Were they or were they not, Karl Marx and Engels, who educated the world of the notion that man was born
free, but everywhere he is in
chains? Marx and Engels, as expected, were concerned about the alleged exploitation of labor by capital in industrialized societies, where by
chains, I believe they meant oppression from the
socio-economic relations, which the lower classes experienced in Advanced Capitalist Societies. I bet that by
chains the two gurus were not referring to the
enslavement of people of
African descent in United States, which is the focus of my discussion. Otherwise, Marx and Engels would have said the Black man was
born free, but everywhere in United States, he is
chains. To which I would have added, I was born
free in Africa, but, in United states, I am in
chains, because, in the American psyche,
my ancestry is the very repertoire of for
enslavement.
Actually, I am talking about the audacity of the Americans to extend the
CHAINS that they believe they have around the necks of African/Black Americans to me, a
bona fide Ghanaian. “You are in
CHAINS was one of the first salutations I received from Americans when I braced the cold and snow to trek across from the Northern Neighborhood where as I learned slave raiders had been sent from the South to drive me out of what they considered a hideout or haven from the wrath of the arcane slave owners. US
punitive raid against me in Canada was an unjustifiable violation of
international law and my human rights, but the Americans have not as yet risen to full realization of this reality. The
American belief is that given their experience with African Americans, they can confidently conclude that this
African cannot disobey United States order.
There is a logic, a rationality to this audacity, nonetheless. American
supremacists, I have learned, believe that in the era of the
American Century, and with the unchallenged success of
global capitalism, American
power and influence could be extended to every nook and corner of the earth and over every people and nationality on this planet with ease. In other words,
social and economic relations in United States, would be extrapolated, replicated and juxtaposed on the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world likes it or not, as proof that the
American Century has arrived.
One of such sociopolitical relations notably American is the divide between whites and blacks where the former are
Masters and the latter
slaves. In the
American Century, it appears to me that United States believes that Americans should extend this demeaning and dehumanizing
social relations they enjoy at the expense of African Americans to all people of
African origin and ancestry. In other words, Africans must be enslaved by white Americans, because, Africans and Black Americans are of the same ancestry. Therefore, the assumed success of
subjugating the African American offers the American a model for handling all other people of
African ancestry.
As a matter of fact, it is a classic belief among white Americans that your
average black American man would never dare disobey an
authoritative white man. The wrong reasoning in this assumption apparently is that even if the so-called average African American showed respect to the so-called authoritative white man [regarding among other things position or specific issue], this must be understood as the black American sees the white man as his Master, and the respect he just showed was obedience, a forced and compulsory response to a higher order, because, he is a slave, an
inferior human being. In my experience, this is the typology in which white Americans want to organize their relations with Africans, and in particular, with me. Even worse, they want mediate such relations with
slavery and homosexuality.
Americans seem to query thus, why is what is good for the gander not good for the goose? A man was born
black, he is
inferior, whether he was born in America or Africa. Of course, if I applied the goose and gander analogy differently, I could question why white Americans, Arabs and Chinese deserve
freedom and liberty, but not the man or woman of Africans ancestry? And if I ventured so, would I not be vindicated by the First Amendment of the
US Bill of Rights? When it comes to
inherent [natural]rights and the black man, it appears to me as if in Pelosi country, received wisdom is that logic, rationality, common sense and the
constitution should take back seat.I believe that Americans who share in this belief, in 2011 United States, must be ashamed of themselves.
Such
regressive [backward looking] tendencies complicate the
equal protection statutes, the Thirteenth Amendment and the
emancipation proclamations of the US
constitution, a document touted as the model for
governance and civil politics for many modern nations. This is the context in which I will discuss, in my next publication, the
enslavement element is US persecutory programs imposed on me for decades. As most might have gleaned from my publications already, white Americans tried one of their favorite typologies [The average African American versus the authoritative white man] on me and woefully failed. Fully expounded, this view states that the average African American male would always obey the
authoritative white man. This view has been used and continues to be used to shape dynamics between white men and black men in United States. As you might have guessed, the results have been devastating to black men, because, they have been forced to submit to the will of white men in every imaginable way. Americans have ceaselessly tried to organize their relations with me in this typology. It is the failure of such effort [particularly, gay immersion]that has created a
scandalous crisis in this case.
One such failure is the demand by white men and the leadership in North America that I become
homosexual, an insult which I have spat back into their faces. Whether it was the President of United States, billionaire Bill Gates, Politician Nancy Pelosi, or whether they were professors, lawyers and doctors who decided that because they were in places of authority, they would drive roughshod through me by fixing me with a
deviant behavior, they forgot that power, prestige or even authority does not confer the right to impose evil and wrong choices on individuals. They may exercise such right against Americans, but, certainly not against me,
a bona fide Ghanaian. I do consider
homosexuality an evil choice, in the point of view of my
religion and culture, and my
sovereign right to be who and what I so wish. In terms of deviancy, homosexuality was not the only means by which United States sought such portrayal against me. The lessons of misbehavior in this nefarious project of
social engineering included criminality, drug addiction, laziness, alcoholism, economic dependency and abject poverty. I was supposed to learn to acquire these habits just as they are associated with African Americans.
Homosexual immersion became the biggest hit with the people because most North Americans could identify with it. It is used for entertainment and as an instrument of
population control and elimination of the
lineage of undesired people. People with dark skin and
African descent are in this
target group. Moreover, the fact that Americans insist that they would “embarrass me” with this deviant behavior supports my position, not only that homosexuality is a
wrong choice, but also, that indeed, those imposing that choice know that it is a
wrong choice.
Moreover, just because they believe that they could dictate to
African Americans does not mean that they have the right to extrapolate such imposition of denigration onto this African individual.Such a tendency [the typology of choosing
winners and losers, regardless of effort and capability] is oppressive, tyrannical and regressive. But, what has been done in this case is worse than choosing winners and losers; it is creating
Master-slave relations with the mindset that whatever the Master tells the slave to do the slave would do. The extension of this reasoning is that if the slave refuses to obey the Master, then the Master would have to force out
obedience from the slave. If such force fails, then, the Master would have to be
oppressive, torturous and even violent. This is exactly the situation of the instant case. In the mapping of these
Master-slave relations, the Master is the knoll and the slave is the valley part of the topography. This is exactly what Americans have
seized and confined me to implement against me. If this fails, then, many hearts would be broken.
Why would something as
egregious and offensive as described here take place in United States with its professed adherence to
constitutionalism, the rule of law, freedoms, rights and liberty? Better yet, where did all the liberals and progressives in American go for such a thing to happen to a person of
African origins when such are the people[
minorities?] whose causes leftist claim to champion? Of course, many of you reading this question already know that the alleged
liberal-progressive defense of minorities in America is
negative patronage, a notion washed up with
hypocrisy. But that would be another discussion in another publication.
What of the vociferous
constitutionalists, those who champion the cause of the rule of law, individual rights, freedom and liberty, the right to pursue happiness; albeit, defenders of
inalienable rights, the
conservatives, where have they been for such denigration and dehumanization that implicate the gene of their belief system [
their core values?] to take place in United States without protest? When at all, do
universal principles matter?
After years of keenly observing the workings of the
American system, in particular, in the context of this case, I have arrived at a common answer for both questions. And it is a simple answer,
bipartisanism; situations of belief and policy on which the two main opposing parties in United states agree. Since in this discussion reference to parties is not limited to the GOP and the Democrat Party per se, I have concluded that the the concept,
Americanism, aptly describes this phenomenon more than bipartisanism. Still, for all analytical purposes both concepts are inter-operative.
If the issue is
bipartisan, in United States, it is accepted that most Republicans and most Democrats share in the belief giving rise to the issue and
support the policy derived from that issue. This would be similar for conservatives and liberals, the right and left. Of course, the center is icy, and therefore, middle ground issues usually chill into one of the dichotomies. In other words, a center does not exist in
bipartisanism, because, it is conflated into the two main competing sides.
Another sense in which the concept is at play is as in my case, where in addition to the agreement among the poles described above, similar
consensus has been built between whites and blacks, males and females, old and young, heterosexual and homosexual, citizen and immigrant, majority and minority to frame, oppress, humiliate and destroy this African to
protect America. This is
bipartisanism put together by US
Intelligence and
politicians in the age of the American Century. I define this phenomenon as
Americanism. By extension, this means that Americans have to unite whenever one or some of them have an issue with a
non-American. Is there something wrong with Americans uniting to protect their interests and security?
Of course, the keener observer would notice that reference herein made to
unity is to suggest that
force is used to make individuals
compliant in situations where they would have behaved differently. These situations include where the American, otherwise, would be the one who was at fault, but to whose side the people are
instigated to rally. Americans can't allow American fail in as much as justice would benefit the other. This is the aspect of
Americanism at play in my case. The issue could be or not about
national interest. The only requirement needed to invoke
Americanism is that a party to such a conflict is American.
White and black, conservative and liberal, man and woman, boy and girl, citizen and immigrant, Republican and Democrat, believe that those who violated me must be protected, even if that means that I continue to suffer till I
drop dead here in United states. In fact, “We should all support America,” remains the fabric of the societal agreement to carry on with the
conspiracy. “ Otherwise,
society would fall and hearts would be broken” “He is
capable of destroying community.” In this sense of
Americanism, America does no wrong. “After all,
Bill Gates acquired the guy, there should be no fear
subjugating him.” With this mindset, diversion from absolute loyalty and the slightest sign of unfettered allegiance requite
severe punishment from Americana. The media, courts, ethnicities, bureaucracies, social, political and civil organizations must respond commonly to this
loyalty compliance feed system to protect America. “The guy was acquired.” America must protect this
system of acquisition, namely, enslavement, no matter how specious the
conspiracy. If such
acquisition actually took place, it would still be a crime, an egregious violation of the
Universal declaration of Human Rights
When the message is communicated to the people then that Ohene is in
CHAINS, that he is the
white man's dog, so
acquired for experiments and to be a homosexual, every body is expected to treat him with disrespect, because, h
e is a slave, he has the social rank of a domesticated animal and he lives a deviant lifestyle. In the
American Century, even if the people know otherwise, they would be told to shut up and play for America. This is the
system of absolute loyalty and unfettered allegiance, the choking of expression and the closure for liberty,
Americanism.
Even
African Americans do not find such denigration likened to their status revolting and objectionable. Some of them are relieved to see
Africans suffer in this country.In fact, one of them uses the
Akan phrase for "
suffer" ["di eyaw" or "di yaw"] to convey the level of her satisfaction with the dire predicament that I face in this case in America. Similarly, following African American hate examples, Americans taunt me with "enjoy or experience poverty" ['di hia' or 'di ohia']. To the satisfaction of the
slave drivers, the American public actually loves these
dehumanizing taunts and mistreatment.
Most of them are comforted to see me
tortured and oppressed. In San Francisco, Africans Americans are comforted to know that I am treated like a
slave and homosexual, social categories designed to isolate some of them from
modernity. For them this is exoneration that all people of
African ancestry must serve and obey the white man, freedom and liberty eschewed, or better yet, must be preserved for whites and Americans. African/Black Americans have made huge
emotional investments in this case, and as such, if the programs stop, or if I am let go alive, African/Black American
hearts would be broken.
As so-called
defenders of the system that denigrates them, African Americans have their own agenda of torment and
punishment for Africans like me. This is why the elite among them [
the slave drivers] have actively led the oppressive activities against me in United States. Despite
civil rights agitations and public postures that tend to suggest fraternity with Africans, I am convinced that this is the level of
bipartisanship that has provide
white violators in the case protection against prosecution for these
human rights violations. African American elite extend the ends of their
chains to black people for white acceptance., perhaps, mutual protection, confident that Africans would never figure it out. They feel so superior to Africans so as to believe that they are shielded from exposure just by the very fact of that sense of that feel superiority. Is this false consciousness? Whatever this is, the
black-white bipartisanship provided the comfort zone not only for the
slave raiders, but also, for the gay and sex change practitioners, who would also be heart broken, should I end up not being homosexual. Do you see how a hate crime of this horrible nature has been turned into a project of emotions by supremacist, African/Black Americans and homosexuals?
The failure of the effort to extend
American exploitative,
punitive and oppressive relations mediated by
African Americans and gays to me is what this
scandal is all about. When United States sends troops to attack a
Ghanaian studying in Canada to STOP his advancement, this is not a political matter resolvable in-house in America, because, the Ghanaian is not a member of the American polity. This is an
international criminal matter, which calls for audience in an
appropriate international forum. If the objective of the US raid on this Ghanaian was to show that US could extend its
domination to all people of African ancestry, and to prove that as far as US is concerned, all people of A
frican origins can and must be enslaved, or must be mistreated, oppressed and dominated by white people, then, this is more than an international political issue. I hope that the
African Union would wake up to this missive, because, this is a declared
biological warfare against Africans.
If United States leaders and its most mentioned businessman in connection with this case,
Bill Gates, believe that due to their
power and money, they would acquire me against all reason and laws, interfere in my life to prevent me from succeeding against prudence, impose homosexual programs on to humiliate me and stunt
my lineage in violation of all international human rights laws, then, I would expect that all reasonable, civilized and conscientious people would find such activities to be unlawful and objectionable. If Americans are concerned not with the destruction of
my life, career and family, but, instead, with all the soft
American hearts broken, then, this is vile
Americanism. This is why I have resolved that I will break more of these hearts rather than allow the enemy to break my family or me.
Ohene Boakye-Yiadom
TRAFFIC LINKS
Get Traffic Supremacy now... Click here!
CHECK OUT TRAFFIC SUPREMACY!
WEBSITES2.0, FREE EVERY MONTH! CLICK HERE.
ADVERTYZE.COM
