Wednesday, July 9, 2008

MOGOK PENULISAN MERUGIKAN RAKYAT

Oleh Ibrahim Yahaya
(Sinar Harian: 9/7/2008)


Mogok bukan baru di negara ini. Ada pelbagai jenis mogok di Malaysia yang kebiasaannya bertujuan meluahkan perasaan tidak puas hati terhadap sesuatu perkara. Ia juga bertujuan untuk menarik perhatian masyarakat dan golongan berkepentingan terhadap sesuatu isu yang ingin diperjuangkan. Biasanya ia membabitkan isu orang ramai.

Pekerja mogok kerana tidak puas hati dengan kedudukan gaji mereka atau kemudahan bekerja yang tidak mencukupi. Mereka mogok kerana sikap zalim majikan. Pekerja akan mogok dengan tidak membuat kerja dalam tempoh waktu tertentu.

Sasterawan Negara, Datuk A Samad Said, pernah mengadakan “mogok seni” pada 1990 dan “mogok sastera” pada 2000. Beliau tidak puas hati dengan tindakan pihak tertentu berhubung dengan pemasaran karyanya. Malah, beliau pernah tidak mahu menggunakan nama Sasterawan Negara yang dianugerahkan kepadanya.

Presiden Barisan Progresif India ( IPF), mendiang Tan Sri MG Pandithan pernah “mogok lapar” kerana tidak puas hati dengan ketuanya, Datuk Seri S Samy Vellu, pada 1988. Pergeseran Samy Vellu-Pandithan bermula apabila presiden IPF itu diberikan surat tunjuk sebab selepas didakwa mengamalkan politik berorientasikan kasta.Pada 4 Jun 1988, Pandithan, ketika itu naib presiden MIC, memulakan mogok lapar di hadapan bangunan ibu pejabat parti dengan membawa bersama keranda untuk menandakan bahawa demokrasi telah mati dalam partinya.

Bantahan itu mendorong pemecatan Pandithan daripada MIC pada 16 Julai 1988, bersama 13 lagi penyokong kuatnya.

Di luar negara, pekerja mogok sehingga melumpuhkan sesuatu industri. Ia juga boleh membawa malapetaka kepada ekonomi negara. Akibat kenaikan harga minyak baru-baru ini, pekerja di beberapa negara di seluruh dunia mengadakan mogok kerana tidak puas hati dengan langkah kerajaan menaikkan harga minyak yang menjejaskan pendapatan mereka. Ini termasuk golongan nelayan dan pemandu trak yang memaksa kerajaan mengambil pendekatan kreatif mengatasi masalah itu.

Sejak Ahad lalu, beberapa blogawan ternama seperti Datuk Paduka Marina Mahathir, Ahiruddin Attan dan Big Dog, melancarkan ”mogok blog” kerana meluat dengan apa yang berlaku dalam politik negara sekarang. Mereka meluat dengan perjalanan politik yang semakin kotor dan perbalahan antara pemimpin utama negara.

Bagaimanapun, Ahiruddin dalam mogoknya tetap menyiarkan tulisan akhbar The Sun dalam blognya, Rocky’s Bru. Tulisan itu mengenai pandangan beliau berhubung teguran Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi terhadap blog-blog menyebarkan maklumat palsu yang boleh menimbulkan masalah kepada negara.

Bagi Datuk Paduka Marina, beliau mahu mogok daripada membaca berita, mogok daripada memberi tumpuan kepada politik tanahair dan hanya akan menulis bahan-bahan yang membuat masyarakat negara ini lebih pandai dan bukannya bertambah bodoh.

Blogawan Big Dog pula menyatakan beliau mogok untuk menyertai rakan-rakan blogawan yang lain. Beliau akan menulis pada satu tarikh tidak lama lagi.

Bagaimanapun, Datuk A Kadir Jasin yang mengendalikan blog The Scribe tidak mogok. Menurut beliau, blognya tidak mogok dan ”urusan berjalan seperti biasa” (We’re open for business as usual).

Bagi Datuk Kadir, walaupun turut menyampah, mual dan loya dengan permainan politik para pembesar dan masalah yang mereka bebankan ke atas bahu rakyat jelata, beliau tidak akan mogok. Ini, katanya, bukan cara memprotes dan membantah apa yang berlaku sekarang.

Bagi bekas Ketua Pengarang Kumpulan New Straits Times itu, pemogokan itu tidak akan dipedulikan oleh Datuk Seri Abdullah, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan pemimpin lain.

Menurut beliau, pemimpin-pemimpin ini lebih gembira jika blogawan mogok dan lebih lagi jika menutup terus blog mereka. Tindakan mogok itu bolehlah diibaratkan sebagai, ”Pucuk dicita, ulam mendatang. Orang mengantuk disorongkan bantal.”

Dalam blognya, Datuk Kadir juga menyatakan bukan semua pembesar Umno bersikap terbuka macam Menteri Penerangan, Dato’ Ahmad Shabery Cheek, yang mahu berbaik-baik dengan blogawan.

Menurut beliau, saki-baki pembesar Umno dan pemerintah yang benci kepada blog masih ramai. Kumpulan ini, katanya, tidak mahu menerima hakikat media internet akan terus kekal dan masyarakat kini sudah kurang percaya kepada media arus perdana.

Seorang lagi blogawan yang pernah menjadi pengarang kanan media arus perdana, Datuk Ahmad Talib, juga tidak bersetuju dengan tindakan mengadakan mogok penulisan. Dalam komennya di artikel yang ditulis oleh The Scribe, Datuk Ahmad berkata beliau akan tetap menulis apabila perlu untuk berbuat demikian.

Bagi saya, wartawan, penulis atau blogawan tidak seharus berhenti atau mogok menulis. Mereka perlu meneruskan penulisan bagi membolehkan peminat setia terus mengikuti luahan hati dan pandangan seimbang mereka.

Jika tiada bahan tulisan, maka peminat mereka tiada bahan untuk dibaca. Ini akan merugikan usaha memberi maklumat terkini kepada masyarakat.

Dalam kemelut politik dan ekonomi sekarang, saya berpendapat ia adalah satu medan ujian bagi blogawan yang berprinsip dan komited untuk terus berusaha menyebarkan pandangan yang seimbang dan bernas kepada masyarakat.

Ini penting jika mereka benar-benar komited untuk memperbaiki senario politik yang merungsingkan masyarakat sekarang.

Penulisan baik dan seimbanglah yang boleh diibaratkan sebagai sumbangan bakti kepada bangsa dan negara.

25 comments:

Razlan said...

Salam Tuan,

Perjuangan penulis adalah Menulis. Apakah sebabnya mereka-mereka perlu meluat dan mual dengan tindakkan mereka sendiri.

Apa yang terjadi hari ini adalah sedikit disebabkan MEREKA-MEREKA jugak.

Saya bukanlah penulis yang baik dan saya bukan dari lahir dari golongan penulis, tetapi apabila membaca penulisan yang mempunyai agenda tertentu di sokong dengan turutan-turutan penulisan GOBLOGAWAN semata-mata dibayar atau disogok, maka tidak perlulah kita nak RESPECT mereka.

Saya sebagai pemimpin kerdil yang bekerja dibawah ini selalu PENING disebabkan Tindakan GOBLOGAWAN yang tidak mempunyai PRINSIP!.

Kebanyakkan daripada PENULISAN menjurus kepada NEGATIF, Menunjukkan pihak Pemerintah kearah NEGATIF ... dan KAMULAH yang Bertanggunjawab mewujudkan GENERASI NEGATIF...

"PENA Boleh MERUBAH DUNIA" adakah semua pegang dari PRINSIP ini kearah kebaikkan ???

Mungkin rangkaian BLOGAWAN ini sudah besar .. dan mereka sudah berpengaruh .. jadi apa sahaja yang tidak BERSETUJU dengan mereka atau berlainan pendapat, mereka boleh PROTES .... atau MERAJUK LAA KONON ...

APA Pulaknya apabila ORANG tak bersetuju dengan MEREKA ??, Mereka HENTAM CUKUP-CUKUP ...

Jadi, bukan semua PENULIS seperti yang saya maksudkan diatas,

SIAPA yang makan cili. dia rasalah pedasnya ... tapi siapa yang tidak makan tu, kira BLOGAWAN lah ..

"HANYA PENULIS YANG TAHU ...."

joe said...

salam Dato

Rasanya rakyat sendiri sudah meluat dengan apa yang berlaku dalam politik negara sekarang.Rakyat sudah bosan dengan perjalanan politik yang semakin kotor,jijik, dan memualkan

Perbalahan antara pemimpin negara adalah untuk kepentingan peribadi tanpa mengambil kira kepentingan rakyat apatah lagi dengan berbezaan pendapat kalangan mufti yang semakin mengelirukan rakyat....

Kekadang ugama adalah satu alat permainan yang boleh merugikan kita dengan erbalahan dan fitnah yang menjadi2 ......saya percaya ia akan meruntuhkan nilai-nilai moral rakyat,perpaduan dan ekonomi pada masa hadapan....

Fikirkan tentang dirimu. Jika satu bangsa telah mula berfikir, tidak ada satu kekuatan pun yang boleh menghentikannya -(Voltaire)

wasalam
carcoon

ibrahim yahaya said...

Sdr Razlan,

Saya setuju dengan pandangan Sdr bahawa kita perlu jadi BLOGAWAN dan bukannya GOBLOGAWAN.

Sebenarnya, apabila kita menyampah atau meluat dengan sesuatu perkara atau keadaan tertentu, mood untuk menulis itu hilang sama sekali. Lemas, letih dan malas.

Oleh itu, saya cadangkan agar blogawan mencari topik yang diminati seperti hobi atau kegiatan masa lapang untuk dijadikan bahan penulisan. Umpamanya, seperti memancing atau bermain snooker, membeli-belah atau bermain ragbi. Jika tidak ada mood juga, eloklah berehat dulu. Mana tahu, esok datang ilham yang baik punya, kita boleh terus menulis.

ibrahim yahaya said...

Sdr Joe,

Semalam, ada sahabat yang memberitahu saya bahawa ada kecenderungan untuk memburuk-burukkan dan menghapuskan kegemilangan Melayu di negara ini termasuk pemimpin Melayu yang berjasa. Selain itu, mereka memberikan pelbagai label kepada polis dan tentera. Menurutnya, jika pendekatan ini berterusan maka strategi yang dibawa oleh golongan tertentu akan berjaya di mana semua orang akan memandang serong terhadap bangsa Melayu.

Menurut beliau lagi, kini tumpuan serangan ditujukan kepada Petronas. Mereka menggambarkan Petronas tidak diuruskan dengan baik atau digunakan oleh golongan tertentu untuk kepentingan diri mereka. Apabila orang kurang yakin dengan Petronas, maka mudahlah mereka membuat sesuatu yang mengikut citarasa golongan yang menyusun strategi berkenaan.

Jika apa yang disebutkan oleh sahabat saya itu benar, maka ia akan mendatangkan satu malapetaka kepada bangsa Melayu. Sedarlah.

poyos said...

tindakan blogger macam rocky bru semua tu nampak hipokrit..mereka kononnya meluat dengan keadaan politik negara..padahal mereka lah antara orang2 awal yang menyebarkan banyak gosip2 politik.. nampak macam seronok je bawak mulut, bawak cerita sana sini..lepas tu meluat?aku lagi meluat tengok orang macam dia.. berdrama ke?selalu tengok main bawak je cerita sana sini, tapi kebenaran berita tersebut masih belum dapat dipastikan..dan sekarang dia dah meluat?kelakar laa lu rocky bru..

nadzri said...

Blogawan?

Sudah ada perkataan ini dalam kamus Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka?

Lu Fikirlah Sendiri....... said...

Pengamal Blog Boikot

Penulis merasakan agak pelik apabila mendapat tahu ada sesetengah pengamal blog telah memboikot daripada menulis blog masing-masing selama 48 jam atas alasan telah bosan dengan keadaan yang berlaku di negara ini terutama isu-isu politik yang membabitkan skandal sesetengah individu..

Penulis berpendapat tindakan tersebut tidak membawa apa-apa impak kepada mana-mana target yang hendak dituju. Baik kepada pemerintah mahupun rakyat........

baca seterusnya di

fikirlahsendiri.blogspot.com

ibrahim yahaya said...

Sdr Poyos,

Apa yang Sdr Rocky buat ialah menyiarkan maklumat daripada pelbagai pihak dan sumber untuk kita membuat analisis sendiri.

Adakalanya sebagai wartawan terlatih, beliau menyiarkan berita terkini untuk tatapan pembaca blognya. Selamat membaca.

ibrahim yahaya said...

Sdr Nadzri,

Istilah bahasa Melayu yang saya perkenalkan dalam blog dan tulisan saya dalam akhbar. Blogawan macam wartawan, angkasawan, hartawan dan dermawan. Ada tambahan huruf A pada kata asas BLOG dan seterusnya tambahan WAN yang menjadi BLOGAWAN. Jika tulis BLOGWAN, bunyinya tidak berapa sedap.

Ada pihak yang menggunakan blogger, namun ia satu perkataan Inggeris. Ada juga yang menggunakan pemblog dengan kata asasnya blog. Seperti juga balak yang jadi pembalak atau bantu yang menjadi pembantu.

Mungkin DBP boleh memperkenalkan istilah yang sesuai. Untuk memelayukan perkataan blogger, saya gunakan BLOGAWAN.

ibrahim yahaya said...

Sdr LFS,

Saya rasa hasrat untuk "mogok blog" itu sebagai manifestasi kemeluatan yang amat sangat. Sudah meluat, mual dan menyampah. Anda berada di peringkat mana?

Bagi penduduk Kelantan, jika tidak suka kita, ia boleh dikira masih ok lagi. Jika membenci pula satu tahap yang lebih tinggi. Tetapi jika sudah mual atau meluat tu, maka eloklah kita menjauhkan diri. Seperti yang berlaku terhadap seorang pemimpin Kelantan yang ketika penduduk main dam sekalipun, mereka memarahi individu itu apabila pihak lawan menggalahkan mereka. Perkataan yang digunakan ketika memegang buah dam itu ialah "mu ni bodoh macam......".

kluangman said...

Tidak ada cacat atau peliknya jika penulis blog mahu mogok atau memboikot khususnya pada tulisan mereka sendiri. Mereka bukan sahaja jemu dan benci tahap tertinggi (meluat) kepada pemimpin politik tetapi kepada anda/kita juga yang menulis dan memberi pelbagai pendapat yang songsang. Mereka jadi bakul 'sampah' untuk membaca dan mengedit.

Berehat atau mogok bukan bererti aktiviti lain yang berkait dengan blog tidak berjalan. Mungkin dalam masa berehat inilah mereka mendapat idea idea baru untuk diketengahkan supaya lebih segar dan bertenaga.

Percayalah, mereka bukan 'mogok' tetapi sekadar penat dan 'merajuk'.
Tetapi ada juga yang 'mogok' kerana mendapat tawaran baru dari penaja baru ???? TUNGGU DAN LIHAT.

poyos said...

mungkin kalau sudah terlalu mual, tak payah lah sebarkan lagi cerita2 yang kebenarannya belum dapat dipastikan tu..sebab orang tak paksa pun dia untuk buat semua tu, dia sendiri yang nak buat, kalau dah mual, takyah buat.senang..

Anonymous said...

Dato,just nak share..Ahad sudah saya keluar kota.Dekat maghrib baru sampai, Singgah nak cari surat khabar.Ingat dah habis.Akhbar arus Perdana nyata masih melambak.Bertanya pd mamak.Dia kata org bandar dah ramai baca internet dr suratkhabar.Tapi suratkhabar cina habis.Kalau blogawan mogok ada can lah suratkhabar naik balik.Ada juga baik nya.Bukan apa apa ramai org mencari rezeki dgn Sykt suratkhabar.Hanya insan marhaen memahami keperitan sdra nya. Sepantun utk ditatap:Kalam tuan kalam berdakwat.Kalam hamba patah mata nya.Dalam tuan dalam makrifat.Dalam hamba apa ada nya.
Rio.

ibrahim yahaya said...

Sdr Kluangman,

Siapa? Tolonglah beritahu kami. Siapa yang menaja dan siapa pula yang ditaja. Menarik ni.

ibrahim yahaya said...

Sdr Rio,

Jika Sdr tahu apa isi kandungan suratkhabar Cina itu, Sdr akan faham punca suratkhabar itu laku atau habis. Mengapa orang membeli surat khabar? Adakah kerana ada tulisan menyokong kerajaan? atau..Adakah kerana ada tulisan membelasah kerajaan dan UMNO? Atau adakah mereka memainkan sentimen perkauman yang sempit? Eloklah belajar Mandarin. Baru boleh faham.

Kalau kita pergi ke Parlimen, kita akan dapat menyaksikan bagaimana Ahli Parlimen pembangkang terutama pemimpin DAP ditemuramah hampir setiap hari. Berpuluh temuramah dibuat dan anda boleh agaklah berapa banyak berita mengenai pembangkang diberikan oleh suratkhabar Cina kebelakangan ini.

Merah sangatlah makngah. Dulu lain, sekarang lain. Faham-fahamlah.

pecintakeamanan said...

Assalamualaikum semua,

Saya setuju dengan pendapat Datuk. Maka saya akan menyatakan pandangan mengikut sedikit ayat Datuk.

Bagi saya, wartawan, penulis atau blogawan tidak seharusnya berhenti atau mogok menulis sesuatu perkara. Mereka perlu meneruskan penulisan bagi membolehkan peminat setia terus mengikuti luahan hati dan pandangan seimbang mereka. Ini juga dapat membuahkan pemikiran dan pengetahuan kita terhadap sesuatu perkara yang ditulis.

Tapi sekiranya tiada bahan tulisan, maka peminat mereka tiada bahan untuk dibaca. Ini akan merugikan usaha memberi maklumat dan ifo-info terkini kepada orang ramai.

Akan tetapi, tulisan artikel atauopun rencan tersebut biarlah tersebut biarlah benar. Setiap penulis biarlah bertanggungjawab terhadap tulisannya. Ini akan menunjukkan kredibiliti dan nilai-nilai etika penulis tersebut.

Dan, sememangnya penulisan yang baik dapat menyumbang kepada pembangunan negara dan bangsa, namun penyalahgunaan dapat mengakibatkan sebaliknya.

Razlan said...

Saudara Pembaca,

Tak sabar menungu kluangman bongkarkan rahsianya...

Kalau betul kluangman tulis, jadi tajuk dato tulis tu kene tukar laa ....

"Goblogawan Mogok Menguntungkan Rakyat"

sama-sama laa kita pikir ...

awangsulungmerahmenyala said...

salam sejahtera,
awang senang dengan DATO AKJ begitulah jikalau penulis sejati.mogok boleh tetapi tengoklah apa yang nak dimogoknya,kepada golongan politikus ini garam pun tiada rasa gula pun tiada manisnya hanya kepingan kertas yang tak bermaruah menjadi teman.

rafabenitez_subang said...

ini hak peribadi la...sape nak mogok boleh mogok, sape tak nak tak payah... kecik punya hal la...

kluangman said...

Siapa yang menaja dan siapa yang kena taja untuk 'menaji' terlalu awal ditunjukkan kerana Julai baru bermula, 'hello2 ringan' baru bermula, ajak minum teh dan baru bual2 kosong, belum ada topik yang serius...

Hulur hanya salam yang erat dan panas, belum ada ole2 tapi khabar tanya anak bini, kampong mana, nak beli kereta apa, bila nak bawa anak2 jalan dah mula lahir dibit perbualan.

Kalau ada sakit bahu atau pinggang, cakap saja, nanti ditunjukkan mana 'bomoh' atau tukang urut yang handal.

Yang berbudi pun baru sikit2 dan yang terima budi pun masih malu2. Dato' juga tidak akan ketinggalan kalau sudi, WHY NOT..

Pemuda Pelapis said...

Salam DIY,

Betul dan benar segala apa yang diperkatakan. Mogok penulisan adalah merugikan. Ada perkara yang boleh dimogok tetapi ada perkara yang merugikan bila kita mogok. Kalau benar-benar nak mogok, maka bersatulah untuk mogok begini sebagai satu impak balas untuk memberi pengajaran kepada kerajaan pimpinan DS Abdullah yang kotor, jijik serta memualkan rakyat.

Jika semua Blogawan (bak kata istilah DIY) mogok, seronok sangatlah "PM Flip Flop" tu. Memang itu pun kehendak dia. Kalau semua Blogawan terus pencen menulis blog masing-masing lagi dia suka. Sepatutnya kita lagi kencang kena menulis dengan memuatkan pelbagai isu-isu yang berfakta supaya dia duduk tak kena, berdiri tak kena, makan tak kenyang, tidur tak lena dan mandi tak basah. Barulah dia makin hari makin panas punggung sampai tak lalu lagi nak duduk lama-lama di Putrajaya tu. Alamak! ini pun nak kena ajar jugak ke? Bukan ke masing-masing dah besar panjang... Dah tua bangka semuanya pun...

Kepada saudara Nadzri, hai takkan segala-gala istilah semuanya nak kena ada tercatat dalam kamus DBP baru kita boleh guna? Yang duk ada dalam kamus tu pun bukannya semua betul boleh digunapakai. Banyak jugak yang mengarut diciplak dari perkataan "omputih" (shortform style org kampung la katakan). Soal bahasa ni saya pernah berdebat di satu blog dalam ruangan forum dulu-dulu. Kamus DBP banyak perkataan yang saya tak bersetuju digunapakai. Mudah cerita, kita main ikut yang mana munaSABAH dan sesuai cukuplah, cuma jangan sampai jadi munaSARAWAK sudah... nanti hancusss!

Wassalam.

PEMUDA PELAPIS

Anonymous said...

How International Bankers Gained Control of America

From a Video Script Produced by Patrick S. J. Carmack

Directed by Bill Still
Royalty Production Company 1998

[QUOTE]
One month after the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, the first shots of the American Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12,1861. …

Certainly slavery was a cause for the Civil War, but not the primary cause. Lincoln knew that the economy of the South depended upon slavery and so (before the Civil War) he had no intention of eliminating it. Lincoln had put it this way in his inaugural address only one month earlier:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Even after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, Lincoln continued to insist that the Civil War was not about the issue of slavery:

“My paramount objective is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”

So what was the Civil War all about? There were many factors at play. Northern industrialists had used protective tariffs to prevent their southern states from buying cheaper European goods. Europe retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the South. The Southern states were in a financial bind. They were forced to pay more for most of the necessities of life while their income from cotton exports plummeted. The South grew ncreasingly angry.

But there were other factors at work. … The central bankers now saw an pportunity to use the North/South divisions to split the rich new nation - t divide and conquer by war. Was this just some sort of wild conspiracy theory? Well, let’s look at what a well placed observer of the scene had to say at time.

This was Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, the man who united the German states in 1871. A few years later, in 1876, he is quoted as saying:

“It is not to be doubted, I know of absolute certainty,” Bismarck declared, “that the division of the United States into two federations of equal power was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block and were to develop as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset the capitalist domination of Europe over the world.”

Within months after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, the central bankers loaned Napoleon III of France (the nephew of the Waterloo Napoleon) 210 million francs to seize Mexico and station troops along the southern border of the U.S., taking advantage of the Civil War to violate the Monroe Doctrine and return Mexico to colonial rule.

No matter what the outcome of the Civil War, it was hoped that a war-weakened America, heavily indebted to the Money Changers, would open up Central and South America once again to European colonization and domination.

At the same time, Great Britain moved 11,000 troops into Canada and positioned them along America’s northern border. The British fleet went on war alert should their quick intervention be called for.

Lincoln knew he was in a bind. He agonized over the fate of the Union. There was a lot more to it than just differences between the North and the South. That’s why his emphasis was always on “Union” and not merely the defeat of the South. But Lincoln needed money to win.

In 1861, Lincoln and his Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, went to New York to apply for the necessary war loans. The Money Changers, anxious to maximize their war profits, only offered loans at 24-36% interest. Lincoln said thanks, but no thanks, and returned to Washington. He sent for an old friend, Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago, and put him onto the problem off financing the War. At one particular meeting, Lincoln asked Taylor how else to finance the war. Taylor put it this way:

“Why, Lincoln, that is easy; just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes… pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also.”

When Lincoln asked if the people of the United States would accept the notes, Taylor said:

“The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money … the stamp of full legal tender by the Government is the thing that makes money good any time, and this will always be as good as any other money inside the borders of our country. ”

So that’s exactly what Lincoln did. From 1862 to 1865, with Congressional authorization, he printed up $432,000,000 of the new bills.

In order to distinguish them from private bank notes in circulation, he had them printed with green ink on the back side. That’s why the notes were called “Greenbacks.” With this new money, Lincoln paid the troops, and bought their supplies. During the course of the war, nearly all of the 450 million dollars of Greenbacks authorized by Congress were printed at no interest to the federal government.

By now Lincoln realized who was really pulling the strings and what was at stake for the American people. … This is how he explained his monetary views:

“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers… The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity… By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. The financing of all public enterprises, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”

Meanwhile in Britain a truly incredible editorial in the London Times explained the Bank of England’s attitude towards Lincoln’s Greenbacks.

“If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurate down to a fixture, then the Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

Keep in mind, by this time the European monarchs were already chained to their private central banks, hence the bankers’ concern to preserve their captive monarchs. Within four days of the passage of the law that allowed Greenbacks to be issued, bankers met in convention in Washington to discuss the situation. It was agreed that Greenbacks would surely be their ruin. Something had to be done. They devised a scheme gradually to undermine the value of the Greenbacks.

Seemingly unimportant limitations on the use of Greenbacks (printed on the green back), insisted on by the bankers, forbidding their use to pay import duties and interest on the public debt, were utilized by the banks to slap a surcharge on Greenbacks of up to 185%. This undermined the confidence of the people in Greenbacks and necessitated further concessions to the bankers to obtain more, discounted as the Greenbacks now were.

This scheme was effective - so effective that the next year, 1863, with Federal and Confederate troops beginning to mass for the decisive battle of the Civil War, and the Treasury in need of further Congressional authority at that time to issue more Greenbacks, Lincoln gave in to the pressure, which he described:

“They persist, they have argued me almost blind - I am worse off than St. Paul. He was in a strait between two. I am in a strait between twenty and they are bankers and financiers.”

Lincoln allowed the bankers to push through the National Banking Act of 1863 in exchange for their support for the urgently needed additional Greenbacks. This act created “National Banks” (hence the N.A. still in use after National banks’ names) and gave them a virtual tax-free status. The new banks also got the exclusive power to create the new form of money - National Bank Notes. Though Greenbacks continued to circulate, their quantity was limited and no more were authorized after the war.

[END QUOTE]

The ones who REALLY pull the strings in politics are the ones who pull the PURSE strings. Sharon, Bush, Blair and their ilk are merely puppets. The REAL tyrants - the Mammonites, the Plutocrats, the gazillionaires – almost always remain nameless!

Courtesy Ardeshir Mehta and togethernet

PUTERA GOMBAK said...

saudaraku tiger,

APALAH guna hendak bermogok-mogakan. Tiada apa yang boleh kita lakukan kalau para pemblog mogok untuk tidak menulis.
Kalau mereka sudah mneluat dengan perkembangan pergolakan politik tanah air, kita hendak buat apa. Lagipun, keraja mereka memblog bukan dibayar, dibuat secara sukarela. Tiada siapa yang bayar mereka sama ada hendak tulius atau tidak. Mereka bukan bekerja untuk sesiapa pun. Bak kat orang - kerja sendiri - suka hati mak bapak akulah. Hendak menulis atau tidak. Lainlah kalau mereka diupah untuk menulis. Suka atau tidak - kena tulis juga. Nama pun penulis upahan.
Tapi, kalau pemblong lantang ini mogok menulis - pasti ada yang gembira. Golongan gembira ini tidaklah oagi dibedal, ditegur, dikritik dan diberikan bermacam-macam saranan. Kata orang macam ini - aman sikit duniaku.
Tepatlah kata saudara - ada Pak Lah kisah, ada DS Najib peduli atau ada Ds Anwar Ibrahim nak ambil peduli kalau para pemblog mogok. Lagi suka adalah.
Tapi saya berharap, jangan pula saudara juga ikut mogok.
nanti kenalah hantar sireh junjung atau tepak sireh untuk memujuk supaya menulis kembali.
Saja nak tahu - adakah orang sekarang tergamak buat macam ini lagi.

nadzri said...

Salam DIY,
Istilah blogawan menarik juga untuk diperkenalkan. Mungkin boleh disebarluaskan dan satu hari nanti menjadi perkataan dalam bahasa Melayu.

Kepada saudara pemuda pelapis,
Jika lebih banyak perkataan dalam bahasa Melayu diperkenalkan oleh DBP, makin diperkaya bahasa kita. Untuk perkataan 'blogawan' ini, elok juga untuk digunakan. Lebih elok kalau DBP sebagai badan yang menjaga perkembangan bahasa Melayu mengesahkannya. Perkembangan bahasa Melayu akan menjadi lebih tersusun.

Anonymous said...

Money and Debt

There is a fundamental truth about money and debt which few people know and even fewer believe that something should be done about it.

Those who have taken action to change the situation have invariably been assassinated or otherwise silenced if they did get close to being effective. The truth is so monstrous that it is unbelievable, it is something that we would rather not think about, more so because we have “experts” who should know all about it, so why would any one of us “non experts” even bother to try and figure it out?

The problem

We are quite aware of the problem, it is in plain sight, it is the solution that escapes us, probably because we think the problem is so big we cannot solve it.

Now the problem is, that neither governments nor the vast majority of people have money. Maybe that sounds like an exaggeration but if we think about it some more, it is the gospel truth. Governments, whether liberal, socialist, conservative, democratic, whatever you may call them, do not have money. They are taxing us to death and yet they are making debts. And most of them are already so deeply in debt that there seems to be hardly a hope to pay off what was borrowed.

A sizeable percentage of all taxes collected, different from country to country but in every case considerable, goes towards “debt service” (that is what the government calls the paying of interest on it’s debt), before even discussing the “budget”, which really is only about how to spend the rest.

As far as people go, I don’t think you have to look very hard to see families struggling to make ends meet, even though there is no lack of willingness to work. Sometimes both man and wife have a job; family life and children suffer, and in many cases there still is barely enough to pay the bills and take a holiday.

You might say that that’s quite normal, it has always been like this, and nothing can really be done about it. — You see? That is exactly what we are programmed to think.

The problem is there, but it is so big and so prevalent in everyone’s life, and it is such a “complicated” problem, that we must leave the solution to the “experts”.

Right? No — wrong.

The first step to solving a problem?

We must recognise it is there.

Start observing economic reality around you. Find out how much money your government spends on “debt service”. Find out how much the developing countries have to pay to service their debt. Observe how many people from developing countries are emigrating or rather are immigrating into your country in search of economic “relief”. You will be shocked.

The cause

Now that we have recognised that there is a problem, we must take the next step. That is, we must find the cause. One thing we cannot do is to turn to the “experts”, because if they knew, they would have told us long ago and something would already have been done to remedy the appalling state of affairs.

It is not that the cause is unknown. A few people and a couple of organisations try desperately to inform us about it. Only — they do not have access to the public media, and if they had such access, and started an effective information campaign, chances are that they would meet an ugly fate.

I suppose you are getting impatient to know what that cause might be, and whether it is something that we can, as simple citizens of the earth, act upon. It is no good finding the cause of evil if it is something that nobody can do anything about. You might as well have saved your effort for something more rewarding or more pleasing.

Without beating around the bush, here is the hot potato: Money is being created not by our governments, but by a private monopoly run by the (private) banking corporations.

It is as simple as that.

How so, you might ask, and why would this be a problem?

Let’s deal with one thing at a time.

The creation of money

It would seem natural, that money is created by the State, and in fact most Central Banks seem to be owned by the State and run by it. I say “seem” because, to all intents and purposes, it is an apparency. They are almost constituting a “fourth power” in addition to the three legally constituted and well known “traditional” powers, legislative, executive and judicial.

When the State needs money, it does not order the Central Bank to credit some money to the treasury’s account. The State has only two ways to obtain money. One is taxation of it’s citizens, the other is borrowing from the banks.

When the Central Bank issues money, this is done in the form of a loan. The State has to borrow this money, and must promise to repay it, with interest.

The same is true of course for a private person who needs money borrowing from a commercial bank. The bank is happy to loan, as long as you can show you have security, and promise to repay with interest.

How can the banks “create” money? That is a good question. Is it not the State’s printing office that prints all the banknotes?

Banknotes, when they are printed, are considered the property of the Central Bank. They are not given to the State to spend, but are brought into circulation against a corresponding debt. Anyone wanting some of those notes to spend, has to “buy” them by giving up some of their credit. And in any case, most of the money in circulation (more than 90%) is not banknotes but “credit”.

When you go to your bank asking for money, the loan you get is created right there in your bank. The “money” consists of figures on your bank account, and it can be spent writing checks, giving an order to transfer or drawing the cash. Banks only have to have a small percentage of their loaned-out money actually available. The rest can be paid out just by moving some figures from one account to another. The important thing to know: Money is created just by inserting some numbers into a computer.

In practice, it works like this: For every 10.000 a bank gives out as loans, 1000 or 2000 have to be deposited at the central bank. That means, if a bank collects 100.000 in deposits, it could keep 10.000 for liquid cash, put 90.000 into deposit with the central bank, and it is then allowed to create 900.000 of fresh money just by writing the figures on someone’s accounts!

In the case of the government needing money to spend, the procedure is slightly different, but the result is the same. The government has to issue papers that promise interest and repayment. Those papers are “bought” by the banks, who “sell” them to their wealthy clients, or who may also keep them, and the government gets credited an equivalent sum of money.

The irony here is that the government, who should by rights be the issuing authority of the money that circulates in the country, has to borrow the money from privates (through the bank) and that is has to pay interest for this.

Now we start to see why the government never has money, and why much of our taxes go “off the top” of the budget, towards debt service.

The diabolical mechanism

What happens, when a debt gets repaid? Now this is interesting. The interest on the debt is of course the property of the bank. The amount that was loaned out and has now been paid back is destroyed. Just as it was “created” it is now “uncreated” or destroyed at the moment of extinction of the loan. So your bank can create money out of substantially nothing, it can cash in the interest, and then it can uncreate that money, having subsequently the possibility of repeating the cycle with another willing customer.

If you ever wondered where the banks get the money to buy the best and largest buildings in town, here is the explanation!

If this seems unjust, wait for the diabolical part.

An economy needs money so that goods and services can be exchanged. If there is too little money goods will remain unsold, prices will fall and we call this deflation. If the scarcity of money becomes serious, eventually the economy will go into recession, that is, production comes to a halt, people lose their jobs, misery starts to reign. So it is very important that the amount of money in circulation is at all times sufficient for people to buy the goods and services that are being offered.

If on the other hand, too much money is available, inflation, which is a general rise in prices that diminishes the “buying power” of money, is the result. Inflation is as undesirable as deflation, and it would be best if money were stable in it’s buying power.

At this time, government has only indirect means, to assure such stability, because it is the banks who can determine how much credit to create.

Also with the government unable to create it’s own money, the only way to make sure there is enough money to buy the goods that are on offer, is to continue taking loans! Of course that means to continue to pay interest! That is why governments never have enough money, and why we have to be taxed to the limit of endurance to pay for debt service, in addition to all other government expenditures. Diabolical indeed. A private money issuing monopoly run through Banking corporations: first of all the “central banks” and then, in a chain, all the other banks to follow. It is our banking laws that allow banks to create credit themselves, instead of money being issued by the government, for the people.

The solution

Having found the exact reason for misery and economical hardship, and having described it, a solution becomes immediately visible.

Banking laws should be changed to exclude the autonomous creation of credit by banks except for the issue of new currency by the Central Bank, to be created as a credit, not a debt. The creation of money must return to the control of the people and must directly benefit each one of us.

How to exclude the creation of credit by the banks? Simple. Instead of requiring a 10% or 20% deposit to the Central Bank for every loan given by banks, a 100% deposit should be required. That means, a bank can collect the savings of it’s clients, it can deposit them at the Central Bank and it can then, and only then, give out loans up to the same amount it has deposited.

Now as to the creation of money having to return to the control of government, or actually to the control of the people, this is an exquisite problem. First and foremost, a mechanism must be available which allows to keep track of prices on a continuous basis. Having such a mechanism, it is now possible for the money issuing institute (the Central Bank) to exactly control the buying power of money, putting inflation and deflation under its direct control.

In accordance with the principle that the amount of currency in circulation must exactly match the amount of goods and services on offer, we can now eliminate inflation and keep the currency stable, by one simple mechanism. The issuing authority is instructed to stabilise the price index. This is done by decreasing liquidity at the first sign of increasing prices, and by increasing the amount of money in curculation by the issue of new money when prices start to fall.

There is absolutely no need to have price instability!

It is important to know that inflation is caused by the fact that more money is in circulation than is necessary to buy the goods and services that are available, and deflation is caused by the opposite — too little money in circulation.

This has been known for decades, only that with the money issuing authority in the hands of the (private) bankers instead of a (public) central issuing authority, it was very difficult to fine tune the monetary mass to keep pace with the fluctuations of economic activity.

It is really as simple as that, a centralised money issuing authority that is responsible for keeping prices stable, will be able to do just that by regulating the issue of new currency.

Credit money versus debit money

Today, when money is created, it is created in the form of credit for the banks, and is issued in the form of debit to whoever takes the loan, private citizen or government. Of course the debt must be repaid, the money is considered to be “the bank’s money”, and of course for that reason we must pay interest. I call that debit money and I have already pointed out that this debit money is the cause of much — if not all — of our economic suffering.

Credit money, on the other hand, does not have these drawbacks. The money should be issued and be given — yes, given not as a loan, but as a rightful share in the development of the economy, to each and every citizen. When money gets created, it was not the banks that worked for it, but the people, and so quite rightfully, the people should become the owners of the money once it is issued.

Social credit

One could call such a system a social credit system. In fact, the term “social credit” was coined by a certain Clifford Hugh Douglas, and has been promoted by a Canadian named Louis Even, who has founded a regular publication to bring the philosophy of social credit into public consciousness. Social credit is probably more than what I am describing here, but credit money would certainly be an important part of it.

So when money is issued by the central issuing institute, does it not belong rightfully to all of us who have contributed in one way or another in bringing about economic growth? We produce, we consume, we live, we have ideas, we have children, we teach, we learn. All those activities and others make up the country’s economic life and so it would seem quite logical that the benefit from the issuance of money should not go to a few private bankers, but to those who cause the economy to grow in the first place!

Action to take

Apart from the necessity to end the private money making monopoly by the banks by requiring a 100% reserve for loans given, it must be decided how to organise the creation of money in the future, and how to make sure that each citizen does get their fair share of the increase in economic activity.

Some might say that the State should be given power to create money and that the money created should be the State’s to spend. There is a certain appeal to this logic, but still — it does not respect the principle of giving each citizen their fair share.

Since we are all contributing, in one way or another, to the economic activity of the country, I shall relate here an idea elaborated by an Italian, Prof. Giacinto Auriti of the University of Teramo. His proposal was actually presented as a bill to the Italian Senate some years ago. It is extremely simple and the translated text is given below:

“Article 1

At the act of emission of currency, money is the property of the (our country’s) citizens and shall be credited by the Central Bank to the State”.

“Article 2

A social income code is assigned to each and every citizen and it is through this code that all citizens shall be credited their share of income from the emission of currency and from possible other sources of social income”.

Auriti, a professor of law, who has made the above proposal, is quite explicit when describing the current situation. He explains that our monetary system is the biggest fraud in history. The people are being defrauded, says Auriti, by twice the total amount of currency in circulation, because not only have they been denied their rightful share in economic development, but when issuing currency, the money was issued as a debt, adding damage to insult, as it were and inflicting a double loss on the populace.

A word of warning

Please do not believe that such a drastic change to our financial system as proposed here can be brought about by politicians, even willing as they may be, if they do not have overwhelming public support.

It is the responsibility of each one of us, now that we have discovered the cause of economic misery and hardship, to bring about a change, primarily by making politicians aware of the situation and by providing the support they need.

You are free to copy this article and give it to your friends, but you should also think about practical and effective action.

I will not make proposals here for what you should do, but will leave this entirely up to you. The choice is yours, just do not say that you did not know.

Josef Hasslberger
Rome, Italy
September 1999

References:

Michael Journal “For a Social Credit Economy” Maison Saint-Michel, 1101 Principale Street Rougement, Quebec Canada JOL 1MO tel. (514) 856 5714 (450) 469 2209, fax: (450) 469 2601
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/4061

Prof. Auriti “Value and structure of money”
http://www.moneymaker.com/money/italy

Josef Hasslberger Articles on “interest”
What is wrong with our Economy?
Interest Suffocating the World
Economy in Need of Change

The Moneymasters. Book and Video and further information at:
http://www.themoneymasters.com