The Future in the 21st Century (Real Information)

 

There is a huge discussion about the BRICS movement. BRICS stands for the Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. It deals with the global economic hegemonic situation in the world. There are challenges that the BRICS order must face. Some view it as a positive force in world affairs. Each of those nations has a huge potential for more economic growth. In the 21st century, these countries will have great issues and great economic growth potentially. These countries have young population demographics as well. They export a huge amount of manufactured goods. Even Russia and Brazil have been exporters of raw materials. These nations are economically and political diverse with different levels of development. They are geographically separated, but they are the future in high level economies as well. They had their first summit meeting in June of 2009 in Yekaterinburg, Russia. Summits spread all over the world from Brasilia, Brazil in 2010, Sanya, China in 2011, in New Delhi, India in 2012, and in Durban, South Africa in 2013. BRICS includes about 3 billion people with a total estimated GDP of nearly $14 trillion and around $4 trillion of foreign exchange reserves. It is competing against the North (or Western economic powerbases). They have pledged 75 billion dollars to the International Monetary Fund (conditional on IMF voting reform). They want to have bilateral trade in each other's currencies. They want to have a development bank too. They want a shared approach in foreign policies (when the Western powers deals with the Middle East and elsewhere). India can learn much from Brazil and China in dealing with development banks. BRICS wants to deal with the green economy. There is also great potential for ‘Marshall Plan’-type capital flows from surplus to deficit countries (even those outside the BRICS) to enable them to withstand the impact of global recession – and a BRICS Bank could be a first step in that direction. BRICS have challenges. They should diversify exports. They should have a Marshall Plan in having real solutions in their regions. There are economic inequality issues, human rights issues, and other political problems in the entire BRICS framework too. The Gini coefficients in all of these nations must improve. The Gini coefficient defines economic inequality in a specific country. Human rights must be advanced and real jobs should be sent to all inhabitants of BRICS without exception. BRICS must deal with the Global South including the Group of 77. South-South integration is a must where developing countries can grow. Corporate exploitation is out of the question. Multinational corporations should not dominate the national affairs of BRICS at all. Imperialism and capitalism go hand in hand, so we must reject imperialism completely as racist (and nefarious since it is a system that dominates innocent human beings in an evil, inappropriate fashion). There must been great employment, ecological protection, and a more people oriented society for BRICS (and nations globally). So, BRICS have the right to create unique ways to have cooperation and real economic growth to benefit all of the people.

New York City is experiencing a new era. The Democratic new mayor Bill de Blasio has his time. He defeated the Republican Joe Lhota. Bill de Blasio is the first Democratic mayor in nearly a quarter of a century. He comes after the two term Republican reactionary mayor Rudy Giuliani and the three term rule of billionaire Michael Bloomberg. New York citizens are tired of the growth of social inequality in their city. So, they mostly voted against Joe Lhota. The city boasts the largest concentration of billionaires on the planet. One fifth of the population barely survives on $9.000 or less a year. Only 24 percent of registered voters cast their ballots in the election. Just 16 percent of those registered voted for de Blasio. Some of the poor and the working people of New York City are disillusioned and they are hostile to both major political parties. We live in a new era. We have seen the multi-trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street that has done nothing to massively address the unemployment and austerity for the working class (and all of the people). The 93 percent of the income growth came to the top one percent. Most folks are suffering a decline in living standards. We have domestic and worldwide spying by the Western intelligence agencies (not just by the NSA). The West has conducted criminal operations overseas from drone assassinations to wars of aggression in Libya including Syria. We shall see what de Blasio will do after his tale of two cities speech. De Blasio is a Democratic Party operative. He was a functionary in the Clinton administration. He managed the successful campaign of Hillary Clinton for the U.S. Senate in New York. De Blasio even in September of 2013 tries to talk with the financial predators of Wall Street as a means to gain political votes. He received more than 3 times as much in campaign cash and enjoyed considerably more support from the big banks than even Lhota. Lhota was a former investment banker who does not even want an insignificant rise in city taxes on New York's richest (as de Blasio wants). The executives form Goldman Sachs and top hedge funds funded the De Blasio campaign. There is a threat of a 2 billion budget deficit and union issues in NYC. De Blasio has to deal with stop and frisk and with the NYPD issues. The NYPD ought to be ashamed of itself for not only police brutality, but for their role in harming the human rights of the Black Panthers in the past too. We should continue to disagree with the domination of society and the monopolization of wealthy by a tiny oligarchy that precludes any genuine democracy. So, we shall see what De Blasio will do as the new Mayor of New York City. It will be fair to see what will happen. Likewise, regardless of who is mayor of NYC, we should continue to fight for justice.

The White House has apologized for the errors found in the website and the cancellation notices from health insurers due to the Affordable Care Act or the ACA.  In a White House interview Thursday, NBC’s Chuck Todd asked the president to speak on “the most quoted thing or requited thing you have said in your presidency, ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.’” The White House has experienced much criticism for the controversies behind the ACA. We know that Big Pharma and the elite helped to create the law in the first place. What we have is neo-colonialism here. The President now is the spokesman for this 1 percent agenda. He is the scapegoat for the policies of white supremacy. So, it is like the white supremacy power structure uses some black human beings as a means to continue with the status quo. That is why much of the policies of the Obama administration are nothing more than a continuation of the policies from the previous Bush administration. In recent weeks, hundreds of thousands of individuals and families who buy their own health insurance—those not insured through their employers or a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid—have received cancellation notices from their insurers. Many have found that premiums for replacement policies cost much more. The White House claims that such actions were done to improve the quality and accessibility of health care for the American people (and replacing bad plans with good plans that have standards). So, the President made an error by saying that if you like your health care, then you should keep it. As early as June 2010, less than three months after the passage of the health care bill, written ACA regulations included an estimate that “40 to 67 percent” of the 11 million to 14 million people insured through the individual market would not be able to keep their coverage, and that the figure might be even higher. Private insurers were going to dump these people. The new law needs new, cash paying customers to get insurance exchanges. They must buy insurance or face a penalty. Many are being forced onto ACA exchanges as a means to increase the pool of customers. Second, the ACA requires that people with preexisting conditions cannot be denied coverage, and it sets out 10 “essential” services, such as preventive and maternity care, that must be covered by insurance policies. But it does not require the private insurers to foot the bill for these changes in coverage. Many of the people being dropped by their insurers have policies that do not cover these “essential” services. When these policies are rewritten to include them, the increased costs are being passed on to the customers. Obama alluded to this when he commented Thursday: “A lot of these plans are subpar plans. And we put in a clause in the law that said if you had one of those plans, even if it was subpar—when the law was passed, you could keep it. But there’s enough churn in the market that folks since then have bought subpar plans. And now that may be all they can afford.” The one “fix” suggested by Obama for the people being dropped from coverage would be to allow their “subpar” plans to be grandfathered as well. So, these plans were in risk of being dropped if they were purchased after March of 2010. We know that the ACA was about reform not radical solutions to the profit driven health care system in America.  A single payer plan—similar to many other industrialized countries, where health care is sponsored by the state—was never on the table. Even a token “government-run option” on the insurance exchange was dismissed out of hand early on in the congressional debate. The ACA law was created to increase the profits of the private insurers and many of its costs are shifted to working families and the poor. Even the least expensive Bronze plans may offer the “essential” services, but they carry the highest out-of-pocket costs, and limit choices of doctors and hospitals. Most folks will not have access to the website until the end of November. So, the ACA will give many humans health care, but not all. It was a watered down law that is not single payer health care. Single payer health care is superior to the ACA.

 

There is a discussion about GMOs and Morgellons Disease. The growth of biotechnology in the States has increased since the Clinton administration. We know that agri-business and giant transnational corporations have flooded the food market with GMOs or genetically modified organisms. Folks from across the political spectrum have questioned GMOs as having risk factors and its potential of harming the environment of the Earth. It can economically harm the world's economy. There are health concerns that deal with it. Some believe that Morgellons disease is related to the ingestion of GMO foods. Very few information is known about Morgellons disease. Sufferers were told at first that their problem was imaginary. This was of little comfort to the people who were suffering. Its sufferers talk about strange, fiber like material sticking out of sores and wounds that erupt on the skin. This is accompanied by painful, intense itching. It has been described as an ever present sensation as if something is crawling under the skin. On May 18, 2006, there was a KGW local news channel reporting out of the Oregon areas published a story on this horrendous disease. Dr. Drottar in the story said that folks said that the disease caused them to feel like bugs were crawling under their skins. The Morgellons lesions were very painful. It can be found in even a three year old boy. Now, we have little information about the long term health effects of GMO crops on humans or animals, because GMO technology is rather recent. There is even less information on the research correlating Morgellons with GMO foods. There have not been tons of studies to research the possible link between Morgellons diseases and GMO foods. There are many risks with GMOs. Some of the elite have deceived impoverished farmers into purchasing patented GMO seeds. According to Mike Stagman, PhD, “Genetic Engineering is a nightmare technology that has already caused MANY disease epidemics — documented but unpublicized.” There was an article by Whitley Strieber published on October 12, 2007, titled “Skin Disease May Be Linked to GM Food”  concluded that the fibers taken from a Morgellons sufferer contain the same substance that is “used commercially to produce genetically-modified plants." Researcher Ahmed Kilani researched samples of the fibers from the skin of Morgellons disease sufferrers. He found that the fibers belonged to a fungus. An even more provocative finding is that biochemist Vitaly Citovsky discovered that the fibers contain a substance called “Agrobacterium,” which, according to New Scientist, is “used commercially to produce genetically-modified plants.”  Some believe that GM plants could be causing a new human disease. The giant transnational corporations are behind the GMO revolution. There is no massive labeling of GMO foods in stores nationwide. Folks are eating these foods and many do not know that such chemicals are in these foods. Most processed foods contain genetically engineered ingredients that can have disastrous effects on both animal and human health. So, we should be health conscious. We should research the facts and draw legitimate conclusions about this issue. We should be progressive and tolerant with our human race. We ought to continue to respect Nature and the environment. When we respect Nature, we respect our spiritual insights and we respect the Universe in general. There is cause and effect. If you do the right thing out of a sincere justification, then blessings from the Creator will come to you. It is as simple as that.

 

We know about the truth. Humans have the right to be developed by communities of families, neighborhood, cities, religious locations, etc. This development grows the social structures of the nation-state. The human can reach his or her full potential within the dense network of relationships. These relationships deal with many mutual rights and duties. These rights are formed in communities and folks have an obligation to be moral in these communities. Altruism and justice are legitimate aims for all human beings to aspire to. True liberty allows human beings to live in society to do legitimate things within moral boundaries. A negative liberty is when a person wants to do whatever he or she wants without hindrance from another person or hindrance from legitimate social boundaries. Negative liberty views any coercion (even legitimate coercion like rules against abuse and mistreatment) as the greatest evil. Between the end of WWI to the late 1970's, America saw a growth of social democratic laws and rules. America's standard of living grew in leaps and bounds, revolutions grew, and society changed forever. During that period, the differences in income between the rich and poor shrank to their lowest level. The portion of national income going to the top 10 percent fell from its prewar high of nearly 50 percent in 1928 to a low of about 33% and stayed there from 1942 to 1982. America created a more egalitarian society in that time period. During this period, the CEO of a great company might make 20 times what his line workers made. That is enough to make one comfortable, but it falls far short of the 300-500 multiple that a CEO makes today.  Medicare and Medicaid came about in that time period. Even Ayn Rand ended up taking Medicare and she despised anyone who took government aid. For individualism and collectivism have roles in society. They are not necessarily opposites, since individualism is the prerequisite of collectivism. In other words, you need to be an individual, but you can cooperate with others to build up a greater society (as a means to benefit all of the people). We must deal with the individual and social parameters of society as a means to grow up society prodigiously. That is why we should oppose capitalist greed and selfish self-interest. These things must be tempered with legitimate government regulation and a concern for the common good (including the taxation and redistribution of excessively high incomes). Antinomianism can be defined as selective or partial obedience. The Antinomian typically finds certain commands unpalatable or too difficult; those commands are ignored or explained away. Therefore, we should reject antinomianism since there is a right and a wrong. We should abhor evil and follow righteousness in our lives without compromise. So, the Golden Rule is great to adhere to. Now, we should always denounce the evil central banks, the evil actions from the 1 percent, high level political groups, and the nefarious deeds from the Vatican/Jesuit network (which has been advancing crimes for centuries against human beings from across backgrounds) in the world too. I will continue to do that without apology or compromise at all.  Capitalism, despite the disingenuous defense given by its supporters, is neither pro-market nor anti-state. It always seeks to replace free completion in the market with the rule of monopolies and oligopolies. And it is always in the self-interest of the monopolists to have a large and pliant government that can serve their interests. The higher the piles of capital, we see the thicker the walls of unjust laws and unjust governmental policies in existence as a means for the elite to protect them. That is why we need fair regulation and efficient government to provide for the general welfare of society. Society is for the people not for the corporations.

 

By Timothy