE TO DO BUSINESS IN COMMERCE IN A PUBLIC PRIVATE JOINT VENTURE WITH THE UNITED STATES INC.
THE AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP QUESTION vs citizen
of the UNITED STATES
First is the issue of your being a citizen of the United States. Most everyone would seemingly agree that they are a “proud American” and therefore equally proud to be called a citizen of the United States. But how do the law and the Supreme Court define a United States citizen and most importantly the rights, privileges and immunities associated with being one.
“there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own.”. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, (1875) “There is a clear distinction between national citizenship and state citizenship.” 256 P. 545, affirmed 278 US 123, Jordan v. Tashiro (1928)“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957.
“The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.”
Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226
Does the above comport with your pre-established notion that being a United States citizen is the best of all worlds regarding your rights, freedom and liberty. Did you even know there was such a thing as a state Citizen and it was different from being a U.S. citizen? Are you possibly shocked to know that as a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, one does not have the protection of the Bill of Rights; in fact 14th Amendment U.S. Citizenship protects very few rights! Did the government employees teaching in the public schools ever teach you this!
As the Kilo case on Imminent Domain decided by the Supreme Court in 2005 clearly demonstrates, U.S. citizens do not have private property rights or protection from bizarre imminent domain takings. If you can fight off the psychological effects of cognitive dissonance for just a few more minutes, you might be wondering; “How did I get to be a U.S. citizen? And could it possibly be true that my political status as a U.S. citizen deprives me of the rights, privileges and immunities that I was taught were part of being a free American?”
The short answer is, you volunteered. That’s right, you volunteered to be a U.S. citizen devoid of Constitutionally protect rights, devoid of even God given unalienable rights. How did you do this volunteering you might ask? Well, when you decided that you needed a Social Security card you also agreed to become a U.S. citizen and accept what the legal experts call compelled benefits. And herein lies the “real beauty” of the system developed to make you into something you never though possible, a person living in voluntary servitude. Ok, that cognitive dissonance thing just kicked in again. Let’s take this one step at a time.
By signing the SS5 form (Social Security Application) you voluntarily assented to transform by agreement your political status. Look at 5 USC 552A (a)(13)
“The term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).” Emphasis Added.
By agreeing to accept those measly Social Security payments 40 or 50 years out, you agreed to live your entire life “through” a constructive “federal person” i.e. “public vessel.” For those of you who like me spent some time in the military, you will know what I mean when I say that being “federal personnel” is like being a Humvee or a tank or a cooking utensil in the mess tent; you are just a piece of property. The term G.I. meaning, Government issue.
But there it is in black and white, your U.S. Congress passed legislation and the U.S. President signed that legislation that says if you volunteer to get a Social Security card you become government chattel property. Why do I keep saying you volunteered to get the Social Security Card, you ask? For the simple reason that to this day there is no law requiring you to get a Social Security number, no law within the 50 titles of the United States Code that makes the possession or use of a Social Security Account mandatory.
Back in the 1930’s a very devious man named Franklin Delano Roosevelt was working diligently to turn this once great Republic into a legislative democracy where socialistic concepts could reign. As it turns out, Roosevelt had this little problem with the Supreme Court. The nine justices on the Supreme Court were ruling against some of the foundational planks of Roosevelt’s diabolical scheme. The risk was that the centerpiece of his “New Deal”, Social Security, might be found unconstitutional. So Roosevelt made his famous threat to “pack the Court” with lots of justices until he could make the Court safe for democracy and socialism.
Well, to make a long story short, a story that is more fully described in the book U.S. Of A. v U.S., The loss of legal memory of the American state, the Court took Roosevelt’s threat seriously and made a “switch in time that saved nine.” Essentially, the Court threw out over one hundred years of protecting the people from power grabs by the federal government. The Court gave Roosevelt his way, thus paving the way for the “democracy” and all the evils that the Founding Father’s rightly associated with a democracy. But the Supreme Court snuck in a few little items that allowed the People “an out” if they didn’t want to fall into the servitude trap. They ruled that Social Security must be voluntary. The 13th Amendment states:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
You see that the 13th left the possibility of voluntary servitude!
Now if you have ever tried to open a bank account, fill out a job application or even rent a video, you might not think that having a Social Security number is voluntary, but that is the genius of the plan. The law says that making application to receive benefits under the Social Security Act is completely voluntary and in fact goes so far as to state in every one of the 50 Titles of the United States Code that mentions the Social Security number, that you cannot be denied any right or privilege if you do not provide a Social Security number (with the obvious exception of dealing with the Social Security Administration). The way they got the scheme to work was to make the employers, banks, state and local agencies and everyone else treat you and make their computer system operate as if having a Social Security card was mandatory.
Now if your mind is off pondering the magnitude of this great deception, let me ask you to come back to the discussion for a few more moments. There are two other very important points that you have to understand about the execution of the plan.
First, once you are in the “system” accepting the benefits there under you are legally barred from complaining about it or raising the issue that it might be un-Constitutional. Justice Brandeis, a Supreme Court Justice during the 1930’s developed what are referred to as the Brandies Rules. Rule number six is the one that gets you. Take a look.
The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.
Read that again. If you volunteer to be a Social Security “beneficiary” you instantly become ineligible to go to the Courts and challenge the constitutionality of the very same laws.
And since you also decided . . . knowingly or not, to become a 14th Amendment citizen at the same time you also now fall under Article 4 of the 14th Amendment, which states:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Yup, they just got you again. If, as a U.S. citizen you think the government ought to live within its means and not be five or ten trillion dollars in debt, you cannot question the debt. Do you think you are done getting suckered in this deal? Guess again, it gets worse.
Now, there are literally thousands of people across the land that are variously known as “tax protestors”, members of the “tax honesty movement” and other names, good and bad depending on which side of the fence you sit with respect to the income tax. Once upon a time some people threw a bunch of tea into a harbor over a tax amounting to 1% or less. Today, we give up 20 or 30% of our income plus pay 50 cents per gallon of gasoline and pay taxes on everything we own including the roof over our heads. Now hear this, you fans of truth, justice and the American way!
Given the above disclosures about the joys and benefits of being a U.S. citizen, would it surprise you that you volunteer to take responsibility as the “employer” and pay the income tax of the afore referenced constructive public vessel that comes with the social security number? That’s right, you raise your hand and ask the good old taxman to raid that vessels paycheck. Now you may be proud to pay what you believe to be your taxes and this author will not disparage your patriotism one little bit. But don’t you wish just a little that the U.S. government would be honest about the source of authority for imposing the income tax on your earnings.
This author’s considered and studied opinion is that the source of authority for the income tax can be found at Title 8 of the Social Security Act of 1935, which states:
TITLE VIII- TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT
INCOME TAX ON EMPLOYEES BUT NOT ON THEIR EMPLOYERS!
SECTION 801. In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date:
Remember, you volunteered into Social Security, so any taxes, especially the above referenced income tax, are self imposed by your own voluntary action. Welcome to being a U.S. citizen.
NOTE: Actually, you volunteered to accept the conditional use of, and employ a constructive United States public vessel identified by a vessel identification number [and termed a Social Security Number] FOR THE PURPOSE TO DO BUSINESS IN COMMERCE IN A PUBLIC PRIVATE JOINT VENTURE WITH THE UNITED STATES INC. (A quid pro quo consideration.)
That constructive vessel is wholly owned by the Social Security Administration. You are in fact, only the employer of that constructive vessel and don’t come within the provisions of Section 801 personally. It is the constructive public vessel, that is the creation of the Social Security Administration and thereby, said vessel is the federal entity that is exclusively subject to the tax under Section 801. One further verifying fact re the above noted operation of law: When the IRS presents printed material in the form of unsecured offers of debt to the PUBLIC VESSEL and identifies that vessel with the vessels registration number; in that printed material is included reference to the Employer Identification Number or EIN. The vessel number can be recognized by the nature of the display of its number: SSN 000-00-0000. The Employer number is the identical number, but is displayed as: EIN 000000000, no dashes.
The IRS addresses two (2) entities, not just one . . . one is fictional and one is natural and upon which the law is quite clear, the natural entity, cannot give up his or her natural rights, even if they choose to do so.) The law will not tolerate a voluntary servitude that by that servitudes nature, rises to the level of a condition of peonage originating out of a constructive fraud.
Now to wrap up our conversation, you are probably wondering is there really a difference between the United States and the United States of America? Could there really be a subtle but distinct difference that affects the rights you enjoy, the taxes you pay and even whether or not you have rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Once again we can look to the U.S. government’s own documents to show that not only do they recognize a distinction between the United States and the United States of America, they allow you to choose which one you want to be legally bound to.
In title 28 of the United States Code (28 USC) we find at section 1746 the following:
TITLE 28, PART V, CHAPTER 115
§1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
Release date: 2005-09-29
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the un-sworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”. Emphasis Added
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
Please look at numbers 1 and 2 above. You can make unsworn declarations into the United States or into the United States of America. Take further notice that the United States of America seemingly even has its own laws that are different from those in the United States. The presumption (a legal term) is that if you do not specifically state you want to declare in the United States of America and under the laws thereof, you automatically fall under the umbrella of the United States which at Title 28 Section 3002, subsection (15) is defined as ”United States” means—(A) a Federal corporation;
That’s right Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore!!
The Senate has a publication called Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation. This particular document is 2710 pages in length. It is the Senate’s official version of it’s understanding of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America. In that lengthy document, on page 53, the astute reader will find when the Supreme Court is referring to the Constitution of the United States of America it states:
The question begs to be asked, “If the Constitution of the United States of America is made for and binding only in the United States of America, then what is made for and binding only in the United States Inc.? Since the answer is not a simple one liner, you might want to pick up a copy of the book U.S. of A. v U.S., The loss of legal memory of the American state by visiting the website
http://www.USofAvUS.com or by calling the publisher at 828-398-4358. The authors provide a painstakingly researched, legally sound disclosure of what the true state of affairs is today. To be a “good American” is to be ever vigilant to the threat of tyranny, from without and within. If you are just now being introduced to the fact that you do not have the rights you thought you had, being a U.S. citizen is not all its cracked up to be, and the folks in Washington, D.C. might not be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so, get a copy of the book U.S. of A. v U.S., The loss of legal memory of the American state, which also includes an MP3 CD with 10 hours of audio lectures on this same material as found in the book. The book also contains an access code to allow you to join the educational website for the first year.
Two-thirds of Americans believe that, in 50 years, robots and computers will do much of the work humans now do. The World Economic Forum’s 2016 report, The Future of Jobs, estimates that 5 million jobs will be lost to automation by 2020 and that the number will keep growing. Jobs that once seemed like “safe bets”—office workers and administrative personnel, manufacturing, and even law—will be hit hardest, the report estimates.
“There are some overarching shifts poised to change the nature of work itself over the next decade,” says Devin Fidler, research director at Institute for the Future, a nonprofit research center focused on long-term forecasting. That includes a demand for new skills and strategies that could help people to thrive in future work environments,
So what do you need to work on to be marketable in 2025? Here are six skill areas that the experts recommend, as well some of the strongest job-growth categories, as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and other sources—that relate to them.
It’s no surprise that tech skills will be in demand. However, Fidler says that “computational thinking”—the ability to manage the massive amounts of data we process individually each day, spot patterns, and make sense out of all of it—will be valued.
“As the total amount of information coming at you increases and increases, the ability to manage that in a way that you’re not overwhelmed, is pretty key,” he says.
Related jobs: Software developer jobs will grow 18.8% between now and 2024, according to the BLS, while computer systems analyst jobs will increase 20.9% by 2024. Market research analyst and marketing specialist jobs, which also require those analytical skills, will increase 18.6%.
As more people live longer, every aspect of the health care sector is poised for growth. And while telemedicine, robotic surgical equipment, and other forms of automation are changing how some health care is delivered, demand for caregivers is going to increase as we commit to providing health care for more of the population—a population that is growing and living longer, says John Challenger, CEO of outplacement and career coaching firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas, Inc.
Related jobs: Challenger’s firm analyzed the hottest job sectors from 2018 through 2025 and half of the sectors were caregiving and health-related. Hot fields included medical technicians, physical therapists, and workplace ergonomics experts. Veterinarians will also be in demand, the report found. BLS also found that support jobs related to caregiving, such as medical secretaries and medical assistants will also be in high demand. Home health aide jobs are expected to grow a whopping 38.1%.
It’s going to take a long time for robots to be good at soft skills, like social and emotional intelligence and cross-cultural competency, “which are hugely valuable in a world where you or I could go and be working with somebody in the Philippines within an hour. Virtual collaboration itself is really useful in that environment as well,” Fidler says. In addition, new media literacy—understanding various media platforms and how to best communicate effectively in them—are valuable skills that robots won’t be likely to match any time soon.
Related jobs: Sales and related jobs are one of the top five growth areas worldwide, according to the WEF report. In the U.S., BLS projects that jobs for retail and other sales representatives, marketing specialists, and customer service representatives are each projected to grow between 6.4% and 18.6%, depending on the category by 2024.
With the world moving as fast as it is, we need to become a society of people who are always learning new things, says Julie Friedman Steele, board chair of the World Future Society, a membership organization for futurists. But we’re also going to need to shift how we learn, she says. As so many things advance quickly, it will be difficult for teachers and trainers to keep up with the latest thinking. Instead, we’ll use technology to find the best sources of information to keep our knowledge and skills current.
Antonia Cusumano, people & organization leader at consulting giant PwC says that we’ll also need to turn to more dynamic resources. “You’re going to have 10 minutes on your bus ride home when you’re commuting. You’re going to pull up an app from one of the many businesses out there that are doing these mini-clips of video learning. I’d like to learn 10 minutes on C++ so that I can brush up on my coding. You’re going to see learning shift to these little mini bite-sized chunks of information that you can get on the go and when you need it and at any given time,” she says.
Related jobs: Teachers and trainers made Challenger’s firm’s list of eight hot fields through 2025. Education and training is number six on the WEF report’s list of growth sectors.
With opportunities in innovation and entrepreneurship and the rise of the “gig economy,” Cusumano says understanding how businesses work is essential. Even if you’re working for a company, you have to have a better understanding than ever of how the business operates. “It’s how the millennial generation has been raised. They are more in tune to collaborate. They know how to do project-based work and move quickly, which I think is inherent in today’s economy,” she says.
Related jobs: BLS estimates that management analysts, accountants and auditors will experience double-digit growth through 2024. One Intuit report projects that more than 40% of U.S. workers will be independent contractors by 2020.
Reparations is not a token gesture of concern, apology or even solidarity; it seeks justice and redress of wrongs through the transformation of a people’s condition.
“An all-Black reparations debate is overdue.”
The Democratic presidential race has erupted in incomprehensible babble on reparations. Bernie Sanders says he’s not sure what people mean by the word. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker , the two Black U.S. senators, cynically put forward programs that bear no resemblance to reparations while claiming to be supporters. And Oprah favorite Marianne Williamson’s $100 billion reparations scheme is far too stingy to “repair” 40 million descendants of slaves.
“A $100 billion reparations scheme is far too stingy to ‘repair’ 40 million descendants of slaves.”
It is no wonder that Democratic office-seekers feel free to conjure up their own versions of reparations, to arbitrarily endorse or reject. Although the general concept of reparations for slavery and its ongoing legacy of racial oppression is broadly endorsed by Black America, there has been no Black-wide debate on the issue. Until that happens, there can be no DEMAND put forward that is imbued with the authority of the wronged community — and power accedes only to demands. Therefore, at present, there is no such thing as a Black people-endorsed reparations program, to be supported or rejected by candidates during the upcoming electoral season. Reparations is not a token gesture of concern, apology or even solidarity; it seeks justice and redress of wrongs through the transformation of a people’s condition. Black folks need to study on that, and take all the time that is necessary to produce a coherent set of demands. Of necessity, this community-wide debate must be a deep and broad discussion of the current state of the Black political economy, and our people’s visions for the future.
“There has been no Black-wide debate on reparations.”
Clearly, an all-Black reparations debate is overdue when corporate servants like Kamala Harris and Cory Booker can masquerade as reparationists while campaigning on non-Black-specific programs like $500 per month income supplements (Harris’ tax credit for all households making less than $100,000 a year) or “baby bonds” for all newborns (Booker’s scheme to narrow the racial wealth gap by giving children yearly savings bonds, with larger amounts going to poorer kids up to age 18.) These proposals may or may not have merit, but they are not reparations and could only be pitched as such in an environment of abject political ignorance.
The starting signal for the Great Black Reparations Debate has already sounded, with 29 House members co-sponsoring John Conyers H.R. 40 reparations study bill , first introduced in 1989, later revised and improved and now sponsored by Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee. Less than half of the Black Caucus in the House has signed on to H.R. 40, and the actual reparations positions of even the signatories – including Jackson-Lee — are largely unknown. But that’s alright; the bill provides only “to establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.” The Black community-wide debate on Reparations and Black Futures must begin long before H.R. 40 passes in some future session of Congress, and will inform the study, itself.
Most veterans of the reparations movement are internationalists, not narrow racialists or Black American chauvinists. They have played key historical roles in the liberation of all previously colonized and enslaved peoples. There is nothing parochial or provincial about the project to repair four centuries of Euro-American crimes and savagery, in the process of which capitalism was built and brought to its imperial zenith.
In the most profound sense, reparations means total global social transformation – and you can’t buy that with Marianne Williamson’s $100 billion scheme, or Booker’s baby bonds, or Harris’ $500 a month stipends, or even with trillions of dollars. Real redress can only come when the system that cannibalized tens of millions of Black bodies and underdeveloped most of the world for the benefit of the Lords of Capital, is demolished root and branch and just settlements made among the people’s of the Earth.
We may have come here on a slave ship, but we’re not going down with this Titanic in imperialist decline.
I have no idea whether the white man I am writing about is still alive or not. He gave me an understanding of what actually happened to us Africans, and how sinister it was, when we were colonized. His name was Ronald Stanley Peters, Homicide Chief, Matabeleland, in what was at the time Rhodesia. He was the man in charge of the case they had against us, murder.
I was one of a group of ANC/ZAPU guerillas that had infiltrated into the Wankie Game Reserve in 1967, and had been in action against elements of the Rhodesian African rifles (RAR), and the Rhodesian Light Infantry (RLI). We were now in the custody of the British South AfricaPolice (BSAP), the Rhodesian Police. I was the last to be captured in the group that was going to appear at the Salisbury (Harare) High Court on a charge of murder, 4 counts.
‘I have completed my investigation of this case, Mr. Bopela, and I will be sending the case to the Attorney-General’s Office, Mr. Bosman, who will the take up the prosecution of your case on a date to be decided,’ Ron Peters told me. ‘I will hang all of you, but I must tell you that you are good fighters but you cannot win.’
‘Tell me, Inspector,’ I shot back, ‘are you not contradicting yourself when you say we are good fighters but will not win? Good fighters always
‘Mr. Bopela, even the best fighters on the ground, cannot win if information is sent to their enemy by high-ranking officials of their organisations, even before the fighters begin their operations. Even though we had information that you were on your way, we were not prepared for the fight that you put up,’ the Englishman said quietly. ‘We give due where it is to be given after having met you in battle. That is why I am saying you are good fighters, but will not win.’
Thirteen years later, in 1980, I went to Police Headquarters in Harare and asked where I could find Detective-Inspector Ronald Stanley Peters, retired maybe.
President Robert Mugabe had become Prime Minster and had released all of us….common criminal and freedom-fighter. I was told by the white officer behind the counter that Inspector Peters had retired and now lived in Bulawayo. I asked to speak to him on the telephone. The officer dialed his number and explained why he was calling. I was given the phone, and spoke to the Superintendent, the rank he had retired on. We agreed to meet in two days’ time at his house at Matshe-amhlophe, a very up-market suburb in Bulawayo. I travelled to Bulawayo by train, and took a taxi from town to his home.
I had last seen him at the Salisbury High Court after we had been sentenced to death by Justice L Lewis in 1967. His hair had greyed but he was still the tall policeman I had last seen in 1967. He smiled quietly at me and introduced me to his family, two grown up chaps and a daughter. Lastly came his wife, Doreen, a regal-looking Englishwoman. ‘He is one of the chaps I bagged during my time in the Service. We sent him to the gallows but he is back and wants to see me, Doreen.’ He smiled again and ushered me into his study. He offered me a drink, a scotch whisky I had not asked for, but enjoyed very much I must say. We spent some time on the small talk about the weather and the current news.
‘So,’ Ron began, ‘they did not hang you are after all, old chap! Congratulations, and may you live many more!’ We toasted and I sat across him in a comfortable sofa. ‘A man does not die before his time, Ron’ I replied rather gloomily, ‘never mind the power the judge has or what the executioner intends to do to one.’
‘I am happy you got a reprieve Thula,’, Ron said, ‘but what was it based on? I am just curious about what might have prompted His Excellency Clifford Du Pont, to grant you a pardon. You were a bunch of unrepentant terrorists.’
‘I do not know Superintendent,’ I replied truthfully. ‘Like I have said, a man does not die before his time.’ He poured me another drink and I became less tense.
‘So, Mr. Bopela, what brings such a lucky fellow all the way from happy Harare to a dull place like our Bulawayo down here?’
‘Superintendent, you said to me after you had finished your investigations that you were going to hang all of us. You were wrong; we did not all hang. You said also that though we were good fighters we would not win. You were wrong again Superintendent; we have won! We are in power now. I told you that good fighters do win.’
The Superintendent put his drink on the side table and stood up. He walked slowly to the window that overlooked his well-manicured garden and stood there facing me.
‘So you think you have won Thula? What have you won, tell me. I need to know.’
‘We have won everything Superintendent, in case you have not noticed. Every thing! We will have a black president, prime minister, black cabinet, black members of Parliament, judges, Chiefs of Police and the Army. Every thing Superintendent. I came all the way to come and ask you to apologise to me for telling me that good fighters do not win. You were wrong Superintendent, were you not?’
He went back to his seat and picked up his glass, and emptied it. He poured himself another shot and put it on the side table and was quiet for a while.
‘So, you think you have won everything Mr. Bopela, huh? I am sorry to spoil your happiness sir, but you have not won anything. You have political power, yes, but that is all. We control the economy of this country, on whose stability depends everybody’s livelihood, including the lives of those who boast that they have political power, you and your victorious friends. Maybe I should tell you something about us white people Mr. Bopela. I think you deserve it too, seeing how you kept this nonsense warm in your head for thirteen hard years in prison.
‘When I get out I am going to find Ron Peters and tell him to apologize for saying we wouldn’t win,’ you promised yourself. Now listen to me carefully my friend, I am going to help you understand us white people a bit better, and the kind of problem you and your friends have to deal with.’ ‘When we planted our flag in the place where we built the city of Salisbury, in 1877, we planned for this time. We planned for the time when the African would rise up against us, and perhaps defeat us by sheer numbers and insurrection. When that time came, we decided, the African should not be in a position to rule his newly-found country
without taking his cue from us. We should continue to rule, even political power has been snatched from us, Mr. Bopela.’ ‘How did you plan to do that my dear Superintendent,’ I mocked.
‘Very simple, Mr. Bopela, very simple,’ Peters told me. ‘We started by changing the country we took from you to a country that you will find, many centuries later, when you gain political power. It would be totally unlike the country your ancestors lived in; it would be a new country. Let us start with agriculture. We introduced methods of farming that were not known in Africa, where people dug a hole in the ground, covered it up with soil and went to sleep under a tree in the shade. We made agriculture a science. To farm our way, an African needed to understand soil types, the fertilizers that type of soil required, and which crops to plant on what type of soil. We kept this knowledge from the African, how to farm scientifically and on a scale big enough to contribute strongly to the national economy. We did this so that when the African demands and gets his land back, he should not be able to farm it like we do. He would then be obliged to beg us to teach him how. Is that not power, Mr. Bopela?’ ‘We industrialized the country, factories, mines, together with agricultural output, became the mainstay of the new economy, but controlled and understood only by us. We kept the knowledge of all this from you people, the skills required to run such a country successfully.
“It is not because Africans are stupid because they do not know what to do with an industrialized country. We just excluded the African from this knowledge and kept him in the dark. This exercise can be compared to that of a man whose house was taken away from him by a stronger person. The stronger person would then change all the locks so that when the real owner returned, he would not know how to enter his own house.
“We then introduced a financial system – money (currency), banks, the stock market and linked it with other stock markets in the world. We are aware that your country may have valuable minerals, which you may be able to extract….but where would you sell them? We would push their value to next-to-nothing in our stock markets. You may have diamonds or oil in your country Mr. Bopela, but we are in possession of the formula on how they may be refined and made into a product ready for sale on the stock markets, which we control. You cannot eat diamonds and drink oil even if you have these valuable commodities. You have to bring them to our stock markets.
‘We control technology and communications. You fellows cannot even fly an aeroplane, let alone make one. This is the knowledge we kept from you, deliberately. Now that you have won, as you claim Mr. Bopela, how do you plan to run all these things you were prevented from learning? You will be His Excellency this, and the Honorable this and wear gold chains on your necks as mayors, but you will have no power. Parliament after all is just a talking house; it does not run the economy; we do. We do not need to be in parliament to rule your Zimbabwe. We have the power of knowledge and vital skills, needed to run the economy and create jobs. Without us, your Zimbabwe will collapse. You see now what I mean when I say you have won nothing? I know what I am talking about. We could even sabotage your economy and you would not know what had happened.”
We were both silent for some time, I trying not to show how devastating this information was to me; Ron Peters maybe gloating. It was so true, yet so painful.
In South Africa they had not only kept this information from us, they had also destroyed our education, so that when we won, we would still not have the skills we needed because we had been forbidden to become scientists and engineers. I did not feel any anger towards the man sitting opposite me, sipping a whisky. He was right. ‘Even the Africans who had the skills we tried to prevent you from having would be too few to have an impact on our plan. The few who would perhaps have acquired the vital skills would earn very high salaries, and become a black elite grouping, a class apart from fellow suffering Africans,’ Ron Peters persisted. ‘If you understand this Thula, you will probably succeed in making your fellow blacks understand the difference between ‘being in office’ and ‘being in power’. Your leaders will be in office, but not in power. This means that your parliamentary majority will not enable you to run the country….without us, that is.”
I asked Ron to call a taxi for me; I needed to leave. The taxi arrived, not quickly enough for me, who was aching to depart with my sorrow. Ron
then delivered the coup de grace: ‘What we are waiting to watch happening, after your attainment of political power, is to see you fighting over it. Africans fight over power, which is why you have seen so many coups d’etat and civil wars in post-independent Africa. We whites consolidate power, which means we share it, to stay strong. We may have different political ideologies and parties, but we do not kill each other over political differences, not since Hitler was defeated in 1945. Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe will not stay friends for long. In your free South Africa, you will do the same.
There will be so many African political parties opposing the ANC, parties that are too afraid to come into existence during apartheid, that we whites will not need to join in the fray. Inside whichever ruling party will come power, be it ZANU or the ANC, there will be power struggles even inside the parties themselves. You see Mr. Bopela, after the struggle against the white man, a new struggle will arise among yourselves, the struggle for power. Those who hold power in Africa come within grabbing distance of wealth. That is what the new struggle will be about….the struggle for power. Go well Mr. Bopela; I trust our meeting was a fruitful one, as they say in politics.’
I shook hands with the Superintendent and boarded my taxi. I spent that night in Bulawayo at the YMCA, 9th Avenue. I slept deeply; I was mentally exhausted and spiritually devastated. I only had one consolation, a hope, however remote. I hoped that when the ANC came into power in South Africa, we would not do the things Ron Peters had said we would do. We would learn from the experiences of other African countries, maybe Ghana and Nigeria, and avoid coups d’etat and civil wars.
In 2007 at Polokwane, we had full-blown power struggle between those who supported Thabo Mbeki and Zuma’s supporters. Mbeki lost the fight and his admirers broke away to form Cope. The politics of individuals had started in the ANC. The ANC will be going to Maungaung in December to choose new leaders. Again, it is not about which government policy will be best for South Africa; foreign policy, economic, educational, or social policy. It is about Jacob Zuma, Kgalema Motlhante; it is about Fikile Mbalula or Gwede Mantashe. Secret meetings are reported to be happening, to plot the downfall of this politician and the rise of the other one.
Why is it not about which leaders will best implement the Freedom Charter, the pivotal document? Is the contest over who will implement the Charter better? If it was about that, the struggle then would be over who can sort out the poverty, landlessness, unemployment, crime and education for the impoverished black masses. How then do we choose who the best leader would be if we do not even know who will implement which policies, and which policies are better than others? We go to Mangaung to wage a power struggle, period. President Zuma himself has admitted that ‘in the broad church the ANC is,’ there are those who now seek only
power, wealth and success as individuals, not the nation. In Zimbabwe the fight between President Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai has paralysed the country. The people of Zimbabwe, a highly-educated nation, are starving and work as garden and kitchen help in South Africa.
What the white man told me in Bulawayo in 1980 is happening right infront of my eyes. We have political power and are fighting over it, instead of consolidating it. We have an economy that is owned and controlled by them, and we are fighting over the crumbs falling from the white man’s ‘dining table’. The power struggle that raged among ANC leaders in the Western Cape cost the ANC that province, and the opposition is winning other municipalities where the ANC is squabbling instead of delivering. Is it too much to understand that the more we fight among ourselves the weaker we become, and the stronger the opposition becomes?
Thula Bopela writes in his personal capacity, and the story he has told is true; he experienced alone and thus is ultimately responsible for the ideas in the article.
By Thula Bopela
Text from the zine:
The white race is a club. Certain people are enrolled in it at birth, without their consent, and brought up according to its rules. For the most part they go through life accepting the privileges of membership, without reflecting on the costs.
Whiteness is not a culture. There is Irish culture and Italian culture and American culture – the latter, as Albert Murray pointed out, a mixture of the Yankee, the Indian, and the Negro (with a pinch of ethnic salt); there is youth culture and drug culture and queer culture; but there is no such thing as white culture. Whiteness has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with social position. It is nothing but a reflection of privilege, and exists for no reason other than to defend it. Without the privileges attached to it, the white race would not exist, and the white skin would have no more social significance than big feet. Before the advocates
One of the truths that emerge rather quickly when one is attempting to theorize race and racism is that ontological questions about the reality of race, or lack thereof, lead quickly to more ethical and political questions about the nature of racism as a social phenomenon and vice versa. This chapter deals with the question of racial ontology, biology and human variation, as well as the history, political and social relations of power, the nature of individual and social identity, and the constitution of meaning within a social world. This chapter also discusses the question of whiteness and how particular immigrant groups in the United States came to have white status, the connection between racial ontology and a corresponding view of racism and racial liberation, the views of Matthew Frye Jacobson and Theodore Allen, the basic argument for the new abolitionism, whiteness and white supremacy, culture, racial essentialism, history, and contingency.
Fordham Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
‘…from time to time a study comes along that truly can be called ‘path breaking,’ ‘seminal,’ ‘essential,’ a ‘must read.’ How the Irish Became White is such a study.’ John Bracey, W.E.B. Du Bois Department of Afro-American Studies, University of Massachussetts, Amherst
The Irish came to America in the eighteenth century, fleeing a homeland under foreign occupation and a caste system that regarded them as the lowest form of humanity. In the new country – a land of opportunity – they found a very different form of social hierarchy, one that was based on the color of a person’s skin. Noel Ignatiev’s 1995 book – the first published work of one of America’s leading and most controversial historians – tells the story of how the oppressed became the oppressors; how the new Irish immigrants achieved acceptance among an initially hostile population only by proving that they could be more brutal in their oppression of African Americans than the nativists. This is the story of How the Irish Became White. – Amazon
These are not quotes from a Trump rally or an “alt-right” message board. These are historical statements from yesteryear describing a despised race of people in America. They are indicative of the sentiment of white people throughout this country who thought a subhuman species good for nothing but work and servitude might ruin America with their crime, poverty and interbreeding with white women. They were not referring to Africans, Mexicans or Muslims.
They were talking about the Irish.
First, we should get this out of the way: One of the favorite recurring themes of racists in America is the idea that the Irish came to America as slaves and had it as bad as, or worse than, Africans. According to these “racialists,” the European blood in the Irish made them pull themselves up by their bootstraps and integrate themselves into the opening arms of American liberty. They never bitched and moaned about their situation, so …
But as we celebrate the first St. Patrick’s Day of the Trumpian era, we should remember when America passed laws against another group of immigrants. We should recall when this country tried to ban another group of people based on their religion. We should never forget that both “American” and whiteness are sociopolitical constructs that have evolved over a long period of time, always seeking exclusion and supremacy, and it was not so long ago that Irish Americans were on the outside looking in.
In his book The Renegade History of the United States, Thaddeus Russell explains that the first large wave of Irish immigrants worked low-paying jobs—mostly building the canals along the Canadian border—that other Americans wouldn’t do. Like finding out a song you thought was new is actually a 100-year-old remake, the Irish were simultaneously accused of stealing all the good jobs and branded as “lazy” and “shiftless.” They were also thought to be the nonwhite “missing link” between the superior European and the savage African based on stereotypes from the early American media, according to the Boston Globe:
In the popular press, the Irish were depicted as subhuman. They were carriers of disease. They were drawn as lazy, clannish, unclean, drunken brawlers who wallowed in crime and bred like rats. Most disturbingly, the Irish were Roman Catholics coming to an overwhelmingly Protestant nation and their devotion to the pope made their allegiance to the United States suspect.
In 1798, Congress passed three “Alien Acts” based mainly on fears of Irish-Catholic, anti-immigrant sentiment. These new laws gave the president the power to stop immigration from any country at war with the U.S. and the right to deport any immigrant, and made it harder for immigrants to vote. Then, again in the late 1840s, a nationalist political group called the Know-Nothings sprang from a populist movement of poor whites who were dissatisfied with the two-party system and started the American Party, intent on preserving America’s culture by restricting immigration, especially from Catholic countries—including by Irish Catholics. They managed to get candidates elected into the highest political offices in America, including a president.
Does this sound familiar to anyone?