"The leader says to his people: 'In order for me to help you,
you have to remain in need of help. You can never rise above your need
for me. Catch my drift? That's our bargain.'" (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
"Inner
city gangs assist political leaders. First, gangs keep the local
population under the gun, in a state of fear, so that nothing good can
take root and grow in those communities. Second, gangs distribute
drugs. Government is in the drug business." (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Inner
cities are about money, and any American president since Lyndon Johnson
could have seen it in an hour, if he had bothered to look, if he cared,
if he really intended to help solve the problem of inner cities.
But
solving problems was never the objective, and that's important to know
because, now, with explosions of violence rippling in inner cities of
America, the original crisis has become much worse---and therein lies a
clue:
The goal was always destruction, decimation, and loss of
hope in inner cities, leading to violence and more violence---which
becomes part of the excuse for the spreading onrush of the militarized
police state.
So let's get to the money.
A 1993 Cato Institute Essay,
"The Myth of America: Underfunded Cities," by Stephen Moore and Dean Stansel, makes this stunning point:
"Since
1965 the federal government has spent an estimated $2.5 trillion on the
War on Poverty and urban aid. (That figure includes all spending on
welfare, Medicaid, housing, education, job training, and infrastructure
and direct aid to cities.) Economist Walter Williams has calculated that
that is enough money to purchase all the assets of the Fortune 500
companies plus all of the farmland in the United States. But it has not
spurred urban revival."How is that possible?
How do you spend $2.5 trillion and achieve no revival?
Sheer
administrative incompetence doesn't explain it. Not even close. First
of all---and any well-intentioned government would investigate this
down to the core---you find out where exactly all the money went.
This has never been done.
It's
safe to assume there are people who've gotten very rich off this
feast. Huge sums never ended up where they were supposed to go.
Instead, they were diverted and stolen. On top of that, a relatively
minor chunk of the $2.5 trillion was hijacked after it reached local
administrators in the inner cities.
But what about the massive
federal dollars that did arrive at proper destinations? What happened
there? For that, we have to look at how government traditionally
operates.
It gives money as a form of welfare. It creates some
government jobs. It funds programs that are aimed at "improving
conditions." But it almost never does something that will invigorate or
create a local economy.
I'm talking about the creation of small
businesses, real ones. Because that's how you initiate an actual local
economy. That's the only way.
You fund 20 small businesses in an
area, and now you have people with jobs, with income, and you have the
production of goods and services that people in the neighborhood will
buy. With 200 small businesses, and then 2000, you'll get people who
can afford to buy what is produced locally. The money circulates.
That's how it works. That's called a recovery.
On top of that,
you use a bit of that federal money to create community projects that
really count. For example, urban gardens and farms. People grow their
own food. They share and trade food. They eat. The food is healthy.
By
now, there could be and should be thousands of these flourishing urban
gardens in inner cities across America. Many thousands. But there
aren't.
When a community, with help, lifts itself up beyond a
certain point, economically, and sees the light at the end of the
tunnel, their resistance to crime and drugs and shootings and the
recruitment of their children into gangs intensifies. They change the
culture.
I'm not saying this is walk in the park. It isn't.
There are other factors. Yes, large corporations have fled from inner
cities, and so has the middle class, and banks have intentionally
cheated homeowners on their mortgages, and there are certain police
forces who are corrupt and brutal.
But if the federal government
had ever wanted to help lift life up in inner cities, it would have gone
after these banks long, long ago. It would have routed out corrupt
cops long, long ago. It would have gone after emerging gangs long, long
ago.
These days, government does little more than use the
residents of inner cities as propaganda props to enforce tactics of
political correctness, stir up racial conflict, foster permanent
dependency, and label whole classes of people as permanent victims.
You
see, if these inner cities ever came back, ever moved up the economic
ladder, ever triumphed, the government would take a serious hit. A very
serious hit. Its whole program would go down the drain, in just the
same way the cancer treatment industry would take a major torpedo if
truly workable cures were deployed.
The State is a vampire, and it must have victims on which to feed. Yesterday, today, tomorrow.
We
have reached a place in this psyop where the victims are being fed
encouragement to establish themselves as forever-crippled with
forever-rights and demands that must be met and will never be entirely
met.
"Don't achieve economic success. Never do that. That'll ruin everything."
This kind of propaganda is gasoline poured on a fire. Which is the precise objective.
When
you peel away the veneer of "deep concern" the government has for "the
less fortunate," what you see is a stark demeaning attitude: "We know
you're hopeless, you can't do anything for yourselves, you'll never win,
but we can fulfill our agenda on your backs, as long as you stay
dependent."
Let me reiterate the crucial point:
the
recovery of inner cities is all about creating local economies that
work. There is no recovery without that. Everything else is
destructive in the long run. Financially and psychologically
destructive.An allied fact: most people who are
unemployed want to work. They prefer work to welfare. In the absence
of jobs and local businesses, people will accept welfare rather than
starve. That's obvious. But when most of the incoming money is devoted
to welfare, and work doesn't show up, the negative vortex takes over.
No comments:
Post a Comment