Home | About | Donate

Brutality is Our Society's Trademark—From the Justice System to Healthcare


Brutality is Our Society's Trademark—From the Justice System to Healthcare

Donna Smith

Over the past several weeks, we've seen so many examples of brutality played out in our cities -- and mostly our most impoverished areas -- that it isn't difficult to see why so many people are in the streets. Many say white people cannot truly understand the deep racial issues that target African American people and their communities, and that is no doubt true. But that sort of thinking also keeps groups of people apart who might otherwise band together to exert powerful forces on the corruption that manifests itself in so many places in our society.


Thank you Ms. Smith. I've been trying to avoid the conclusion stated in your headline, but sadly, there is simply too much evidence to come to any other. It's a hardball culture and it seems like we wouldn't have it any other way.


I am very sorry to hear of what you've recently gone through. Hospitals are petri-dishes for infection, particularly these days with antibiotic resistance down due to its overuse in "factory animal" feeding lots.

However, there is a major contradiction between your embrace of the Dominator Culture... via the use of the WE-frame in this paragraph, and what you earlier pointed out about how individuals are REJECTED from access to health care if and when they protest. (That is not consent-based, it's legal extortion along with bribery.)

I am responding to this:

"Yet in so many areas of our society we've come to accept that economic disparity is an acceptable method of segregation. We see it as the individual's fault if he or she has not worked his or her way out of difficult economic conditions. Black, brown or white, if you haven't worked hard enough to lift yourself out, you deserve to struggle for life's basic necessities."

Until there is an equivalence between the voices/power of The People and that of the for-profit corporations, it is counterproductive to take what's pushed onto the citizenry with a media echoing a new version of Calvinism and argue that THIS is what people believe. There's miles of difference between what is believed and what is possible when a nation succumbs to corporate tyranny. And THAT is the case now. People are fighting back on numerous fronts ranging from Fracking to opposing the idiot use of ridiculously narrow standardized tests.

From wars planned before their triggers are fixed into place, to wages that can't keep up with the costs of living, to the health "care" agenda decided behind closed doors, to the new TIPP and TPP being "fast tracked" behind veils of secrecy... it is precisely because the PUBLIC is not part of these top-down "father knows best" patriarchal-capitalistic decisions, one cannot say that the public embraces these stances.

The ILLUSION of consent is a major facet of propaganda and a captured media is catapulting IT 24/7. It's wise to discern the difference between ACTUAL sentiments and that which is part of a controlled feedback loop in place precisely to blame voters/citizens/consumers for matters TOTALLY outside of their control within the current Inverted Totalitarian System.

I hope you heal!


WE have nothing to do with it, clown. The casual disregard for human health within a nation subsumed by a covert coup by the MIC, and now operating by and through Deep State Interests has NOTHING to do with this homogenous blob called WE. It's the direct result of oligarchic capitalistic controls and boards of directors that view human disease as a basis for profits.

It is precisely this Meme that seeks to obliterate all that Occupy Wall Street exposed... by glossing over the FACT that the 1% owns the banks, public policy, the media, the courts, and much of academe... and the 99% are struggling on numerous "fronts" against their system of profit-based controls and penalties.

Of course the "blame citizens/voters" Tag Team would latch onto this... that's your number 1 Talking Point.


Mr Ron Paul , a hero of some here with policies advocated by those so called "Libertarians" stated in answer to a question about what to do with a person that needed life saving health care if said person had no insurance words to the effect of "this is a free country and he made his choice when he decided not to buy insurance"

This brought cheers from his supporters in the audience part of that brutality that Ms Smith speaks of.

It interesting to note the demographics of "Libertarians".of that Ron Paul mode.

94 percent are NON Hispanic whites. 68 of those non Hispanic white supporters of the creed are white males.

They are in fact part of that dominator culture and represent "white male privilege". That is all they represent and that is all they are interested in protecting. This is why Universal Health care and Social program spending and initiatives so as to help those that do not belong to that demographic are so vocally opposed by the same claiming it leads to "market distortions" and "Government debt". Like those Dominionists who now suggest that RICH people deserve their wealth because their GOD is rewarding them for their faith these people that continue to cite the market suggest that those white non hispanic males deserved of their own privilege because of "market forces". As far as they are concerned "white non hispanic males" have a higher value especially those that are already wealthy..

They can not handle the thought that other people think they are their equals .

While I am white and a male these people do not speak for me. Health care IS a human right and should be provided equally to all.


That health care is traded as a commodity by businesses whose main and possibly sole interest is to make profits - is that surprising? After all, the same thing applies with say housing. Houses and apartments are built not just because people arehomeless and need a roof over their heads. The same principle - and you are right to say this is one of "brutality" - the fundamental principle in our crazy capitalist world is one of rationing by the wallet. No money - and you and your health needs just don't exist. After all, the so-called free marketis one where prices are determined by the push and pull of supply and demand, and clearly demand is not the same thing as need.
If you need medical treatment and it isn't covered by the terms of your insurance policy, or you don't have insurance , unless there is some form of social insurance scheme, your needs just don't register.
I live in Britain and since the 1940s we have had a National Health Service. In theory and to a large extent in practce, this means one can mostly expect treatment without any question about payment.That's the theory. But down the years the NHS has been woefully under-funded by the governments of the day - they always have enough money for wars, but hate to spend more than the barest minimum on health, housing etc. The result is lots of people feeling they must pay for private treatment rather than endure long waiting lists before they can have the operation they need.
You point too to the fact that people's protests and campaigns are on a number of fronts, over a number of different issues. - racking,, anti-war, the Occupy movement, the environment etc.
But one could say that all these issues, all these problems, are caused by the nature of this economic system, one where the cash nexus is the sole connection permitted, and where sordid and mercenary concerns dominate policy-making. That being the case, isn't it time we united and organised to get rid of this vile, competitive production for profit system? A system which punishes the needy and rewards the already filthy rich, and which simply cannot be made to work in the interest of the vast majority, those whose hard work keeps the world going, but who are treated as expendable and 'redundant' when a business decides to down-size so as ensure the dividends it will pay out to its shareholders and the banks etc. The system of production for profit .fails since it is not geared to producing to respond to people's needs.. Just as you can't get water to run upstream, likewise you cannot make this system into one of humanity and decency.It will always be what you said, a system of brutality.
But surely we should be doing something, not simply putting up with it? Is this the sort of world we want for our children and their children in the future? A world racked with wars, and one where a tiny fraction of the population live high on the hog ,while the vast majority are struggling to get by!.
I tell you what I'd like to see: a strong movement by the workers in all countries, organising themselves democratically with a clear sense of why this system is not in our interests and also a clear agrreement as to what we need to do to bring about a more humane world, one without wars and poverty. Not too much to ask, I hope?


Also, bout antibiotics and MRSA infections, such as your very nasty hospital-acquired infection.
Some years ago I came across a lecture by a scientist in that field,also an article in a pharmaceutical journal. Both pointed out how viruses had quickly evolved in response to our use of antibiotics so as to become highly resistant. That meant thta the antibiotics available were no longer effective in many cases. In addition, during the last few decades the pharmaceutical companies had slowed down and in many cases simply stopped researching and putting on the market any new types of antibiotics. Largely such decisions were made on commercial grounds: it may be more profitable to invest in treatments for cancer, for instance, rather than to invest heavily in the lengthy and costly process of developing a new antibiotic which may be of use only to a small number of patients,and which may have only a short time in use before drug resistance means that this too will need to be replaced. this problem is caused by the production for profit system, which has meant that the scientific research of big pharmaceutical firms is not directed into this field..
Like any other industry, the pharmaceutical industry is driven by the need to maximize its profits. That is the principle which determines what sort of treatments and drugs are developed.
Maybe if enough of us catch nasty MRSA infections they may consider this is a 'market' worth going into! |Maybe...


Another study down in the USA showed that the Hospitals that had the highest amounts of secondary infections and more return patients due to poor care provided the first time around HAD HIGHER PROFITS.


Natural medicine has means of treating MRSA and other antibiotic resistant viruses.

Putting faith in Big Pharma is a foolish waste of time.

Better to put energy into stopping the standard use of antibiotics in raising animals and in getting rid of antibacterial soaps, hand lotions, etc.


@SuspiraDeProfundis I saw the debate in which Ron Paul was asked about health care. Before he could answer, the questioner said "should we let people die. The audience burst into applause and cheers and Ron Paul never did get an opportunity to answer. I saw many new reports which attributed the "we should let people die" line to Ron Paul.

Did you see the debate or the reporting of it?


According to recent statistics (see: mercola.com, search 3rd leading cause of death) the third cause of death after heart disease and cancer is medical care. This includes death by "approved" pharmaceuticals, medical errors, diagnostic errors, etc. Estimated cost $750 billion.

Then there are experiences like this one where they provide the infection and then get paid to treat it.

Unless you have a medical emergency/trauma or truly need surgery; avoid the medical monopoly, learn about natural medicine/nutritional medicine/functional medicine and pay your own bills or pay those of someone who cannot pay. Constant complaining when it is clear no one is doing anything is just as bad as the system itself.

By the way, I have my own concerns about Dr Oz but the gang of "illustrious physicians" that attacked him included someone who lost his license due to medicaid fraud and another who is an officer/director of the ACSH (American Council for Science and Health) which is funded by Big Pharma, Big Ag and tobacco companies. They have been spewing "scientific" BS for at least 40 years.


O wise one! I disagree with you not at all.
With your considerable animus toward the U.S., I urge you to consider petitioning other countries for asylum.


I saw the debate. He indicated up front that the person made his choice when he decided to to buy health care.

These are the words.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?
PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical
policy, but not be forced –
BLITZER: But he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?
PAUL: That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody –

He calls it freedom and Individual choice. He then gives his answer that any health care for such people should be provided by Charity.I am sorry but having no access to health care unless some Charity provides it is not freedom and is not really a matter of choice. No one "chooses to be poor so they can not afford health care"

This is not a health Care system. When a system has to rely on Charity to get people enough to eat drink shelter or health care the system is broken.An entire group of people having to rely on Charity just to survive entrenches the class based system. It has nothing to do with "Freedom". It has to do with keeping people in penury.

A just society does not rely on charity to address injustice unless it a nation of beggars one wants relying on the hand of their "betters" to be clothed and fed.


Why would viruses evolve in response to antibiotics? I know people mistakenly take antibiotics for a virus.


Thank you. I would agree with your perspective. I'm guessing we saw different debates as I don't have cable and forgot to record 2 of the 3 that were available. I have also read an article by him about what kind of a Presidency he would have and he addresses that issue. And, yes, he's very focused on charity but in the article he made two other points. .One, that making these changes was not a priority and that he had never run a campaign based on it--his priorities were war/civil liberties, cutting corporate welfare and financial restructuring; and two, he does not support cutting people off and would only end gov't payments when other systems were operating.


Oh dear, sunnysideup - did you not get to learn any science , e.g.basic biology?
I'll try to explain.We take antibiotics to fight an infection. That is because this is thought by mainstream medics to be the best way of countering viruses. The problem is that a virus is a living organism. If we use antibiotics stupidly - as happens with their routine over-use in agriculture,and also when a patient doesn't use the full course of antibiotics, assuming that as the symptoms have gone away, so has the infection - the result is that the virus having had a slight dose of antibiotic, not enough to kill it, will begin to develop some resistance to that antibiotic, and possibly tom several others too.
In short, given the quantities of antibiotics that have been used over the last half-century or so, a large number of viruses have developed or evolved into new forms with considerable resistance to most if not all the antibiotics currently in use..
As I commented earlier, the Big Pharma companies being commercial businesses have over the last few decades more or less given up on doing any R and D work which is what is needed if they are going to come up with a new class of antibiotics for the future. I'm sure they'll have taken a look at the question and decided that the costs would be too great, the risk of not being able to develop something which would be a viable proposition, and above all the need to make a profit: all this means that this is not a business proposition. Profit is the name of the game.
It is in the business world that the old 'survival of the fittest' mantra rules. That is why in the pharmaceutical industry there are now relatively few large conglomerates, Back in the 1950s there were about a dozen large pharmaceutical firms active in this field and developing new antibiotics years after year.. Now only a handful of huge conglomerates remain capable of doing this sort of costly research.
One of capitalism's laws is that "big fish swallow little fish". these companies - just as in the IT industry (think Microsoft).
We live in a world dom


Sorry folk - technical glitch!
Thanks SuspiraDeProfundis - good point.
I suspect that there is a perverse incentive at work here. If patients get poor treatment in hospital, they will occupy the hospital bed longer, consume more medicine , or the governments and medical tests galore etc. Where hospitals are run as commercial businesses, that is to their advantage and makes them more profits - so long as they don't actually kill their patients. (That might bring bad publicity and lose them some business.)
In Britain,as the NHS hospital trusts have become increasingly commercial, they have in recent years required their staff to sign gagging agreements, contracts which ban them talking to the Press. As a result,with few daring to be whistle-blowers, some serious problems have gone on for years.
The 'national interest' is lazy-speak for the need to prevent 'welfare' and 'benefits'" bankrupting the country." Odd isn't it the way they make out that a relatively small amount spent on keeping their wage-slaves healthy and fit enough to work is so darned expensive and likely to "ruin the nation" But- it's a different story when the Ministry of Defence/War.wants a blank cheque for some ghastly new killing hi-tech wizardry, or the government itself decides to support some crazy Middle East war ! Then of course money's not a problem. That's a matter of the 'national interest'. But the welfare, the true well-being of their workforce - hat's not a matter of any real importance, except when, like now, they so sincerely desire our votes!!!


Someone made a link to the Keiser report the other day which reported on the outright fraud that goes on in the British system with what are called privat public partnerships here in Canada.

They are just a way of converting health care spending into profits for private corporations and will track up billions more in new debt that the old NHS would not of


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.